What Do We Think About Climate Change

actually that is the kind of answer that you get when Im on a lot of pain medication ( just before I pas out ) and dont care about spelling

but the essence of my response is correct

there is no consideration of politics in science nor is there a consideration of economics

those considerations only exist in the minds of people who are not scientist
pure science is basically above the mundane
it is what it is regardless of the ramifications

lets say science discovered an asteroid headed towards the planet
would it care what the economics of the impact would be
would it consider the political ramifications of our failure to prevent it
or would it merely predict its arrival and consequences

same with the climate change issue
science predicts its impacts
doesn't care about its political social or economic residue and
in order to be most accurate
refuses to be influenced by those factors as well

deniers on the other hand
are always influenced by the mundane rather than the pertinent issues
that way they can continue to deny right up until the end

 

wrong on all counts there my friend

 

I find it not so reasonable nor particularly intelligent. May I apply: "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience".......?

 

An interesting proposition:
"New Climate Model" by Stephen Wilde, taking into account albedo and water cicle.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#more-18240

From there:


1.Solar surface turbulence increases causing an expansion of the Earth’s atmosphere.
2.Resistance to outgoing longwave radiation reduces, energy is lost to space faster.
3.The stratosphere cools. Possibly also the number of chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere increases due to the increased solar effects with faster destruction of ozone.
4.The tropopause rises.
5.There is less resistance to energy flowing up from the troposphere so the polar high pressure systems shrink and weaken accompanied by increasingly positive Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
6.The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move poleward and the ITCZ moves further north of the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle increases due to the cooler stratosphere increasing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.
7.The main cloud bands move more poleward to regions where solar insolation is less intense so total global albedo decreases.
8.More solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as more ocean surfaces north of the equator are exposed to the sun by the movement of the clouds to cover more continental regions.
9.Less rain falls on ocean surfaces allowing them to warm more.
10.Ocean energy input increases but not all is returned to the air. A portion enters the thermohaline circulation to embark on a journey of 1000 to 1500 years. A pulse of slightly warmer water has entered the ocean circulation.
11.Solar surface turbulence passes its peak and the Earth’s atmosphere starts to contract.
12.Resistance to outgoing longwave radiation increases, energy is lost to space more slowly.
13.The stratosphere warms. Ozone levels start to recover.
14.The tropopause falls
15.There is increased resistance to energy flowing up from the troposphere so the polar high pressure systems expand and intensify producing increasingly negative Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations.
16.The air circulation systems in both hemispheres move back equatorward and the ITCZ moves nearer the equator as the speed of the hydrological cycle decreases due to the warming stratosphere reducing the temperature differential between stratosphere and surface.
17.The main cloud bands move more equatorward to regions where solar insolation is more intense so total global albedo increases once more.
18.Less solar energy reaches the surface and in particular the oceans as less ocean surfaces north of the equator are exposed to the sun by the movement of the clouds to cover more oceanic regions.
19.More rain falls on ocean surfaces further cooling them.
20.Ocean energy input decreases and the amount of energy entering the thermohaline circulation declines sending a pulse of slightly cooler water on that 1000 to 1500 year journey.
21.After 1000 to 1500 years those variations in energy flowing through the thermohaline circulation return to the surface by influencing the size and intensity of the ocean surface temperature oscillations that have now been noted around the world in all the main ocean basins and in particular the Pacific and the Atlantic. It is likely that the current powerful run of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillations is the pulse of warmth from the Mediaeval Warm Period returning to the surface with the consequent inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 as that warmer water fails to take up as much CO2 by absorption. Cooler water absorbs more CO2, warmer water absorbs less CO2. We have the arrival of the cool pulse from the Little Ice Age to look forward to and the scale of its effect will depend upon the level of solar surface activity at the time. A quiet sun would be helpful otherwise the rate of tropospheric cooling as an active sun throws energy into space at the same time as the oceans deny energy to the air will be fearful indeed. Fortunately the level of solar activity does seem to have begun a decline from recent peaks.
22.The length of the thermohaline circulation is not synchronous with the length of the variations in solar surface turbulence so it is very much a lottery as to whether a returning warm or cool pulse will encounter an active or inactive sun.
23.A returning warm pulse will try to expand the tropical air masses as more energy is released and will try to push the air circulation systems poleward against whatever resistance is being supplied at the time by the then level of solar surface turbulence. A returning cool pulse will present less opposition to solar effects.
24.Climate is simply a product of the current balance in the troposphere between the solar and oceanic effects on the positions and intensities of all the global air circulation systems
25.The timing of the solar cycles and ocean cycles will drift relative to one another due to their asynchronicity so there will be periods when solar and ocean cycles supplement one another in transferring energy out to space and other periods when they will offset one another.
26) During the current interglacial the solar and oceanic cycles are broadly offsetting one another to reduce overall climate variability but during glacial epochs they broadly supplement one another to produce much larger climate swings. The active sun during the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period and the quiet sun during the Little Ice Age reduced the size of the climate swings that would otherwise have occurred. During the former two periods the extra energy from a warm ocean pulse was ejected quickly to space by an active sun to reduce tropospheric heating. During the latter period the effect on tropospheric temperatures of reduced energy from a cool ocean pulse was mitigated by slower ejection of energy to space from a less active sun

 

Hmmm, now thats a crude/ short statement...Why?
Knowledge doesnt need to meet any of the two above mentioned "fields", just my opinion...

Look here;

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/higgs-en.html

Need money to run it, yes, but at the moment, no base in neither economy nor politics, just the will (and means) to do it.

Maybe only me... Like it....

 

OK, we have three choices here.


1. You've forgotten what you posted;

2. You're putting on an act to yank my chain; or

3. You aren't nearly as bright as I thought you were.

To settle the question, let's do a little recap. First, you posted this:

Then I asked:

Now, if you prefer to play games instead of answering me, that's fine. I'll simply stop reading your posts, because apparently you no longer have anything worthwhile to say.

 

Half page aricle in the Singapore Business times today on the errors the UN's IPCC has admitted to over the last 10 years....
So much fraudulant science has now been exposed that not only am I thinking global warming may not exist BUT for sure man hasnt caused it.
I do agree we are pumping lots into the atmosphere though but the countries so desparate to tax you for it are no longer the biggest purpetrators so whats the point of the tax?

Re some previous posts..if a scientist is not at the end of the day economically motivated..( read ..money from governments that want you to say there is global warming AND its caused by man)
why have they lied so much on this subject?

There are plenty of researchers out there dong their thing in the name of science that we may never hear from even though they have published papers like the Russian mathematician that effectively invented the stealth bomber.
So why do we hear from all the crooked ones when they speak about climate change?

 

Serve yourself.

 

First of all, there are big differences between errors and fraud, mistakes and lies. And in spite of all the hype, there's no scientific conspiracy deliberately manufacturing a false consensus. Conspiracy theories are the result of people trying to deal with complicated issues by reducing them down to simplistic good-vs-evil scenarios. That sort of thinking is hardly conducive to a rational analysis of the situation.

Make no mistake: although there will never be unanimity, there is a wide and deep consensus out there that AGW is real. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is on board--and their bread and butter is the same oil industry that's funding attempts to do an end run around the science, by whipping up public opinion to bring pressure against politicians.

Secondly, the validity of the science is independent of who wants to tax what for whatever purpose.

Why are scientists lying so much on the subject? The answer to that one is very simple: they aren't. You're just choosing not to believe them, and grasping at straws to justify your position.

I'm not sure what the stealth bomber has to do with climate change. But if a researcher has published papers on the subject of AGW, we have heard from him. It's less than helpful to claim that we're somehow only hearing from the crooked ones....

 

Curious:

"A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance.

The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of twenty-eight years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighbourhood of Monticello. An intense cold, produced by constant snows, kept the buds locked up till the sun could obtain, in the spring of the year, so fixed an ascendency as to dissolve those snows, and protect the buds, during their developement, from every danger of returning cold.”

The accumulated snows of the winter remaining to be dissolved all together in the spring, produced those overflowings of our rivers, so frequent then, and so rare now.”

Thomas Jefferson.

 

:idea: for the slow understanding ones:

"The central questions posed by economic approaches to climate change are the following: How sharply should countries reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions? What should be the time profile of emissions reductions? How should the reductions be distributed across industries and countries? There are also important and politically divisive issues about the instruments that should be used to impose cuts on consumers and businesses. Should there be a system of emissions limits imposed on firms, industries, and nations? Or should emissions reductions be primarily imposed through taxes on GHGs? What should be the relative contributions of rich and poor households or nations?

In practice, an economic analysis of climate change weighs the costs of slowing climate change against the damages of more rapid climate change. On the side of the costs of slowing climate change, this means that countries must consider whether, and by how much, to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions. Reducing GHGs, particularly deep reductions, will primarily require taking costly steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Some steps involve reducing the use of fossil fuels; others involve using different production techniques or alternative fuels and energy sources. Societies have considerable experience in employing different approaches to changing energy production and use patterns. Economic history and analysis indicate that it will be most effective to use market signals, primarily higher prices on carbon fuels, to give signals and provide incentives for consumers and firms to change their energy use and reduce their carbon emissions. In the longer run, higher carbon prices will provide incentives for firms to develop new technologies to ease the transition to a low-carbon future."

(taken from: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_091107_public.pdf)

At the end of the day humankind will have to adapt to climate change as it has always done, whatever the change has been and whatever it will be, as our survival as species and/or societies depends on it, among other factors. And for present days' population, life style and complexity, this means and will mean huge amounts of money. Not to talk about the cost of stupid "fights" against climate change, like the already dying (thanks God!) Cap and Trade thing.

Again and slowly: IT-IS-ALL-A-BOUT-E-CO-NO-MICS.

 

AAPG statement on Climate Change:

"Issue:

In the last century growth in human populations has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important. This research should be undertaken by appropriate federal agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs.

Background:

Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The Earth’s climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models. To be predictive, any model of future climate should also accurately model known climate and greenhouse gas variations recorded in the geologic history of the past 200,000 years.

Statement:

* AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future.
* AAPG supports research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.
* AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).
* AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.
* AAPG supports thepursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery.
* AAPG supports measures to conserve energy, which has the affect of both reducing emissions and preserving energy supplies for the future."


On board of what.....?

 

I'm sorry, Guillermo. You've forfeited any right to ask me questions--by not only refusing to answer mine, but mocking me for asking them. But you have my permission to continue insulting my intelligence, if it makes you feel better about yourself.....

 

Troy said:

Guillermo pointed out that the AAPG actually says:

Which is not exactly the ringing endorsement from the AAPG that Troy alleged.

So then Troy says:

Why be such a sorehead? You were wrong, now move on without being angry at Guillermo, who simply pointed out you were mistaken. We are not angry at you for being mistaken about a lot of things, but it is puzzling that you choose to be so pig-headed. We back up our assertions with facts. You try to back up yours with appeals to authority. These are not equivalent. We invite you to use facts instead.

Read M & M and Wegman as a start and then see if it all looks so certain.

Jimbo

 

Ice roads in Manitoba used to be useable 3 months a year. Now it's 1 1/2 months a year.
What amazes me is they are worried about getting supplies in before the ice roads become unuseable, in Berens River of all places, on the east shore of lake Winnipeg!
Duhhh!!! Haven't they ever heard of water transport? Has no one clued into the opportunity of offering barge delivery by the lake? As they would have all summer to get it in, they could wait for a fair wind ,and drastically reduce the fuel coasts of the delivery, then wait for another fair wind south again.
In a land surrounded by endless boreal forests, which has provided their heat for ten thousand years, what are they worried about? Lack of heating oil. Duuhhh!!!
We will be forced to adapt, sometimes resorting to ancient solutions. Their slowness in clueing in , is a threat in itself. Is this a microcosm of what will be our response to climate change generally?