Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

What Is Causing The Warming ?


Iceberg

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

New research by Physicists at the university of Rochester ( USA ), have combined data fro satellites and ocean buoys, and have found evidence that in the last 50 years, the net flow of heat into and out of the oceans has changed direction 3 times. Any one interested can find the link on Wattsup!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

We can all see the 'extra' warming that has occurred by the reaction of our ice sheets/glaciers/sea ice (which has not occurred, should we choose to believe the evidence laid before us, since well before the onset of the last ice age) but why 'Now'???smile.gif

You answer your own question, old G-W. There was 'extra' warming before the last ice age, and before the one before that, and.... So, unless there was a great deal of fossil fuel fired heavy industry on Atlantis, there is the whiff (at least) of a possibility that the evidence laid before us is somewhat incomplete. No?

And why not 'Now'? Warming happens...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

I think that it's natural and can be explained by hysteresis. Honestly. I find the results of the LI thread compelling, and, even now, there's loads of mileage of exploring that.

EDIT: you can find the best results, so far, here: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/51548-climate-modeling-using-a-leaky-integrator/page__view__findpost__p__1518279

Edited by VillagePlank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Well, for what it's worth, I believe that 'some' of the recent warming can be put down to humankind...But, hey, what's the problem with the LI?

Don't we all want to discover the truth???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Well, for what it's worth, I believe that 'some' of the recent warming can be put down to humankind...But, hey, what's the problem with the LI?

Don't we all want to discover the truth???

If I am absolutely honest (with myself) I am intensely worried that I have made some sort of huge error, somewhere, that I still haven't identified. For sure, there's an assumption about sunspots, but, I feel, that's what we're exploring here - and that's, I'm sure, where the critic's arguments must lie - the assumptions.

But ... it's reproducible, and I've shown how it can be done using common software available to most. I've even made predictions using it, although even I feel that is a little tenuous because the source data is not all to hand.

I urge people to make their own mind up. Really. The complete process has been laid bare for all to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs
  • Location: Blackburn, Lancs

Well, for what it's worth, I believe that 'some' of the recent warming can be put down to humankind...But, hey, what's the problem with the LI?

Don't we all want to discover the truth???

Pete I agree, that some of the warming is down to man. How can billions of humans, living in a fossil fuel world, not affect our climate in some way. It's just the magnitude of that warming we argue about! But one thing we all have in common, is the search for the truth!! cc_confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Hi VP,

I really wouldn't worry too much about that...

You have a model, an idea? I'm not saying that I understand all the ins-and-outs of it; but, it is something we can all work with???

What's more, I'm not saying that you are wrong in your assumptions. Indeed, it may all be natural? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Hi VP,

I really wouldn't worry too much about that...

You have a model, an idea? I'm not saying that I understand all the ins-and-outs of it; but, it is something we can all work with???

What's more, I'm not saying that you are wrong in your assumptions. Indeed, it may all be natural? :lol:

Yeah, I guess. A littel frustrated that the uptake is a little slow. Probably got more to do with my tantrums than anything else :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Pete I agree, that some of the warming is down to man. How can billions of humans, living in a fossil fuel world, not affect our climate in some way. It's just the magnitude of that warming we argue about! But one thing we all have in common, is the search for the truth!! cc_confused.gif

Too true, SC. Too true.

The truth will reveal itself - eventually??

Yeah, I guess. A littel frustrated that the uptake is a little slow. Probably got more to do with my tantrums than anything else :D

Not only yours, I suspect??? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

It does that from time to time.. Just that it's the first time we've monitored it up there..

One of the main places that it happens is in the "Bermuda Triangle" When boats vanish out there its due to the methane bubbling up through the sea and reducing the density of the water.. Failing that its UFO's..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

It does that from time to time.. Just that it's the first time we've monitored it up there..

Humm, so we monitor it for the first time, but, despite it being the first time we've monitored it we know it happens from time to time? Just run that by me again will you PP :lol:

That said probably not yet significant, interesting to know though and perhaps a signal of what might happens if the oceans warm a lot.

One of the main places that it happens is in the "Bermuda Triangle" When boats vanish out there its due to the methane bubbling up through the sea and reducing the density of the water.. Failing that its UFO's..

More plausible, but, then again, that's because I think we have monitored such places :)

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

It's the Sun what did it....

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/solaractivandclimate-nethjgeosci.pdf

"As such the recent period of global warming does not appear to be exceptional from a historical perspective."

Here's info on the author, he should know what he's talking about:

http://www.cdejager.com/about/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.

Thanks for the link, Jethro. :)

But, it says nothing at all about GHGs; which, after all, continue to act as they do irrespective of whatever the Sun chooses to do. That the Sun drives climate is indisputable; so is the fact that we are well on the way to doubling the atmosphere's concentration of CO2...The way I see it, the Sun is the external driver of climate, and GHGs internal drivers/moderators or whatever the intricate entaglements add-up to?

I guess the point I'm making is: that no amount of astrophysics will alter the physical properties of GHGs...We can't control the Sun; we can reduce our GHG emissions? :lol:

That said, a wee bit of Solar-driven global cooling will be most welcome! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Thanks for the link, noggin. :D

But, it says nothing at all about GHGs; which, after all, continue to act as they do irrespective of whatever the Sun chooses to do. That the Sun drives climate is indisputable; so is the fact that we are well on the way to doubling the atmosphere's concentration of CO2...The way I see it, the Sun is the external driver of climate, and GHGs internal drivers/moderators or whatever the intricate entaglements add-up to?

I guess the point I'm making is: that no amount of astrophysics will alter the physical properties of GHGs...We can't control the Sun; we can reduce our GHG emissions? :D

That said, a wee bit of Solar-driven global cooling will be most welcome! :good:

Step away from the Vodka bottle....Noggin's the one with hats you can munch on.

GHG's do not need to be mentioned. The basis of the AGW theory is that GHG's need to be included in order to replicate/account for the warming in recent years - the warming can ONLY be accounted for if they are included; or so the story goes. Much is/has been made of the fact that no known natural causes can account for the warming, this paper shows a different story.

CO2 alone is an innocuous GHG, it really cannot warm the atmosphere much, the theory relies upon positive feedback in the form of water vapour to create the predicted warming. Feedback studies are showing negative results thus far.

So, negative instead of positive feedbacks and the Sun going on an extended holiday, brrrrr :cold:

Guess this means my dreams of white Dickensian Christmases may come true in the not too distant future :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL
  • Location: Swallownest, Sheffield 83m ASL

TBH, I think we will probably welcome all that CO2 if the sun goes on a longer term slumber..

Now where did I put my cardigan?

More plausible, but, then again, that's because I think we have monitored such places :cold:

I agree. UFO's are more plausible... :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
CO2 alone is an innocuous GHG, it really cannot warm the atmosphere much, the theory relies upon positive feedback in the form of water vapour to create the predicted warming. Feedback studies are showing negative results thus far.

The point on CO2 being innocuous is not a fact, it is an opinion, just like with the statements of those who say that recent solar activity cannot have warmed the atmosphere much. See this thread, for example, showing that the effects of CO2 on temperature are still prone to considerable uncertainty, e.g. the coefficient "a" given:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/56056-general-climate-change-discussion/page__st__75__p__1569251entry1569251

It's important to mention this just because opinions, even if well-founded, should not be assumed as givens in the way that facts can be.

GHG's do not need to be mentioned. The basis of the AGW theory is that GHG's need to be included in order to replicate/account for the warming in recent years - the warming can ONLY be accounted for if they are included; or so the story goes. Much is/has been made of the fact that no known natural causes can account for the warming, this paper shows a different story.

So how come, whenever someone comes up with a study that attributes global warming to GHGs, the study should include natural forcings- yet when a study holds natural forcings accountable, there is apparently no need to include GHGs? A double standard.

The argument "GHGs must be included to replicate the warming" is used to insist that at least some of the recent warming was down to AGW- not as a basis for the existence of AGW itself (there is a difference!).

Also, if natural forcings can account for all of the warming, it doesn't follow that AGW can't have been partly responsible. Just like, if AGW could account for all of the warming it wouldn't follow that AGW was entirely responsible. Such black and white absolutes can only follow if we have a near-perfect understanding of what forcings caused what amount of warming- and I doubt that we're even close to reaching that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

So how come, whenever someone comes up with a study that attributes global warming to GHGs, the study should include natural forcings- yet when a study holds natural forcings accountable, there is apparently no need to include GHGs? A double standard.

The argument "GHGs must be included to replicate the warming" is used to insist that at least some of the recent warming was down to AGW- not as a basis for the existence of AGW itself (there is a difference!).

Also, if natural forcings can account for all of the warming, it doesn't follow that AGW can't have been partly responsible. Just like, if AGW could account for all of the warming it wouldn't follow that AGW was entirely responsible. Such black and white absolutes can only follow if we have a near-perfect understanding of what forcings caused what amount of warming- and I doubt that we're even close to reaching that stage.

The whole issue of needing to sort this all out is the fact that we will be 'squeezed' to combat AGW and the fact is that if its nothing to do with AGW then why should we be squeezed? With ridiculous and ugly inefficient clean powers, with carbon taxes etc etc no such levy is put on 'natural' forcings, no money making from natural forcings. This is why IMO there is a far greater need to 'prove/disprove' AGW.

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dorset
  • Location: Dorset

I am still trying to find any evidence of a lag in solar which would support the high temps we currently have.

http://plasmaresources.com/ozwx/landscheidt/pdf/SolarWindNearEarth_IndicatorOfVariationsInGlobalTemperature.pdf

Above is a piece by the old Skeptic favourite Theodor Landscheidt which quite clearly says that there is a lag of between 4 to 8 years. According to Theodor this is the cause of the 1998 heat (which peaked in Solar in 1990). He then predicted 10 years of global cooling.

Svensmarks lag is very very much smaller.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v81/i22/p5027_1

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

I still have yet to find anything that indicates a solar driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m

I am still trying to find any evidence of a lag in solar which would support the high temps we currently have.

Hey, speak for yourself. Those of us in North Jetland are simply looking for evidence of high temps. Full stop.

Joking aside, are you talking local, latitudinal, hemi-spherical or global in respect of high temps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City

I see I have support from scientific circles!

http://oregonstate.e...-predict-future

The article states that recent warming levels have been greater than what took place over considerable portions of inter-glacials.

So whether the earth eventually corrects itself naturally, is not the point. Our well-being and the immediate biosphere is the concern in the meantime in terms of whether most of it will be here before the next ice-age.

We are but a blip in the earth's history, and our wasteful ways are most likely shorterning that blip still further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

The whole issue of needing to sort this all out is the fact that we will be 'squeezed' to combat AGW and the fact is that if its nothing to do with AGW then why should we be squeezed? With ridiculous and ugly inefficient clean powers, with carbon taxes etc etc no such levy is put on 'natural' forcings, no money making from natural forcings. This is why IMO there is a far greater need to 'prove/disprove' AGW.

BFTP

Answer, we should be squeezed because we are using up fossil fuels which are finite and are likely to become increasingly hard to extract. Once demand starts to substantially exceed supply, unless we have "clean" alternatives to supplement supply, we are going to endure a severe depression. That said, I favour "carrot first and if that isn't enough, stick second" approaches, because I think the conventional draconian "hang the polluters & flog 'em" stances will force us to make more cuts/sacrifices than may be necessary in order to achieve a given degree of environmental improvement- and it also puts politicians off taking action because of how unpopular such draconianism is. But that's more a problem with how we're addressing the issue.

Some say that with regards policymaking, perhaps there should be a more general focus on sustainability rather than putting all of our eggs in the AGW basket- and I'm regularly one of them. :lol:

However, for various reasons, especially regarding adaptation policies, it is indeed important to understand both natural and anthropogenic forcings so that we can make better predictions about how climate will change over the coming decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City
  • Location: 4 miles north of Durham City

Answer, we should be squeezed because we are using up fossil fuels which are finite and are likely to become increasingly hard to extract. Once demand starts to substantially exceed supply, unless we have "clean" alternatives to supplement supply, we are going to endure a severe depression. That said, I favour "carrot first and if that isn't enough, stick second" approaches, because I think the conventional draconian "hang the polluters & flog 'em" stances will force us to make more cuts/sacrifices than may be necessary in order to achieve a given degree of environmental improvement- and it also puts politicians off taking action because of how unpopular such draconianism is. But that's more a problem with how we're addressing the issue.

Some say that with regards policymaking, perhaps there should be a more general focus on sustainability rather than putting all of our eggs in the AGW basket- and I'm regularly one of them. :lol:

However, for various reasons, especially regarding adaptation policies, it is indeed important to understand both natural and anthropogenic forcings so that we can make better predictions about how climate will change over the coming decades.

This is an interesting article: -

http://www.naturalnews.com/025895_global_warming_climate_change_civilization.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I have to admit I can't be bothered to subscribe to the thingybob, but from reading the first page, I think there is some truth behind it, though most likely exaggerated.

I totally agree that much of the "AGW is a hoax" stuff is fuelled by agendas of oil companies and the like who want to insist that we can continue to pollute with their products without a problem. Plus, for that matter, agendas of individuals who don't want to make uncomfortable lifestyle changes or kiss goodbye to cold snowy winters.

I am also seeing AGW being used as a means of furthering authoritarian control, though I don't think it's a conspiracy. Authoritarian policymaking is often favoured because it is the easiest/simplest way to address a problem (the H.Mencken quote in my signature springs to mind!) and it maximises control- again making it easier for themselves as the more control, the less uncertainty regarding the behaviour of the masses. What seems to be changing these days is that more people are starting to accept it as a necessary evil, for various reasons- and AGW can sometimes be one of those reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...