What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

thats funny cause you just posted this #2715
and it both implicitly and expressly in numerous places admits to a substantial warming trend

lets try and keep the BS straight in the denier camp ok
cause this sure looks like on the one hand your saying the oceans are cooling and on the other trying to prove it with articles that clearly state otherwise

this is classic industry agnotism G to use this kind of tactic
creates doubt were none exist by an implied confusion when there is actually a significant consensus

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.


Conclusion:

“In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming. They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave radiative fluxes at the continental surface. While continuous global measurements of most of these changes are not available through the 1961-2006 period, some humidity observations are available and do show upward trends over the continents. These include near-surface observations (Dai 2006) as well as satellite radiance measurements sensitive to upper tropospheric moisture (Soden et al. 2005).”

Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report (Hegerl et al. 2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1). Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out.


Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has occurred largely from anthropogenic or natural influences, our study highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed continental warming. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined. The indirect and substantial role of the oceans in causing the recent continental warming emphasizes the need to generate reliable projections of ocean temperature changes over the next century, in order to generate more reliable projections of not just the global mean temperature and precipitation changes (Barsugli et al. 2006), but also regional climate changes.”

[masalai]

Actually, G is on the warming side but that is boring and does not generate any serious discussion

[Jimbo1490]

An interesting paper by Ricard Lindzen whose salary is wholly paid by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

An excerpt:

"When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of."

Jimbo

[Boston]

lets try and keep it honest Jim

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[3]

now dont you think Gelbspan would have been sued like the dog he was if he had falsely reported on Lindzens income concerning such an important issue

I got all the sources you want on this one Jim

cheers
B

this one was kinda funny

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."[5]

[Jimbo1490]

James Hansen Received $700,000 in a lump sum from George Soros and $410,000 from Teresa Heinz Kerry. Both of these 'contributions' were in violation of federal law, not to mention a HUGE conflict of interest, given the opinions of the donors. Why don't you proportionately discount the positions of Mr. Hansen, who has alone received far more potentially corrupting remuneration that ANY skeptic?

Jimbo

[Boston]

if you look back a few thousand posts you will find I did not defend Hansen nor present him as any shining example but instead equally chastised him for failing to reveal his methodology in determining the hockey stick as you like to call it
but just for fun let me go look up his funding if I can find it

care to reveal your sources Jimmy
or has that become sort of a thorn in your side

looks like you are referring to the real climate web sites funding
although this could just be more disinformation given that just about everything received so far from deniers falls into the agnotism category and so also might your last

sources Jimy sources

near a I can tell old Teresa is a philanthropist not a industrialist

Teresa Heinz Kerry has received many, many rewards, including the Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for Humanitarianism (which honored the work she did to protect the environment, promote health care, education, and other issues important to the lives of women and children) and the Women's Leadership Award from the Save the Children organization in 2003 (for her efforts to improve the lives of children throughout the world ). Also in 2003, she received the World Ecology Award from the International Center for Tropical Ecology at the University of Missouri, was among the women honored by the Boston YWCA in the Women Achievers' Class of 2003, and the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus presented her with a lifetime achievement award. She was also elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.

way to distract from what constitutes a agnotist with what constitutes a philanthropist though
this is kinda a hole new tact for you
not sure its working
but at least its new

B

[Landlubber]

What do we think about climate change......it changes.......

All the arguing and point scoring in the world will not change the fact that the weather is a variable and so is the total world climate....it has been from day one, looking at micro details (10 years, 20 years even 200 years ) is totally irrelevant to the life of the planet.....sure we humans have done our best to change things too, but mother nature and her fabulous volcanoes shoves out more **** in one blow than we have done for decades.....get over it and life our lives as kindly to earth as we can, there are no winners you have to accept that we are all going to die, some sooner than others.

"...a few thousand posts..." is right!

[Jimbo1490]

An interesting paper by Hans Schreuder

Excerpted:

"Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that water vapor and
precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback. Water vapor is a far more
important “greenhouse gas” than CO2. However, that assumption has been shown in observations
and peer-reviewed research to be wrong, and in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative
feedback that reduces any small “greenhouse warming” so incorrectly attributed to carbon dioxide.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970"

Jimbo

[rasorinc]

Just some more info that does not seem to have a solution.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2009041...67peYFDo1vaA8F

[Jimbo1490]

God rest his soul

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Coming back from a few days sailing around with some of my sons , I think we should re-read (again!) these wise words from Crichton, someone around here seems not to have digested yet:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Amen.

[Guillermo]

Masa:
An interesting work on Antarctic temperatures.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200...econstruction/

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

HEAVEN AND EARTH
Global Warming: The Missing Science

IAN PLIMER

HARDBACK
expected April 2009
ISBN 978-1-921421-14-3

"The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times.
The hypothesis that humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected.
A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance.
When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change.
Don’t wait up."

Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005). He was previously Professor and Head of Geology at The University of Newcastle (1985-1991). His previous book, A Short History of Planet Earth, won the Eureka Prize.

http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/...roducts_id=103

I'm looking forward to read it soon.
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

From Brian R. Pratt, P.Geo., Ph.D.

"Here are the facts, as I understand them: solar heat varies cyclically at different frequencies, from the decades to the hundreds of thousands of years. Atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature are linked, but rather than the former driving the latter, it is the other way around and there is a nearly thousand-year lag in the response.

The oceans are the great sink for CO2. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is not uniform around the globe and regional variations are tied to sea-surface temperature because CO2 dissolves in colder sea water while it degasses from warmer sea water.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes, but it absorbs only a very small portion of the infrared spectrum and its capacity to do so declines exponentially with concentration. It’s a fact of physics that the CO2 molecule radiates almost none of the heat it can absorb. Moreover, it is such a trace gas that this effect is negligible, and even less so at the low pressures and cold temperatures high in the atmosphere.

All of this explains why, when CO2 concentration is thought to have been much higher in Deep Time such as during the Paleozoic, the surface of the globe did not overheat and the polar regions were still cold.Water vapour is what insulates the Earth and CO2 concentration has nothing to do with cloud generation.Why, then, have anthropogenic global warming promoters seized upon CO2 as the culprit?"


Brian R. Pratt has been a faculty member at the University of Saskatchewan since 1989 after studying at McMaster's University (B.Sc. 1976), the Memorial University of Newfoundland (M.Sc. 1979), and the University of Toronto (Ph.D. 1989). He keeps one foot planted in paleontology and the other in sedimentology and counts himself a stratigrapher, concentrating on the Precambrian and lower Paleozoic rocks of western and northern Canada. He was the 2003 NACSN chair.