APOD: Global Warming Predictions (2009 April 21)
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
BMAONE23 wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/03-0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460831/
(I hesitate to use this one because it names Al Bore)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512 ... ralscience
It is funny how so much ice is melting in a “cooling climate”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, nice collection of primary references. A lefty blog, MSNBC (a tingly feeling runs up my leg every time I read one of their stories), and FOX news?
Here's a translation of the results of a German expedition:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/i ... #more-7406
Data retrieved from the US military web site http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/w ... rctic-ice/
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/03-0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460831/
(I hesitate to use this one because it names Al Bore)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512 ... ralscience
It is funny how so much ice is melting in a “cooling climate”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, nice collection of primary references. A lefty blog, MSNBC (a tingly feeling runs up my leg every time I read one of their stories), and FOX news?
Here's a translation of the results of a German expedition:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/i ... #more-7406
Data retrieved from the US military web site http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/w ... rctic-ice/
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
gpobserver wrote:BMAONE23 wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/03-0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30460831/
(I hesitate to use this one because it names Al Bore)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512 ... ralscience
It is funny how so much ice is melting in a “cooling climate”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, nice collection of primary references. A lefty blog, MSNBC (a tingly feeling runs up my leg every time I read one of their stories), and FOX news?
Here's a translation of the results of a German expedition:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/i ... #more-7406
Data retrieved from the US military web site http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/w ... rctic-ice/
gee...what's up with that???
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
this image of the current north polar ice extent clearly shows sea ice melt-off of historic levels around Greenland. This will be the first time, since images like this have been recorded, that this much sea ice has melted to the north of Greenland this early in the season. Even if you look at images from September, Northern Summer maximum melt, this area of north of Greenland has not been open ocean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... or.000.png
You can fail to believe data from any source, if it conflicts with your viewpoint, but you can't disbelieve images that show the facts... The Sea ice around Greenland is melting to reveal open ocean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... or.000.png
You can fail to believe data from any source, if it conflicts with your viewpoint, but you can't disbelieve images that show the facts... The Sea ice around Greenland is melting to reveal open ocean.
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
BMAONE23 wrote:
"gee...what's up with that???"
References selected just for you.
The thing about arctic ice has been discussed before. The winds shove the ice around. Try this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/n ... says-nasa/
or
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/071708.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA....13830K
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookin ... 71001.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17367330
It's not so much that it is melting as much as it is being re-distributed by wind patterns.
So, let's see what things we might agree on. Do you accept that there was a Little Ice Age, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Roman Warm Period?
"gee...what's up with that???"
References selected just for you.
The thing about arctic ice has been discussed before. The winds shove the ice around. Try this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/n ... says-nasa/
or
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/071708.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA....13830K
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookin ... 71001.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17367330
It's not so much that it is melting as much as it is being re-distributed by wind patterns.
So, let's see what things we might agree on. Do you accept that there was a Little Ice Age, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Roman Warm Period?
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Your links are discussing prior years though giving possible explanations for much of what has been seen in those prior years.gpobserver wrote:BMAONE23 wrote:
"gee...what's up with that???"
References selected just for you.
The thing about arctic ice has been discussed before. The winds shove the ice around. Try this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/n ... says-nasa/
or
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/071708.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003EAEJA....13830K
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookin ... 71001.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17367330
It's not so much that it is melting as much as it is being re-distributed by wind patterns.
So, let's see what things we might agree on. Do you accept that there was a Little Ice Age, a Medieval Warm Period, and a Roman Warm Period?
I am refering to the current state of things with visual comparison to prior years observations.
May 22 2007 comparative image of ice levels around Greenland during the year of maximum melt as referenced in your link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/n ... says-nasa/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 070522.jpg
Sept 2007 Arctic Ice Minimum
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... 070917.jpg
Evan at maximum summer melt levels, northern and eastern Greenland is still packed in sea ice. This packed sea ice proved resilient to this reported LFO (low frequency oscillation) wind pattern.
Are we currently in a Low Frequency Oscillation wind pattern?
The LFO winds are reported to Blow sea ice OUT of the arctic region into warmer waters. This wind pattern typically follows the path east of Greenland in the arctic ocean to reach the normal warmer North Atlantic Oceans Thermohaline circulation influence. Generally, the waters directly north of Greenland are protected from this type of wind loss by the land mass itself. (but the ice there is melting too as indicated in my prior post)
Also, Generally speaking, the Ice in the waters directly northwest of Greenland tend to be protected from melt off until much later in the season. But this area is showing a warming affect far earlier in the season.BMAONE23 wrote:Here is an interesting image of current northern hemisphere ice levels. This is the first time, that I can find in recently historical data and images, that the western coast of Greenland has been mostly ice free in May.
The eastern coast is also beginning to break up early, and the northern coast is thinning in areas. This year, Greenland may become Sea Ice Free. If this happens, the coastal glaciers and inland ice sheet will be free to shift faster than ever.
I accept that thee was a Roman Warm period.
I accept that there was a Medieval Warm Period.
I further accept that there was a Little Ice Age.
I go further to accept the possibility that WRT the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, The Former has probable contributing factors that influenced the depth of the latter. (and I'm not refering to the Heat tempering the depth of the cold)
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
A very interesting discussion: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/l ... #more-7991
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
BMAONE23 wrote:
"I accept that thee was a Roman Warm period.
I accept that there was a Medieval Warm Period.
I further accept that there was a Little Ice Age.
I go further to accept the possibility that WRT the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, The Former has probable contributing factors that influenced the depth of the latter. (and I'm not refering to the Heat tempering the depth of the cold)"
Thank you. So many disagreements arise from the two sides simply not using the same facts or definitions. This gives us some basis for further discussion. I really have no interest in exchanging taunts or insults but I do indeed have an interest in discussing climate variation including ice ages. At the present time, I find the evidence suggesting solar activity as the dominant influence the most compelling. However, if presented evidence invalidating that hypothesis, I will examine other hypotheses. The AGW hypothesis has become so politicized that evidence has become suspect due to possible 'fudging' to get the politically-acceptable results and computer models are being used as a substitute for real observations and data without first being truly validated, if that is even possible for so complicated, chaotic, and non-linear a system as terrestrial climate.
Usually, when discussing climate change, the two influences most commonly proposed are greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, CO2 being the principal substances) and solar activity. If indeed CO2 abundance in the atmosphere has not changed much, as the IPCC asserts, then what produced these climate variations? There is evidence in the form of Be-10 isotopes and sunspot records that correlates with these changes and promotes the role of solar activity as an influence. Is there perhaps some other phenomenon that might have produced this change? A change in ocean currents? I invite your response.
BTW, please do read the article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/l ... #more-7991. It cites primary sources of data including the cited discussion at http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -evidence/.
Best regards,
- Roy
"I accept that thee was a Roman Warm period.
I accept that there was a Medieval Warm Period.
I further accept that there was a Little Ice Age.
I go further to accept the possibility that WRT the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, The Former has probable contributing factors that influenced the depth of the latter. (and I'm not refering to the Heat tempering the depth of the cold)"
Thank you. So many disagreements arise from the two sides simply not using the same facts or definitions. This gives us some basis for further discussion. I really have no interest in exchanging taunts or insults but I do indeed have an interest in discussing climate variation including ice ages. At the present time, I find the evidence suggesting solar activity as the dominant influence the most compelling. However, if presented evidence invalidating that hypothesis, I will examine other hypotheses. The AGW hypothesis has become so politicized that evidence has become suspect due to possible 'fudging' to get the politically-acceptable results and computer models are being used as a substitute for real observations and data without first being truly validated, if that is even possible for so complicated, chaotic, and non-linear a system as terrestrial climate.
Usually, when discussing climate change, the two influences most commonly proposed are greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, CO2 being the principal substances) and solar activity. If indeed CO2 abundance in the atmosphere has not changed much, as the IPCC asserts, then what produced these climate variations? There is evidence in the form of Be-10 isotopes and sunspot records that correlates with these changes and promotes the role of solar activity as an influence. Is there perhaps some other phenomenon that might have produced this change? A change in ocean currents? I invite your response.
BTW, please do read the article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/l ... #more-7991. It cites primary sources of data including the cited discussion at http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -evidence/.
Best regards,
- Roy
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Oops! I should say, "If indeed CO2 abundance in the atmosphere has not changed much before the 20th century".
-
- Commander
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:55 pm
- AKA: Sputnick
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
No human intervention necessary, the process has begun, real estate prices will decline significantly, consumer products will sit unfinished on factory lines ... and nature shall restore itself.gpobserver wrote: If you want to propose that we reduce the human population of the earth ...
Duty done .. the rain will stop as promised with the rainbow.
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Solar activity is certainly a key factor in climate warming. Solar radiation is the only heat source we have that has the capability to add heat effectively to our entire ecosphere. And Solar activity is the main factor in beating back the galactic influence to the level of the Heliosphere
We are further protected from outside (galactic) influences and local solar influences by our own magnetic field.
Despite all this protection, some high energy rays still penetrate our atmosphere and have an affect on the climate. This type of climate forcing does follow a cycle.
There are two cycles that act both independently and combined. Solar irradiance fluctuations correlate well with sunspot activity, following both 11 year and 22 year solar cycles. During the 11 year cycle where the suns magnetic north points in the same direction as earths magnetic north, the solar influence is greater. So solar input will be increased during that phase of sunspot activity. As solar (sunspot) activity decreases, so does the suns input of solar radiation to the ecosystem. But the variance is only marginal. During the next 11 year cycle, when the poles flip and the suns south pole is aligned with the earths north pole, solar influence is lessened. Sunspot activity increases, but to a slightly lesser degree than the previous 11 year cycle, and the earth warms again, though the solar forcing component is lessened during the latter half of the 22 year cycle.
Solar input is only half of the climate equation though…
(since the Maunder Minimum through 2000 solar irradiance has fluctuated by only .0022% http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif from between 1363.5 Wm-2 and 1366.5 Wm-2 or a difference of 3 Wm-2)
The other side of the equation involves solar absorption and infrared reflectance.
What has been referred to as Greenhouse Gases:
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Also Nitrous oxide and Chlorofluorocarbons
Increasing these gasses act to increase IR absorption & retention in the atmosphere thereby creating a gradual heat overbalance in the equation.
This chart indicates that hard winter conditions are ending earlier in this particular region. With first melt happening, mainly due to increasing warmth, as much as 30 days earlier than in 1920.
Similar things are happening around Greenland with earlier than normal spring warming happening right now.
The Climate was relatively stable from 1800 to 1900. There is a discernible rise in temperature around 1910 which can be linked to the introduction of the automobile and Ford Motor Companies Mass Production concept and the Model T of 1908. By 1912 there were 7000 ford dealerships selling cars to average families. Cars were no longer toys of the wealthy. Climate then shows more ups and downs with a large decrease in 1940 (about the time that WWII was well in swing and cities were burning adding soot to the atmosphere). Then, in 1960 something happened that upset the balance and temperatures started to rise again. One of the biggest changes in the actions of humans was when Moms went to work, the advent of 2 wage families. This created a new demand, the 2 car garage. Automobile ownership practically doubled as both Mom and Dad were working and driving to and from work.
We are further protected from outside (galactic) influences and local solar influences by our own magnetic field.
Despite all this protection, some high energy rays still penetrate our atmosphere and have an affect on the climate. This type of climate forcing does follow a cycle.
There are two cycles that act both independently and combined. Solar irradiance fluctuations correlate well with sunspot activity, following both 11 year and 22 year solar cycles. During the 11 year cycle where the suns magnetic north points in the same direction as earths magnetic north, the solar influence is greater. So solar input will be increased during that phase of sunspot activity. As solar (sunspot) activity decreases, so does the suns input of solar radiation to the ecosystem. But the variance is only marginal. During the next 11 year cycle, when the poles flip and the suns south pole is aligned with the earths north pole, solar influence is lessened. Sunspot activity increases, but to a slightly lesser degree than the previous 11 year cycle, and the earth warms again, though the solar forcing component is lessened during the latter half of the 22 year cycle.
Solar input is only half of the climate equation though…
(since the Maunder Minimum through 2000 solar irradiance has fluctuated by only .0022% http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif from between 1363.5 Wm-2 and 1366.5 Wm-2 or a difference of 3 Wm-2)
The other side of the equation involves solar absorption and infrared reflectance.
What has been referred to as Greenhouse Gases:
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Also Nitrous oxide and Chlorofluorocarbons
Increasing these gasses act to increase IR absorption & retention in the atmosphere thereby creating a gradual heat overbalance in the equation.
This chart indicates that hard winter conditions are ending earlier in this particular region. With first melt happening, mainly due to increasing warmth, as much as 30 days earlier than in 1920.
Similar things are happening around Greenland with earlier than normal spring warming happening right now.
The Climate was relatively stable from 1800 to 1900. There is a discernible rise in temperature around 1910 which can be linked to the introduction of the automobile and Ford Motor Companies Mass Production concept and the Model T of 1908. By 1912 there were 7000 ford dealerships selling cars to average families. Cars were no longer toys of the wealthy. Climate then shows more ups and downs with a large decrease in 1940 (about the time that WWII was well in swing and cities were burning adding soot to the atmosphere). Then, in 1960 something happened that upset the balance and temperatures started to rise again. One of the biggest changes in the actions of humans was when Moms went to work, the advent of 2 wage families. This created a new demand, the 2 car garage. Automobile ownership practically doubled as both Mom and Dad were working and driving to and from work.
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Thank you very much for your well-researched and carefully considered response.
As you have noted, solar irradiance variations amount to about three watts out of an average of about 1365 watts/square meter, which is a factor of 0.0022 or 0.22% (I think you made a small computational error there). However, the solar activity modulation of earth's albedo due to cloudiness may amount to about 2% or over 20 watts/square meter. Here are a few references regarding this effect:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... f7668917ff
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/i ... -earth.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001IAUS..203..602P
Especially readable is http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html.
Please note that it is the low-level clouds that are principally susceptible to GCR-induced variations.
I refer you to an article on albedo or the reflectivity of an astronomical body such as the earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
If the earth's albedo increases, more sunlight is reflected rather than being absorbed and heating the earth's surface. It is interesting to note that forest and open ocean is dark (about three quarters of the earth's surface is ocean) while clouds and desert are reflective. So, more forests and fewer deserts will warm us and more clouds will cool us. It is interesting to speculate about the influence of forests on climate. As a forest expands into desert, the albedo is reduced and more sunlight is absorbed producing warming. Also, atmospheric water vapor will be increased due to transpiration leading to an increase in retention of infrared radiation and warming. So, which affects the greenhouse effect more, the reduction in CO2 by reforestation or the enhancement of water vapor? And then there is the complicating influence of convection, an important part of heat transfer in the troposphere. Many climatologists and atmospheric scientists assert that heat transport by convection is not properly treated in climate models. There is a nice discussion of the greenhouse effect and convection at http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen ... nhouse.pdf
Changes in the beginning of growing seasons and such my be used to suggest or quantify climate variations but they do not indicate the cause of such changes. The history of the Viking colonization of Greenland serves to show that the climate was warmer a thousand years ago and then became colder again, wiping out the colonies, long before significant introduction into the atmosphere of anthropogenic CO2.
I have sometimes wondered if some of the warming we see today may have resulted from the prevention of forest fires and the resultant aerosols that have a cooling influence. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/ If we suppress forest fires, we also reduce cloud nucleation and reduce the earth's albedo, warming the planet. There has been some suggestion of introducing into the atmosphere sulfate aerosols to produce climate cooling. However, this is mere speculation on my part, I have no quantitative data.
You wrote:
"The Climate was relatively stable from 1800 to 1900. There is a discernible rise in temperature around 1910 which can be linked to the introduction of the automobile and Ford Motor Companies Mass Production concept and the Model T of 1908. By 1912 there were 7000 ford dealerships selling cars to average families. Cars were no longer toys of the wealthy. Climate then shows more ups and downs with a large decrease in 1940 (about the time that WWII was well in swing and cities were burning adding soot to the atmosphere). Then, in 1960 something happened that upset the balance and temperatures started to rise again. One of the biggest changes in the actions of humans was when Moms went to work, the advent of 2 wage families. This created a new demand, the 2 car garage. Automobile ownership practically doubled as both Mom and Dad were working and driving to and from work."
I must disagree with your assertion of climate stability from 1800 to 1900. It was during this period that there was a substantial amount of recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also, to assert that the small number of Model T Fords in 1910 had a significant effect on climate may be insupportable. The graphic you referenced at http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif shows that a high level of solar activity was attained at the beginning of the 1950's and continued until the end of the century. The evidence suggests to me that solar activity has been the predominant influence on climate during the latter half of the 20th century.
Thank you again for your well-considered response. I hope you will consider mine to be equally substantive.
Best regards,
- Roy
As you have noted, solar irradiance variations amount to about three watts out of an average of about 1365 watts/square meter, which is a factor of 0.0022 or 0.22% (I think you made a small computational error there). However, the solar activity modulation of earth's albedo due to cloudiness may amount to about 2% or over 20 watts/square meter. Here are a few references regarding this effect:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... f7668917ff
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/i ... -earth.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2001IAUS..203..602P
Especially readable is http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html.
Please note that it is the low-level clouds that are principally susceptible to GCR-induced variations.
I refer you to an article on albedo or the reflectivity of an astronomical body such as the earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
If the earth's albedo increases, more sunlight is reflected rather than being absorbed and heating the earth's surface. It is interesting to note that forest and open ocean is dark (about three quarters of the earth's surface is ocean) while clouds and desert are reflective. So, more forests and fewer deserts will warm us and more clouds will cool us. It is interesting to speculate about the influence of forests on climate. As a forest expands into desert, the albedo is reduced and more sunlight is absorbed producing warming. Also, atmospheric water vapor will be increased due to transpiration leading to an increase in retention of infrared radiation and warming. So, which affects the greenhouse effect more, the reduction in CO2 by reforestation or the enhancement of water vapor? And then there is the complicating influence of convection, an important part of heat transfer in the troposphere. Many climatologists and atmospheric scientists assert that heat transport by convection is not properly treated in climate models. There is a nice discussion of the greenhouse effect and convection at http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen ... nhouse.pdf
Changes in the beginning of growing seasons and such my be used to suggest or quantify climate variations but they do not indicate the cause of such changes. The history of the Viking colonization of Greenland serves to show that the climate was warmer a thousand years ago and then became colder again, wiping out the colonies, long before significant introduction into the atmosphere of anthropogenic CO2.
I have sometimes wondered if some of the warming we see today may have resulted from the prevention of forest fires and the resultant aerosols that have a cooling influence. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/ If we suppress forest fires, we also reduce cloud nucleation and reduce the earth's albedo, warming the planet. There has been some suggestion of introducing into the atmosphere sulfate aerosols to produce climate cooling. However, this is mere speculation on my part, I have no quantitative data.
You wrote:
"The Climate was relatively stable from 1800 to 1900. There is a discernible rise in temperature around 1910 which can be linked to the introduction of the automobile and Ford Motor Companies Mass Production concept and the Model T of 1908. By 1912 there were 7000 ford dealerships selling cars to average families. Cars were no longer toys of the wealthy. Climate then shows more ups and downs with a large decrease in 1940 (about the time that WWII was well in swing and cities were burning adding soot to the atmosphere). Then, in 1960 something happened that upset the balance and temperatures started to rise again. One of the biggest changes in the actions of humans was when Moms went to work, the advent of 2 wage families. This created a new demand, the 2 car garage. Automobile ownership practically doubled as both Mom and Dad were working and driving to and from work."
I must disagree with your assertion of climate stability from 1800 to 1900. It was during this period that there was a substantial amount of recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also, to assert that the small number of Model T Fords in 1910 had a significant effect on climate may be insupportable. The graphic you referenced at http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif shows that a high level of solar activity was attained at the beginning of the 1950's and continued until the end of the century. The evidence suggests to me that solar activity has been the predominant influence on climate during the latter half of the 20th century.
Thank you again for your well-considered response. I hope you will consider mine to be equally substantive.
Best regards,
- Roy
-
- 2+2=5
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:39 pm
- AKA: Swainy
- Location: The Earth, The Milky Way, Great Britain
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Volcano,s (co2) Burn fossil fuels (co2) Kill all the tree,s (More co2) And then there,s that real nice Methane. That is dieing to help out. http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre54l ... e-methane/
Mark
Mark
Always trying to find the answers
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
gpobserver wrote:BMEONE23 wrote:
"I can testify to the FACT that my area has seen 3 record high periods in 3 of the last 5 months."
You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. The article I referenced indicated that there had been no record high temperature set for any continent since 1974. If you will actually look at the article, you will see a compilation of record high temperatures for each continent and when they were set. Have any of your local high tempeatures exceeded the 134F record set in 1913?
Apparently and Obviously not the record High I was refering to. I am refering to a local area high temperature. I live at 38.25N, 122.45W and 82dF in January (dead of winter) is extremely warm and set a record high for the day. Then in March 98dF set another record high just before spring (technically still winter). Then more 90+ deg temps in April setting more local records.
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Someone did a search on high and low local temperature records, sorry I don't have the link, but it should come as no surprise that since world temperatures are a degree or so higher than 100 years ago, that there will be more record highs than lows. Other than that local records don't mean much. On the other hand overall global averages do have meaning, and as I keep pointing out, all those 20 or so models that the IPCC Assessement Reports reference are currently all wrong i.e., current world average temperature is lower than all those models predicted in a mere 8 years. Why should anyone believe that they will be right 92 years from now? See my tag line:BMAONE23 wrote:I live at 38.25N, 122.45W and 82dF in January (dead of winter) is extremely warm and set a record high for the day. Then in March 98dF set another record high just before spring (technically still winter). Then more 90+ deg temps in April setting more local records.
If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you aren't going to hit the target at 100 meters.
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Can't speak for your tag line other than, I CAN hit a bullseye at 100 yards with a .22, but I can't hit a barn with an elephant at 25'StACase wrote:Someone did a search on high and low local temperature records, sorry I don't have the link, but it should come as no surprise that since world temperatures are a degree or so higher than 100 years ago, that there will be more record highs than lows. Other than that local records don't mean much. On the other hand overall global averages do have meaning, and as I keep pointing out, all those 20 or so models that the IPCC Assessement Reports reference are currently all wrong i.e., current world average temperature is lower than all those models predicted in a mere 8 years. Why should anyone believe that they will be right 92 years from now? See my tag line:BMAONE23 wrote:I live at 38.25N, 122.45W and 82dF in January (dead of winter) is extremely warm and set a record high for the day. Then in March 98dF set another record high just before spring (technically still winter). Then more 90+ deg temps in April setting more local records.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:55 pm
- AKA: Sputnick
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Steer with the ears.BMAONE23 wrote:
Can't speak for your tag line other than, I CAN hit a bullseye at 100 yards with a .22, but I can't hit a barn with an elephant at 25'
Duty done .. the rain will stop as promised with the rainbow.
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
-
- Commander
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:20 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
The reason the results are flawed is because model they are attempting to simulate is simply too complex. To prove the energy of the "Earth System" is or is not in equilibrium is the answer.StACase wrote:Someone did a search on high and low local temperature records, sorry I don't have the link, but it should come as no surprise that since world temperatures are a degree or so higher than 100 years ago, that there will be more record highs than lows. Other than that local records don't mean much. On the other hand overall global averages do have meaning, and as I keep pointing out, all those 20 or so models that the IPCC Assessement Reports reference are currently all wrong i.e., current world average temperature is lower than all those models predicted in a mere 8 years. Why should anyone believe that they will be right 92 years from now? See my tag line:BMAONE23 wrote:I live at 38.25N, 122.45W and 82dF in January (dead of winter) is extremely warm and set a record high for the day. Then in March 98dF set another record high just before spring (technically still winter). Then more 90+ deg temps in April setting more local records.
Atmospheric temperatures, jet streams, ocean currents, ocean temperatures (surface and deep), energy stored in organics, icecaps, solar fluctuation, to name a few of the obvious variables, all need simultaneous and accurate monitoring on a global scale.
It appears the Earth system is not in equilibrium because of the "rate" of atmospheric temp increase is greater now than previous records show. To believe the change is self-correcting, a mere fluctuation in subsystems, is unscientific speculation. Personally, I would prefer a definitive answer, until it comes, proceed with caution and not closed eyes and hope for the best.
Speculation ≠ Science
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
What ought to be the eye opener for reasonable objective people is the fact that those twenty or so models all overestimated the current world average temperature. If they truly were as you say just dealing with variables that are too complex one would expect that they'd be all over the map. They're not! In terms of overestimation, they all march in lockstep. So what's the hidden force causing all of them to veer to one side of the target? Can you say politics? I knew you could.Dr. Skeptic wrote:The reason the results are flawed is because model they are attempting to simulate is simply too complex. To prove the energy of the "Earth System" is or is not in equilibrium is the answer.StACase wrote:... I keep pointing out, all those 20 or so models that the IPCC Assessment Reports reference are currently all wrong ...
Atmospheric temperatures, jet streams, ocean currents, ocean temperatures (surface and deep), energy stored in organics, icecaps, solar fluctuation, to name a few of the obvious variables, all need simultaneous and accurate monitoring on a global scale.
It appears the Earth system is not in equilibrium because of the "rate" of atmospheric temp increase is greater now than previous records show. To believe the change is self-correcting, a mere fluctuation in subsystems, is unscientific speculation. Personally, I would prefer a definitive answer, until it comes, proceed with caution and not closed eyes and hope for the best.
If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you aren't going to hit the target at 100 meters.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Exactly! It is precisely the fact that multiple models show similar results that causes me (and most scientists) to place a high degree of confidence on them. If they actually were all over the map it considerably increase skepticism.StACase wrote:What ought to be the eye opener for reasonable objective people is the fact that those twenty or so models all overestimated the current world average temperature. If they truly were as you say just dealing with variables that are too complex one would expect that they'd be all over the map. They're not! In terms of overestimation, they all march in lockstep.
Well, since there isn't any evidence at all that they are veering off any target, there's nothing to worry about. The current ten-year average is still very close to the model predictions. Temperatures are still rising, just as expected.So what's the hidden force causing all of them to veer to one side of the target?
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:10 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Here's an illustration of the latest MIT computer model: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/26/h ... #more-8038
-
- Commander
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:20 pm
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
" ... just dealing with the variables ..."What ought to be the eye opener for reasonable objective people is the fact that those twenty or so models all overestimated the current world average temperature. If they truly were as you say just dealing with variables that are too complex one would expect that they'd be all over the map. They're not! In terms of overestimation, they all march in lockstep. So what's the hidden force causing all of them to veer to one side of the target? Can you say politics? I knew you could.
You make it sound like it's a walk in the park, there are hundreds if not thousands of fluid variables constantly interacting with each other at varying rates. Sure, the simulations haven't "nailed" it yet, they will get better as the interactions and importance of the variables become better defined.
The Earth has ways of buffering short term changes (an overly simplified example). Place a thermometer in a beaker of H2O ice with a flame under it, if only monitoring the thermometer it's stable at 0 degrees ... until the buffering agent is depleted.
For the AGW conspiracy to be true "just" prove:
- The Earth is not in an endothermic state
- The Earth's buffering systems have the capacity to compensate for all man-made environmental changes.
Speculation ≠ Science
-
- Commander
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:55 pm
- AKA: Sputnick
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Excellent example. I think the oceans and atmosphere are reaching bufferbreak.Dr. Skeptic wrote:[
The Earth has ways of buffering short term changes (an overly simplified example). Place a thermometer in a beaker of H2O ice with a flame under it, if only monitoring the thermometer it's stable at 0 degrees ... until the buffering agent is depleted.
Technology as the answer? Compressed air cars are an example of 'new' technology increasing the problem. Energy is needed to compress the air, creation of that energy creates heat, and compressing the air creates more heat. Removing hydrocarbons from a vehicle's exhaust pipe only improves air quality localized to the exhaust pipe, and increases it somewhere else, unless scrubbers are used on the coal-or-oil-powered generating station's stacks, unless the Co2 is burried underground or converted to energy, unless unless unless .. regardless, heat is being created.
Duty done .. the rain will stop as promised with the rainbow.
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
All of this arguing around in circles is futile. Question is: what do we do? Do we wait for Miami to flood before building seawalls around Florida. Florida has sand beaches 50 miles inland where the sea level once was. New Orleans was a warning. Should we simply ignore it? Glaciers worldwide are melting. Glacier National Park is down to one or two. Arctic pack ice recedes farther north each year. Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up. Something is happening to this world. I would suggest that the "scientists" arguing global warming pull their collective heads out of the intellectual sand and begin talking about real-world courses of action.
Virgil H. Soule
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18599
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
There is no indication that "creating heat" is a problem. The amount of heat created by all human activities is vanishingly small compared to the heat put into the system by the Sun.aristarchusinexile wrote:Technology as the answer? Compressed air cars are an example of 'new' technology increasing the problem. Energy is needed to compress the air, creation of that energy creates heat, and compressing the air creates more heat. Removing hydrocarbons from a vehicle's exhaust pipe only improves air quality localized to the exhaust pipe, and increases it somewhere else, unless scrubbers are used on the coal-or-oil-powered generating station's stacks, unless the Co2 is burried underground or converted to energy, unless unless unless .. regardless, heat is being created.
The problem is caused by human activities that upset the thermodynamic equilibrium- introducing greenhouse gases, making massive changes in land use, etc.
It is certainly true that removing carbon output from automobiles does no good if the same amount of carbon is produced elsewhere. However, it is easier to scrub carbon from a single facility than from every car. And electric cars, which are clearly where we're headed, can be recharged from electricity made with no carbon output at all.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
-
- Commander
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:55 pm
- AKA: Sputnick
Re: 2009 April 21 - global warming
Vanishingly small? When some scientists are saying 4 degree rise is enough for catastrophes? I must repeat that I firmly believe actual heat created by human activities has much more effect than it is credited with. Bring on the Palm Trees, O Canada.Chris Peterson wrote: There is no indication that "creating heat" is a problem. The amount of heat created by all human activities is vanishingly small compared to the heat put into the system by the Sun.
Duty done .. the rain will stop as promised with the rainbow.
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"
"Abandon the Consensus for Individual Thought"