217 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 29 February 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

I believe the data.  But then, I AM a government paid climate scientist.

Actually, I don't need to use those temperature profiles constructed by Hansen et al.  I can look at my own data.  I haven't checked for changing temps yet, but that's coming.  I can see climate changes in such things as decreased numbers of ice storms since 1997 and increasing precip since about that same time.  That's from data I collected.  Something is changing the climate.
Doug

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing
2. There is a greenhouse effect
3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years
4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years
5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

Edited by Little Fish, 29 February 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[Michelle]

I tend to think more along these lines...

http://www.scienceda...70309103123.htm

We should, of course, be good stewards of the earth...to preserve and conserve as much as possible. I think it is arrogant to think we can control the climate to serve our needs. Mother nature shows us how unimportant we are, on a regular basis, by scratching her back and sloughing us off.

Edited by Michelle, 29 February 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 29 February 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing
2. There is a greenhouse effect
3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years
4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years
5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

Which just goes to show that you don't understand what average means. Average in this case means drought in Africa, flooding in the Himalayan region and the melting of the North pole, which in itself would be good if the permafrost tundra would not be affected with it making those region uninhabitable. And to compensate the South pole got cooler by more than 0.8 (in fact by 1.5):



Then we have raising sea levels, changes in weather patterns and and estimated several hundred million people affected by it. But some don't seem to care about others, they just start to squeal when it is their turn to pay instead of consume. And the turn to pay will come (either by all those displaced coming to their secure areas or by being displaced themselves).

And don't think that those who are hiring the likes of Monkton nowadays to pull the wool over the public's eye are going to share with you when the **** hits the fan. As I sezz: just gawking at a subset of figures tells you nothing

[Little Fish]

lightly, on 29 February 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Two obvious indicators of a currently warming earth, at least portions and altitudes of,  are the facts that Arctic sea ice is retreating, and Glaciers are melting  all over the earth at accelerating rates.   Glaciers are now melting much faster than they are being replenished. Glacier melt is troubling because many of the earth's major rivers, and the people whose well being depend on those rivers,  rely on glacier melt, and mountain snows which are also diminishing,  as their main sources of water.

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing
2. There is a greenhouse effect
3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years
4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years
5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)
http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

[Michelle]

I have to ask...if humans were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth 50, or even a 100 years ago, do you think this would this still be happening?

[Little Fish]

Michelle, on 29 February 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

I tend to think more along these lines...

http://www.scienceda...70309103123.htm

"The global warming we experience presently will cause a temperature increase of perhaps 2-5 degrees in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue, researchers claim"

the quote from the article is based on computer models.
the computer models get that increase by amplifying feedbacks. the quantity of amplifying feedback is assumed in the model. in other words the models are programmed to produce a large warming. the models do not match the empirical data (reality).

skeptics dispute the feedback assumptions of the models. the data (reality) supports the skeptics position.

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing
2. There is a greenhouse effect
3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years
4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years
5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

[Little Fish]

questionmark, on 29 February 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

Which just goes to show that you don't understand what average means. Average in this case means drought in Africa, flooding in the Himalayan region and the melting of the North pole, which in itself would be good if the permafrost tundra would not be affected with it making those region uninhabitable. And to compensate the South pole got cooler by more than 0.8 (in fact by 1.5):



Then we have raising sea levels, changes in weather patterns and and estimated several hundred million people affected by it. But some don't seem to care about others, they just start to squeal when it is their turn to pay instead of consume. And the turn to pay will come (either by all those displaced coming to their secure areas or by being displaced themselves).

And don't think that those who are hiring the likes of Monkton nowadays to pull the wool over the public's eye are going to share with you when the **** hits the fan. As I sezz: just gawking at a subset of figures tells you nothing

the data does not support that position. worry is not data.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 29 February 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

the following points are not controversial among serious climate scientists. None of the points implies alarm. Indeed the actual warming is consistent with less than 1C warming for a doubling.

1. Carbon Dioxide has been increasing
2. There is a greenhouse effect
3. There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years
4. There has very probably been about 0.8 C warming in the past 150 years
5. Increasing CO2 alone should cause some warming (about 1C for each doubling)

http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

I see you're coming around.  This is what I have been trying to tell you for some time, now.

Hansen's data show more like a degree in the last 130 years (and most of that since 1907), but that's splitting hairs when we're not sure exactly what a degree's change in  temperature means, especially when the next degree will have more profound effects than the last one.  Hadley shows a little less, but about the same.

Practically every scientific article you have posted amounts to little more than adding a nuance or two to climate theory.  Nothing has been refuted, but a few adjustments have been made.

Mann's "hockey stick" paper showed that the handle of the hockey stick had a lesser rate of slope than previously believed, an assertion that has since been borne out by other researchers.  That's not exactly earth-shattering, yet you fought tooth-and-nail over it.  Why?

Hansen's data show a slight increase in temps during the last six years.  The Hadley dataset doesn't.  The differences are minor and could be nothing more than sampling error.  Again, the important issue (the dramatic increase in temps since 1907) hasn't been affected by this minor wiggle in the graph.

So exactly what is it that you're objecting to?
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 29 February 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

So exactly what is it that you're objecting to?

the only point you made was that the climate was changing by an appeal to your own authority. why should I care that the climate changes?

[Little Fish]

Michelle, on 29 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I have to ask...if humans were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth 50, or even a 100 years ago, do you think this would this still be happening?

"‘Global Warming’ refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.
Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity is easy to abuse in a variety of ways."
http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

[Michelle]

I pretty much knew what your answer would be, Fish. I was more curious about the hard core believers.

I don't think there is any doubt that the climate is changing, I just have to wonder how much they attribute to humans.

[Little Fish]

Michelle, on 29 February 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I pretty much knew what your answer would be, Fish. I was more curious about the hard core believers.

I don't think there is any doubt that the climate is changing, I just have to wonder how much they attribute to humans.

they won't tell you because there is no evidence in relation to co2 and temperature outside of their computer cartoons.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 29 February 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

the only point you made was that the climate was changing by an appeal to your own authority. why should I care that the climate changes?

As a result of last year's drought, peanut and beef prices are up.  You are already paying for climate change when you buy those products.  There will be more price increases ahead (Drought, not temperature, is the problem.).

If you are a farmer in Bangladesh watching six feet of your livelihood disappear to the sea every year or two, then climate change is a big issue.

Some southern Pacific islands may soon disappear altogether - that's a problem for their inhabitants.

New Orleans is already sinking, rising sea levels will make it disappear faster.  How about Venice, New York, London, Brussels, ...?  Paying for sea gates and such will cost a fortune and I know you don't like taxes and sea gates won't help Venice.

The American west is already in the early stages of being deforested, having lost over 200,000 acres of pinyons in the Four Corners in the last ten years.  Mountain pine beetles are removing over a million acres of ponderosa pine a year (Severe freezes control the beetles by killing the brood; there have been few hard freezes in the lower ponderosa zone in the last 35 years.).  Spruce beetles in Alaska, southern pine beetles in Georgia, Alabama, the Carolinas and so on - same story.  Why should you be concerned?  America is the woodbasket to much of the world.  We supply huge amounts of both wood and paper and the things made from those, like shipping containers, insulation, tires (Butadiene is a wood product.), permanent-press resins, copper (smelted with pine logs) and on and on for over 1600 different products made from wood.  And they'll all cost more (Wood prices are rising at about 1% over inflation.).

The paper mill at Valiant, Oklahoma sits right on the edge of the pine range.  It uses 80% pine fiber in its product, cardboard.  As the pine range shrinks, hauling costs go up, as do paper prices.  That mill will probably outlive its supply of raw materials and close.  Maybe paying a little more for American products shipped in cardboard boxes is not a problem for you, but your not buying them will be a major problem for the people who work in that plant.

The Great Lakes are in delicate balance with rainfall.  During the Altithermal, Lake Erie had no outlet and Lake St. Claire didn't exist because rainfall couldn't keep them full.  When that happens, Niagara Falls goes dry and all those hydro-electric generators quit turning and nickle and lead plants at Sudbury shut down, etc. etc.  And everything your grandkids buy that's made from their products costs more.

That's a small part of the list.  Ultimately it all comes down to somebody writing (or not writing) a check for products that are now more expensive, or not available, because warming has affected the supply chain.

I doubt that the world will take action in time to head off some major disasters, which I feel are now only decades away.  We'll see a few climate-related disasters in the next few years (An unseasonal tornado just took out Branson; last year, one got Joplin.).  Most disasters will be small and will differ from past ones only in that there are more of them.  It is already too late to keep the Arctic Ocean from melting off.  When that happens, I fear some major climate changes.

We could head off many of them with minimal investment (and most of that paid for privately), but the anti-global warming hysteria is preventing even minor, no-cost mitigation.

This world has one climate and one economy and the two interact - and that's the problem.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 29 February 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[Essan]

Michelle, on 29 February 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I have to ask...if humans were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth 50, or even a 100 years ago, do you think this would this still be happening?

If humans have never existed then, all else being equal, no.  There would be changes in climate due to natural processes, but not quite the same as are happening now as a consequence of a variety of human activities over the past few hundred (or thousand) years.  Long term temps would still be falling - as they have been overall for ~4,000 year - as a result of declining axial tilt (though not by any means enough to precipitate a new Glacial)

Every time we chop down a tree or burn a pile of peat, it has a effect.

Though Christian Fundamentalists and those in their pay obviously deny this.

btw, in answer to the question: scientists interpret the data.  Politicans and the media misinterpret their findings to produce sensational headlines.  And some people deny it all on principle. Who do you believe: scientists, politicians, the media or christian fundamentalists?  

Edited by Essan, 29 February 2012 - 10:01 PM.

[Little Fish]

Essan, on 29 February 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

If humans have never existed then, all else being equal, no.  There would be changes in climate due to natural processes, but not quite the same as are happening now as a consequence of a variety of human activities over the past few hundred (or thousand) years.  

did you read post 25?

"‘Global Warming’ refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. This quantity is highly uncertain, but may be on the order of 0.7C over the past 150 years. This quantity is always varying at this level and there have been periods of both warming and cooling on virtually all time scales. On the time scale of from 1 year to 100 years, there is no need for any externally specified forcing. The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.
Because the quantity we are speaking of is so small, and the error bars are so large, the quantity is easy to abuse in a variety of ways."
http://i.telegraph.c...ns_2148505a.pdf

to paraphrase - there is no change in the change.