or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CLIMATE WATCH
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CLIMATE WATCH

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 

"A brutal and potentially historic heat wave is in store for the West as parts of Nevada, Arizona and California may get dangerously hot temperatures this weekend and into next week. In fact, by the end of the heat wave, we may see a record tied or broken for the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth.

The furnace-like heat is coming courtesy of a “stuck” weather pattern that is setting up across the U.S. and Canada. By early next week, the jet stream — a fast-moving river of air at airliner altitudes that is responsible for steering weather systems — will form the shape of a massive, slithering snake with what meteorologists refer to as a deep “ridge” across the Western states, and an equally deep trough seting up across the Central and Eastern states.

All-time records are likely to be threatened in normally hot places — including Death Valley, Calif., which holds the record for the highest reliably recorded air temperature on earth at 134°F … set on July 10, 1913.

… Heat waves are one of the most well-understood consequences of manmade global warming, since as global average surface temperatures increase, the probability of extreme heat events increases by a greater amount.

One study, published in the Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences in 2012, found that the odds of extremely hot summers have significantly increased in tandem with global temperatures. Those odds, the study found, were about 1-in-300 during the 1951-1980 timeframe, but that had increased to nearly 1-in-10 by 1981-2010."

~ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/27/2224291/june-27-massive-heat-wave-in-western-us-could-set-record-global-temperature/

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 31

Weather is not climate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Weather is not climate.

Very true. Climate = "weather averaged over the long term".

 

It is scientifically fallacious to attribute any specific weather event to planetary heating/climate change; there is often commentary in the mainstream media with the implication " ...caused by global warming....". However, a heating planet will permit greater latent heat energy in the atmosphere (warmer air can carry more water vapor, and hence release more energy on condensation), resulting in an increased probability of severe weather events, redistribution of rainfall patterns etc.

 

Its a thermodynamics issue, and I don't imagine that the appropriate laws of nature have suddenly changed to accommodate political expediency....  oh wait, lets not go there.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #4 of 31
Thread Starter 

Decadal global combined surface-air temperature over land and sea-surface temperature (°C) obtained from the average over the three independent datasets maintained by the HadCRU, NOAA-NCDCand NASA-GISS.The Horizontal grey line indicates the long term average value ( 14°C).

 

 The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade, according to a new report by the World Meteorological Organization.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/03/2251861/july-3-news-2001-2010-hottest-decade-on-record-with-unprecedented-high-impact-climate-extremes-wmo-reports/

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #5 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Weather is not climate.

Very true. Climate = "weather averaged over the long term".

 

It is scientifically fallacious to attribute any specific weather event to planetary heating/climate change; there is often commentary in the mainstream media with the implication " ...caused by global warming....". However, a heating planet will permit greater latent heat energy in the atmosphere (warmer air can carry more water vapor, and hence release more energy on condensation), resulting in an increased probability of severe weather events, redistribution of rainfall patterns etc.

 

Its a thermodynamics issue, and I don't imagine that the appropriate laws of nature have suddenly changed to accommodate political expediency....  oh wait, lets not go there.

 

I don't know why it always bugs me so much when I see this statement but, just to be clear, air does not carry water vapor. The water vapor exists as a component gas in its own right at a partial pressure (and thus density) that is a function of its temperature. Apologies for being picky.

post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I don't know why it always bugs me so much when I see this statement but, just to be clear, air does not carry water vapor. The water vapor exists as a component gas in its own right at a partial pressure (and thus density) that is a function of its temperature. Apologies for being picky.

 

Oops... agreed 100%. Pickiness is essential in sound, complete science. My awkward phrasing. 1embarassed.gif

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Decadal global combined surface-air temperature over land and sea-surface temperature (°C) obtained from the average over the three independent datasets maintained by the HadCRU, NOAA-NCDCand NASA-GISS.The Horizontal grey line indicates the long term average value ( 14°C).

 

 The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade, according to a new report by the World Meteorological Organization.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/03/2251861/july-3-news-2001-2010-hottest-decade-on-record-with-unprecedented-high-impact-climate-extremes-wmo-reports/

 

It is amazing that the pseudo-religion of "climate change" still has followers at this point.  The entire concept is absurdly stupid.  The climate is constantly fluctuating.  Short-term temperature records are practically useless, as the Earth's climate has changed dramatically over thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.  Even the above graph (taken from none other than Think Progress) shows a maximum change of about .8 degrees centigrade since 1891 (that is assuming that global temperature measurements were accurate to within 1/10th of a degree 120 years ago).  Additionally, the above graph does not address the fact that "global warming" has been non-existent for the past 16 years.  

 

 

 

Quote:
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

 

 

I won't even get into the Medieval Warm Period, nor ancient Earth history where despite no industrial activity, temperatures were as much as 12 degrees centigrade higher than they are today.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It is amazing that the pseudo-religion of "climate change" still has followers at this point.  The entire concept is absurdly stupid.  The climate is constantly fluctuating.  Short-term temperature records are practically useless, as the Earth's climate has changed dramatically over thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years.  Even the above graph (taken from none other than Think Progress) shows a maximum change of about .8 degrees centigrade since 1891 (that is assuming that global temperature measurements were accurate to within 1/10th of a degree 120 years ago).  Additionally, the above graph does not address the fact that "global warming" has been non-existent for the past 16 years.  

 

Quote:
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

 

 

I won't even get into the Medieval Warm Period, nor ancient Earth history where despite no industrial activity, temperatures were as much as 12 degrees centigrade higher than they are today.  

 

The question of whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring to any significant extent may be undetermined, but the concept is far from absurd and to state that it is simply makes it appear that you entirely fail to grasp the breadth of the issue.

 

I completely agree that inspection of global temperature or other climatic data alone do not make the argument, but there is much more to the hypothesis than just the data.

 

Firstly, you mentioned the historical fluctuations, and one of the early concerns is that the current temperature trend (flat or slightly up) does not fit the expected current summation of the identified fluctuations, which apparently should be generally down. Personally I find that to be a relatively weak argument, since it relies on having correctly and comprehensively identified and characterized a number of fluctuations in a rather complex system.

 

Of much more concern, in my opinion, is that we have an identified and quantified anthropogenic mechanism supported by basic, established physics that, all other things being equal, would be expected to cause global warming. Increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (that human activity has measurably done by an amount and at a rate that is unprecedented in the last million years or so) unambiguously increases radiative forcing due to its absorption/emission characteristics in the IR - specifically that it is mostly non-absorbing in the near IR (incoming solar) but absorbing in the far IR (planetary radiation). In other words - simple physics suggests that the ratio of absorbed to radiated power should be increasing, causing warming.

 

The questions, of course, are by how much and are all other things really equal? Are there other current, but unidentified, processes mitigating the increase? Are there other processes at work that might offset the effect in the future, such as a change in solar forcing due to anomalous increased albedo for example? The oceans and troposphere have a large thermal inertia, and global temperatures always lag the mechanistic variation driving them (one reason that the current temperature data are inconclusive), so will the excess CO2 be absorbed by the oceans (rather than just around 50% as seen historically) before the radiative forcing effect on climate becomes obvious. The models suggest not, but they may be incomplete. That would, in any case, do a lot of damage in the oceans if it happened.

 

So it's about much more than just the data, or the model predictions for temperature rise. The CO2 levels and basic physics suggest that we have a warming mechanism in place, and that should have us at least somewhat concerned. Unfortunately, simple data, preferably in a colorful graph, is about all that most people can grasp, and it doesn't tell the whole story. Even the simple physics seems to be quite beyond most people, including many scientists, and it gets poorly disseminated.

 

Not that I'm lumping Giaever into that category, but note that his primary objection to the APS statement was their use of the word "incontrovertible", which he rightly asserted is not a scientific term, and which I agree does not accurately describe the evidence. Unfortunately he went on to comment that a bit of global warming might anyway be a good thing, which I think starts to devalue his opinion. Don't be blinded by the Nobel Prize - it is no guarantee at all of common sense or good judgement. I've known several physics winners, including the eponymous recipient of the other half of Giaever's as it happens, and you definitely wouldn't want to take him seriously on any subject.

 

Not sure where you were going with the MWP reference - no one disputes past fluctuations, especially local ones of that kind, and note that even though the North Atlantic region was warmer (~ 1˚C), the overall global temperatures are estimated to have been lower than today in that period. And if you go back far enough then the earth certainly was very toasty and uninhabitable, but the processes driving that are clearly not applicable now.

 

So, by all means be skeptical, but don't let the fact that scientists (rightly) disagree over whether or not its existence is proven mislead you into thinking that it is refuted.

post #9 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I won't even get into the Medieval Warm Period, nor ancient Earth history where despite no industrial activity, temperatures were as much as 12 degrees centigrade higher than they are today.  

 

 

 

The data does not support your position. The consensus of scientists who actually know what they're talking about does not support you position. 

post #10 of 31
Thread Starter 

Peak Water

 
"Wells are drying up and underwater tables falling so fast in the Middle East and parts of India, China and the US that food supplies are seriously threatened, one of the world's leading resource analysts has warned.
 
In a major new essay Lester Brown, head of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, claims that 18 countries, together containing half the world's people, are now overpumping their underground water tables to the point – known as "peak water" – where they are not replenishing and where harvests are getting smaller each year.
 
The situation is most serious in the Middle East. According to Brown: "Among the countries whose water supply has peaked and begun to decline are Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
 
"The world is seeing the collision between population growth and water supply at the regional level. For the first time in history, grain production is dropping in a geographic region with nothing in sight to arrest the decline. Because of the failure of governments in the region to mesh population and water policies, each day now brings 10,000 more people to feed and less irrigation water with which to feed them."
 
Brown warns that Syria's grain production peaked in 2002 and since then has dropped 30%; Iraq has dropped its grain production 33% since 2004; and production in Iran dropped 10% between 2007 and 2012 as its irrigation wells started to go dry.
 
"Iran is already in deep trouble. It is feeling the effects of shrinking water supplies from overpumping. Yemen is fast becoming a hydrological basket case. Grain production has fallen there by half over the last 35 years. By 2015 irrigated fields will be a rarity and the country will be importing virtually all of its grain."

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jul/06/food-supply-threat-water-wells-dry-up

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #11 of 31

There is global warming happening faster than we know and perhaps we should take this problem very seriously .There is no joke about this nightmare we are confronted with.
 

post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

 

 

The data does not support your position. The consensus of scientists who actually know what they're talking about does not support you position. 

 

Oh look, a graph and a pie chart. You must be right.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #13 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

The data does not support your position. The consensus of scientists who actually know what they're talking about does not support you position. 

 

Oh look, a graph and a pie chart. You must be right.

 

Convincing or not, he appears to have brought rather more to the debate than your sarcastic and trite dismissal. Do you have a counter-argument to share?  Are you asserting his graph and/or pie chart are incorrect?

post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Convincing or not, he appears to have brought rather more to the debate than your sarcastic and trite dismissal. Do you have a counter-argument to share?  Are you asserting his graph and/or pie chart are incorrect?

 

He brought just as much to the debate as my "sarcastic and trite dismissal", he just included a graph and a pie chart.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Convincing or not, he appears to have brought rather more to the debate than your sarcastic and trite dismissal. Do you have a counter-argument to share?  Are you asserting his graph and/or pie chart are incorrect?

 

He brought just as much to the debate as my "sarcastic and trite dismissal", he just included a graph and a pie chart.

 

You certainly have a strange view of what constitutes discussion. His graph was a counterpoint to one of SDW's assertions on historic temperatures, and his pie chart was to make the point that there is significant scientific consensus on the subject. Whether you agree with those conclusions or not, both are substantive points. You, on the other hand, made a dumb, sarcastic comment, and you are now defending it as being equally relevant. Are you quite sure you want to stick with that position?

post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You certainly have a strange view of what constitutes discussion. His graph was a counterpoint to one of SDW's assertions on historic temperatures, and his pie chart was to make the point that there is significant scientific consensus on the subject. Whether you agree with those conclusions or not, both are substantive points. You, on the other hand, made a dumb, sarcastic comment, and you are now defending it as being equally relevant. Are you quite sure you want to stick with that position?

 

It's interesting that you are asserting the burden of proof is on me when he cited no sources. I could just as easily craft or procure a graph and a pie chart that asserted something completely different.

 

What is obvious to me is that you agree with him. Otherwise you'd be picking on him instead of me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You certainly have a strange view of what constitutes discussion. His graph was a counterpoint to one of SDW's assertions on historic temperatures, and his pie chart was to make the point that there is significant scientific consensus on the subject. Whether you agree with those conclusions or not, both are substantive points. You, on the other hand, made a dumb, sarcastic comment, and you are now defending it as being equally relevant. Are you quite sure you want to stick with that position?

 

It's interesting that you are asserting the burden of proof is on me when he cited no sources. I could just as easily craft or procure a graph and a pie chart that asserted something completely different.

 

What is obvious to me is that you agree with him. Otherwise you'd be picking on him instead of me.

 

Not so. There is no burden of proof either way - this is just a discussion. However, I am expecting that you might contribute something tangible to the discussion rather than just making sarcastic comments. If you have some information that contradicts his, whether in the form of graphs, pie charts, reasoned arguments, or whatever, then present it. In this case the lack of citation is not an issue, since that graph is well known and we've all seen the pie chart data before.

 

As it happens, I agree with his point that there is considerable scientific consensus (that has been measured and well documented as I cited previously), and I agree with his graph to the extent that it does not support SDW's original (incorrect) assertion regarding the MWP, but I disagree that the graph, per se, proves that anthropogenic effects are driving current observables.

 

You, on the other hand, posted nothing either to agree or to disagree with, since your post was entirely devoid of data or argument.

post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Not so. There is no burden of proof either way - this is just a discussion. However, I am expecting that you might contribute something tangible to the discussion rather than just making sarcastic comments. If you have some information that contradicts his, whether in the form of graphs, pie charts, reasoned arguments, or whatever, then present it. In this case the lack of citation is not an issue, since that graph is well known and we've all seen the pie chart data before.

 

As it happens, I agree with his point that there is considerable scientific consensus (that has been measured and well documented as I cited previously), and I agree with his graph to the extent that it does not support SDW's original (incorrect) assertion regarding the MWP, but I disagree that the graph, per se, proves that anthropogenic effects are driving current observables.

 

You, on the other hand, posted nothing either to agree or to disagree with, since your post was entirely devoid of data or argument.

 

So you agree with his graph and pie chart and don't like my snide remark. Noted.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Not so. There is no burden of proof either way - this is just a discussion. However, I am expecting that you might contribute something tangible to the discussion rather than just making sarcastic comments. If you have some information that contradicts his, whether in the form of graphs, pie charts, reasoned arguments, or whatever, then present it. In this case the lack of citation is not an issue, since that graph is well known and we've all seen the pie chart data before.

 

As it happens, I agree with his point that there is considerable scientific consensus (that has been measured and well documented as I cited previously), and I agree with his graph to the extent that it does not support SDW's original (incorrect) assertion regarding the MWP, but I disagree that the graph, per se, proves that anthropogenic effects are driving current observables.

 

You, on the other hand, posted nothing either to agree or to disagree with, since your post was entirely devoid of data or argument.

 

So you agree with his graph and pie chart and don't like my snide remark. Noted.

 

You really do have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion, and nothing with which to respond to my comments that apparently you barely read and didn't comprehend. Do you even want a discussion at all? Why even bother posting?

post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You really do have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion, and nothing with which to respond to my comments that apparently you barely read and didn't comprehend. Do you even want a discussion at all? Why even bother posting?

 

If my posts bother you so much, why don't you put me on your ignore list?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #21 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You really do have absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion, and nothing with which to respond to my comments that apparently you barely read and didn't comprehend. Do you even want a discussion at all? Why even bother posting?

 

If my posts bother you so much, why don't you put me on your ignore list?

 

They don't bother me - I just can't figure out what you are trying to achieve. Perhaps the premise that there is any purpose to your posts (beyond trolling) is my mistake.

post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

They don't bother me - I just can't figure out what you are trying to achieve. Perhaps the premise that there is any purpose to your posts (beyond trolling) is my mistake.

 

Obviously they do bother you. Otherwise you wouldn't be going out of your way to call my posts "dumb" and accuse me of "trolling". Are you done, yet?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #23 of 31

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

They don't bother me - I just can't figure out what you are trying to achieve. Perhaps the premise that there is any purpose to your posts (beyond trolling) is my mistake.

 

Obviously they do bother you. Otherwise you wouldn't be going out of your way to call my posts "dumb" and accuse me of "trolling". Are you done, yet?

 

I didn't go out of my way at all - it was just a few keystrokes. But no problem - your message is clear even if your reasons are mysterious.

post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I didn't go out of my way at all - it was just a few keystrokes. But no problem - your message is clear even if your reasons are mysterious.

 

Your opinion is noted. I think you've hijacked the thread long enough.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Evidence, not consensus, is what counts

 

 

Thanks for the link. It includes some interesting comments. He starts:
 
Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with.
 
He's already gone beyond my position. but no matter. A bit later he starts to explain why he became more skeptical:
 
And that is where the problem lies with climate change. A decade ago, I was persuaded by two pieces of data to drop my skepticism and accept that dangerous climate change was likely. The first, based on the Vostok ice core, was a graph showing carbon dioxide and temperature varying in lock step over the last half million years. The second, the famous "hockey stick" graph, showed recent temperatures shooting up faster and higher than at any time in the past millennium. 
Within a few years, however, I discovered that the first of these graphs told the opposite story from what I had inferred. In the ice cores, it is now clear that temperature drives changes in the level of carbon dioxide, not vice versa.
 
So, just like that, he misses half the picture. Prior to anthropogenic CO2 production, which is temperature independent, that was probably largely true. In particular. CO2 solubility decreases with increasing temperature, so as ocean temperatures rise (for other reasons) they will release CO2 until a new equilibrium is reached But those fluctuations were much smaller than the change in CO2 concentrations in the past few decades, and so had a relatively smaller forcing effect. In other words the positive feedback part of that loop was weak. The same cannot be guaranteed for the levels that we are now causing - which leads back to my point in an earlier post - it is the existence of a potential anthropogenic mechanism to disrupt the historical cyclic equilibrium that should worry us most.
 
Anyway - on the thrust of his message (evidence not consensus) - he is either being a little disingenuous or he really doesn't understand how science progresses (as opposed to how it looks in hindsight). It absolutely is evidence that counts, but if he thinks that he is qualified to assess the complexity of argument and evidence in fields beyond his expertise then he is delusional. In science, the evidence is judged by peer review and consensus - it's not perfect but it has proven over and over to be the best indicator.
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I didn't go out of my way at all - it was just a few keystrokes. But no problem - your message is clear even if your reasons are mysterious.

 

Your opinion is noted. I think you've hijacked the thread long enough.

 

Very funny. I've no idea how you wrote that with a straight face - maybe you didn't.

post #28 of 31

Photo: Thanks Give a Shit about Nature for the image! Cartoon by Joel Pett.
 

post #29 of 31
Thread Starter 

where GW is going

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #30 of 31

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130704/ncomms3122/full/ncomms3122.html

 

This paper examines an interesting example of a potentially important forcing mechanism underestimated in current climate models - black carbon particles from wildfires. These have been somewhat ignored under the assumption that the resulting positive forcing would be offset by negative forcing from organic carbon aerosols (white smoke), but the paper presents evidence that the balance of these two effects may have been miscalculated. If true, wildfires may represent a significant positive feedback mechanism in climate change since climate warming is known to be a contributor to increased wildfire activity.

post #31 of 31
Thread Starter 

Don't fall baby, don't fall!

 

 

 

Daredevils: Greenpeace protesters around two-thirds of the way up the 72-storey building

 

Protesting Arctic drilling. Amazing!

 

"A Greenpeace activist today reached the top of Britain's tallest building after climbing for more than 15 hours in a protest against drilling in the Arctic.

She was one of six women who evaded security guards to scale the 72-storey Shard in central London early this morning. The six have now been arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass, according to the Metropolitan Police.

They said their action was intended to put Shell and other oil companies in the spotlight.

Having reached the peak, the climber, 23-year-old Wiola Smul, waved a 32-square-foot flag with the message 'Save the Arctic' written across it."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2360015/Six-women-arrested-climbing-1-000ft-Shard-Greenpeace-stunt-Arctic-drilling.html

 

 

 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CLIMATE WATCH