Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening

309 posts in this topic

I guess he

I visualize Little Fish as a high school girl. When I checked the profile, gender wasn't listed. Oh, well.

I have been reading Michael Mann's "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars." In it he lays out the evidence for warming and its causes. It's a pretty solid presentation, but it does have a couple drawbacks: It's written for a lay audience. As such, it lacks most of the references one would need to verify what it says - the same criticism that I have been applying to Little Fish.

For anybody who wants an education in climate science: If you want "proof" of human causes of global warming, take Chapter 3 and sentence by sentence look up references using Google Scholar. Type the sentence into the text box and you'll get a list of references on the subject. Choose four or five papers from the list, download them and read them. Do that with every sentence. Then extend your search into other chapters. When you're done, you'll know more about climate science than most climate scientists.

Of course, by the time you finish, the world will be three degrees hotter ....

Doug

Mann, Michael E. 2012. The hockey stick and the climate wars: dispatches from the front lines. Columbia University Press, New York. ISBN 978-0-231-15254-9 (cloth: alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-231-52638-8 (ebook).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Fish is very catholic in his choice of explanations for Climate change - it changes from day to day. Some days it doesn't even exist.

Personally I picture him as a pale skinned greasy haired conspiracy nut.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global

cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent as shown in the figure below:

global_cloudiness.png?w=640

The period of the study is from 1971 to 2009. The authors say that:

“Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order of 0.4% per decade.”

Taken together, global cloud cover decreased and average of 1.56% over this 39 year period. WUWT readers may recall that Dr. Roy Spencer points out the issue of a slight change in cloud cover in his 2010 book intro of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. He writes:

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

http://wattsupwithth...med/#more-69639

so what has caused cloudiness to fall since 1971?

there is near perfect correlation of decrease in cloudiness with decrease in cosmic rays.

crcFig3.jpg

what would decrease cosmic rays to cause a drop in cloudiness (causing a rise in temperature) since 1971?

solar wind and magnetic effects are thought to cause fluctuations in cosmic rays in the atmosphere. this is something which is not modeled in GCMs. to attribute what we don't know to carbon dioxide is a failure of logic. climate inertia, ultraviolet, cosmic ray effects, cloud variability appear to be very important but are ignored by GCMs and carbon dogma.

[media=]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole line of reasoning is far from devastating to climate science. The correlation between cosmic rays and temperature is weak over the last 35yrs (the period most attributable to AGW)

Eduardo2010solarmag.jpg

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0911.4396v1.pdf

For a more detailed analysis of the whole nucleating bag of wind try this;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

CosmicRays.png

http://blogs.telegra...global-warming/

The scientists at CERN are drawing no firm conclusions from their work and don't even feel confident in predicting an overall effect on clouds attributable to cosmic rays;

"The fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets… remain open questions experimentally."
"This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

http://press.web.cer...ing_29JUL11.pdf

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot:

"Climate Change" isn't (although it defies logic, and the truth) happening as the result of natural solar processes.

:no:

It's caused by HAARP !

:yes:

Why didn't I hink of that earlier?

I'm calling Jesse Ventura!

We'll get to the bottom of this...and put it on TV!

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your graph assumes zero thermal inertia of the oceans. last week in defence of co2 you were talking about the climate lag between forcing and temperature. the first half of the century 1900-1950 saw an decrease in cosmic rays, 1950-2000 saw cosmic rays remain low.

the earth is 71% ocean, so ~71% of the suns energy that reaches the earth/sea is going to end up in the oceans, it is not going to appear immediately on the "global temperature" graph. the earth is a big place, the ocean temperatures have only been measured properly since 2006 with he ARGO system.

if cloud cover changes, the amount of energy entering the oceans from the sun will change, this ocean heat will manifest into the "global temperature" when? 40-70 years in the future according to your favourite website, so showing the last 30 years temperature against cosmic rays doesn't show anything, there isn't enough data, you need to shift the cosmic ray data into the future by a number of decades to account for the climate lag. how will the 1900-1950 ocean heat manifest? the ENSO is a good match for current "global temperature", are we seeing the 1900-1950 cosmic ray decrease accentuate 1950-2000 ENSO as that early century ocean heat increase emerges into the atmosphere?

ENSO mapped onto "global temperature"

animationimage4169.jpg

this hypothesis predicts a flattening of temperature between 2000-2050, the last 10-15 years have not seen "global temperature" rise, so although small timeframe, it fits with the hypothesis and seems to be a problem for the co2 hypothesis since co2 has increased over that timeframe.

clouds affect forcing by 40 W/m2 so a small change in cloud cover is enough to account for the global warming over the last century. as has been said many times, the Global Climate Models (GCMs) assume no cloud variabilty, therefore the GCMs will assume cloud variabilty warming is due to co2, and by your own reasoning - 'what we haven't explained, we assume is co2'

The scientists at CERN are drawing no firm conclusions from their work
their work will continue for at least another 10 years, so why do you call people "deniers" all the time when you don't have all the data. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global

So what paper is this? Who's the author? What's its title?

It would help a whole lot if you'd post a reference.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what paper is this? Who's the author? What's its title?

It would help a whole lot if you'd post a reference.

for f* sake, it's in the link in the post#128 which you quoted.

how many times are you going to play that game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for f* sake, it's in the link in the post#128 which you quoted.

how many times are you going to play that game!

You still don't get it. You put the reference in your own article so your reader doesn't have to hunt all over hell to find it. That's just good manners.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems no one has gotten over it yet!

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating that over the last few months there has been a continuing decrease (on the Internet) of articles arguing against the idea that Man is largely responsible for global climate change. Nowadays, it is somewhat rare to come across such articles:

Read one such a "rare" article here

Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message

By: Spencer Michels

"... people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren't rooted in science, but more in politics."

The above comments are the last, concluding remarks at the end of the article.

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating that over the last few months there has been a continuing decrease (on the Internet) of articles arguing against the idea that Man is largely responsible for global climate change. Nowadays, it is somewhat rare to come across such articles:

Read one such a "rare" article here

Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message

By: Spencer Michels

"... people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren't rooted in science, but more in politics."

The above comments are the last, concluding remarks at the end of the article.

What are your thoughts?

Not rooted in science?

But it seems to me that the skeptics at least did a step in the right direction: they acknowledge already that there is a climate change and that it could be man-made. A long way from their position 2 years ago.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every religion tells of the demise, the end of the world. - Doomsday. this religion 'global warming' is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every religion tells of the demise, the end of the world. - Doomsday. this religion 'global warming' is no different.

Come what may, the world will still be here. The question is whether we'll be on it.

As long as there was no process (that we knew of) whereby man-made warming could destroy the ecosystem, global warming was no different. The other doomsday prophesies lacked a physical mechanism that could produce an end-of-days scenario. So it was with global warming.

Then we discovered that there is such a mechanism. It's called the methane gun. At the time of the Permian Extinction it resulted in the anihilation of 95% of the species on earth. It could happen again. Here's how:

Global warming gradually warms the oceans, resulting in warming of the sea bottom where there are vast amounts of methane hydrate. Warming causes melting, which releases methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Large amounts entering the atmosphere would cause more warming, accelerating the warming process and starting a runaway warming cycle. Once started, the process could not be stopped. This could raise global mean temperatures close to the boiling point, resulting in extinction of most species, especially us. In a few million years, the geologic cycle will reduce atmospheric carbon and restore the earth's climate. Surviving species will propser beyond their wildest dreams. But we won't be one of them.

There is not enough carbon in the air to cause such a disaster at the moment. If the methane gun fired now, most species, possibly including us, would survive. But a few more decades of business-as-usual will make such a scenario possible.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to run the slightest risk of extinction. Any risk, no matter how small, is too large. That's why I support efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

Even without the methane gun, there are good reasons to implement clean energy. Ecosystem collapse is a very real risk long before the methane gun can become a danger. The desertification of the American southwest has already begun with the loss of 200,000 acres of pinyon pine in the Four Corners area. The process continues in the Sahel. It is likely that much of Oklahoma will have to be abandoned to the desert by the end of this century. And all that means less arable ground to produce food for an increasing population. And that means you will have to use your money to bid against everybody else who wants to buy food, people who have no choice but to spend their last nickel to outbid you.

Perhaps you can't see these things happening right now, but I have dealt with the issues of resource use for my entire career (I'm 64.). Climate change has already had some effects and more are on the way.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it fascinating that over the last few months there has been a continuing decrease (on the Internet) of articles arguing against the idea that Man is largely responsible for global climate change. Nowadays, it is somewhat rare to come across such articles:

Read one such a "rare" article here

Climate Change Skeptic Says Global Warming Crowd Oversells Its Message

By: Spencer Michels

"... people that like more regulation use global warming as a tool, as a means to an end. And so as a result, we might be getting more regulation and more taxes that really aren't rooted in science, but more in politics."

The above comments are the last, concluding remarks at the end of the article.

What are your thoughts?

the public comments at the end of the article are most insightful.

mostly critical of giving any air time to anthony watts. shows you what we are dealing with here. a dangerous fear and loathing based cult intolerant of open enquiry and contrary views.

not surprisingly the majority of these zealot comments got few "likes" with high likes going to the minorty contrary view suggesting there is a quiet majority in disagreement with the fanatics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it seems to me that the skeptics at least did a step in the right direction: they acknowledge already that there is a climate change and that it could be man-made. A long way from their position 2 years ago.

If you go through the different sceptic blogs and read the comments going back many years you'll see that sceptics have always believed in climate change because climate has always been changing. That is one of the sceptics main points in all this. Humans can have an effect on climate, such as the Arctic Ice melting by heavy pollution, or heat island effects around cities.

Ironically it's the warmists like Michael Mann and James Hanson who don't actually believe in climate change though they trumpet the term around. For example, from the UN's action report at the Durban Conference last year, one of the chief goals is "ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase" (page 9). They think they can actually control the world's climate? How can we believe any scientist that actually believes that's possible?

Or another example is from Michael Mann's latest climate presentation, which includes this image (the final slide here). He too states "stabilizing Earth's climate" as a utopian goal. As if climate could ever actually be stabilized. Stabliized to what? Some invented normal? Who gets to decide what the mean climate should be that we stabilize everything to?

It's these warmist leaders who have taken climate change and twisted it around from something fundamentaly normal to something entirely human induced, which needs to be controlled and stabilized just like a bad little child.

mannlastslideocws.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Number Fingers - it is you who have twisted what real climate scientists are saying (they have never denied natural climate change). They want to stabalise mans contribution to prevent catastrophic climate change caused by man. Since there is no current natural trend towards extreme weather - it is reasonable to say that this is an achievable goal.

You managed to pack a sizable number of obvious myths/lies into your short post. I am not surprised that you lack a fundamental understanding of the issue - it goes with been a denier.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, is that a real post? Belittle those who disagree with you, it lets you pretend you win. I'd like to see these myth/lies. I quoted documents produced by "respected" warmists. Funny enough, there are lies/myths in those documents, so I cannot say you are wrong.

I never said they deny natural climate change. I even said they "trumpet the term around." I said that they implicitly reject real climate change, but they're never going to come out and admit that. It would make them look too kooky. These are people who think we can actually control climate like gods, do you think they have a grasp on reality?

In my opinion, they have to reject natural climate change because if they readily admit natural variation, it begins a slippery slope towards admitting most variation having a nature cause. Thus to stop from going down that path, they have to give every single climate event a human cause. Which is exactly what they do. By giving every event a human cause, they deny natural variation. You'd think something must have a natural cause, at least one event in a hundred. But no, to them, everything is our fault.

Thus, in my opinion, they implicitly cannot believe in natural climate change, although they say they do.

What do I know, I'm just a denier. By the way, spoiler alert, the holocaust never happened either. :rolleyes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obvious myths/lies
where are the lies and myths in the post? can we see your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called the methane gun. At the time of the Permian Extinction it resulted in the anihilation of 95% of the species on earth

that is speculation. you have stated it as a fact. naughty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is speculation. you have stated it as a fact. naughty.

Retallack, G. and E. S. Krull. 2006. Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, reefs and peat swamps. Geological Society of America, Speical Paper 399.

Smith, R. and J. Botha. 2005. The recovery of terrestial vertebrate diversity in the South African Karoo Basin after the end-Permian extinction. Comptes Rendes Palevol 4(6-7), Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 623-636.

Benton, M. and R. Twitchett. 2003. How to kill (almost) all life: the end-Permian extinction event. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(7) July 2003, pp. 358-365.

Many of the questions you have been posing on UM are answered with isotopic studies. It might be worth your time to do some reading in this area, rather than just closing your eyes and screaming "does not" all the time.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, is that a real post? Belittle those who disagree with you, it lets you pretend you win. I'd like to see these myth/lies. I quoted documents produced by "respected" warmists. Funny enough, there are lies/myths in those documents, so I cannot say you are wrong.

I never said they deny natural climate change. I even said they "trumpet the term around." I said that they implicitly reject real climate change, but they're never going to come out and admit that. It would make them look too kooky. These are people who think we can actually control climate like gods, do you think they have a grasp on reality?

In my opinion, they have to reject natural climate change because if they readily admit natural variation, it begins a slippery slope towards admitting most variation having a nature cause. Thus to stop from going down that path, they have to give every single climate event a human cause. Which is exactly what they do. By giving every event a human cause, they deny natural variation. You'd think something must have a natural cause, at least one event in a hundred. But no, to them, everything is our fault.

Thus, in my opinion, they implicitly cannot believe in natural climate change, although they say they do.

What do I know, I'm just a denier. By the way, spoiler alert, the holocaust never happened either. :rolleyes:

I have to say that you missed the point here - climate scientists spend their whole time understanding natural climate change in order to eliminate it from their projections. The majority of climate science is about studying natural variability within the system - so they are not denying natural climate change.

What you are ignoring is that this study of natural trends allows them to identify what is not normal and then to predict the outcomes of this none natural forcing. You really haven't actually read any real scientific reporting of climate otherwise you would already know this.

What you are also ignoring is that to attribute change in a system you must understand what is causing that change - invoking a natural change without a cause is like invoking God - and is called the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retallack, G. and E. S. Krull. 2006. Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, reefs and peat swamps. Geological Society of America, Speical Paper 399.

here is the study you quoted

http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/399/249.abstract

"atmospheric injections of methane and its oxidation to carbon dioxide could have been a cause of extinction"

which column do we put "could have" under? the fact column or the speculation column? I guess it depends on whether ones intent is to be scientific or political.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come what may, the world will still be here. The question is whether we'll be on it.

As long as there was no process (that we knew of) whereby man-made warming could destroy the ecosystem, global warming was no different. The other doomsday prophesies lacked a physical mechanism that could produce an end-of-days scenario. So it was with global warming.

Then we discovered that there is such a mechanism. It's called the methane gun. At the time of the Permian Extinction it resulted in the anihilation of 95% of the species on earth. It could happen again. Here's how:

Global warming gradually warms the oceans, resulting in warming of the sea bottom where there are vast amounts of methane hydrate. Warming causes melting, which releases methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Large amounts entering the atmosphere would cause more warming, accelerating the warming process and starting a runaway warming cycle. Once started, the process could not be stopped. This could raise global mean temperatures close to the boiling point, resulting in extinction of most species, especially us. In a few million years, the geologic cycle will reduce atmospheric carbon and restore the earth's climate. Surviving species will propser beyond their wildest dreams. But we won't be one of them.

There is not enough carbon in the air to cause such a disaster at the moment. If the methane gun fired now, most species, possibly including us, would survive. But a few more decades of business-as-usual will make such a scenario possible.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to run the slightest risk of extinction. Any risk, no matter how small, is too large. That's why I support efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

Even without the methane gun, there are good reasons to implement clean energy. Ecosystem collapse is a very real risk long before the methane gun can become a danger. The desertification of the American southwest has already begun with the loss of 200,000 acres of pinyon pine in the Four Corners area. The process continues in the Sahel. It is likely that much of Oklahoma will have to be abandoned to the desert by the end of this century. And all that means less arable ground to produce food for an increasing population. And that means you will have to use your money to bid against everybody else who wants to buy food, people who have no choice but to spend their last nickel to outbid you.

Perhaps you can't see these things happening right now, but I have dealt with the issues of resource use for my entire career (I'm 64.). Climate change has already had some effects and more are on the way.

Doug

I always enjoy your replies the time and effort you invest in them. i too agree we should be doing our uppermost to reduce pollution. But the Doomsday scenario is all to much. Who knows how long humanity will survive?

but maybe we should look at a warming world as an advantage instead of the disadvantage. as a species we can go back 250,000 years and just look at all the challenges we have faced and overcome, truly overwhelming. go back further to the origin, 4 million years ago and the challenges we overcome are even more spectacular. yet in the vital early years our species benefited from a warmer world. a world 4c warmer than today. sea levels were two to three meters higher. its nearly the exact same conditions portrayed as the doomsday scenario. its no coincidence the abundance of life can be found in the tropics and warmer climes of the world infact of the 9 million species estimated on earth 97% live in the warmer part of the world. in comparison the colder regions seem almost barren.

We really need understand the world isn't a constant, the name of the game is adaptation, and if we cannot adapt then maybe we our a weaker species than we once were, if we cannot play by the rules of the game then we shall go the way of the others - the 99% of all life, that as ever existed in the history of the world now Extinct.

modern day pollution is being tackled, here in the UK our air quality is the best its been in decades, our waters rivers and surrounding seas are also vastly improved. we are moving in the right direction to combat pollution. the sad thing is even if we went to zero - 0 greenhouse gases it would only take the eruption of a modest volcano to undo those achievements. mans 00.4% total contribution to the atmosphere as a whole seems insignificant in grand scheme of things.

hypothetical - but i've often wondered if mans release of greenhouse gases was eliminated, Zero Greenhouse gases. but the void left was filled by a new volcano erupting the exact same amount of greenhouse gases how would we stop the volcano, would we simply say its natural? how would we combat it? because the same doomsday scenario would exist. a warming world, rising sea levels etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.