| Author |
Message
|
| andre |
 Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: Forget Global warming |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=332289
| Quote: |
...And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.
OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.
But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.... |
Are we approaching yet another tipping point, ice age alarmism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| marnixR |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 2584
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
for what it's worth, this year is the first time in my life that i've seen daffodils flower in january - and my record goes back further than 1972
_________________
if you find this place too crowded or too confrontational, how about trying Philosophorum,
the amicable forum where small is beautiful and even the trolls are intelligent
biology without evolution is but stamp collecting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 844
|
The recent extreme melting in the Arctic is far in excess of the long term trend predicted by models, and possibly the cold Canadian winter is in excess the other way. Climate scientists have come up with some theories about what may have caused the swings, including shifted wind patterns as one possibility, but generally they don't know what caused the swings. Still, the long term trend is clear enough and climate scientists don't claim to be weather forecasters.
A quick perusal of Realclimate came up with this, which pretty well sums it up:
| Quote: |
| The more important message from models is that all but a few outliers predict enourmous (sic) sea ice retreat this century. At least a few respectable models predict a nearly ice-free Arctic by midcentury, with a retreat that may be punctuated by rapid events. |
Apparently we have witnessed one of those rapid event punctuations.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/arctic-sea-ice-decline-in-the-21st-century/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
Talking about models, it seems that the first prediction model about earth issues was designed by Mark Twain, predicting the lenght of the Mississippi:
| Quote: |
| In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. |
A classical gem.
Incidentely, it went without much notice that the Southern Hemisphere sea ice hit "all time" high records last year. Would the same few respectable models predict complete freezing over by midcentury?
It should also illustrate how worthless the most sophisticated prediction models are, when the interpretation of the data is wrong and the mechanisms are not understood. A token of that is the refutation of the isotope paleo thermometer, which was the very basis of the climate hype as can be observed here how the panic unfolded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kealran |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 5
|
On the subject of global warming, it is a ridiculous name to name this subject. I'd slap the idiot that branded global warming to our current circumstance. I know that it was based on the green house gaz concept and therefore named global warming, but the true term should be Climatic change!
On the note of climatic change, the rise in temperature isn't a global phenomenon, but more regionally affecting many places in the world. Also, some places will be cooling. The thing is that with the increase in CO2 we've thrown into the atmosphere, we've thrown off balance the climatic cycle of the earth.
There are many many factors involved in our present crisis on climatic change.
First off, the rise in CO2 affects the oceans as this is the major absorbent of this gas. The ocean is reacting but since water is a thermal inertial molecule (not sure about this term) but I'm trying to state that water requires a lot of energy to change in temperature. So, in this state it is like a ticking time bomb. I can elaborate on this fact if asked, currently late and my brain isn't at its fullest.
Still on the subject of our oceans, the melting of Ice (not sea ice) but the Greenland and the Antarctic ice could be a danger. Some of you might have seen the movie The day after tomorrow, the information they give on the ocean conveyor and the effects of fresh water thrown into the northern Atlantic are true. I've done a thesis paper on this subject.
The fact that we cannot calculate how much fresh water has been thrown into the northern Atlantic and that we do not know the tipping point of this system is a dangerous fact. If the ocean conveyor does stop, the earth won't freeze as fast as the movies shows, but it will freeze. Also, if it does stop, climatic models with today's atmospheric conditions show it won't start back for over 1000 years. As for models of the past atmospheric conditions showed that it took several decades or more to restart.
Secondly, we are due for another Ice age. So far the cycles have been 100 000 years of ice followed by a period of warming that lasts about 10 000 years. Our last ice age ended approximately 9 000 years (give or take 1000 years) ago. By the way, geological dating isn't an exact science!
There are so many factors on global warming and the media is milking all it can! I do believe we must reduce our impact on the atmosphere as much as possible and as fast as possible. I for one, do not own a car by choice.
The true threat, which isn't as publicly shown is our waste, which is what I find we should focus on, not global warming. Our society should be working like an ecosystem, every individuals waste is another's food source. A cycle where nothing is Toxic. We've survived for several million years as a species (10 000years since human "civilization began) without ever using toxic substances, why do we require them now?
_________________
"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
"Focus on life, not lifestyle." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 99
|
No news here. We had about an average winter, but it's been so warm in recent decades that most have forgotten what an average year is supposed to be like.
For example, January was slightly warming than the long term average:
"Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January was the 31st warmest on record, 0.32°F/0.18°C above the 20th century mean. "
For the winter it was rather warm still
December - February
"Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). "
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/perspectives.html#monthly
We've been at the very bottom of a 11/22 year solar cycle with min solar radiation--not only isn't a relatively cool year compared to recent times a surprising, it was predicted.
10 inches of sea ice compared to the lowest ice on record isn't too impressive compared to the lowest year or the several meters lost in the past two decades.
Also note article referenced the record cold temps..even in warmer regimes there will be record colds--just less often. Visa versa is true. In December, we had more than 70 record highs in the US alone. Individual temperature records don't count for much.
Ice records also go back in some detail nearly 150 years and there's a building archeology case that the ice hasn't been this low in at least 700 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 99
|
Forecasted warming is much less than 1C/decade, closer to 0.3-0.5C/decade most of the models--including the one presented above.
Also, it's useful to see the satillete derived lower tropospheric temperature for more than one solar cycle. This shows actual measurement (weather balloons) and derived temperature together:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 99
|
It shows 3 more years of data 2005-2007, clearly above (about +0.2C) the averages of the total timeline as well showing the depressed temperature associated with the expected solar radiance min discussed early in the thread.
No surprise at all despite the impressive authoritative objective and climate scientist peer reviewed Sun article  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change.
And since when is the sun a factor all of a sudden or La Niña?????? Didn't IPCC ensure us that the main overwhelming climate forcing is CO2?
Anyway another look here: http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 99
|
| andre wrote: |
| yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change. |
Not even close. If you look at surface land and sea data, this year even at solar min in the 11/22 solar cycle was well above the 1960-90 or 1930-1950 averages. I've posted the 1880 - 2007 trend chart and 2007 compared to the averages below.
--
As for the article I'll read it later, but I'll tell you, any article still in denial of the hockey stick temperature profile, like this one, is either obsolete, completely ignoring the temperature reconstructions of an immense range of data (tree rings, coral growth, plankton deposits on sea floors, deep bore temps, etc), or not motivated by objective science. That makes the entire article highly suspect. For more about the hockey stick we had a thread a couple weeks ago about it where even early critics now concede its truth based on the overwelming evidence.
If you have a specific part of the article you’d like to discuss, I’d be happy to share my thoughts and a lifetime of interest and education on atmospheric science—a big part of why I joined these forums.
Click on the image to view it at its original size |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
| Lynx_Fox wrote: |
| andre wrote: |
| yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change. |
Not even close. If you look at surface land and sea data, this year even at solar min in the 11/22 solar cycle was well above the 1960-90 or 1930-1950 averages. I've posted the 1880 - 2007 trend chart and 2007 compared to the averages below. |
Expect that source to be officially audited for their methods in the near future.
The current reality, hovering around 0.1:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tmt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_0.txt
.................UAH................RSS
2007-4....0.244..........0.170
2007-5....0.199..........0.173
2007-6 .... 0.203 .........0.153
2007-7.... 0.255..........0.268
2007-8.... 0.286..........0.261
2007-9... 0.201..........0.195
2007-10... 0.231..........0.172
2007-11... 0.209.........0.087
2007-12... 0.114.........-0.023
2008-1... -0.046........-0.118
2008-2... 0.020 .......-0.021
2008-3... 0.094 .......-0.096
| Quote: |
| For more about the hockey stick we had a thread a couple weeks ago about it where even early critics now concede its truth based on the overwelming evidence. |
This is by far the most misleading statement ever, displaying an extreme form of groupthink.
check
http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=15 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Fox |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 99
|
| andre wrote: |
| Lynx_Fox wrote: |
| andre wrote: |
| yes and? how catastrophical is it to hover around 0.1 degrees above the 1960-1990 average and going down? Try the 1930-1950 average for a change. |
Not even close. If you look at surface land and sea data, this year even at solar min in the 11/22 solar cycle was well above the 1960-90 or 1930-1950 averages. I've posted the 1880 - 2007 trend chart and 2007 compared to the averages below. |
Expect that source to be officially audited for their methods in the near future.
The current reality, hovering around 0.1:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tmt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_0.txt
.................UAH................RSS
2007-4....0.244..........0.170
2007-5....0.199..........0.173
2007-6 .... 0.203 .........0.153
2007-7.... 0.255..........0.268
2007-8.... 0.286..........0.261
2007-9... 0.201..........0.195
2007-10... 0.231..........0.172
2007-11... 0.209.........0.087
2007-12... 0.114.........-0.023
2008-1... -0.046........-0.118
2008-2... 0.020 .......-0.021
2008-3... 0.094 .......-0.096
|
Not sure what you're arguing.
I discussed current temp compared to two 1960-1990 average and 1930-1950. All one can do is use surface temperature because we didn't have satellites. Your satellite information, which starts about 1980, adds nothing to contest that.
--
The data you post appears to be the same as the graphic you posted. Even by your own table (or graph) it's been much lower over the past 30 years (even -0.48 at one point). Based on those past minimums, this one should be about -0.2 to -0.3--instead its higher than the average for the period. The 30 year lower tropospheric satellite data you've shown as well as the 130 year surface temperature data I presented all show net increases over time with smaller perturbations.
Seen them before. It doesn't counter my claim that early critics have reversed their position on this tiresome matter (put up examples in the other thread from lead statisticians). It does show one critic's (a non atmospheric scientist) continued entrenchment and mostly quibbling about bristle cone pines. It was relevant ten years ago, before we had a mountain of other reconstructed temperatures all substantiating the same hockey stick temperature increases first analyzed from the bristle cones. McIntyre is an interesting character, and not always in a bad way. If nothing else, he's encouraged the atmospheric scientific community to document and double check their work:-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| andre |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 128
|
okay lets do some absolute plots:
Click on the image to view it at its original size
Notice that the satellite plot of the MSU 2LT of UAH is pulled up tp the GISS value at the starting point in 1979 and also that the last plot of the UAH is merely the first three months of 2008, not a complete plot.
Other than that, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Furthermore it would be very interesting to learn who of the sceptics got so terrified with the multiple recycling of the MBHs fraudulent PC1 that he converted to the warming cult.
Wishing you a nice night rest.
Going to be a lot worse, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
