General Climate Discussion

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
It's not just the russians..  more and more scientists around the world are pulling  away from the man made global warming tit.   Latest studies of the last few years of peer reviewed papers on the subject showed that only 7% felt it was man made and of catastrophic proportions..  6% felt we had no effect. the rest felt that our effect varied from "too little data to tell" to "probly some but not enough to matter much".

I'm not going to spend any time looking for it but I recall those percentages have already been debunked.

Honestly, when you throw out statistics they are simply not believable.  Even when someone proves them wrong in one thread you raise them again in another as if you are providing solid evidence.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Curval
"Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels."

Well, if the Russians are saying this it will definately get lazs' seal of approval.

Funny, a bunch of socialist scientists say something MAY happen and it is enough to justify GW advocates being chicken littles?

One minute everything socialist is bad...the next minute they say something the right wing hand wringers agree with and they are 100% correct...despite the fact that there is a big (little) word in there.....MAY.

Pure science at its most hilarious.

You can give guys like him all the proof in the world and if it don't fit his ideas, then nothing in the world will ever change his mind. Yet all it takes is one wacko in a barn as long as it's the same idea he belives in then it's all the proof he needs.

[Angus]

Originally posted by crockett
The cooling is due to so much of the ice caps melting. The ice cools the water which cools the climate because of the circulating water. The real question comes in after there is no more ice or not enough ice left to continue or stabilize the warming.

By that time we will either be at the no stop point for global warming as there wont be any ice left.. or all the melted ice will effect the oceans currents and possibly cause an ice age.

Guess we get to wait to see which happens, one thing is for sure the ice is mealting and it's going to cause drastic changes.

Not so much Crockett.
It should cool the water, but it is still warming up. On both polare areas!
Arctic sea has been warming, and now data from the south shows one deg celcius warming in a short span of time. From 1 to 2 as mentioned earlier in this thread.
That's plain scary if you think of it! But now, a somewhat more normal winter (People are quick to forget) is causing an outcry, lol.
Fish memory

[crockett]

Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it..  are you saying that there is less ice on the planet every year?  I think the ice pack is growing everywhere except one small area.

Saying that the reason the planet is cooling is because the oceans are warming is not too easy to understand.  

lazs

where did you get that non sense on ice pack growing..

Ever drink a glass of Ice tea lardz? Ever notice that the ice makes it cold?

Now look into how the ocean currents work on how cold water from the poles circulates around the ocean like a big conveyor belt. Now add in more ice than normal and it's simple the water is cooler which effects the planet's temperature on a global scale.

Back to the glass of ice tea.. Once the ice melts, there is nothing left to cool the tea, the tea will then get warm. The same thing will happen to our oceans, once the ice is no longer there to cool it and be the engine for the conveyor belt.

Well, when that happens, it's going to change the oceans currents on a global scale. The reason we have ocean currents is because the cold water at the poles sinks while the warm water from the tropics and else where rises. This causes a giant conveyor belt effect that circulates throughout all of the worlds oceans.

Once the ice is gone at the poles there will be no more cold water. No one really knows what will happen as a result of this. (other than a lot of flooding of course)

Some theories say it will cause the Earth to keep warming, some say it may trigger a global ice age. Either way the change will be drastic if we lose the ice at the poles and places like greenland.

[crockett]

Originally posted by Angus
Not so much Crockett.
It should cool the water, but it is still warming up. On both polare areas!
Arctic sea has been warming, and now data from the south shows one deg celcius warming in a short span of time. From 1 to 2 as mentioned earlier in this thread.
That's plain scary if you think of it! But now, a somewhat more normal winter (People are quick to forget) is causing an outcry, lol.
Fish memory

no I'm just saying that's likely the reason for the slight global cooling over the last year.

[Jackal1]

Well..........since the workings of the environment, climate and atmosphere has been explained with the Iced Tea theory, it all becomes clear.
Great googly woogly, where do they come from?

[lazs2]

curval.. I think that you read what you wanted to read in the "debunking"  the numbers I gave are exact.   you might look at this latest study too..

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

but.. you can read the original text of the other study I cited here...

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_majority_of_scientists_do_not_support_man_made_warming.htm

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."

You can take what you want from this of course but the fact remains that just about no one is publishing papers these days that claim man made global warming is significant much less enough to cause any catastrophe.

fact is... more and more are falling off the tit.

lazs

[lazs2]

wow croc-it...  ice tea theory asside... if the melting ice is making the planet colder then how does the ocean remain warmer than before?  

the fact is that there is more total ice on the planet than before.. most of the ice is in the south pole.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1727

lazs

[Angus]

Well, those who cannot understand the function of an icecube into tea should maybe just stick at reading this thread...Jacka1
Anyway Crockett:
"where did you get that non sense on ice pack growing..  

Ever drink a glass of Ice tea lardz? Ever notice that the ice makes it cold? "

The packs measure out shrinking from the finests volume measurements and calculations. Period. The only twist from this are some points, especially in Antarctica, but even there, the pack is declining. And the Sl is rising, accordingly. It will be slow in the beginning, for water has a special trend with 4 degs celcius, which is more than the polar sea temps....I am sure it will do you good to look it up
In the North it is quite evident, no debate I'm afraid.
What I was pointing out was that although the ice is melting, the seawater surrounding it is NOT cooling. It is not certain what is happening, but the cooler and warmer sea has a "weather" system on it's own, slow, but really heavy. Some recent fluctuations in ocean currents, notably the Gulf-stream would perhaps be related to this? Or is the heating simply enough to overcome this, - and THEN you have something to think about.
For the Ice that is disappearing should do 2 things.
1. cool the seawater surrounding it for a short while.
2. expose more seawater to the SUN (stupid), which absorbs a lot more solar energy than Ice, which has the tendency to bounce it into space again.
So, while #1 seems a bit under the weather, #2 stands firm. Bad bad

Equally bad, BTW, (Lazs will like this) a fast growing Ice sheet encourages cooling, - for the same reason....the SUNNNN!

[lazs2]

wow...  "it is not certain what is happening"   yet...  you blame co2 and man?  "the ocean seems to have a weather system of it's own"  yet you blame man and co2?

no wonder so many every day are falling out of step with  the man made global warming religious parade.

The whole idea behind man made global warming was that since they couldn't understand the climate and what made if work... since it didn't act like the limited expertise they had said it should....

That therefore.. it had to be man.. nothing else could explain it.   course.. the only thing we could be doing was co2 so it had to be that right?

wrong.. the math doesn't add up sooooo.. they simply say that it must be co2 but it is acting in a way that they don't understand.

They don't understand water vapor which is 75% of all greenhouse gas effect and is not affected by man... they don't understand how the sun works and very little about suns activity.

The more they do.. the less man made the whole thing seems yet... they waste all their time chasing the co2 boogeyman..

and many are dumb enough to listen and not question.  

Their big problem is that they figured the lie would work if they put it off 50 or 100 years into the future...

The planet cooling is a nasty betrayal for them....

I could say that it is cooling at an alarming rate.. that at this rate... if we don't add ten times the co2.. we will be 30 degrees cooler by 2100

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, those who cannot understand the function of an icecube into tea should maybe just stick at reading this thread...Jacka1

Well I have to admit the Ice Tea theory makes about as much sense as the theories, BS, miscalculations, changes, rechanging, backpedaling, etc. of the Global War......errr climate change for lunch bunch. That being none in the scheme of things.

[MORAY37]

DEBUNK #1.

REALCLIMATE.org

"All of the models, and the observations, have the central parts of Greenland and Antarctica growing faster because of global warming. This is a consequence of warmer air holding more moisture, thus increasing snowfall. But the net effect of warming on both continental ice sheets is mass loss, the increased melting being a larger effect than the increased snowfall.

DEBUNK #2.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:  

 the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;

the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels

if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and

a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

[MORAY37]

Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.

Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.


Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions.

 


For story: 'It's the sun, stupid'


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

[gunnss]

Just saw this on another fourm....
Have fun.
Interesting things happen when you solve a differential equation and use invalid boundary conditions.

You get the runaway greenhouse effect so loved by by Big Government.

Put the right values in, and the problem goes way. Poof.

***********

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published
<http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=
references&mpx=0&kps=1&pri=2>

in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.


Rgeards,
Kevin

[lazs2]

Even some guys in there that are morays superiors.. guys who have ten times his experience.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

"Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version ) 

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.  Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”  A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.”  Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years."  Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said. "

lazs