General Climate Discussion

[Angus]

Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Actually they may have a point, as sunspots are thought to be one of the causes of "the little ice age" during the middle ages. We know thats sunspots a cyclical and do affect climate to a degree. How much is debatable though.

Did you spot the paradox? The predict decreasing of sunspots,which actually means a hotter sun......
But it could be a journalist error,- not the first time.

[lazs2]

I am trying to get a copy of the russian document but.. it seems that they are saying that.....

CO2 MATH DOES NOT ADD UP

and

ITS THE SUN STUPID.

I would tend to believe them since their scientists get money no matter what.. they do not work on grants.  

It is funny that those here who believe the UN and algore all say that the scientists who say the math doesnt work are all corrupted because they take money from a company (oil) so they can't possibly tell the truth..

yet.. the "scientists" who are drama queen alarmists are also taking money in the form of grants.. the bigger the drama.. the more they get... yet somehow... they can transend the money.

Not only that but.. I am told that scientists are saints... except of course the hundreds of ones who say that the math doesn't add up and are amoung the most experienced and brightest in their fields.. they are somehow not as good.  corrupt...

lazs

[Angus]

Yeah, they're telling us that the sun is warming so that we're jumping into a new cooling period. Call me stupid,but how does that add up?

[lazs2]

Like most scientist have said all along.. the suns activity leads climate change.. its not immediate but it is fairly rapid.   We don't understand all there is to know about it but we do understand that the co2 math doesn't add up.

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
I am trying to get a copy of the russian document but.. it seems that they are saying that.....


I would tend to believe them since their scientists get money no matter what.. they do not work on grants.  



Not only that but.. I am told that scientists are saints... except of course the hundreds of ones who say that the math doesn't add up and are amoung the most experienced and brightest in their fields.. they are somehow not as good.  corrupt...

lazs

1#...Actually, you believe them because you've already decided what "your" opinion is, and it just backs up your argument.  You have admitted already to not even seeing the document.... how can you agree with something you haven't seen, sir?  That's just plain stupid.

#2... Russia is still having issues with paying ANYONE, military included.  Scientists there are held even lower than here.  By them saying this, they almost guarantee that those who argue AGW will fund them.  That's right... the oil companies will seriously loook into funding them now... it was a calculated risk on their part.

#3.  You still go on about the hundreds or the 17,000 who signed that petition.... about 2% of the total number of atmospheric scientists in the world.  Many of the petitioners on that document worked on anything BUT climate... I've already shown you three that signed it and were.. in order.. A journalist, a lobbyist and a PhD that worked in making new forms of wool.
I'll go through the rest if time allows.  I actually just randomly picked out those names.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
Like most scientist have said all along.. the suns activity leads climate change.. its not immediate but it is fairly rapid.   We don't understand all there is to know about it but we do understand that the co2 math doesn't add up.

lazs

We understand enough.

The researchers took core samples of sediments off the coast of Suriname and analyzed the composition of fossilized plankton, whose oxygen isotope and magnitude-to-calcium ratios reflect the temperature at the time of their formation, and whose carbon isotope ratios reflect the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. Interpreting these ratios involves a number of assumptions about, for example, the composition of the ancient seawater and the effects of pH on the isotope enrichment process. So the team considered a range of assumptions and was able to put a floor of 33 degrees on the temperature during the Cretaceous (5 degrees warmer than the same region is today) and about 600 parts per million on the CO2 level (roughly one and a half today's concentration). The warming could have been as much as 14 degrees, but a conservative interpretation of the data is worrisome enough.

According to most current models, doubling the present concentration of CO2 raises the temperature by only about 3 degrees. In the specific model that Bice's team applied, the 5-degree rise would require 2500 ppm of CO2, which is above the likely range of values for the Cretaceous. In short, CO2 seems to pack a bigger punch than expected, perhaps because the warming becomes self-reinforcing.

On the other hand, if the proxy reconstructions are largely correct, then a severe deficiency exists in our model and in similar general circulation models. In that case, the data-model comparison could be interpreted as evidence that the model sensitivity to CO2 is unrealistically low, such that not enough warming occurs when CO2 is increased. If correct, this conclusion would have serious implications for future climate studies in which the actual future warming from elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations may be much greater than that predicted by the models.

Finally, if the temperature and CO2 proxy data and our interpretations of them are accurate, and the model sensitivity to CO2 is accurate, our results indicate that some additional climate forcing is required. A plausible explanation is increased atmospheric methane, sourced from either decreased methanotrophy in the Cretaceous ocean oxygen minimum zones or from terrestrial wetlands. There is currently no proxy record for paleomethane concentrations and so we have no direct way to access the plausibility  of increased methane for the black shale intervals.

Skeptics often invoke uncertainty as a reason to defer action because global warming may not be as bad as the headline predictions. But uncertainty equally well means that the outcome could be even worse. Our response should be neither complacency nor panic, but risk-management -- exactly what we do when we buy insurance or strap on seat belts. As David Wasdell of the Meridian Programme said at a workshop I went to last weekend, the scenarios are alarming but not alarmist

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus

As for both Volcanoe inputs here, unlike greenhouse gas emissions, there is NOTHING we can do to stop them.....

Angus is getting the idea......................... .....he just doesn`t know it yet.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Angus
Yeah, they're telling us that the sun is warming so that we're jumping into a new cooling period. Call me stupid,but how does that add up?

Lazs, come on and READ this. Warming of the sun causing cooling on earth?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

And as for you here Jackal, I am getting it. I get it that you guys refuse or haggle about human impact on global atmosphere (well that is what I tend to call it, since it's much more complicated than just burning petrol), and consistently try to derail the discussion from getting to "advanced" by jumping in with things we can do nothing about.
And, BTW, a reminder, the immediate impact of a large volcanic eruption is....cooling. And...the eruptions are not all the same, neither in time effect, combination of pollutants, time rythm,or ..size.
The big one from 1783 caused vast cooling in the northern hemisphere...

[lazs2]

moray...  so you quote someone who relies on computer models?  models that so far..  can't even predict the past with any degree of accuracy?  

I have no problem with anyone laying out these theories...  or even saying that it is possible that they are "alarming" or even that they don't really understand what is going on.

The problem comes with the leap about what to do about it or even if anything really can or needs to be done.

If those suggestions involve wrecking whole economies or even placing huge burdens on the middle class.. say that they cost each of us $5,000 a year extra just to live at the level we are at now.. say it bankrupts economies..

Then you better have a lot better reason and proof than what I have been shown so far...

Of course I believe the russian thing based on an outline.. it is just saying what a lot of the scientists I trust have been saying.  

As for how they get paid or not.. that is the point.   you get paid by grants and have an agenda just as the alarmists everywhere do... no trips to bali for the "deniers" eh?  no promotions and perks for them...

The russians would then be the only "pure" uncorrupted scientists right?  no money or power... just pure science for the love of it.


lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
And as for you here Jackal, I am getting it. I get it that you guys refuse or haggle about human impact on global atmosphere (well that is what I tend to call it, since it's much more complicated than just burning petrol), and consistently try to derail the discussion from getting to "advanced" by jumping in with things we can do nothing about.  

Things you can do nothing about--------------> Weather and climate.
Sorry that facts rock your fictional boat.

And, BTW, a reminder, the immediate impact of a large volcanic eruption is....cooling. And...the eruptions are not all the same, neither in time effect, combination of pollutants, time rythm,or ..size.

Yep. One of the many, many , many unknowns that make any climate predictions a total farce.
You can`t predict anything with any degree of accuracy or plausibility without factoring everything involved into the mix. In this case, impossible.
Like I said...you are getting it.........you just don`t know it yet.

[Holden McGroin]

If current trends continue, we could have an Arctic sea ice extent which would be larger than it was last winter.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Things you can do nothing about--------------> Weather and climate.
Sorry that facts rock your fictional boat.

 

Yep. One of the many, many , many unknowns that make any climate predictions a total farce.
You can`t predict anything with any degree of accuracy or plausibility without factoring everything involved into the mix. In this case, impossible.
Like I said...you are getting it.........you just don`t know it yet.

Sorry, but you have to be a complete ostridge to belive that humans have no IMPACT on the globe's climate.
If you belive so, you are stating that the composition of the atmosphere has no impact on the weather and/or life on earth has no impact on the atmosphere.
Funny seeing that one coming from a guy who once stated that (rotting) rainforests contributed to GW by emitting greenhouse gasses....if there was such a possibility.
HUmans have the power to deforest the planet, and are doing it as we speak at a reasonably good pace. Humans also have the power to nuke out the planet at the flick of a switch, presumably causing a short, but violent ice-age.
So, in short, humans can affect climate, but it's not just your car.....

And Holden,the curve you show is an annual curve, a curve of the seasons basically,and this one is quite stable. If you want to show something that rocks, you'd need to extend it to 30 years.
We did have some cold shift over the sea this winter, so Ice increased again, which is good, for what you didn't mention is that we might climb above winter ice at historical MINIMUM.

Here is a link to a weather website over the N-Atlantic and partially arctic area. You can use the scroll bar to reflect the forecast in temperature. Although not in English, this is cool to watch:
http://www.vedur.is/vedur/spar/atlantshaf/#teg=hiti

[Angus]

Like here...


Or here:


BTW, nice website there;)

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Funny seeing that one coming from a guy who once stated that (rotting) rainforests contributed to GW by emitting greenhouse gasses

Nice twist. You should be working for the media.
What was said was rotting forests and vegetation produce CO2, which it does along with other emissions. How much is not really known nor can be predicted from year to year. Just one of the unknowns which prevents any kind of long range forecast.

Humans also have the power to nuke out the planet at the flick of a switch, presumably causing a short, but violent ice-age.

Beginning to see the light?
Yet another of the many, many, many unknowns.

[Angus]

Your light must be ultra-violet.
Here:
"Nice twist. You should be working for the media.
What was said was rotting forests and vegetation produce CO2, which it does along with other emissions. How much is not really known nor can be predicted from year to year. Just one of the unknowns which prevents any kind of long range forecast."

You forgot to enter the zone of the balance,- forests in general, as vegetation is in the state of binding CO2 at a faster pace than they release it, - hence the added masses of biomass in deep forest bottoms. That is actually why they ARE forests,- it's nature's tool of harnessing solar energy into the use of photosynthesis.

You forgot to mention if you still understand the concept of photosynthesis...

You also forgot to mention that a "rotting fores emitting CO2" in our days  is probably a forest that has been bulldozed or burned down, so that it's gathered up fertile soil can be used for "cheap" agriculture, yealding amazingly "cheap" products....coffee....tobacco ....beef....etc...