So how real is this climate change thing?

But we're not seeing that in the places that are already warming! Warming is causing the mountain snowpack to melt completely, even if there's increased precipitation. This means that snowpack that historically contributed to summer rivers is now releasing its water more aggressively and thus drying out

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121460616/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

the link wont work for me. The Colorado no longer makes it to the Gulf but thats because we divert so much of it.

Regarding your second point, it's so far off from what I was discussing that I can't even address it. Once the current snowpack melts & flows into the water basin, it's only going to be there until the basin is used or it evaporates. It's not like melted snow causes there to be more fresh water in the years after it melted. Even it it fills an aquifer, that water is gone once used.

You said this:

And I don't think anyone thinks that melting ice will add to total freshwater volumes, once the ice is melting and put into the hydrological cycle.

Did you mean melting ice or mountain "snowpack"? The annual cycle of snowpack and melt is part of the hydro cycle and if a river doesn't reach the sea, thats fine by me. Its the ice that locks away fresh water that I'd like to free up. Most of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice, the world will be a better place if that ratio shrinks.
 
Did you mean melting ice or mountain "snowpack"? The annual cycle of snowpack and melt is part of the hydro cycle and if a river doesn't reach the sea, thats fine by me. Its the ice that locks away fresh water that I'd like to free up. Most of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice, the world will be a better place if that ratio shrinks.

Most of that is in (on) Greenland and Antarctica. If it melts it ceases to be fresh water. It very quickly becomes salt water. As for the ice that is in other places, he Rocky Mountain snow pack provides a very high amount of the water of the western US. If it melts too quickly the watershed and the Colorado river system cannot contain it, and it is then not available for human consumption.


Are We Running Out of Water?
Droughts and half-drained reservoirs raise an ominous question: Is America running out of water?
By Joseph K. Vetter


...


Another Dust Bowl?
In the West, it's long been understood that there will never be enough rain and that the solution is to make existing stocks of water go further. Western writer and environmentalist Wallace Stegner captured this fact of life eloquently: "Water," he wrote, "is the true wealth in a dry land."

One of the most vital sources of water in the region is Lake Mead, a vast reservoir some 25 miles east of Las Vegas that was created during the construction of Hoover Dam, a spectacular engineering project that tamed the mercurial Colorado River, brought hydroelectric power to a region considered uninhabitable without air-conditioning, and allowed the desert to bloom with everything from ranches to casinos. As the reservoir was formed, the remnants of an ancient Native American settlement, dubbed the Lost City, were submerged.

Lake Mead is part of the Colorado River system, which also includes Lake Powell, a second huge reservoir some 150 miles east, on the Utah-Arizona border. Fed by melting snow from the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado system is the main source of water for 30 million people in the Southwest. Millions more in California and Nevada rely on water from the Sierra Nevada. But a stretch of unusually dry years has driven levels in Mead and Powell to near-record lows. Today, as Lake Mead dries up, the ruins of the Pueblo Indians' Lost City have reemerged, an eerie emblem of the drought.

As in the Southeast, population growth is a hazard. During the 1990s, Nevada's population jumped by 66 percent, the fastest rate in the nation. Arizona was the second fastest, at 40 percent, with Utah and Colorado clocking in at 30 percent—more than twice the national average. This growth will likely continue at an even faster clip in the future. Nevada and Arizona alone are expected to double their populations by 2030.

There's another climatic player: global warming. Growing scientific evidence warns that climate change could render the Southwest's growth and development trends untenable.


Here's why: Unlike the Southeast, where most precipitation comes as spring and summer rainfall, in the West those months are written off as a dry season. "We get all of our water in the winter from frozen precipitation," says Underwood, the Nevada climatologist. The snowstorms that blanket the West's mountain ranges each winter form a thick snowpack. As that snow melts in the spring, it feeds streams and tributaries to replenish Lakes Powell and Mead and other, smaller reservoirs. The reservoirs draw down gradually through the warmer months, and the process begins again.

Timing is everything. "We want that snow to stay on the mountainside and melt nice and slow into our reservoirs," says Underwood. If warmer temperatures cause the snow to melt too soon or too fast, small reservoirs can't catch and hold the runoff. That means water that would ordinarily be saved for summer use is wasted. "You're losing part of your bank account," adds Fuchs. Worse, some of that precipitation may come in the form of rain, causing two problems: flooding and water that can't be stored. Early runoff isn't an issue for Powell and Mead, whose huge size allows them to store whatever water comes their way. But early springs and higher year-round temperatures cause other problems. More water is lost through evaporation, and a longer warm season increases demand on the system. "We're always worried about it warming up too quickly," says Underwood.


That's where climate change comes in. In recent decades, increasing temperatures in the West have led to more winter rain, less snow, earlier snowmelts, and higher evaporation rates—a cascade of bad news for the region’s water supply. Now a new study has confirmed what climatologists have long suspected. Analyzing 50 years of data, scientists at the University of California, San Diego, and elsewhere report that these changes have resulted mainly from human activity and are likely to intensify in the future. The researchers postulate that global warming is also responsible for the long-term drop in precipitation in the West, though this is less certain. In a second study, some of the same scientists estimated that if current climate and water-management trends continue, Lake Mead has a 50 percent chance of running dry by 2021.

"If the climate changes as projected, the West will have to make do with less water or find new sources," says study co-author David Pierce. Brian Fuchs goes further, raising the specter of "a new Dust Bowl" unless major changes in water use and management occur. This ominous historical reference is to the Depression-era drought that drove millions of Americans off their farms in Oklahoma and other Great Plains states—many of whom ended up, ironically, in California.

....
http://www.rd.com/your-america-insp...ricas-water-shortage-crisis/article55731.html
 
Most of that is in (on) Greenland and Antarctica. If it melts it ceases to be fresh water. It very quickly becomes salt water. As for the ice that is in other places, he Rocky Mountain snow pack provides a very high amount of the water of the western US. If it melts too quickly the watershed and the Colorado river system cannot contain it, and it is then not available for human consumption.

but the fresh water content induces higher evaporation rates from the oceans, thats how it became fresh water - snow/ice - in the first place.

Thx for the link. Was that EM's article? The problem is water management, if coastal cities were not robbing the Colorado (and built desalination plants) more water would be stored in western watersheds. Western droughts aint nothing new, the massive population is. Now if we were pumping ocean water into the Nevada Basin we might be able to turn the western Rockies into the Cascades where they get plenty of snow and rain ;)
 
If you read the whole article, it shows 2 trends. 1, increased use. 2 less water to begin with. Of course you cannot sustain both at once. But finding a substitute source of water would be massively expensive. Desalination is not cheap or efficient. And with the current trends even if people stop draining water from the Colorado, it's still possible for the water level to drop to the point where the river can't flow past the damns.

And I don't know which article EM was referring to. I knew of this one.
 
Hasnt the average global temperature actually gone down over the last two years though?
World's ocean temps are warmest on record

Warmest including 1998, a real anomalous spike. And, as you know, water has a much higher heat capacity than air. Finally, since sea ice is a temperature buffer (high transition heat capacity), it's sequestering more heat than an equivalent mass of water: something to keep in mind as it's melting away.
article said:
Meteorologists said there's a combination of forces at work: A natural El Nino system just getting started on top of worsening man-made carbon emissions tied to global warming, and a dash of random weather variations. The resulting ocean heat is already harming threatened coral reefs. It could also hasten the melting of Arctic sea ice and help hurricanes strengthen.

So, 'going down' doesn't really fit with 'brand new highs'. Almost as if the planet is warming.

the link wont work for me
Sorry. I guess the cookie has expired. It was an analysis showing that even with increased precipitation, warming meant that peaks are becoming snowless earlier and earlier.
Did you mean melting ice or mountain "snowpack"? The annual cycle of snowpack and melt is part of the hydro cycle and if a river doesn't reach the sea, thats fine by me. Its the ice that locks away fresh water that I'd like to free up. Most of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice, the world will be a better place if that ratio shrinks.
I mean melting ice. One the ice melts & flows & is utilized, it's gone. The melting ice does not mean more continuous water in the water cycle. Right now we have rivers that flow all summer and fall. Some of that is melting snowpack & some is melting ice. By melting all the ice (and getting their temporary boost in downstream aquifers (that are already overtapped), were going to get conditions where snowpack won't be sufficient to maintain summer river flows.
 
Nowhere did I claim: there were more articles about global warming, so it must be true. But it does show the complete and utter nonsense of the global cooling consensus claim.
Yes you did. You did it right here.

Check out Godwyn's pdf, page 9.

3 on warming, one on cooling from '65 to '69 in published articles

Citations, +/- 360 about warming, 60 about cooling from '65 to '69.

Yes, you were merely making reference to a post by Godwyn, but then that's the same thing everybody in this thread is doing, myself included. Godwyn, too, got all his data from somebody else. And that somebody else, in turn, got his data from somebody else.

Ziggy getting all blustery again said:
Precious when you were the one claiming there was a consensus, or at least a majority of scientists predicting cooling in the 60's and 70's when there simply wasn't. You are being debunked about your claim on that consensus. Another classic example of you, finding yourself cornered have to shift the focus.
You are a liar. The focus was on whether or not there was a consensus about global warming (at least, that's what you kept obsessing on), and I never shifted it. Was there a consensus on global warming? Yes. But what consensus was there? That's the problem--it changed over time.

Oh, and by the way, since you've forgotten again, I disagree with both consensi.

Is global warming happening? I am undecided.

Is global warming being caused by humans? I am undecided.

These are things that get completely lost in every thread within a week of my mentioning them. The planet is overdue for a severe cooling period lasting a hundred thousand years, but it's now unknown whether it will happen.

Edit: Whoops. Forgot something. No, Ziggy, I am not required to post any links to prove a consensus on global cooling. The temperature chart I posted earlier on in this thread is the only evidence needed. Without human involvement, the Earth WILL cool by four to eight degrees Celsius. If the human race reduces its emissions to zero, THIS WILL HAPPEN. That is one hundred percent verified fact. There is consensus on this RIGHT NOW. The thing we don't know is when it's going to happen. Some scientists say it should have happened already. It's possible human emissions prevented the next Ice Age from happening, but we don't know if it did.
 
"The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

-- Newsweek magazine, 1975

Here's the fun part: the above snippet is NOT from an article predicting global warming (but if I hadn't told you the article predicted global cooling, you would all have assumed it was about global warming). Ironic how the warning is the same despite the fact that the threat back then was precisely the opposite of what it is now. Fact is, the human race is merely looking around for stuff to worry about. One of these two Doomsday scenarios (warming or cooling) will happen eventually, and if you predict every possible Doomsday scenario, you're bound to be right purely by random chance.
 
To be clear, there's a difference between published research articles and popular press articles. If there was a consensus amongst the research articles, that's one thing. If there's another consensus amongst the popular press articles, that's not a problem with the research consensus.

This clarifies why a Newsweek article is not evidence of consensus.
 
No, I (or rather Godwyn) sunk your claim of any consensus about Global Cooling without making any statement myself.
Yes, you were merely making reference to a post by Godwyn, but then that's the same thing everybody in this thread is doing, myself included. Godwyn, too, got all his data from somebody else. And that somebody else, in turn, got his data from somebody else.
And you still fail to deliver ANY data about a consensus.

You are a liar. The focus was on whether or not there was a consensus about global warming
Funny that, I remember starting to participate in the thread when a consensus on Global Cooling was claimed.
(at least, that's what you kept obsessing on), and I never shifted it. Was there a consensus on global warming? Yes. But what consensus was there? That's the problem--it changed over time.

Oh, and by the way, since you've forgotten again, I disagree with both consensi.
The point you are determined to miss is, there never was a consensus on Global Cooling. Your opinion on it is irrelevant.
Originally Posted by BasketCase
Go back in time a few more years and you will find a consensus on global cooling.
Wrong.
Is global warming happening? I am undecided.

These are things that get completely lost in every thread within a week of my mentioning them. The planet is overdue for a severe cooling period lasting a hundred thousand years, but it's now unknown whether it will happen.
You say that, but I have shown you scientist do not believe this.

Edit: Whoops. Forgot something. No, Ziggy, I am not required to post any links to prove a consensus on global cooling.
You are when you claim:

Originally Posted by BasketCase
Go back in time a few more years and you will find a consensus on global cooling.

And it is contested

The temperature chart I posted earlier on in this thread is the only evidence needed. Without human involvement, the Earth WILL cool by four to eight degrees Celsius. If the human race reduces its emissions to zero, THIS WILL HAPPEN. That is one hundred percent verified fact. There is consensus on this RIGHT NOW. The thing we don't know is when it's going to happen. Some scientists say it should have happened already. It's possible human emissions prevented the next Ice Age from happening, but we don't know if it did.
I see what's happening here, you have no idea what a consensus means. That would explain quite a few posts. And you're also spectacularly wrong there.

And I just get an immense kick out of you posting a '75 article (from newsweek no less :lol: ) when you've been hammering on about the late 60's and blasting me about posting about the '70's.


By the way, ending on a agreeable note:
Is global warming being caused by humans? I am undecided.
I agree.

And chances are I agree on more things than you believe I do, since unfortunately it seems you believe I take leaps of faith which I do not. I already posted my take:
And the trouble with that kind of data is: not one of us I think has researched and obtained that data. It's quite hard evidence to go research for yourself, while the impact and relevance to our daily lives is quite obvious. We have to trust scientist (on both sides) to be honest to their profession and not be swayed by the now huge political interest and those organisations (on both sides) who benefit from smokescreening the issues. And frankly, we should expect better from everyone involved.

The issue I see with the discussion is not: is it happening (groovy!) or not. But how likely is it that it is happening? Anyone who tells you: "I am sure", is to be distrusted. The matter is one of risk assessment in my opinion. At stake are important factors on our very way of living. Both in preventing and in the effects of Global Warming.
 
No, I (or rather Godwyn) sunk your claim of any consensus about Global Cooling without making any statement myself.
Nope. Godwyn only referred to twelve articles. Skeptic magazine, all by itself, has made references than that. Meaning it's clear Godwyn missed more than a few. Which is no surprise--he's one person.

Godwyn never succeeded in refuting any of my claims. The claim that he did is, dare I say it, not true.

And you still fail to deliver ANY data about a consensus.
I have, several times in the past, on this and other message boards. Whenever I provide said proof, I get the same answer: somebody claims that my articles are the exceptions, that they are out of touch with the majority.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide two thousand documented sources.

The point you are determined to miss is, there never was a consensus on Global Cooling. Your opinion on it is irrelevant.
There are a lot of people on the Internet who say there was. And I trust them a lot more than I trust you. The reason I'm undecided about the issue is the fact that these two factions disagree with each other.

On the side (I am now moving on to another issue, try and keep up): there are yet other people who say that there is not a current consensus on global warming--they claim that all the global warming Bible thumpers cherry-picked those data and articles that support their opinion.

And I just get an immense kick out of you posting a '75 article (from newsweek no less ) when you've been hammering on about the late 60's and blasting me about posting about the '70's.
Yes, you did get a kick. In the butt. Newsweek claims there was a consensus on global cooling in the 70's, and unlike you, I am capable of handling multiple argument threads at the same time. Yes, I am arguing about consensus on global cooling in the 60's, and about consensus on global cooling in the 70's, and consensus on global warming in the 70's, AND consensus on global warming today. All at the same time. It's not my problem if somebody can't sort out the different lines of argument. :p
 
so 6 dissent but 600 agree...
that's good enough for me,

okay maybe it's not a TOTAL consensus
but then most of them agree
 
so 6 dissent but 600 agree...
A short list of people who were in that "6 dissent" group:

Copernicus
Roger Bacon
Albert Einstein
Nefertiti (one of the first womens' activists)
Claudette Colvin (think Rosa Parks)
Benjamin Franklin
Rosa Parks
Galileo
Martin Luther King
Gandhi
Thomas Jefferson

All of these people were part of various tiny minorities who challenged things that were accepted as fact in their time. Several of them suffered imprisonment, torture, or worse as a direct result.

And all of them turned out to be right.

You're up against hard numbers. Temperature data from multiple ice cores prove conclusively that the Earth is due (probably overdue) for a period of severe cooling. No matter how many people agree on something, hard evidence trumps them every time.

Just for kicks. You went 6 dissent, 600 agree. I'm going to raise the bet to 31,000. 31,000 American scientists have rejected conventional global warming theory.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
That's 31,000 to you. Call? Or fold?
 
Martin Luther King
Gandhi
Gandhi & MLK were NOT in the minority. If they were they never would have been effective. The fact that they had millions behind them is what gave them power. Many of the others on your list are also questionable. Anyway, you're grasping at straws.
 
On the threshold of abrupt climate change

But climate change has occurred with frightening rapidity in the past and will almost certainly do so again. Perhaps the most famous example is the reverse hiccup in a warming trend that began 15,000 years ago and eventually ended the last ice age. Roughly 2,000 years after it started, the warming trend suddenly reversed, and temperatures fell back to near-glacial conditions; Earth stayed cold for over a thousand years, a period called the Younger Dryas (named for an alpine wildflower). Then warming resumed so abruptly that global temperatures shot up 10 °C in just 10 years.

Because civilizations hadn’t yet emerged, complex human societies escaped this particular roller-coaster ride. Nevertheless, some form of abrupt climate change is highly likely in the future, with wide-ranging economic and social effects.

“When the national lab participants first met to decide on the most significant potential sources of abrupt climate change in future, the first thing we had to do was define what we meant: a large-scale change that happens more quickly than that brought on by forcing mechanisms – on a scale of years to decades, not centuries – and that persists for a very long time.”

The IMPACTS team will initially focus on four types of ACC:

1) instability among marine ice sheets, particularly the West Antarctic ice sheet;

2) positive feedback mechanisms in subarctic forests and arctic ecosystems, leading to rapid methane release or large-scale changes in the surface energy balance;

3) destabilization of methane hydrates (vast deposits of methane gas caged in water ice), particularly in the Arctic Ocean; and

4) feedback between biosphere and atmosphere that could lead to megadroughts in North America.
link
 
The simplest and most convincing argument, the one i base my actions around, and the one i have told many, many people.

Imagine this scenario:

You own a house. Someone bets you for your house. "double or nothing," he says. If you win, you get two houses, if you lose, then he gets your property. Would you take this bet?

What if the odds are 50-50? what if the odds are 60-40?
What if he doesn't get your house but your grandkids' houses?

Ultimately, science will tell us our odds and we have to make the moral decision to act after considering them. I believe we are forced to act conservatively and not make the stupid gamble, even in significant uncertainty. If not gambling my house means i have a bit more time to make it cleaner, more organized and maintained then all the better.

The whole thing is a very usable pascal's wager.
 
Call? Or fold?

Game, Set, Match. Too bad you "refuted" his claim with a present-day movement that isn't relevant.

You're up against hard numbers. Temperature data from multiple ice cores prove conclusively that the Earth is due (probably overdue) for a period of severe cooling. No matter how many people agree on something, hard evidence trumps them every time.

I guess it's a good thing we're long overdue for a mass extinction killing off, say, 50% of Earth's species. No need to worry about the rainforest, we can save some federal money by completely discontinuing the endangered species list and all that, there's nothing we can do, after all, it's bound to happen, maybe tomorrow.

Spoiler :
You still don't seem to understand that the number of people saying something does not make it science, nor is every trend from the past guaranteed to continue. The Tarrasque isn't going to awaken every 200,000 years on the dot and cause global cooling, real life doesn't work that way. If you have any actual evidence that in, say, the next 100 years the Earth will experience a major shift in its orbit, or the energy output of the sun is due to change or something, then present it. But, to the extent you might see past your bias, you would at least know that such cooling scenarios are on nowhere near the timeframe that global warming is currently happening, and its a baseless claim to equate the two, just it would be to say "Well, we're overdue for another giant asteroid strike these days."
 
Gandhi & MLK were NOT in the minority. If they were they never would have been effective. The fact that they had millions behind them is what gave them power. Many of the others on your list are also questionable. Anyway, you're grasping at straws.

Ditto every civil reformer on the list short of Nefertiti, who IIRC pretended to be a man
 
I think I see what the problem is.

con·sen·sus
(kn-snss)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus

* Main Entry: con·sen·sus
* Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
* Function: noun
* Usage: often attributive
* Etymology: Latin, from consentire
* Date: 1843

1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports&#8230;from the border &#8212; John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method


There simply was not a global cooling consensus in the 60's and 70's.

edit:
And you're the gift that keeps on giving :)
The consensus on global cooling did not occur in the seventies, it occurred in the LATE SIXTIES.
Newsweek claims there was a consensus on global cooling in the 70's, and unlike you, I am capable of handling multiple argument threads at the same time.

Yay! I Daily Showed Basketcase :dance:

daily460.jpg



Square 1.
 
Back
Top Bottom