jethro
-
Posts
7,337 -
Joined
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by jethro
-
-
Very informative, thank you!
-
I don't normally enter into the fray on the current weather patterns on this forum, don't know anywhere near enough to comment but I do feel I have to add my twopennoth worth for once. I too share the opinion of Noggin and Tamara on this one, maybe it is a gender thing but, and correct me if I'm wrong; what happened to the Medieval warm period? As far as I know we have no way of checking what the actual weather was like then, but we do know that it was warmer than today, I think the consensus was it warmed quickly. So today's weather patterns/ high temps/warm winters are unprecedented? I don't think so. Maybe, just maybe it's cyclical?
-
Found this on Accuweather; sums up nicely why I strongly believe more research, and lots of it needs to be done before making any sweeping changes.
Carbon Footprints
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Elliot Abrams
Monday, April 23, 2007, 9 P.M.
A few weeks ago, a Business Week article ran a story about global warming in which it was stated (and I paraphrase) that the science behind global warming has been proven and the debate has moved on to what to do about it. Judging from what I have seen of the IPCC report's executive summary, and the vast majority of articles on climate change, there is consensus about this in the scientific community.
While there is considerable acceptance of the idea that humans and our activities have played a role in contributing to global warming, much work remains to be done. Each week, we see new findings about ice in the polar regions, and a major scientific research effort is unfolding for this summer in an effort to get more answers. On another track, it turns out that the hydroflourocarbons that are used as refrigerants (replacing the clorofluorocarbons that had been in use) are strong greenhouse gases. This means even if we have reversed the destruction of upper atmospheric ozone, we have introduced a new contributor to global warming.
Yet another study suggests that the use of ethanol to replace gasoline will in a small way contribute to increased deaths from carbon monoxide. The April 18, 2007, edition of Science magazine's Daily News Archive (ScienceNOW Daily News) has an article by Jocelyn Kaiser that states, "But a new study of the health effects of substituting ethanol for gas reveals a downside: more sickness and death from a nasty air pollutant, ozone." In another story I saw on Fox News this afternoon, I learned that New York City's mayor Bloomberg announced 127 environmental proposals in a speech he gave yesterday (April 22) at the Museum of Natural History. One proposal was to plant a million trees in the city during the next ten years.
Finally, when looking for backing for an idea I want to propose for my local township (where I am serving as Chair of the Board of Supervisors) to set up a volunteer commission that would look for ways to reduce the township's carbon footprint, I came across plans and initiatives that have already gotten underway in localities around the country. A Google search came upon Portland, Ore., as a major success story in this regard.
How does all of this tie together? As we move from strictly a study of climate change and global warming to a discussion of what to do about it, we must recognize that this means a whole new set of players will need to join the research and solution finding effort. I mean, what does a climate scientist know about the best strategies for planting trees, shrubs or anything else in the most effective manner to do the most mitigation? If one solution is tried, will it cause another problem? In this week's New Scientist (April 21-27 edition), there is a report stating that clearing the land to increase soybean production is having an adverse effect on climate in the Amazon rainforest. The article cited a report in Geophysical Research Letters (DOI:10.1029/2007GL029271) stating that when three-quarters of forest test plots were cleared for soybean production (in a climate change model), there was subsequently nearly a 16 percent decrease in precipitation compared to a 4% reduction when the same land (using the same climate model) was cleared for pasture land. The cause of this was attributed to higher albedo (meaning more solar energy is reflected rather than absorbed on soybean fields than forests and pasture land), resulting in less surface heating ... thus decreasing convection (showers and thunderstorms). It was not clear to me whether they plugged in a bare field or a field with a full growth of soybeans when making these calculations.
The point of all this: people in the many specialties of agriculture will need to play an increased role in finding and evaluating solutions to the global warming problem. In a sense, the arguments of climate science have been so successful that the next phases of research will include a much broader community of scientists than have been active in global warming issues so far.
Updated: 4/24/2007 8:22 PM
-
I am going to tease you now: this is closely related to the 'formal research I am doing at the moment. Can't say more now, except that it has stimulated some very encouraging response. (in that the people who have responded have been very supportive of the research).
Apart from that, there is not a great deal of difference in our views, except in the detail relating to the science.
On the point about natural forcings, or something going on besides CO2, this is much more complicated than most people think. I'll just summarise very briefly by saying that it is possible either that some things are going on apart from CO2, or alongside CO2, or because of CO2; it really is very hard to tell. But whatever else, there is still all that CO2, and the way it just keeps that pesky heat in the system. I don't think it is the whole story, nor will it ever be, but in a sense it is going to be there, in the background or the foreground, however the story turns out.
I have also become aware that it is almost impossible, now, to separate the science from the politics, becaus the whole climate debate has become intensely politicised. This is very irritating, but is something we will have to take into account.
:)P
Only known to respond to teasing with Marshmallows.
What is it you do for a living P3? Am I allowed to ask? I've updated my avatar, still not gender specific but the reason for being Jethro - my cat, a West Country creature.
-
I am going to disagree with you on this. Almost all of it is a done deal, pro; the con stuff doesn't add up, never has. Doesn't mean the science is perfect, but it is a lot stronger than 'best guess scenario' and a lot more complete than many people seem to imagine.
How you can say is beyond me: the sheer quantity of science backing AGW is astonishingly large. In contrast, the quantity of (proper) science challenging it is miniscule by comparison. This isn't because of any conspirarcy, it's because the results of the research end up that way; supporting the AGW hypothesis.
I entirely agree that the general public is not well-informed and often struggles to understand the science, but I disagree that we aren't given a range of perspectives. Ignore the Gore film; it was a movie. The notion that there are more than a tiny number of scientists out there who genuinely doubt the AGW hypothesis is false. I wouldn't say all of this if I hadn't done the research for myself, but the weight of scientific evidence is vastly one-sided, and, inasmuch as science can be, pretty much conclusive. That's what I think, anyway...
:)P
I didn't explain myself very well did I? Apologies, my fault, that'll teach me to fire off a quick reply when I should have been working.
What I meant to say is how can the picture presented to the general public be a complete one when the science is incomplete. I don't doubt that the pro side science is valid but, and it's a big but, the bias in research funding and work is towards man's contribution. Understandably; it is far easier to research artificial warming as there is a known point from which to begin. We know we're pumping Co2 out into the atmosphere, we know roughly, or can calculate how much and we know it's a GHG. What there hasn't been enough of, or anywhere near equal research is into natural causes. There are many ways to do calculations but just because 2+2=4 doesn't mean 1+3 or 3+1 or even 5-1 don't add up. I personally think all possible variations of calculus have to be done and tested before the picture is presented as a complete one.
From my own limited research on the web I know there are many, many more than just a few dissenting scientists out there who doubt the AGW hypothesis; they are a group of very learned professionals with years of research between them so they shouldn't be given a cursory dismissal, they know a damn sight more than you or I.
My concern is not that the general public may not understand the science but that we are bombarded on all sides with this idea that there is no more to learn, we've got it sussed and we haven't. Time and again stories come out about how this is happening or that is happening and according to the IPCC it shouldn't happen like that or it shouldn't be happening yet, blah, blah, blah. Could this possibly be because the science behind it is flawed? Could there be a far greater driver than Co2 at work which is messing up their calculations? Without the research we'll never know and until such point as we do, it shouldn't be presented as the Holy Gospel.
We aren't presented with a balanced view either in the media or on television, dozens and dozens of programs and articles have a AGW slant, the "Green Issue" sells, it's being exploited wholesale. I discounted the Al Gore movie, I expect you did too but it won an Oscar for gods sake, as best documentary! That has to have an impact on the general public. Don't believe me? Burberry used to be confined to the coat linings of gentlemen and ladies of a certain class, more often glimpsed on a race course or at Badminton, a celeb or two thought it was cute, soon it was plastered across the globe in the media. Now it's available in your local Poundstretcher, adorning a plastic cup.
-
I think the 'panic' (perhaps 'worry' is more appropriate) is that reasonable people who don't know a great deal about science might see the programme and actually believe some of it, which does not help in gaining a more general understanding of how and why the climate is changing, and what this means for our children and their children.
If such material is ignored, or left unchallenged, there are those who would claim it as 'authoritative' or 'proof'. It is neither. It is a deliberate distortion of both fact and science; a 'swindle'. I don't mind a challenge to the AGW argument. I don't like lies, either.
:)P
Oh you and I have a great deal in common, trouble is I can and do argue the very same, for the same reasons; just from the other side of the fence maybe. None of it, pro or con, is a done deal. It's best guess scenarios situation, backed up by incomplete science. I'd say so far the pro AGW side have had by far the greatest media coverage with which to influence people, most of it backed by less science than this particular program. By definition that would imply most people are informed from one perspective, we need the other perspective and lots of it to be broadcast/published before the general public have any where near a balanced, informed understanding of climate. Al Gore's film was neither "authoritative" or "proof", it cherry picked and distorted then heaped a huge dose of American shmaltz on top for good measure.
-
Go, go, Jethro. That's a good lass!
Have a little read of this. The part in bold at the bottom is my favourite quote this week.
Alarmists need not reply
(right, i'm back to blog land - couldn't resist because i'm a devil
You little devil! Sorry for borrowing your hat this morning, trimmed it with a few flowers and ribbons for a change, you can have it back now, back to work for me.
I do find it staggering that one program can provoke so much antagonism yet hours and hours of t.v time and yards of newsprint devoted to the pro GW view are somehow o.k. If the science is so certain, what's the panic all about eh?
-
A word like 'worrier', it's not a compliment to the charcter of a subsection of people, surely? Worrier here, scaremonger elsewhere I'm afraid, and in the worst places we're liars or worse. That said, please note my reply to P3, I am talking generally and over the years.
Btw, more substantially, when is the 'not too distant future'?
Oopps. Where did P3 say YOU we're such things? But it does nicely illustrate the sometimes unconstructive role of languge in such debates don't you think?
I see your point, but doubter here, climate holocaust heretic elsewhere; that just goes round and round. I didn't take the moron or idiot personally, just don't think inserting phrases like that serves any positive purpose, whatever the point of debate may be.
Not too distant future? Pick a date, any date, the only way anyone would get it right is by pure chance. And that's part of my point, at some time in the future, it will get cooler as it has done in the past and as it has also warmed in our current time. Temperatures go up and down, it's going up at the moment, it won't continue ever marching skywards, will it? If you twisted my hand behind my back and forced a date, I'd guess the predicted quieter Sun after 2012 (?) and the following two predicted quieter cycles thereafter will have an impact. Perhaps after that, we will be in a better position to more accurately assess the impact of Solar activity upon Earth.
-
Dev: this time, I do think you're probably overreacting a bit. jethro was just trying to say what he thinks; he must be allowed to do that. On the more general point, it matters not one whit how many times a moron shouts 'idiot' at you; think of it not as an accusation, but as an advertisement. :)P
He's a she. And P3, I would expect better from you than "moron" and "idiot". It conveys a sense of superiority which is neither founded nor attractive; got out of bed the wrong side this morning?
-
Jam tomorrow eh? I've been hear such things for decades.
Btw, how distant is 'the not too distant future'?
Isn't the another strange quirk of human nature which to seeks to deny the concernes raised by some by attacking the character of those who raise such concerns as (in this case) worriers (often spun up into 'scaremonger' 'chicken little', 'liars' even)? I wonder what some people would have been saying on Easter Island as the trees we gradually chopped down. 'Don't worry there's no lack of trees, it's all just scaremongering.' I rekon....
Do you think people like me somehow like the kinds of verbal beatings we get? Or do you think I have the views I have out of some kind of misplaced sense of mischief?
But that really isn't what I'm saying. I haven't and wouldn't attack anyone's character; nor would I.
Denyers, sceptics, doubters, naysyers call me and others what you will; are all subjected to verbal beatings too. My gripe when it comes to exaggeration was against the portrayal of AGW in the media, not you. Everywhere you look nowadays, even for the most bizarre things, you get a GW view point attached. It's counter-productive and exceedingly mis-leading, marketing gone mad.
-
Jam tomorrow eh? I've been hear such things for decades.
Btw, how distant is 'the not too distant future'?
But that's precisely my point Dev; decades. Put a few decades into perspective of time, they wouldn't warrant a click of the fingers in real time when looking at climatology.
I grew up on a farm in the Cotswolds surrounded by old farmers and farm workers. I quickly learned that if I didn't want to go to bed the best way of being allowed to stay up was to ask questions, believe me, no one likes to reminisce more than an old farmer. An old farmer talking about the weather takes some beating. Lambing and harvest are the clearest memories, probably because they were fixed points of reference for the conversations which would invariably run along the lines of "been a good year/bad year/crikey it's been dry/wet/cold/hot". Grandad would have been in his eighties and he would recant stories his Grandad had told him; that's a living memory since the 1830's give or take. Throw into that my forty odd years of memory and it's very clear to me that it goes up and down. For every positive, there's a negative, equal and opposite reaction. I accept fully chucking out Co2 or any other pollutant into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing but I don't for one minute believe that just that one thing can overide the physics of the entire globe. We as a species are just not that important or influential in the grand scheme of things and that's precisely what we are being told to accept. Mankind, the biggest, best and most dangerous creature alive.
All I can say with any certainty is it was cooler with snowier winters when I was a child. If my Grandad or his Grandad were still alive they could tell me what it was like in their childhood and some of their collective years would have been cooler, some would have been warmer. Tell me why our generation's experience is any different than theirs.
-
Well said, Jethro. Excellently put, if I may say so.
Beats my boring and tired old "it's the current bandwagon" for eloquence.
Cheers Noggin.
Despite all the current warming trends, I fully expect a downturn in the not too distant future. I can't wait to hear all the woes of " we did it, we reached the tipping point, it's all our fault" or the arrogant " yeah, we contained and diminished our Co2 output, just look what we've achieved now, see we told you it was us warming the world". A tad harsh perhaps but with a grain of truth?
-
Jethro; I think I am distinguishing between CO2 'naysayers' and IPCC 'doubters; I have always understood Mondy's use of the term 'naysayer' to mean those people who argue that CO2 is not having an effect on the global temprature, or so little effect as to be insignificant. There is a substantive difference between the first three options and option 5, which was the majority's choice.
Where I think Mondy gains kudos is in the very small number who appear to be willing to trust science to have, if not the definitive answer (BTW: they don't claim to), then at least the best available answer. I also think he should be pleased that so many people think that the impact of CO2 on the climate is exaggerated; more than half of the sample. I don't think I would class you as a 'naysayer' by your description of yourself, but a ;doubter'. Is that a fair response?
:)P
I'm not entirely sure what title I'd give myself; picky, pedantic mare perhaps? I suppose "naysayer" infers an absolute denial whereas "doubter" has a broader scope, so your assessment is a fair one. As usual. If I were to describe my views, the description would run along the lines of: We live in an unstable climate of ups and downs, always have, always will. We would probably be in a warming period regardless of man's input but that input could quite possibly have enhanced natural warming. I'm not sure we can prove that though as we don't have verified observations from a long enough time period from which to compare. There's no way of knowing how quickly temperatures rose in the past as far as I know. I also think only in relatively recent times would mankind have got so het up over this subject. It's a strange quirk of human nature to always need a cause for concern. Or in the case of world leaders, a cause to unite the masses. A hundred years ago most people's worries would have been more concerned with the basics of putting enough food on the table to eat or surviving the latest outbreak of Cholera. A warmer than usual summer/winter would probably have been seen as a blessing, no more. The ability and time to worry about problems doesn't make the problem any bigger except in the mind of the worrier. Please don't read that as dismissive, it's not intended that way, I'm just tired of everything being attributed to GW. It's the latest must have accessory.
-
jethro: the cooling of the central part of the Antarctic is consistent with a strengthening of the AAO; the Antarctic Oscillation. Because the continent is surrounded by ocean, there are no continental influence, as there are in the North. When it is 'strong' the AAO effectively creates a 'wall' of wind circulation which blocks incoming air (and thus warming). Another contributing factor is the ozone hole, which serves to suppress temperatures due to atmospheric heat loss during the relevant season; effectively, there is nothing to 'block' rising warmer air or reflect back what little heat there is.
This is consistent with what the climate models suggest should happen at this time, given the observed changes in the climate. Some people seem to believe that the 'cool' Antarctic is eveidence that the global climate isn't really changing, but this is not correct.
This is only a basic explanation, and ignores a lot of the complexities, but I hope it tells you what you need to know.
:)P
Thanks P3. I'm still concentrating on our artificial influence on C14; struggling to find anything because of the nuke connection and limited time to spend searching. I'm sure I've read somewhere that there are several areas of ozone thinning around the world; wonder if similar temperature anomolies occur there?
-
Could this have anything to do with the disparity between North and South hemisphere temps rise? At the bottom of the article it notes:
"Another mystery: noctilucent clouds in the Southern Hemisphere are about half a mile higher than in the north."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/science/...tml?ref=science
-
What I am trying to say is that describing anyone who questions the strength of the forcing of CO2 as a 'naysayer' is disingenuous, and most people will recognise that. Most regulars on NW will also recognise that your personal opinion on climate change is fairly obviously represented by the first three options in the poll. If you wish to agree that CO2 is playing a role in warming the atmosphere, if less than the IPCC says, that's fine by me, but it isn't really what you'd call 'naysaying', is it?
:)P
Not so sure about that assumption P3, I voted for the 5th option but I consider myself more of a naysayer than anything else. Science has proven Co2 is a greenhouse gas, no doubting that and I would be amazed if even the most hardened naysayer would argue otherwise. But, and it's a big but, giving the IPCC a big thumbs up as having it all nailed is another matter entirely. There's still an awful lot of the natural world to research and understand before scientists can be anywhere near certain; at least that's my view, the view of a naysayer.
-
But if it was adjourned, wouldn't the accused be remanded in custody if it was thought they posed a big enough risk, therefore stopping them doing anymore wrong?
Only if Bail hadn't been granted previously. I think.
-
Just to continue the example if you thought there was a chance, surely you would get everyone out of the house first, at least wake them up and get them to the front door.....? Particularly if it were a big house and by the time you found the smoke it was a blazing inferno.
I'd approached it from an I'm the only one in the house perspective. Just to continue the analogy....to compare to this forum, everyone's heard the alarm, some have made for the exit, some are investigating and some have rung the fire brigade from their bedside table before even turning the light on, trusting implicitly in the technology of the alarm; after all it wouldn't go off without a valid reason would it? By the very fact that people are on this forum debating and asking questions; even those who think there's nothing to be done, means surely that no one has just gone back to sleep. In a real emergency situation, the very last thing to do is panic or panic those around, calm, steady progress is called for.
-
Ladybirds are currently doing a grand job on the super fat aphids. 4 spot red with 4 spot black..
Was going to spray the tree etc but with the team onboard why bother??
No spraying allowed, Big slap on wristie for you PP, leave well alone and nature will sort it out for you.
-
Well, that would depend whether you were trying a criminal or a civil case, where the requirements for proof are different. Even so it's a poor argument: as I keep saying, if you woke up in the middle of the night smelling smoke would you roll over and go back to sleep or get up and investigate?
Not sure I like the options P3, but then I used to run research for a well known FTSE 100 company. The last two options in the poll are not mutually exclusive when set against the other options. That said, an interesting exercise all the same.
But it's not an argument. Merely pondering. Like many on this forum, I have no firm, beyond reasonable doubt evidence so far. There are theories, there are majority theories and there are alternative theories but in reality, no one, me, you or scientists actually know. Do we? What we do know is a best fit scenario. My pondering is, is it the only one? My gut feeling is it will be at least thirty years hence before we get close to the real picture.
I'm not waking up, smelling smoke and rolling over to go back to sleep. I'm investigating, asking questions and learning. Isn't that what the majority of folk on here are doing? Surely that's an intelligent thing to do. If you woke in the middle of the night to the sound of a fire alarm going off, wouldn't you investigate before deciding the best course of action to take? Could be a false alarm, could be a smouldering bin or it could indeed be a raging inferno. Unless you investigate you wouldn't know and couldn't possibly decide the best course of action to take, could you?
-
Funnily enough(!), i thought RJS's post was excellent - 'specially the middle part.
So did I.
Can't help but wonder; if all the information we have learned so far from scientists from both sides of the AGW/GW divide were presented in a court of law, would there be enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that Co2, or more particularly our output of Co2 is to blame? Would the jury vote "guilty"? Or would the trial be adjourned to collate further evidence before a verdict can be reached? I'd hazard a guess, it would be the latter, in any court, in any land.
-
Well I have had a look at wobble and solar flux now off to do some research on Ozone depletion so any links either pro or against would be much appreciated. Maybe just maybe this has left a legacy that may be having a knock on effect of GW, I don't know but think its worth a look into?
(sorry if its old ground but its new to me!)
Hi HP,
Have a look in the thread about GW and declining magnetic field of Earth; I think I posted some relevant links in there, probably in one of the Nuclear links as the two are connected.
Good luck
-
For me there is 3 parts to GW debate which often get mixed and necessarily mix and I am as guilty as most of hoping around.
The 3 issues to me are:
1- The question being asked of by this poll is the core question.
2- What we should do about it.
3-Political interference and trust in governments to both deliver the truth and to deliver a solution or best shot at it. (Now this is actually the biggest issue for me and one that I think often clouds peoples judgement in the first 2 question).
So I would love to see another 2 polls follow this one along them lines.
Agreed.
I do think there is a great deal more science/research to be done before any conclusions can be reached upon the reason behind GW. Even my non professional, but interested joe public, trawl of the net can come up with questions which doubt the certainty of what we have been presented with as facts. I know there are many people who disagree; the simple premise being Co2 is a green house gas, GHG's cause warming, the temps have gone up, Co2 emissions have risen due to man, ergo it's down to us. Solution: reduce carbon emissions and the world will return to the hunky dory state it previously enjoyed. I personally don't believe it's that simple. And no, that's not because I'm a cynic or think I know better than scientists or believe in conspiracy theories. It's purely that the Earth is a very complex system of processes we know little about, basing theories on half known systems and presenting them as facts is scientifically flawed.
What we should do about it scares the living daylights out of me when I read some of the half baked ideas proposed by some. If we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that we, as a species have messed up the climate, then surely the best course of action is to cease doing whatever it is which has caused the problem, and wait and see if the climate sorts its' self out. Messing with it further when we don't really know how the various systems interract is asking for trouble.
And the politics...one of the biggest issues for me too. Not so much our own government or taxation. If Carbon is proven to be the cause, then I am more than happy for each and every purchase I make to have its' carbon impact indexed and taxed accordingly. I'm a grown up (most of the time) and take responsibility for my choices. So therefore if I choose to eat Apples from New Zealand instead of the orchard down the road, I will willingly pay tax for the carbon emissions it has taken to fly them half way round the world. However, when it comes to World Order and the developed world as we know it panicking over Third World developement, or our government, or the USA, or whoever wanting to promote their own agenda whilst hiding behind AGW, to further their own cause, then I draw the line.
Bring on the political poll, someone, please.
I do apologise if this sounds like a rant, blame the Vodka...
-
Opted for number five but there are overtones of number three in my thoughts; I do think politics plays a large part of both the media portrayal and individual countries responses. Maybe, given that politics crops up fairly frequently in other threads, there is room for a similar poll on that subject?
Record early flowering dates
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
Are you lot sure that Ash is out before the Oak usually? Never in my experience, Ash is always the last, whichever part of the country.