Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Andre, Oct 31, 2008.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Very interesting article Andre.
Gee, what happened to the Artic ice and the glacers that have melted away....are they now coming back? I'd think not.
Good article - while in general terms I accept the concensus view of warming as a result of CO2 (with appropriate scepticism - I'm a biologist not a climatologist Jim!), the role of oceanic circulation as a controlling factor for global climate has in my view been underestimated and not well understood - so its good to see someone taking a good look at this.
A couple of points though - the graph still shows an overall warming trend over the next century - and what the hell is a NAO oscillation? North Atlantic Oscillation Oscillation?????
Ice in the arctic began its winter expansion Sept 27, 2007. For this year, the expansion began Sept 26, 2008.
I love using the above link to monitor what is going on up there. I gave you winter expansion dates 2007 and 2008 so you could see for yourself the ice loss in 2008 was significantly less.
As far as re-expansion of the glaciers, time will tell. I expect growth this year in the northern hemisphere. It did just snow in London.
Icecap to begin with is not a reliable source (you can spot this by non-scientific and strawman language like "the IPCC predictions of catastrophic global warming), and this is not a scientific piece based on any data. The PDO will have effects on spatial variation of ocean temperature, but has little influence on the global mean. The heat content of the ocean has been increasing over the last half a century, so internally generated variability is not the reason for the observed warming trend. Intra-and interannual variability can mask the greenhouse warming over years to a decade, but eventually the heat has to go somewhere-- don't confuse an increase of energy with a redistribution of it.
If anyone actually reads Andre's article, they will find a graph showing global temps demarcated into cooling and warming period of 25-30 years each.
The graph clearly shows overall global warming, as each successive cooling is warmer than the last cooling, and each warming carries the temps higher than the last one did.
Unless we are supposed to have been pretending that all natural cycles are going to be suspended for Global Warming, there is nothing to see here except a strong, rapid warming.
The Russian and American Northwest Passages opened up simultaneously this year - a first, I believe, in any record including paleontological.
I remember back last winter when a cold spell boosted the icecap coverage, we saw a few threads by the usual suspects about how all the global warming since 1998 had been reversed. Then it all melted away in the summer and nobody said anything.
only about half of that graph involves actual observations. The 1900-1940 warming has been attirbuted largely to secular increase in solar irradiance, lack of volcanic and some other things...the 1940-1960 flatline to aerosols and some volcanic activity, and the rest of the warming trend to GHG's. How can any of that be called "cyclic behavior" and used to extrapolate into the future?
As for the PDO, the PDO cannot, by definition, have a trend as the classical definition of PDO excludes any trend in the data. And as Atmoz shows at (http)://atmoz.org/blog/2008/08/03/on-the-relationship-between-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo-and-the-global-average-mean-temperature/ (remove parenthesis) the PDO cannot "cause" global warming. Again, this paper is a feeble attempt to discredit AGW, it is not based on any science, statistical analysis, or any understanding of the system it's analyzing.
Who is talking strawman? What about the ice cap nonsense?
I do wonder at what point that grossly misleading propaganda enters the region of crime.
Furthermore, I'd be a tad more careful with killing the messenger. Attempt to discredit legimite sources is nothing else than groupthink:
Anyway, one could peek Don Easterbrooks homepage:
and find things like:
Some people actually do prefer legitimate sources. Just some though. Not just in climate change-- I'd have little desire to entertain a thought from a flat-earther if his source was from the flat earth society, or creationist from "Answers in Genesis." Non-specialists want blogs for quick discussions on what science says, people want legitimate journals for actual forwarding of the science that is supposed to "overturn" the consensus. David Archer was right when he said "The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR."
Well Alan, now you see why I'm pessimistic that we will have to sit out the rage until it's over before science can do it's self cleaning.
So Chris, what is wrong with this sentence?
Joseph S.. or Adolf H.. or George B.. or Osama B..L.. or whoever your most favorite enemy is, claims that water boils at 212 degrees F or 100 degrees C or 373 degrees K.
So we are not going to accept that because we consider the source suspect? But it's completely open, transparant and verifiable. If you want it to be wrong, refute the science, don't shoot the messenger
Finally the inenvitable will happen, it may take years but it is going to be very ugly. The longer it takes, the uglier:
Hey, it's not my graph, it's Andre's. It's supposed to exhibit contradiction of "global warming", and instead exhibits support of it. If you don't like the graph, and would prefer one that actually supports the claims it is supposed to support, don't complain to me.
Somewhere around the time goofball assertions from crackpots -such as that strong winds eroding ice sheets contradict predictions of dramatic effects from the doubling of atmospheric CO2 - have enough influence and spread enough confusion to allow cynical profiteers to continue their damaging economic policies.
quite honestly, no one has time for the million BS claims on blogs even if one or two of them turn out to be of substance. There is a peer-reviewed process for a reason, and if you don't like it, then cry to someone else. For instance, the fact you have lied on blogs for some years now and consciously try to confuse people gives me little reason to take what you say serious. That's just "boy who cried wolf 101." Complain about groupthink all you want, but if new ideas want to be taken seriously, then they should be placed in a context where they can be examined rigorously by the scientific community. There is only one side of this "debate" that wants to hide their Galilean discoveries in spurious sources that people who matter do not read, and then complain that the church of AGW is silencing them. The fact of the matter is they just don't have the data, and in this case there is no data for me to "prove wrong." What's more, outrageous accusations and putting a false "tone" in people/organizations mouths (e.g., show me where the word 'catastrophic' appears in the IPCC report for future projections, and what is the scientific definition of the word)...this type of tone will immediately turn off a reader and a real scientist would just "x out." Just on the slim chance there was a Galilean or Einstein moment in the rest of the article, the author will just have to suffer from the fact that in the scientific world, credibility has to be maintained.
I really have no desire in pursuing this with you since all of our exchanges are rather unproductive. As for people who actually interested in science rather than fancy talking and groupthink lectures, the facts are these
-- There is no standing theory in the scientific literature that has the predictive and explanatory power of recent global warming caused mainly by rising greenhouse gas levels. No natural mechanism has been found to explain this, and no natural mechanism makes CO2 physics go away...so even if the sun is getting (will be) brighter, it just gives us more cause for worry...you can't replace what you like with what you don't like, you need to add all forcings
-- The PDO has little to no influence on the global mean temperature, so just "assuming" that the last century is mostly PDO-forced is not a good idea-- such an idea would overturn a lot of physics, but it needs to be quantified, not just taken for granted as in the opening article.
-- The "consensus" position of what I said in point 1 and a climate sensitivity of about 3 C/doubling (2 to 4.5 C) of CO2 is in line with the best scholarship, and has received a lot of empirical, paleoclimatic, and modeling support over decades. Anyone claiming that there is an error in this may be right (probably not), but (s)he is not basing that off of any current literature which has survived scrutiny.
-- Andre is the next Einstein. So far, he has refuted CO2 physics, he has refuted ice core interpretation, he has refuted these ranges of climate sensitivity, he has shown the leading scientific body on climate change to be a fraud, he has shown us the many natural mechanisms which account for modern warming, and lots of other stuff. Sadly he will die without ever publishing any of this information and making this great knowledge available to the scientific community, allowing future students to learn it, etc. Instead, he'd rather complain about the current scientific practice. For all our learned folk-- while Andre may be right about everything, and the rest of the scientific community are wrong, this is not how you should approach the topic when you become the next Andre (which is not likely since he's the leading free thinker of the 20th and 21st century). That is a mere suggestion. Take it or leave it.
I think it's both (global warming and cooling), and that's why the temperature has stayed pretty much the same.
Global average is up about a degree C in less than a century.
Exactly, I think it would be a lot more if it wasn't for the global cooling, when you consider how much CO2 has gone into the atmosphere and continues to go into it.
The terms generally refer to what has happened over the last few decades, which has been warming. You can't have warming and cooling at the same time.
Nice rant Chris, very understandable:
Problem is though that I'm not speaking alone. For instance a random grab from the news:
But let's focus on the temperature increase for doubling CO2. Perhaps this post of a friend.
But the problem is that MODTRAN assumes back radiation from ground level, assuming that there is no convection, whixh is actually much more important for energy transportation than radiation as discussed here.
So what is the exact substantiation of the 3 degrees per doubling?
I prefer John Baez's rules for calculating a 'Crackpot Index' as a useful guide to evaluating what's what
In particular, see #35 (the second part), #36, #5 (since we've been over this). Really, if you're supporting the Chillngar paper, you need help...lots of it. Either that or it just proves you're a liar...you can pick. No third option exists
Chris: sorry about the tone above - I was skimming, biased by the thread origin, and missed your actual point.
Chris's link, to the crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Separate names with a comma.