A Note: Global Warming Threads

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Tristan, Aug 27, 2004.

  1. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Oh, well okay then I'll post a few.

    This is a recent article by a respected climate scientist. He is one of a growing number of scientists who are tenured, and confident enough to go against the vitriolic tide of the nonsense-spewing CAGW extremists.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Nope, the IPCC claims nothing of the sort. It notes and collates the scientific literature demonstrating how the climat has gone UP and DOWN in the last 1400 years or so. Oh, and nearly half the forcing is from gases other than CO2.
    So, strike 1.


    Said little ice age appears in all temperature charts of the last thousand years in the iPCC report.
    Strike 2.


    Assertion without evidence or logic to it.
    Strike 3.

    Your expert is a buffoon, and I'll happily say that to his face if he's ever in Scotland.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Another recent article that gets into the CO2 stuff, and the reality of it as measured by science.

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    I expected stuff like this.

    Your lack of information is in line with most of the nonsense being spread around as 'fact' on this issue. 30 seconds at google backs up every mention he makes in that article.

    WHICH 'in the IPCC report' are you referring to? Are you even aware there are several?

    But more directly...

    You don't even appear to comprehend the points he was making there. Which is kind of shocking. This is more on the level of reading comprehension than it is the science of climate.

    To say you don't know what you're talking about is almost superfluous, you don't appear to understand what you are reading. Nor do you seem to be informed even on the various claims of the IPCC.

    But BOY that 'strike 1, strike 2' stuff was a nice attempt to make drivel appear legitimate.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Sorry read it after midnight, my mistake, but guess what it can be explained, by the Milankovitch Cycle, when you look at the orbital plane.

    Even the the orbit shows as a large factor, at minimum eccentricity of the orbit, the difference between minimum and maximum, is a 6.8% change in incoming solar radiation, we are now at minimum eccentricity so we are receiving the maximum amount of solar radiation which means higher temperatures.

    The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies from being nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) to being mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) and has a mean eccentricity of 0.028 (or 0.017 which is current value, if we take geometric mean, because phenomena in a gravitational field of Lobachevskian pseudosphere as used by Einstein behave logarithmically). The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between 95,000 and 136,000 years, and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017.

    Currently the difference between closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) and furthest distance (aphelion) is only 3.4% (5.1 million km). This difference is equivalent to about a 6.8% change in incoming solar radiation. Perihelion presently occurs around January 3, while aphelion is around July 4. When the orbit is at its most elliptical, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion is about 23% greater than at aphelion. This difference is roughly 4 times the value of the eccentricity.
     
  9. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    The fourth one of course, which I have read. If you think his assertions are backed up by google, then you'll be able to provide such cites...

    Ahhh, the usual non answer of a science hater. Just as I expected.
     
  10. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Now, lets see.

    From AR4 chapter 1 page 108 of the report:
    Yes, such a totally ignored cold period that the IPCC mention it in chapter 1.
    Note also that they explain what caused it. Do you have any objections to this explanation? If so I'm sure you will be able to provide evidence.

    So, once again the incoherence of the denialist position is revealed. Having shown that the IPCC is perfectly aware of the little ice age, and also what caused it. Since you don't know anything about climate science, I can see that you take his assertion seriously, but to anyone who has read much about the topic, he's talking mince.
     
  11. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Your knowledge on this topic is so superficial it's almost embarrassing to discuss it with you.

    I can tell you have that perfect recipe of ignorance AND arrogance though, it will keep you in the dark, yet sure of yourself.

    While it's still obvious you simply can't understand the context of his first statement, I'm not going to bother to try and explain it to. As I noted earlier, I will simply acknowledge I'm discussing this with someone who struggles with basic reading comprehension, and form opinions with little or no time spent researching the data, and take that into account.

    As to the causes of the Little Ice Age? There is more hard data to support a volcanic cause than any other, as there was notable volcanic eruptions and activity throughout the Little Ice Age. The climate changes become self-perpetuating because of the changes in snow packs and ice shelf reduce energy absorbed from the sun, and high-atmosphere sulphur droplet accumulations may have an even greater effect for longer periods. For example the Tambora eruption was followed by the 'year without a summer' in 1815, this was a major eruption that affected the climate of the earth even within the time period known as the Little Ice Age. The massive Krakatoa eruption also provided more data about volcanic eruptions and the climate, and it cooled the planet. Eruptions in the 20th century, while none nearly as massive as a Tambora or Krakatoa, have provided much more data on the climate effects of eruptions. This data gave birth to the theory about volcanic causes of the Little Ice Age as we learned more about it. History does not record a single, large volcanic event as a cause of the Little Ice Age, but does record many smaller events which occurred in various parts of the world at unusually frequent intervals.

    But the theories of the North Atlantic ocean currents changing/stopping, the Maunder Minimum, and changes in the Earth's albedo are also current theories.

    There are scientists who theorize it was a combination of these things.

    Only CAGW extremists would proclaim one cause as factual and the ultimate cause, that is their modus operandi. Volcanic eruptions put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet the climate cools. It's not surprising junk scientists with financial and political agendas would avoid that topic in favor of their own 'pet' theory. You are proof that the 'eager to be told what to think' masses who so willingly believe anything the CAGW extremists say, will believe anything they publish unquestioningly.

    I guess if you had read the other IPCC reports, which you couldn't be bothered to do apparently, you would understand more of the points in that paper. The IPCC still hasn't rejected the famous 'hockey stick' junk science that was the one of the crux arguments of their initial fear-mongering.
     
  12. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    More evidence that Syun Akasofu doesn't know what he is talking about:
    Given that the IPCC uses a 30 year definition of climate, ie any time period below that is too short to show a proper trend in amongst all the noise of yearly climate, to claim that the warming stopped in 2000 and there is a decrease in temp is insane. Secondly 2005 was about as warm as 1998, so how can that be a decrease in temperature? In fact if you eyeball the charts here:
    http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.or...te-misconceptions-has-global-warming-stopped/

    you see that 2000 was cooler than just about every year since then, on a global scale. Even more entertainingly it has a graph showing 8 year trends every year for 1975 to 2007, and it is clear that an 8 year trend can change every year from very positive to very negative.
     
  13. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Argument by arrogant ignorace. Clearly hiding your own lack of knowledge of the science.

    Which context would that be? Again, argument by contrarian ignorance does not a scientific argument make.


    Hmmm, argument by assertion with no links to any scientific literature.
    Thus, you lose.


    So of course you'll be able to provide evidence? No, of course not, that would mean actually understanding the science.
    So fortunately, I went and looked it up on wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
    Now indeed they do mention these causes. But you have provided no evidence to demonstrate that they are in any way relevant to the current warming.


    Volcani eruptions do not put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, compared to humans. At least not in any recent time period. Thus you lie, and obfuscate. Plus you ignore the other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxides, and halocarbons.




    Once again you lie. The hockey stick shape has been confirmed by numerous other studies. LAte 20th century warmth is anomalous within the last 1400 years or so. No matter how much you manipulate the date, it hasn't been this warm for at least that long. What temperature do you think it was 600 years ago? Warmer than the last 30 years or colder?
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2009
  14. LifeinTechnicolor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    56
    Global Warning is a myth...the only reason people believe its true is because the ice caps r "Melting" as some say..
    plus...i laugh at the fact that scientist believe that the polar ice caps are going to flood the ocean over the U.S and all. when you see all that ice in Antartica..It cant take 3 years for that all to melt.....
     
  15. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    You know you are dealing with a science denier when you have to go and do their work for them.
    So:
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=78

    The simulations suggest explosive volcanism is the primary source of changes in natural radiative forcing in past centuries, while anthropogenic forcing increasingly dominates hemispheric mean temperature trends during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Hegerl et al., 2003). Solar variability appears to play a significant, although somewhat lesser role, over the same time period (Crowley, 2000; Bertrand et al., 2002; Bauer et al., 2003; Gerber et al., 2003). The combined influence of volcanic and solar forcing appears to provide an explanation of the relatively cool hemisphere mean temperatures from A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1900. Shindell et al. (2003) have argued from model results that regionally—for example, in the North Atlantic and in Western Europe—the climate response to change in solar irradiance may have been more important than volcanism.

    So, no denial of late 20th century warming associated with greenhouse gases there then.

    From page 81:
    So, todays take home message. AGW is real, and its mostly humans fault for doing various things, but pinning down every last number is quite tricky.
     
  16. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Guthrie you simply aren't intelligent enough to have a discussion with.

    You can't even follow a simple topic in a discussion.

    At that point it's like talking to a child, which is a waste of time.
     
  17. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    This is a link to the 2009, updated, Senate Minority Report on so-called 'Global Warming'. Contributed to by over 700 scientists worldwide, this document covers the media hysteria as well as the junk science that is much of what the IPCC call 'science' or 'fact'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    While lengthy document at over 200 pages, this is filled with citations to peer-reviewed studies debunking the many ridiculous claims of the IPCC. The dissenting scientists who contribute include former and current IPCC contributors.

    It's worth a read.
     
  18. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    As I said, I have to do your work for you, and you respond with abuse. You are well named.
     
  19. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Yup, not only do you hate science, you are also gullible. There's nothing in that report that hasn't been debunked a hundred times already. If you are capable of reading, I'm sure you can put up the strongest argument from that report, and we'll just knock it straight down again, like I did for that Japanese blokes baseless assertions.
     
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    "... Polar ice caps are melting faster and oceans are rising more than the United Nations projected just two years ago, 10 universities said in a report suggesting that climate change has been underestimated.

    Global sea levels will climb a meter (39 inches) by 2100, 69 percent more than the most dire forecast made in 2007 by the UN’s climate panel, according to the study released today in Brussels. The forecast was based on new findings, including that Greenland’s ice sheet is losing 179 billion tons of ice a year. ...

    The University of Copenhagen coordinated the effort by the 10-school International Alliance of Research Universities. Other members include the University of California at Berkeley, Peking University, the Australian National University, ETH Zurich, the National University of Singapore and the University of Tokyo. Then Yale University, the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge compiled the 39-page report from research carried out since 2005, the cutoff date for consideration by the IPCC for its forecasts published in November 2007. ..."

    From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a63vnEwzft94

    Several recent studies of the Antarctic ice cover have also shown an accelerating rate of ice melting and parts of some of the ice shelves are breaking off in historically unprecedented amounts.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2009
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I am not much impressed by climate models as the problem is very complex. Nor am I impressed that 400 scientists can be found to refute the finding of 52, given problem's complexity and political / economic significance. (In fact this mainly reminds me of Hilter getting 100 German scientists to condem "Jewish Physics.")

    I am impressed by observations of ice melting such as in post 117 (but not by sea level measurments as they are very hard to do with certainity.)

    I do not know to what extent man's activity is causing Arctic ice to melt or even if that is undesirable (except probably by Polar Bears).
    An ice free Arctic would save China a great deal of money importing Russian oil and gas, for example.

    The 400 scientist refuting link is 255 pages long and more than 80% is just different statments and qualifications of these refuting scientists.
    (Few sane people will read all.) My continuous "page down" was stopped at page 149 by the format change where I found the somewhat reasonable:

    The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition released seven "pillars of wisdom" to counter the UN IPCC climate report:

    1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.

    2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun's magnetic field and solar particles. These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.

    3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.

    4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.
    For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.

    5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models. Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.

    6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world temperatures. The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria and Aids.

    7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts, and storms.

    The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming trends.


    The now bold example sentence ending point 4, if true, is the most significant thing I saw in this 255 page report.
    Does anyone have link that suggests it is true that in 1930 the Arctic had less ice than now?


    If true, that fact is much more persuasive to me than the 400 scientists' opinions are in supporting their POV.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2009
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,292
    That, as stated (and I have to believe there's some kind of extenuating circumstance involved) is more bizarre than significant.

    The Northwest Passage recently opened up for the first time in recorded history, and then the next year both the NW and the Russian side passage opened up.

    The only basis I know of for such a statement might be a garbled reference to the fact that the Arctic sea ice in the 1930s was at low point in what may be some sort of oscillation (from whaling ship data, IIRC a study came out a few years ago). But that is common knowledge, AFAIK, and long familiar to bodies such as the IPCC.

    A lot of the Greenland ice that is melting is older than 1930 origin, for example. That's one of the significant noted circumstances.

    Edited in, I tracked back a couple of memories: This: http://nsidc.org/data/g02176.html from here: http://nsidc.org/data/news.html may clear things up, if you want to dig a bit. Here's another item:
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dead whales tell tales of sea ice decline-a019769872 But if you notice, the retreat of Antarctic sea ice was in the 50s, during the resurgence of Arctic sea ice, so the general situation doesn't really help the Mabuse case either.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2009
  23. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Most people in this thread, and in the discussion in general, appear to know nothing about the issue outside of what the IPCC and Global Warming extremists tell them.

    It seems this crowd will repeatedly forgive many claims from the IPCC and CAGW extremists being proven false over and over and over again. This is the clue that it's not about facts or science, it's about some almost religious type of ideological groupthink.

    The 'arctic ice is melting! It's CAGW!' is one of the more recent 'scare the hell out of the dummies' approaches of the CAGW extremists. And it's nonsense. But it's obviously damned effective on the ignorant.

    Here's an article that covers the well known temperature spike in the artic that lasted a couple decades surrounding the 1930's. Yes there was less ice then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You also hear about Antarctica melting, more nonsense. Remember those satellite pics that got world attention of a HUGE shelf of ice breaking off of the Antarctic ice shelf? Oh that was played up as proof of CAGW. Though as of fall of last year even the extremists started reversing those claims, admitting the ice shelf was growing as normal, but still attributed the growth in Antarctic ice to CAGW.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Currently Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers are expanding, not contracting or melting.

    Ideologues who simply wait for the next fantastic claim of CAGW extremists, because they want to hear what they want to hear not because they are interested in facts or the actual science of climate, are gobbling up this 'the ice is melting! the ice is melting' stuff like good little sheep. It's a shame so many people are so eager to have their opinions and understanding formed by others with an agenda, and then handed to them and they will gobble it up like a hungry dog.
     

Share This Page