What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," Hansen said.




Jimbo

[mydauphin]

Silly humans - not a single one of you, your children, our their children, our their grandchildren will be around to see to polar, weather or solar climatic changes. It takes centuries, and more like thousands of years before a significant change happens.

The fact is our whole civilization is a speck on the global calendar.

It is like trying to boil a pot of water with lighter.

[Zed]

They have been re thinking the big freeze's, I am told, there is some suspicion that once tripped i.e. the ocean heat transports shut down, the big freeze could be quite rapid ---> unlike previously thought! A phase transition type of event as opposed to a gradual change. Who knows? I don't

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by masalai

A glacier advancing a third of a mile in a year implies savage melt underneath to facilitate such a rapid move...

Reasons for fast glacier movements may be other than melting water under them.

Glaciers move mainly due to three main processes:

- internal deformation due to ice straining and recrystallization.
- basal sliding
- deformation of soft sub-basal sediments.

There can also happen other phenomena, such as kinematic waves and surges. Surging glaciers are the fastest ones, moving hundreds of meters per day.

http://web.pdx.edu/~mbruneng/Flow_mj...373,30,Glacier movement
http://iahs.info/redbooks/a047/04726.pdf

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

For thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

This where we live.....

Wonderful images.
Poverty is what we should be fighting against, instead of spending zillions in mawkishness and hysteria. In my opinion all this GWA thing is nothing but another prove of our squanderer and hedonistic societies' hypocresy.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

.... another prove of our squanderer and hedonistic societies' hypocresy.

....like the hypocresy of some countries which mainly live (very well!) from exploting oil and gas fields with little respect for the original inhabitants of the regions or the voice of the enviros and selling (at a high price!) the black stuff to the rest of humanity for them to contaminate the planet, while such countries' citizens quiet down their consciences claiming they behave 'green'...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Norway...9458.html?.v=1

Cheers

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by masalai

A glacier advancing a third of a mile in a year implies savage melt underneath to facilitate such a rapid move - I suggest you stand-by for the result of the summer melt season and watch how quickly that breaks off and reduces....?

The primary cause of rapid glacial change at ground levels has been shown to be increased regional volcanic activity. I would love to see a chart pegging that to increased CO2. But once again I will point out, that is evidence of change, not AGW.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Zed

They have been re thinking the big freeze's, I am told, there is some suspicion that once tripped i.e. the ocean heat transports shut down, the big freeze could be quite rapid ---> unlike previously thought! A phase transition type of event as opposed to a gradual change. Who knows? I don't

There is zero evidence to support such a claim, as such it is not even a theory. It is just an alarmist tactic, "Act Now", why, in case the fraud of the claim is brought to light before we act?

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Capn Mud

And correct me if I am wrong - but my initial reading seems to indicate that the variously maligned in these pages MBH98 it actually an interpretation of temperature records via ice cores, tree rings etc with ranges of uncertainty (which are really quite large compared with the sensitivity of variations we are speaking about - which on the surface looks like a concern).

It is not it seems a simulation model of temperature but an attempt to define temperature observations over millenia.

Refer http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared...sMannROG04.pdf Figure 8 page 28 specifically. I cant seem to find an image to insert here sorry.

So a couple of issues here:
1. How is it determined that "The hockey stick is a perfect example, it wipes out all the known climates changes of the last thousand years and only records those of the last hundred."? As it appears to me this is an attempt to define by observation (through ice cores etc) the climate changes of the last thousand years or so, what other data is there that says this attempt is wildly inaccurate?

2. Given the range of uncertainty in these observations with amplitude of the order of the temperature anomoly we seem to be concerned about. Also the various models have similarly wide variations in temperature between each other over the the history. At least up until the late 20th century according to these graphs anyway when things start to line up better. Is that better line up due to better data recording OR because the assumptions in the basis of the model only work in this part of the time series upon which it was originally based.

It is these points in 2. above which give rise to my concerns in Post #3035 and #3096 - Can we rely on these models and their predictions?

Colour me concerned at this point.

Cheers,
Andrew

Outside of the scientific evidence that the hockey stick is a fraud, there is a huge volume of historical references to large variations in temperature changes over the last 1000 years. The Viking history in Greenland, the emergence of hardy vegetables in Europe replacing wheat as a staple, Scottish wine, summer snow in New England. All this points to wide variances of temperature over a relatively short period of time that was far more extreme that what we are experiencing today. This puts to lie the Mann graph of almost flat temperature variances. It also tosses down the toilet any models or projections based on the graph, along with it goes most of the AGW premise.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Boston

more industry spin
more paper thin attempts to deny the poll results
more of the same bullying tactics of the deniers
who are obviously struggling as hard as they can to keep up the denial
but your right about one thing
the level of your conversational and debating skills is far bellow any level worthy of scientific consideration
I guess that's why there is no need for an official debate
the deniers team simply has no case to make
just industry spin
love and happiness
and thanks again for the laughs
B

Now that's what I call empirical evidence, of a neurosis possibly, but certainly not AGW.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

....like the hypocresy of some countries which mainly live (very well!) from exploting oil and gas fields with little respect for the original inhabitants of the regions or the voice of the enviros and selling (at a high price!) the black stuff to the rest of humanity for them to contaminate the planet....

And they do not only sell us oil and gas, but also European Union Emissions Allowances!
http://www.advfn.com/lse/ShareNews.a...nces-to-market
They sell us the oil, the gas, sell us the EUAs, take our money for all of them and then blame us for contaminating the planet! And not only: their 'wise men committee' was the one who promoted Al Gore and IPCC to the Nobel Prize. Incredible!
I think these Norwegian guys are the cleverest guys in the planet and we are totally stupid marionettes in their hands!

Cheers.

"...Norwegian guys are the cleverest guys on the planet..." - There's one for the scrapbook!

[Boston]

why dont you guys try discussing some real science instead of the industry spin and that presented by some rare few sell outs

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/318

as compared to his latest paper

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/15...7-89-3-347.pdf

over which some members in the press lacking any training in the sciences misrepresented Prof. Emanuel's open minded status with some hype designed to sell papers. A reasonable if pedestrian assessment of this new paper can be found at http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...anuel-55041601 and another at http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...rming-47041302 point being that the science of hurricane prediction is to young to understand the influence of climate change

if you have any doubts about Prof. Emanuel's position on climate change or its effects on hurricane intensity or frequency you might read his position paper http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm

if you want controversy you might as well stick with reputable scientists rather than this ridiculous insistence of discussing the work of folks caught taking industry bribes to write pro industry tripe or using information straight from industry and industry funded front groups

unless of course the main point is to spread the industry view and not to discuss the actual science

this last from a question and answer session with the Prof. seems more than relevant to this thread

DZ: Global warming and the feedbacks involved with it are inherently difficult for most people to understand. We have seen sensationalist examples, like the Day After Tomorrow, and highly scientific ones, like the IPCC. What do you think is the most effective way to educate the public about global warming, its consequences and the actions that need to be taken?

KE: I have come to the conclusion that the best possible way to do it is with scientists communicating directly to the public, not through a journalist, not on a 5 second sound bite, but going around and lecturing in villages and towns. It is a lot of work and a lot of drain on ones research and responsibilities, but the thing that is gratifying is that there is a high success rate in getting the point across, which you don't have in almost any other sphere. I don't think that sensationalism is at all productive, I think it is counter productive. Sensationalism portrays that politics are just being carried out in a different sphere, and there's nothing to it in the end. Most people react badly to what they see as alarmism and they react badly to what they see as reactionary tendencies. Scientists tend to be not reactionary or alarmists if they can talk to the public.

try some real science guys
or could it be that science has nothing to do with your opinion concerning this issue

cheers
B

thanks for the break again
you guys really are always worth a few laughs

[fasteddy106]

Science has everything to do with it Boston, however the tweaking of computer models preset to come up with a conclusion have nothing to do with science. Kinda the same as most of your posts. You still offer nothing in the way of evidence except for the same incorrect conclusions based on the same distorted data by biased hacks seeking to continue sucking off the multi-billion dollar government grant tit. I did enjoy the comprehesive evidence of bribes and photo copies of the payoff checks from the oil companies to the skeptics, oh wait, you haven't posted that evidence yet. Must be as elusive to find as genuine evidence of AGW. You should stick to making little kids cry about mommy and daddy killing polar bears by using a SUV. The kids might still believe you for a little while.

[Guillermo]

Hey, "Boston the Scientist", have you really read and understand your own posted link? Don't you have a minimum sense of ridiculousness?

Here what Prof Emanuel says:

Q: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?
A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.
.........
Q: Does this mean that we are seeing more hurricane-caused damage in the U.S. and elsewhere?
A: There is a huge upward trend in hurricane damage in the U.S., but all or almost all of this is due to increasing coastal population and building in hurricane-prone areas. When this increase in population and wealth is accounted for, there is no discernible trend left in the hurricane damage data.
...........
Q: OK, maybe we won’t see global warming effects in landfalling hurricanes for another 50 years or so, but shouldn’t we still be worried about it?
A: The answer to this question is largely a matter of one’s geographical and time horizons. For U.S.-centric concerns over the next 30-50 years, by far the most important hurricane problem we face is demographic and political. Consider that Katrina, as horrible as it was, was by no means unprecedented, meteorologically speaking. More intense storms have struck the U.S. coastline long ago. The big problem is the headlong rush to tropical coastlines, coupled with federal and state policies that subsidize the risk incurred by coastal development.
............
There is some uncertainty, however, about the magnitude of the increase in potential intensity of hurricanes accompanying increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The main source of uncertainty plaguing calculations of the increase have to do with uncertainties in predicting global warming itself; these have to do with feedback processes in the climate system, especially those involving water vapor and clouds. The principal feedback in the climate system: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Were water vapor content and cloudiness to remain fixed, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would yield a tropical sea surface temperature increase of only about 0.5 C and a barely perceptible rise in the potential intensity of tropical cyclones. Most climate model simulations give much larger increases than this, owing to a positive feedback loop involving increasing atmospheric water vapor. But the physics of the processes controlling water vapor in the atmosphere are poorly understood and even more poorly represented in climate models, and what actually happens in the atmosphere is largely unknown because of poor measurements. It is now widely recognized that improvements in understanding and predicting climate hinge largely on a better understanding of the processes controlling atmospheric water vapor and clouds."



Cheers.