4 Years to Save Earth!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    No, it isn't changing fast enough or in the right way. You are trying to explain a hundred year trend with a 20,000 year cycle, and trying to explain a warming with a cooling phase of that cycle.
    They have several different reasonable ways of estimating global temps, collecting temp data over water, etc.
    That's old news - here's the new numbers when the dust settled. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37215 picture of the Greenland melt in '08.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes, the graph's, nice 20 year records from 1880 to 2000, which shows a -.14 cooling in the last 8 years, from their it is a WAG, it jumps 500 years, and by the end of the Graph we are look at a 1000 year projection, also called WAG

    Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.

    Projected continuation? based on what? that Wiki does not include any of the Milankovitch Cycles, or show that it used numbers that were adjusted to account for the forcing of the Temperature readings.

    Really?

    Then explain this? The Ice coverage has returned to near normal/normal.

    Wait for it to load.

    Arctic Sea Ice Extent: In October 2008, Fastest Ever Growth

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    As expected a few days ago: October 2008 has seen the fastest Arctic sea ice extent growth ever recorded. According to the data published by IARC-JAXA, the amount of growth has reached 3,481,575 square kilometers for the month, or 112,319 sq km per day on average.

    The previous maximum was October 2007, with 3,330,937 sq km for the month and 107,450 sq km per day on average. Record shrinkage remains July 2007, with 2,913,593 sq km lost and 93,987 sq km per day on average.

    Growth should be starting leveling off now. November values could be as high as 2,179,844 sq km (2002) or as low as 964,688 sq km (2006).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes, ice the earth is suppose to be dead today:

    http://tapc.ca/2008/11/predictions-of-disaster-were-wrong/

    Yes, the earth is suppose to dead today, we are in even worse shape today than we were in in the 1970tys, according the THE ALGORE

    Yes, the earth is suppose to dead today, we are in even worse shape today than we were in in the 1970tys, according the THE ALGORE

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    That site is one I have bookmarked for years, and have linked for you a couple of times.

    Unfortunately its coverage gear screwed up recently, and the very latest days are not available, but if you look at this: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=25&fy=2006&sm=12&sd=25&sy=2008 you can see that this past December is not notably different from the December preceding the great thaw of '07 - when the summer ice hit its lowest recorded level.

    So whether ice coverage has suddenly been restored, and normality returned (minus all the old ice that melted recently, of course, and cannot be replaced in a year), remains to be seen.

    My money's on further thawing, although perhaps not to the '07 level until we have been out of the current cold snap for a couple of years.
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    ice, NOAA is admitting to cooling.

    http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf

     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    That's the stratosphere, Buffalo. Whatever website is handing you this stuff is playing you for a fool.

    One of the effects of CO2 heat trapping in the lower atmosphere is a cooling of the upper atmosphere in the short term, until the lower atmosphere heats up enough to up-radiate the extra itself and make up for the pass-through deficit.
     
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Now provide factual citation of your premise.

    As the air cools at stratosphere level it's density increases and it sinks, and warm air rises, creating circulation, which then brings cold air down into the troposphere, exchanging the warm air for colder air, mitigating the GHG effects, and affecting the climate models.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...&volume=316&firstpage=1576&resourcetype=HWCIT

    http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=135

    The guts of the article elaborate on the connection between the stratosphere and troposphere, then use that foundation to emphasize the importance of including stratospheric effects in models. A summary of the main points are given below.
    1). Greenhouse Gases (including ozone) can heat or cool the atmosphere depending on the balance between absorption and emission. This balance depends on altitude and temperature.
    2). Overall cooling in stratosphere due to carbon dioxide and ozone depletion (ozone is primary culprit in lower stratosphere). Lower stratosphere radiative changes are mainly latitude dependent, thus cooling at poles and warming in tropics.3). Latitudinal dependence = change in north-south temperature gradient, thus a change in the lower stratospheric wind structure.
    4). A change in wind structure will modify atmospheric Rossby waves (which propagate from the troposphere into the stratosphere). These changes in turn affect weather and climate at the Earth’s surface.

    Then the article gives some examples of connections between the stratosphere and troposphere to further drive the point home. Next models and their stratospheric limitations are discussed. Again, a summary is given below.

    1). Coupled atmosphere-ocean models - many include radiative effects of ozone depletion and ozone depleting substances but do not include changes in the ozone layer or the dynamics of troposphere/stratosphere coupling.
    2). IPCC models - most have a fixed stratospheric ozone forcing constant, thus dynamical responses to stratospheric radiative changes are not likely captured.
    3). Climate models with well-represented stratospheres - accurately account for stratospheric circulations changes due to climate change but fail to correctly propagate these variations downwards into the troposphere. Most damp out tropospheric responses by using prescribed ocean-surface temperatures.
    4). Some coupled chemistry-climate models can simulate ozone changes and how that couples to climate change. According to these models ozone recovery will be accelerated because of the stratosphere cooling due to increasing greenhouse gases. A cooler atmosphere will slow down chemical reactions which destroy ozone. Pre-1980 levels should be reached by the middle of this century and become thicker beyond 2050 as the stratosphere cools.

    Now we have a list of ways the stratosphere influences the troposphere, thus should be included in climate models. So the stratosphere is changed by and changes the meridional temperature gradient, which then affect ozone levels and circulations in the stratosphere. Eventually these changes propagate down into the troposphere, where they are not always accurately accounted for.

    The chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

    Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2009
  11. Kristeine Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Re

    Global Warming is defined as the increase of the average temperature on Earth. As the Earth is getting hotter, disasters like hurricanes, droughts and floods are getting more frequent. But it is not only about how much the Earth is warming, it is also about how fast it is warming.

    Global Warming as a chain of events:
    1. Permafrost: Currently the measured effect of global warming as caused by the greenhouse effect on the planet overall is approximately a 1 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. that one-degree of heat made you take off a sweater, segments of the Earth known as permafrost began a meltdown. Permafrost is a condition whereby sections of the Earth’s surface have remained at a temperature below freezing (0 degrees Celsius) for at least two years.
    2. Tundra: Tundra describes the soil above permafrost that is frozen for most of the calendar year but thaws for allowance of small amounts of vegetation growth. Areas of Tundra throughout the world serve as sinks for absorption of massive amounts of Carbon.
    3. Polar meltdown: The Next is the warming of our polar caps and oceans. An increase in overall temperature for the troposphere allows that segment of the atmosphere to absorb more water vapor. A 1% increase in water vapor is a huge increase to the overall amount of greenhouse emissions.
    4. Ocean Temperature and Positive Feedback: Our oceans digest most of the carbon footprint needing to be absorbed into our ecosystem. Currently greenhouse gas emissions from production of energy and internal combustion engines results in a 36% increase in carbon dioxide over that which the planets normal balance can support. The CO2 then slightly raises the Earth’s temperature resulting in an endlessly looping progression. This situation and scenario is known as positive feedback and this is the real danger inherent as global warming.
    5. Environmental cause: Not all of global warming is the result of greenhouse gases and the ensuing greenhouse effect. As the population of the earth has increased mankind has brought civilization which includes buildings, highways, land cleared for agriculture, cities built where once stood deserts. Almost everything that we build absorbs more heat than its natural predecessor. It doesn’t mean that we tear down all of our houses to plant a forest of trees and carve up the superhighways and replace them with lovely green meadows. What we do need is an awareness of our situation. We need to realize that every move we make as a result of industrialization has a corresponding consequence.

    ______________________
    globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com
     
  12. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Dr. James Hansen made some asinine prediction if my memory serves correctly that New York City should already be experiencing some major flooding. That was twenty years ago. I linked to it once, but I won't bother myself to again.

    Either or, I thought bin Laden was supposed to have killed us Americans dead if we didn't bomb the fuck outta em dummy A-rabs first. Which is gonna gettus first?

    Oh, too late. He beat me to it..

    I remember when this story came out.
    Sadly, two links I had originally hoped to include here, one to the Washington Post, the other to the New York Times, were both dead or removed. Was this story too embarrassing for them to continue to keep it active?

    Nonetheless, here is a funny title for you:
    Osama bin Laden, Climate Expert

    I will not apologize for or defend whatever politics you may find in that article. Just put it there because this
    ...has a link to this

    Obviously a more reputable news source that didn't think bin Laden's timely chastisement about climate change needed to be seen six months or so later. I wonder why they are so uncaring about the state of polar bears in our world today?

    www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html

    That one is for MEMBERS ONLY! TUT TUT!!!

    You should be even MORE scared of ol' Beardo and the Global Oven Effect.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2010
  13. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380


    Oh Please...

    Once upon a time the co2 and all other So called Global warming gases were were twice as high In the Atmospere..

    Question is wtf are we supposed to do about a sun that is warming us up, Deni it if you must, but explain the warming of our other Planets In the solar system.

    Why do so many People apparently smart People only see part of the bigger picture,
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2010
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    It never has before, in this matter.

    The oddity of the Foxnews crowd being largely unable to remember what people have said over the years is perhaps best explained by examining their media environment - here's an example of their environment's typical reporting on what James Hansen has been saying (and Hansen is in fact an alarmist, a polemical and politically active member of the AGW research community, who has gone out on limbs from time to time): http://newsbusters.org/node/13114

    Notice how little of it is quoted material, and none of that in context.

    So what they remember as what James Hansen said is what somebody - one of their media voices - told them James Hansen said, told them repeatedly over several years. That's in the more or less sane case, where they remember what somebody else said as what somebody else said - the cases where they remember what they read of their own typing as what somebody else said would be a little sad if they were less common.
     
  15. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly
    http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html

    Oh, but wait! Scratch 20 years. It could be 30 years!

    From the original link

    You'll have to read the rest of that interview in that link in order to get everything it's trying to say.

    It concludes with this:
    He includes this graph of sea level data near Manhattan island.

    It doesn't seem that Dr. Hansen's 20 year projection has yet occurred. Perhaps another 10 years or so will prove otherwise?

    I don't know.

    Just thought I would provide this to the person who said
    Of course, this IS only a recounting of what one author claims to have heard from this particular scientist. Take it with a grain of salt.
     
  16. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Maybe just this once?

    I did remember fairly accurately. At least in this accounting.
     
  17. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Was it accurate? Not? Did I not quote Dr. Hansen as adequately as is necessary? Or will you introduce some new criterion by which I will be rendered ineligible?
     
  18. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    In case anyone is wondering, here is a link to the book in question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather And Our Terrifying Future


    Anything to say, iceaura? Gonna blame me for regurgitating what can be found just floating about?

    Maybe, if someone is adventurous, they could actually contact our wonderfully tax-funded James Hansen and inquire about this interview? Wonder if he would remember? Remember? Remember?
     
  19. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Apparently now that link works fine. I wonder if it's just I that couldn't see that link the first time?

    TUT TUT!!! Let that be a lesson!

    Bin Laden Adds Climate Change to List of Grievances Against U.S.

    What else does BL add?

    Mr. bin Laden.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Mr. bin Laden hailed the allowed-on-the-plane underwear bomber. Cool. He trains really inept foot soldiers these days.

    Whatever happened to the old days when he could do just about anything, like detonate nuclear bombs in the US and crash planes and disrupt communications from his command post?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  20. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789

    A few months ago was a program on Discovery, where he said can not highlight an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    If you know some measurements, please link.

    Also increase the global temperature is 1 degree in the last 100 years.That is normal for the exit period of glaciation.
    If I remember in the '70s, people were scared that comes global cooling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What was revealed, is changing the earth axis.This may cause moving poles of the earth.That means, melting ice from an side and ice growth on the other side.


    I am willing to risk money to make a bet that will not be so.Are amateurs who hold this bet?And what rate?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    David Bowie always stated we have five years:

    "Pushing thru the market square, so many mothers sighing
    News had just come over, we had five years left to cry in
    News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying
    Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    This thread is from January 2009. So we only have 2 1/2 years left to save the earth! Well, it could be worse:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Flash, I love you. But we only have 14 hours to save the earth!
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    A minor uncertainty would be the "12 or 13 years ago" bit, which might with reasonable allowance for memory lapse give the great flood a couple more years to happen.

    The major uncertainty is what exactly was meant, the exact wording and context, by the key introductory phrase "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true - - - "

    What was he saying, immediately preceding ? Was that the reference, and if not what was the reference? It's the difference between a single, definite prediction and an example of possibility within a predicted range.

    Again we have this odd inability to nail the thing. Ehrlich wrote a book, which is not as bad it is made out to be but does establish his actual intent and language and implications. Didn't Hansen write anything down?

    Remains only the comment that failure to occur does not make the prediction asinine. So we got lucky?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010

Share This Page