View Full Version : The Scientific Global Warming Debate.


Pages : [1] 2

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 02:15 PM
To enter this discussion lets agree that the environment is changing, changing more rapidly than any previous period we have records from.

Global warming is happening.

The discussion is WHY it is happening.


Is it due to human action?, Natural Cycles?, a combination of the two? Something else?

carmen510
Feb 03, 2008, 02:41 PM
God is doing it by passing gas onto Earth. :p

On a more serious note, probably a combination. Though I think its mostly human action.

ArneHD
Feb 03, 2008, 02:54 PM
I'd reckon human action. Some in the geological community is already championing the idea of the Anthroposcene as a geological time age.

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 03:00 PM
Yes I heard of the idea of giving "us" an era. Kinda cool and saddening at the same time.

Carbon emmisions? CFC's? Ozone layer, Destroying the Amazon, Destroying Europes forrests thousands of years ago..which is worst?

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 06:13 PM
Global warming can also be the result of a natural cycle as well. While it's not certain, it's possible that Earth was recently in a minor ice age. Thus any recent temperature increases observed can be accounted for by a natural cycle. Of course this argument is rather difficult to prove and doesn't quite fit in to your definition of "unnatural way."

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 06:26 PM
Ah yes, I have restricted things some.. i didnt mean to completly.. i'll edit the OP

wicshade
Feb 03, 2008, 06:31 PM
There is some possibility that the Earth's surface may be recieving more heat from sun.

1. the van allen radiation belty may have or may be weakening
2. Every so often the sun will produce extra amounts of heat fro a duration of time, more solar flares and such.

also I feel it is odd that when a debate about global warming arise nobody brings up the fact that the earth is being heated up thermal pollution.

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 06:47 PM
Sorry I've never heard of the term thermal pollution. What's the source of the heat?

wicshade
Feb 03, 2008, 06:52 PM
any heat produced from cumbustion. or heat wasted from electrical transfers which intern realeases heat into the enviroment.

even we as animals release excess heat into the surroundings when we burn calories.

so driving your car produce excess heat which warms atmosphere, etc.

I have never seen any numbers that project how much are planet is warmed from thermal pollution, but i think we produce enogh heat to add a measurable amount to the gobal warming trends.

I know it does not sound like much, but think of it as a "penny save a penny earned" times 6.5 billion people times 360 days.

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 06:54 PM
OP more discussion friendly

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 06:54 PM
But if you're going to include thermal pollution, shouldn't you also include thermal dissipation? Granted the atmosphere does a pretty good job of keeping heat in but there's a non-negligible amount of heat that dissipates out into space too.

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 06:55 PM
any heat produced from cumbustion. or heat wasted from electrical transfers which intern realeases heat into the enviroment.

even we as animals release excess heat into the surroundings when we burn calories.

so driving your car produce excess heat which warms atmosphere, etc.

I have never seen any numbers that project how much are planet is warmed from thermal pollution, but i think we produce enogh heat to add a measurable amount to the gobal warming trends.

Citys tend to be 2/3 degrees C warmer due to all the human efforts. Office heating, cars, people etc etc

wicshade
Feb 03, 2008, 07:13 PM
i would assume that the dissipation of heat back into space would be calculated in with this aswell, but because of green house gases more heat is kept in our atmosphere.

I find cities to be cooler in the winter (but my house is surrounded by evergreen trees so..), air conditioners use heat pumps so the only true thermal pullution is the heat energy released from the pump.

My complaint about "global warming" is that it is only being compared to CO2, and when convient CH4. I doubt the legitamcy of some of the people whom make claims in this and, I am left to wonder how much money do they have invested in green technologies.

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 07:22 PM
I quote this to be mean: :hammer2:
I find cities to be cooler in the winter




My complaint about "global warming" is that it is only being compared to CO2, and when convient CH4. I doubt the legitamcy of some of the people whom make claims in this and, I am left to wonder how much money do they have invested in green technologies.

What about temperature readings? Rainfall? Timing of El Nino, Ice cap reduction? Groundhog's? etc

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 07:28 PM
Question about greenhouses trapping heat:

So if I understand correctly, solar heat comes into the Earth and is trapped inside the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. How is it that the greenhouse gases trap heat? If the system looks like:

Earth ----- atmosphere ---- outer space

What's to keep the heat from radiating to outer space instead of back to Earth? As I understood thermodynamics, heat flows to colder regions. Since outer space is colder, shouldn't the heat "trapped" by the atmospheric greenhouse gases permeate outwards rather than inwards?

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 07:31 PM
Wavelength.


Solar heat is shortwavelenght and passes through readily.
Radiated heat from earth is longwavelenght and is reflected.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/web_greenhouse_effect.jpg

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 07:38 PM
Reflection doesn't fully capture what I'm asking though. So IR is released by the surface and it goes back towards the atmosphere. It runs into the atmosphere but the atmosphere can release the heat in any direction. Why back towards the earth instead of towards outer space? This shouldn't have anything to do with wavelength. Or is it because I'm not properly distinguishing between radiation, convection, and conduction?

edit: grammar error

wicshade
Feb 03, 2008, 07:41 PM
I am going to try to find something to support what I said early syhue, but it is time for me to sleep.

I'l go ahead and say where im going to look

greenhouse gases effect of radiant energy, and convection energy.


you've got me cornered here and im not sure if im going to be able to find my way out or not, we'll see tomorow.

Abaddon
Feb 03, 2008, 07:52 PM
Reflection doesn't fully capture what I'm asking though. So IR is released by the surface and it goes back towards the atmosphere. It runs into the atmosphere but the atmosphere can release the heat in any direction Why back towards the earth instead of towards outer space? This shouldn't have anything to do with wavelength. Or is it because I'm not properly distinguishing between radiation, convection, and conduction?

The atmostphere does not chose to realease it in any direction.

When the wave hits the atmostphere it can either bounce back, or pass through.

The shortwaves coming in pass through
The longwaves from earth, are more likely to bounce back.


Simple maths:

3 waves coming in, all get through.

Earth then releases these three

2 escape back to space, one bounces back (earth +1)

3 more waves come in

Earth releases these three

2 escape, one bounces back (earth +2)

repeat infinite and earth +many!


Basically the greenhouse effect means its is easier for heat to get in than out, and so it is building up.

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 08:05 PM
I don't think we're on the same page here Abaddon. I'm questioning why the longwave is bounced back instead of passed through. What's so different about the shortwave that it passes through? Is it because UV can cause a cascading reaction in the ozone layer to pass through the energy but IR is too low energy to start a cascading reaction out of the atmosphere?

lutzj
Feb 03, 2008, 08:44 PM
Global warming can also be the result of a natural cycle as well. While it's not certain, it's possible that Earth was recently in a minor ice age. Thus any recent temperature increases observed can be accounted for by a natural cycle. Of course this argument is rather difficult to prove and doesn't quite fit in to your definition of "unnatural way."

It WAS in a minor ice age: an "ice age" is defined as any period with glaciers at the poles. Earth is simply continuing on the warming trajectory it has been on since 30,000 years ago. Our own records cannot be called very accurate for two reasons:

1. We only have about 150 years of reliable data.

2. Just before we started taking systematic measurements, much of Europe, North America, and other places warmed considerably due to the end of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have been bouncing around for most of human history, it's just that we've only caught on recently.

shyuhe
Feb 03, 2008, 10:20 PM
So I (partially) answered my own question after reviewing some thermo. To start with, radiation is the transfer of heat via EM radiation (UV/IR etc.), conduction is the mechanical transfer of heat from direct contact (imagine a hot plate and cold plate touching), and convection is the transfer of heat by fluids moving from a hot region to a cold region (hot water put in a cold pool so that hot and cold atoms are now mixed together)

IR is heat transfer via radiation and is absorbed by CO2 in the air. This is then converted into mechanical energy (vibrational/stretching of the CO bond). So it doesn't re-release heat back into the atmosphere via radiation. However since the CO2 molecule still has a higher energy level, it remains possible that it can transfer this energy via conduction - so my original question of why the heat doesn't go into outerspace remains unanswered (obviously it can't escape via radiation or convection). I hope that clarifies my question.

Ball Lightning
Feb 04, 2008, 02:44 AM
In my opinion which i have said many times before, that humans have caused significant climate change which if not stopped will likely cause drastic unforseen and forseen hard ships for the human race, along with all other life on earth which we hold in our hands.

Ball Lightning
Feb 04, 2008, 02:49 AM
It WAS in a minor ice age: an "ice age" is defined as any period with glaciers at the poles. Earth is simply continuing on the warming trajectory it has been on since 30,000 years ago. Our own records cannot be called very accurate for two reasons:

1. We only have about 150 years of reliable data.

2. Just before we started taking systematic measurements, much of Europe, North America, and other places warmed considerably due to the end of the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have been bouncing around for most of human history, it's just that we've only caught on recently.

:confused: We have around 600,000 years of reliable CO2 and temperature, the current CO2 levels, which have been proved in countless experiments to help increase temperature, have been rising for the last 6000 years, very slowly at first and in the last 200 years more and more rapidaly, now reaching the highest level for at least a million years. And all this came about in the last 200 years and less.

Rheinmetall
Feb 04, 2008, 08:42 AM
If the timescale is 30,000 years, the change we're experiencing today is too fast for that timescale.

PaperBeetle
Feb 04, 2008, 11:54 AM
So I (partially) answered my own question after reviewing some thermo. To start with, radiation is the transfer of heat via EM radiation (UV/IR etc.), conduction is the mechanical transfer of heat from direct contact (imagine a hot plate and cold plate touching), and convection is the transfer of heat by fluids moving from a hot region to a cold region (hot water put in a cold pool so that hot and cold atoms are now mixed together)

IR is heat transfer via radiation and is absorbed by CO2 in the air. This is then converted into mechanical energy (vibrational/stretching of the CO bond). So it doesn't re-release heat back into the atmosphere via radiation. However since the CO2 molecule still has a higher energy level, it remains possible that it can transfer this energy via conduction - so my original question of why the heat doesn't go into outerspace remains unanswered (obviously it can't escape via radiation or convection). I hope that clarifies my question.

I don't really know physics, but I would guess that the molecules in the atmosphere don't pass heat into space via conduction because there is virtually nothing in space for them to touch. Convection is going to suffer a similar fate; the atmosphere is fluid, but the vaccuum is not. Which leaves radiation as the only method for heat to get from the earth out into space.

Serutan
Feb 04, 2008, 12:20 PM
I don't think we're on the same page here Abaddon. I'm questioning why the longwave is bounced back instead of passed through. What's so different about the shortwave that it passes through? Is it because UV can cause a cascading reaction in the ozone layer to pass through the energy but IR is too low energy to start a cascading reaction out of the atmosphere?

No, it has to do with the characteristics of gas atoms/molecules. Each
reacts to the spectrum of radiation in one of three ways : transparent,
absorption, reflection. The greenhouse gases are reflective in a portion
of the IR wavelengths, hence they help retain heat.

As to the OP : I think it's a combination. As has been mentioned, CO2 was
rising before the Industrial Revolution, and has accelerated since. So while
the warming trend already existed, human activity is accelerating and intensifying it.

shyuhe
Feb 04, 2008, 04:21 PM
Thanks folks. That makes more sense now. Boy I'm out of touch with thermo now...

Falcon02
Feb 04, 2008, 06:34 PM
As to the OP : I think it's a combination. As has been mentioned, CO2 was
rising before the Industrial Revolution, and has accelerated since. So while
the warming trend already existed, human activity is accelerating and intensifying it.

Also, the average temperature of Mars has been increasing, helping to suggest that Solar cycles do seem to be one of the reasons for increased temperatures. But as stated human activity hasn't helped counter it...

EDIT: NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html)

EDIT2: after reviewing the article more closely it appears the warming of Mars seems to be more due to changes in dust distribution and coloration then solar cycles, but I'll leave the link.

Simple Simon
Feb 08, 2008, 08:23 AM
Also, the average temperature of Mars has been increasing, helping to suggest that Solar cycles do seem to be one of the reasons for increased temperatures. But as stated human activity hasn't helped counter it...

EDIT: NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html)

EDIT2: after reviewing the article more closely it appears the warming of Mars seems to be more due to changes in dust distribution and coloration then solar cycles, but I'll leave the link.

Yeah, that article was trumped out by the GW-deniers, but if you actually think about it, TWO planets warming up and all the rest NOT warming up doesn't really say anything positive about a solar trend. :lol:

Fact is: earth is warming, no known mechanism BUT retention of heat via suddenly and massively increased greenhouse gasses can explain the warming, and we happen to have blasted a few billion tons of them into the air over the last 8,000 years or so, with a steep increase since ~1750.

Yep, sounds man-made to me!

knez
Feb 08, 2008, 09:46 AM
Yeah, that article was trumped out by the GW-deniers, but if you actually think about it, TWO planets warming up and all the rest NOT warming up doesn't really say anything positive about a solar trend. :lol:

Fact is: earth is warming, no known mechanism BUT retention of heat via suddenly and massively increased greenhouse gasses can explain the warming, and we happen to have blasted a few billion tons of them into the air over the last 8,000 years or so, with a steep increase since ~1750.

Yep, sounds man-made to me!

and you know that how?

Simple Simon
Feb 08, 2008, 09:53 AM
and you know that how?

what do I know how?

What do you expect here - do you want me to give you a course in climatology or what?

I know earth is warming up from the many different sources of data we have: direct measurements, fossil and subfossil pollen samples, tree rings, foraminifera and other plankton and nekton fossil data, etc.

I know it is not any other mechanism than heat retention, since the sun is not increasing radiation, and the amount of radiation reaching earth is coupled to Milankovic cycles. These are known, and do not explain the current warming, while they DO explain a bunch of past temperature ups and downs. Also, other suggested phenomena, such as solar flare cycles, that fall into the category of 'increased solar radiation' have shown to be not responsible - the solar flares specifically were supposed to correlate, but recent data shows that the correlation was
a) based on bad data
b) does not extend into the 1990 and on.

I know how greenhouse gases work - chemistry textbook.

I know that we pumped loads of them out - records on amount of coal, oil, gas from fossil sources burnt. Also, historical documents show a pretty good account of the amount of deforestation and spread of rice paddies (the latter being a main source of methane).

Ergo: we have a mechanism, we have the substance, we have no other explanation, as all other known mechanism which could be at fault can explain only ancient, but not the current trend.

OK, maybe it's the spaghetti monster doing it, but somehow I do not believe that.

knez
Feb 08, 2008, 11:32 AM
all the rest NOT warming up

how do you know that?

Simple Simon
Feb 09, 2008, 02:17 AM
all the rest NOT warming up

how do you know that?

your vocabulary seems rather limited! :lol:

I'll answer that question once you comment on the rest of my post. You are not a High Inquisitor, so please do not behave like one. :)

BasketCase
Feb 09, 2008, 02:21 AM
<LURKER NOTICE>

Sweeeeeeet! Found another Global Warming thread.

Don't worry, I'll keep my mouth shut and just read for the time being. :)

BasketCase
Feb 09, 2008, 02:31 AM
Well, lurker mode sure didn't last long. :)

Reflection doesn't fully capture what I'm asking though. So IR is released by the surface and it goes back towards the atmosphere. It runs into the atmosphere but the atmosphere can release the heat in any direction. Why back towards the earth instead of towards outer space? This shouldn't have anything to do with wavelength. Or is it because I'm not properly distinguishing between radiation, convection, and conduction?

edit: grammar error
You're mostly spot-on. Referring to the boldface part: heat does generally radiate evenly--via all three mechanisms. The thing that keeps the Earth warm is the fact that a fraction of the heat goes back down; some of the energy of the Earth stays on/in the Earth for a longer time. If the planet had no atmosphere, almost all of the Sun's energy would bounce right back out into space immediately.


Edit: Whoops. Got it wrong--on planets with no atmosphere, the daytime side is sizzling hot and the night side is an ice cube. The amosphere slows down heat transfer and helps spread the heat all over the planet evenly.

Mise
Feb 09, 2008, 03:19 AM
EDIT: NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html)

EDIT2: after reviewing the article more closely it appears the warming of Mars seems to be more due to changes in dust distribution and coloration then solar cycles, but I'll leave the link.

Yes, exactly -- the mechanisms for Mars' warming and Earth's warming are completely different. And nothing to do with the Sun.

ainwood
Feb 09, 2008, 03:50 AM
your vocabulary seems rather limited! :lol:

I'll answer that question once you comment on the rest of my post. You are not a High Inquisitor, so please do not behave like one. :)

He is from croatia. His english may not be as good as yours, so please make some allowances for that.

knez
Feb 09, 2008, 08:23 AM
my English is rather good (at least when I read) :sad:

anyway, or whatever, global warming as a consequence of human activities is just a theory with good marketing

1. Earths mechanisms are way to complex to draw any kind of definite conclusion(s)

2. about all the rest NOT warming up--> seriously, how can you know that (planets far from Sun aren't very afected by it's radiation, and effects on let's say Mercury (very close to the Sun, practicly no atmosphere) aren't something we can really measure/understand/interpret correctly

3. so let's assume you all are right, and global warming is consequence soley of human activities. No offense, but the things suggested for stoping it will just make things crappier (solar energy etc.)
as usually, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

zxcvbnm
Feb 09, 2008, 08:57 AM
my English is rather good (at least when I read) :sad:

anyway, or whatever, global warming as a consequence of human activities is just a theory with good marketing

1. Earths mechanisms are way to complex to draw any kind of definite conclusion(s)

2. about --> seriously, how can you know that (planets far from Sun aren't very afected by it's radiation, and effects on let's say Mercury (very close to the Sun, practicly no atmosphere) aren't something we can really measure/understand/interpret correctly

3. so let's assume you all are right, and global warming is consequence soley of human activities. No offense, but the things suggested for stoping it will just make things crappier (solar energy etc.)
as usually, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

1 and 2

How will action hurt us even if it wasn't caused by humans?

3

How?

Ball Lightning
Feb 09, 2008, 10:18 PM
anyway, or whatever, global warming as a consequence of human activities is just a theory with good marketing

It may be a theory, but it is one with large quantities of evidence backing it up, what do the scientists get out of it? Nothing.

1. Earths mechanisms are way to complex to draw any kind of definite conclusion(s)

So because we have found ways to predict earthquakes, understand quantom theory and have been to the bottom of the oceans, we don't understand something much simplerer (but still complex) as climate change.

2. about --> seriously, how can you know that (planets far from Sun aren't very afected by it's radiation, and effects on let's say Mercury (very close to the Sun, practicly no atmosphere) aren't something we can really measure/understand/interpret correctly

We can measure stuff from Mars and other planets, we also know how there Mechanics (what little they have) work.

3. so let's assume you all are right, and global warming is consequence soley of human activities. No offense, but the things suggested for stoping it will just make things crappier (solar energy etc.)
as usually, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

How does solar energy which uses a Renewable source, which does not increase CO2 or methane into the atmosphere.

knez
Feb 10, 2008, 10:57 AM
It may be a theory, but it is one with large quantities of evidence backing it up, what do the scientists get out of it? Nothing.



So because we have found ways to predict earthquakes, understand quantom theory and have been to the bottom of the oceans, we don't understand something much simplerer (but still complex) as climate change.


We (OK, scientists, whatever) don't know more than we know.



We can measure stuff from Mars and other planets, we also know how there Mechanics (what little they have) work.



We eaven more don't know more than we know.



How does solar energy which uses a Renewable source, which does not increase CO2 or methane into the atmosphere.

Solar energy is a dissaster already happening. Ecological and economical. OK, in the short run large investments in solar energy can slow down rise in CO2 emission for few percentages, but
solar collectors and batteries they need are very toxic
solar energy simply isn't economical in ~95% of time, so to be applied it needs subventions from the government, so government will take that money from private sector and general population, and so the end result will be less investment (which also includes investment in more efficient technologies that spend less energy, design of products that spend less energy etc.)
:scan:

Sian
Feb 10, 2008, 04:07 PM
we ended up debating this here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262571) as well on the BTS forum

a reasoning that i find logical is Henrik Svensmarks research on clouds which let him to discover that they was linked to cosmic rays, leading him onwards and found that Solar activity was the sinner due to cosmic rays (or something like that) ... short of long his research have 'proven' that the global warming is due to that the Sun is circleing around the center of the Milky way 'jumping' from arm to arm, and he have together with diffent people found out that his calculations fits going back as many years as its viewable (both from datas from the earth and data from space)

Simple Simon
Feb 10, 2008, 04:24 PM
we ended up debating this here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262571) as well on the BTS forum

a reasoning that i find logical is Henrik Svensmarks research on clouds which let him to discover that they was linked to cosmic rays, leading him onwards and found that Solar activity was the sinner due to cosmic rays (or something like that) ... short of long his research have 'proven' that the global warming is due to that the Sun is circleing around the center of the Milky way 'jumping' from arm to arm, and he have together with diffent people found out that his calculations fits going back as many years as its viewable (both from datas from the earth and data from space)


Svensmarks, who has actually a pretty bad rap for creating magic fits in a previous paper?

A great respone can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#more-476

so: it's not so easy....


We (OK, scientists, whatever) don't know more than we know.

We eaven more don't know more than we know.

That's a pretty cryptic answer - do you mean to say that we can't measure the amount of IR radiation off e.g. Mercury, and the amount of radiation of the sun? Cause as long as we CAN, we can tell whether the planet heats up because of additional solar energy output.....

Solar energy is a dissaster already happening. Ecological and economical. OK, in the short run large investments in solar energy can slow down rise in CO2 emission for few percentages, but
solar collectors and batteries they need are very toxic
solar energy simply isn't economical in ~95% of time, so to be applied it needs subventions from the government, so government will take that money from private sector and general population, and so the end result will be less investment (which also includes investment in more efficient technologies that spend less energy, design of products that spend less energy etc.)
:scan:


I bolded three IMHO totally false statements of yours - please back them up!



basically, it seems that you are arguing that

a) CO2 and methane have no influence on the climate
b) we have a economy problem because of solar cells.

From where I sit I can't see either - could you please explain how a greenhouse gas in the athmosphere is supposed NOT to have a greenhouse effect? And how subsidies for solar energy, which have been significant to get the development going, but are now being reduced, have any more negative influence than any other subsidies? And how will specific subsidies result in LOWER investment in exactly that field? To me, your theory of how economy works seems highly flawed....... it is not like people will say 'Oh, $10 higher taxes because of subsidies for solar cells, so I will not make them or buy them' :lol:

BasketCase
Feb 10, 2008, 06:22 PM
How will action hurt us even if it wasn't caused by humans?
There are several different ways.

#1: Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started. Action could reduce greenhouse levels too far and make the planet too cold.

#2: Plant rebound. Increased carbon dioxide levels cause plants to grow faster--up to a point. Exactly where that point is, doesn't really matter. Here's the theory: as CO2 goes up, plants grow faster. Then humans come to their senses and clean up their emissions. CO2 emssions stop growing--but the extra plants are still there. The result is very common in nature: a population increases, consumes its food supply, and starves. Plants keep consuming CO2, reducing it to near-zero levels--and setting off an Ice Age.

#3: Global dimming. In addition to warming, our particulate emissions are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. In the 70's, Americans were in fact very concerned about cleaning up pollution. So they took action and cleaned it up. That is, they cleaned up their particulate emissions. This is a problem because back then, nobody was working to cleanup greenhouse gas emissions. The unintended result: particulate emissions go down, more sunlight reaches the Earth, and our cleanup efforts make global warming worse.


I had a really long list somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I just posted a few ideas that came to mind at the moment. We can't simply cut emissions and cut emissions and cut emissions. In order to keep Earth at the temperature we want, we need carbon dioxide concentration to be at some specific level. Right now we think that level is too high, but according to Idea #1 above, it may not be. Also, we don't know how far we need to cut emissions to keep the planet just right.

Action can hurt us. We need to take the right action.

Speedo
Feb 10, 2008, 08:17 PM
Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started.

Do you have a source for this? (up-to-date source, not all that global freeze hysteria from the 70s or whenever)

Serutan
Feb 10, 2008, 09:06 PM
and you know that how?

Because of what we've seen on Venus. IIRC most of the initial
research on the greenhouse effect was done on Venus.

Simple Simon
Feb 11, 2008, 01:59 AM
There are several different ways.

#1: Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started. Action could reduce greenhouse levels too far and make the planet too cold.

Yup, so let's heat earth up like crazy and roast, rather than freeze :lol:

#2: Plant rebound. Increased carbon dioxide levels cause plants to grow faster--up to a point. Exactly where that point is, doesn't really matter. Here's the theory: as CO2 goes up, plants grow faster. Then humans come to their senses and clean up their emissions. CO2 emssions stop growing--but the extra plants are still there. The result is very common in nature: a population increases, consumes its food supply, and starves. Plants keep consuming CO2, reducing it to near-zero levels--and setting off an Ice Age.

And where are those magical plants that grow like crazy? We have a plant biomass loss, and we have been having it for centuries! Where are those new forests, new algae, new meadows? I see deforestation, I see denudation, I see desertification, and I see a bloom of jellyfish, but I see no significant plant growth.

#3: Global dimming. In addition to warming, our particulate emissions are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. In the 70's, Americans were in fact very concerned about cleaning up pollution. So they took action and cleaned it up. That is, they cleaned up their particulate emissions. This is a problem because back then, nobody was working to cleanup greenhouse gas emissions. The unintended result: particulate emissions go down, more sunlight reaches the Earth, and our cleanup efforts make global warming worse.


So you are arguing that we should use two forms of pollution, kind of like 'two wrongs make a right'?

Hell, instead of cleaning our act up we can simply explode a few hydrogen bombs and create a nuclear winter [/sarcasm]


I had a really long list somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I just posted a few ideas that came to mind at the moment. We can't simply cut emissions and cut emissions and cut emissions. In order to keep Earth at the temperature we want, we need carbon dioxide concentration to be at some specific level. Right now we think that level is too high, but according to Idea #1 above, it may not be. Also, we don't know how far we need to cut emissions to keep the planet just right.

Action can hurt us. We need to take the right action.


:lol:

Indeed, now you pretend that we must restore earth to the exact correct climate AND correct for the underlying, natural changes as well? Buddy, climate changes - albeit much more slowly than we change it right now. No stopping the change - all we can hope to do is mitigating the extreme, unnatural change we induced.

Simple Simon
Feb 11, 2008, 02:02 AM
Do you have a source for this? (up-to-date source, not all that global freeze hysteria from the 70s or whenever)

Oh, that freezing hysteria wasn't so hysteric - after all, if we had not cleaned the pollutants up, who knows - the ice age might have come! But we did clean up, so the scenario lost its basis.

As for the 'current ice age' - the Milankovic cycles should have induced one, with a downwards trend about 8000 years ago. I think that human action, mainly massive deforestation for agriculture, and later the massive spread of artificial swamps (know to you as rice paddies) countered that cooling trend by increasing greenhouse gases. There is a publication somewhere to be found that has a title like 'The anthropogenic greenhouse started 8,000 years ago' or so - I'll see if I can find it.

knez
Feb 11, 2008, 07:05 AM
Svensmarks, who has actually a pretty bad rap for creating magic fits in a previous paper?

A great respone can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/#more-476

so: it's not so easy....



That's a pretty cryptic answer - do you mean to say that we can't measure the amount of IR radiation off e.g. Mercury, and the amount of radiation of the sun? Cause as long as we CAN, we can tell whether the planet heats up because of additional solar energy output.....




I bolded three IMHO totally false statements of yours - please back them up!



basically, it seems that you are arguing that

a) CO2 and methane have no influence on the climate
b) we have a economy problem because of solar cells.

From where I sit I can't see either - could you please explain how a greenhouse gas in the athmosphere is supposed NOT to have a greenhouse effect? And how subsidies for solar energy, which have been significant to get the development going, but are now being reduced, have any more negative influence than any other subsidies? And how will specific subsidies result in LOWER investment in exactly that field? To me, your theory of how economy works seems highly flawed....... it is not like people will say 'Oh, $10 higher taxes because of subsidies for solar cells, so I will not make them or buy them' :lol:

:crazyeye:

basically, I'm arguing that

a) we can't be sure that man is behind climate change, and we definitly can't be sure that climate change is caused *soley* or *in the greates part* by man
b) solar energy technology damages environment more than a lot of "dirty" technologies
c) subsidies for solar energy will increase investment in *solar energy*, but will have negative effects on investments generally, and naturally on investmenst in other technologies in energy industries --> that's a bad thing
d) solar energy can't solve anything, it's a dead end (ok, satelites will get better solar cells:rolleyes:)

zxcvbnm
Feb 11, 2008, 07:14 AM
There are several different ways.

#1: Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started. Action could reduce greenhouse levels too far and make the planet too cold.

#2: Plant rebound. Increased carbon dioxide levels cause plants to grow faster--up to a point. Exactly where that point is, doesn't really matter. Here's the theory: as CO2 goes up, plants grow faster. Then humans come to their senses and clean up their emissions. CO2 emssions stop growing--but the extra plants are still there. The result is very common in nature: a population increases, consumes its food supply, and starves. Plants keep consuming CO2, reducing it to near-zero levels--and setting off an Ice Age.

#3: Global dimming. In addition to warming, our particulate emissions are reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. In the 70's, Americans were in fact very concerned about cleaning up pollution. So they took action and cleaned it up. That is, they cleaned up their particulate emissions. This is a problem because back then, nobody was working to cleanup greenhouse gas emissions. The unintended result: particulate emissions go down, more sunlight reaches the Earth, and our cleanup efforts make global warming worse.


I had a really long list somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I just posted a few ideas that came to mind at the moment. We can't simply cut emissions and cut emissions and cut emissions. In order to keep Earth at the temperature we want, we need carbon dioxide concentration to be at some specific level. Right now we think that level is too high, but according to Idea #1 above, it may not be. Also, we don't know how far we need to cut emissions to keep the planet just right.

Action can hurt us. We need to take the right action.

1. The damage caused by an ice age will be a lot less than the worst-case scenario of GW as it will be slower. If we cut CO2 we sure can heat up the planet even if it cools too much, but if we don't we might just boil.

2. So we should breed less. Simple. Contraception to developing countries.

3. Another reason why we should get rid of greenhouse gases too. To be able to safely get rid of dimming particles which cause countless deaths.

GW is causing millions of innocent deaths, and I don't see any good sides in it.

Simple Simon
Feb 11, 2008, 09:20 AM
:crazyeye:

basically, I'm arguing that

a) we can't be sure that man is behind climate change, and we definitly can't be sure that climate change is caused *soley* or *in the greates part* by man


That's a claim, not an argument. WHY can't we be sure, and WHAT ELSE is happening with all the CO2 and methane?
b) solar energy technology damages environment more than a lot of "dirty" technologies

Another claim, please bring proof!

c) subsidies for solar energy will increase investment in *solar energy*, but will have negative effects on investments generally, and naturally on investmenst in other technologies in energy industries --> that's a bad thing
If you above claim is wrong, then this one is wrong, too. So please show how solar energy is damaging to the environment.

d) solar energy can't solve anything, it's a dead end (ok, satelites will get better solar cells:rolleyes:)

That's not even a claim to back up.

BasketCase
Feb 12, 2008, 07:31 PM
I just seem to have this magical ability to drive people bonkers whenever I post in a global warming thread......it's uncanny. :)

Right about now, the Earth is due to enter its next Ice Age. And by Ice Age, I don't mean a "Little Ice Age" ala the 1800's. I mean a BIG Ice Age. Some scientists say that Big Ice Age should have already started.
Do you have a source for this? (up-to-date source, not all that global freeze hysteria from the 70s or whenever)
How about the Earth itself?

Temperature charts for the last half a million years show that the planet is actually in Ice Age conditions most of the time. The upward spikes that bring the planet to the conditions we see today are very regular--and also very brief. We're right on the tip of one such spike right now. We're due for Freezy Pop mode, man.

Then there's the science people with the thick glasses and two dozen pens in their shirt pockets. Several of them say the planet should already have entered its next Ice Age, and I agree with their assessment because it squares with the fact that the Earth's temperature graph is poised way up high and getting ready to take a nose dive (into the aforementioned Freezy Pop mode).

To their credit, all of these people say they don't actually know for sure when the planet is supposed to go Freezy Pops. And this is the core of the problem. What effect are we actually having on the planet? Are we going to cook the planet? What if we already did? Our own emissions may indeed have already produced a disastrous ten degrees' worth of warming--while at the same time the planet's natural Ice Age cycle cooled it down by ten degrees.


The damage caused by an ice age will be a lot less than the worst-case scenario of GW as it will be slower.
From to what I've read about how things were during the planet's last Ice Age, I observe the following two effects:

#1: This one is prime real estate in Obviousville--a smaller percentage of the planet's land will be inhabitable.

#2: Of the land that is habitable, a smaller percentage will be arable (i.e. farmable).

An Ice Age will drastically reduce our available space (on a planet that's already crowded to begin with) and also drastically reduce the planet's food-producing capacity. Believe me, these two results will be far, far worse than anything we're going to see from global warming.

Speedo
Feb 12, 2008, 10:14 PM
How about the Earth itself?

You know what I meant. I don't care about debating the point, I was just interested in reading the material if you have any reasonable sources to support the assertion.

BasketCase
Feb 13, 2008, 06:56 AM
Yup, so let's heat earth up like crazy and roast, rather than freeze :lol:
Why is it always "either we have an Ice Age or we microwave the planet"???

How about a third possibility: we balance the planet just right so it neither freezes nor overheats?

BLAM

Uhhh.......just a moment, I think that was the sound of somebody's brain exploding in the next room. I better go check.


Edit: .......someone call a doctor........fast............

peter grimes
Feb 13, 2008, 06:57 AM
An Ice Age will drastically reduce our available space (on a planet that's already crowded to begin with) and also drastically reduce the planet's food-producing capacity.

Yes and no. :)

During the last glaciation sea level was roughly 200m lower than we find it today - that cave painting in France that a scuba diver found? It was way up the side of a hill overlooking a vast plain when it was created.

But you can't rush soil formation, and any new land revealed by a lowering sea level won't be arable for a couple thousand years (unless we figure out a way to speed that up!)

Ball Lightning
Feb 13, 2008, 09:12 PM
Why is it always "either we have an Ice Age or we microwave the planet"???

How about a third possibility: we balance the planet just right so it neither freezes nor overheats?

BLAM

Uhhh.......just a moment, I think that was the sound of somebody's brain exploding in the next room. I better go check.


Edit: .......someone call a doctor........fast............

Indeed. We need to find a balance, getting 100% solar in the next 50 years is not the best option, but now that the pattern has been disrupted we do not know what will happen. We should reduce significantly our CO2 output so that the earths CO2 levels do not continue to rise rapidally. But neither do we want to go into a ice age.

BasketCase
Feb 15, 2008, 06:32 AM
During the last glaciation sea level was roughly 200m lower than we find it today
I need to make a minor correction.

During the last Ice Age, the amount of habitable land in acres (i.e. the absolute value, not the percentage) was lower than it is today. My mistake was in using a percentage here.

Yes, there was more land, due to the lower sea level. But there was still less habitable land. And a lower percentage of that habitable land was farmable--the word "percentage" is not a problem here.

Simple Simon
Feb 27, 2008, 04:51 AM
Why is it always "either we have an Ice Age or we microwave the planet"???

How about a third possibility: we balance the planet just right so it neither freezes nor overheats?

BLAM

Uhhh.......just a moment, I think that was the sound of somebody's brain exploding in the next room. I better go check.


Edit: .......someone call a doctor........fast............

hm, as funny as your posts read there is a huge problem with your suggestion: I distinctly remember you claiming that 'we don't know enough' - about the effects of CO2, about the reaction of biomass, etc. So how are we supposed to be able to balance anything so perfectly? :confused:

btw,

Then there's the science people with the thick glasses and two dozen pens in their shirt pockets. Several of them say the planet should already have entered its next Ice Age, and I agree with their assessment because it squares with the fact that the Earth's temperature graph is poised way up high and getting ready to take a nose dive (into the aforementioned Freezy Pop mode).

linky? pleaaaase!

brennan
Feb 27, 2008, 06:01 AM
So much for a scientific debate, huh? All the usual nutjobs are here.

Basketcase: you totally wrecked your credibility in the last thread, when after several pages of dismissing evidence and coherent argument out of hand you suddenly did a u-turn because you'd picked up a new pet theory with no more substantiation than anything else you come up with.

BasketCase
Feb 27, 2008, 06:45 PM
hm, as funny as your posts read there is a huge problem with your suggestion: I distinctly remember you claiming that 'we don't know enough' - about the effects of CO2, about the reaction of biomass, etc. So how are we supposed to be able to balance anything so perfectly? :confused:
You know what? I have no freaking idea. It's true--we don't know enough about climate change to control it properly.

But control over climate is what everybody wants. All these people in these threads who are screaming "we're destroying the planet, WE MUST ACT NOW!!!"? Climate change is exactly what they're so terrified of. That changes in climate will destroy wildlife, displace native peoples, drown cities, etc etc etc.

If we cannot abide a planet that's too hot, and if we cannot abide a planet that's too cold, and if we cannot abide a planet that changes too radically between the two, then the only thing left that will shut everybody up and get them to put the picket signs away is to control the environment so it's just right.


If we don't know how to do it? Then we need to learn how. And, frankly, I'm all for that. While I do not think global warming can be accepted as fact, I'm all for putting money and resources into learning more about climate change. Because this planet we're standing on is eventually going to throw us another climate curveball sometime soon, even if global warming doesn't turn out to be it.


Then there's the science people with the thick glasses and two dozen pens in their shirt pockets. Several of them say the planet should already have entered its next Ice Age, and I agree with their assessment because it squares with the fact that the Earth's temperature graph is poised way up high and getting ready to take a nose dive (into the aforementioned Freezy Pop mode).
linky? pleaaaase!
Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html)
A little difficult, because I got the idea from an actual hardcover book. You don't see those very much any more. :)

Wiki has a brief description:
William Ruddiman's Scary Idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdue-glaciation)

BasketCase
Feb 27, 2008, 06:51 PM
Basketcase: you totally wrecked your credibility in the last thread, when after several pages of dismissing evidence and coherent argument out of hand
No. You destroyed your credibility. You (and several others) were the ones dismissing evidence and coherent arguments out of hand.

you suddenly did a u-turn because you'd picked up a new pet theory with no more substantiation than anything else you come up with.
No, I didn't pick up a new theory--I dismissed one of my own old theories. The irony there was just so delicious. You and Ziggy and others were trying to destroy that magnetic-field theory, and failing constantly, and then the only guy who found any actual evidence to disprove it.....turned out to be me. I found evidence that disproved my own theory.

Proving that I've got a stronger grasp on science than most people.

Also, I should probably remind you that I only dismissed ONE of my own theories--I had fourteen others which neither you nor anybody else ever addressed.

The standard debate tactic at that point would be to say you didn't address them because you knew you couldn't disprove them, but actually it's likely eveybody got distracted by something else. I certainly did--I finally aced Raining Blood on hard difficulty (that first mosh session is brutal).

Simple Simon
Feb 28, 2008, 01:35 AM
hm, Ruddiman seems to have a split personality then :lol:

btw: I agree that we should have an ice age now, and I agree with Ruddiman that it was man himself who altered the climate - and I agree with him that currently we are heating the planet up in an unprecedented manner, which is a totally different league compared to 8,000 BC to 1700AD.

Abaddon
Mar 26, 2008, 07:15 AM
Its all a case of scale, those Ice Ages were ~15,000 years appart arn't they?

Bit hard to say if we should have one NOW or in another 500 years!

brennan
Mar 26, 2008, 07:19 AM
Haven't you heard? We're 10,000 years into an Ice Age right now!

Abaddon
Mar 26, 2008, 11:26 PM
Well humans havn't even been industrialised long enough to effect it then!

Simple Simon
Mar 27, 2008, 08:39 AM
Well humans havn't even been industrialised long enough to effect it then!

but there's other factors: deforestation, artificial swamps (rice paddies!), etc. and THAT started 8,000 years ago.

Jerrymander
Mar 28, 2008, 05:25 PM
'Scientific Global Warming'? Uh, okay?

Coldest Year on Record (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

Simple Simon
Mar 29, 2008, 03:08 PM
'Scientific Global Warming'? Uh, okay?

Coldest Year on Record (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)


So?

second warmest winter on record where I live.

Doh!

ainwood
Mar 29, 2008, 05:18 PM
So?

second warmest winter on record where I live.

Doh!
And if the same data had showed that the planet had warmed over the last year, would you be equally as dismissive?

Simple Simon
Mar 30, 2008, 10:37 AM
And if the same data had showed that the planet had warmed over the last year, would you be equally as dismissive?

Indeed - as you well know by now, it is the general trend that matters, not short term and/or localized data.

Now, the nine out of the ten hottest summers of the 20th century happened in between 1990 and 2000 - THAT is more than a tiny blip. And between 2000 and now, three more made the top ten, and two more would have made it into the top then if it had not been for the three just mentioned.
That I call a trend, and if that trend is global, and if that trend builds on an old warming trend since the 50s - then I am worried. Which it does.

ainwood
Mar 30, 2008, 05:29 PM
Indeed - as you well know by now, it is the general trend that matters, not short term and/or localized data.

Now, the nine out of the ten hottest summers of the 20th century happened in between 1990 and 2000 - THAT is more than a tiny blip. And between 2000 and now, three more made the top ten, and two more would have made it into the top then if it had not been for the three just mentioned.
That I call a trend, and if that trend is global, and if that trend builds on an old warming trend since the 50s - then I am worried. Which it does.

Except your numbers are wrong. NASA data, which was the source for that claim, was flawed. It was found and quietly rectified (and even before that, it wasn't 9 of the top 10).

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/216695/Global_Warming_Debate_Reignited_After_NASA_Quietly _Corrects_Temperature_Data
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.

Simple Simon
Mar 31, 2008, 01:00 AM
Except your numbers are wrong.
Except I was talking about the summers in my home town, which do not correlate perfectly with the global data.

Shows again how careful we must be comparing data.

ainwood
Mar 31, 2008, 03:32 AM
Indeed - as you well know by now, it is the general trend that matters, not short term and/or localized data.

Now, the nine out of the ten hottest summers of the 20th century happened in between 1990 and 2000 - THAT is more than a tiny blip. And between 2000 and now, three more made the top ten, and two more would have made it into the top then if it had not been for the three just mentioned.
That I call a trend, and if that trend is global, and if that trend builds on an old warming trend since the 50s - then I am worried. Which it does.

Except I was talking about the summers in my home town, which do not correlate perfectly with the global data.

Looks like you were actually referring to global figures to me.

brennan
Mar 31, 2008, 04:07 AM
That report makes note of the fact that the error only applies to US data, and has no discernable effec on the Global averages. Which are of course going up.

Simple Simon
Mar 31, 2008, 08:23 AM
Looks like you were actually referring to global figures to me.

actually, no - but I see how I should have been more clear.

anyways, I know global warming deniers will not even accept if God should shout in their ears that man warms the climate, so there's actually no need to debate.

ainwood
Mar 31, 2008, 01:30 PM
anyways, I know global warming deniers will not even accept if God should shout in their ears that man warms the climate, so there's actually no need to debate.
And by your reasoning, do you think proponents would be any different?

When one side of the debate screams loaded terms like "deniers", do you think that's conducive to a debate?

brennan
Apr 01, 2008, 05:21 AM
No more conducive than the other side not being able to see a straightforward trend on a temperature graph.

Jerrymander
Apr 02, 2008, 03:28 AM
anyways, I know global warming deniers will not even accept if God should shout in their ears that man warms the climate, so there's actually no need to debate.

If God is all powerful, well, he should just like, stick the Earth in the fridge for a year or two, you know?

A temperature graph does not equate to absolute temperature. So far, no graphs have been displayed that show a linked correlation over a set period of time that shows global temperatures rising from the pro-global warming side of the field, brennan.

Also, how do you explain the trends of the graphs I posted, hm?

brennan
Apr 02, 2008, 05:08 AM
I'd say the trend is clearly upwards. Obviously you are only looking at the very end where it has gone down briefly, as it has before: e.g. between about 25 and 60 months and between around 120 and 155 months. If you must insist on using these peak to trough examples as the 'trend' I suggest a course in elementary maths, they cover basic stuff like interpreting graphs there, quite a lot of deniers seem to be incapable of this simple task.

As that site itself admits, evidence for cooling is anecdotal, and largely based on the cool spots over central Asia and North America. Everywhere else is still warmer than usual or did you not notice that the current figure overall is still above average?

And i'll note that they mention the increase in Antarctic sea ice without bothering to mention that overall the Antarctic ice mass is decreasing.

skadistic
Apr 02, 2008, 08:46 AM
Its funny when people who aren't scientists insist on global warming when even the alarmists have backed away from calling it warming. Those same people will call any cooling anecdotal. Despite it being colder in large areas across the northern hemisphere. Call them "spots" all you want but when those "spots" are 1000s of miles wide those are big "spots". Then they talk about averages over time. What is the scope of those averages? How far back do they go to make their point? There was a time a few hundred years ago when it was warmer then it is to day. Do they go that far back? No they don't. To do that would alter the average to some much closer to the temp. today. And when they are done doing that they will attack studies that say its not man made in every way possible except for the actual study and its scientific conclusions.

http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

Some scientists don't agree with all the alarmists. They raise questions. Questions the alarmists don't want asked. Those questions put all that alarmist bunk to task. That's why "global warming" is now " global climate change".

Its hard to have a scientific debate if the alarmists call all who dare to disagree the fringe and loons and paid off by big companies.

brennan
Apr 02, 2008, 11:00 AM
Wow. You've posted the same unscientific bollocks here that you posted on OT.

Er, the weather does tend to occur across fairly large areas Skad. When's the last time you heard about a cold front over a village and a warm front across the valley? You don't do you? Your argument is worthless isn't it?

I love the way we are 'alarmists'. You'll be having a go at me for ad-homs in a bit, completely oblivious to your hypocrisy.

skadistic
Apr 02, 2008, 11:50 AM
Wow. You've posted the same unscientific bollocks here that you posted on OT.

Er, the weather does tend to occur across fairly large areas Skad. When's the last time you heard about a cold front over a village and a warm front across the valley? You don't do you? Your argument is worthless isn't it?

I love the way we are 'alarmists'. You'll be having a go at me for ad-homs in a bit, completely oblivious to your hypocrisy.

So what exactly is unscientific about scientists doing a study and releasing its findings?

Wait so pointing the extremely large "spots" is wrong?Yup large areas of the globe being colder is irrelevant. Nope those numbers don't matter only the warm ones do. Curse me for putting things in perspective. I must be worthless along with my arguments because I'm not in the global warming...or is it global climate change camp. Doesn't matter does it. As long as I'm not in the alarmist camp I'm just a hack as are all the others who don't agree even the scientists who happen to be experts.
I love how you people work. Any data or conclusions that fit your agenda are worthless, hackery, bollocks and everything else you can use to minimize and rebuke with out actually doing the scientific thing and adding in with all the other data and conclusions.

So your scientific approach has been to belittle me and those who don't follow your line.:lol:

Did you know the oceans have been cooling over the last few years? Is that anecdotal too? I guess NOAA and NASA are hacks and worthless too for daring to take actual measurements that show cooling.:lol:

So cooling oceans and record cold winters across very large swaths of land is nothing of importance. Yeah we'll just forget all that data.:rolleyes:

brennan
Apr 02, 2008, 12:42 PM
So what exactly is unscientific about scientists doing a study and releasing its findings?1) There isn't any science in it.
2) The 'study' is entirely partisan. As is totally clear if you read it. it's about as scientific as a polemic on immigration by Al da Great.
Wait so pointing the extremely large "spots" is wrong?Yup large areas of the globe being colder is irrelevant. Nope those numbers don't matter only the warm ones do. Curse me for putting things in perspective. I must be worthless along with my arguments because I'm not in the global warming...or is it global climate change camp. Doesn't matter does it. As long as I'm not in the alarmist camp I'm just a hack as are all the others who don't agree even the scientists who happen to be experts.Is the global average still above average? Yes. Are you being selective with your data? Yes. Is your analysis and resultant conclusion scientifically sound? No.
I love how you people work. Any data or conclusions that fit your agenda are worthless, hackery, bollocks and everything else you can use to minimize and rebuke with out actually doing the scientific thing and adding in with all the other data and conclusions. .Wrong. your data are little better than anecdotes as they do not reflect the overall picture (global average temperatures are still above average even if you ignore the fact that you are concentrating on recent data rather than the long term trend) and your conclusions are therefore unsound. That is what makes your comments worthless, unscientific bollocks.
Did you know the oceans have been cooling over the last few years? Is that anecdotal too? I guess NOAA and NASA are hacks and worthless too for daring to take actual measurements that show cooling.:lol:No it's called La Nina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ni%C3%B1a), a well known and understood phenomenon that is part of climate modelling, whose contributions to the overall picture has therefore already been considered by the people who say there is warming going on. Sorry, did you have a point?
So cooling oceans and record cold winters across very large swaths of land is nothing of importance. Yeah we'll just forget all that data.:rolleyes:We know why the oceans are cooling somewhat right now and we know that global average temperatures are still above the recent norm. It is also plain that you wish to use a recent dramatic looking change as the 'trend' rather than the actual trend as anyone who can read a graph would understand it. Your conclusions are therefore, i'm sorry to say: Unscientific bollocks.

ainwood
Apr 02, 2008, 06:12 PM
skadistic, brennan:

Stop with the personal attacks and loaded language. Debate the points, without insulting each other.

peter grimes
Apr 02, 2008, 07:06 PM
I find it incredible that no one is pointing out the questionable nature of the Heartland Institute's studies. The term "science" seems to be spelled more like "agenda" with these folks :lol:

Heartland Institute is, in the truest sense of the term, a extraordinary group. It is funded almost entirely by free-market and libertarian concerns, not to mention some huge corporations with an keen interest in the climate debate .

For years now, they have been peddling carefully crafted 'studies' that support a pro-business, pro-properties-rights response to populist and scientific evaluations of environmental issues.

I'd love to know if any studies they financed were ever published in a peer-reviewed journal :rolleyes:

brennan
Apr 03, 2008, 01:59 AM
I did that already in OT Peter. :)

No 'study' such as Skadistic linked is going to be published anywhere that peer reviews as it is almost entirely politics and rhetoric. Actual scientific content = 0.

brennan
Apr 03, 2008, 03:16 AM
Just in today:

'No Sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm)


Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.
The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.
The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years. Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

And just for Basketcase:

The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.
That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.

The planet warms up when the Sun's output is strong.

Professor Sloan's team investigated the link by looking for periods in time and for places on the Earth which had documented weak or strong cosmic ray arrivals, and seeing if that affected the cloudiness observed in those locations or at those times.

"For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News.

"So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing."

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.

And for the following cycle, no correlation was found.

ainwood
Apr 03, 2008, 06:05 PM
I have a question:

One of the main concerns about global warming is the concern of a positive feedback loop. It is hypothesized that an increase in CO2 (a greenhouse gas) will lead to an increase in temperatures, which lead to more evaporation (or more correctly, more water vapour in the atmosphere). With water vapour also being considered a greenhouse gas, then this in turn leads to more warming, and more water vapour and more warming... etc.

Now - nature tends to abhor positive feedback loops (how many do you see?), which is one (anecdotal) reason that I am sceptical of alarmist claims.

The question I have is why we haven't seen the results of these feedback loops previously? The world has had higher CO2 concentrations before - if it did cause a positive feedback loop, then what was the negative influence that prevented the climate warming uncontrollably? What broke the cycle? And why is the requisite negative feedback loop not in play now?

Background: I have read a few claims of the NASA aqua satellite providing data that shows that increased water vapour is actually the cause of a negative feedback loop, which is at odds with most climate models that assume a positive feedback loop. I am therefore asking the question, not strictly on a climate science basis, but more on a intuition / mathematical modelling basis - systems I have modelled are either self-limiting (negative feedback dominated), or completely unstable (positive feedback dominated). Given a few billions of years, the climate doesn't really seem that unstable to me....

peter grimes
Apr 03, 2008, 07:14 PM
In the past (I'm talking about deep geologic time, here) increased concentrations of CO2 and water vapor have resulted in a response from the biosphere to this change of environment. The expected positive feedback loop was short circuited by biological activity.

Today, with humans effectively engineering vast swaths of the biosphere for our own interests, the biosphere is not allowed the freedom of action that prevented prior positive feedback loops from going over the tipping point.

[/speculation]

(thanks for bringing this thread back to more of a conversation than a shouting match :goodjob:)

brennan
Apr 04, 2008, 02:59 AM
Ainwood: I don't think anyone's seriously predicting that Earth will be like Venus in a few decades. What we are worried about is forcing the climate into a new equilibrium at a higher average temperature - a temperature rise of just a few degrees over a short space of time will do enormous environmental damage, not to mention the economic damage. I for one do not want the tsetse fly to spread. I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened, I do not want the gulf stream to shut down and put Western Europe in the deep freeze. I don't want to see the Sahara spread, I don't want to see a new Sahara where the Amazon rain forest used to be.

None of that requires a runaway positive feedback loop. The suggested positive feedback mechanisms merely suggest that the new equilibrium will be at slightly higher temperatures.

ainwood
Apr 04, 2008, 02:15 PM
Ainwood: I don't think anyone's seriously predicting that Earth will be like Venus in a few decades. What we are worried about is forcing the climate into a new equilibrium at a higher average temperature - a temperature rise of just a few degrees over a short space of time will do enormous environmental damage, not to mention the economic damage.
Well, the 'solutions' are already starting to do economic damage.

I for one do not want the tsetse fly to spread. I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened, I do not want the gulf stream to shut down and put Western Europe in the deep freeze. I don't want to see the Sahara spread, I don't want to see a new Sahara where the Amazon rain forest used to be.

Antarctica is getting colder. Malaria was present in europe, but was eradicated. The biofuels hysteria is causign more deforestation of the amazon.


None of that requires a runaway positive feedback loop. The suggested positive feedback mechanisms merely suggest that the new equilibrium will be at slightly higher temperatures.
Well, a positive feedback loop will not suggest a slightly higher average temperature - by definition, it suggests an unstable system where temperatures will go ouot of control.

The issue is that many people are claiming that there is a positive feedback loop. If this were the case, then it won't result in a 'slightly higher average temperature', unless a negative feedback loop kicks-in to mitigate its effect. Unfortunately it appears that anyone suggesting a negative feedback loop is labelled a 'denier', and science is all the worse for it.

peter grimes
Apr 04, 2008, 03:16 PM
Well, the 'solutions' are already starting to do economic damage.

Everything we do does economic damage from someone's perspective. Sheepherding in Ireland prevents a healthy forestry industry, Salmon fisheries in Spain reduce the tourism potential, etc. These are completely fabricated examples I use only to illustrate my point - not facts intended to prove it.

Antarctica is getting colder. Malaria was present in europe, but was eradicated. The biofuels hysteria is causign more deforestation of the amazon.

I don't know if Antarctica as a whole is getting colder or not, but I'm not sure that really matters so much. Sea level rise, which could result in a mass migration out of Bangladesh and other heavily populated river deltas, will happen whether or not the regional temp in Antarctica falls or not. It's really more about the existing icesheets collapsing and 'uncorking' the glaciers. Since the icesheets are already floating, sea level won't rise. But once those glaciers are able to slide into the sea, sea level rise will be a fact. The icesheets' stability has more to do with the underlying sea temp and precipitation than the air temperature. So even if regional temps are lowering, the icesheets could still be threatened. Take that all with a grain of salt, though - I'm not really sure if it's correct; just the line of reasoning. :)

Malaria, and other tropical diseases, will naturally move as the ecosystems slowly adjust to local and regional (and global) climate change. Areas that haven't seen endemic diseases will start to. There will be other areas where endemic diseases dissipate as well.

I completely agree that Biofuels should be a four-letter word - unless you restrict the raw materials to waste-stream sources. Hysteria is precisely the right word to describe the situation, sadly.

ainwood
Apr 04, 2008, 04:03 PM
I don't know if Antarctica as a whole is getting colder or not, but I'm not sure that really matters so much. Sea level rise, which could result in a mass migration out of Bangladesh and other heavily populated river deltas, will happen whether or not the regional temp in Antarctica falls or not.
Like the refugees flocking to New Zealand that Al Gore made up was mistaken about?

How much will the sea level really rise? If its feet, then that would be a problem. If its a few millimetres?


It's really more about the existing icesheets collapsing and 'uncorking' the glaciers. Since the icesheets are already floating, sea level won't rise. But once those glaciers are able to slide into the sea, sea level rise will be a fact. The icesheets' stability has more to do with the underlying sea temp and precipitation than the air temperature. So even if regional temps are lowering, the icesheets could still be threatened.
Antartica is mostly continental ice, hence the regional temperatures ARE the important variable.

Malaria, and other tropical diseases, will naturally move as the ecosystems slowly adjust to local and regional (and global) climate change. Areas that haven't seen endemic diseases will start to. There will be other areas where endemic diseases dissipate as well.Well, they might - its not certain. In fact, Al Gore's claims re malaria have been pretty-much proven incorrect.

My concern is that the alarmism that we are seeing now has a disturbing amount in common with the alarmism that we saw with DDT use: on the surface, banning stuff is done with good intentions. But ultimately, the ban can do more harm than good.

Hysteria is precisely the right word to describe the situation, sadly.Yep. Which is a sure sign that its no longer a scientific issue, but a political one.

ainwood
Apr 04, 2008, 04:12 PM
And here is another political problem:
A research review published March 23 in Nature Geoscience online shows that black carbon particles in the atmosphere have a more powerful global-warming effect than any of the greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide. And these particles are 60 percent as effective as CO2 itself. That’s far more powerful than the estimate in last year’s report of the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So: Soot emissions have a big impact on global warming (I guess soot settling on ice would also promote melting).

It would therefore make a lot of sense to get the likes of the Chinese to invest in 'clean coal' to mitigate soot. But from a political perspective, would getting the Chinese to clean-up their soot emissions from coal plants be akin to tacit endorsement of coal? A message that "if you clean up the soot emissions, the coal burning is probably OK?"

It would certainly be a decent compromise, but no one really wants compromise at the moment.


Edit: There does seem to be a flawed statement in that article:
black carbon particles in the atmosphere have a more powerful global-warming effect than any of the greenhouse gases except carbon dioxide - this implies that CO2 is the worst greenhouse gas - it isn't.

peter grimes
Apr 05, 2008, 08:33 AM
I'm not sure that nobody is interested in compromise. After all, both extremes of the policy are untenable. Compromise and pragmatism are the only realistic options.

Coal will continue to be mined and burned. Since that's the case, we should make sure to do it as 'cleanly' as possible.

brennan
Apr 05, 2008, 10:20 AM
Antarctica is getting colder. I'm getting distinctly bored of seeing people post these half truths:
An analysis of NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-0). This was significant because there is a large amount of ice in the area and climate models predicting global warming also predict that some of the most severe events from warming should occur in Antarctica. The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-BASurvey). More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-1).
The model as it stands runs roughly as follows:
1) Increased warmth means increased precipitation
2) Increased precipitation means that more ice will form in many areas of Antarctica. (that's your half truth)
3) BUT: Increased warmth means that the glaciation/calving process speeds up at the edges.

IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.

On your positive feedback loops: yes positive feedback automatically leads to runaway in principle, but in practice there are too many other factors limiting this.

ainwood
Apr 05, 2008, 05:53 PM
I'm getting distinctly bored of seeing people post these half truths:
Are you? Then don't post half-truths yourself.


An analysis of NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-0). This was significant because there is a large amount of ice in the area and climate models predicting global warming also predict that some of the most severe events from warming should occur in Antarctica. The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-BASurvey). More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet#_note-1).

The model as it stands runs roughly as follows:
1) Increased warmth means increased precipitation
2) Increased precipitation means that more ice will form in many areas of Antarctica. (that's your half truth)
3) BUT: Increased warmth means that the glaciation/calving process speeds up at the edges.

IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.

'Thought' to be decreasing. Not exactly hard evidence to refute anything, is it?

I refer to temperature, you refer to ice coverage to refute it: Strawman.
You refer to a prediction of a climate model, and then use a further prediction of that climate model to support your contention: Strawman.

The climate model is a prediction. If I understand your assertion correctly, you are saying that precipitation in the center of the continent results in increasing icemass, but because its getting warmer, that ice melts, and results in decreasing icemass as it runs-off at the coast.

Problem is, the interior of the continent is not warming, as the model predicts. its getting colder. The only area on the continent that is warming is the antarctic peninsula.
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/2-CSPP-antarcticatemp.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2004_vdB_AnnGlac.pdf



On your positive feedback loops: yes positive feedback automatically leads to runaway in principle, but in practice there are too many other factors limiting this.
Yes, there are, aren't there. Yet it doesn't seem to bother the alarmists to just post the "half truth" of a positive feedback loop resulting in catastrophe.

Lord Neil
Apr 05, 2008, 07:02 PM
All I have to say is the world is changing every second.

Check out the link in my signature it has some stuff on the enviroment.

brennan
Apr 07, 2008, 02:43 AM
I refer to temperature, you refer to ice coverage to refute it: Strawman.No, You post a half truth about a scientific process you clearly do not understand and act like it implies a lack of scientific understanding of the issue.

I respond with a full description of all the processes involved, clearly indicating that climatologists have a far fuller grasp of the situation than you and are better aware of the issues involved, up to and including the 'problem' with the theory you suggested. And climatologists overwhelmingly are concerned about Global Warming.

Temperatures are dropping somewhat at the moment because we are in a La Nina oscillation of oceanic waters. It is noticeable that climate change deniers are taking the last years measurements as some kind of refutation of climate change when the mechanism explaining the current situation is known and understood. The deniers are being unscientific (giving preferential status to data points that appear to support their position) and dishonest (using a counter-intuitive but known and understood phenomenon to claim that the science is not understood).

skadistic
Apr 07, 2008, 07:31 PM
Climate change deniers are denying climate change when when pointing out the climate changes to colder. So how does that work exactly? If some one points out that the climate is changing back to colder how is that denying climate change? Wouldn't a climate change denier be the one who says the climate isn't changing? Isn't dishonest to call one who says the climate is changing a climate change denier.

ainwood
Apr 08, 2008, 12:20 AM
No, You post a half truth about a scientific process you clearly do not understand and act like it implies a lack of scientific understanding of the issue.

Half truth? I posted a fact. It was you who drew the inference and claimed that it didn't mean what you perceived that I was implying by it.

And how do you know that I "clearly don't understand"? Please don't confuse "don't agree with" with "don't understand". I fully understand what the model assumptions are, I just don't think that the data supports the model. The model predicts warming in the continent, which isn't present in actual measurements. And if the data doesn't support the model, then perhaps, just perhaps the scientific understanding is lacking.

Put it this way: If the science was completely understood, would anyone still have to research it?


I respond with a full description of all the processes involved, clearly indicating that climatologists have a far fuller grasp of the situation than you and are better aware of the issues involved, up to and including the 'problem' with the theory you suggested. And climatologists overwhelmingly are concerned about Global Warming.

Yes, climatologists do have a far fuller grasp of the situation than me, but they also have a far fuller grasp than you, so don't be hypocritical about it.
I did not suggest a theory, so I'm not sure what 'problem' with the theory that you feel you have addressed.


Temperatures are dropping somewhat at the moment because we are in a La Nina oscillation of oceanic waters. It is noticeable that climate change deniers are taking the last years measurements as some kind of refutation of climate change when the mechanism explaining the current situation is known and understood. The deniers are being unscientific (giving preferential status to data points that appear to support their position) and dishonest (using a counter-intuitive but known and understood phenomenon to claim that the science is not understood).
Yes, la nina provides some cooling. How much of the 'hottest decade ever' rhetoric acknowledged that El Nino had an impact?

And besides, this is of little relevance to the point I made re the interior of the antarctic continent.

brennan
Apr 08, 2008, 03:10 AM
Half truth? I posted a fact. It was you who drew the inference and claimed that it didn't mean what you perceived that I was implying by it.Is it a fact? Is it a fact attributable to La nina? Is it attributable to increased winds in the region? Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast? It was you that posted one single fact as though it refuted the entire consensus on Global Warming. How about you tell us what significance you think it has.

To the extent that any controversy exists it is confined to the popular press and blogs. There is no similar controversy within the scientific community, as the small observed changes in Antarctica are consistent with the small changes predicted by climate models. Various global warming skeptics, most notably novelist Michael Crichton[4], have asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming. The few scientists who have commented on the supposed controversy state that there is no contradiction,[5] while the author of the paper whose work inspire Crichton's remarks has said that Crichton "misused" his results.[6]
Antarctica cooling controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy)


Yes, la nina provides some cooling. How much of the 'hottest decade ever' rhetoric acknowledged that El Nino had an impact?El nino is an oscillation that lasts a lot less than 10 years. You cannot seriously use it to explain a decade of temperatures. In fact there have been 4 El'nino's in that period. Conversely we are currently experiencing the third La nina in that time.

ainwood
Apr 08, 2008, 05:09 AM
Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

brennan
Apr 08, 2008, 05:31 AM
Those are very pretty graphs. Tell us what you think they mean.

skadistic
Apr 08, 2008, 09:10 AM
The second one clearly shows that every year the sea ice shelf expands and contracts to roughly the same size every year for the last 30 years. The graph makes it look like the sea ice is going through its yearly seasonal ebb and flow with little impact on it from " global warming". Looks like 2 years ago was worse then this year and the smallest its been in that graph was in 1993. The first one is simply an zoom of this last season. And that up swing at the end shows that its not disappearing fast but actually getting bigger. Something I assume typically happens when the summer is over in the SH. Just like it has year after year after year. Up and down, Summer and winter. More ice and less ice. Cyclical.

brennan
Apr 08, 2008, 09:40 AM
Well I would say that if you analyse the trend in temperatures there's a slight warming, most pronounced over the Antarctic Penninsula, which is totally in line with the predictions of current modelling. Which is why the amount of Sea Ice (glaciers etc) is increasing slightly.

ainwood
Apr 08, 2008, 02:37 PM
Well, as those links I provided before show, the temperature is NOT 'slightly warming', except over the peninsula; over the rest ot the continent, it is getting colder.

You were initially telling us that the models predict sea ice to decrease, now you're saying that actually no, global warming causes sea ice to increase. Well, which is it?

And sea ice != glaciers.

brennan
Apr 09, 2008, 11:32 AM
And this is a problem why? It is, is it not, completely in line with what models predict? Models that predict a drastic warming over the whole continent in the next century?

When did I say sea ice was decreasing?

ainwood
Apr 10, 2008, 12:11 AM
When did I say sea ice was decreasing?

I really don't remember.

maybe I was mistaken? :mischief:







Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?

I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened

satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years
IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.

brennan
Apr 10, 2008, 02:20 AM
Ainwood, if you don't have anything to say why are you here? You post graphs and quotes with no commentary. One might think your position is weak...

Ziggy Stardust
Apr 10, 2008, 02:50 AM
Does this help?

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648

It is clear that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out from the mainland of Antarctica towards South America, has warmed significantly. The continent’s interior was thought to have warmed too, but in 2002 a new analysis of records from 1966 to 2000 concluded that it has cooled overall.

This study was promptly seized upon as proof that the world is not warming, but a single example of localised cooling proves no such thing, as the lead author of the 2002 study has tried to point out.

Climate models do not predict an evenly spread warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than average, while others cool at first. What matters is the overall picture, and global temperature maps show far more areas are warming than cooling.

r_rolo1
Apr 10, 2008, 06:08 AM
What I find funny about all of the GW threads I saw until now is that everyone talks about CO2, rarely someone talks about methane ( cows and paddies.... ) , and no one talks about water vapour, that is by far the biggest contribuitor to the GW. Another factor that is dismissed as well is the ammount of energy that goes to space, that is drastically dependant of the cloud cover % and from the type of clouds ( some are virtually IR transparent and some are coal black in therms of IR ). Not to mention the high altitude dust effects ( you know, coal and oil burning plants exausts ... ) ....

:confused:

If we dismiss most of the things that are involved in the temperature changes on Earth, how the hell are we going to make accurate predictions? Most of the GW proponent models lack one of more crucial parts of the the known weather system ( not to mention some competely "externalities" ,like volcanos, that can easily have more influence than all human actions ( like the Pinatubo eruption showed clearly... and it was not a big one ,like Santorini or Tambore ) )and are only directed to a half dozen centuries at most ( most of them simply stop in 200 years: the computing time is expensive and the data starts to diverge badly due to the chaotic equations ). And all implicetily assume that humankind will be regularly producing CO2 ( maybe methane ) without changes and nothing more ...... like if humans were going to be stalled in time except for CO2 issues.

My conclusion? I simply don't know... data is too sparse and too self contradicting to make a solid statement. As far as I know we may be in the verge of a " A day after tommorow " kind of scenario or a "Venus-like Earth"..... and IMHO who says stronger sentences is lacking with the thruth.

sourboy
Apr 10, 2008, 06:38 AM
So based on Ainwood's graphs, one might say that the images of crumbling ice cliffs is nothing more than global warming propaganda, as we know that the ice melts, then reforms back to it's original entirety, as the yearly cycles continue, no?

brennan
Apr 10, 2008, 07:29 AM
What I find funny about all of the GW threads I saw until now is that everyone talks about CO2, rarely someone talks about...If we dismiss most of the things that are involved in the temperature changes on Earth, how the hell are we going to make accurate predictions? Most of the GW proponent models lack one of more crucial parts of the the known weather system ( not to mention some competely "externalities" ,like volcanos, Actually no. People bring these things up the same way you do, with the same OMG this doesn't get taken into account triumphalism. And it's always flat out wrong.

Let's take volcanoes as an example. Most years the contribution of Greenhouse gases by volcanoes is trivial compared to the amount humans are now emitting. Strike one. The enormous exeptions? They happen very rarely, and actually, if you average them out, they add less than the regular, ongoing volcanic emissions. Stike two. We discussed this in depth a couple of months back. Stike three. You're out.
So based on Ainwood's graphs, one might say that the images of crumbling ice cliffs is nothing more than global warming propaganda, as we know that the ice melts, then reforms back to it's original entirety, as the yearly cycles continue, no?
Well it's interesting that if you check that site out more fully it's mostly about the fact that the Arctic Ice Cap is dangerously close to disappearing entirely in the summer, a highly salient point that never seems to get mentioned by the deniers.

And no, the Ice does not all grow back annually. And more seems to be going every year. See, for example, the recent loss of the Larsen B Ice shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_B)(a 12,000 year old feature) and recent events at the Wilkins Ice Shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf).

What Ainwood and his chums never will admit to is that while it seems counter-intuitive to the fact of global warming, events such as cooling in the Antarctic interior are entirely predicted by current climate models; Models that predict drastic warming over the entire continent in the next century. But let's not let proper science get in the way of soundbites eh?

Composite (11-model) GCM-simulations for 1958-2002 with forcing from historic greenhouse gas concentrations show warming patterns and magnitudes quite similar to the corresponding observed trends with localized maximum warming near the Antarctic Peninsula. GCM projections for 2001-2100 using the IPCC-SRESA1B greenhouse gas scenarios do not continue the pattern of strongest warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but instead show the greatest warming over the Antarctic continent.
Source (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/Antarctic.paper.chapwalsh.2005.pdf) (it's the same guys Ainwood got his graphs from btw)

r_rolo1
Apr 10, 2008, 07:53 AM
I don't want to enter in too much controversies, brennan ( BTW nice sig... ) but if you average volcanos you also have to average human actions.... Simple equipoise. The problem is that atmosphere does not work on averages ( both ways ) but on unstable equilibriums with well defined boudaries from one state to another. A big bump ( like a volcano or China starting to burn extra coal ) can ( or not ) push you to another unstable equilibrium ( read Sagan's theoretical frame on nuclear winter ) and make the world a completely diferent place in some years. And volcanos do not only drop CO2 ,you know... their major effect is the other way around: the high atmosphere dust that blocks sun even before the natural GW starts acting and that affects high altitude troposphere chemistry... Both tend to create cooling and tot warming as you suggested( P.S You're only giving me reason about that: CO2 is not all... )

And thanks for trimming my post.... and choosing a particular spot forgetting the context. Second law of the rethoric ( first one is the repetition )..... Volcanos were a minor part of that... or are you going to say that we understand well the flux of high altitude dust and their effects on weather? Or the diference in cloud types that has been noticed since the start of XX century ? Or that most computer simulations are seriously cutted in terms of variables or time due to the sheer computer power needed to run a decent atmosphere simulation?

I simply stated that facing all of that, I don't know the answer... please don't treat me as I was a GW denialist. I'm just a Biochemist that already worked in recent migration shifts and knows how sometimes people ( including scientists ) are jumpy in conclusions regarding GW.....

brennan
Apr 10, 2008, 10:26 AM
In my experience claims that things are not taken into account by the models are wrong. The deniers claim that some feature is not explained by the model - current example: Antarctica is cooling down; you investigate this, find out it is a half truth at best - central Antarctica has experienced a very slight cooling, the rest is warming - and that the alleged 'problem with the theory' is in actual fact predicted by the models in use, as sourced above.

And then some <really intelligent contributor> says 'but it's cold here' and shows you a graph of the last 5 minutes in Chicago as refutation for a decade of record highs across the globe.

Really, it get's boring.

I'm sorry if you feel I meant anything by cutting your post there, I *snip* purely for brevity and to give an indication of what I am responding to. Ok, or for a giggle. On occasion.

r_rolo1
Apr 10, 2008, 10:52 AM
If you meant no harm , who am I to jump on you? But it is only conditioned reflex: like I said I worked in migration shifts of oceanic fish near the Strait of Gibraltar ( tuna decided to go in a less coastal route since the 60's ) and the first idea that people jump on me about that issue is Global warming ( in fact it is the other way around: tuna migrated to warmer areas.... ). I became too much suspicious of that kind of blind faithed GW followers that make everything GW consequence....

Sorry for the acidity, was not meant directly to you..... but to those kind of claims.

Simple Simon
Apr 10, 2008, 02:54 PM
www.realclimate.org

search for water vapor there. Nice test by one of the authors that shows that the effect is well covered.

ainwood
Apr 11, 2008, 01:45 AM
Ainwood, if you don't have anything to say why are you here? You post graphs and quotes with no commentary. One might think your position is weak...
:rolleyes:

Sorry - I'll make sure to spell it out in detail for you.

Lets recap on the discussion so far, so you know where I'm at and why I am here.

I mentioned that the antarctic is cooing (admittedly, a fairly general statement).

You responded, rather dismissively here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6684527&postcount=97), that it was a "half truth", outlining what a model says about ice mass, and you note that the ice mass decreasing is predicted by a model that requires antarctica to be warming. Hence, you are basically saying that the antartic must getting warmer because, err.... a model says that it needs to get warmer.

I then pointed out (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6685704&postcount=98) that you had not addressed the point about the temperature, and that you were distracting into a discussion about the area of ice. I tried to revert the discussion to temperature, and even posted three links to a study that shows that the interior of the continent is getting colder, although the peninsula is indeed getting warmer.

You again respond very dismissively. You claim that the temperature drop recently is due to la nina, despite the linked studies showing that the temperature drop over antactica is actually a long-term phenomenon.

In my next response, I address little of the issues, except to point out that you are no better than I in your claims that I post 'half truths'. I do point out that whilst the alarmists are claiming 'la nina' to explain away the recent global cooling, they neglect to mention el nino when talking about the 'hottest decade ever'.

You pick up on this point, and post about el nino, and say that it can't be used to explain a whole decade of heating.

At this point, I'll interrupt this little trip down memory lane to address this issue.

You stated that:
El nino is an oscillation that lasts a lot less than 10 years. You cannot seriously use it to explain a decade of temperatures. In fact there have been 4 El'nino's in that period. Conversely we are currently experiencing the third La nina in that time.
Well, sounds reasonable, but it does kind-of suggest / imply that the el nino & la nina weather patterns cancel each other out in intensity - you say we've had 3 in the last decade.

Well, lets look at the ESNO:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
The red peaks are El Nino, which results in warming. The blue peaks are la nina, which results in cooling. The very last blue peak is being used by the alarmist to explain the recent global cooling. Lets consider what happened before that:
You will see that up to about 1979, the number & area of blue peaks was dominant over the red. It was about this time that some alarmists where actually worried about an ice age. Then in 1979 we had a flip, and since then, the red el nino events have been dominant, leading to a lot of warming. Any chance that this could have had any impact whatsoever on the "hottest decade ever" claims? Don't know, but I think its fairly reasonable that if alarmists are going to blame la nina for cooling this year, then they should also attribute a 25 year period that has largely been dominated by strong el nino events for at least some warming....

Of course, that's at odds with what you were saying.... But I digress.


Back to the history channel...

You also noted that "Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?"

In response to this, I posted three graphs, which I didn't explain in detail, as I thought they were fairly self-explanatory. skadistic explained them with no trouble, but I'll just point out here, for the record, that the sea ice area oscillates every summer & winter, and has done for a long time. One particular point of interest is that the current sea ice coverage is nearly 1,500,000 km larger than the 30-year average. To put this into context, this is an area equivalent to about 3.5 times the area of california. If the 'peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast', as you claimed, I would expect that the sea ice area would be significantly lower than the mean for 1979 - 2008.

You respond back to temperatures - claiming that warming on the antartic peninsula is causing more sea ice. You fail to comment on your complete reversal in your opinion that sea ice is decreasing.

I mention this, and you claim that you never said sea ice was decreasing.

I therefore respond quoting a few of your posts where you said various things about sea ice decreasing.

And that brings us to your post that I quoted where you ask what I am doing here.

Well, given that I provide you evidence which you don't refute, and that you change your position on sea ice a couple of times, and that you are very dismissive and rude in doing so, I do actually wonder what I'm doing here sometimes.

And it most certainly isn't anything to do with me thinking that my position is 'weak'.


Edit:
And here you are again:
And no, the Ice does not all grow back annually. And more seems to be going every year.
Which isn't quite true in the antarctic, is it?

brennan
Apr 11, 2008, 04:58 AM
Ainwood that is utterly and totally disingenuous.

Everything you posted is taken into account in the models that

a) Accurately model this behaviour.

b) Predict drastic future warming.

This is absolutely no argument against global warming, in fact it is an argument for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
you are basically saying that the antartic must getting warmer because, err.... a model says that it needs to get warmer.
No, I said that the current models predict precisely the behaviour you describe. This is hardly, then, an argument against global warming, this an argument for the accuracy of the models that predict global warming.
I tried to revert the discussion to temperature, and even posted three links to a study that shows that the interior of the continent is getting colderNo, you posted three graphs about the area of Antarctic Sea Ice. Not a temperature in sight. Or a source - I had to look at the image properties. And you made zero attempt to explain what pertinence you thought these had.
it does kind-of suggest / imply No such implication intended.

I did not say La Nina was the cause of the Antarctic cooling, I asked if you knew it wasn't. Because it seems an obvious mechanism to explain it, in view of which it seems a little odd you have not considered it. You didn't even attempt an answer.

I already refuted your argument that El Nino is responsible for the recent warming, as the phenomenon simply doesn't last long enough to be blamed for a decade of temperatures, whereas the current La Nina can obviously be held responsible for a single cold winter in a few parts of the world. Again, you neither replied nor acknowledged this.

btw You'd look a little more impartial if you could post a quote about La Nina/El Nino
a) with a link
b) From a site that doesn't call scientists 'alarmists'

- I can hardly be expected to keep on responding to material you post when I cannot take a look at it in its original context or without seeing the graphs it purports to discuss. But, I will say that a simple oscillation would not show the trend of increasing temperatures that we have seen.
In response to this, I posted three graphs, which I didn't explain in detail, as I thought they were fairly self-explanatory. skadistic explained them with no trouble, but I'll just point out here, for the record, that the sea ice area oscillates every summer & winter, and has done for a long time. One particular point of interest is that the current sea ice coverage is nearly 1,500,000 km larger than the 30-year average. To put this into context, this is an area equivalent to about 3.5 times the area of california. If the 'peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast', as you claimed, I would expect that the sea ice area would be significantly lower than the mean for 1979 - 2008. Again, you are insisting on talking about the current value (anecdote) and refuse to discuss either trends (science), or the fact that the current situation is accurately predicted by the models (science). And in view of the fact that i've posted about the recent loss of some major Ice Shelves a couple of times now, your skepticism about it is a little...odd. Larsen B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_B), Wilkins Ice Shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf). Larsen B is thought to have been stable for 12,000 years, the suggestion that it's disappearance is in any way normal is shockingly disingenuous.
I mention this, and you claim that you never said sea ice was decreasing.

I therefore respond quoting a few of your posts where you said various things about sea ice decreasing.
:confused:

"Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?"
- see above links re the Wilkins and Larsen ice shelves.
"I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened"
- Nothing about sea ice there.
"satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years
IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing."
- Nothing specific about sea ice there either. Not sure what you're on about here tbh.
given that I provide you evidence which you don't refute You neither explain what significance you think your 'evidence' has, nor do you acknowledge the refutations you receive. I have responded in far more depth than you initially post., and that you change your position on sea ice a couple of times um, no I didn't, see above. Only 1 of the 3 quotes you posted is about Sea Ice at all and that one I have substantiated repeatedly.
Which isn't quite true in the antarctic, is it?...except that it is.

Btw, would you like to discuss the Arctic Ice Cap at all? Before it vanishes entirely I mean.

ainwood
Apr 11, 2008, 03:16 PM
Ainwood that is utterly and totally disingenuous.

Everything you posted is taken into account in the models that
No, it hasn't. And in case you weren't aware, models aren't always accurate.


No, you posted three graphs about the area of Antarctic Sea Ice. Not a temperature in sight. Or a source - I had to look at the image properties. And you made zero attempt to explain what pertinence you thought these had.
No such implication intended.
I posted the pictures to show that you were completely wrong in your claims that antarctic sea ice is decreasing. Would you like to either A.) comment on the quotes I made which show that you said this, or B. Show me something that suggests that sea ice is in fact decreasing?

I also posted links to studies that show that the antarctic peninsula is warming, but the rest of the continent is cooling. Go back and read the post again.




I did not say La Nina was the cause of the Antarctic cooling, I asked if you knew it wasn't. Because it seems an obvious mechanism to explain it, in view of which it seems a little odd you have not considered it. You didn't even attempt an answer.
OK - I'll answer it now. Go look at the temperature records - they show that the antarctic cooling is on scales of decades , which, as you acknowledge, is a much longer time scale than La Nina. Therefore, I don't think it is responsible for the antarctic cooling.


I already refuted your argument that El Nino is responsible for the recent warming, as the phenomenon simply doesn't last long enough to be blamed for a decade of temperatures, whereas the current La Nina can obviously be held responsible for a single cold winter in a few parts of the world. Again, you neither replied nor acknowledged this.

Refute: to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.

You posted:
El nino is an oscillation that lasts a lot less than 10 years. You cannot seriously use it to explain a decade of temperatures. In fact there have been 4 El'nino's in that period. Conversely we are currently experiencing the third La nina in that time.
So to 'refute' this, you need to post something that proves your claim. You posted nothing more than an opinion, and a statement that El Nino lasts less than 10 years. You didn't refute anything.

Go and look at my previous post, and comment on the relative strengths of El Nino since 1979.



btw You'd look a little more impartial if you could post a quote about La Nina/El Nino
a) with a link
b) From a site that doesn't call scientists 'alarmists'

Actually, I got the picture by searching google images for "ENSO global warming" or similar. That graph is all over the internet.

And you have no problem calling anyone who questions global warming a denier. Why do you insist on higher standards for everyone else?

And why am I bothering with responding to your ad hominem?


- I can hardly be expected to keep on responding to material you post when I cannot take a look at it in its original context or without seeing the graphs it purports to discuss. But, I will say that a simple oscillation would not show the trend of increasing temperatures that we have seen.

Well, you're quite happy to talk to me about 'models' that I haven't seen, without any original context. And I am asking you for your opinion. You seem to know all about the link (or lack of) between El Nino and global warming - so I figured you'd be able to comment. Especially when you claim to have refuted my statements on the subject.



Again, you are insisting on talking about the current value (anecdote) and refuse to discuss either trends (science), or the fact that the current situation is accurately predicted by the models (science).

Sorry, but the current value is most certainly not anecdote - it is as much 'science' as trends or models. Sure, place less reliance on it, but it is most certainly not anecdotal.


And in view of the fact that i've posted about the recent loss of some major Ice Shelves a couple of times now, your skepticism about it is a little...odd. Larsen B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_B), Wilkins Ice Shelf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf). Larsen B is thought to have been stable for 12,000 years, the suggestion that it's disappearance is in any way normal is shockingly disingenuous.

No, its not. The total sea ice mass is now greater than average, despite that collapse of those ice shelves.



"Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?"
- see above links re the Wilkins and Larsen ice shelves.
"I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened"
- Nothing about sea ice there.
"satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years
IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing."
- Nothing specific about sea ice there either. Not sure what you're on about here tbh.

My, you are slippery, aren't you?

Lets show what you really said here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6684527&postcount=97).

The model as it stands runs roughly as follows:
1) Increased warmth means increased precipitation
2) Increased precipitation means that more ice will form in many areas of Antarctica. (that's your half truth)
3) BUT: Increased warmth means that the glaciation/calving process speeds up at the edges.

IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.


So here you are saying that the model says that you will get more ice formed in many areas, and that warming means glaciation / calving at the edges.

I would therefore interpret this as being that you are saying that there should be more ice in the middle of the continent (you are now appearing to say the exact opposite), and that you are saying that there will be more glaciation/ calving at the edges (which should decrease sea ice).




Btw, would you like to discuss the Arctic Ice Cap at all? Before it vanishes entirely I mean.

Well, its starting to recover this winter, due to the exceptionally cold winter. I hope that it does. Still a bit thin, though.

AndonSage
Apr 13, 2008, 02:53 PM
ainwood, thanks for your reasoned and accurate information. Arguing with someone who believes in man-made global warming is like arguing about their religion... which it is. You dare not disagree with their high priest Al Gore. Of course, they've had to change the term "global warming" to "global climate change", so they can blame any changes on humans. The temperature has been declining since 1998, and CO2 emissions are up 23%... so much for the whole "CO2 causes warming" bit. The sun and solar winds have more to do with earth's temperature than anything humans can do to change it. The earth has cycles, and will always have cycles. Heck, it's only been 200 years since the end of the last little ice age. Greenland was called that because it was green, and there weren't any cars and factories back then, unless the Vikings had technology I'm not aware of :) Old silver mines are being discovered as glaciers retreat. Speaking of glaciers, they are retreating due to sublimation, not temperatures. The only thing constant about Earth's temperature is that it changes constantly.

The main problem is that the liberals' / socialists' solutions are the exact same things they've wanted to do for a hundred years... income redistribution and the power to control how you live. They denigrate and besmirch anyone who doesn't agree with them, and with the liberal mainstream media going along with them, people have to actually think for themselves to understand their agenda. Unfortunately, too many people don't bother to think for themselves. It's much easier to "feel good" about doing something.

People complain about high gas prices, that it's somehow the oil companies' fault, but they don't take the time to really understand the problem, which is extreme environmentalists and the politicians who pander to them stopping us from drilling for our own oil and building refineries. With what the US has in oil reserves from off-shore, ANWR, and the North Dakota oil reserve recently in the news, we could be entirely self-sufficient, not to mention we'd quit funding third-world dictators who hate us. If the money spent on "man-made global warming" research was instead put towards alternate energy, we'd probably be on a system other than oil within 20 to 30 years. Unfortunately that's not good enough for people like Al Gore, because he won't have the power to tell you how to live. Just be sure to live as he says, not as he does, otherwise your carbon footprint will be off the scale, hehe.

Well.. I guess that's my rant. I was actually looking for the Civ 4 global warming fix and came across this thread. Keep up the good fight, ainwood, and know that there are people who appreciate it. Remember, GLOBAL_WARMING_PROB = 0 :)

brennan
Apr 14, 2008, 03:47 AM
My, you are slippery, aren't you?

Lets show what you really said here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6684527&postcount=97).

Ainwood: When you quote someone three times by way of retort:

Originally Posted by brennan http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6698665#post6698665)
When did I say sea ice was decreasing?

I really don't remember.

maybe I was mistaken? :mischief:








Quote:
Originally Posted by brennan http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6693866#post6693866)
Is it not also a fact that the peripheral ice shelves are disappearing fast?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brennan http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6680305#post6680305)
I do not want to see the havoc caused by rising sea levels should the main Antarctic Ice Mass be threatened

Quote:
Originally Posted by brennan http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6684527#post6684527)
satellite data from 1979-1999 has shown that areas of Antarctica where ice is increasing outnumbers areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
More recent satellite data suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years
IOW both the gains and losses to the Antarctic Ice Mass increase. What's the net result? Currently the Ice Mass is thought to be decreasing.


...to then call them 'slippery' when they respond to the quotes you provide and quote something else is not honest debate.

Actually, I got the picture by searching google images for "ENSO global warming" or similar. That graph is all over the internet.
a) That graph wasn't there when I replied to that post.
b) I'm sure it is all over the internet and it may well be in lovely pretty red and blue, but it doesn't show temperatures does it? It's an amalgam of 6 different variables related to the ENSO and tells us precisely nothing about global temperature trends.
__________________________________________________ __________
Why the f do people keep ranting about Al bloody Gore? I DON'T CARE ABOUT AL BLOODY GORE. Al BLOODY GORE ISN'T EVEN A BLIP ON MY BLOODY RADAR!

ainwood
Apr 14, 2008, 05:59 PM
a) That graph wasn't there when I replied to that post.
Well, you responded about 3 hours after my last edit to that post....

b) I'm sure it is all over the internet and it may well be in lovely pretty red and blue, but it doesn't show temperatures does it? It's an amalgam of 6 different variables related to the ENSO and tells us precisely nothing about global temperature trends.
So when you are saying here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6689966#post6689966):
Temperatures are dropping somewhat at the moment because we are in a La Nina oscillation of oceanic waters.
What you really mean is that when temperatures drop, you a re quite happy to say its a well-understood la nina oscillation that impacts temperatures. Conversely, when temperatures rise, suddenly El Nino has no impact, and ENSO (a measure of the strength of the La Nino or El Nino event) isn't relevant; its all man-made global warming?

And, FYI, ENSO is:
These six variables are: sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V) components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A), and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C).
Now, I assume you'll claim that it measures nothing about global temperatures, but to reiterate my point, you cannot claim that La Nina is the cause of a decrease in global temperatures, yet say that El Nino has no impact when it comes to increases.

brennan
Apr 15, 2008, 03:14 AM
What you really mean is that when temperatures drop, you a re quite happy to say its a well-understood la nina oscillation that impacts temperatures. Conversely, when temperatures rise, suddenly El Nino has no impact, and ENSO (a measure of the strength of the La Nino or El Nino event) isn't relevant; its all man-made global warming? Obviously not. I've said a couple of times now that the timescale of the individual events is too short to be more than an anecdote. If I say it again will it sink in? Look at the trends. not small scale oscillations.
Now, I assume you'll claim that it measures nothing about global temperatures, but to reiterate my point, you cannot claim that La Nina is the cause of a decrease in global temperatures, yet say that El Nino has no impact when it comes to increases.I can quite easily say that La Nina is the cause of the current low temperatures because we are still only just emerging from the phenomenon. I can just as easily say that most of the record highs over the last decade have most likely occurred during El Nino oscillations. However the fact that El Nino's occur does not give a decade of records without an underlying trend of warming.

ainwood
Apr 15, 2008, 07:11 PM
Obviously not. I've said a couple of times now that the timescale of the individual events is too short to be more than an anecdote. If I say it again will it sink in? Look at the trends. not small scale oscillations.

Right. So a La Nina event for the the last two years provides proof, yet thirty years of primarily El Nino events outweighing La Nina is a short-term oscillation that shoudl be ignored.


I can quite easily say that La Nina is the cause of the current low temperatures because we are still only just emerging from the phenomenon. I can just as easily say that most of the record highs over the last decade have most likely occurred during El Nino oscillations. However the fact that El Nino's occur does not give a decade of records without an underlying trend of warming.
Yes, you can say this, but what you say is your opinion. It is not fact no matter how many times you claim that it is. How do you reconcile that a short-term la Nina event, superimposed on the 'underlying trend of warming' results in significant cooling? Are you suggesting that without this underlying cooling, then the significant cooling would have been even worse? If so, by how much?

El Nino vs La Nina: You can't have it both ways, just because it suits your argument.

brennan
Apr 16, 2008, 04:46 AM
Ainwood: you are just repeating a strawman/false dilemma now.
How do you reconcile that a short-term la Nina event, superimposed on the 'underlying trend of warming' results in significant cooling?
...by being a short term oscillation with a larger amplitude than the long term trend of increasing temperatures. This is really elementary stuff btw.

ainwood
Apr 16, 2008, 03:04 PM
Ainwood: you are just repeating a strawman/false dilemma now.
No, I'm just repeating a question for which you won't give a straight answer to, in that you won't give a reasonable explanation of how you defend the weakness of your argument.


...by being a short term oscillation with a larger amplitude than the long term trend of increasing temperatures.

Ok - but its predicated on a underlying assumption of a long term trend of increasing temperatures.

What I want to know is how you can reconcile about 1-2 years of a negative "large amplitude oscillation" (of about -1.5) and say that that has a dramatic cooling effect, when you continue to say that a number of "short term" "Large amplitude oscillations" in the other direction have no real impact, because its actually a long-term warming trend that is responsible.

Look at 1998 - a 2 year amplitude that is TWICE as high as the current cooling oscillation. Look at 1998 - 2001: An event much longer and with a significant amplitude, and yet we didn't see the cooling that we've seen in the last couple of years. Why is that?

This is really elementary stuff btw.
And how does being being patronising support your argument?

ainwood
Apr 17, 2008, 04:19 AM
Antarctica is getting colder.

I'm getting distinctly bored of seeing people post these half truths:


nice little graphic from Nasa (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257A)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/antarctic_temps.AVH1982-2004.jpg


Now: Nasa think it might be warmer sea temperatures causing warming around the edges, and perhaps increased precipitation (snowfall) causing the cooling in the center.

However, another theory is that the warming could be volcanic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarcticvolcanoes2.jpg

Note that the warmest areas also happen to be the ones with volcanoes right next to them?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm

Simple Simon
Apr 17, 2008, 01:20 PM
sorry, ainwood, but hte core of antartica is not the same as antarctica as a whole - if you gt cold feet that don't mean you are colling overall..... a little more precision would be nice from you, seeing how it is you who constantly nitpicks other people's posts, even if it often is perfectly clear what they meant.

FYI: 2007 warmest year ever but for record-holder 2000 in Germany. Opinions?

ainwood
Apr 17, 2008, 02:40 PM
sorry, ainwood, but hte core of antartica is not the same as antarctica as a whole - if you gt cold feet that don't mean you are colling overall..... Look at the graphic. It is more applicable to state that a little bit of warming in the sea around the coast of antarctica is not the same as the whole thing warming. It is quite clear that the majority of the continent (including the mountain ridge down the peninsula!) is actually cooling.

FYI: 2007 warmest year ever but for record-holder 2000 in Germany. Opinions?In relation to what?

brennan
Apr 18, 2008, 05:38 AM
No, I'm just repeating a question for which you won't give a straight answer to, in that you won't give a reasonable explanation of how you defend the weakness of your argument.Ainwood i've already answered this three times and the rest of your post responds to the answer you have recieved. In face of these facts the statement above is baffling.
Look at 1998 - a 2 year amplitude that is TWICE as high as the current cooling oscillationAmplitude of what? You keep on referring to things without linking to them.
Ok - but its predicated on a underlying assumption of a long term trend of increasing temperaturesUnderlying assumption? I had the mad idea it is a scientifically observed fact:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/demos/temrecmontage/

If you are trying to explain away the last decade's highs as being purely the result of El Nino events, would you care to explain exactly how global average temperatures have remained above the baseline average for this entire La Nina cycle.

btw, looks like the next couple of months are going to give your case a serious headache; by an amazing coincidence, just as we emerge from La Nina the temperature anomalies are apparently soaring again:

http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/2108

Edit: hey look, a bunch of climate scientists (proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realclimate) that they are indeed climate scientists) saying exactly the same things as me (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523):

John Tierney and Roger Pielke Jr. have recently discussed attempts to validate (or falsify) IPCC projections of global temperature change over the period 2000-2007. Others have attempted to show that last year's numbers imply that 'Global Warming has stopped' or that it is 'taking a break' (Uli Kulke, Die Welt)). However, as most of our readers will realise, these comparisons are flawed since they basically compare long term climate change to short term weather variability.

Simple Simon
Apr 18, 2008, 03:07 PM
Look at the graphic. It is more applicable to state that a little bit of warming in the sea around the coast of antarctica is not the same as the whole thing warming. It is quite clear that the majority of the continent (including the mountain ridge down the peninsula!) is actually cooling.

:rolleyes:

So NOW you are able to differentiate - while before you weren't, because you thought it 'obvious'. Does it sting a bit that I 'got' you the exact same way you keep pestering brennan with ridiculous nitpicking?

In relation to what?

Since recordkeeping started. Quite sufficient, hu?

ainwood
Apr 18, 2008, 06:31 PM
Amplitude of what? You keep on referring to things without linking to them.

Sorry; didn't realise that I had to post the same image again and again. When I refer to amplitudes, I am referring to this:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif

If you are trying to explain away the last decade's highs as being purely the result of El Nino events, would you care to explain exactly how global average temperatures have remained above the baseline average for this entire La Nina cycle.

Read what I have posted again:

I am not saying that the high temperatures are solely a result of El Nino.

I am just highlighting that those who attribute the recent cold spell to La Nina should also acknowledge that the record high temperatures are likely to have been exacerbated by El Nino. Ie my point about 'you can't have it both ways'.

There seems to be a complete reluctance to acknowledge this; people like to point at 'record temperatures', and imply that it is all due to global warming.

:rolleyes:

So NOW you are able to differentiate - while before you weren't, because you thought it 'obvious'. Does it sting a bit that I 'got' you the exact same way you keep pestering brennan with ridiculous nitpicking?
I'm not really sure what your point is. :confused:

'got me'? If you mean make a claim with nothing to back it up whatsoever, and is a conclusion that cannot really be supported by the evidence to hand, then sure, you 'got me'.

And Nitpicking? My whole argument over the last two pages has been to try and point-out that Brennan has:
1.) Said that antarctica is warming, when it has not.
2.) Said that antarctic ice was reducing, when it is not.
3.) Said that the recent cooling (or failure to continue warming) is due to La Nina, yet conversely refuses to concede that the previous high temperatures could have anything to do with El Nino.

In doing this, I have tried to provide evidence to support my points. How exactly is this 'nitpicking'?



Since recordkeeping started. Quite sufficient, hu?
To clarify, you asked if I had any opinion. What would you like an opinion on, is what I was asking.

btw, looks like the next couple of months are going to give your case a serious headache;

err... Why?
Does this new data show increasing antarctic temperatures? Does it show a dramatic decrease in antarctic ice coverage?

You seem to be making some incorrect assumptions about my beliefs here....

MooseWarrior
Apr 18, 2008, 07:39 PM
Caution: If you believe in man-made global warming, the following will probably offend you. Read at your own risk.

There is very little (if there is any) actual scientific proof for man-made global warming. There hasn't been a major warming spike since '98, most people know this. The push towards ethanol as a cleaner fuel, is ridiculous! Ethanol causes more pollution that normal fuel. CO2 is a result of warming and not the producer of warming, stop putting the cart before the horse. If the world is still warming, how come there were record lows, and snowfall in the Middle East? (idk remember when, maybe 2 months ago.) Most of the media and press doesn't report on the evidence against global warming, because of die-hard, liberal fanatics, who pressure the reporters to change their stories to fit their (the fanatics) point of view. I just saw a story about this less than a week ago.
Couldn't agree more with the below.
ainwood, thanks for your reasoned and accurate information. Arguing with someone who believes in man-made global warming is like arguing about their religion... which it is. You dare not disagree with their high priest Al Gore. Of course, they've had to change the term "global warming" to "global climate change", so they can blame any changes on humans. The temperature has been declining since 1998, and CO2 emissions are up 23%... so much for the whole "CO2 causes warming" bit. The sun and solar winds have more to do with earth's temperature than anything humans can do to change it. The earth has cycles, and will always have cycles. Heck, it's only been 200 years since the end of the last little ice age. Greenland was called that because it was green, and there weren't any cars and factories back then, unless the Vikings had technology I'm not aware of :) Old silver mines are being discovered as glaciers retreat. Speaking of glaciers, they are retreating due to sublimation, not temperatures. The only thing constant about Earth's temperature is that it changes constantly.

The main problem is that the liberals' / socialists' solutions are the exact same things they've wanted to do for a hundred years... income redistribution and the power to control how you live. They denigrate and besmirch anyone who doesn't agree with them, and with the liberal mainstream media going along with them, people have to actually think for themselves to understand their agenda. Unfortunately, too many people don't bother to think for themselves. It's much easier to "feel good" about doing something.

People complain about high gas prices, that it's somehow the oil companies' fault, but they don't take the time to really understand the problem, which is extreme environmentalists and the politicians who pander to them stopping us from drilling for our own oil and building refineries. With what the US has in oil reserves from off-shore, ANWR, and the North Dakota oil reserve recently in the news, we could be entirely self-sufficient, not to mention we'd quit funding third-world dictators who hate us. If the money spent on "man-made global warming" research was instead put towards alternate energy, we'd probably be on a system other than oil within 20 to 30 years. Unfortunately that's not good enough for people like Al Gore, because he won't have the power to tell you how to live. Just be sure to live as he says, not as he does, otherwise your carbon footprint will be off the scale, hehe.


Oh, and before anyone has an angry retort, check my age in the profile.

brennan
Apr 19, 2008, 07:18 AM
Sorry; didn't realise that I had to post the same image again and again. When I refer to amplitudes, I am referring to this:I thought so, so i'll repeat for you: That is not a graph of temperatures. IS IT?

I'll also rephrase my question: If La Nina and El Nino oscillaions are suficient to explain global climate trends, then why have global average temperatures remained above the baseline during the whole La Nina cycle we are just coming out of?
There seems to be a complete reluctance to acknowledge this; people like to point at 'record temperatures', and imply that it is all due to global warming.NO: In fact I already acknowledged this:
most of the record highs over the last decade have most likely occurred during El Nino oscillationsI can say it more clearly if you like:

"The series of global record temperatures in the last decade are attributable to global warming and El nino cycles." - brennan.
And Nitpicking? My whole argument over the last two pages has been to try and point-out that Brennan has:
1.) Said that antarctica is warming, when it has not. When did I say this?
2.) Said that antarctic ice was reducing, when it is not. It is according to the most recent studies, oh and Antarctic Sea Ice =/= the total Antarctic Ice Mass, btw isn't it odd that you always want to talk about a specific factoid (anecdote) and I want to talk about the Big Picture (Science)?
3.) Said that the recent cooling (or failure to continue warming) is due to La Nina, yet conversely refuses to concede that the previous high temperatures could have anything to do with El Nino. ...and this is just a lie, see above.
Um, no, I objected to your half truth about Antarctic cooling. I don't recall saying Antarctica was warming up. I have said that the models that accurately predict the minor cooling in the Antarctic interior as well as the warming on the Antarctic penninsula; go on to show a dramatic reversal of this trend in the future.

I'd like to know why, given that the observed facts in Antarctica are entirely consistent with the global warming models, you continue to insist that there is a problem with the science...
err... Why?
Does this new data show increasing antarctic temperatures? Does it show a dramatic decrease in antarctic ice coverage?

You seem to be making some incorrect assumptions about my beliefs here....Well that's pretty easy to do given how unwilling you seem to be to say anything. For example you could have simply clarified your position rather than moan about being misunderstood.

ainwood
May 04, 2008, 03:56 AM
A tale of two thermometers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/).


Here is NASA's climate record published in 1999, showing global temperatures from 1880 through to 2000:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa-1999-version.jpg

And here is NASA's climate record published recently, for the same period a couple of extra years:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa_2007_version_small.jpg

Note how the most recently published data shows a greater warming trend than the data back in 1999 did?

SO: for some reason, Nasa has decided to go back and "correct" temperature data for the last century. I've been trying to find out why they would feel the need to do this, and the only thing I have managed to glean is that it might be one of two things: They have tried to 'correct' weather stations for which temperature was taken at 9:00 am and at 4:00 pm to give an 'average' temperature throughout the day. Secondly, they might have been trying to interpolate missing data - estimate the value on a day when there was no other data.

Ball Lightning
May 04, 2008, 04:14 AM
There is very little (if there is any) actual scientific proof for man-made global warming.

:confused::confused:

Umm...

I wont talk about the hundred of thousand of scientists who have worked in this fields because you will say it is a conspiracy (through i know of no conspiracy of more then 100 people if that, let alone 100,000). But let us look at the PHYSICS. We know what happens when light rays hit CO2, we know that heat is absorbed. We know how much each part of CO2 absorbs. We also know how much CO2 we have emmited and we also now know what nearly all the other factors which contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere.

There hasn't been a major warming spike since '98, most people know this.

And it is not the a decade thing global warming, it is the upward trend. Warming is not the only thing and is a delayed reaction, have you looked at the CO2 graphs?


Ethanol causes more pollution that normal fuel.

I sort of agree, ethanol is probably worse then oil (not in CO2 emmissions) but it also has helped create the current food shortages we have today.

CO2 is a result of warming and not the producer of warming, stop putting the cart before the horse.

Ummm... so where has the CO2 come from??????????? The car can easily come without a horse, look at the civ game for an example;)

If the world is still warming, how come there were record lows, and snowfall in the Middle East? (idk remember when, maybe 2 months ago.)

Because unusual events will still take place and there is a good chance that more will happen.

Most of the media and press doesn't report on the evidence against global warming, because of die-hard, liberal fanatics, who pressure the reporters to change their stories to fit their (the fanatics) point of view.

What evidence against warming, you show that CO2 does not increase temperatures, and you show that humans haven't put it in the atmosphere and i will believe you... I just want something more then saying temperature increases CO2.... or some small place in the middle east got a bit of snow.


I hope that people will look at the facts and stop running away from them.........

knez
Jun 26, 2008, 06:11 AM
A tale of two thermometers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/).


Here is NASA's climate record published in 1999, showing global temperatures from 1880 through to 2000:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa-1999-version.jpg

And here is NASA's climate record published recently, for the same period a couple of extra years:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/04/28/nasa_2007_version_small.jpg

Note how the most recently published data shows a greater warming trend than the data back in 1999 did?

SO: for some reason, Nasa has decided to go back and "correct" temperature data for the last century. I've been trying to find out why they would feel the need to do this, and the only thing I have managed to glean is that it might be one of two things: They have tried to 'correct' weather stations for which temperature was taken at 9:00 am and at 4:00 pm to give an 'average' temperature throughout the day. Secondly, they might have been trying to interpolate missing data - estimate the value on a day when there was no other data.

as far as I know, second NASA chart is false, because we had temperature maximum in 1998

since then temperature levels are the same/stagnate

brennan
Jun 26, 2008, 03:14 PM
That maximum is shown by the black line. The red is the 5 year mean.

ainwood
Jun 27, 2008, 06:12 PM
Its now just over 20 years since Dr James Hansen presented to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources about his view on the global warming threat. His statement is archived here (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf).

Of interest, he presented a graph of expected temperature rise under a number of scenarios for growth in greenhouse gasses.

Scenario A: Growth rates for emissions continue unabated.
Scenario B: Emissions rates plateau at the 1988 rates.
Scenario C: Drastic reductions in emissions between 1990 and 2000.

I've uploaded the graph here:
http://gotm.civfanatics.net/ainwood/hansen.jpg

Interestingly, this shows that temperatures in 1988, which he stated were "warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements" were still around 0.1 to 0.5C cooler than the maximum temperatures between the previous ice ages. I presume that he was concerned about his predicted warming trends: that if the rate of emissions growth was not halted (Scenario A), that by around 2008 or 2009, the world would be warmer than these inter-glacial maximums.

I have taken the same graph, and plotted the annual means from the GISS data set HERE (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt) for the data since 2000. The annual mean obviously only goes to 2007. The red line is using the GISS data, and the blue line is also using GISS, and is the average of the 2008 data set (to May) from HERE (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt).

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/ainwood/hansen2.JPG

This shows that the last 20 years' temperature trend is below the scenario that Hansen suggested would arise if emissions were drastically cut between 1990 and 2000.


There have also been claims made that the GISS data set has a warming bias due to urban heat island, relocating temperature stations, poorly situated temperature stations, using extrapolations to estimate sea and high / low lattitude data etc. So I therefore present this final graph: This is a graph with the UAH satellite data set. Note that they both measure anomolies, but from a different base period. the UAH anomaly in 1988 was 0.11, c.f. GISS at 0.31. For comparison, I therefore increased all UAH anomalies by 0.20. Data in green.

http://gotm.civfanatics.net/ainwood/hansen3.JPG

Simple Simon
Jun 28, 2008, 03:32 AM
it has been shown repeatedly that urban heating is not affecting the data. why do you keep bringing it up - because you want to sow doubt by any trick you can find?

Alsao, why do you care whether Hansen was right 20 years ago - it is a bit like the creationists who always cite sources that are 100 years old........ it has a certain stink to it, actually.

ainwood
Jun 28, 2008, 01:36 PM
it has been shown repeatedly that urban heating is not affecting the data. why do you keep bringing it up - because you want to sow doubt by any trick you can find?
SHown by whom? For a start, if urban heat is NOT affecting the data, then why are the likes of GISS correcting for it? You might want to read this page (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) as a starter.


This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming.

Now: GISS tries to correct for the UHI effect, but I would refer you to the excellent http://climateaudit.org and http://www.surfacestations.org. The former has a number of posts evaluating the legitimacy of the 'corrections', and the latter provides a lot of examples of how the surface stations are prone to bias due to poor siting.


Alsao, why do you care whether Hansen was right 20 years ago - it is a bit like the creationists who always cite sources that are 100 years old........ it has a certain stink to it, actually.
Ah yes! Anyone who questions the legitimacy of the scientific process or outcomes of global warming is comparable to a creationist. At least that's better than being compared to a holocaust denier!

The reason I posted this is that it is the 20th anniversary of Hansen's speech. The landmark anniversary is the motivation, however I thought it was interesting to note just how wrong he was.

knez
Jun 28, 2008, 10:32 PM
and in 20 years when todays stupid global warming predictions don't come true, you will say:
why do you care whether Whoever was right 20 years ago, this new model shows well all burn in 20.. if we don't reduce ... of ... and destroy ...

Ball Lightning
Jun 29, 2008, 01:39 AM
There is a warming trend in that graph for what did happen. So you can't say it isn't warming, it is just slowing then we thought.

Ball Lightning
Jun 29, 2008, 01:50 AM
Here are 3 graphs of temperature change over the last 127 years on earth.

Grey is unknown.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/2008-06maps.gif

As you can see, the world does show a overall rise in temperatures.



Here is the MOST RECENT (with adjustments) global surface temperatures since 1880 in a graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/2008-06plts.gif

All this from your site which you provided.



But lets look at the MOST RECENT graph which uses all the scientific technology we have learnt to get the best result we can at the moment. Lets compare it to yours. In the last 5 years the 5-year Mean Corrected temperature has been above .6 degrees increase which is BETWEEN scenario A and B on your graph from 20 years ago when we had much simpler technology to do research and models with.

So in conclusion temperature is going up with URBAN HEAT taken out. It is not as fast as we once thought, but it is still rising, and especially over the last 20 years.

ainwood
Jun 29, 2008, 02:48 AM
There is a warming trend in that graph for what did happen. So you can't say it isn't warming, it is just slowing then we thought.
We? WE????


Here are 3 graphs of temperature change over the last 127 years on earth.

Grey is unknown.
Grey is most certainly NOT unknown. I am not sure exactly where you got those plots, but by the look of them, it looks like they're using surface station temperatures only, and no ocean-based temperaturs. They apply "smoothing algorithms" to them to get a wider temperature distribution.


As you can see, the world does show a overall rise in temperatures.

Well, I prefer numbers rather than plots like those. Especially ones doen with projections like that. Should use an equal area project for land area.



Here is the MOST RECENT (with adjustments) global surface temperatures since 1880 in a graph:


All this from your site which you provided.

ANd?



But lets look at the MOST RECENT graph which uses all the scientific technology we have learnt to get the best result we can at the moment.

If it used the "best" data, then it wouldn't be based on the surface stations, and they wouldn't need to insist on "adjusting" it.



Lets compare it to yours. In the last 5 years the 5-year Mean Corrected temperature has been above .6 degrees increase which is BETWEEN scenario A and B on your graph from 20 years ago when we had much simpler technology to do research and models with.

Can you please link to the data set this came from? As its from the same site, it must either be for a different period, have a different base or some other such explanation.

I linked directly to the data sets I used for my graph - the data set is here (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt).

The final data values are:


Year Annual_Mean 5-year_Mean
2005 .62 .55
2006 .54 *
2007 .57 *

[/quote]

In actual values, the latest data is not above 0.6. You will see these data points plotted on my map, and they are below scenarios A & B by a significant amount. Or are you saying that the temperatures NOW are between what A & B were TWENTY YEARS AGO?? If so, then what's your point?



So in conclusion temperature is going up with URBAN HEAT taken out.

And I suggest you have a read of climateaudit, which does appear to try and provide a scientific analysis of these UHI 'adjustments'. Adjusting Wellington, New Zealand for UHI by using data points from the Chatham Islands is something I find amusing.

It is not as fast as we once thought, but it is still rising, and especially over the last 20 years.
Well, according to GISS it is. UAH (by the way, data set for that is HERE (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2) had an anomoly of +0.089 in May 1988, and now has an anomoly of -0.180 in May 2008, suggesting net cooling in the last 20 years. Again, as plotted on my graph above.

And they don't have to make up some algorithms to "take URBAN HEAT out", because they use a satellite data set (lower troposphere).

brennan
Jun 29, 2008, 05:03 PM
Hmm and in May 2007 it was 0.199, suggesting net warming.

Or maybe that's a really dumb way of coming to a conclusion...

ainwood
Aug 11, 2008, 03:01 PM
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

Grace monitors tiny month-to-month changes in Earth's gravity field caused primarily by the movement of water in Earth's land, ocean, ice and atmosphere reservoirs. As such it can infer changes in the weight of columns of ocean water. In contrast, the pressure gauges installed on the sea floor in 2005-2006 directly measured water pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Gauge data were remotely recovered during the first year of the study.

"The close agreement between the North Pole pressure gauges and Grace data demonstrates Grace's potential for tracking world ocean circulation," said study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado, Boulder.

"Satellite altimeters, such as NASA's Jason, are ideal for studying ocean circulation but can't be used at Earth's poles due to ice cover," said study co-author Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Our results show Grace can be a powerful tool for tracking changes in the distribution of mass in the Arctic Ocean, as well as its circulation."

Grace is a partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The University of Texas Center for Space Research, Austin, has overall mission responsibility. JPL developed the twin satellites. DLR provided the launch, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, operates Grace. For more on Grace: http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/ .

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Other media contacts for this study include: Peter West, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Va., 703-292-7761, pwest@nsf.gov ; and Jim Scott, University of Colorado, 303-492-3114, Jim.Scott@colorado.edu .

JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

Simple Simon
Aug 12, 2008, 03:06 AM
Interesting. I do not know how warranted this assumption is:
The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.I'll have to read up on that methods - maybe there are alternative interpretations? Something consistent with older models, or maybe something totally new (scary thought ;)). But if this is really correct, it means we have better understanding of how Arctic circulation works just round the corner :)

Ayatollah So
Aug 14, 2008, 07:50 PM
Has anyone else seen this commentary (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf) from Physics Today, March '08?

Can anyone explain "complexity matching" to me? I get the concept of a time constant of 7.5 years for the earth's climate to respond to solar variations. But I don't see why complexity matching is mentioned (to prove that solar flux is an important driver of climate? isn't that a no-brainer?).

Tyrus888
Aug 15, 2008, 11:04 AM
Here are 3 graphs of temperature change over the last 127 years on earth.

Grey is unknown.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/2008-06maps.gif

As you can see, the world does show a overall rise in temperatures.

LOL. Your 3 graphs showing an overall rise in temperatures from 1880 to 2006. Since the Earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age that occurred from 1370 thru the middle of the 19th century, should not the temperature trend in the ensuing decades naturally be that of Global warming. If not, we would still be in the deadly ice age that caused mass starvation in many regions of the world during the period of the Little Ice Age.

The Medieval Warm Period preceded the Little Ice Age, wherein; we had an explosion in population in all northern climates. During this period, Norway and Sweden became world powers. The Vikings settled colonies on Greenland, including northern Greenland on the Canadian side. Chinese records from that period indicate they sailed over northern Canada indicating that the Artic had shrunk enough to allow passage of ships over North America. England became prime wine country. The Mongols became huge in numbers and swept into Eastern Europe and also conquered the Muslim lands in the Middle East.

The truth is, in warm temperatures, life thrives, in cold temperatures, food became scarcer, people become more immobile, and people die. During the rapid onset of the Little Ice Age, Greenland and North American Vikings settlements rapidly vanished, Sweden had to secede the territories they gained during the Medieval Warm Period due to rapidly declining population, the Mongol expansion halted and they rapidly declined in power, as did the European cities and states while the Muslims grew in power once again. Back then, no army wanted to march in freezing temperatures while armies in warmer climates, such as the middle east and further south, were more than willing to march into battles.So showing us maps of global warming during a natural cyclical warming of the Earth is pointless.

If you are trying to tell us that the Earth Warms Up when the Earth warms up, I believe we are already fully aware that is true.Prior to the Medieval warm, there was a cold period we know as the Dark Ages that lasted for several hundred years. Prior to this cold period was the Roman Warm Period. During the Roman Warm Period the barbarians north of the Roman empire grew rapidly in population, so much so that they were inspired to expand into Roman Territories, leading to many armed conflicts with the Roman armies. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than our current warm period. The Roman warm period was warmer and much longer than the Medieval Warm Period.

The debate today is about what causes Global warming. Alarmists (control freaks who want be the ones to make laws in order to run everybody else’s lives (i.e. democrats, liberals, socialists...)) try to make the claim that humans are the cause of the current Global Warming. Anybody who ever saw the Broadway Play or Movie "The Music Man" knows well how this works. You create a life threatening problem where one does not exist in order to make the now scared and concerned (but stupid) citizens to rally behind you, vote for you, and submit to your supposed authority as well as your phony fabricated solutions. It's a common scam, just like social security was a scam on the public by FDR.

So, Al Gore and his fellow democrats, liberals, and socialists (Including the Liberal media) are pulling this scam on the American people. It is a political ploy for grabbing power. Al Gore claims that humans are putting far too much CO2 in the air and that CO2 is the cause of global warming. This is far from the truth. To Begin with, CO2 is not a very good molecule for warming up the Earth. And the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has not increased very much in the past two hundred years to have any effect on Global Temperatures. CO2 is necessary for plant growth.

On the other hand. Methane would be an enormously more effective molecule for producing Global Warming, and methane output has increased in the past few hundred years, but rainfall does a great job of removing Methane from the atmosphere. Methane cannot increase in our atmosphere in any significant amounts.

Scientifically, we know quite well that Global temperatures are very sensitivity to the output of radiation from the sun. The Sun radiation was larger during the Medieval Warm Period. Radiation from the Sun decreased very significantly during the Little Ice Age, and has since increased significantly in the twentieth century. Global warming during this period not only increased on Earth, but on other planets as well.

Contrary to the claims of Al Gore and his liberal democrat and socialist’s supporters, people activity has nothing to do with Global Warming. However, it is has been a clever political ploy for Gore, the democrats, liberals et. Al. It is a no lose situation for them. If the Earth cools, they will claim they stopped Global Warming - that very Global warming that was about to wipe out humans from this planet had they not taken control of things,"WE DID IT, BUT YOU MUST KEEP US IN POWER TO PREVENT FROM EVER THREATENING HUMANITY AGAIN" If Global Warming continues to increase, these negative nabobs of negativism will claim: "We told you this would happen, we have to do more to stop it. We are working hard on this problem for you and together we will succeed. For the sake of your children, future generations, YOU must keep us in power or all will be lost and all humanity and the earth will be destroyed."

Tyrus888
Aug 15, 2008, 11:06 AM
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."


The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."


According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... ."

Ammar
Aug 15, 2008, 01:02 PM
Don't you just love people like that?

Who feel they are terribly clever in recognizing all those evil lies of the liberal media and then posting a bold assertion of completely unsourced "facts" probably copied from various blogs and websites without every checking the references just because they have a similar political stance?

Then posting gems like the following things.


And the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has not increased very much in the past two hundred years to have any effect on Global Temperatures.


So how much has it increased? Absolutely and in percent? Have you even bothered finding out?


CO2 is necessary for plant growth.


What? :confused: I am sure no one who believed that man-made GW might be true is aware of this *shocking* fact.

People like that also post stuff like this

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.


which is a flat-out lie.

This is just so perfectly pathetic. Can't you do better? Ainwood and some others manage, but I'd be quicker to denounce the crackpots on my side.

El_Machinae
Aug 15, 2008, 03:30 PM
Ainwood: It looks like they're predicting an increase in Arctic sea ice, doesn't it? So what are you going to say if sea ice continues to decline?

(Though it also explains why the sea ice was melting faster than predicted according AGW models).

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM


The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.

The first sentence of this article you quoted is false. Why didn't you spot that?

Tyrus888
Aug 15, 2008, 05:38 PM
Don't you just love people like that?

So how much has it increased? Absolutely and in percent? Have you even bothered finding out?.

The percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is approximately .03 %. The maximum claimed net increase by the alarmists is 30% increase during Earth's current global warming period, which mean it went from .023 % to .030 %. This maximum alledged change of .007% increase in CO2 is extremely minute and irrelevant to any warming of our atmosphere.

Now answer my two questions?

1. Why do YOU think that a .007 % increase in CO2 is having any impact on our global temperatures?

2. We had greater Global warming periods than this one. the last two were the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. What caused these two Global Warming Periods? Hint: Certainly not man caused CO2 increases. No factories, auto's, or coal plants back then.

People like that also post stuff like this


which is a flat-out lie.

This is just so perfectly pathetic. Can't you do better? Ainwood and some others manage, but I'd be quicker to denounce the crackpots on my side.

Ammar, these are baseless personal attacks that you make against me, or more precisely, they are ad hominem attacks.

You also dismiss my arguments, not with a sound refuting argument, but by the wave of your hand you summarily dismiss them and in so doing, my science sources also. This type of sophistry has a name. It is called pooh-poohing. To pooh-pooh an argument is to brush it aside without consderation, to dismiss it with a cavalier waive of the hand as unworthy of serious attention, and hoping others will follow your lead, which is exactly what you are attempting to do.

To resort to the tactic of pooh-poohing is to attempt to get what many consumer dreams about, to get something for nothing.

You should not resort to sophistical responses, they undermine your integrity and carry no weight in a debate. If you believe I'm in error, state precisely the facts that you believe support your view and that prove me wrong. I would respect you for it, and if I am wrong, I will have no problem changing my view and agree with you.


Peace,

Tyrus

Tyrus888
Aug 15, 2008, 05:49 PM
A friend of mine posted this recently. It may help some understand the true nature of the Global Warming Scare.


The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214868 ... torialPage

TTFN

Ayatollah So
Aug 15, 2008, 07:08 PM
Wow, are there any sources out there that don't have a really big axe to grind?

Here are a few questions that seem highly relevant: What is the likely net impact of increased water vapor, per unit concentration, both via cloud formation and direct IR absorption? What are the equilibrium water vapor changes that could be expected to result per degree C increase in global mean temp? Including distribution (presumably, large deserts will still be covered in very dry air). How detailed does a climate model have to be to get that stuff roughly right? How sensitive are the results to minor tweaks of the inputs (butterfly effect type stuff, but forget about where the hurricanes land - only pay attention to major variations, if any, in the predicted number of 'canes, metaphorically speaking)?

Non major-axe-grinding sources only, please.

Ammar
Aug 16, 2008, 08:29 AM
You also dismiss my arguments, not with a sound refuting argument, but by the wave of your hand you summarily dismiss them and in so doing, my science sources also.


Yes, that's because so far I am pretty inclined to believe that you are not worth really arguing with.

Point A)

You didn't give any "science sources". Post #153 contains no sources at all - just statements which you don't even bother up. Post #154 isn't a science source, it's a blog of some nobody. It's also a lie. Yes, the APS has sponsored a debate and Monckton has written a (not peer-reviewed) paper. But they did not change their statement on global warming. They have outright stated that they disagree with Monckton.

So

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change

is a lie, and you fell for it. This is pretty bad considering how smug your post was.

Point B)

Acting hurt because I attacked you is just weird considering your post basically painted all democrats and liberals as liars. If you can't take some heat then don't make posts like that. Should be a no-brainer.

Now to the parts of your post that actually include some content.


This maximum alledged change of .007% increase in CO2 is extremely minute and irrelevant to any warming of our atmosphere.


Unsupported assertion and really an argument from personal incredulity. There are enough example where small quantities of a substance can cause an considerable effect. Look at how little ozone is in the atmosphere and that certainly has an effect. A 30% percent increase is large.

The fact is that Co2 is estimated to makeup 9%-26% of the greenhouse effect, which makes Earth about 30 degrees K hotter than it would be without it. Now if you do the math (simplified of course) , a 30% increase in Co2 would then
cause warming by about 0.8 to about 2.3 degrees.

This doesn't include feedback effects and is not intended to prove that GW is caused by Co2, but it's enough to make you wonder why you think your numbers support your claim. You discredit yourself if you try to insinuate that the scientists ignore so basic a point as you try to make.

So do you dispute this number

Co2 is estimated to makeup 9%-26%

and if so have you any idea how scientists arrive at it and it what ways their estimation is flawed?


1. Why do YOU think that a .007 % increase in CO2 is having any impact on our global temperatures?


It's not a .007% increase, it's a 30% increase. You measure increases relative to the original amount or give it an absolute numbers - i.e. numbers of CO2 molecules. Otherwise explained above.


2. We had greater Global warming periods than this one. the last two were the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. What caused these two Global Warming Periods? Hint: Certainly not man caused CO2 increases. No factories, auto's, or coal plants back then.


Greater in what way? According to example the graph on Wikipedia we have about just topped the medieval warm period. Also the rate of change is pretty much unprecedented as far as we can reconstruct.

Besides, isn't it completely beside the point? No, prior warm periods were not caused by our CO2 output. But since CO2 is a greenhouse gas increasing the amounts of it in the atmosphere will still have an effect.

Consider the following analogy : a wife tells her husband that it's getting to hot in their house and that maybe they should turn down the heater. Man replies that when it got hotter last July it was caused by the sun - so it certaintly can't be the heater this time. Does his argument make sense to you?

BTW your last link doesn't work.

Tyrus888
Aug 16, 2008, 09:07 AM
Wow, are there any sources out there that don't have a really big axe to grind?

From your reference to those who "...have a really big axe to grind", You are obviously referring to the United Nations IPCC. We all know the great integrity of the delegates to the United Nations where the vaste majority of their members hate America, where many their peacekeepers routine commit crimes from smuggling to child sex, where their leadership has repeatedly been caught lining their own pockets with secret deals and bribes. Global Warming is just another grab for power and money for them. They are a bunch of Scam artists and Al Gore et. al. have jumped onto this scam wagon in an effort to milk power and control from it.

An excerpt from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353844,00.html

Can global warming’s vested interests close the deal on greenhouse gas regulation before the public wises up to their scam?

A new study indicates alarmist concern and a need to explain away the lack of actual global warming. Researchers belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in Nature (May 1) that after adjusting their climate model to reflect actual sea surface temperatures of the last 50 years, "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations … temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

You got that? IPCC researchers project no global warming over the next decade because of Mother Nature. Although the result seems stunning in that it came from IPCC scientists who have always been in the tank for manmade global warming, it’s not really surprising since the notion of manmade climate change has never lived up to its billing.

When NASA’s James Hansen sounded the alarm in Congress 20 years ago, he predicted that rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, would drive global temperatures higher by 0.34 degrees Celsius during the 1990s. But surface temperatures increased during that decade by only 0.11 degrees Celsius and lower atmosphere temperatures actually decreased.

For more on Global Warming alarmists James Hansen's errors and lame excuses, from a 1998 article evaluating Hansen's failed global warming predictions for the 1990's:

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/michreviews.html

An excerpt:

NASA scientist James E. Hansen lit the Bonfire of the Greenhouse Vanities. Testifying to a joint House and Senate committee, he argued there was "a strong cause and effect relationship between the current climate"--then a blistering drought--"and human alteration of the atmosphere."

His accompanying paper, published in Geophysical Research Letters, predicted a 0.34 degree Celsius rise in average global temperatures in the succeeding decade.

By all measures of global temperature--and we have three--Mr. Hansen's forecast was a bust. Temperatures on the ground rose a mere 0.11 degrees C during the decade, while temperatures of the lower atmosphere measured by satellites and weather balloons actually declined--by 0.24 degrees C and 0.36 degrees C respectively.

In a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mr. Hansen explains why he was wrong: The planet is getting greener and consuming carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse warming gas, at a rate far exceeding what he and the other climate modelers predicted a mere 10 years ago. In fact, the observed changes in carbon dioxide levels are below the lowest scenarios thought to be reasonable by none other than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--otherwise known as the "consensus of 2,500 scientists" of whom Vice President Al Gore is fond of marshaling in support of his position on the issue.

If manmade CO2 emmisions are causing Global Warming, how did we get the coldest winter since record keeping began in the 19th century, when the alarmists claim that CO2 is currently too high and rising? Could it be that it is really the Sun's radiation variations is THE OVERIDING FACTOR in determining Earth's atmospheric temperatures. Scientific observations say yes to this question, as I referenced in an above post.

BTW, scientists can't predict next weeks weather accurately, you really think they can acurrately predict temperatures over the next 100 years. Hansen's CO2 predictions were dead wrong.

In the 1970's, the liberal media was quoting scientists that we were heading toward an Ice Age, caused humans use of aerosols. Also in 1970's, The liberal Media touted scientific studies indicating that there were 'limits to growth' and that the rate of human population growth would lead to a giant shortage of natural resources and mass starvation by the year 2000.

In 1975, US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report, wisely issued the following statement: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

They should have stuck with this truth, instead:

The Global Warming discussion started in hearings by Al Gore while he was a senator. He needed a headline issue. Scientists who supported Global Warming in his hearings were voted funds to research it. Scientists who criticized it were not invited to the hearings and were not voted any funds for their research. I am well aware of the funding effects on scientists, they submit to the wishes of the funder or else they should find a new livelyhood. When the issue is political, the pressure is enormous. Scientists are quite willing to bend their observations and reinterpret their findings if it means keeping their jobs/funding. For those seeking political power, the Global warming must not only be real, but it must also be caused by humans, so that they can portray themselves as saviours of humankind (voters) while redirecting money and power to their key supporters. The liberal media has long supported and hyped those issues that ensure the election of liberal politicians, and the appointments of liberal ideologues, while dissing non-liberal ideas and research. These are the real issues of the Global Warming Scare.

Tyrus888
Aug 16, 2008, 10:21 AM
I belong to a private list of over a thousand scientists and the consensus is that though the reality is that Global warming has been occuring since the 1970's, however it is not human caused. That is, it is not caused by CO2 emissions made by humans.

I also know a local group of geologists who confided to me that All Gore's hypothesis is pure non-scientific nonsense, but they will not speak out publically because it could hurt their ability to make money.

Anyway, see http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm and you will see that over 19,000 scientists oppose the claims made by Al Gore et. al. re Global warming caused by Humans.

Of the 2,500 that gave their name to the UN report that Al Gore depends upon, many were not even scientists. Some were reviewers, editors, proofreaders, etc.. Several leading scientists whose name is on that report complained that in the final report, that the science was flawed, and that science facts against human caused Global Warming were deleted and that some conjecture on possible man made Global Warming was made to appear as fact. Some of the scientists asked to have their names removed from the report because the science was wrong, but the powers that be refused, claiming that they did work on the report and their names stay as contributors. At least one scientist sued to get his name off that report, and eventually succeeded.

The following is the cover letter to the Petition Project containing he aforementioned 19,000 plus signatures of scientists in opposition to

Letter from Frederick Seitz


Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Though Global warming is currently occuring, it is nowhere near the high temperatures of the meidival warm period, or even the warmer Roman Warm Period. During both warm periods humanity prospered, The plant Kingdom thrived due to better growing seasons and conditions.

The fear of water levels tragically rising worldwide is unwarranted. If the entire Artic Ice Cap melted, it would not add an inch to worldwide water levels. If all the Ice on Greenland melts, it will raise water levels worldwide, but not significantly.

The only part of the Antarctic ice that is melting is the ice over the water, and like the Artic Ocean, if this ice should all melt, it will not add one inch to sea level. As for the Ice over the Antartic Continent, the air temperatures have been steadily decreasing over the past few decades, but has gone back up a bit in the past few years. Measurements reveal that the Ice has been thickening over the Antartic land mass these past few decades.

The cause for the current Global Warming is due to sun activity. How do we know? Because we can measure the increase in radiation being put out by the sun (due primarily to increased sunspot activity) and we see the correlation in temperature change in the planets in our solar system. For instance, we know the recent little age correlates well with a corresponding decrease in the Sun's radiation. I do not think that human activity is effecting the temperatures on other planets :).

Why the Al Gore Global warming scare? It's convenient politics. If any here are familiar with the Broadway Play and Movie, The Music Man, "... there is Trouble in River City. Trouble, Trouble, Trouble, Trouble ...."

knez
Aug 16, 2008, 11:29 AM
LOL. Your 3 graphs showing an overall rise in temperatures from 1880 to 2006. Since the Earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age that occurred from 1370 thru the middle of the 19th century, should not the temperature trend in the ensuing decades naturally be that of Global warming. If not, we would still be in the deadly ice age that caused mass starvation in many regions of the world during the period of the Little Ice Age.

The Medieval Warm Period preceded the Little Ice Age, wherein; we had an explosion in population in all northern climates. During this period, Norway and Sweden became world powers. The Vikings settled colonies on Greenland, including northern Greenland on the Canadian side. Chinese records from that period indicate they sailed over northern Canada indicating that the Artic had shrunk enough to allow passage of ships over North America. England became prime wine country. The Mongols became huge in numbers and swept into Eastern Europe and also conquered the Muslim lands in the Middle East.

The truth is, in warm temperatures, life thrives, in cold temperatures, food became scarcer, people become more immobile, and people die. During the rapid onset of the Little Ice Age, Greenland and North American Vikings settlements rapidly vanished, Sweden had to secede the territories they gained during the Medieval Warm Period due to rapidly declining population, the Mongol expansion halted and they rapidly declined in power, as did the European cities and states while the Muslims grew in power once again. Back then, no army wanted to march in freezing temperatures while armies in warmer climates, such as the middle east and further south, were more than willing to march into battles.So showing us maps of global warming during a natural cyclical warming of the Earth is pointless.

If you are trying to tell us that the Earth Warms Up when the Earth warms up, I believe we are already fully aware that is true.Prior to the Medieval warm, there was a cold period we know as the Dark Ages that lasted for several hundred years. Prior to this cold period was the Roman Warm Period. During the Roman Warm Period the barbarians north of the Roman empire grew rapidly in population, so much so that they were inspired to expand into Roman Territories, leading to many armed conflicts with the Roman armies. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than our current warm period. The Roman warm period was warmer and much longer than the Medieval Warm Period.

The debate today is about what causes Global warming. Alarmists (control freaks who want be the ones to make laws in order to run everybody else’s lives (i.e. democrats, liberals, socialists...)) try to make the claim that humans are the cause of the current Global Warming. Anybody who ever saw the Broadway Play or Movie "The Music Man" knows well how this works. You create a life threatening problem where one does not exist in order to make the now scared and concerned (but stupid) citizens to rally behind you, vote for you, and submit to your supposed authority as well as your phony fabricated solutions. It's a common scam, just like social security was a scam on the public by FDR.

So, Al Gore and his fellow democrats, liberals, and socialists (Including the Liberal media) are pulling this scam on the American people. It is a political ploy for grabbing power. Al Gore claims that humans are putting far too much CO2 in the air and that CO2 is the cause of global warming. This is far from the truth. To Begin with, CO2 is not a very good molecule for warming up the Earth. And the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has not increased very much in the past two hundred years to have any effect on Global Temperatures. CO2 is necessary for plant growth.

On the other hand. Methane would be an enormously more effective molecule for producing Global Warming, and methane output has increased in the past few hundred years, but rainfall does a great job of removing Methane from the atmosphere. Methane cannot increase in our atmosphere in any significant amounts.

Scientifically, we know quite well that Global temperatures are very sensitivity to the output of radiation from the sun. The Sun radiation was larger during the Medieval Warm Period. Radiation from the Sun decreased very significantly during the Little Ice Age, and has since increased significantly in the twentieth century. Global warming during this period not only increased on Earth, but on other planets as well.

Contrary to the claims of Al Gore and his liberal democrat and socialist’s supporters, people activity has nothing to do with Global Warming. However, it is has been a clever political ploy for Gore, the democrats, liberals et. Al. It is a no lose situation for them. If the Earth cools, they will claim they stopped Global Warming - that very Global warming that was about to wipe out humans from this planet had they not taken control of things,"WE DID IT, BUT YOU MUST KEEP US IN POWER TO PREVENT FROM EVER THREATENING HUMANITY AGAIN" If Global Warming continues to increase, these negative nabobs of negativism will claim: "We told you this would happen, we have to do more to stop it. We are working hard on this problem for you and together we will succeed. For the sake of your children, future generations, YOU must keep us in power or all will be lost and all humanity and the earth will be destroyed."

:bowdown:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

thousands years ago people would count number of sunspots to predict future weather conditions

at the begining of the 21. century, people are after tons of studies, papers, models, and decades of media hype about evil industry that is going to destroy us all, once more discovering that they actually aren't that important and that the best way to predict future weather is to watch the sun :crazyeye:

Thorbal
Aug 16, 2008, 06:02 PM
From your reference to those who "...have a really big axe to grind", You are obviously referring to the United Nations IPCC. We all know the great integrity of the delegates to the United Nations where the vaste majority of their members hate America, where many their peacekeepers routine commit crimes from smuggling to child sex, where their leadership has repeatedly been caught lining their own pockets with secret deals and bribes. Global Warming is just another grab for power and money for them. They are a bunch of Scam artists and Al Gore et. al. have jumped onto this scam wagon in an effort to milk power and control from it.


Well, Tyrus88, you could really increase both your and your arguments credibility by not just posting stuff like the above, mainly consisting of personal attacks and/or political polemics, silly claims like "the vast majority hating America" and unverified (or unverifiable) sources or just articles copied from some newspaper/TV station/blog. What about some scientific sources instead of all this "evil [insert anything] conspiracy" talk?

Simple Simon
Aug 17, 2008, 05:05 AM
Tyrus, you spam, you copy&paste without ever bringing the slightest proof for the huge claims made - who pays you?

Let's talk about the first one:
The percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is approximately .03 %. The maximum claimed net increase by the alarmists is 30% increase during Earth's current global warming period, which mean it went from .023 % to .030 %. This maximum alledged change of .007% increase in CO2 is extremely minute and irrelevant to any warming of our atmosphere.

Do you know what solar radiation is? Can you explain it?
DO you know what the difference between visible light and infrared radiation is? Can you explain it?
Do you know what physical properties CO2 as a gas, and as a part of a gas mix has? Can you explain what these properties have to do with heat retention in the athmosphere?



I thought so, your answer to all this is 'No!'. let me give you a link that helps you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Your ignorance on these very basic principles and connections between CO2 and global warming make the rest of your posts irrelevant.

Ayatollah So
Aug 17, 2008, 05:48 AM
What are the equilibrium water vapor changes that could be expected to result per degree C increase in global mean temp? Including distribution (presumably, large deserts will still be covered in very dry air). How detailed does a climate model have to be to get that stuff roughly right?

A good start on the answers to my own questions seems to be given here (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/how-not-to-discuss-the-water-vapor-feedback/). Namely, relative humidity is expected to remain roughly constant, so the water vapor in the upper atmosphere (where it really matters for the heat balance) follows proportionally to the saturation curve. The answer to "how detailed" seems to be "not very"; many different models give that rough result.

Now - nature tends to abhor positive feedback loops (how many do you see?), which is one (anecdotal) reason that I am sceptical of alarmist claims.

The question I have is why we haven't seen the results of these feedback loops previously? The world has had higher CO2 concentrations before - if it did cause a positive feedback loop, then what was the negative influence that prevented the climate warming uncontrollably?

Positive feedback doesn't have to mean runaway positive feedback. The negative influence is simply that as Earth warms, IR emissions go up, reaching a new higher equilibrium temp. For example, using purely hypothetical numbers, suppose that you add enough CO2 to force Earth's temp up by 1 C (ignoring feedbacks). And suppose that for each 1 C increase, the water vapor increases enough to add 0.5 C additional greenhouse effect. Then, in response to the first 1 C, the water adds another 0.5 C, and then in response to that it adds another 0.25 C, etc., until the total net change is +2 C. In this example the total water vapor "climate sensitivity" effect would be to double the CO2-alone effect.

When I said "using purely hypothetical numbers," I lied. That water vapor's response approximately doubles the CO2-alone effect (or a bit more than doubles), is what my linked source guy says, above.

boarder
Aug 18, 2008, 01:55 PM
Hmmm just a couple of points, firstly could we please leave Al Gore out of this, it's well knowen that it was more a political movie then a scientific one. And if we want to come to a informed decision then only science will be able to achieve that.

Secondly on the Antarctic warming, as far as I can tell from peer reviewed papers, etc, Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273
This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895
The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3C over the last half-century".
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=91
While East Antartica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antartica is overall losing ice.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925424.700
This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/arctic-20070515.html

Thirdly, people saying the sun etc is to blame for the current warming trend.
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.
This is confirmed by direct satellite measurements that find no rising trend since 1978.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
Sunspot numbers which have leveled out since 1950.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png
The Max Planck Institute reconstruction that shows irradience has been steady since 1950.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/
Solar radio flux or flare activity which shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png

Some other studies I found interesting regarding the sun causing gw.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf...reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades".
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf...concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf...conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

I used to be a fence sitter until recently when I looked at all the arguments on both sides purely from a scientific view only and found that all the peer reviewed, published, scientific articles, papers etc say that the evidence is almost completely for AGW. Although no good scientist says its definetly the release of co2 thats causing GW there are very few absolutes in science, i.e Theory of gravity, relativity, evolution are all still theories yet one can say that they can fully believe in the science behind the theory and thats the conclusion I have came to with AGW, although not as strong as those I would put it around a 90% chance that co2 is contributing towards AGW.

But I would also like to add that if anyone has good peer reviewed material that says the opposite please post it as I am struggling to find any, and am kind of confused by the whole denial when the science behind it seems to be sound enough, but always willing to reconsider if I see evidence pointing to the contrary.

ainwood
Aug 18, 2008, 02:52 PM
Positive feedback doesn't have to mean runaway positive feedback. The negative influence is simply that as Earth warms, IR emissions go up, reaching a new higher equilibrium temp. For example, using purely hypothetical numbers, suppose that you add enough CO2 to force Earth's temp up by 1 C (ignoring feedbacks). And suppose that for each 1 C increase, the water vapor increases enough to add 0.5 C additional greenhouse effect. Then, in response to the first 1 C, the water adds another 0.5 C, and then in response to that it adds another 0.25 C, etc., until the total net change is +2 C. In this example the total water vapor "climate sensitivity" effect would be to double the CO2-alone effect.
You are describing negative feedback, where the response change is a smaller magnitude than the input change.

Simple Simon
Aug 19, 2008, 02:04 AM
You are describing negative feedback, where the response change is a smaller magnitude than the input change.

that's not what negative feedback is!

negative feedback means that the response change has the opposite algebraic sign as the input change, while for positive feedback it has the corresponding sign.

To use AS's example: negative feedback would be that when CO2 leads to higher temps (say, +1K), the feedback REDUCES the temp rise by producing cooling effects, say -0.5K, for a total temp rise of +0.5K)!

ainwood
Aug 19, 2008, 04:02 AM
that's not what negative feedback is!

negative feedback means that the response change has the opposite algebraic sign as the input change, while for positive feedback it has the corresponding sign.
And the opposite sign dampens the response, meaning that the overall response is smaller than would be expected without the feedback.


To use AS's example: negative feedback would be that when CO2 leads to higher temps (say, +1K), the feedback REDUCES the temp rise by producing cooling effects, say -0.5K, for a total temp rise of +0.5K)!
But the view of positive feedback dominated climate change is that (eg.) CO2 causes warming which melts ice which increases water vapour which increases warming which melts more ice etc - ie. a positive-feedback dominated, unstable system. The claims of a "tipping point" at which the positive feedback leads to runaway warming.

Simple Simon
Aug 19, 2008, 05:39 AM
And the opposite sign dampens the response, meaning that the overall response is smaller than would be expected without the feedback.

If that's what you meant I agree


But the view of positive feedback dominated climate change is that (eg.) CO2 causes warming which melts ice which increases water vapour which increases warming which melts more ice etc - ie. a positive-feedback dominated, unstable system. The claims of a "tipping point" at which the positive feedback leads to runaway warming.


Partly correct - but only partly. Obviously, the runaway effect need not be unlimited.

uppi
Aug 19, 2008, 02:38 PM
Partly correct - but only partly. Obviously, the runaway effect need not be unlimited.

No runaway effect is unlimited. Nature hates singularities.

El_Machinae
Aug 19, 2008, 04:55 PM
IMO, tipping point scenarios should really be examined because they're scary. I don't think the debate is really about tipping points, just on forced climate change. Of course, tipping points should be looked at because we want to see them well ahead of time.

ainwood
Nov 20, 2008, 12:00 PM
http://www.physorg.com/news146244148.html
Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon
A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.

As a result of global warming, soils are expected to release more carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, which, in turn, creates more warming. Climate models try to incorporate these increases of carbon dioxide from soils as the planet warms, but results vary greatly when realistic estimates of black carbon in soils are included in the predictions, the study found.

Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

The study quantified the amount of black carbon in 452 Australian soils across two savannas. Black carbon content varied widely, between zero and more than 80 percent, in soils across Australia.

"It's a mistake to look at soil as one blob of carbon," said Lehmann. "Rather, it has different chemical components with different characteristics. In this way, soil will interact differently to warming based on what's in it."

Right. So from this, they are suggesting that:
1.) Climate models haven't modelled this well (overestimated warming).
2.) That if all human emissions of CO2 were stopped overnight, this would reduce total CO2 emissions by < 10%.

Simple Simon
Nov 20, 2008, 12:57 PM
By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

I take it you are not a scientist?

Good. Cause if you base your opinions and hypotheses on such weak data, then you'd suck as a scientist.

Show the same thing for a wide variety of soils all over the world and we talk!

ainwood
Nov 20, 2008, 01:28 PM
I take it you are not a scientist?

Good. Cause if you base your opinions and hypotheses on such weak data, then you'd suck as a scientist.

Show the same thing for a wide variety of soils all over the world and we talk!
Instead of ad-hominems at me, why don't you take your concerns up with Cornell? Their study, not mine.

I'm sure they'll really appreciate your erudite comments.

Simple Simon
Nov 20, 2008, 01:52 PM
Instead of ad-hominems at me, why don't you take your concerns up with Cornell? Their study, not mine.

I'm sure they'll really appreciate your erudite comments.


they make a study, they get it reviewed, they get it published. Fine. They raise doubts, but do not make definitive claims. YOU, on the other hand, make such claims. Slight difference!

So I guess I am right on target when I criticize you. You are a GW apologist with brains, if ever I have seen one - one might actually believe you are the CEO of Exxon! So please use your brains for fair interpretations, not one-liners based on what you know is not a final result, but an initial study.


EDIT: sorry, I mis-read you post! Oops! I apologize! I read 'saying' instead of 'suggesting' My mistake!

El_Machinae
Nov 23, 2008, 05:20 AM
1.) Climate models haven't modelled this well (overestimated warming).
Yay! New data! I'm under the impression that we're mostly worried about frozen carbon, not savanna carbon. There was a good article in The Scientist last year about soil carbon, and its rate-of-release with warming.


2.) That if all human emissions of CO2 were stopped overnight, this would reduce total CO2 emissions by < 10%.

Ainwood! You're smarter than this! Why did you write this?

ainwood
Nov 23, 2008, 12:47 PM
Ainwood! You're smarter than this! Why did you write this?

Err.... I'm just posting the point from their study: They concluded (or mentioned at least) that releases of CO2 from soil were 10x greater than anthropogenic emissions.

Note that I read that there is something out-of-whack with the estimation of the CO2 balance, but IIRC, the balance was only about 30% out, and I don't recall soil emissions being assumed to be that high before.

Tyrus888
Nov 24, 2008, 06:55 AM
Well, Tyrus88, you could really increase both your and your arguments credibility by not just posting stuff like the above, mainly consisting of personal attacks and/or political polemics, silly claims like "the vast majority hating America" and unverified (or unverifiable) sources or just articles copied from some newspaper/TV station/blog. What about some scientific sources instead of all this "evil [insert anything] conspiracy" talk?

Yes your right, Thorbal. After all, George W, Bush has publically embraced the Global Warming scare, as had many other Republicans. My point was simply that this whole Global Warming charade is a grab for political power and control and is not science in action. I am proud that the US has recycling, curbs on air pollution, and of its' efforts to not be wasteful, but to make wise use of our resources.

There is a brown haze over a large portion of Asia primarily due to the fact that China has been, for many years, building new unfiltered coal plants at the rate of one every 3 days. We all heard about the air pollution in Beijing during last years' Olympics.

The US has not built a coal plant in over 20 years, yet the ones we have now have state of the art filtering of emmisions that eliminates nearly all of the known pollutants.

Tyrus888
Nov 24, 2008, 06:56 AM
Well, Tyrus88, you could really increase both your and your arguments credibility by not just posting stuff like the above, mainly consisting of personal attacks and/or political polemics, silly claims like "the vast majority hating America" and unverified (or unverifiable) sources or just articles copied from some newspaper/TV station/blog. What about some scientific sources instead of all this "evil [insert anything] conspiracy" talk?

Yes your right, Thorbal. After all, George W, Bush has publically embraced the Global Warming scare, as had many other Republicans. My point was simply that this whole Global Warming charade is a grab for political power and control and is not science in action. I am proud that the US has recycling, curbs on air pollution, and of its' efforts to not be wasteful, but to make wise use of our resources.

There is a brown haze over a large portion of Asia primarily due to the fact that China has been, for many years, building new unfiltered coal plants at the rate of one every 3 days. We all heard about the air pollution in Beijing during last years' Olympics.

The US has not built a coal plant in over 20 years, yet the ones we have now have state of the art filtering of emmisions that eliminates nearly all of the known pollutants.

BTW, I forgot my password, so I am now Tyrus888.

Tyrus888
Nov 24, 2008, 07:25 AM
Tyrus, you spam, you copy&paste without ever bringing the slightest proof for the huge claims made - who pays you?

Let's talk about the first one:


Do you know what solar radiation is? Can you explain it?
DO you know what the difference between visible light and infrared radiation is? Can you explain it?
Do you know what physical properties CO2 as a gas, and as a part of a gas mix has? Can you explain what these properties have to do with heat retention in the athmosphere?



I thought so, your answer to all this is 'No!'. let me give you a link that helps you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Your ignorance on these very basic principles and connections between CO2 and global warming make the rest of your posts irrelevant.

I am a physicist.

Global Warming fanatics like to scare people by truthfully saying (in a scary way) "Since the end of the last mini ice age, CO2 in our atmosphere has increased 30%." But they most often fail to mention that this 30 % increase in CO2 increased the presence of CO2 from .023 percent of our atmospheric gases to a mere .03% of our atmosphere.

Historically (& particularly prehistorically), the presence of CO2 in our atmosphere was significantly much higher than today and life thrived on our planet. It is Global cooling that has been historically deadly to life on our planet.

I would hope that the atmosphere would continue to warm up a bit as it did roughly from 1992 thrugh 2004, we would significantly benefit from that. But last year saw the biggest drop in global temperatures on record and this year is quite chilly so far. The cause was a drop in Solar emissions, and I read the pronostications by the atmospheric scientists is that the next decade or so ought to be on the cool side due to a predicted ongoing drop in Solar activity.

Take away the sun and you instantly get Ice Ball Earth, regardless of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

Please note, from: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html

"Farmers Need CO2. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32 percent across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:

Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20 and 50 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.

Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25 and 64 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.

Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10 to 55 percent at elevated CO2 levels.

Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18 to 75 percent under elevated CO2 conditions.

Legumes including peas, beans and soybeans post increased yields of between 28 and 46 percent when CO2 levels are increased.

Trees Need CO2. International research has demonstrated that trees also benefit from increased CO2 levels. In research from the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, doubling CO2 from current levels helped orange trees accumulate 2.8 times as much biomass in the first five years of the tests and yield 10 times as many oranges in the first two years of orange production. Other U.S. studies confirm these findings. For example:

Since 1890, high-altitude conifers in the Cascade Mountains of Washington have increased in mass approximately 60 percent from previous growth trends.

In New England, a study of 10 tree species showed an average growth enhancement of 24 percent from 1950 to 1980, a period when CO2 levels were rising.

European studies have also demonstrated that elevated CO2 levels benefit tree growth. For example:

Stands of Scotch pine in northern Finland have experienced growth increases of 15 to 43 percent since 1950.

Forest growth rates in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany, have increased 20 percent in the past 20 years."

As for your question "who pays you?" The local gas station gives me a 5 cent a gallon discount for posting this stuff here! :)

Actually, in September, I have succesfully made my way through Bankruptcy court, certain debts are forgiven, and I have an excellent chance of losing my home, very soon.

Best Wishes to all, always.

Simple Simon
Nov 24, 2008, 10:02 AM
The US has not built a coal plant in over 20 years, yet the ones we have now have state of the art filtering of emmisions that eliminates nearly all of the known pollutants.

Do you really believe that?

'Cause in fact the Shru(g)b government has made sure that it is not true :p Especially by telling the EPA to get off the back of those energy providers who illegally decided not to modernize their plants, and by lowering the standards to the fare-thee-well. 'Reconstruction? Nah, we're investing 75% of the plant's original value, but it's all just minor repairs. So we don't need to comply with all those rules.....'

I ain't lying, it's the published truth: the Shrub government has made sure that dirty plants can live longer, pollute more, and that law breakers are not being fined or sued. I can provide sources if you want them.

edit: will address your ninja-edit later. for now: if, as a physicist, you can't argue the issue better than trotting out totally stupid and useless strawmen of the 'farmers need CO2 kind, then you should actually sue your university. Cause they failed to teach you anything about science :lol:

El_Machinae
Nov 25, 2008, 03:06 PM
Err.... I'm just posting the point from their study: They concluded (or mentioned at least) that releases of CO2 from soil were 10x greater than anthropogenic emissions.

Note that I read that there is something out-of-whack with the estimation of the CO2 balance, but IIRC, the balance was only about 30% out, and I don't recall soil emissions being assumed to be that high before.

We've known for some time that human emissions only add to the yearly cycle by about ten percent each year. Of course, the concentration of CO2 is increasing, since we're adding ten percent to the amount that the entire planet breathes every year.

Thorbal
Nov 27, 2008, 08:42 AM
After all, George W, Bush has publically embraced the Global Warming scare, as had many other Republicans. My point was simply that this whole Global Warming charade is a grab for political power and control and is not science in action.

Hm, I think you may have a point there, but Id like to add something. The results from different insititutions, research groups etc are of course used by interest groups to further their own agendas. But that does not mean that the underlying "original" assumptions which are being referred to are wrong,faulty or designed to already contain a predetermined message/result in retrospect just because specific groups interpret them in a certain way. But it gets increasingly difficult to differentiate between "genuine" research and political "interpretation".
Just like the old discussion about "is religion inherently evil" - there have been many deaths in the name of religion. But that does not mean that religion is evil per se or that the teachings are wrong, just because it can be/was "misused".
I honestly dont know enough of the specific situation in the US, so I cant really comment on that.

Edit: regarding your following post. I have read some studies like that as well. But I have read others that hint that a lot of plants, while delivering increasing yields when the CO2 concentration rises, are already operating at "maximum capacity/CO2 tolerance", so to speak. They increase their production up to a certain point. After exceeding this plant-specific limit, they will descrease their production of biomass etc. drastically, possibly in a non-linear fashion. And they also say that there are more plants that will exceed that limit than plants who will benefit from it in the long run. Dont know how credible these studies are, but I wanted to add that there is no consensus reached yet. I think we have to wait for further reasearch in that regard.

Simple Simon
Nov 27, 2008, 01:15 PM
Take away the sun and you instantly get Ice Ball Earth, regardless of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

The earth is a geoid.
Moon orbits earth.
Water at room temperature is wet.

Ok, did any of these statements help the debate? You don't think so?

Well, they are as useless and as true as yours. Cut the crap, please - what you say is nothing but a hidden strawman of solar-system proportions.

Please note, from: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html

"Farmers Need CO2. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32 percent across species. Controlled experiments have shown that:

Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20 and 50 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.

Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25 and 64 percent higher yields under elevated CO2 levels.

Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10 to 55 percent at elevated CO2 levels.

Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18 to 75 percent under elevated CO2 conditions.

Legumes including peas, beans and soybeans post increased yields of between 28 and 46 percent when CO2 levels are increased.

Trees Need CO2. International research has demonstrated that trees also benefit from increased CO2 levels. In research from the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, doubling CO2 from current levels helped orange trees accumulate 2.8 times as much biomass in the first five years of the tests and yield 10 times as many oranges in the first two years of orange production. Other U.S. studies confirm these findings. For example:

Since 1890, high-altitude conifers in the Cascade Mountains of Washington have increased in mass approximately 60 percent from previous growth trends.

In New England, a study of 10 tree species showed an average growth enhancement of 24 percent from 1950 to 1980, a period when CO2 levels were rising.

European studies have also demonstrated that elevated CO2 levels benefit tree growth. For example:

Stands of Scotch pine in northern Finland have experienced growth increases of 15 to 43 percent since 1950.

Forest growth rates in Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany, have increased 20 percent in the past 20 years."



Nice. There's just one very little problem here. Tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny..... you do not provide links to any of these studies. So I can't check them out.


Gut suspicion: increases grwoth of trees is more influences by cleaner air and water than by CO2 levels. Also, higher temps may play a role (less freezing). Studies on grains: all I have seen that cite such enormous increases are - guess what? greenhouse tests. With enromously increased CO2 levels. Usually, such studies are - and I hate to say it - nothing but industry paid excuses: made for blowing smoke!


Hope you can keep your home! :)

by the way, NCPA is a conservative think tank that apparently got a load of money from companies like Exxon. Do you really think they tell the unblemished truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

Spitefire
Nov 27, 2008, 02:10 PM
I dont know if anyone has said it yet but The GISS (part of NASA) was caught recently putting out false climate data.

ainwood
Nov 27, 2008, 05:47 PM
by the way, NCPA is a conservative think tank that apparently got a load of money from companies like Exxon. Do you really think they tell the unblemished truth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
Right. Because its only the "good guys" on the "global warming is real and catasptrophic" side of the debate that have ethics.

Simple Simon
Nov 28, 2008, 01:25 AM
Right. Because its only the "good guys" on the "global warming is real and catasptrophic" side of the debate that have ethics.

why the aggressive hackery?

FACT is that a scientist can make his living by investigating GW whether it is truely manmade or not, and whatever his findings are.
FACT also is that oil, gas and coal producers have a vested interest in GW not being manmade. Much as Big Tobacco has avested interest in smoking not causing cancer. Much as pharmaceutical producers have a vested interest in their products not causing harm.

FACT also is that conservative think tanks have repeatedly been used by such interest groups to blow smoke, tell outright lies about and lobby for their products.


There is a consistent pattern, and NCPA follows it on its website with the absurd claim that CO2 is not a pollutant (it is the amount, not the substance per se), of denial of facts and strawman argumentation.

So we have one side that usually lies, misrepresents and has a commercial interest, and one side that simply may be in error. Which one to believe?


btw: you still have not shown how massive deforestation and increased turnover result in net sequestration of CO2 in plants. Yes, turnover is up, yes, CO2 is going somewhere. But turnover is not sequestration, and deforetation and denudation are massive.

Thorbal
Nov 28, 2008, 03:45 AM
why the aggressive hackery?

FACT is that a scientist can make his living by investigating GW whether it is truely manmade or not, and whatever his findings are.
FACT also is that oil, gas and coal producers have a vested interest in GW not being manmade. Much as Big Tobacco has avested interest in smoking not causing cancer. Much as pharmaceutical producers have a vested interest in their products not causing harm.

FACT also is that conservative think tanks have repeatedly been used by such interest groups to blow smoke, tell outright lies about and lobby for their products.


There is a consistent pattern, and NCPA follows it on its website with the absurd claim that CO2 is not a pollutant (it is the amount, not the substance per se), of denial of facts and strawman argumentation.

So we have one side that usually lies, misrepresents and has a commercial interest, and one side that simply may be in error. Which one to believe?


btw: you still have not shown how massive deforestation and increased turnover result in net sequestration of CO2 in plants. Yes, turnover is up, yes, CO2 is going somewhere. But turnover is not sequestration, and deforetation and denudation are massive.

While I heavily lean towards the "climate change is real" (man made) camp, I think ainwood does have a point. As research for alternative energies and the like receives increased funding, it is indeed quite (increasingly) likely that a lot of institutes/scientists develop vested interests of their own as well by being heavily predisposed towards the global warming discussion, just like the "big oil" side is as well. We have to be very careful here, although I tend to favour the "greens" because they offer more convincing arguments/data/etc. imho.
(Although I have to admit, even if the environmentalists WERE wrong in their interpretation of climate change or the role of CO2, Id still prefer them. Energy efficiency and careful management of resources can never hurt.)

@spitefire: Ive heard something about that as well. But were they deliberately putting up false data or was it just an oversight/error? Difficult to assess.

Simple Simon
Nov 28, 2008, 05:11 AM
While I heavily lean towards the "climate change is real" (man made) camp, I think ainwood does have a point. As research for alternative energies and the like receives increased funding, it is indeed quite (increasingly) likely that a lot of institutes/scientists develop vested interests of their own as well by being heavily predisposed towards the global warming discussion, just like the "big oil" side is as well. We have to be very careful here, although I tend to favour the "greens" because they offer more convincing arguments/data/etc. imho.
(Although I have to admit, even if the environmentalists WERE wrong in their interpretation of climate change or the role of CO2, Id still prefer them. Energy efficiency and careful management of resources can never hurt.)


All very true! However, there is still a slight difference between simply saying "that's not true, f--- off!" and proving that one has a workable solution to a problem. Therefore, I think that when in doubt I will be mor elikely to believe the greens with an interest than the old-time polluters, simply because they have to live up to a higher standard of proof anyways.

ainwood
Nov 28, 2008, 08:54 PM
why the aggressive hackery?
Aggressive partisan hackery?

Somewhat ironic from the guy who repeatedly uses ad-hominems to attack anything that he disagrees with.


FACT is that a scientist can make his living by investigating GW whether it is truely manmade or not, and whatever his findings are.
Yep. But if it is determined that its either a.) no big deal or b.) not man-made, then a lot of that funding dries-up overnight. So if you're going to accuse oil & gas producers of this type of unethical bias, then maybe you want to look at the other side, because they've got a vested interest also. In fact, I would argue more so.


FACT also is that oil, gas and coal producers have a vested interest in GW not being manmade. Much as Big Tobacco has avested interest in smoking not causing cancer. Much as pharmaceutical producers have a vested interest in their products not causing harm.

FACT: so do all the IPCC researchers.



FACT also is that conservative think tanks have repeatedly been used by such interest groups to blow smoke, tell outright lies about and lobby for their products.

FACT: Most major oil companies now have goals of reducing greenhouse gasses more than most governments.

There is a consistent pattern, and NCPA follows it on its website with the absurd claim that CO2 is not a pollutant (it is the amount, not the substance per se), of denial of facts and strawman argumentation.

You're the one criticising strawman arguments?


So we have one side that usually lies, misrepresents and has a commercial interest, and one side that simply may be in error. Which one to believe?

Simply in error? Or sticking its head in the sand about things like data quality, and accuracy of models. And lies and misrepresentation? Ethical issues, right? Have a read about casper and the jesus paper (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html).



btw: you still have not shown how massive deforestation and increased turnover result in net sequestration of CO2 in plants. Yes, turnover is up, yes, CO2 is going somewhere. But turnover is not sequestration, and deforetation and denudation are massive.
Err.... When was I going to do this?

Merkinball
Nov 29, 2008, 02:23 PM
Gut suspicion: increases grwoth of trees is more influences by cleaner air and water than by CO2 levels. - Simple Simon

What? Are you aware of what the chemical reaction for photosynthesis is? It's amusing to watch you criticize a physicist for not being scientific.

Simple Simon
Nov 29, 2008, 03:48 PM
What? Are you aware of what the chemical reaction for photosynthesis is? It's amusing to watch you criticize a physicist for not being scientific.

Indeed - trees grow badly and die from polluted air and rain. News to you, hu?

So cleaning the pollution up, which is right in the time window discussed, means better tree growth.

Been in the mentioned Baden-Wurttemberg at that time, seen the dying forests. They be back now - no thanks to global warming, but thanks a lot to the lack of acid rain.

civ_king
Dec 02, 2008, 12:12 AM
I'm just as scared when we run low on Oil, think of how many plastic things you have in your life... ethanol jet fuel doesn't work so well, and so on.
Think of the human cost of climate change, we will have hundreds of millions of environment refugees. where will they all live and work...
BTW have you noticed tobacco companies and oil companies have a lot of lawyers in common? :)

Erik Mesoy
Dec 05, 2008, 12:08 AM
I think some reading of "The ad hominem fallacy fallacy." (http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html) may be in order.

Tyrus888
Dec 05, 2008, 10:54 AM
The earth is a geoid.
Moon orbits earth.
Water at room temperature is wet.

Ok, did any of these statements help the debate? You don't think so?

Well, they are as useless and as true as yours. Cut the crap, please - what you say is nothing but a hidden strawman of solar-system proportions.

There is a difference, my statement is on topic. I merely higlighted in an easy to understand manner that the Sun is the primary regulator of ALL of the planets temperatures. In a prior post I relayed how the ice ages and warm periods are closely alligned with decreases and increases in the output of the Sun's radiation.

However, you are correct in your admission that what you wrote is 'crap'!

Your reply is a known sophistry called 'pooh-poohing'.

To 'pooh-pooh' an argument or claim is to brush it aside without consideration, to dismiss it with a cavalier wave of a hand as unworthy of any serious or further discussion. Hoping that others will follow your lead.

Pooh-poohing an argument is not refuting the argument, but ignoring it. It is a refusal to enter into any serious discussion or to make any effort to show that the argument ought not be accepted for very specific reasons. This sophistry of Pooh-Poohing is all too common in these threads.

To resort to the tactic of pooh-poohing is an attempt to get what consumer's dream about, to get something for nothing.

Simple Simon
Dec 05, 2008, 01:54 PM
There is a difference, my statement is on topic. I merely higlighted in an easy to understand manner that the Sun is the primary regulator of ALL of the planets temperatures. In a prior post I relayed how the ice ages and warm periods are closely alligned with decreases and increases in the output of the Sun's radiation.

However, you are correct in your admission that what you wrote is 'crap'!

Your reply is a known sophistry called 'pooh-poohing'.

To 'pooh-pooh' an argument or claim is to brush it aside without consideration, to dismiss it with a cavalier wave of a hand as unworthy of any serious or further discussion. Hoping that others will follow your lead.

Pooh-poohing an argument is not refuting the argument, but ignoring it. It is a refusal to enter into any serious discussion or to make any effort to show that the argument ought not be accepted for very specific reasons. This sophistry of Pooh-Poohing is all too common in these threads.

To resort to the tactic of pooh-poohing is an attempt to get what consumer's dream about, to get something for nothing.

yadda yadda - fact is that you are not making an argument, you are rather pointing out something that has nothing to do with the debate, pretending it does. I ain't pooh-poohing anything, I am just pointing out that you use a strawman. A pretty dumb one, btw. :rolleyes:


care to address any of the rest of my post?

let me repeat:
- you offer no way to check what kind of studies you refer to (so you argue by appeal to authority without even naming the authority). Care to do so now?
- I express doubt based on my own experience. Care to answer?
- I offer an alternative explanation. Care to comment?

Merkinball
Dec 12, 2008, 02:43 PM
I have a question for the global warming crowd.

Now, everyone seems to push increased greenhouse gases as the fuel for global warming. Of particular interest is carbon dioxide...for whatever reason. Although Methane, CFC's, and other engines have also been fueling the so called "warming."

Now, since 1860, about the time of the warming, humanity has been increasing our output of such gases. And interestingly enough, our pollution use fossil fuels, output of methane, and for a period of that time, CFC's, all increased exponentially. Of particular interest to me is our use of fossil fuels.

Also to take into consideration, we have destroyed our oceans, and deforested the globe at an exponential rate as well.

In this thread, numerous individuals have pointed out that we should be causing a number of positive feedback loops as well. Such as the albedo feedback loop, reaching a tipping point where we'll release bazillions of tons of methane locked into permafrost right now, so on and so forth.

It's very strange to me you see. For a century and a half almost all of the driving forces of man-made global warming have been increasing exponentially. Yet, by all measures, the temperature on earth is increasing...linearly. We have numerous driven forces in our climate that...if you believe the global warming hype, are increasing at an exponential rate. Our increase this decade in CO2 emissions greatly, and by a wide margin, outpace our increases of the 1860's. But statistically speaking, the temperature AND CO2 increases through those same periods of time equate to a linear relationship.

With all the positive feedback loops (exponential relationships), exponentially driven CO2 output, drastic increases in methane and CFC's through the 1980's, we NEVER saw an exponential increase in temperature over this period of anthropogenic warming.

Why?

If you really believe all the riffraff in this thread, then please explain to me why temperature and CO2 levels have risen linearly since anthropogenic warming began.

Simple Simon
Dec 12, 2008, 04:05 PM
If you really believe all the riffraff in this thread, then please explain to me why temperature and CO2 levels have risen linearly since anthropogenic warming began.

The bolded word means that it is no use trying to explain anything to you at all, because you have made your mind up not to accept anything anyways.

Have a good day, Sir.

Ziggy Stardust
Dec 15, 2008, 04:54 AM
If you really believe all the riffraff in this thread, then please explain to me why temperature and CO2 levels have risen linearly since anthropogenic warming began.

http://theblake.us/blog/post_pics/warming.jpg

Linear. :rolleyes:

Simple Simon
Dec 15, 2008, 05:46 AM
Linear. :rolleyes:

Yeah, any exponential curve will be best approximated by a linear curve if you look at a small enough interval! ;)

Merkinball
Dec 15, 2008, 09:47 AM
Yup - 1910 - 2005 = same linear slope

The slope of 1910 - 1940 is probably steeper than 1975 - present

Impossible with exponential forcing functions and the dogma the global warming crowd produces.

Ziggy Stardust
Dec 15, 2008, 09:58 AM
Wow.
Yup - 1910 - 2005 = same linear slope

The slope of 1910 - 1940 is probably steeper than 1975 - present

Impossible with exponential forcing functions and the dogma the global warming crowd produces.1900 - 2005, not linear :eek:

In statistics you do not pick and choose from one favourite point to the next. You judge the whole data set. The graph is clearly not linear for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics.

edit: Which one of these trend lines covers the data best you think?

http://i35.tinypic.com/30de7bt.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/2ztklld.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/slqvkz.jpg

Simple Simon
Dec 15, 2008, 03:20 PM
Ziggy, he does have a point - a pointless one, but a point nonetheless: it is always possible that there is a kink in the curve. So if we had had a really truelly major CO2 outgassing or so in 1910, then splitting the data at that point would make sense.


So, merkinball, care to explain why you decide to split the dataset? any good reason or do you just WANT to see a linear curve so that you can argue it is not exponential?

Orange Seeds
Dec 15, 2008, 04:09 PM
I am a physicist.

Global Warming fanatics like to scare people by truthfully saying (in a scary way) "Since the end of the last mini ice age, CO2 in our atmosphere has increased 30%." But they most often fail to mention that this 30 % increase in CO2 increased the presence of CO2 from .023 percent of our atmospheric gases to a mere .03% of our atmosphere.

Historically (& particularly prehistorically), the presence of CO2 in our atmosphere was significantly much higher than today and life thrived on our planet. It is Global cooling that has been historically deadly to life on our planet.



when you consider that somewhere between 96-99% of gasses in the atmosphere do not absorb and emit radiation at any discernible level you'll realize that that 30% is significant.

Atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen
Green house gasses make up 1-5%(including water vapour)

this 1-5% manages to warm the Earth 33 degrees Celsius(according to my textbook!)
There is no disputing the green house effect(clear nights are colder than clouded ones)

btw CFCs actually reflect more radiation than they absorb and emit, so does sulfur dioxide. These are pollutants that help cool the Earth.

Just took a climate science course last semester and, as a naive philosophy student, i found little objectionable in the AGW theory.

Merkinball
Dec 16, 2008, 01:51 PM
In statistics you do not pick and choose from one favourite point to the next. You judge the whole data set. The graph is clearly not linear for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. - Ziggy Stardust

Oh really? So we're back into Engineering Statistics 331 or whatever the hell that useless class was? Fine. But ummmmmm...

Guess what you just did? ;)

Let's back it out a bit.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/n17.gif[img]

I dunno about you, but my statistical analysis seems to indicate that global temperatures fit two linear lines. One where global temperatures appear to remain flat, and one where global temperatures rise at a [I]similar linear rate. All driven by a clear and grossly exponential forcing function. That is not an exponential relationship, nor does it in any way correlate to the actual forcing function of the burning of fossil fuels. And if you back out farther, the exponential fit looks even worse. You did exactly what you complain to me about, but my point still holds.

Take a look at this. Here is the forcing function:

[img]http://www.quakerearthcare.org/Images/imagesforinterestgroups/CO2small.gif[img]

Look at the nominal increase in our use of fossil fuels. It doesn't fit into the temperature fit. Nor does it fit into actual CO2 concentrations. The equilibrium level of CO2 before the industrial age was what...250-280ppm depending on your source? Yet, the increase in CO2 is damn class to a linear relationship as well (and this varies depending on source). My recently published Introduction to Hydrogen Technology book states CO2 levels of 260ppm in 1860, 313ppm in 1960, and 375ppm in 2008 [Press, Santhanam, Miri, Bailey, Takasc]. I'm sorry, but the information doesn't fit.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't other factors to take into consideration, but it doesn't strike me as very scientific to link CO2 as the number one factor.

The other thing to take into consideration is that CO2 is considered to contribute 9% to the greenhouse effect. Without a greenhouse effect it is assumed that our planet would be what...-20 degrees C? Yet, with that greenhouse effect our ambient temperature is about 15 degrees C. A departure of some 35 degrees. Yet, the doubling of C02 hasn't even resulted in a degree of temperature change, and is about on par with similar natural upward variations in historic temperature data.

And again, we've been a decade of stagnant to cooling temperatures while CO2 output has continued to increase year, after year, after year. It keeps going up and up and up, but temperatures seem to have topped out.

La Nina you say? We're powerful enough to effect the entire planet, melt the ice caps, sink continents, but...our climate change can't overcome La Nina? Interesting...

Simple Simon
Dec 16, 2008, 03:40 PM
merkinball,
have you (I know you haven't!) taken natural fluctuation of the temp into account? You know, Milakovic cycles and such stuff? 'Cause if you want to see whether temp and COs (+ methane and consorts) correlate, then you need to compare the temp difference, not the absolute temp.

But I am sure a genius like you has done so! ;)[/sarcasm]


Seriously, do you really think that the world's experts on climate are such morons? Or do you believe ainwood's brainded idea that scientists actually have stock in GW? That 'careers would be ruined' if some guy tomorrow found that GW isn't AGW?

:lol:

The latter is the dumbest claim I have ever heard, and shows so much ignorance about science that I can scarcely believe it. So I assume you do not adhere to it. Therefore, I must conclude that you think the scientists are all so stupid that you can put your think cap on, call them names and - voil - find The Glaringly Obvious Flaw(tm)?



Let me pick one of your statements at random:
We're powerful enough to effect the entire planet, melt the ice caps, sink continents, but...our climate change can't overcome La Nina?Well, what's wrong with this?
You are clueless! I do not mean this as an insult, but I literally mean that you lack the clues necessary to understand why you are both correct and wrong - horribly wrong. Here it is: La Nina (and El Nino) are cyclic short-term effects. They have a short-term effect, and this effect overprints the signature over the very-long-term and per year weaker trend that is caused by AWG. So if you look at short term, e.g. a few years, or (if other factors weigh in, too) even a decade or two, you may see changes of the absolute value of temp that go down, while there is a long term up trend.

Think of this function:
y=sin(10*x)+0.0000000001*e^x)

- this is effectively an exponential function - but requires very large x to see that past the up and down of the sinus wave.
- for small x, the sine wave will result in an absolute increase-decrease-increase cyclicity.
Now think 'El Nino' = sin x, AGW = e^x and you get it.

As for icecaps etc: remember that the poles are far from the equator - what happens at one end need not happen at the other. Simply said, the arctic and antarctic are pretty much immune to the small cyclicities - ice caps tend to conserve themselves - but the underlying trend has a strong effect through positive feedback mechanisms (e.g. lower albedo).

uppi
Dec 16, 2008, 05:23 PM
Think of this function:
y=sin(10*x)+0.0000000001*x*x)

- this is effectively an exponential function

:crazyeye: You might want to look up what an exponential function actually is. Then you all can get back at trying to fit meaningless functions at meaningless data.

Ziggy Stardust
Dec 17, 2008, 01:02 AM
I see Merkinball decided to ignore the point of my post to go on many other tangents. And now there's 2 linear lines. I made one point. Ein. Uno. I have given up trying to teach colour to the blind. The one point I have made is: the linearity you speak of exists only in your head. That is it. The end.

Then you come up with this, to the answer which trendline covers the data best:

http://i40.tinypic.com/205qczq.jpg


Well then, in that case I propose there are 7 linear trendlines. :eek::lol:

http://i42.tinypic.com/jjqvmc.jpg


Merky, learn about trends first, then we'll talk some more. The other graph you posted? Also exponential. You can go out and find the graph with the smallest y-axis offset to make it look more linear. But that doesn't make it so.

edit: look what I made just by scaling and lining up your graphs:

http://i44.tinypic.com/24157iu.jpg

edit 2: Again, I am waiting for tests to finish. I'm so extremely bored I coloured the flattened CO2 line green and pasted it on the temperature graph.

http://i43.tinypic.com/29emc0n.jpg

Simple Simon
Dec 17, 2008, 04:04 AM
:crazyeye: You might want to look up what an exponential function actually is. Then you all can get back at trying to fit meaningless functions at meaningless data.


Oops!

sorry, that was a monster typo :lol:!

obviously, it was supposed to be a e to the power of x function!

ah, found the ^ now....

DOH!

Ayatollah So
Dec 17, 2008, 11:00 AM
The other thing to take into consideration is that CO2 is considered to contribute 9% to the greenhouse effect. Without a greenhouse effect it is assumed that our planet would be what...-20 degrees C? Yet, with that greenhouse effect our ambient temperature is about 15 degrees C. A departure of some 35 degrees. Yet, the doubling of C02 hasn't even resulted in a degree of temperature change, and is about on par with similar natural upward variations in historic temperature data.

So, what are you suggesting here? That the mainstream view would predict an increase of (9% * 35 C = ) 3 C? That's not correct (although coincidentally, once you figure in the feedback from increased water vapor, it's not far off). The effect of CO2 is saturated in some regions of the IR spectrum and relatively low in others. Here's a graph of total absorption of long wave IR by CO2 using various possible concentrations.
home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co205124.gif link to image (home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co205124.gif)

Merkinball
Dec 17, 2008, 01:04 PM
have you (I know you haven't!) taken natural fluctuation of the temp into account? You know, Milakovic cycles and such stuff? 'Cause if you want to see whether temp and COs (+ methane and consorts) correlate, then you need to compare the temp difference, not the absolute temp. - SimpleSimon

Sure, I've given you guys plenty of wiggle room here. I don't think I'm being unreasonable with..."natural fluctuations." Remember the part about how we can drastically change the worlds climate so much that we melt all the icecaps but cannot manage to overcome simple "natural fluctuations?"

Seriously, do you really think that the world's experts on climate are such morons? Or do you believe ainwood's brainded idea that scientists actually have stock in GW? That 'careers would be ruined' if some guy tomorrow found that GW isn't AGW? - Simon

Absolutely. I should know. I'm a part of the game. I'm taking a pair of alternative energy classes as we speak which have focused intensively on the actual science and chemistry behind global warming. The attitude taken in the different classes varies in a stark fashion. My one graduate level class is taught by someone who works in industry on Fuel Cells. She's got forty patents, a doctorate, so on and so forth, and she's extremely nonchalant about global warming science. Whereas, my other graduate level class which is a chemistry based class on hydrogen technology is taught by university professors. These are the folks that wrote the book I cited. The contrast between my Fuel Cell teacher and Intro to Hydro teachers (five of them) is stark. The professors clamor hand over fist to show how global warming is happening, and they tread backwards quite quickly if anybody asks questions. Their research, their lives, is rooted purely in global warming research. If global warming isn't happening, then they no longer have any research dollars. And just for the record, one of these professors is such an ardent supporter of global warming theory that he actually denied that the globe has not warmed since 1998.

Like I said, I'm playing the game. Getting my background in alternative energy systems so that I can profit from global warming dogma just like hundreds of others in Academia. There is literally billions and billions of dollars to forward global warming hype and come up with..."solutions." I might as well be apart of the pie right?

Well, what's wrong with this?
You are clueless! I do not mean this as an insult, but I literally mean that you lack the clues necessary to understand why you are both correct and wrong - horribly wrong. Here it is: La Nina (and El Nino) are cyclic short-term effects. They have a short-term effect, and this effect overprints the signature over the very-long-term and per year weaker trend that is caused by AWG. - Simon

Get a grip dude. I said it moderately with the tongue planted firmly on the cheek. However, in general, I believe that it is a question worth exploring, and is tied to the hip with the general thermal equilibrium of the planet. And again, I'm cool with giving variance to pacific decadal ocscillations. Maybe global warming doesn't effect such things. However, one thing worth considering is that such natural cycles could inevitably sway back towards a more measured thermal equilibrium position. Ever heard of global dimming?

Simply said, the arctic and antarctic are pretty much immune to the small cyclicities - ice caps tend to conserve themselves - but the underlying trend has a strong effect through positive feedback mechanisms (e.g. lower albedo). - Simple Simon

Actually, the opposite is true here. The icecaps are probably the most vulnerable of all climatological zones when it comes to maintaning equilibrium. In fact, this is a huge crux of global warming mantra. The ideology forwarded for many years is that the Arctic is far more susceptible to change than any other zone on earth.

And again, I spoke of Albedo earlier. And its just another example of why I am a skeptic when it comes to the doomsday projections spewed by Al Gore, Hansen, and their disengenuous chronically lying ilk. I noted a number of forcing functions which influence global warming, and all them have accelerated rapidly throughout the course of this century. I'm sorry, but over the course of this century, there is extremely little evidence that points to a cataclysmic end any time in the near future.

I see Merkinball decided to ignore the point of my post to go on many other tangents. - Ziggy

I didn't ignore the point of your post. I set a marker in the sand and changed the statistical game. You did the same thing. Oh, and you did it again. But anyhow, one of my points was that people play games with statistics to fit their own agenda. Which is why the frame of reference in those global warming graphs is constructed as such.

I am still waiting for an explanation as to way the rate of cooling in the first half of the 20th century was the same as the warming that occured in the last batch of warming. I'm sorry, but given all of the forcing functions which influence global temperature, all those factors and positive feedback loops that are regurgitated around here, there is no reasonable explanation for the rate of warming to be the same was what it was from 1905-1915.

So, what are you suggesting here? That the mainstream view would predict an increase of (9% * 35 C = ) 3 C? That's not correct (although coincidentally, once you figure in the feedback from increased water vapor, it's not far off). The effect of CO2 is saturated in some regions of the IR spectrum and relatively low in others. Here's a graph of total absorption of long wave IR by CO2 using various possible concentrations. - Ayatollah So

No, not really. All I'm merely suggesting is that we really don't understand what is taking place here, and that it is ridiculous to draw doomsday conclusions from the data that we have. I do not deny that global warming is occurring. Obviously that is the case. It would seem to me, however, that there are mechanisms in place which we do not fully understand that are hindering the advance of global warmth, and that drawing direct conclusions that increased C02 levels will inevitably lead to humanities demise are probably false.

Ziggy Stardust
Dec 17, 2008, 04:08 PM
I didn't ignore the point of your post. Yes you did, and you're about to do it for the 3rd time. You even avoided quoting it .... again.
I set a marker in the sand and changed the statistical game. Yes, you're playing games.
You did the same thing. Oh, and you did it again.No I didn't. And I notice you're avoiding commenting directly about it as the pest. Just sideremarks, nothing substancial.

But anyhow, one of my points was that people play games with statistics to fit their own agenda.Really? You don;t say :D
Which is why the frame of reference in those global warming graphs is constructed as such. Do you have any idea why the data goes back to 1860? Because that's when they started recording.

Here's what also happened around that time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization)

And more specifically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Industrial_Revolution)
I am still waiting for an explanation as to way the rate of cooling in the first half of the 20th century was the same as the warming that occured in the last batch of warming.It is irrelevant for deciding whether the increase is more exponential than linear through spotting trends.
I'm sorry, but given all of the forcing functions which influence global temperature, all those factors and positive feedback loops that are regurgitated around here, there is no reasonable explanation for the rate of warming to be the same was what it was from 1905-1915.Just watching you drone on about a 10 year period really is quite amusing. You know how important an increase over 10 years is when you are deciding on a trend which spans 150 years in a set of data so full of variables.

And yet you claim you see a linear trend based on selected intervals in existing data. I already showed you what the data would have to look like if it were a linear trend. You don't need a degree in rocketscience to recognise a linear trend.

I welcome Ainwood bringing up the credibility of scientists. I agree that there is no conclusive data in the theory of AGW. There's much to question. Much to doubt. We should be well careful with whatever steps we decide to take because of the possible consequences involved. But this is just redicilous.

I went out of my way to show you what kind of trends you might be proposing. And I am by no means a statistical wizard, so I'm not saying I speak from authority. I could very well be wrong. Only thing is, I remain unconvinced. Please, maybe it would clear things up tremendously if you could show me how you figure the characteristic of the change in temperature is linear since 1860.

Draw a line or something. :)

ainwood
Dec 17, 2008, 04:37 PM
Seriously, do you really think that the world's experts on climate are such morons? Or do you believe ainwood's brainded idea that scientists actually have stock in GW? That 'careers would be ruined' if some guy tomorrow found that GW isn't AGW?


I welcome Ainwood bringing up the credibility of scientists. I agree that there is no conclusive data in the theory of AGW. There's much to question. Much to doubt. We should be well careful with whatever steps we decide to take because of the possible consequences involved. But this is just redicilous.


Lets be clear: Context is everything. Simple Simon likes to sow the seeds of doubt that anyone questioning global warming who has any links to the oil industry is tainted, in that they are paid to obfuscate data and research to please their masters; that ethics and scientific method are out the window because the dollar rules all. My point is that the same argument can be made for many on the pro-AGW side of the argument as well: instead of their salaries being paid by the oil industry, they're paid by the taxpayer. But they both have their livelihoods at stake.

And as for obfuscations, failing to follow the scientific method, and the woeful inadequacies of the pretense of peer reviews, in my reading it appears to be the 'pro' camp that has the greatest failings.

El_Machinae
Dec 17, 2008, 05:18 PM
Other than that (personal) criticism, though, it's hard to deny that most of the obfuscation and bad objections have been coming from the anti-AGW camp, which (very much) seems to correlate with the 'anti-government' people.

Ziggy Stardust
Dec 18, 2008, 01:25 AM
Lets be clear: Context is everything. Simple Simon likes to sow the seeds of doubt that anyone questioning global warming who has any links to the oil industry is tainted, in that they are paid to obfuscate data and research to please their masters; that ethics and scientific method are out the window because the dollar rules all. My point is that the same argument can be made for many on the pro-AGW side of the argument as well: instead of their salaries being paid by the oil industry, they're paid by the taxpayer. But they both have their livelihoods at stake.

And as for obfuscations, failing to follow the scientific method, and the woeful inadequacies of the pretense of peer reviews, in my reading it appears to be the 'pro' camp that has the greatest failings.I was with you until that last part of the sentence. I know it's a subjective statement, but I feel it's one that is based on selectiveness in reading and perception. Quite hard to judge which side's judgement is more altered by personal stake. It's enough for me that both sides will be subject to that since research is done by human beings, not robots or computers. And I find the term pro-AGW camp a little misleading. About as misleading as the AGW-denial camp ;)

edit: The winky smiley has a severe case of attitude about it lately.

If there ever was one area where I hope all the evidence presented was misleading, it's this one. But I do feel that the evidence presented at least is a base for concern. And of all the shaky theories presented on what's happening with the temperature, the CO2 driven AGW is in my opinion still one of the most credible. More credible and more foundation than: sunspots, 1940 to 1960 disproves, 1998 disproves, the hilarious ice-age theory, Mars is warming too, water vapour, you name them.

Simple Simon
Dec 18, 2008, 09:48 AM
ainwood, here is Germany they say that 'dogs that you hit will bark'. I can hear you barking, clearly, thank you and good day.

Bllasae
Dec 19, 2008, 05:19 PM
99.5% human action. 0.5% the other thing. Imagine how clean everything would be if there were no factories, or cars.

Perfection
Dec 23, 2008, 07:51 PM
My theory:

http://i43.tinypic.com/izon79.png

Spam - warned.

Simple Simon
Dec 25, 2008, 03:19 PM
My theory:

http://i43.tinypic.com/izon79.png

Spam - warned.

Oh come on! We can use some levity, especially with that horrid Xmas theme that can be seen as an insult to all non-Christian posters. Or is perfection's interpretation of the chart uncomfortably close to what the likes of you like to do to data???

uppi
Dec 25, 2008, 06:03 PM
My theory:

http://i43.tinypic.com/izon79.png

Spam - warned.

Why was this considered spam? All the other "theories" in this thread aren't much better. :lol:

Knight-Dragon
Dec 25, 2008, 11:04 PM
Because it adds nothing to the discussion, as is typical of many of Perfy's posts, all over the forums.

Guys, if you have an moderating issue, pls PM and discuss with the mod in question instead of doing a PDMA post, which is frowned upon here. Thanks.

Perfection
Dec 26, 2008, 06:48 PM
All I'm tryin' to say here is that you're just kinda makin' stuff up and aren't really coming up with any rigorous trend analysis.

My graph was an attempt to say it with humor, which as I have been informed is too low of a punch for such a serious endeavor as The Scientific Global Warming Debate on the CivFanatics Civilization Fansite's forum.

My personal opinion is yeah, there's been a recent warming trend, yeah, we've been dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, yeah, they're probably related, but everyone who has tried to make predictions on this stuff has pretty much failed miserably and I sure as heck ain't gonna trust excel trendlines.

monidique
Dec 27, 2008, 06:36 AM
All I'm tryin' to say here is that you're just kinda
My personal opinion is yeah, there's been a recent warming trend, yeah, we've been dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, yeah, they're probably related, but everyone who has tried to make predictions on this stuff has pretty much failed miserably and I sure as heck ain't gonna trust excel trendlines.

Sure, but changing reasonably straight-forward graphs and inserting non-scientific garbage doesn't do much good for your argument, though.

uppi
Dec 27, 2008, 08:59 AM
Sure, but changing reasonably straight-forward graphs and inserting non-scientific garbage doesn't do much good for your argument, though.

Reasonably straight-forward graphs? :lol:
And the most of the other insertions weren't non-scientific garbage, why?

Perfection
Dec 28, 2008, 04:04 PM
Sure, but changing reasonably straight-forward graphs and inserting non-scientific garbage doesn't do much good for your argument, though.That's kinda my point. ;)

El_Machinae
Dec 30, 2008, 07:15 AM
All I'm tryin' to say here is that you're just kinda makin' stuff up and aren't really coming up with any rigorous trend analysis.


My impression is that the trends are well explained by a (?) eight-factor analysis.
Science. 2005 Jun 3;308(5727):1431-5. Epub 2005 Apr 28

Perfection
Dec 30, 2008, 07:48 AM
Have they run their model for years and proven it to work?

If they haven't then I accuse them of being full of crap.

uppi
Dec 30, 2008, 07:49 AM
My impression is that the trends are well explained by a (?) eight-factor analysis.
Science. 2005 Jun 3;308(5727):1431-5. Epub 2005 Apr 28

Something like that is what they should have come up with in the first place, if the discussion was "scientific" in any way.

But without all the non-scientific garbage, the thread would be far less entertaining :lol:

El_Machinae
Dec 30, 2008, 12:19 PM
Have they run their model for years and proven it to work?

If they haven't then I accuse them of being full of crap.

Well, a later article in PMC cites it to point out that other accusations of recent cooling are not supported by the evidence.

Perfection
Dec 30, 2008, 06:59 PM
That sounds like "no"

I should note that they might not be full of crap, but that you or a third party you listened to are misinterpreting them. In any case without predictive success, they aren't worthy of serious consideration as good models)

Spitefire
Dec 30, 2008, 10:47 PM
On october 20th of 2006 this report was put out http://ecoworld.com/blog/2006/10/20/greenlands-ice-melting-slowly/

In this artical it states that greenland was haveing a net lose of 27 cubic miles per year.

On December 25 of 2008 this report was put out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/24/AR2008122402174.html

In this artical it states that Greenland and the antarctic are haveing a net lose of 48 cubic miles per year.

If these articals are acurate it sounds to me like the melting is slowing down.

Perfection
Dec 30, 2008, 11:11 PM
Uh, why?

ainwood
Dec 31, 2008, 05:14 PM
I should note that they might not be full of crap, but that you or a third party you listened to are misinterpreting them. In any case without predictive success, they aren't worthy of serious consideration as good models)Which is why they call them "projections" and not "forecasts".

Perfection
Dec 31, 2008, 06:20 PM
Oh, I have no problem with Climate modelings and making these sorts of projections, that's all well and good. We need to be able get to the point where we can accurately model this stuff and having people try is an important part of getting there, but people need to realize that we're not there nor near there and that these projections are of extremely limited predictive value.

Simple Simon
Jan 01, 2009, 04:56 AM
Oh, I have no problem with Climate modelings and making these sorts of projections, that's all well and good. We need to be able get to the point where we can accurately model this stuff and having people try is an important part of getting there, but people need to realize that we're not there nor near there and that these projections are of extremely limited predictive value.

the projected values are, but the general trend isn't. We ain't gonna see no cooling, man :p

El_Machinae
Jan 01, 2009, 07:53 AM
I'm confused, Perfection. There have been predictions regarding warming for over 20 years now, and they've been heavily validated. More importantly, competing theories have been shown to be false.

What's your standard?

knez
Jan 01, 2009, 09:24 AM
I'm confused, Perfection. There have been predictions regarding warming for over 20 years now, and they've been heavily validated. More importantly, competing theories have been shown to be false.

What's your standard?

:eek::mischief::cooool::lol::rotfl:

El_Machinae
Jan 01, 2009, 09:51 AM
Ah, yes, I forgot that the northern ice isn't actually being reduced. Just like all the AGW deniers claimed.

Perfection
Jan 01, 2009, 11:12 AM
the projected values are, but the general trend isn't. We ain't gonna see no cooling, man :pWell, probably aren't... :p

I mean, I'm not saying the general trends aren't there, only that general trends make for pretty weaksauce arguments for finding the causative agents and the degree to which they cause problems.

I'm confused, Perfection. There have been predictions regarding warming for over 20 years now, and they've been heavily validated.Heavily validated? I'm going to need some proof of that. I haven't seen any evidence that any climate model has made repeated successful longterm predictions.

More importantly, competing theories have been shown to be false.That's far less important in my view, I don't think we can say that we've exhausted all possible models. Everyone else being wrong doesn't mean you're right.

What's your standard?Repeated successful longterm predictions and not lame ones like, "it's gonna get hotter".

El_Machinae
Jan 02, 2009, 09:08 AM
My mistake: the models I was talking about were the "If things get warmer, this is going to change", mostly done at the regional level.

At a global level, what're you going to expect other than "things are going to get warmer"? We know how much each forcing is contributing. We're discovering regional causes of climate change (as it interacts with increased warming), etc. The northern ice is melting, faster than predicted based solely on the warming, so additional factors are being uncovered. etc. What're you wanting, a detailed prediction for each location? That doesn't seem reasonable, at least not as a standard before which action is taken.

The prediction is warming. Then we look at each location to see what changes that warming will cause.

Perfection
Jan 02, 2009, 06:22 PM
Well, I'm not arguing inaction, I'm just saying that at this point the where, when, and how much questions of global warming hasn't been soundly answered by any model. We really just don't know.

El_Machinae
Jan 02, 2009, 10:14 PM
What type of model are you looking for? A model about what?

Perfection
Jan 02, 2009, 10:33 PM
lingerie model preferably but I'll settle for one that answers the where, when, and how much questions of global warming with predictive success. "It's getting warmer" simply ain't enough.

Ayatollah So
Jan 04, 2009, 03:05 PM
We know how much each forcing is contributing.

That is the key point right there. What remains in question is mostly (A) how much certain forcing factors (notably, albedo and the sun's output) will change in the future, and (B) what the time-constant is for changes to "settle in" (how long will it take the ocean to reach equilibrium CO2 concentration if we stop burning fossil fuels for example). But the spread of uncertainties for the economic consequences of business-as-usual pretty much ranges from bad to worse.

Forget the detailed computer models. They could all be totally off base, and it wouldn't change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR, nor the fact that our planet's temperature is ultimately determined by radiation exchange with the sun and space.

ainwood
Jan 04, 2009, 04:03 PM
We know how much each forcing is contributing.

The difference between the forcing attributed to CO2 between the 1997 & 2001 IPCC reports (IIRC) changed by more than the quoted margins of uncertainty. Suggests that they don't actually know the forcings.

Perfection
Jan 04, 2009, 04:34 PM
And those are just theoretical estimates, they're not being confirmed by empirical means.

El_Machinae
Jan 05, 2009, 08:20 AM
How do you know they're not being confirmed? Do you have access to a reporting system which tells you whether they're being confirmed or not?

The difference between the forcing attributed to CO2 between the 1997 & 2001 IPCC reports (IIRC) changed by more than the quoted margins of uncertainty. Suggests that they don't actually know the forcings.

Do you think the 2001 report will be confirmed in the next report?
Do you think that the peer-review process (which you believe to be corrupt, no?) will force this confirmation, regardless of the actual data?

Do you have any citations where people used the 2001 forcings in their predictions, and then got results showing the forcings to be wrong? Five years is a long time to have a massive set of predictions, ample time for testing (5 years for experiments, two years to get published).

The reports I've seen seem to deny alternate claims, and not the consensus.

ainwood
Jan 05, 2009, 03:22 PM
Do you think the 2001 report will be confirmed in the next report?

I simply don't know. How would I? I'm simply noting that in 1997, the sage and wise were quite happy making statements like yours that "we know the forcings" and then a few years later it was quite clear that they didn't. What's to say that they know them now?



Do you think that the peer-review process (which you believe to be corrupt, no?) will force this confirmation, regardless of the actual data?

No, I don't think it will. It will at best show that people have some sort of basis to estimate it, and it will have some uncertainty to that basis. It will show that someone else has reviewed the process, and thinks it is reasonable. That is all.

I don't think the peer review process is corrupt; I merely think it is inadequate, and far too much reliance is placed on it, in that it is claimed that if it has been peer-reviewed, then it is a fact that should not be questioned. IIRC, Michael Mann's original hockeystick was peer reviewed, by climate scientists and then published. Problem was, it was not strictly a climate-related issue: it was a statistics one. When a statistician reviewed it, he demolished it and demonstrated that his statistical models were so flawed that they would generate a hockeystick result with white-noise input data. It appears that with his latest version of the hockeystick, a form of principal components analysis has demonstrated that the majority of the shape is caused by a few key reconstructions, several of which are known to be dubious at best.

In addition to this, you have these climate scientists refusing to make their data public to allow their reconstructions to be replicated. Isn't the idea that people can attempt to replicate your results kind of key to the scientific method?



Do you have any citations where people used the 2001 forcings in their predictions, and then got results showing the forcings to be wrong? Five years is a long time to have a massive set of predictions, ample time for testing (5 years for experiments, two years to get published).

No. I haven't looked. Have you? Does appear to be a bit of a strawman....


The reports I've seen seem to deny alternate claims, and not the consensus.

What consensus?