What Do We Think About Climate Change

I don't understand with global warming and the whole world is suffering from extreme cold
My favorite sites: SEO Services | Internet Marketing | Internet Marketing Blog | SEO

 

It does. I made some simple calculations above to show the heat capacity of the three major so-called "GW" gasses. Per metre square.

Any human inervention that changes the balance of concentration of these gasses in the air, causes chain ractions that have various effects on large spread of our biosphere. Coral reefs die off on just a 1-2 C degrees change in the sea temperature.

When these die, millions of tonns of fish disappear (through dying and/or migration for example) from the area. Then people and other species loose their foor supply, and the effects may snowball from there. Wars and migrations of people, decades of conflicts, who knows what else from there.

Just one or two degrees C.

Not only affect the climate, but everything. Consider for example the fact that Indonesians are already fishing in Australian waters around the reefs.

They have to. There are 200 millions of Indonesians. They need A LOT of food. What if australian coral reefs all die and fish disappears? Indonesia has already asked Australia several times to open their borders to Indonesian immigration because they are already bursting and are ready to explode (too many people on the islands). Who is to say that Indonesians may not become so desperate to consider violent and forcible move to Australian free (uninhabited) land? They have already all but cut all their forests to produce food for their population.

That is not alarmist, that is strategic risk. That is why Australia is spearheading the isssue, as Guillermo said few posts back calling Australian Bureau of Meteorology as "not precisely in the realists camp".

They understand the regional risks they face already. Fish is gone from Indonesian waters, land is already cleared up and there's no more, making indonesia net importer of food for their disturbingly fast growing populations (muslim families have 6-10 surviving kids in average). No space left.

War.

One to two degrees is all it takes to start the chain of events that lead to some kind of disaster.

 

Welcome, seomul to boatdesign.net.

 

Diego, where have you taken the "0.001% of the atmosphere" figure from? Everybody, including IPCC, gives a figure of around 3% for atmospheric water vapour, being the most abundant and important GHG. And the more potent one. Even the IPCC atributes to water vapour up to a 67% effect. Boston is better informed than you do, as he posts more correct figures.

Cheers.

P.S.
BTW, perhaps you have realized Boston is the only person in this forum I dare to warmly "bang in the head". That's because he is a nice guy who has become my friend with time, and reciprocally I gladly admit and take the same kind of treatment from him.

And yes I have find many posts of yours in which you insult people first, when you indiscriminately scorn their beliefs and fears. I have asked you before what makes you think you are superior to the rest of mortals. And trying to defend yourself saying you are not the FIRST in insulting is very, very childish, let me tell you. Such a very big ego is of little use for serious discussion purposes.

 

Guillermo, from wikipedia and new geographic. The skeptic page I posted claims:

"Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988."

...?

That is what I am concerned about the most. Every fool nowadays claims crap from positions of authority and we are supposed to believe it all.

Numbers are just all over the place. Even scientists are not reliable source of information.

 

Don't worry masrapido, it will rain and the humidity will go down.

 

And some of those chain reactions cause additional changes in the concentrations of the gasses which invalidates any simple equations based on the amount added by humans.

As to your equations, I'm not familiar with this area, but given past posts where you talked about areas that I am familiar with, I know that you will talk with ultimate confidence about things that you understand nothing about. I started to write a long critique of your method but then decided just to say this: your conclusions differ from the results of all the pros who have studied this on both sides of the issue.

If that were true, all of the coral in the world would die every year.

There is much more plausible cause of declining fish catches: overfishing.

 

Dave, I am trying to keep it impersonal. Any reason why you are pushing me into the personal area?

Before I respond, and I usually do not hold back when people insult me...

 

Guillermo, look for Iain Stewart and his 3-part documentary where he analyses and investigates the issue from it's origins.

Neither of the two scientists was embroiled in the recent fiasco, to my knowledge. Not much of a recommendation, but they seem to be interested in facts more than profit and propaganda.

 

This week we suffered a massive fish kill along coastal Florida all the way south to Palm Beach County. Cause?: Cold wave.

 

It confirms that GW may not be all Al Gowe pumps it up to be, from his "dirty" 1000 rooms mansion.

And let us remember that he is shareholder in oil industry as well.

(how did yu escape, by the way...? )

 

I, masrapido, am not a fiiish.

 

Quasybimillennial solar cycle

Now let me bring to debate the quasybimillennial solar cycle.

The 2200-2400 year solar cycle structure was initially studied by Dergachev and Chistyakov in 1990. It shows that this quasybimillenial cycle starts with a Maunder-type minimum, corresponding with a ‘litle ice age’ . Subsequently it begins a initial active phase of 300-350 years duration. Climate warms up and to the end of this phase the global temperature is 1.5 – 2°C higher than during the ‘litle ice age’.

Then a relatively quiet age or ’plateau’ follows (as named by Boris Komitov, to whom I'm resuming in this post), with a duration of ~ 500 years. The supercenturial increasing of active solar processes stops and the amplitude of the Schwabe-Wolf’s cycles is predominantly high during the 'plateau'. Superimposed to the general trend they take place subcenturial, quasycenturial and relatively weak bicenturial oscillations. The Earth enters in a ‘climatic optimum’, i.e. a continuous age of relatively warm climate.

When the ‘plateau’ aproches its end temperatures slip down to a secondary minimum with a duration of around 300 years. This is the end of the ‘climatic optimum’ and the climate stay temporary cooler by ~1°C.

The existence of a secondary minimum in the 2200-2400 year cycle structure shows that it is a double wave, containing two 1100-1300 year oscilations.

The main active phase of the quasybimillennial cycle lasts for another 300-400 years in which climate warms up again until it reaches the maximum of the cycle. The last age of that kind was between the 8-11th centuries, when the MWP happened. All existing data indicates quite clearly that this last maximum has been essentially warmer than present (in spite of "The Team" efforts to hide it).

At last, the forthcoming cooling phase of the 2200-2400 year cycle happens for another 600-700 years. This strong cooling phase ends with a new ‘litle ice age‘ in coincidience with the corresponding Maunder-type solar minimum. The last one we have experienced has been the 17-18th century LIA.

During the second half of the 20th century solar activity (note: all activity, not only irradiance) has been the highest for the last 800-1000 years. It has been the result of superpositions of quasycenturial and supercenturial solar oscillations maximums. Amongst them the quasybicenturial cycle, which last minimum has happened close to 1850 AD, played the most important role.

See attached figure. We are presently in point 'Q', so entering the 'plateau'. This means Earth will stay for around 500 years in a warm age, were shorter solar cycles will dominate the climate variations. Specifically we are now at the beginning of the slip down to a new Dalton type minimum at around 2050 (92% probability).

Señoritas, su turno.

Cheers.

 

I appreciate your tolerance here, mas, and I'll give you a serious answer. There are two things that might be involved in "getting personal". One is where I would say something like, "you're stupid and your country sucks and you probably live in your mom's basement." This is what I would call a personal attack. It has nothing to do with the argument, and all it tells the reader is that I'm angry at you and I'm childish. I try to avoid making personal attacks, although don't exactly have a perfect score on this.

Then there is the other sort of personal comment such as "you really don't know what you are talking about". This kind of comment can be a personal attack (and in my experience it usually is), but it can also be a legitimate point in an argument.

In the comment under discussion, I don't know that area well enough to say anything concrete about your mathematical argument. I see several things that I think are wrong, but I'm not certain enough to commit myself. So the question is: are you a reliable-enough authority that I should just trust you that these equations prove what you say they prove? The answer is "no", for the reasons that I gave.

However, I should have taken a few more sentences and tried to give those reasons in a more polite form. Thanks for giving me the chance to explain.

 

Guill

Nice answer and theory. This might be the case. I gave up on believing science a while ago when the answers kept changing every 5 to 10 years to suit there new hypotheses. The core samples from the ice gathered over the year do tell some interesting stories of the climate and the changes it has gone threw. I don't for a minute believe anything i cant see for my self though. My experience with weather working at 6000+ft for many years tells me that there have been warm years and there have been cold ones. Last year was very very cold. This year started colder than most and has warmed for a couple of weeks now until the Gulf Stream moves farther toward its natural currant designation. Happen almost every year for the last 40 I know of anyway. I think people these days play the blame game like little kids. It must be global warming or now climate change wait i know lets call it a quasybimillennial cycle. Maybe so. I have learned that nothing short of your memory of life is worth believing or someones close to you who you believe that has first hand accounts. Any information beyond this is hypithetical. You believe what you want to believe. Everyone has a differant account of how many words someone says in a ten person circle let alone what records were accounting for when they never even drove cars or had toilets.