What Do We Think About Climate Change

The IPCC discounts claims that CO2 will cause the sort of 'rapid climate change' you keep prattling on about. They say that AGW via CO2 will be gradual.

Jimbo

 

The entire "Nuclear Winter" scenario has NO scientific merit and it NEVER did. This story was concocted by a group of activist scientists who were worried about nuclear proliferation and conjured up a way to stop it or at least slow it down. They spun the tale of nuclear winter as a result. If you had read the Michael Crighton essay that was cited recently, you would know that.

Jimbo

 

B,
"Global warming" didn't take hold so now you want to change the terminology to "Climate change" in the middle of the argument.
Climate change in both directions is natural and not caused by man.

 

Don't believe any of them. Don't believe anything you don't see with your own ojos(from people, anyway).

 

Of course the Crighton essay doesn't talk about nuclear cooling at all.

 

Boston The Scientist

:
(Oh my God, I'm getting my jaws broken)
ETC, ETC...

 

Oh, really?


Excerpted from the Michael Crighton Essay cited twice already on this thread (I just KNEW you didn't read it )

"According to Sagan and his co-workers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.

But Sagan and his co-workers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.

This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.

The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the effect of nuclear winter....."


Jimbo

 

It's official.

After reading this whole thread twice over, I have been converted.

I now know for sure that heating causes CO2 and that CO2 causes heating. Global warming produces rapid climate change that is the likely cause of the cooling we have experienced. I also know that we don't need observatories since we have much cooler computer modelling (no pun intended) that can mimic the changes in weather pattern for the next 200 years with certainty as expressed by an indian scientist over the phone.

All in all I can stand here and say with total certainty that climate changes!!!!!! DONT DENY IT!!!!

Climate changes and it can be cooler or warmer or stay the same. Any variations from that pattern is due to human interference with mother earth AKA the Pacha Mama.

Now you lot bow down and kiss the ground and repent from your wrong doings. Stop farting and learn to repeat after me:
"Climate changes, climate changes, climate changes" repeat 100 times every day facing east.

Hare climate,
hare climate,
climate climate,
hare hare. etc

 

BOSTON !!

(Once again, oh, God, I'm broken into pieces..)

 

Who farted?

 

Now, that sounds familiar...estimated change, from some emails, I think...

And Sagan did not even have the computers todays' "scientists" have...

I bet you his margin of error is quite wide.

Did you find the proof for your claim on methane (26 times more powerful than the CO2)?

 

Cool (pun intended) so now we'll get some restfrom your avalanche of the "scientific" proofs that you should have learned should not be taken seriously because theya re probably concocted too, just like their colleagues did, while you are fixing the jaw?

There will be another emailgate, this time in skeptics camp, just wait and watch.

After all, they are all from the same universities. And are probably laughing at the naive plebs on both sides. Fundings are meagre lately so there's little else to do but to screw around people who aren't in the know.

As if that would be a challenge in the first place...

 

Something else on Himalayan glaciers and climate change:

Climate change and its impact on the Himalayan glaciers – a case study on the Chorabari glacier, Garhwal Himalaya, India. Current Science, 96, 703-708.

Indian geologist Ravinder Kumar Chaujar of the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology investigated the retreats and advances of the Chorabari glacier located near the long-standing Kedarnath Temple in the Himalayan region, based on the dating of lichens, developed on loops of moraines.

The author notes that “Two wall engravings of writings/poems dated AD 650 and 850, on the back boundary wall of the temple, discuss the beauty of the Kedarnath temple. There is no mention about snow/ice/glaciers in them. These findings suggest that there was no glacier during that period around the temple.” These dates precede the Medieval Warm Period and remind us that modern day glaciers in the region have certainly come and gone many times in the past, long before anyone could blame humans for glacial retreats.

But the warmth ended, and as stated by Chaujar, “We consider that glaciations in the region started during the mid-14th century, i.e. the beginning of the Little Ice Age”. The Chorabari glacier advanced at this time, and it appears to have gone through periods of advances and retreats. The temple remained submerged
in ice/glacier for a minimum of 400 years. “After the peak of the Little Ice Age, recession of the glacier was followed by its three major stages of advance and retreat as indicated by the four loops of terminal and lateral moraines of the glacier.” Chaujar determined that the last retreat due to a warming again climate began 258 years ago, around 1748 AD. He says the behaviour of similar glaciers patterns in both hemispheres suggest the climatic changes in the world started around early to mid-18th century, not in industrial times, as suggested by the AGW proponents.

Two major lessons come from this study. One, any argument that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were confined to Europe is clearly not supported by this evidence from the Himalayan region (among many other evidences). Two, as said previously in this thread, glaciers have advanced and retreated many times in the past with absolutely no connection to humans and/or the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. To pronounce that glaciers are responding to anthropogenic CO2 seems to disregard their behavior during periods when human activities certainly had no impact whatsoever.

Cheers.

 

Now something about global warming, evapotranspiration (ETo), air humidity and rainfall:

Liepert, B.G., and M. Previdi. 2009. Do models and observations disagree on the rainfall response to global warming? Journal of Climate, 22, 3156-3166. (Note: Study funded by the NASA, not Big Oil )

"Recently analyzed satellite-derived global precipitation datasets from 1987 to 2006 indicate an increase in global-mean precipitation of 1.1%–1.4% per decade. This trend corresponds to a hydrological sensitivity (HS) of 7% K^-1 of global warming, which is close to the Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) rate expected from the increase in saturation water vapor pressure with temperature. Analysis of two available global ocean evaporation datasets confirms this observed intensification of the atmospheric water cycle. The observed hydrological sensitivity over the past 20-yr period is higher by a factor of 5 than the average HS of 1.4% K^-1 simulated in state-of-the-art coupled atmosphere–ocean climate models for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries."



Yin, Y, S. Wu, G. Chen, and E. Dai. 2009. Attribution analyses of potential evapotranspiration changes in China since the 1960s. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. DOI 10.1007/s00704-009-0197-7..

The Yin et al. team basically reviewed the issue of climate change and its potential impact on ETo. They note that “In addition, one of the expected consequences of global warming is that the air near the surface should be drier, which should result in an increase in the rate of evaporation from terrestrial open water bodies”. The rate of evaporation from open water bodies is a decent measure of potential evapotranspiration, ETo. A sentence in the Yin et al. article might come as a surprise to some who would insist that the warming world is producing higher rates of ETo. The authors reveal that “Some studies have reported significant decreasing trends in pan evaporation or ETo in recent decades over worldwide regions including European Russia, the western and eastern United States, Siberia, India, Israel, Australia and New Zealand”. So it appears something is happening in many parts of the world that is lowering ETo rates when the AGW proponents are looking for an increase in ETo.

Despite maximum temperatures increasing at a rate of 0.22ºC per decade while minimum temperatures increased at a rate of 0.34ºC per decade in China, potential evapotranspiration has decreased significantly at a rate of 8.56 mm (a third of an inch) per decade. In their own words, Yin et al. note “Potential evapotranspiration has decreased significantly (at the 90% level of confidence) in China as a whole during the past 48 years. The trend of annual ETo was −8.56 mm/10a on average with a relative decrement of −5.04% compared to 48-year average value.”


So, according to these two articles, we are getting more rain and we are seeing a decline in potential evapotranspiration. Not bad for forests, grasslands, and agricultural crops throughout the world. Bad for the GWA


Cheers.

 

Thank you, Guillermo, for the further illumination.