ehMac banner

1 - 20 of 7203 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'll begin it where we left off--with SINC's informative link to the NEW report on Himalayan glaciers. I will remind members to comment only on the information. provided. If you don't enjoy the contributions of other members, EhMac provides many other destinations that may match your interests!

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds - Telegraph

Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlayas, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.
Emphasis SINC's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,286 Posts
I will give this topic one last chance. 3 strikes, and this topic is out.

Please only present information, and thoughtful comments on the information.

Please do not preface information with disparaging remarks / labels towards people who hold opposing views.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,834 Posts
C02's role in the atmosphere keeping the planet habitable has been understood for a century or more.
Background/history
Introduction - Summary

Water vapour magnifies that warming - or cooling - yes C02 works in both directions.
C02 is a greenhouse cast that persists in the atmosphere for millenia and retains energy/warmth in the atmosphere due to it's physical nature.
Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

result

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02
It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?

Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.

And we are only .6 degree C into it.

THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.

It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.

Of course some few don't get that either.:rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,834 Posts
Britain is facing up to the reality

Defra's UK climate-proofing plans unveiled
By David Shukman Environment correspondent, BBC News


Train goes past sea front in Scotland (PA) Climate change could affect several aspects of UK infrastructure

Roads built to the same standards as the scorching south of France; fish moved from the overheated Lake District to cooler waters in Scotland; lighthouses threatened by rising seas.
more
BBC News - Defra's UK climate-proofing plans unveiled
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
C02's role in the atmosphere keeping the planet habitable has been understood for a century or more.
Agreed.

Water vapour magnifies that warming - or cooling - yes C02 works in both directions. C02 is a greenhouse cast that persists in the atmosphere for millenia and retains energy/warmth in the atmosphere due to it's physical nature.
Scientists can't yet even agree whether carbon dioxide levels rise as a cause or result of warming. I'm inclined to believe they follow warming. The role of water vapour as a GHG is poorly understood and not well modeled--often not modeled at all in computer simulations of the Earth's climate.

We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
Still much disagreement on how much CO2 has been added by humans or whether the levels are unprecedented. Much of the so-called warming from the year 1800 on doesn't conform to proxies designed to identify CO2 levels--and certainly doesn't conform to periods of cooling during those centuries.

It's getting warmer
If you continue to remove climate reporting stations in colder climates, then use proxies from warmer locations you might get such an appearance. Similarly, with half of North American climate stations located close to urban heat sources that were simply not there 50 years ago, you might expect to get such results. When we adjust for the effects of El Nino we get nothing.


It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02. It won't reverse in anything like human time scales.
Agreed, but not for the reasons you suggest. So why bother controlling GHGs at this point?

Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.
The benign, relatively stable climate was the anomaly.


There is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.
These are data collected by various people--and they are up for contention. They are not facts as you intend the use of the word. The consensus is a myth. Please don't call those who disagree with your theories "cranks" as this is not permitted in this thread.


Britain is facing up to the reality
Britain is facing up to the reality that whatever climate nature serves up to us, we should be ready for it. Much better to spend money on shoring up infrastructure than on so-called GHG measures that will add up to nothing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,273 Posts
We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.
If the humongous amounts of CO2 that we've been churning into the atmosphere (esp. via plane trips to Africa & back) are responsible for current global warming, just what caused global warming during the MWP a thousand years ago, when temps are documented to be even warmer than they are today?

What about the fact that, out of the last 10,500 years, 9100 years have been warmer than the golden trio in warmists eyes, 1934/1998/2010?

What. Caused. That?

It's getting warmer
It might be. There are a number of peer reviewed papers out there that show after you get past the fudged data, the urban heat islands, the poor placement of thermometers, etc., etc., etc., that the recent warming disappears into noise in the data.

There is also more & more peer reviewed research pointing to natural causes for the periodicity of climate (both warming & cooling, the sun being the main one).

There is also peer reviewed research out there to indicate we may actually be on the verge of a short (20-40 years) cooling spell, part of the next cycle.

I know, I know. Warmists predicted that, just like they say that floods, earthquakes, and other natural, unrelated phenomena are caused by global warming.

We're responsible
There are some really cute games out there right now running on some multi million dollar computers that, if you average the results of all 32 (both the negatives & the positives), there is an indicator that man may be responsible for some warming. However, nobody can tell you how much man is responsible for.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA (you've heard of them. That's where your bud James Hansen promulgates his warmist blog on the taxpayers dime from), has an observation I'd like to share with you:

In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.

This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.
Oooops! OK, Roy, I promise not to let the cat out of the bag... (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02
Man, you batted that one out of the park! Home run! Grand slam, even!!!

Why? Because there are factors orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic green house gases which actually do affect climate.

Like, say, old Sol himself?

Besides, if it's that far out of whack, we may as well party like it's 1947. :D

It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Actually, it will. Even your short 60 odd years have experienced both warming & cooling cycles.


Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?
Nothing. Nothing at all. It's pretty obvious to many (more by the day, actually) that the concept of AGW is a fallacy promoted by many to preserve grant monies and perpetrated by socialist organizations like the UN (read: IPCC) to facilitate the transfer of wealth.

Oh, didn't you get the memo?


Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.
Dude...it ain't been proven, yet. That's why.

Take your climate models (a glorified set of computer games with a programmer's built in bias) out of the equation & what you got?

Nuttin'

Sorry.

And what do you mean by benign? It snowed some the last little while. The sun shone some the last little while?

Records broke? Records get broke all the time.

What's changed?

THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.
It just ain't a real MacDoc post unless there's some good, old-fashioned name calling. Thank you for not disappointing.

Isn't it interesting how some of these so called cranks have managed to get a peer reviewed paper or two published?

Tell ya what. I put a lot of links into the last two GHG threads, links that will take you to peer reviewed papers authored by people who don't agree with the warmist point of view.

Go find one, any one, take it to yer buddies on the hockey team & let them have at it.

I'll wait for the results here. No, really. Go ahead.

Or, I can pick one for you. Your call, either way.

One more thing: There is no such thing as consensus in science. Period. You start mouthing garbage like that & any semblance of credibility you may have had just went out the window.

Lessee, where were we? Ah, yes, cranks. Speaking of which, have you ever gone over the list of failed predictions from yer bud, the infamous & immortal James Hansen?

Have a look. Oh, wait, here's one:

(This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America)

Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020. -- The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986
You just noted 6/10's of a degree. He said 6 degrees. Which is it?

You called me out on a guest post in GHG2 from yer bud Willie E because he lied or some such. What about the credentials of a soothsayer, er, climatologist who can't be any closer than a factor of 10?

It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that's a good one. Nice ad hominem attack cleverly disguised as a simile. Good work!

Of course some few don't get that either.:rolleyes:
Oh, I got it, thx anyway.

I'm just glad that my relatives had the stones to climb out of the pond despite being told by some that the sky was falling & the world would end tomorrow if I didn't buy into the proper faith...

Had a couple of them doomsayers show up at the door just last week, actually.

Great fun, them proselytizers, no?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,834 Posts
Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
January 27, 2011


Photo of the German research vessel Maria S. Merian moving through sea ice in Fram Strait northwest of Svalbard. The research team discovered the water there was the warmest in at least 2,000 years, which has implications for a warming and melting Arctic. Credit: Credit: Nicolas van Nieuwenhove (IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel)

The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

"Such a warming of the Atlantic water in the Fram Strait is significantly different from all climate variations in the last 2,000 years," said Spielhagen, also of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Keil, Germany.

According to study co-author Thomas Marchitto, a fellow at CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, the new observations are crucial for putting the current warming trend of the North Atlantic in the proper context.
"We know that the Arctic is the most sensitive region on the Earth when it comes to warming, but there has been some question about how unusual the current Arctic warming is compared to the natural variability of the last thousand years," said Marchitto, also an associate professor in CU-Boulder's geological sciences department.

"We found that modern Fram Strait water temperatures are well outside the natural bounds."
Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,286 Posts
The topic of GHG, climate change etc... basically comes down to, nobody know for sure.

This thread turns into a tennis battle of links to reports. Anyone can find a report opposing and against.

What's clear is what the majority of scientist think and are reporting, which is that man can and is affecting the climate.

Again, whether its the case or not, seems pretty hard to prove, especially on a Mac forum. Some of us have clearly taken sides on who we believe.

My viewpoint can be shifted as new information comes out.

I think the problem of this thread, is that some on either side, aren't interested in exploring this topic, but rather, are more interested in playing study-link tennis. :eek: Any link with new information is simply rejected, and the same arguments are played over in a loop.

Anyways... link away. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,945 Posts
Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).

Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,120 Posts
I agree. Sometimes I've kinda (well not kinda) mocked the whole escapade, because really, no one is a scientist here. It seemed to me the most honest about not really knowing for sure was the couple who I thought was by far the most knowledgeable. They've since left.

It really does become a war of links, (my google enguard! comment) preceded by a commentary of what crooks, or blind, or whatever.

I think as humans here, there are an awful lot of really disturbing environmental things going on, and as I think a few pointed out rightly, GHG isn't our only biggest worry.

There is one thing that is definitely not something many can argue about, the use of fossil fuels, is not good for our environment. And certainly nor are many other things we are doing to our environment either.

I fear the worst is yet to come, and all these petty arguments, will seem awfully trivial, if any of us are lucky enough to survive all of this.

With that, I'm going to go eat a really, big greasy pizza.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,273 Posts
Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans
Sorry, CM, I don't even agree to that.

The way I see it is that the temps -may- be climbing, or perhaps have even peaked. If they are & we are in the middle of another cycle then the temps could be heading down. Frankly, I'm hedging towards the going down for the next little while.

I certainly don't believe that global warming (or whatever the nom du jour is today) is responsible for floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, whatever.

I'm getting to the point where I believe man has had very little effect on the climate compared to other sources of input (the sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, etc.). There is nothing (climatically speaking) that has happened in the lives of anyone today that has not happened dozens, hundreds, if not thousands of times in the past.

There has been higher CO2 levels before & life pulled through. There have been higher temperatures before & the planet didn't stop rotating. There have been higher & lower climatic everything before & yet, here we are, products of that process.

If the climate does go extreme, man will survive until he/she/it can & then be gone like so many species before.

FWIW, I've never, ever had to Google anything to back up the point of view I've presented. I have a browser folder with hundreds of links I've read over the course of the last couple of years (pro & con). It's pretty easy to reach in there & pull out a pertinent item.
______

The study that MacDoc just linked to I read two days ago. I have questions about forams being used as proxy data. That being said, the warming is certainly not unprecedented, as Macfury has pointed out.
______

Interestingly, Mr. Mayor, is that I will take the time to address or refute an article or posting, whereas others just sprinkle links like so much fertilizer without addressing other posts. I don't know if they are afraid to do so because they have no answers or if they are afraid that it will somehow legitimize the opposing argument by addressing it.

Perhaps they are so arrogant that such things are merely beneath them. Perhaps their own hypocrisy prevents them from making a cogent argument.

I don't know for sure, but I have my theories...
______

Last, & certainly least, are the hecklers who come here for no other reason than to stir the pot.

Your efforts have certainly contributed to the closing of the previous two threads.

Thanks for nothing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,286 Posts
Perhaps they are so arrogant that such things are merely beneath them. Perhaps their own hypocrisy prevents them from making a cogent argument.

I don't know for sure, but I have my theories...
Last, & certainly least, are the hecklers who come here for no other reason than to stir the pot.

Your efforts have certainly contributed to the closing of the previous two threads.

Thanks for nothing.
Clearly, its only the other people who are heckling, no, not you. :rolleyes:

Let's move on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,273 Posts
<snort>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).

Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...
That isn't even a certainty, since the way in which data is collected an interpreted has changed severely over the past 20 years--not surprisingly within the time when temperatures are supposed to be so high. It might be getting very slightly warmer, or, if this year is any indication, we're in for a major cooling trend.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,273 Posts
So, back to work...

Significant & fast cooling in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean

A paper recently published in the Journal of Physical Oceanography finds that the Mid-Atlantic Ocean has cooled strongly since 1998 with more than half of the upper ocean warming over the 41 years from 1957-1998 erased by "strong" cooling over only 7 years from 1998-2004. As shown in the graph below, temperatures of the upper ocean within 3 different depth ranges were also found to be relatively stable since 2004 and each of the 3 depth ranges cooler than in 1981. This data is the opposite of climate model predictions of an accelerating steady rise in ocean heat content in relation to greenhouse gas levels.
Emphasis mine.

Lessee, where is it, I know it's here... Ah, got it!

It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Those pesky real world observations, always contradicting the truther's climate models...
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,120 Posts
it's kinda like that cartoon, the coyote and the dog. They're friends, but then when they punch their time cards...

no time to google the atlantic warming today. However later I'll read your link for interest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,273 Posts
I posted a link not too long ago in GHG 2 about galactic cosmic rays & the author's conclusion of their effect on climate.

Further to that is a post by Joanne Nova who compiles data from a couple of sources into a nice, clear explanation with excellent graphs.

With the oceans covering 70% of the planet and the clouds covering 60% of the sky, water in its various forms, dominates our climate . Solar magnetic effects correlate with changes in clouds. This graph below shows the rise and fall over the last 1000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the The Little Ice Age (upper graph) match the highs and lows of Galactic Cosmic rays (lower graph).
A brief explanation of the Planetary Physics involved:

The right physics in my opinion: We have a strongly controlled climate. The solar constant and the physical properties of water keep us controlled.

* The heat transfer from surface into space uses two mechanisms in series: Convection in the lower atmosphere, IR radiation in the higher atmosphere.
* The warmer it becomes, going from pole to equator, the more important the convection part becomes. The height on which radiation flux becomes larger than convection flux, the convection top, rises.
* More convection means a higher tropopause, a lower cloud top temperature, a higher condensation efficiency, and in this way a drier upper troposphere.
* These two effects: a higher convection top and a drier upper troposphere, both increase Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This controls the temperature.
Conclusions:

* Rising Outgoing Long-wave radiation with more than 3.7 W/m^2 per ºC SST cannot be the effect of rising CO2 or of the increase of other “greenhouse” gases. Rising OLR/SST with 8.6 W/m^2K means that the atmosphere has become more transparent to IR radiation in the past 60 years. The “greenhouse effect” has become less.
* Solar constant and the properties of water determine our climate
* Rising surface temperature is tightly controlled by increasing wet convection and concomitant upper tropospheric drying
* No observational evidence for influence of CO2 on past or present climate
* Strong observational correlation of solar magnetic activity with climate temperatures, presumably via cloud condensation nucleation and albedo
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,726 Posts
Y'know, I'd be far more interested in this (these) threads if we took the one thing we all agree on - the temperature is climbing and will have significant effects on climate and humans - and discussed responses, both practical (new home cooling technologies, solar energy uses, coastal protection) and policy (domestic & international).

Until then... GHG bickering is nothing more than something about which everyone to argue...

Uh sorry, but the NASA maps showed our part of the world with a slightly warmer than normal 2010, even though it was one of the coldest years on record. So until "scientists" stop fudging data to "prove their theories it would be hard to agree with that.

Especially from under 3 or 4 feet of snow.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,260 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Uh sorry, but the NASA maps showed our part of the world with a slightly warmer than normal 2010, even though it was one of the coldest years on record. So until "scientists" stop fudging data to "prove their theories it would be hard to agree with that.

Especially from under 3 or 4 feet of snow.
That's because NOAA eliminated most of its cold weather stations and most of the stations in Canada, and now attempts to guess at those areas through proxy data from southern stations. Not surprisingly, with the use of the proxy data, the average is always rounded upward. There are only as many stations operating now as there were at the turn of the LAST century.
 
1 - 20 of 7203 Posts
Top