What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes, they are weaker than a decade ago, thank God. Now, if we could get them out of our government, beat the living **** out of card-check proponents, and do something about the service unions (teachers, secretaries, etc.), we'd be getting somewhere! (Pray tell, why does a secretary need a union?)

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mark775

Yes, they are weaker than a decade ago, thank God. Now, if we could get them out of our government, beat the living **** out of card-check proponents, and do something about the service unions (teachers, secretaries, etc.), we'd be getting somewhere! (Pray tell, why does a secretary need a union?)

Why shouldn't a secretary need a union as much as any other worker? You think they never get screwed over on the job?

I'm a big proponent of card-check, because companies have completely subverted the election process. They stall them off for years, while they find excuses to get rid of the pro-union workers and intimidate the rest. If that doesn't work they challenge the results in court, tying up things for a few more years. Finally, they stall contract negotiations, thereby keeping the elected union out of the workplace indefinitely.

If a majority of workers have signed a card (petition, actually) saying they want a union, why do you need a friggen election? The petition acts as an election, and you've clearly shown what the workers want. And please don't start the usual nonsense about workers being intimidated into signing cards by union thugs. The intimidation actually works the other way around: everyone who signs a card has put a bullseye on his back for the company to aim at, and will be damned lucky to keep his job long enough to be able to vote in an election.

[Guillermo]

Cloud Experiment. View inside the chamber with Jasper Kirkby, Head leader of the project.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221293/?ln=es

CLOUD has been running since 2006 and proved that cosmic rays bombarding Earth's atmosphere may have an influence on the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets).

This is supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. Understanding the microphysics in controlled laboratory conditions is a key to unravelling the connection between cosmic rays and clouds.

The CLOUD collaboration brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change.

The first beam data with the full CLOUD experiment is expected in 2010.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...xperiment.html

Like oil and water, Troy. We're like oil and water. Cya

[Guillermo]

Reconstruction of the Earth’s surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 2. Experimental data analysis

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1250440760034545/

Original Russian Text © V.A. Dergachev, O.M. Raspopov, 2010, published in Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiya, 2010, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 412–422.

Abstract
The effect of the natural factors (solar activity) on the long-term variations of global temperatures has been analyzed based on studying the borehole thermal regime in a time interval of 1000 years ago. It has been indicated that the temperatures started rising about 500 rather than 150 years ago as adherents of the anthropogenic impact on climate consider. The temperature maximum, the amplitude of which is larger than the present-day rise of temperature, is determined about 1000 years ago. The appearance of this maximum corresponds to the time interval of a long-term increase in solar activity according to the data of the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes. The stabilization of the global temperature in the last decades at a constant increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contradicts the concept, according to which an increase in the global temperature in the last decades is only explained by the anthropogenic impact.

[Guillermo]

I had commented the importancy of knowing how much of the present global warming can be attributed to the coming out of the LIA, to be able to properly understand the current instrumental data epoch mean temperature behaviour.

We already saw Ole Humlum's opinion: The question remains, how much of the surface air temperature changes since the end of the Little Ice Age actually are derived from oceanographic changes? (Climate4you's 'Climate Models' page)


Well, this work deepens in the possible causes of the LIA and the subsecuent coming out of it.

Was a change in thermohaline circulation responsible for the Little Ice Age?

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1339.full

From there.

One aspect of the debate with regard to the extent of global warming generated by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases has to do with the contribution of natural climate change. Those opposed to emission restrictions are quick to conclude that the warming during the past century may be dominated by the relaxation of cold LIA conditions. Although we are still a long way from being able to assess whether or not this interpretion is correct, were thermohaline circulation to be implicated, a step toward this goal would be taken.

[Boston]

quack
quack quack

quack

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Baloney. I've never said a single thing about your car, your use of electricity or your toilet habits. Nor have I ever claimed we need new taxes. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said, then jump on me for them.

As a matter of fact, I haven't advocated any particular course of action at all; all I've tried to do is point out that AGW is real whether you like it or not. Apparently that's a fact you don't want to hear -- but it isn't my fault it's real, and it isn't my fault you can't handle reality.

It appears that you can not discern between a figure of speech, a simile, and example or simple logic, nor can you realise when your opinions are being exploited. Like I said before, sorry I can not help you with that.

As for your battle with the cloth, once you are off warfarine, go on an aspirine a day (100) and drink plenty of water. And I mean plenty.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Boston

quack
quack quack

quack

gobble gobble gobble!!!!!!!!!!


i thought we cleared that up

[Boston]

it just kinda had a ring to it

my bet is the ducks appreciated the grapes and might be thinking
"any time"

after all
at least they are not being serious when they run around flapping there wings and quacking up a storm

gobble bobble just seems
maybe a little to close to the mark
wouldn't want to upset anyone you know

[Marco1]

Boston, is the sea rising already?
I am tired of waiting.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Boston

it just kinda had a ring to it

my bet is the ducks appreciated the grapes and might be thinking
"any time"

after all
at least they are not being serious when they run around flapping there wings and quacking up a storm

gobble bobble just seems
maybe a little to close to the mark
wouldn't want to upset anyone you know

you're right, the truth about warming does seem to upset some

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

It appears that you can not discern between a figure of speech, a simile, and example or simple logic, nor can you realise when your opinions are being exploited. Like I said before, sorry I can not help you with that.

As for your battle with the cloth, once you are off warfarine, go on an aspirine a day (100) and drink plenty of water. And I mean plenty.

Figures of speech, similes and logic?

No. What I saw was the unfounded assumption that if I believe AGW is real, I must have some nefarious political and social agenda that I want to cram down people's throats because of it.

And now you say I'm being exploited, on top of that.

Would you care to explain who's exploiting me, and how they're doing it?

As far as the medical problem goes, I think it was a double whammy that caused it. First I was careless, and let myself get dehydrated in the desert heat. Then I fell asleep in front of my computer after a graveyard shift, with my leg curled back under the chair. You better believe I'll be careful about not repeating either of those....

[Guillermo]

quack quack quack...?
gobble gobble gobble...?

How funny, now we have two muttering idiots here, Warddy Duck and Boston The Lying Weasel!
....or are they Warddy Weasel and Boston Duck?

[Guillermo]

I had posted this already in december 2009:

Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity
by William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/...s/gray2009.pdf

From the abstract:
"This paper discusses how the variation in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) resulting from changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and deep water Surrounding Antarctica Subsidence (SAS) can be the primary cause of climate change. (MOC = THC + SAS) is the likely cause of most of the global warming that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution (~1850) and for the more recent global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Changes of the MOC since 1995 are hypothesized to have lead to the cessation of global warming since 1998 and to the beginning of a weak global cooling that has occurred since 2001. This weak cooling is projected to go on for the next couple of decades."

From the introduction:
"General Circulation Models assume that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause weak global warming and an increase in global precipitation that will lead to a large increase in upper-level water vapor and cloudiness. They simulate that this increase in water vapor and cloudiness will block large amounts of infrared radiation emitted to space. New observations by satellite and reanalysis data, however, do not support these GCM assumptions. The global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s has been associated with a modest decrease of global upper tropospheric water vapor and an increase of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). These measurements contradict model predictions."

And from corpus:
"The global warming that has been experienced over the last century (~0.7oC) has been primarily due to a slowdown in the MOC from what was experienced in the 19th century and during the period of the Little Ice Age. The 30-35 year periods of up-and-down global temperature change over the last century are due to shorter multi-decadal variations of the MOC. There is typically a 5-10 year lag before one is able to detect a noticeable globe surface temperature change from the initial onset of a stronger to weaker MOC or vice-versa.

The CO2 increases that have been experienced with the globe’s growing industrialization over the last century could have accounted for only about 15-20 percent of the warming that has been observed. The expected doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial background state by the end of the 21st century should by itself be expected to increase global temperature by no more than about 0.3-0.5oC. It will be possible for humankind to adjust to this degree of warming.

The MOC could either enhance the late 21st century CO2-induced warming or act to cancel it out. It would not be wise to engage in expensive national and international efforts to reduce CO2 for the purpose of preventing global warming when nature through its MOC variations is holding the trump cards which can overwhelm anything CO2 increases can accomplish. AGW advocates of CO2 reduction strategies do not understand the physics of global climate change. Humankind would suffer severe economic hardships to follow the path advocated by the AGW advocates. There is very little humans can do to effect climate change. We must, as we have in the past, adjust to it."

(for sure this guy didn't go to the University, either! )

P.S.: Link seems not to be working anymore, so I attach the paper here.