General Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that Noggin ,and the very best of New Years to you! <_<

[Admiral_Bobski]

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again."

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)

An Essay on Criticism, 1709

CB

[Solar Cycles]

Is it that you people don't believe that the world is warming, or that it's not man's doing?? Your collective logic (or lack thereof) is often as baffling as it is inconsistent!

It warmed ( not because of agw ), and now it's cooling. All natural, as has happened many many times before!

[Devonian]

It warmed ( not because of agw ), and now it's cooling. All natural, as has happened many many times before!

Well, SC, you might feel able to dismiss AGW with one sentence and then explain the mechanism of the warming with another, sceptical minds are rather less easy to convince than that.

The truth is that the is rather more to climatology than you state. This is, as ever with these thread, to repeat oneself but there are such things a greenhouse gasses (ghg's) and they do have an effect on the climate. To deny that is to place oneself to the absolute fringes of pseudo science. Now, I've read you posts over time and I'm pretty sure that when push comes to shove you don't deny there are ghg's. So, how can there not be a human effect given we are adding ghg to the system by our various burning and chopping activities? We surely have to agree there IS AGW the question, as ever, is not if but it's magnitude.

So, you need to go back a re write your first sentence to reflect that.

What cause the climate to change? Answer energy, more or less of it. Vary the energy in the climate system and the climate changes. Now, yes, the Sun does indeed change, by perhaps a watt/m2 per cycle (the net change is close to zero). Anthropogenic changes are adding perhaps 2 watts/m2 to the system - a net 2 watts (and increasing). It's not rocket science to do the maths. 'Cosmic rays causing cloud nuclei' I hear you say? Speculative science not supported by any real world evidence is my reply, there is no trend in cosmic rays counts.

Nope, I see no reason not to think that sooner or later the forcing on climate due to human activity will show through.

Anyway, all the best to everyone for 2009. I'm sure we'll still be going round in circles this time next year

Edited December 31, 2008 by Devonian

[Solar Cycles]

Well, SC, you might feel able to dismiss AGW with one sentence and then explain the mechanism of the warming with another, sceptical minds are rather less easy to convince than that.

The truth is that the is rather more to climatology than you state. This is, as ever with these thread, to repeat oneself but there are such things a greenhouse gasses (ghg's) and they do have an effect on the climate. To deny that is to place oneself to the absolute fringes of pseudo science. Now, I've read you posts over time and I'm pretty sure that when push comes to shove you don't deny there are ghg's. So, how can there not be a human effect given we are adding ghg to the system by our various burning and chopping activities? We surely have to agree there IS AGW the question, as ever, is not if but it's magnitude.

So, you need to go back a re write your first sentence to reflect that.

What cause the climate to change? Answer energy, more or less of it. Vary the energy in the climate system and the climate changes. Now, yes, the Sun does indeed change, by perhaps a watt/m2 per cycle (the net change is close to zero). Anthropogenic changes are adding perhaps 2 watts/m2 to the system - a net 2 watts (and increasing). It's not rocket science to do the maths. 'Cosmic rays causing cloud nuclei' I hear you say? Speculative science not supported by any real world evidence is my reply, there is no trend in cosmic rays counts.

Nope, I see no reason not to think that sooner or later the forcing on climate due to human activity will show through.

Anyway, all the best to everyone for 2009. I'm sure we'll still be going round in circles this time next year

Yes of course there are GHG Dev, But CO2 only absorbs a few bands of light, it's close to saturation level. Adding more CO2 makes hardly any difference. Anyway Happy New Year Dev, see you next year!

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyway, all the best to everyone for 2009. I'm sure we'll still be going round in circles this time next year

Oooh, I do hope so Dev!! for us not to be in our seemingly 'endless dance', and have gained a 'consensus', could only mean that an AGW event beyond doubt (the doubt of the most skeptical mind) had occured.........and that could not be good!!!

Can you conceive of seeing evidence ,next year, that would negate the validity of the past 70yrs of study you have digested (on our current climate shift and the impact of humanity on that 'shift')?

Is it not far more believable that in twelve more months we will see nothing more than a further acceleration in mankind's CO2 emissions, will bring us a better understanding of the impacts we are flirting with and will further confirm our part in those impacts?

Let us all hope that we are still in a position to have the time to pursue such a jolly pastime

[noggin]

Let us all hope that we are still in a position to have the time to pursue such a jolly pastime

Tell you what, G-W, let's make an arrangement that we all meet here on New Year's Eve 2009/10 and we'll see how things have panned out!

Happy New Year.

[BUSHY]

'Cosmic rays causing cloud nuclei' I hear you say? Speculative science not supported by any real world evidence is my reply, there is no trend in cosmic rays counts.

Yes there is

[Gray-Wolf]

Tell you what, G-W, let's make an arrangement that we all meet here on New Year's Eve 2009/10 and we'll see how things have panned out!

Happy New Year.

I'll drink to that!

[rob48]

So the 1930's were hotter than the 1990's:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...ally-exist.html

Don't tell me, NASA measured the wrong part.

Happy New Year to you all!

[Solar Cycles]

So the 1930's were hotter than the 1990's:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...ally-exist.html

Don't tell me, NASA measured the wrong part.

Happy New Year to you all!

Shh, big secret Rob48. Don't tell the warmist, or they will think they have spent the last few years wasting there lives, with there worrying!

[laserguy]

Anyway, all the best to everyone for 2009. I'm sure we'll still be going round in circles this time next year

No we won't,we'll be wondering why it's gotten so damn cold,what with all this extra CO2 an' all. A very happy 2009 to you too,Dev,and everyone else on this finest of websites!

[Chris Knight]

No we won't,we'll be wondering why it's gotten so damn cold,what with all this extra CO2 an' all. A very happy 2009 to you too,Dev,and everyone else on this finest of websites!

Yeah, Happy New Year to All.

[Android]

So the 1930's were hotter than the 1990's:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environme...ally-exist.html

Don't tell me, NASA measured the wrong part.

Happy New Year to you all!

Temperature of the 1930s and 1990s are compariable in the US record.

The global record shows the 1930s were signficantly cooler than in the 1990s.

So the telegraphs claim isn't true globally even though they are clearly talking in context of the globe. So that's a print error, or rather ignorance of the author who is clearly just parrotting arguments without understanding, including citing another author's article as if it is a source. Good grief!

Edit: Wow it's worse than I thought. There are several of these errors in the article. It claims "Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979" which is false. They even link to the website where this can be looked up (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg). So they didn't think of verifying the claim?

There are problems with just about every heading.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Android

[Guest]

Temperature of the 1930s and 1990s are compariable in the US record.

The global record shows the 1930s were signficantly cooler than in the 1990s.

So the telegraphs claim isn't true globally even though they are clearly talking in context of the globe. So that's a print error, or rather ignorance of the author who is clearly just parrotting arguments without understanding, including citing another author's article as if it is a source. Good grief!

Edit: Wow it's worse than I thought. There are several of these errors in the article. It claims "Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979" which is false. They even link to the website where this can be looked up (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg). So they didn't think of verifying the claim?

There are problems with just about every heading.

Strange - My calculations from Met Office figures showed a mean of 9.161C during the '30's, 9.67C during the '90's and 10.118C for the last 10 years up to 2007 for the CET.

[BARRY]

Thing that worries me is,if in the weather model thread people are saying that the models are FI after say t144,so how the hell can we trust climate models for the future decades if we can't get it right 5 days in advance

[Devonian]

Thing that worries me is,if in the weather model thread people are saying that the models are FI after say t144,so how the hell can we trust climate models for the future decades if we can't get it right 5 days in advance

Because weather and climate are not the same thing, one is a specific thing the other averages.

I can't tell you how tall a individual picked at random before I see him or her will be but I can tell you what average height is and we know what effects average height.

Strange - My calculations from Met Office figures showed a mean of 9.161C during the '30's, 9.67C during the '90's and 10.118C for the last 10 years up to 2007 for the CET.

WRT global temperatures Android is right, CET wise I don't doubt you are.

Edit: from the article: "According to Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s."

The GISS data is clearly for the globe, because, well, that is what it is. For the globe the hottest decade of the century was not the 1930's. He is simply wrong or confusing America with the globe or not making clear where he is talking about. If I'd believed him I would have been (unintentionally I hope) misled.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2008/p...eaf-010709.html

As mentioned before man has been impacting upon the climate since he first hauled himself out of Africa and took to modifying his environment (be it the burning of NE Australia or the burning of the reeds at Flagg Fen). The above outlines how our kindly treatment of the native populations of the America's (by introducing them to influenza,smallpox,chicken pox,measles et-al) helped create the 'little ice age' (so fondly looked upon by the contrarians).

Apparently the reforestation of agricultural lands post pandemic population collapse in the America's pulled down so much CO2 as to trigger the LIA.......

Ho Hum.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[BARRY]

Because weather and climate are not the same thing, one is a specific thing the other averages.

I can't tell you how tall a individual picked at random before I see him or her will be but I can tell you what average height is and we know what effects average height.

They know what average rainfall,sunshine levels,temperatures,wind speeds are so whats the difference

[Devonian]

Because weather and climate are not the same thing, one is a specific thing the other averages.

I can't tell you how tall a individual picked at random before I see him or her will be but I can tell you what average height is and we know what effects average height.

They know what average rainfall,sunshine levels,temperatures,wind speeds are so whats the difference

The difference is weather isn't an average...

[pottyprof]

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2008/p...eaf-010709.html

Apparently the reforestation of agricultural lands post pandemic population collapse in the America's pulled down so much CO2 as to trigger the LIA.......

Interesting read GW..

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...-b-1221092.html

Though I cringed when Gee Dubya first proposed that we should 'engineer' ourself out of our predicament (because he was unwilling to jeopardise the fossil fuel income) it seems that our 'addiction' to easy energy (and it's co2 byproduct) leaves us with no opotion......at least it may show contrarians how easy it is to 'mess' with climate.

Speaking of which I posted the 'America's' article to show how quickly the planet responds to CO2 (and to debunk the contrarians use of LIA as a 'cyclical event') now we have further confirmation that the Younger Dryas 'cooling' was a forced (and not a cyclical) climate event again highlighting how quickly climate responds to external forcing and how devastating rapid climate shift is..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90101172136.htm

[Kained]

Edit: Wow it's worse than I thought. There are several of these errors in the article. It claims "Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979" which is false. They even link to the website where this can be looked up (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....area.south.jpg). So they didn't think of verifying the claim?

The actual link in the article is to here: Cryosphere Today Homepage

From there you can find the Current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomoly which shows that Antarctic sea-ice this year (2008) reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979.

I can understand that you would want to question the article but you can't do that by making the same mistakes it did.

As mentioned before man has been impacting upon the climate since he first hauled himself out of Africa and took to modifying his environment (be it the burning of NE Australia or the burning of the reeds at Flagg Fen). The above outlines how our kindly treatment of the native populations of the America's (by introducing them to influenza,smallpox,chicken pox,measles et-al) helped create the 'little ice age' (so fondly looked upon by the contrarians).

Apparently the reforestation of agricultural lands post pandemic population collapse in the America's pulled down so much CO2 as to trigger the LIA.......

Ignoring the vitriol about man, you understand in the first sentence that reforestation could have helped but in the second sentence you couldn't help but attribute it as a trigger event, something even the authors don't do.

Nevle and Bird don't attribute all of the cooling during the Little Ice Age to reforestation in the Americas.

"There are other causes at play," Nevle said. "But reforestation is certainly a first-order contributor."

And there was me thinking that the Little Ice Age didn't happen, ah but now it does because it can be attributed to man.

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for bringing more urgency to the reading/digesting of the extract Kained. I'm sure many who think they know 'my drift' wouldn't have bothered but you have added that 'urgency' that many 'clickies may lack'.

The evidence (in terms of timing/carbon samples/atmospheric data) is there within the document and so is confirmation of CO2's ability to impact climate......

[noggin]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...-b-1221092.html

Crikey, where to begin?

Look, it isn't just me, I know it isn't. If the amount of CO2/Co2 (whichever it is!) is increasing beyond the alarmists' worst nightmares......then why is the temperature not following suit?

What alarms me is the proposals being put forward and detailed in the article.