What Do We Think About Climate Change

[TeddyDiver]

By the border of Finland and Norway.. around here..

 

[TeddyDiver]

.you will of cource be affected in the long run but you will probably be one of the last one to realize it.

The effects are the most obvious around the arctic regions..

 

[Guillermo]

rambo!,
the main interest in this thread is we (at least me) may discusss and learn a lot on climate change matters. In my case the more I learn, the more I'm convinced humankind has little to do with climate change by controlling CO2 emmissions. The sad thing is we are spending zillions in that.
Cheers.

 

[Guillermo]

Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007 By Nicola Scafetta, Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA

Abstract

The solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change is analyzed by using an empirical bi-scale climate model characterized by both fast and slow characteristic time responses to solar forcing. Since 1980 the solar contribution to climate change is uncertain because of the severe uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. The sun may have caused from a slight cooling, if PMOD TSI composite is used, to a significant warming (up to 65% of the total observed warming) if ACRIM, or other TSI composites are used. The model is calibrated only on the empirical 11-year solar cycle signature on the instrumental global surface temperature since 1980. The model reconstructs the major temperature patterns covering 400 years of solar induced temperature changes, as shown in recent paleoclimate global temperature records.


Some excerpts:

“DETERMING how solar activity has changed on decadal and secular scales is necessary to estimate the solar contribution to climate change. Unfortunately, how solar activity has changed in time is not known with certainty.

“Direct TSI observations started in 1978 with satellite measurements. For the period before 1978 only TSI proxy reconstructions have been proposed. These TSI proxy models significantly differ from each other, in particular about the amplitude of the secular trends.

“Unfortunately, TSI satellite composites since 1978 are not certain either. Two major composites have been proposed: the PMOD TSI composite which shows an almost constant trend from 1980 to 2000; and the ACRIM TSI composite which shows an increasing trend during the same period. GCMs and EBMs adopted by the IPCC (2007) assumed that TSI did not change significantly since 1950 and that, consequently, the sun could not be responsible for the significant warming observed since 1975.

“These estimates are based on TSI proxy models such as those prepared by Lean (2000) and Wang et al. (2005) which are apparently supported by PMOD. However, the above TSI proxy models would be erroneous if the ACRIM TSI composite more faithfully reproduces the TSI behavior during the last decades.

(bolded is mine)

Cheers.

 

[Guest62110524]

i fail to see how mere humans can come to consensus on this
I mean ONCE the sea was as far inland as Arizona USA
I think also that it is just a cyclic thing,
But what really saddens me, is that one day Polar Bears, IMO the animal most suited to any environ, will be lost
So I say no more shooting Polar bears please)

 

[Guillermo]

"It is very unfortunate that science is being used for political purposes. Global warming is an imaginary product used for promoting the atomic power industry. When the truth will eventually become apparent, the credibility of science will be seriously damaged"

Dr. Syun Akasofu.

Read his interesting article on "Recommendation to postpone the 2009 Copenhagen Conference"
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/recommendation_to_postpone-shortened.pdf

Cheers.

 

[mark775]

View attachment MP-public awareness.WMV
20 years ago, or so, we had one of these visit us near here at latitude 59°. It was last spotted somwhere near a petrified redwood forest on Unga Island in the Shumagins (Redwoods grow in climates like California).

 

[Frosty]

1 billion years ago the moon was just 12000 miles from Earth. It was huge in the sky. 1000 foot tidal waves went a round the planet daily. Life at that time was not possible but the constant washing and cooling of the planet is thought to have made conditions for life possible.

At that time the Eath did not tilt on its axis until a collision with another planet that I forget the name of that tilted the Earth and started its rotation.

National geographic documentary.

 

[fasteddy106]

The little blip about Polar Bears was nonsense. There is no threat to them. They survived the last time there was no polar ice, they will if it happens again. But more importantly, loss of polar ice is simply evidence of climate change, not evidence that humans are causing it.

 

[rambo!]

The CO2 problem and the role of human activities are debated on many site´s on the net, and one can probably find support for any personal opinion out there. Both sides arguments seems to be likely valid, so we just have to wait for sientific proof that the world can agree upon. Hopefully the climate model is a more reliable software than the financial models, future will tell....

But to me climate change is not only about warming up the earth or melting ice.
I can see and smell bad air in the city, read about increasing pollution related illness.
I can see that slaimy green stuff covering everything under the surface in the waters I´ve been boating on for fifty years.
I can hardly count on catching a fish for lunch anymore, some spieces are almost gone.
Toxic hull paint falls of and slowly kills everything living under marinas.
Population of birds on the islands has changed and decreased.

I think I can argue that these cases are results of "human activities".....it might not warm up the planet but it makes our environment a little poorer.

 

[Jimbo1490]

The CO2 problem and the role of human activities are debated on many site´s on the net, and one can probably find support for any personal opinion out there. Both sides arguments seems to be likely valid, so we just have to wait for sientific proof that the world can agree upon.

What we've been trying to show you is that we are already there; the mechanism for CO2 to cause anything but the most trivial of warming is missing in action. Climate models continue to rely on that mechanism as if it were based on proven science, which it is not.

Meanwhile, all recent climate change is well within the record of natural variation.

These are not opinions, but conclusions based on the facts as they exist today, right now.

The people who say otherwise all have an agenda beyond "saving the planet from global warming". It's not that they are not trying to 'save the planet', but that their vision for doing so is one that would be totally unpalatable and unacceptable to the average person as it involves draconian population control measures. They sincerely believe in the necessity this and the AGW alarm scare is the most effective way to make this happen without the average person even having a clue to the nature of their real agenda.

Jimbo

 

[mark775]

Eddy, pretty slick and heart-touching polar bear ad, huh?
Hey, Rambo, most agree on this stuff...
bad air in the city, pollution related illness, slaimy green stuff, etc..
I personally believe that businesses should be taxed away from making polluting choices,..but co2? And the timing (now) for taxing ANYTHING? Bad Idea - Lets get on our feet, THEN look into slowing business with taxes on pollution.

 

[Guillermo]

The little blip about Polar Bears was nonsense. There is no threat to them. They survived the last time there was no polar ice, they will if it happens again. But more importantly, loss of polar ice is simply evidence of climate change, not evidence that humans are causing it.

Absolutely.

Cheers.

 

[Guillermo]

Jim,
what do you think about Akasofu's claim that AGW histeria is being surreptitiously used by governments to promote nuclear energy?

Cheers.

 

[Jimbo1490]

Jim,
what do you think about Akasofu's claim that AGW histeria is being surreptitiously used by governments to promote nuclear energy?

Cheers.

I've heard that before and I'm sure that's one component of the AGW hysteria machine. The 'zero growth' people are another component. The energy future scammers (like Enron) are yet another. Enron's schemes continue to live on at their new home, General Electric, which now owns the Enron wind farms, and is aggressively promoting both 'cap & trade' type of emissions trading schemes as well as huge subsidies for wind farms, which are totally uneconomical without subsidies.

The nuclear angle can be tossed in with the energy market scammers, whose broad goal is to make burning hydrocarbons uneconomical, which will then make their respective form of energy, like wind, solar or nuclear, economical by comparison.

Nuclear power should be able to compete on its own, and does so everywhere but in the United States, where the green wackos have made it so uneconomical to build a nuclear power plant (or ANY kind of power plant for that matter) so that nobody has built any within a generation.

The same green wackos then think we can make a switch to electric cars, charged from the overworked, antiquated power grid that THEY THEMSELVES oppose modernizing at every turn.

Jimbo