General Climate Change

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely the 'Doom mongers' are the folk driving the current wave of extinction by their insatiable demands of the planet and it's Eco-system(those peddling in 'doom' as a trade)?

How can the folk who are crying "sustainability" be in the frame as 'doom mongers'?

Surely the ones peddling doom , and those who support them in word and deed, are the folk we need to be aware of?

The folk currently poisoning our world are the ones funding the pseudo science are they not, how can we be seen to support that?

EDIT: FYI;

Glacier National Park Loses 2 More Glaciers

2 more glaciers in Glacier National Park have become the victim of climate change.

While Glacier National Park used to have over 150 glaciers, scientists believe that none will remain by the end of the decade.

The latest two glaciers to become victims of climate change are Miche Wabun and Shepard Glaciers.

EDIT:EDIT:

Why no hullabaloo about our Cryosat2 mission tomorrow pm???

Surely a 'once and for all' answer about our impacts on the ice sheets and sea ice ( without resorting to silly 15% or more per pixel measures) helps us all? stops the confusion some folk appear to be plagued with.

C'mon guys , lets hear it for Europe's efforts to bring clarity to the happenings in the Arctic!

Edited April 7, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

Why no hullabaloo about our Cryosat2 mission tomorrow pm???

Surely a 'once and for all' answer about our impacts on the ice sheets and sea ice ( without resorting to silly 15% or more per pixel measures) helps us all? stops the confusion some folk appear to be plagued with.

C'mon guys , lets hear it for Europe's efforts to bring clarity to the happenings in the Arctic!

Fingers crossed that this satellite gets there this time.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

How would you define a 'real extremist'. Would this fit:

Someone who believes that the human race cannot continue on it's present course in terms of exploitation of the earth's resources, and that the most important part of any change to a more sustainable way of life for the whole human race must start by significantly reducing the consumption of the biggest consumers (which would of course be the likes of Western Europe and the US) ?

Because many people who believe that global warming is happening, and that human activity is a significant contributor to that warming, would I think fall into this category.

I believe that most moderate people - which comprises the majority of us (I am not going to put an exact percentage on it) believe that human action in terms of sustainability would happen much more naturally in a less pressurised way without having the reason for AGW enforced upon us all. The ramming down the global throat of this topic actually is detrimental towards getting the very action from the average person that the pro AGW'ists desire. People are being put off by the intensity of the agenda as well as the ulterior motives of governments. The IPCC is very much a poodle in all this.

Moderate people will consider AGW amongst other reasons for climate change, but they will not make premature conclusions based on supposition and they certainly won't preach such conclusions to others with constant warnings of doom as a result of inaction - as some form of a method of enforcement. That is not moderate in my view. Indeed it is counter-productive.

The science is uncertain and there remains much more research to do before the sort of conclusions and resultant forebodings in terms of consequences can be expressed and enforced upon people. The truth is that we do not know the nature of the problem we might be dealing with in decades to come until we know much better the reasons for changes in our climate. So a wider remit of research is needed than just AGW alone.

There are much more obvious reasons for practicing a cleaner way of existence and looking to utilise and protect our existing resources whilst seeking out and developing more sustainable one's than suppositions of AGW to try and stir people into action through alarmism. Such alarmism is not moderate whilst based on supposition within the contect of far too much uncertainty to justify such alarmism.

AGW proponents will say that there is no time left not to act - but this completely and utterly misses the point. People will act if the more immediate and pressing concerns for change are followed in terms of the much clearer obvious known threats/effects on our environment/resources that are not climate related. Global Finance (both excesses and inadequacies from one place to another) as usual muddies the water. Climate is a far more complex issue to deal with than is believed. The research should of course continue but whilst a more honest approach towards encouraging people to change is adopted rather than using AGW as the scaremongering tool to try and cajole action. Like I say, such enforcement is if anything actually preventing or at least slowing down action needed.

We know that human activity does affect our environment in a number of ways, and we know that the way we live our lives can be wasteful of precious resources. But we cannot make assumptions about our effects on climate which is the most complex and inherently naturally powerful of all. Taking a measured view of this subject is not the prevarication that AGW proponents would accuse such a 'sceptic' of. Such accusations are indeed a symptom of not being moderate. Less pressure grouping might allow the much more direct and immediate needs wrt to how we harm our environment and waste its bounty to come to the surface and it will be those needs that are currently being drowned in AGW alarmism that will come to the surface and will in turn motivate/promote and allow the very action that is needed to actually occur.

Edited April 8, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[kold weather]

Yup - quite true.

Last years NH was warm. NH data available, here Looks to me to be about 0.75C warmer than the mean.

You can thank a real warm Arctic (due to obviously a powerful -ve AO) a strong El nino (4th warmest on record FWIW!) and some impressive Atlantic SST's, esp in the tropics which are smashing the records this year so far, once again thanks to the -ve AO that has helped to keep the subtropical high pressure belt weak.

My personal worry is the next 10-20 years will see us flip into a cool phase which is going to hold back any of the background warming, and this will give probably cooler years for some, esp for Maritime climates that are so heavily influenced by the sea. Its only when we flip back to the warm cycle will see the real damage come to haunt us and you'll see another huge step up like we did in both 88 and then again in 95-97 onwards.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Firstly for Bad Boy, unfortunatey mate the arctic was [relatively] mild to the mean but still very cold and enough to make ice of course. As KW says the record -AO took care of that not AGW. Also the strong El Nino combined has produced 'warm' global figures but this warmth is easily accounted for by the natural phenomena.

Its only when we flip back to the warm cycle will see the real damage come to haunt us and you'll see another huge step up like we did in both 88 and then again in 95-97 onwards.

KW

you seem to be only taking the ocean cycles as global coolers. My contention is that other drivers will be involved and we may well cool below 20th century levels and hence any switch in ocean cycles won't have the effect you propose.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

At least we'll have another 20 years of study into the phenomena and the science will be settled.

As it is I worry that we have already travelled to far down the road we're on for a 'cold phase' ,as we used to know them, to manifest. I'm sorry to be C-Bobs 'stuck record' but the changes in the Arctic will have an trickle down impact throughout the climate system and in the way we didn't spot (until 07') how degraded the perennial had become we have probably missed how widespread the impacts are already.

I'm sure I've seen data showing that ,over the last 3 'cold phases, the PDO had milded phase on phase. This will be the forth and why should I expect the trend to alter? The oceans are warmer (it appears we may have underestimated how much by 50% or more) the seasons are changing (Australian Brown butterfly) and we have sub-tropical waters at both Arctic Basin and around Greenland's Glaciers.

We always knew that the oceans would take a long while to respond but are we seeing this response manifesting over the past 15yrs?

There's a funny article

http://www.scienceda...00407190000.htm

about the changes to the Arctic weather system out today. How does this impact things?

Somehow I think we'd be wrong to look at the recent past for a guide to the near future. Things are measurably different and ,as we know ,the system is chaotic. How will the 'changes' mould into this chaos? Are we looking at a very large butterflies wing beat??

Edited April 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

As it is I worry that we have already travelled to far down the road we're on for a 'cold phase' ,as we used to know them, to manifest. I'm sorry to be C-Bobs 'stuck record' but the changes in the Arctic will have an trickle down impact throughout the climate system and in the way we didn't spot (until 07') how degraded the perennial had become we have probably missed how widespread the impacts are already.

Not according to our friend Arrhenius. CO₂ emmissions have a far bigger impact over the poles than the equator. Unless, something has changed to show Arrhenius' theories to be incomplete or incorrect?

See, here, for details.

If one pauses for a modicum of thought, then one might be able to tie in the difference between polar temperatures and mid-latitude to equatorial temperatures and come up with a theory regarding local weather (since we can determine effects based on albedo (another story!) to some degree or another)

Or is this another one of those weather is not climate, and climate is not weather red-herrings? If so, I think you should point it out to those who keep an eye on the polar stratosphere temperature, and mountain torque during the winter to infer local weather in the UK ....

Edited April 8, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

No V.P. I wouldn't wish to question that and ,of course, would expect greater impacts over the pole than at the equator. As I see it the Equators influence will just move poleward as the studies on the poleward migration of the tropics shows. Seeing as the 'old pole' looked after itself, with thick perennial sealing and organising the ocean below and so reinforcing the ices presence there, the new arctic will not only appreciate the 'new' warmth but will also 'normalise' itself to it's position without the negative skew of all that ice.

Rush ,rush ,rush.....gotta split but ;

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cryosat/SEMILVZNK7G_0.html

lets help all goes well!

[VillagePlank]

At least we'll have another 20 years of study into the phenomena and the science will be settled.

That, it seems to me, is a very similar statement to Lord Kelvin's attribution to the world of physics: all the big stuff is done now, and only the details remain. This was about 10 years before Einstein turned up and turned everything on it's head.

Edited April 8, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

That, it seems to me, is a very similar statement to Lord Kelvin's attribution to the world of physics: all the big stuff is done now, and only the details remain. This was about 10 years before Einstein turned up and turned everything on it's head.

This kind of things always happens or occasionally, or rarely? I'd say rarely?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

This kind of things always happens or occasionally, or rarely? I'd say rarely?

Yeah - pretty rare. I think someone wrote a book (I think I read it when I was (and still is) young and stupid) and called it paradigm shifts.

It always happens, though - and is likely to happen to climate science at one degree or another since, by it's very nature, it relies on all sorts of ideas, premises, and techniques that are, in the grand scheme of things, new.

Edited April 8, 2010 by VillagePlank

[sgian dearg]

The research should of course continue but whilst a more honest approach towards encouraging people to change is adopted rather than using AGW as the scaremongering tool to try and cajole action. Like I say, such enforcement is if anything actually preventing or at least slowing down action needed.

I am in substantial agreement with all you say and in respect of the above would certainly support your view that the Cry Wolf proponents really must be aware of the shortcomings in their strategy.

That, it seems to me, is a very similar statement to Lord Kelvin's attribution to the world of physics: all the big stuff is done now, and only the details remain. This was about 10 years before Einstein turned up and turned everything on it's head.

This kind of things always happens or occasionally, or rarely? I'd say rarely?

Yeah - pretty rare. I think someone wrote a book (I think I read it when I was (and still is) young and stupid) and called it paradigm shifts.

It always happens, though - and is likely to happen to climate science at one degree or another since, by it's very nature, it relies on all sorts of ideas, premises, and techniques that are, in the grand scheme of things, new.

I suppose it’s a question of scale of change, or possibly scope. Einstein theory grows from and partially overcomes Newtonian principles in physics; the Periodic Table is developed from Alchemical understanding of compound properties, which in turn evolved from basic Classical protoscience in which earth, water, air and fire (and aether) encompass all the elemental properties of everything in (and outside) the world. The pace of that scientific evolution (revolution?) increases from a major change after a couple of thousand years, to after a few hundred years, to after a hundred years (give or take) and could change again at any time. Meanwhile, smaller but significant advances are made on a far more regular basis.

Interestingly, to jump back for a second, although historic misunderstanding of physics and chemistry led science up many a dead-end, I find it amazing how much of the investigation carried out under misguided regimes actually led to real progress.

Of course what we can’t tell as we stand in the present is whether we are currently proceeding up a scientific super-highway or heading towards the boffins’ buffers. Only time will tell, only time.

[Gray-Wolf]

And there was I thinking Einstein's thinkings were flawed from the get-go and 'String theory' is the current currency......

I just keep finding how wrong I am don't I just?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

And there was I thinking Einstein's thinkings were flawed from the get-go and 'String theory' is the current currency......

I just keep finding how wrong I am don't I just?

Who said, specifically, that Einstein was right ?

Edited April 9, 2010 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Just caught up with this thread after being away for a few days.....

Quite a lot of posts have been deleted, some have been edited - did you lot over-dose on snotty pills?

Come on folks, keep it clean eh.

[kold weather]

Firstly for Bad Boy, unfortunatey mate the arctic was [relatively] mild to the mean but still very cold and enough to make ice of course. As KW says the record -AO took care of that not AGW. Also the strong El Nino combined has produced 'warm' global figures but this warmth is easily accounted for by the natural phenomena

KW

you seem to be only taking the ocean cycles as global coolers. My contention is that other drivers will be involved and we may well cool below 20th century levels and hence any switch in ocean cycles won't have the effect you propose.

BFTP

Without a sbout there are other factors, I just don't really have enough of a grip with that side of things to make any constructive comments, though I have seen that there is going to be a trend for the suns cycle activity to slowly come down towards a long min that sustains, we are probably aloready in the starting phases of that I'd imagine.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Keep it going VP, many here are very interested in the result. The constant posting of links which are nearly always countered against has got boring.

BFTP

[Paul]

Ho hum, is it not possible to discuss this stuff without it generating into name calling, sarcasm and rants?

Have any of you who behave in this way stopped to wonder why not many new members get involved in these discussions?? If not, perhaps you ought to, as it's directly related to the way certain members act in here and quite frankly it's not on.

I can promise everyone now - anyone who continues to show such a lack of respect for others on here will be stopped from posting indefinitely with no further warnings, this cycle needs to be broken...

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.examiner....be-catastrophic

Isn't this all a bit 'Simpson's' ?

I'd have to agree with boss man. We may get heated about the science but there are gentle ways to put this across (and much more rewarding) without having to resort to direct attacks and name calling.

This summer will be a very interesting and enlightening one for both sides of the 'great divide' (and I'm not talking about the freakish drought in Oz) so it'd be a shame not to have this thread to explore it all on.

Let's remember that the biggest changes to our climate manifest first across the poles and we have a northern pole in meltdown (temps increasing twice as quickly as the rest of the planet) and ,recently, the areas affected by the 'smowmaggedon' events having a record warm spring (shame we're not hearing the same amount about these record warm events as we did about the cold eh?)

Is Mr Murdoch's stable of media outlets unhappy to cover warm extremes for some reason????

EDIT: Seem to have lost the 'record temp' thread. Both the NE of the U.S. and swathes of Canada;

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/contentposting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2F20100402%2FHeat_Records_100402

have been having a bit of a stonker over the past week........I know Canada has been toasty all winter but the 'Snowmageddon' capital seems to have lost it's chill.

Now what proposed mechanism leads to extremes in weather I wonder...........

Edited April 11, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/peru-glacier-collapses-injures-50-20100412-s1s6.html

This is not nice. They do say that the number of these types of events will increase. The Himalaya's are also under threat of such collapses and floods.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

GW

C'mon GW, you can do much better than those posts. US is cold west warm east....

BFTP

Edited April 13, 2010 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Iceberg]

Well the next independent review in the methods used by UEA/CRU is set to report today.

What will it find I wonder....?

(Just for reference the first report by the commons found NO EVIDENCE that the science was wrong, but that FOA requests were not dealt with correctly.

[Iceberg]

Hot off the press and the actual report can be found from here.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel

I don't what to be accused of looking at it through the spin of the BBC etc, so best to go straight to the source.

Re Temperature: Although there are certaintly different ways of handling the data, some of which might be superior, as far as we can judge the methods which CRU has employed are fair and satisfactory....We believe that CRU did a public service of great value...we found (CRU) to be objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.

In conclusion

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU.

There should be closer collaboration with professional statisticians

Finally.

We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

So basically the CRU have been totally cleared now by both the commons and the above independent panel with the one negative conclusion that they should employee more upto date and more professional stats standards and personal, however with the caveat that there is no evidence that findings would have been different if they had of done this.

Glad that's cleared up !.

[Gray-Wolf]

Never thought anything different would be found. From all the thousands of E-mails and Rheims of data we get 2 sound bites that are paraded out of context by right wing bloggers and their ilk.

Surely only a fool (or person of the same leanings as the perpetrators) would find anything troubling once the situation was scrutinised?

As you say , over and done now and ,as we all know "that which doesn't kill you can only make you stronger" so in some ways climate science has been given a helping hand by the whole affair.

I cannot see a time where science will appear 'secret' or 'guarded 'in the future now that we've had this silliness.

For a while it even seemed like some folk on here were ready to be swayed by groundless accusations! I mean, can you credit that?

EDIT:

First it was a couple more glaciers gone in the U.S. national glacier park and now;

http://english.cctv....14/102400.shtml

4 gone in China's equivalent....

EDIT:EDIT;

Oh! and I'd go along with these sentiments reguarding the naughty folk who twist words....

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, called for an apology from the sceptics.

"I think those so-called sceptics who have attempted to undermine the credibility of climate change science on the basis of the hacked emails now need to apologise for misleading the public about their significance.”

Edited April 14, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

On the other hand, if they hadn't been so determined to not release the data for scrutiny, the situation of the hacking and the adverse publicity it attracted would never have occurred.

IMHO all those scientists involved scored an own goal, the foundations of science rely upon data being analysed and results replicated by other scientists; to decline to do so, or make it incredibly difficult to access information will inevitably invite criticism and possibly accusations of fraud.

If anything is to be learned from this sorry tale, I hope it's a lesson in openess, from everybody in the scientific community.

Personally, I don't think any sceptic needs to apologise for forcing this issue out into the open, the requests for information should have been dealt with in an honest and timely manner. Had they have been, I expect none of this would have happened. Afterall, where's the big story in checking data and finding it to be accurate?