What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Pericles]

Too true Tim.

"I'll do so again; One volcaeno spewing it's substance into the atmosphere influences the enviroment more than 10,000+ industries ever could. I do not say that mankind's activities do not have an effect, nor should we not be aware of those effects. What I say is, there are larger influences at work. Modern science has only been monitering the enviroment for a short period, in the grand scope of things. To imperil our industry and development over possibly confused, and or misdirected concerns, seems ludicrous.

The Earth cycles as it wishes."

The EU is imperiling Europe sure enough!

This might interest you. I just found out what our new EU Government is costing. To run the EU costs £600,000,000,000 per year, or 12% of the Gross Domestic Product of Europe as a whole, which is five trillion pounds sterling or ten trillion dollars US. $10,000,000,000,000


I missed the article in 2004 2004, but it's worth linking to now. No wonder the EU Government doesn't want to give the European people a referendum.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...585282058.html

Pericles

[masalai]

Ooooo is that enough to pay for a small war in afganistan? - so that is why EU is not helping there - Well, if they "attack" at the right time there could be a nice profit in it - the opium crop is the biggest in a long while....

[masalai]

This is some info from http://aoss.engin.umich.edu/people/rbrood this bloke and understand this http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/show.html


Getting Ready for Spring (2):

If the planet is slowly warming, it is difficult to make that determination from the day-to-day and even the year-to-year weather observations. There is large variability of the temperature, plus there are sometimes problems with the quality of observations. Both of these are especially true if only a single place is considered, like an airport being surrounded by a city – or your backyard. Because of this strong variability, we rely on temperature measurements collected over many years and from many places. We also use temperature data from different types of instruments, and there are continuous efforts of quality control to determine and correct observational errors. This collection of observations for many years and from many places and from many sources is a way to accumulate information and to remove the variability that is random. Random variability, by definition, averages out to zero if enough observations are accumulated.

The previous blog was on spring coming earlier (Getting Ready for Spring (1)). If we are seeing a warming at the Earth’s surface, there are many ways that this warming is manifested. One of natural places to look is at the seasonal transitions. In the interior of the United States, the transition from winter to spring to summer is a time of large changes in the weather. It is cold, then warm, then cold again. Those in the Southeast, where peaches are grown, know the tension every year as the peaches bloom and a cold front is on the way with potential fruit-killing frost. It is time of severe weather when cold air from the north and west is brought next to warm and moist air in the south and east. This is weather carrying out its role in defining the Earth’s climate, carrying heat from the equator to the pole.

The seasonal transitions are also a place where we would expect to see a natural accumulation of the impact of a warming trend. If there is a trend, then over the course of several years one would expect to see the onset of spring, perhaps defined by the last killing frost, to move earlier in the year. The transition from fall to winter, the first killing frost, would move later in the year. This is a place where the trend is “accumulated;” it is a natural place that random variability is “averaged out” and the existence of the trend is exposed.

The figure from paper by Gian-Reto Walther and many co-authors, entitled, The Ecological Responses to Recent Climate Change, in the previous blog highlighted changes in Germany of birds arriving earlier and trees getting their leaves earlier. Also in that paper is a short summary of similar observations from around the world. The report from Working Group II of the IPCC does an extensive summarization of evidence of the warm season getting longer all around the world.

Edges, like the seasonal transition, are important in the climate and in measuring climate change. Aside from the seasonal transition another place to look for changes is in mountains. Since it gets colder at higher altitudes we can see whether or not frost-free zones are moving to higher altitudes in mountains. We can look at whether or not frost-free zones are moving farther north in the northern hemisphere. That is what the map from the Arbor Day Foundation in the previous blog showed. It is worth pointing out, explicitly, that in all of these cases we are looking at frost, ice, because the formation of ice impacts plants, and some animals, strongly. It kills the peach blossoms, the fruit. Remember the ice edges in the physical climate system, sea ice, where there are large changes in albedo associated with the freezing of water and thawing of ice.

Another place that ice on the edges is important is snow cover. This year has been very snowy in the northern hemisphere. That it is snowy does not suggest that it is colder. If it gets warmer, it does not mean that we no longer see freezing temperatures in places like Michigan. If it gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere, and when there is precipitation there will be more precipitation, and if it is below freezing, then that precipitation will be ice and snow. From a climate point of view it is more important to look at snow cover in the late winter and early spring. Is the snow melting earlier?

This figure from NOAA’s Arctic Change Web Site shows the trend in snow melt at the station in Barrow, Alaska.



Figure 1: The date of snow melt from Barrow, Alaska adapted from Stone et al. (2002)



The Barrow station is shown by Stone et al. (2002) to be representative of the North Slope of Alaska. The green line is a fit through the first part of the data record and shows only a small slope in the melt date. The red line, through the later part of the record, shows a large slope, and the black line shows the slope for the whole, approximately, 60 year record. The black line shows a greater than 10 day shift in the melt date, which is between the slopes calculated for the green and red lines.

Also on the figure is the dashed line derived from a statistical model which investigates which geophysical variables explain the snow melt most fully. Wintertime snowfall, springtime temperature and cloudiness are the most important variables. These variables are strongly linked to circulation patterns, specifically, the Aleutian Low and the Beaufort Sea Anticyclone.

Returning to the discussion of the above paragraphs, the last 25 years of this record show enormous variability. There is a random aspect to this variability, and after averaging a strong trend is found. The attribution of this trend requires consideration of many other sources of information.

r



Stone et al. (2002): Earlier spring snowmelt in northern Alaska as an indicator of climate change, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 10.1029/2000JD000286.

[the1much]

hehehe,,,i like the "the earth will kill itself,,so what little we do to it doesnt matter,,we'll all die anyways" thinking,,,or is that reading it wrong Tim?
i just cant imagine what a person must do to their own body and those around "him" when they dont see the harm in things because somday a volcano will blow up, and the earth will freeze again,,,,,and is that the end of the earth??,,how many times in history has a volcano blown up and caused an "ice age"??,,,did those events kill the earth?,,or help it "start over" again,,,and will it be as easy to "start over again" when you factor in what "we've" done,,,and spewed out,,,will it stay "darker" longer by a few thousand years if you factor us in,,,can it come back from the "EXTRA" harm???
man i jus full of questions,,,and soon i'll be able to type AND think at the same time hehe

[Pericles]

Masalai ,

Here is one observation from the comments section.

"The report from Working Group II of the IPCC does an extensive summarization of evidence of the warm season getting longer all around the world.

Global Warming May Be Just European

Readers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Working Group 2 (AR4-WG2) may be forgiven to think a colossal misreading of available data may be at the foundation of contemporary Climate Change/Global Warming scares.

That report contains a map of “significant changes” (SC) already observed around the world. It is repeated throughout, and you can see it in the Summary for Policymakers, page 10, Figure SPM.1.

A total of 29,459 SCs are reported. An impressive number, at first glance.

Only, 96% of those changes regard just Europe.

The IPCC itself could not list more than 1,225 SCs not related to Europe.

——–

This enormous geographical bias does not get better when we count how many of those SCs are actually “consistent with a warming world”.

Planet-wise, there are 26,285. Of those, 96% are in Europe. Actually, 25,022 are European SCs related to “biological systems”.

That’s 95% of the total.

That means that outside of Europe, the IPCC could not find more than 1,150 SCs “consistent with warming”.

Compare that to the number of European SCs NOT-”consistent with warming”: 3,100

We have twice as many changes that are INCONSISTENT with warming in Europe, than CONSISTENT with warming in the rest of the world.

——–

Note also the distribution of the other “observed changes”. Only 7 for the whole of Africa, 114 for Asia, and 144 for the Polar Regions.

But what is most notable is that in the whole of North America (where, one would expect, a lot of researchers reside), only 810 SCs have been reported. Of those, 752 are consistent with warming.

That’s 3% of the total.

So for a summary: 96% from Europe. 3% with North America. Almost nothing for everywhere else."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That and the fact that many of these measuring instruments are not placed correctly and gather false information suggests, we should follow the money.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals “runaway warming” impossible. Miklos Zagoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center.

After studying it, Zagoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. “I fell in love,” he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week. “Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount. How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution—originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today—ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down. NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year. Miskolczi resigned in protest.

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary. The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth’s response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm

Regards,

Perry

[masalai]

OK Perry, thanks for the info - - I guess we have different perceptions, I do not feel that it is imminent, but either way planning takes quite a period of time to implement - either way... I hope it goes warmer - I absolutely HATE cold....

In the case of the Australian Govt, even though Warming seems the accepted option (sort of) it will take either political persuasion a good 20 years to act, then, how long to complete the changes (again - either way) - - - is all one can do...

[Pericles]

Meanwhile it's the sheer cost of all these scares that concerns me. Trillions of dollars are being wasted in schemes of no value, except to the promoters. Food riots overthrow regimes. http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Less than a month ago, we were reporting on how the EU member state governments, when confronted with the economic reality of implementing their fantasy 20 percent cut in CO2 emissions, were demurring at the potential costs and seeking ways to reduce their impact.

The point was that these self-same governments had agreed those very cuts at the spring European Council the year before. Following that experience, with the next spring council due this Thursday and Friday, you would think they might have learned a lesson or two.

But this is the European Union we are talking about and, to expect rational behaviour is to neglect the effect of the unreal world inhabited by the "colleagues" as they get round the table in Brussels.

Thus it is, according to Reuters, that "EU leaders" are this week to call on the EU commission "to draw up a road map for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, going beyond a unilateral target agreed in the fight against climate change."

Already, a draft final statement has been prepared by the EU's Slovenian presidency. It employs the mind-numbing language that the "colleagues" so love, declaring: "Stepping up to the more ambitious 30 percent reduction target as part of a global and comprehensive agreement needs to be built in explicitly, and in a balanced, transparent and equitable way."

And in a "balanced, transparent and equitable way", EU leaders will put their names to this fantasy document and walk away to collect the headlines. Their civil servants, on the other hand - individually and collectively - will tear their hair out, in full knowledge that the target is unachievable. Not only that, they must be aware that each of the member states governments have no intention whatsoever of even trying.

Nevertheless, Mr Brown will solemnly commend to our local parliament on Monday, in his ritual post council statement, the new targets. So life will go on, with MPs performing their usual role as a captive audience in what can only be described as fantasy politics.

What really gives the game away in this context is that, as Reuters reports, the Slovenian statement does not offer detailed plans on how the EU intends to achieve this deeper cut. Bearing in mind that the current crop of "leaders" have no idea of how they are going to achieve the 20 percent cut already agreed, this is wholly predictable. But it does make you wonder about the sanity of those involved in this process, where reality can be suspended, not only once but again and again and again.

However, there is no truth, unfortunately, in the rumour that they are using this artwork (illustrated) as the cover for their statement.

PS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7264653.stm

[the1much]

ya placement of devices are important,,,,but its also import. to remember "winds" and "jet streams",,,they can carry "crap" from the industrial parts of america,,(and would imagine works same everywhere) to the places that think "industry" meands"moms cleaning the attic"..they did a study ( collage of the atlantic) and maine is the largest tourist destination in all of u.s. (florida takes that over in the winter) everyone wants to go there and breathe that "fresh" air.,,,well on top of cadilac mountain (the place to be in Mount Desert Island) they took measurements,,,,,guess what it said?,,,,us "mainers" dont breathe so deep anymore hehe

[Pericles]

Barrow Station History

Station located near NE-SW trending coastline within a few miles of the northermost point in Alaska. Terrain fairly flat and sodden, with continuous permafrost and numerous thaw lakes, generally windy. Sea ice generally tight against shore in winter; may retreat offshore to considerable distance in summer. Current coordinates 71 degrees 18' N, 156 degrees 47' W, elevation 31 feet. Scattered data, not in file, prior to 1900. History starts with brief records 1901-1904 and 1910- 1911, both in hospital building. Observations by teachers in school building Dec 1915 - March 1919 with move 600' west, elevation(11 feet) still suspect. Move 1000 feet NE, up 2 feet and to Army Radio Building September 1920, instrumentation recorded for first time, temperature obs. 5'. Station moved 0.3 miles SW and upslope to 17 feet elevation 12/27/24. LCD summary says temporary move to Hansens Store, location unknown. 8/15/25 station moved back 0.3 miles NE, back down to 13 feet when Radio Building rebuilt. Became USWB station 12/15/42, with station move 0.33 miles SW to Weather Bureau Quarters #1, near shore of Chukchi Sea. Station move 810 feet ESE and up to 22' 2/8/44, change in temperature sensor height to 12 feet, to escape sea ice. Move 150 feet SE to New Quonset building and thermograph added 4/2/55. Temperature instruments moved west 10/14/59, west again 12/31/61. Move 330 feet ESE to Weather Bureau building at Wiley Post-Will Rogers Airport and thermograph removed 11/7/66. Temperature instruments lowered to 5 feet and HO6 series hygrothermometer added 75 feet NW of instrument shelter 4/21/77. Old max-min instruments removed 2/6/78, and HO8 series hygrothermometer installed 10/21/85.


1901-1904 observation time 7 pm; 1910-1911 9 am; 1915-1919 11 am; 1920-1924 7 pm; 1924-25 5 pm. Observation time 1925- present midnight.

Observer USWB/USWS since 1942.

Record length and completeness good; no missing data since 1921. Site continuity reasonable, but changes in summer exposure to ocean, and albedo changes due to growth of town, moves, snow clearance, dirt on snow, etc. could result in false long-term trends. Suggest reoccupation of old thermometer sites for at least a year's comparison before considering use for long-term trends. Also look at effect of switch to HO series instruments.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/history/Arctic/Barrow.html

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Cana...52656-sun.html

Change happens,

Perry

PS. some fun. http://www.dozenal.org/files/A1%20BRIEF%20INTRO.pdf

[the1much]

if i could read,,then understand half of what you typed Per.,,,,id love arguing,,,i mean,, id love to have a conversation with you hehehehe

[SamSam]

Originally Posted by timgoz

Hello Everyone,

I keep seeing this thread pop up. I know there are diverse opinions concerning the same, and I think, in the past, I have expressed mine.

I'll do so again; One volcaeno spewing it's substance into the atmosphere influences the enviroment more than 10,000+ industries ever could. I do not say that mankind's activities do not have an effect, nor should we not be aware of those effects. What I say is, there are larger influences at work. Modern science has only been monitering the enviroment for a short period, in the grand scope of things. To imperil our industry and development over possibly confused, and or misdirected concerns, seems ludicrous.

The Earth cycles as it wishes.

Take care.

Tim

I'm thinking you just made that number up, but, say there is 1 million "industries" in the world, (I'm just making that number up, I don't know how many or even what constitutes an "industry") that would be the equivalent of 100 erupting volcanoes constantly spewing forth with never a letup. Googling around, the consensous among volcanologists is there are between 16 - 24 volcanoes erupting at any given time. All of this means not much, as the numbers are guesses, but the point is 6.7 billion humans in themselves are an awful large influence at work.

"To imperil our industry and development" makes me wonder about the whole scheme of things. Does industry and development ever end? Are we to keep developing forever? Aren't we developed enough for awhile?

[masalai]

Arrr, SamSam, an extension of that line of thought one could argue 'Humanity will get its just deserts for such greed and suffer the Easter Island effect' - disregard all the fables about aliens etc... just eat themselves out of existance, & with no way out as all the wood was used for other things - no boats::::::

[charmc]

Originally Posted by Pericles

fantasy politics.

That's redundant, isn't it?

[masalai]

Allow Pericles his foibles, if it was would he be here entertaining us all?? - All in the name of "red herrings"

[Pericles]

Chaps,

Contrary to all rumours, my boat will not be named "Cats Whiskers" cos of my tendency to preen, nor will it be "Red Herring" because I tell a couple disingenuously, once or twice. The name will be "Saxon Traveller", because it rolls off the tongue with innocent panache. I was tempted with "Ex Perry Mental", but you know how people gossip.

Although it may seem like it to some, I am not on this forum 24/7. I do have another life, but that concerns steam railways, to which we shall all be reduced when the ice brings down the overhead catenaries and diesel is frozen in the tanks of the DE locos. (I'm exaggerating, I know!) We were discussing the need for a rescue locomotive and I suggested a battery powered one, using Odyssey. http://www.isengard.co.uk/#News

There are those of us who have been contemplating diesel electric power for our boats and http://www.hawker-odyssey.co.uk/batt-index.html would have seemed a logical step. However, Gideon Goudsmit notified me that his company have chosen Lithium Ion.

http://www.africancats.com/resources...NG15062006.pdf

from

http://www.valence.com/products/epoch_overview.html

For some, it's over to
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...iesel+electric

Regards,

Pericles