What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

I think you guys should have a look at this funny "Vision Test" from Roy Spencer.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/...a-vision-test/

Enjoy.

[masalai]

One question is - how much co2 is enough to cause "normal human dysfunction", as a % on average would do. - Just so I know how to effect a suicide? when I am 100 years older.... and tired of this debate?

[Boston]

thanks for the graph G
shows a clear and unmistakable rising trend



even shows how so many of the last few years have been the warmest on record

B

[TeddyDiver]

Maybe this has allready been presented here but anyway http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/

1'st shows there's a correlation btw arctic and antarctic ice

2'nd one shows a climate chance can happen "overnight"

3'rd shows fossile fuel impact by NO's and SO's..

Or from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/iceco...gisp/gisp.html

Read it, eat it, but don't choke to it

[Guillermo]

Masa:

Toxicity
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location (see graphical map of CO2).
Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.[31]
Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure. [30]
At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing. [31]
At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath. [31]
At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[31]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

The Recovery from the Little Ice Age and Global Warming
Written by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu (2008)

"A roughly linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C per 100 years seems to have occurred from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This value may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C per 100 years. This long-lasting linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change.

One possible cause of the linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age. This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the 2007 IPCC Report (p.10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the manmade greenhouse effect.

There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming trend in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect. One certain way to learn about natural changes is to examine climate change before the greenhouse effect of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) became significant.

Unfortunately, I have found that the recent great interest by the public in climatology is largely the result of a proliferating number of confusing stories in the media that are based on misinterpreted information about the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Many people bring up the misunderstood issues when I discuss the present warming trend. The confused people even include some policy-makers and government officials."


Because it seems it has not been properly realized, here again the link to the most recent paper on this matter from Akasofu (3/30/2009), posted by Jimbo in 2597.

Worths while its careful reading.

Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change:
(1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A Possible Cause of Global Warming)
and
(2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation (The Recent Halting of the Warming)

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu...ate_change.pdf

(Be patient, takes a lot of time to download)
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Diagram showing HadCRUT3 monthly global surface temperature estimate plotted against the monthly atmospheric CO2 content according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, back to March 1958. The red line is a polynomial fit with the relation: Y = 46762.84786 - 672.9202291 * X + 3.870440539 * X2 - 0.0111225724 * X3 + 1.59696728E-005 * X4 - 9.164606771E-009 * X5. The coefficient of determination for this polynomial fit is R2 = 0.727377 (N = 611). Last month incorporated in the analysis: January 2009 (shown by red cross). Last figure update: 27 February 2009.

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm

"In the early part of the period, with CO2 concentrations close to 315 ppm, an increase of CO2 was associated with decreasing global air temperatures. When the CO2 concentration around 1975 reached 325 ppm this association changed, and increasing atmospheric CO2 was now associated with rising global temperatures. However, when the CO2 concentration at the turn of the century reached about 378 ppm, the association changed back to that characterizing the period before 1975. Thus, since 2000, increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 has again been associated with decreasing global temperature.

The diagram above thereby demonstrates that CO2 can not have been the dominant control on global temperatures since 1958. Had CO2 been the dominant control, periods of decreasing temperature (longer than 2-5 years) with increasing CO2 values should not occur. It might be argued (IPCC 2007) that the CO2 dominance first emerged around 1975, but if so, the recent breakdown of the association around 2000 should not occur, either.

Consequently, the complex nature of the relation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 therefore represents an example of empirical falsification of the hypothesis ascribing dominance on the global temperature by the amount of atmospheric CO2. Clearly, the potential influence of CO2 must be subordinate to one or several other phenomena influencing global temperature. Presumably, it is more correct to characterize CO2 as a contributing factor for global temperature changes, rather than a dominant factor."

[Boston]

interesting site G
written by Prof of geography Ole Humlum Phd



He was the guy who tried to explain away this photo by green peace saying that all glaciers undergo periods of advance and retreat and suggesting there are as many glaciers advancing as declining

course then there is the sticky little issue of the actual data



course in fairness to the prof it would be important to note that he was specifically referring to local phenomena when he made his statements and in no way commenting on the global situation

looking at the following I can see why its possible to say that there are some glaciers advancing



this next makes it obvious how the statement that glaciers ebb and flow while true is completely misleading in regards to the global tragedy that is rapid global climate change



and we're back to the point made about a hundred pages ago that if we are actually cooling off
how come all this ice is melting

or the more recent point
how come such a large percentage of the sources used by skeptics are industry funded industry published industry spin

I also kinda like how the prof starts out with a diatribe on how this graph is somehow invalid and unfairly depicts the temp over time trend as we approach present



and then moves on to distort this graph



into this graph



by "detrending" for linear fit ( neat trick eh )

Description
detrend removes the mean value or linear trend from a vector or matrix, usually for FFT processing.
y = detrend(x) removes the best straight-line fit from vector x and returns it in y. If x is a matrix, detrend removes the trend from each column.
y = detrend(x,'constant') removes the mean value from vector x or, if x is a matrix, from each column of the matrix.
y = detrend(x,'linear',bp) removes a continuous, piecewise linear trend from vector x or, if x is a matrix, from each column of the matrix. Vector bp contains the indices of the breakpoints between adjacent linear segments. The breakpoint between two segments is defined as the data point that the two segments share.

and then displays a detrended average
without noting that it no longer represents an accurate visual representation



and after rambling on about co2 then states

Consequently, the complex nature of the relation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 therefore represents an example of empirical falsification of the hypothesis ascribing dominance on the global temperature by the amount of atmospheric CO2. Clearly, the potential influence of CO2 must be subordinate to one or several other phenomena influencing global temperature. Presumably, it is more correct to characterize CO2 as a contributing factor for global temperature changes, rather than a dominant factor.

an interesting viewpoint given that he just ran us through a hardly detailed description of how he cooked the graphs to show a lack of warming and then presented graphs uncooked to show co2 change
along with his then presumably "honest" comparison conclusion
as apposed to the rest of the worlds
empirical falsification

no wonder no one is listening to the deniers

cheers
B

[masalai]

And this - How does this fit with current theories & postulations? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

"...Antarctic ice shelf 'disappears'

One Antarctic ice shelf has quickly vanished, another is disappearing and glaciers are melting faster than anyone thought due to climate change, US and British government researchers have reported.

They said the Wordie Ice Shelf, which had been disintegrating since the 1960s, is gone and the northern part of the Larsen Ice Shelf no longer exists.

More than 8,300 square kilometres have broken off from the Larsen shelf since 1986.

Climate change is to blame, according to the report from the US Geological Survey and the British Antarctic Survey.

In another report published in the journal Geophysical Letters, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that ice is melting much more rapidly than expected in the Arctic as well, based on new computer analyses and recent ice measurements.

The UN Climate Panel projects that world atmospheric temperature will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius because of emissions of greenhouse gases that could bring floods, droughts, heat waves and more powerful storms.

As glaciers and ice sheets melt, they can raise overall ocean levels and swamp low-lying areas...."

The inclination towards weather extremes, are evident and definitely cannot be passed off as "normal events in the cyclic nature of things"...

[Guillermo]

Boston, my darling: you really understand nothing of what you read !!
Here the bibliography of Ole Humlum: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBL...on20090320.pdf
And here his contact data: Phone: +47 22 85 58 04 Fax: +47 22 84 44 85 E-mail: Ole.Humlum@geo.uio.no
Go tell hem he doesn't know what he's saying.

Masa: search this thread for "antarctic": you'll get 47 posts. Please read them.

Regards.

[Guillermo]

Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 for the North Pole and South Pole regions, according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. This graph uses data obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) TIROS-N satellite, interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy, both at Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Last month shown: February 2009 (last diagram update: 12 March 2009).

Source: http://www.climate4you.com/

[Guillermo]

Sea ice extent 1 April 2009. The 'normal' limit of sea ice (orange line) is defined as 15% sea ice cover, according to the average of satellite observations 1979-2000. Sea ice may therefore well be encountered outside and open water areas inside the limit shown in the diagrams above. Map source: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Graphs showing daily Arctic (left) and Antarctic (right) sea ice extent until 1 April 2009. Diagrams from National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

[Guillermo]

Superimposed plot of five different global monthly temperature estimates shown above, after setting January 1979 = 0. The graph showing the amount of atmospheric CO2 is based on data from the Mauna Loa station, Hawaii. For the first two decades in the 21th century a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios according to the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (p.7 and Fig.SPM.5). The rate of this projected temperature increase is shown by the grey stippled line. Last month shown: February 2009. Last figure update: 19 March 2009.

Same source as before.

[Boston]

well if you actually look at the graphs you can see the progression from the actual graphs to detrended ones
a pretty deceitful way to make a visual presentation of an upward trend in anyone's book
mathematically remove the upward trend from the plotting system

guy is a classic denier
using a very deceptive argument
not very impressive if you ask me
and pretty easy to see through if you only look

if he was correct about the advancing glaciers
were are they and why don't these many glaciers appear on the data charts
just about every glacier we have is retreating and fast
no signs of any cooling if you look at the ice record

looks to me like not only did I read and understand the article but also saw right through it for the bad attempt at fooling the public it was
why else cook the graphs like that
if not to give the false impression the trend was not upwards

he kinda studiously failed to mention that

instead stating

It is now possible to compare the rate of temperature increase from 1981 to 2005 with the general temperature rise since the termination of the Little Ice Age, to investigate if this period of rapid temperature increase is unique in relation to the remaining part of the data series since 1908.
This can be done by plotting the deviation of the individual data points from the overall trend line, as is shown in Figure D below.
The zero line in Figure D represents values (year, temperature) which would plot exactly on the green line showing the overall global temperature increase since the termination of the Little Ice Age. From this figure it is not possible to identify the period 1981-2005 as a period characterised by a unique rapid temperature increase. The rate of temperature increase during the time leading up to the warm period around 1940 obviously was of similar magnitude.

magnitude and position on the temp scale are both effected by the detrending process
so of course they are not
he cooked the rising trend out of the graphs
a classic case of the typical denialists deceitful presentation

makes you wonder were he gets his money

if you need any further explanations you might want to call these guys at NOAA 301-713-1208 Climate Program Office, Education Program, Climate Literacy
Im sure they will be able to explain whats up with the glaciers and those graphs, ask for the carbon group and tell em Boston says hi
might even be able to tell you were Humlum gets his money from

a colleague of his wrote of his comments

Glaciers are shrinking in many places - Andes, Himalayas, Iceland, Greenland, Alps, Antarctica, North America. And you've found one that isn't, congratulations. In fact, it seems to be advancing because of increased precipitation, not because of decreasing temperatures. It would be perfectly possible to argue that Friddjovbreen confirms climate change, not denies it.

Here's some info:

"The World Glacier Monitoring Service reports on changes in the terminus position of glaciers from around the world every 5 years. [4], 103 of 110 glaciers examined in Switzerland were retreating. In 2005 for the first time ever all glaciers examined in Switzerland were retreating. Similarily, in Austria 95 of 99 glaciers were retreating, in Italy all 69 observed glaciers were in retreat and in France all 6 were retreating. French glaciers experienced a sharp retreat in the years 1942-53 followed by advances up to 1980, then further retreat from 1982. As an example the Argentière Glacier and Blanc Glacier have receded by 1150 and 1400 meters respectively since 1870. The largest glacier Chamonix remember the Bossons Glacier coming almost as far as the road. It has lost 1200 meters in length. This shrinking is not without risks. Glacial lakes have formed at the foot of the Mer de Glace. The lakes are held behind moraine dams. If the natural dams that hold this meltwater back break, it could cause widespread flooding in the valley below. In 1892 the lake of the Glacier de Tête Rousse burst emptying some 200,000 m33 of water and killing 200 people in Saint Gervais. Ski areas in Austria have covered areas of the Stubai and Pitztal Glacier with plastic wrap to retard melting of the glaciers that their ski areas utilize. Since 1980, 20% of the area of Swiss glaciers has been lost. The Grosser Aletsch Glacier is the largest glacier in Switzerland and has retreated 2600 m since 1880. The rate of retreat has increased after 1980, with 800 m or 30% of the total retreat occuring in the last 25 years [5]. In the Italian Alps the percentage of retreating glaciers has increased from 34% in 1980 to 96% in 1999, and has remained above 95% through 2005. "

need I list the glacier mass data again



or the glacier extent data



Humlum Phd in geography also was among thirty or forty Phd's to sign a letter to the president denying global warming was occurring
the letter was organized by the infamous Cato institute
you do not want me to expose the Cato institute again for the industry paid public relations arm of the oil and gas industry that it clearly is
and who pays scientists handsomely to sign those kind of "open" letters

the truth will out G
the truth will out

your man Humlum deceptively states concerning glaciers

Blomstrandbreen might now be retreating, but on the west side of Svalbard is Friddjovbreen glacier which has advanced more than a mile in the past seven years - one of dozens of glaciers to do so.

The first photo issued by Greenpeace was taken by scientists in 1918 and shows a mountainous wall of ice. The second, taken by Greenpeace last month, reveals a much smaller wall melted, claims the environmental group, by climate change.
Prof Ole Humlum, professor of physical geography at the Norwegian university research centre in Svalbard, has worked on glaciers in Greenland and the Arctic for the past 25 years. He accused Greenpeace of 'jumping to conclusions'.

He said: 'They have formulated their view based on one glacier which showed what they wanted it to show. It is a simple, even naive, approach. This glacier has retreated, but that doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of other examples of glaciers that have expanded, which they have ignored.

amazing coming from a guy who just tried to present reformulated graphs
the original looks like this



and when he is done reformulating it where's the rising trend



notice how it says clearly at the top "detrended for linear fit"
so who is formulating (or reformulating in this case) data to fit the desired conclusion

he fails to mention that many glaciers experience rapid states of movement when experiencing rapid melting because the water flowing off them gets under them as well and acts like a lubricant
lets try and remember that glaciers flow downhill under normal circumstances
what matters is the ice mass data and that data is unmistakable
need I repeat it

and this last sentence is classic denialist double speak
Humlum has the nerve to suggest that its Greenpeace who is only looking at one glacier and suggests that its meaningless that the glaciers are retreating

cmon G this guy is being paid by someone to sing the praises of healthy cigarettes

please lets at least try to make this challenging

it begs the question is this really the best deniers can do to support there claims
why was that guys argument so deceptive when even a cursory look reveals the deception
and why use deception at all if the science is so sound

rapid global climate change is real

97% of scientists agree
and that in itself is unprecedented

[Guillermo]

You keep on misunderstanding things and looking for phantoms under the carpets, but it's not me who's going to teach you.

Prosit!