What Do We Think About Climate Change

As we all know the Aral Sea has greatly reduced in size in Central Asia. One of the major affects of that is less clouds covering the surrounding republics and therefore less rain which is raising temperatures and altering the eco-system.

Worryingly the farmers in Mato Grosso, Brazil are strating to comment there dont seem to be so many clouds around these days either.... a problem for the future?

Of course in the US they just called it a dust bowl and in Kazakstan, Stalin happily destroyed the Steppes over planting wheat in an area that couldnt sustain it.

Climate change comes in many guises.

 

Yeap! It has been (and keep on being) always like that, although probably a precision is needed: "local and regional impacts of climate change come in many guises" would be more adequate.

Cheers.

 

Thank God for Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

thought you guys might enjoy this short


cheers
B

 

another one thats bound to cause a stir

 

Great, starve the trees of CO2, ain't it bad enough we chop them down? That's right pick on the trees, they don't vote! Its always the damn same... the trees get it in the neck... LOL now we have government competing with them. Is no one to be spared?

 

Whiskey - Beans And Undercooked Corn...

Hello...
Being a climate change thread - I am sure you care about where same comes from - organic - happy chicken - crap like that...
Well - actually - this all just came from my *** - not the pet donkey - oh - what a picture against porcelain - what an amass - nothing took - seems nothing got stuck...
I DO LIKE TO FART...
Cheers to the Human lower intestine...
**** - no pun intended - I believe that all that rhymed...
HOODIE DOO...
MORE BEANS AND A DOUBLE YOU MID TWENTIES WAITRESS...
Note to self - where is my life jacket for the shameful walk to boat...
SH.

 

Looks like the robbery victims may be the Saguaro Cacti. They are threatened and need CO2. Cactus haters.

No vegetarians; you scare my plants!

 

you should do some camping down in the Sonoran
would wake you up some to the true beauty of the desert
try latter half of March first week of April if you want 70° daytime and 35~40° night time temps
best time of the year and far fewer tourons

Im not so sure about the co2 extraction gimmicks
not the iron filing dumped in the oceans thing
or the artificial trees thing
seems like rapid change in any direction could cause an undue environmental response

 

Interesting reading:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

From there:
Summary for Policymakers

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.

 

Leuliette, E.W. and Miller, L. 2009. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2008GL036010. Published 25 February 2009.
Eric W. Leuliette: NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
Laury Miller; NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

Not Big Oil funds here, either.


"An analysis of the steric and ocean mass components of sea level shows that the sea level rise budget for the period January 2004 to December 2007 can be closed. Using corrected and verified Jason-1 and Envisat altimetry observations of total sea level, upper ocean steric sea level from the Argo array, and ocean mass variations inferred from GRACE gravity mission observations, we find that the sum of steric sea level and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.5 ± 1.0 mm/a over the period"
(bolded is mine)

The more accurate data since 2003 (Argo and satellites) seem to confirm once again sea level variation is pretty constant since at least the late 19th century. So it is clearly NOT attributalbe to AGW, if such thing exists at all.




Cheers.

 

I've seen some pretty thin arguments in this thread, but this is a new level. Two poems about the beauty of a temple don't mention any snow and ice around it, so there must not have been any?

Please, folks.....I'm still sick, and it hurts when I laugh.

 

oh please G you can do better than that
another industry sponsored "think" tank series of ludicrous and unsubstantiated claims just cant be your best response to my peer reviewed article I presented last
if any one cares to look it up these guys are just another branch of the same few denier outfits

associated with the Heartland institute eh
what a surprise

how about if I just re-post that last peer reviewed paper I linked to and this time Ill just copy and past it so for your further reading enjoyment

 

G in your last post of sea level rise

are you not doing exactly what you claim the "warmers" are doing
you only present data from an extremely narrow time frame but are making the broad claim that this somehow represents an effect or norm that predates that time frame

maybe if you showed sea level rise trends for say the last 800,000 years then it would be easier to see that the change in recent times and within the time frame of the industrial age is a clear and sustained trend of unusually rapid sea level change synonymous with a rise in co2
at least according to the graph you have presented and if in fact that graph bears scrutiny against the full data set

or would that not support your position to show the full data set

a truly scientific analysis would include numerous data sets not just a fragment of one set, the raw data would be collated with the highs and lows removed in order to develop a average trend. That trend would then be compared to variables like co2 in order to check for patterns

what I also kinda liked about that graph is it shows a pretty clear trend within the industrial age of rising sea levels
not real conducive to your argument there mate

best try again

cheers
and strangely quiet around here lately
are you guys maybe beginning to see the light

I thought it particularly funny to have posted Naomi's article on the scientific communities consensus on climate change to some guy who denies the consensus view exists in conjunction with defending the preponderance of peer reviewed articles in my supporting arguments :idea:

cmon
that was a nice touch

 

I don't get this one, Guillermo. From the graph it looks to me like the sea-level rise started just about 1900. And since CO2 levels have been rising steadily during the period where sea-levels have been rising, this shows a correlation between CO2 levels and ocean levels. I don't understand how you think this evidence opposes the AGW hypothesis. It looks to me like it supports their hypothesis.