The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Gray-Wolf]

And, bluecon, the rest of the midwest is set for another bout of flooding/severe storms.......now where've I heard something about the increase in intensity/frequency of rainfall events/severe weather?????? oh yeah, I remember.........

[bluecon]

And, bluecon, the rest of the midwest is set for another bout of flooding/severe storms.......now where've I heard something about the increase in intensity/frequency of rainfall events/severe weather?????? oh yeah, I remember.........

I thought the prediction of AGW was severe dry spells? Has that changed also. The midwest floods every spring it is normal weather which you will find has been much worse in the recent past. This is not a major high water flood. Has the Mississippi flooded her banks or even come close?

[Thundery wintry showers]

So, let's get this straight, an inidivdual weather event that's consistent with AGW doesn't prove AGW, but an individual event that's inconsistent with AGW disproves AGW? Seems a little inconsistent.

[bluecon]

So, let's get this straight, an inidivdual weather event that's consistent with AGW doesn't prove AGW, but an individual event that's inconsistent with AGW disproves AGW? Seems a little inconsistent.

Which of these events is consistent with AGW?

My understanding is AGW was going to cause a lower amount of rain.

[johnholmes]

I am going to do what I vowed never to do again post in here

just ONE comment from the IPCC report

Increases in the frequency of hot extremes, heatwaves and heavy rainfall are very likely

why don't we all read, digest and accept that most of the leading meteorologists and climatologists have one point of view which is not shared by a number of their peers.

So debate continues but my links with the UK Met O suggest that when its not involving politicians the debate is firm but good natured with an agreement quite regularly to disagree.

The models for climate change are currently based on grid lengths of, I think 140-160km, which will over the next year or two be shortened to around 90km.

So, as in short term day to day forecasting, our understanding and our ability to give better guidance will slowly improve.

The best estimate suggests that the earth will continue to OVERALL see a rise in temperature, albeit with some downturns, we know no more than that.

Edited June 12, 2008 by johnholmes

[jethro]

I hope you don't give up on this area of the forum John, I for one, appreciate your level headed, reasoned posts.

[Gray-Wolf]

However level headed John's input is it would appear bluecon neither cares nor understands the impacts of global warming nor, does it appear, will he heed to the voice of reason.

Sadly this is where and why our discussions become both heated and personal, how can you reason with the unreasonable?

Edited June 12, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[bluecon]

However level headed John's input is it would appear bluecon neither cares nor understands the impacts of global warming nor, does it appear, will he heed to the voice of reason.

Sadly this is where and why our discussions become both heated and personal, how can you reason with the unreasonable?

Huh? This is heated and personal?

The fact that I don't believe that a tiny amount of CO2 is going to cause unstoppable warming of the Earth does not mean that I will not heed the voice of reason or that I am unreasonable.

The climate appears to agree with me.

[jethro]

In all honesty, no one knows what's going on with the climate, why things happen or what will happen in the future; and I include all scientists, however well qualified they may be, in that statement.

Regardless of how much we personally think we know, or they think they know, without time travel, none of us can be certain.

We can all state as much as we wish and as vehemently as we wish, but that doesn't mean we can, or should expect other people to agree with us or see things from our perspective. When two people of opposing views discuss this, or any other issue, agreement is not likely to come easily, if at all. Does this make one or both sides unreasonable? I don't think so. I think the only unreasonableness is in expecting other's to accept our views, opinions and thoughts above their own. We could all be right, we could all be wrong, we could all be a bit of both. Time will tell.

p.s I put my hands up and fully admit, I need a reminder of this sometimes too. Can we all play nicely?

Edited June 12, 2008 by jethro

[jethro]

NASA announce the imminent end of the Ulysses spacecraft:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-106

Interestingly in the middle of the article it says:

Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun's poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history.

Also just seen this; sad news.

http://climatesci.org/2008/06/12/sad-news-...or-reid-bryson/

Edited June 12, 2008 by jethro

[VillagePlank]

Huh? This is heated and personal?

The fact that I don't believe that a tiny amount of CO2 is going to cause unstoppable warming of the Earth does not mean that I will not heed the voice of reason or that I am unreasonable.

The climate appears to agree with me.

At the moment.

With 50 years of hindsight on the 1990-2010 perod we'll all know whether it is true or not. I has to be said, and one must remember that I am the perennial sitter on the fence, here, that, say 10 years of stagnation or fall in temperatures is less representative, in my view, than the 30 years solid warming hence, of climate.

The cooling is an interesting anomaly, but you should remember even though the temperatures are cooling they are still widely above the 1970-2000 (or whatever) average. If you support the cooling, then you've a long way to go before enough data is in to claim you have statistically valid evidence. Indeed, that is a charge I'd put at the doorstep of AGWers, too. Is 30 years enough? (It sure is if you use a 30 year average for the baseline, of course, because that implies the claim that a valid measure of climate is around 30 years. :lol: Has anyone compiled the 30 year running average? )

Edited June 13, 2008 by VillagePlank

[The PIT]

At the moment.

With 50 years of hindsight on the 1990-2010 perod we'll all know whether it is true or not. I has to be said, and one must remember that I am the perennial sitter on the fence, here, that, say 10 years of stagnation or fall in temperatures is less representative, in my view, than the 30 years solid warming hence, of climate.

The cooling is an interesting anomaly, but you should remember even though the temperatures are cooling they are still widely above the 1970-2000 (or whatever) average. If you support the cooling, then you've a long way to go before enough data is in to claim you have statistically valid evidence. Indeed, that is a charge I'd put at the doorstep of AGWers, too. Is 30 years enough? (It sure is if you use a 30 year average for the baseline, of course, because that implies the claim that a valid measure of climate is around 30 years. :lol: Has anyone compiled the 30 year running average? )

30 years isn't enough and is only a very small fraction in the time of the planet. Even a 100 years is a very small sample in the time span of the earth.

[Gray-Wolf]

One of the things that helps me accept CO2's part in all of this is to remove the 'global dimmed' period from the graph and see just how contiguous the warming trend is without the 'flat 40yrs'. Of course by doing this you have a long run of years with increase after increase in global temps.

We might also note ,in the light of global dimming (phnar,phnar),the the indo chinese atmospheric outputs are from a soft, sooty coal (certainly no Anthracite here!) and you would expect these to have an in pact in the areas downwind (and not just Siberian 'green/yellow snow) of the polluter.

Yet another "Time will tell" situation.

[millennia]

In all honesty, no one knows what's going on with the climate, why things happen or what will happen in the future; and I include all scientists, however well qualified they may be, in that statement.

Regardless of how much we personally think we know, or they think they know, without time travel, none of us can be certain.

What we need less of is baseless assumptions from jump on the bandwagon scientists like this:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080612-...in-species.html

Gosh, I thought, has Madagascar really warmed up that much? Something like this certainly makes a good case for biodiversity problems caused by warming events.... then I took a look at the temperature profile of Madagascar for the last 100 years or so:

Hmmm, perhaps those critters are just trying to get away from all those crazy camera wielding scientists!

[SnowBear]

So, what exactly are they trying to get at??

10 years, wonder where those animals were in the period 1900-1940?

There could be a natural movement of those animals up and down the slopes over time which has been going on for thousands of years and our little glimpse of that movement could lead us to bad conclusions.

Does anyone have other records for the history of Madagascar temperature?

[Andy_Calafell_Sheffield]

So, what exactly are they trying to get at??

10 years, wonder where those animals were in the period 1900-1940?

There could be a natural movement of those animals up and down the slopes over time which has been going on for thousands of years and our little glimpse of that movement could lead us to bad conclusions.

Does anyone have other records for the history of Madagascar temperature?

I think what millennia was trying to say was; We really need less scientists who through around claims of GW related events when in fact it is not.

Even looking at the brief history of the temperature anomalies from Madagascar we can clearly see it is not because of an increase in temperatures. There is another factor causing this, whatever it may be etc.

Millennia was saying, why do scientists brandish such reports around with a pinch of salt even though the data suggests otherwise, which is one of the problems whihc causes such OTT hysteria surrounding AGW.

[SnowBear]

Doesn't put science in a good light at all does it and I wonder how many people will take that article as "proof" of global warming.

[millennia]

I think what millennia was trying to say was; We really need less scientists who through around claims of GW related events when in fact it is not.

Even looking at the brief history of the temperature anomalies from Madagascar we can clearly see it is not because of an increase in temperatures. There is another factor causing this, whatever it may be etc.

Millennia was saying, why do scientists brandish such reports around with a pinch of salt even though the data suggests otherwise, which is one of the problems which causes such OTT hysteria surrounding AGW.

Exactly, cheers Andy, how many times do we see an item on the news ending with "... and you can expect more of this due to global warming..." - it is starting to be come a bolt on phrase for anything and everything observed to be changing. This is why after a measure of controlled debate we end up spiralling into tetchyness again - it's not just GW, politics in general has me lobbing things at the TV , but GW has now reached dogma status and reasoned debate against a theology has never been taken seriously.

I'd be happy to give up sit in the wait and see camp if it wasn't for all the terrible decisions like biofuels and cap and trade being barfed from knee jerk glory hunting politicians on a daily basis. The world will continue to do what it wants while we continue to scare ourselves up our own backsides - we really are our own worst enemy sometimes.

[BUSHY]

No sign of warming upto 1999 link

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well yes, there are all kinds of things that are used as "evidence for global warming" or "have the fingerprint of human activity". I often wonder how much of it is political spin and how much of it is actually scientific research, but whatever, I think the only clear-cut source of evidence for global warming is the rise in the average global temperature. Even in a warming planet, not all places will necessarily get warmer, especially over a relatively short space of time. Just as in a stable or cooling planet, we'd still expect certain areas to get warmer.

[millennia]

I often wonder how much of it is political spin and how much of it is actually scientific research

...and how much of it is total media insanity

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitloc...death-doom-fire

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, maybe I should've taken the "political spin" bit further, as it often is the media that introduce scaremongering stories- as they supposedly boost reader numbers. But at the same time it breeds scepticism as extreme, implausible scenarios are presented as fact- people start thinking "well if the extremists are telling us a load of twaddle, who's to say the climate scientists aren't?" In essence it gives the whole AGW theory a bad name, when in reality, what most scientists say and what the media says are often two very different things.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

What we need less of is baseless assumptions from jump on the bandwagon scientists like this:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080612-...in-species.html

Gosh, I thought, has Madagascar really warmed up that much? Something like this certainly makes a good case for biodiversity problems caused by warming events.... then I took a look at the temperature profile of Madagascar for the last 100 years or so:

Hmmm, perhaps those critters are just trying to get away from all those crazy camera wielding scientists!

Yep absolute crap. AGW alarmism at its most treacherous.

BFTP

[bluecon]

Is AGW science, politics or a religion?

[biffvernon]

Is AGW science, politics or a religion?

None of the above. It's just a fact.