What Do We Think About Climate Change

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

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

Did Guillermo upset you?

[wardd]

naw, people like beck, hainity and oreily upset me, hard as I try i cant watch a complete program without feeling soiled and embarrassed for my species that some swallow what they say

I'm sure you feel the same way

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

naw, people like beck, hainity and oreily upset me, hard as I try i cant watch a complete program without feeling soiled and embarrassed for my species that some swallow what they say

I'm sure you feel the same way

I feel the same way that some people swallow what other denizens of the media, such as the CNN gang, say.

[wardd]

i watch msnbc with joe scarborough

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

i watch msnbc with joe scarborough

So YOU are the other watcher! I wondered who that was! You two should get together and have a game of checkers!

[wardd]

that be me

[Guillermo]

From Prof. Gray's paper:

6. PAST AND FUTURE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGES
We are seeing glaciers receding and arctic ice melting because we have been in a general
warming period over the last century and particularly over the last quarter century period (from the
mid-1970s to 2000). The generally increased global temperature we have witnessed over this
warming period should, of course, be expected to bring about a degree of sea ice and glacier
melting. The overall northern hemisphere middle-latitude winter wind patterns of most of this
warming period (i.e., a positive North Atlantic Oscillation – positive Pacific North America pattern)
caused warming in Alaska, northwest Canada, reduced snow in the European Alps, and general
global glacial retreat. This is to be expected from such a weak THC or MOC flow regime. Similar
warming conditions occurred from 1910 to the early 1940s. The Arctic Ocean and Greenland
experienced a similar melting in the late 1930s and early 1940s as has recently been occurring in
these areas. These are natural back-and-forth shifts in multi-decadal climate. But this recent
warming pattern has now begun to reverse itself to a cooler pattern. Historically, multi-decadal
cooling and warming trends such as we have seen over the last century typically do not maintain
themselves for much more than 3-4 decades.

I judge our recent global ocean circulation conditions from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s to have
been similar to that of the period of 1910-1945 when the globe had shown a large warming. There
was concern in the early 1940s as to whether this 1910-1940 global warming would continue. It
did not. A weak global cooling began from the mid-1940s and lasted until the mid-1970s. I predict
this is what we will see in the next few decades. Since 2001 there has been a weak cooling.
The globe has been gradually coming out of the Little Ice Age since about 1850. The author views
this long period change to be a result of a multi-century slow-down in the Atlantic THC and the
MOC due to a general lowering of Atlantic upper ocean salinity. CO2 increases are judged to have
played only a very small role in the temperature rises that have been observed since we came out
of the Little Ice Age.

Century Scale Perspective. It is hypothesized that on sub-orbital time scales (where solar activity
does not significantly vary by time and place), such as the last 1000 years or so, that the primary
force driving global climate change has been an internal one – namely, the long period multicentury
and multi-decadal variations of the MOC as driven by global salinity variations on these
time-scales.

I surmise that the medieval warm period was a result of a multi-century slowdown of the MOC in a
similar fashion to the apparent slowdown of the MOC in the 20th century when we have had similar
warming. I diagnose the Little Ice Age to have been a period of the MOC being stronger than
average. Figure 28 portrays my suggested explanation for the global temperature changes we
have seen over the last 130 years. I believe these temperature changes to be a combination of a
20th century general slowdown in the MOC together with various approximately 30-year multidecadal
speed-ups and slow-downs of the MOC. The top curve of this figure fits reasonably well
with what we have seen for the global temperature curve over the last 130 years. Figure 29 gives
an idealized portrayal of the THC (or MOC) being stronger in the 19th century as compared to the
20th century. It is to be expected that a weaker 20th century THC (or MOC) is associated with a
warmer globe. There is some evidence (Figure 30) that the salinity contents of the upper ocean
were higher in the 19th century then they were in the 20th century

[Guillermo]

7. SUMMARY DISCUSSION
I believe this deep ocean circulation hypothesis offers the best explanation for the global
temperature changes of the last century. I have not been a fan of variations in solar and sunspot
activity, cosmic rays, dust, ozone, volcanic activity, etc. as being adequate explanations for the
global temperature changes that have been observed over the last century. One of the primary
seasons that the CO2 warming hypothesis has been accepted by so many people for so long that
their has not been an appealing alternate hypothesis to CO2 increase to explain the 20th century
warming. I suggest this salt-driven ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) provides a
much more believable and much more realistic explanation of the temperature changes that have
occurred than does CO2 variations.

[Guillermo]

(Cont. Prof Gray)

I have been studying weather and climate for over 50 years and have been making real-time
seasonal hurricane forecasts for a quarter-century. I and many of my colleagues with similar
experience have been dismayed at the untrue and exaggerated media hype about impending
catastrophic global warming that has been so prominently discussed since the hot summer of
1988. We decry this alarmism. We do not believe we are in climate crisis! There are many other
more serious national and global problems that need to be confronted.

Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions
by as much as 20 percent (by 2020) and 80 percent (by 2050) of current emissions would lead to a
large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have little or no
significant impact on the globe’s future temperature. Such policies should be rejected.

[Boston]

quack

quack quack
quack

more grapes Ward
your going to need more grapes

B

[troy2000]

Guillermo, there are statements in Professor Gray's paper that simply aren't true. for example, '[s]ince 2001 there has been a weak cooling.' And, '...this recent warming pattern has now begun to reverse itself to a cooler pattern.' Not on this planet, it hasn't.

He also speaks of the Medieval Warm Period as though the entire world warmed, even though we now know better. he North Atlantic area warmed up, but other parts of the planet cooled. Overall, the period was cooler than the late 20th century.

OK, now I know why he's making no sense; I just looked at the 'paper' itself. Shame on you, Guillermo.

This is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It's simply a position statement, prepared for a Heartland Institute conference in 20009.

The Heartland Institute is not a scientific organization of any sort; it does no research and it sponsors no research. It's a bunch of professional lobbyists, who take money from large corporations to push their agendas. And Gray is just another aging hooker in their stable of scientific whores.....

edit: I just looked up the good doctor. He's a specialist in hurricanes and tropical storms. Apparently he made a name for himself by inventing seasonal hurricane forecasts in the 80's, and issuing them to the public each year since. The media makes a big deal out of them, even though they're notoriously inaccurate. So inaccurate, in fact, that they're basically useless for anything but filler on a slow news day.

And apparently the years haven't been kind to Dr. Gray's little gray cells... For an intelligent critique of his voodoo climate science (i.e., his claim that the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) is the main driver of climate change), see the following review of Gray's 2006 paper. It still applies, because the 2006 paper has most of the same unsupported, irrational claims as his 2009 paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...4/gray-on-agw/

And here's an interesting bit from the comments section of the critique:

Jan Rooth says:
26 April 2006 at 5:44 PM
For what it’s worth, I mentioned some of Dr. Gray’s recent comments to my dad (see Fig. 4 of the Marotzke paper linked above) and his first comment was “Well, Bill Gray never was too strong on the physics. He’s more of a pattern recognition guy.”

[Response: And that Dad, I presume, is Claes Rooth, who (I believe) is the fellow who introduced the corrected picture of the THC discussed in Marotzke's paper. Certainly, good pattern-recognizers, like Gray, have an important role to play in science in terms of suggesting new ideas, but without the next step of rigorous formulation and testing pattern recognition can be a quick route to fooling oneself. Think of Schiaparelli and the Martian Canals. --raypierre]

[Boston]

quack

quack

quack quack
quack

Ward I was wondering
it may be possible that the term simply does not translate well
what say I present our feathered friend with a definition

quack

A
1.
the harsh, throaty cry of a duck or any similar sound.
–verb (used without object)
2.
to utter the cry of a duck or a sound resembling it.

B
1.
a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to Medical skill.
2.
a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.
–adjective
3.
being a quack: a quack psychologist who complicates everyone's problems.
4.
presented falsely as having curative powers: quack medicine.
5.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a quack or quackery: quack methods.
–verb (used with object)
6.
to treat in the manner of a quack.
7.
to advertise or sell with fraudulent claims.

cheers
B

PS
quack quack

pps
Snipe hunt anyone

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by troy2000

....... 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....

True, however as for any medical condition, you must be predisposed to it, so prevention is good. Research aspirin, there is a lot of studies and water goes without saying to also protect the kidney.
Aspirin tends to stay in the body for almost a week, so you don't need to take 100 mg a day really, one every second or third day will still do the trick and you diminish the possible side effects.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

True, however as for any medical condition, you must be predisposed to it, so prevention is good. Research aspirin, there is a lot of studies and water goes without saying to also protect the kidney.
Aspirin tends to stay in the body for almost a week, so you don't need to take 100 mg a day really, one every second or third day will still do the trick and you diminish the possible side effects.

Thanks for the advice.

[PAR]

When the steam powered train first appeared, notable scientists of the era insisted that human bones would explode if they traveled over 20 MPH. This was looked on much like the non-global warming scientists of today as silly, because a horse in full gallop could exceed 20 MPH and though there was internal pressures noticed (gulp), no one exploded.

Archimedes calculated the diameter of the earth in Greece and couple thousand years before Columbus's grand discovery. He was only off by a single percent, which was impressive, if not believed by the masses being whipped up by future exploding bone doctors of the world who in spite of this insisted it was flat (like their heads).

Cars with internal combustion would blind a person if they went over 40 at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. Sweet God, I'm glad I've been a dutiful goggle wearer.

Mass production would eliminate the job market for the majority of the country, if not the world and the metric system was a communistic plot as I remember the conservative press. This was the same well informed bunch, that had me under my desk as a school boy, because we all know the plywood top would protect us from the radiation. I think they had us under there to prevent embarrassment. No one wants others to watch as we respectively kiss our asses good bye.

Printing presses and news papers where doomed with the advent of the radio broadcast. Ditto when TV showed up, then again when computers showed up, then again when the internet was invented and now yet again with the advent of digital book viewers. I shutter to think of all the extra trees we'll have, because printing is dead and houses are built of plastic studs!

Currently we are experiencing the highest global temperatures that mammals have ever experienced including the last Holocene optimum and the medieval warm period. I suppose we can take a wait an see approach on the advice of the human bone exploding experts, or possibly a more direct approach, based on empirical observation, core sampling and modeling. This isn't a debate any more folks and no reputable scientist will have you believe otherwise. 10 years ago, maybe, now, even after the botched evidential screw ups and misdirections, no reputable school of thought will support the contrary. Those that do are clearly well in ignorance of the evidence, core samples and modeling.