The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[biffvernon]

and even refers to scientific research

Oooo! It even refers to science. Trouble is, it isn't science.

[bluecon]

Skipping lightly over your command of English, the problem is that what goes down, comes up. In this case the oceans are acting as a heat sink, masking the rise in global temperatures of the whole atmospher-ocean system. If you don't put your thermometer where the temperature is rising you may miss what's happening.

Where the temperature is being measured we have a slght cooling and where the temperature is not being measured you personally are aware of a large warming trend. What factual info is this based on?

[biffvernon]

While some non-scientists like to point out the gaps in our understanding, Earth system scientists are actually confident that a great deal is known about their subject. We know what CO2 does and how it does it, we know where the heat goes and we know what the consequences will be. Of course, there are uncertainties, (as there are in all sciences) concerning timing and magnitude and the interaction between sub-systems to provide feedback leading to tipping points, but obervations are constantly reinforcing the models and allowing thir refinement.

If, Bluecon, you are really interested in 'factual info' I suggest you start with the most recent paper on the subject available as 3.6mb pdf here. Read it in cojunction with the discussion here.

Edited April 12, 2008 by biffvernon

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Skipping lightly over your command of English, the problem is that what goes down, comes up. In this case the oceans are acting as a heat sink, masking the rise in global temperatures of the whole atmospher-ocean system. If you don't put your thermometer where the temperature is rising you may miss what's happening.

Biif

R u Dawlish by any chance. He was pretty NIT PICKY too. Re your response you ignore the question or you have failed to answer it because you don't have the answer...probably the latter. The oceans are doing what they have always done. Again where is this problem that no one else can see but you can? Better command of English for you? :lol:

BFTP

Edited April 13, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Devonian]

Biif

R u Dawlish by any chance. He was pretty NIT PICKY too. Re your response you ignore the question or you have failed to answer it because you don't have the answer...probably the latter. The oceans are doing what they have always done. Again where is this problem that no one else can see but you can? Better command of English for you? :lol:

BFTP

I think Biff is right - and I MUST read Dr Hansen's latest paper.

The oceans are absorbing heat (energy) that the enhanced GH effect is providing. Only when that absorption slows do we see that energy more clearly, that's during El Nino. Since we have a La Nina atm that absorption of heat goes on, but even now temperatures are well above normal globally - so not all that energy is going into the oceans. Just wait until the next El Nino...

'bout right, Biff?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I think Biff is right - and I MUST read Dr Hansen's latest paper.

The oceans are absorbing heat (energy) that the enhanced GH effect is providing. Only when that absorption slows do we see that energy more clearly, that's during El Nino. Since we have a La Nina atm that absorption of heat goes on, but even now temperatures are well above normal globally - so not all that energy is going into the oceans. Just wait until the next El Nino...

'bout right, Biff?

Do you have any evidence of this Dev?

I honestly think your over-complexing the GH effect. Seriously, have a look at some GCSE websites (Thats not a cheap shot BTW, its an honest request).

[Devonian]

Do you have any evidence of this Dev?

I honestly think your over-complexing the GH effect. Seriously, have a look at some GCSE websites (Thats not a cheap shot BTW, its an honest request).

Option one: ignore it

Option two: count to ten and carry on

...ten.

Right, what's you're problem? Please explain where I'm wrong/going wrong.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Devonian

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Option one: ignore it

Option two: count to ten and carry on

...ten.

Right, what's you're problem? Please explain where I'm wrong/going wrong.

:lol: Of course, me brining up a question means I have a problem

You reaction reminds me of a cat whos territory has been slightly invaded by just a single mm of another cats whisker...then its claws out for all and sundry. Close your eyes and just claw away!

Perhaps first, you could find where I have said you are wrong?

[Devonian]

:lol: Of course, me brining up a question means I have a problem

You reaction reminds me of a cat whos territory has been slightly invaded by just a single mm of another cats whisker...then its claws out for all and sundry. Close your eyes and just claw away!

Perhaps first, you could find where I have said you are wrong?

You asked me to look at some (unspecified) GCSE websites. Why? Because you think I'm right???

Edited April 13, 2008 by Devonian

[biffvernon]

Biff

R u Dawlish by any chance. He was pretty NIT PICKY too. Re your response you ignore the question or you have failed to answer it because you don't have the answer...probably the latter. The oceans are doing what they have always done. Again where is this problem that no one else can see but you can? Better command of English for you? :lol: BFTP

Sorry, I don't know who Dawlish is. A town in Devon? I'm Biff Vernon - I don't hide behind a pseudonym of internet forums.

Your question was "What problem are you on about? Please explain what you can and no one else can see." (English corrected)

The problem, a veritable mastodon in the room, is that we may get runaway global warming triggering an extinction event not seen since the Permo-Triassic, i.e. we'll all be toast.

I've not seen yet, from any of the good folk who cast doubt on such talk, is where the paper by Jim Hansen et al. gets it wrong. The phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

You asked me to look at some (unspecified) GCSE websites. Why? Because you think I'm right???

Surprisingly, I dont have time to search and list all the websites i've looked at in the past.

However, and to my original point, I believe you are over complicating GH. I've referred to GCSE for the fact that they are the basic teachings given to us, and actually have some good basic science behind it. It is basic, and therefore, not overcomplicated.

Why you feel I am questioning your correctness rather than your theory, I dont know. You do seem rather defensive of anybody that throws something into the debate. I would ask why, but I feel that that question too would cause you to put your back up.

I've not seen yet, from any of the good folk who cast doubt on such talk, is where the paper by Jim Hansen et al. gets it wrong. The phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.

OK, once again, I start to see a theme here.

Anybody that puts a question to those who are only Pro-GW, seem to be thrown into this pot of "Show me evidence or shut up".

Stiffle debate, closed mindedness...Oh I could go on.

Perhaps those who will not listen to anything but the pro-reports should have one thread, and those who would like to discuss and debate (Yep, that includes a two-way conversation) should have another report.

Its getting extremely tedious not being able to express a voice.

Question (Which never seems to get answered) - Why cant one, who understands GW, believes to a high extent that GW exists (and the subsequent changes in climate), throw questions into the pot without being labelled as a "nay-sayer" or what ever extremely childish names are given to people like this?

Edited April 13, 2008 by ChrisL

[Devonian]

Surprisingly, I dont have time to search and list all the websites i've looked at in the past.

No need to be prickly, I just though, since you raised it, you might have something to hand. Obviously not.

However, and to my original point, I believe you are over complicating GH. I've referred to GCSE for the fact that they are the basic teachings given to us, and actually have some good basic science behind it. It is basic, and therefore, not overcomplicated.

Why you feel I am questioning your correctness rather than your theory, I dont know.

How can you question the view I put forward (it's not my theory) and not question my correctness??? I can't see how.

You do seem rather defensive of anybody that throws something into the debate. I would ask why, but I feel that that question too would cause you to put your back up.

Actually I though I rather over simplified it . No maths, no graphs, not data.

And I was asking Biff hence the ?

Question (Which never seems to get answered) - Why cant one, who understands GW, believes to a high extent that GW exists (and the subsequent changes in climate), throw questions into the pot without being labelled as a "nay-sayer" or what ever extremely childish names are given to people like this?

Well, I've not called you childish names (though you did ask me to check a GCSE site...) and I've not labelled you a nay sayer.

I've actually got plenty of time for question - look how many I've asked today and over time! Fire away I say.

[bluecon]

While some non-scientists like to point out the gaps in our understanding, Earth system scientists are actually confident that a great deal is known about their subject. We know what CO2 does and how it does it, we know where the heat goes and we know what the consequences will be. Of course, there are uncertainties, (as there are in all sciences) concerning timing and magnitude and the interaction between sub-systems to provide feedback leading to tipping points, but obervations are constantly reinforcing the models and allowing thir refinement.

If, Bluecon, you are really interested in 'factual info' I suggest you start with the most recent paper on the subject available as 3.6mb pdf here. Read it in cojunction with the discussion here.

It has really become rather embarrassing how the science community has turned into such a political quasi religious organization distorting the facts to push the AGW is caused by a tiny increase in the amount of CO2 theory, while turning a blind eye to any other explanation. They do this even as all the recording instruments are showing a slight cooling trend and the polar ice caps are greatly increasing in extent. If the cooling, which is likely a result of lower solar activity and is parallel to the decreased solar activity continues increasing, the AGW crowd will soon be hysterical since the sheople will not accept AGW when they are freezing their butts off.

This rather well describes the workings of the PRO AGW crowd.

"Wikipedia's zealots

The thought police at the supposedly independent site are fervently enforcing the climate orthodoxy"

"Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as I -- no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced, preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone's views but her own. When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them out."

http://www.nationalpost.com/related_links/....html?id=440268

Edited April 13, 2008 by bluecon

[biffvernon]

I've referred to GCSE

Gosh! Can you get a GCSE in Earth Sytems Science now? I thought it was just an MSc course.

Anybody that puts a question to those who are only Pro-GW, seem to be thrown into this pot of "Show me evidence or shut up".

Stiffle debate, closed mindedness

I'm not trying to stifle debate. I've asked where the error in Hansen's paper lies, but answer comes there none.

[Iceberg]

I think Biff is right - and I MUST read Dr Hansen's latest paper.

The oceans are absorbing heat (energy) that the enhanced GH effect is providing. Only when that absorption slows do we see that energy more clearly, that's during El Nino. Since we have a La Nina atm that absorption of heat goes on, but even now temperatures are well above normal globally - so not all that energy is going into the oceans. Just wait until the next El Nino...

'bout right, Biff?

Sounds right to be Dev and quite simple, you could have started talking about laws of thermodynamics etc but you kept it simple.

Nobody has claimed that AGW can override all natural climate cycles(yet) but natural climate cycles are certainly going to have an impact. Quite often your damned if you mention natural cycles and damned if you don't, removed the natural cycle effect and you get a considerable and steady increase over the last 30 years.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

No need to be prickly, I just though, since you raised it, you might have something to hand. Obviously not.

Nope. I didnt. Did I need to or not?

How can you question the view I put forward (it's not my theory) and not question my correctness??? I can't see how.

A question being asked is different to being questioned itself. Thats how.

Actually I though I rather over simplified it . No maths, no graphs, not data.

Not everything in life needs maths, graphs and data. How boring life would be if thats all we ever looked at.

And I was asking Biff hence the ?

Fair enough. Point taken.

Well, I've not called you childish names (though you did ask me to check a GCSE site...) and I've not labelled you a nay sayer.

Oh...I wasnt referring to yourself par se. But I could look through probably most of the environ threads and find a post reffering to those type of names.

BTW GCSE is where most of us start out education, hence why it was 'basic'. Believe it or not, there are adults who still dont understand it!

I've actually got plenty of time for question - look how many I've asked today and over time! Fire away I say.

Ok. And most appreciated.

Heres a question then.

CO2. Evenly distributed within our atmosphere?

Gosh! Can you get a GCSE in Earth Sytems Science now? I thought it was just an MSc course.

I'm not trying to stifle debate. I've asked where the error in Hansen's paper lies, but answer comes there none.

Did I say that? Let me look...

...oh no. I didnt. I said the basic of GH. Of course, if thats the way you interpret it, its your call.

Perhaps we should clear up something regarding research papers. Surely the point is to prove a point? Oui?! So, if that is done well, would it not be difficult to argument against? Unless of course we are an expert in the field that the research paper has been printed on.

So on that basis, and at a guess being that no-one has done a counter-acting research paper themselves, it would indeed be near on impossible to do so.

Therefore, as a conclusion, asking for a counter-arguement for a specific research paper, by an expert in their field, would indeed stiffle debate. Getting the drift here.

Edited April 13, 2008 by ChrisL

[Devonian]

Ok. And most appreciated.

Heres a question then.

CO2. Evenly distributed within our atmosphere?

Erm, there are small hemispheric differences and CO₂ is more concentrated where it is emitted (cities, industrial areas) than not. It also fluctuates much more day to day in urban areas. Measured well away from direct human influence the general long term change due to our activities can be seen better.

This is interesting. It show the annual yearly cycle in the northern hemisphere (as plants respond to the season - but less so in the water dominate southern hemisphere). From here.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

OK. Thanks for that Dev.

Do we have a global temperature anomoly map? I guess that it would show places like China having higher anomolies than places such as like Mid-Africa?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sorry, I don't know who Dawlish is. A town in Devon? I'm Biff Vernon - I don't hide behind a pseudonym of internet forums.

Your question was "What problem are you on about? Please explain what you can and no one else can see." (English corrected)

The problem, a veritable mastodon in the room, is that we may get runaway global warming triggering an extinction event not seen since the Permo-Triassic, i.e. we'll all be toast.

I've not seen yet, from any of the good folk who cast doubt on such talk, is where the paper by Jim Hansen et al. gets it wrong. The phrase put up or shut up comes to mind.

Where Dawlish is? Yes a town in Devon...corrected English. Want to play silly games Biff then play solitaire...stop being so confrontational. The phrase 'those in glass houses' comes to mind

Between 2003 and 2005 the oceans lost about 1/5th of the heat gained over 20 years prior to that. Where is the problem? The cooling was measured to 2500ft below the surface. I'd say it was preparing itself for the new perturbation cycle which we entered in Feb 2007 and further 'overall' cooling will be seen over the next 3 decades.

Chris L fully understand you POV.

BFTP

Edited April 13, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[biffvernon]

No, I'm not playing silly games. I just did not understand the reference to Dawlish. So I asked for clarification. I even Googled Dawlish but just came up with lots of references to a town in Devon (Can't find the confused smilie)

I also don't understand what you say about ocean temperatures. Since when do we have a decent sample of deep ocean temperatures that shows them to be cooling? Please provide references so that I too may believe.

[Iceberg]

The Ocean temperature study using Argos floats was incorrect due to a calibration error. I believe the authors later retracted the work.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

No, I'm not playing silly games. I just did not understand the reference to Dawlish. So I asked for clarification. I even Googled Dawlish but just came up with lots of references to a town in Devon (Can't find the confused smilie)

I also don't understand what you say about ocean temperatures. Since when do we have a decent sample of deep ocean temperatures that shows them to be cooling? Please provide references so that I too may believe.

BV

It's the way you respond eg picking up on a minor grammatical error on my part as if to make a point...a bit unnecessary...but by the by time to move on.

Lyman et al 2006 was the report. I can only find a rebuttal on realclimate site but cannot find 'withdrawal' of paper Iceberg.

regards

BFTP

[biffvernon]

Looks like I will never know what the Dawlish referred to then

Lyman et al 2006 was the report. I can only find a rebuttal on realclimate site but cannot find 'withdrawal' of paper Iceberg.

Put "Lyman et al 2006" into Google and the first result is

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

It starts:

Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean” Josh K. Willis1, John M. Lyman2,3, Gregory C. Johnson2 and John Gilson4

Revised and Resubmitted 10 July 2007 to Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract. Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Do we have a global temperature anomaly map? I guess that it would show places like China having higher anomalies than places such as like Mid-Africa?

I'm still interested to try and find the above if anyone can help?

[Gray-Wolf]

Another cycle 24 spot is currently circulating around the suns northern hemisphere. The first was spotted (and the cycle called) on jan 4th so it's been a long time arriving but it does show cycle 4 on the ascendent (in sunspots at least).

So much for a delayed start and the oncoming ice age........LOL