What Do We Think About Climate Change

Couple random thoughts:

1) Hasn't the planet been both much colder - ice age - and much warmer in the past? If so, who are humans to decide what the correct temperature is?

2) Will you continue to use epoxy on boats if things get much hotter?

 

Couple random thoughts:

1) Hasn't the planet been both much colder - ice age - and much warmer in the past? If so, who are humans to decide what the correct temperature is?

2) Will you continue to use epoxy on boats if things get much hotter?

 

We will turn up the air conditioners or build farther from the Equator. Humans adapt. Our strength is our ability to solve problems(and our opposible thumbs, of course).

The planet always has cold spells. Forget an anniversary for instance.

 

A lo contrario companero. En realidad no puedes negar la validez de su ultimo articulo. Ya que no es suyo sino de un scientifico. ¿Tienes un doctorato en la climatologia? Lo dudo.

Here the real question is, and that is why there are deniers, NOT whether peopel are CAUSING the change. The question is are we CONTRIBUTING to it.

Of course in their simplistic and manipulative manner, these derechistas are self-delusional because these primitive and obviously inadquate brainwashing techniques are not working since the "moon-landing" fiasco.

Guillermo and anyone who agrees with him, are making same old mistake trying to debate ad nauseam a point that is NOT in question.

Guillermo must have learned this from usanian govts, but it is a non-existent point he is making.

He and all who agree with him are arguing against themselves by defending the point no one raised.

We ALL agree that the climate has been changing since the start 4 billion years ago (which already diqualifies all of the religious deniers, since their religions says that the earth was built by that "god" some 5 000 years ago, so who's really confused here?).

What some of us are saying is that we are now CONTRIBUTING to the current changes by accelerating the process with our emissions. Not by humanity actually CAUSING it.

Because that is clearly not true. Humanity is not CAUSING the climate change. It is, however, CONTRIBUTING to it.

And that point you cannot win, because even many of denier scientists are inclined to agree to a large extent with that argument.

How couldn't they? That is a FACT. ust look at the deforestated areas in Brazilian Amazona. Where the forests are cleared (every year an area as big as Switzerland is cleared), the rain precipitations are halved within two years.

Studies have been made in Spain and in usa and in many other countries about the influence of wind farms on the winds of the area where the farms are built. SO much so that the large wind farms are now a history. Scroogle it a little and see for yourself.

We ARE INFLUENCING the climate. Denying it is deluding oneself, nothing else. Lying to oneself.

What is the proper psychological term for that?

 

By the way trujillo comment was sooo funny, Hoyt. Well done.

Had me in stitches for a while.

 

Tengo un título universitario.

Tengo créditos de colegio en la climatologia. Y Tu?

If we tried to warm the earth, we couldn't. What makes you think we are warming it without even trying?

 

Were they self-dissolving or did el doctor remove them? Go play in your workshop and you can be in staples or nails. Just kidding.

 

I've already explained that to make money peddling bogus science for the oil industry you need some sort of cover, so you can pass yourself off to the gullible public and media as legitimate.

Not much of one, though. Being a former weatherman on TV or having a PhD in an unrelated but impressive-sounding field will do it. And of course, you have to have no ethics or shame.

 

Hoyt, Didn't we talk about letting this hidious thing atrophy?.. Now, you are impressing a F'tard with your Spanish and arguing AGW with him, who believes that the Lunar landing was a hoax (jajaja). I know it's irritating but come on, man!
Troy just loves to fight, Bos will agree with us but is too stubborn to admit, the academic will lose interest if there are no coeds watching nor government funding, and Boatdesign morphs into Boat Design within a few days of ignoring off-topic **** like climate change. Is it too late to reitterate that you are having a discussion with a mindlet so riddled that it thinks mankind cannot acheive a flight beyond the Van Allen Belt? Think about this!

 

Boston, you are not making a favour to yourself by posting that 2007 old Arctic ice graph from RC. It has been lately posted here much more recent information on Arctic and Antarctic ice extent and concentration. Please find out.

 

Going with masrapido's argument, which is quite persuasive, I have another question:


How do you know it's CO2 contributing to the change? Ever noticed (by satellite image) that humans have changed the very color of the Earth's surface from green to a dark grey/black over a statistically significant area?

Could it be our vast areas of black roofs and parking lots giving temps a boost?

Ever noticed how much hotter it is in a city or on a parking lot compared to on a natural surface that's not black?

 

Going with masrapido's argument, which is quite persuasive, I have another question:


How do you know it's CO2 contributing to the change? Ever noticed (by satellite image) that humans have changed the very color of the Earth's surface from green to a dark grey/black over a statistically significant area?

Could it be our vast areas of black roofs and parking lots giving temps a boost?

Ever noticed how much hotter it is in a city or on a parking lot compared to on a natural surface that's not black?

 

Aonger view on Arctic Sea Ice

For sea ice in the Nordic Seas the Norwegian scientist Torgny Vinje (Vinje 2001) has done the painstaking work of collecting observations made by ships since 1864. In the Nordic Seas the maximum extent of ice (April, see first attached diagram) has decreased around 33% since 1864, demonstrating that the reduction is not a new phenomena, but began long ago. Nearly half the observed reduction actually took place between 1860 and 1990 (Vinje 2001). While the mean annual reduction of the April ice extent has been decelerating by a factor of 3 between 1880 and 1980, the mean annual reduction of the minimum (August) ice extent is proceeding linearly (Vinje 2001). Apparently, much of the sea ice reduction in this region occurs in concert with the termination of the Little Ice Age and the following warming during the 20th century.


On its side, to obtain knowledge on Arctic sea ice extent in a longer time perspective, Polyakov et al. (2003) analysed the Russian historical records of Arctic sea ice extent and thickness extend back to the beginning of the twentieth century (See second attached diagram). Occasional ship observations of summer ice edge started in the first decade of the 1900s when the first Russian hydrographic surveys and commercial shipping routes along the Siberian coast began. Starting in 1929, when the Soviet Polar Aircraft Fleet was created, aircraft-based observations began, which improved the quality of the data substantially. However, systematic aircraft and ship observations of sea ice from the Kara Sea to the Chukchi Sea only began in 1932, when the Northern Sea Route was opened by the ship Sibiryakov. There were information gaps 1942-1945 because of World War II. The missing data were reconstructed using statistical (regressionlike) models relating atmospheric processes to ice extent. Aircraft ice-edge observations continued until 1979, when the satellite era began, but until recently a combination of satellite and aircraft summer ice-edge observations was used. Since 1990 all ice-extent observations have been satellite based.

Based on these observational data, Polyakov et al. (2003) concluded that the “examination of records of fast ice thickness and ice extent from four Arctic marginal seas (Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi) indicates that long-term trends are small and generally statistically insignificant, while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the long-term tendencies due to strong low-frequency variability in these time series, which places a strong limitation on our ability to resolve long-term trends”. “Correlation analysis shows that dynamical forcing (wind or surface currents) is at least of the same order of importance as thermodynamical forcing for the ice extent variability in the Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas ”.

 

The attached diagram shows all HadCRUT3 monthly temperatures plotted against the monthly Mauna Loa CO2 values, since the initiation of these measurements in 1958. As the amount of atmospheric CO2 have risen steadily since 1958, although with annual variations, the oldest values of temperature and CO2 are plotted close to the left side of the diagram, and more recent values are progressively plotted towards the right side of the diagram. The red line is a polynomial fit with key statistics listed in the upper left part of the diagram. Last month incorporated in the analysis: February 2009 (shown by the red cross). Last diagram update: 21 March 2010.

By this, the diagram illustrates that the overall relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature apparently has changed several times since 1958.

In the early part of the period, with CO2 concentrations close to 315 ppm, an increase of CO2 was associated with decreasing global air temperatures. When the CO2 concentration around 1975 reached 325 ppm this association changed, and increasing atmospheric CO2 was now associated with rising global temperatures. However, when the CO2 concentration at the turn of the century reached about 378 ppm, the association changed back to that characterizing the period before 1975. Thus, since 2000, increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2 has again been associated with decreasing global temperature.

The diagram thereby demonstrates that CO2 can not have been the dominant control on global temperatures since 1958. Had CO2 been the dominant control, periods of decreasing temperature (longer than 2-5 years) with increasing CO2 values should not occur. It might be argued (IPCC 2007) that the CO2 dominance first emerged around 1975, but if so, the recent breakdown of the association around 2000 should not occur, either.

Consequently, the complex nature of the relation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 therefore represents an example of empirical falsification of the hypothesis ascribing dominance on the global temperature by the amount of atmospheric CO2. Clearly, the potential influence of CO2 must be subordinate to one or several other phenomena influencing global temperature. Presumably, it is more correct to characterize CO2 as a contributing factor for global temperature changes, rather than a dominant factor.

The breakdown of the positive temperature-CO2 relation since about 2000 (diagram above) have now lasted 10-11 years. This suggests that the recent global temperature development might deviate significantly from previous short-lived (2-5 years) periods of cooling derived from oceanic and volcanic activity as seen several times between 1975 and 2000. There are two possibilities: 1) Global air temperatures may again begin to increase in a short while. 2) The recent development may represent the beginning of a more thorough and long-lasting cooling, perhaps similar to the cooling period after 1940. As usual, time will show what is correct.

Credit: Ole Humlum

 

Aaah, coff, splut, arg, ejem. Wow!...that is pure TV mexicanish. Is that real or put up? I doubt Chilean schools teach that.

A lo contrario? I know: A la fresca, A lo de tu tio, but not that one.
ñ as in Compañero is easy to write. press the Alt button and then type the numbers 164 on your keypad.
último is Alt 163 artículo is Alt 161
Su and suyo are terrible when used as in English.
"doctorato" is neither spanish nor italian...somewhere in between.
Climatologia does not need the article...are you really Chilean?