General Climate Discussion

[lazs2]

what does "long term" mean?   seems that nature trumps man yet again.

lazs

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
Weekend holidays.
The pharmacies are closed.

Oh, sorry for you Jacka1. Hold on till monday bro

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Two different things?

 

Then he discusses how one of these large changes, the upper Arctic Ocean circulation, is multi decadal in nature and not necesarily driven by global warming.  This backs up the quoted assertion at the beginning of the article.

The ocean circulation behavior is the point of the article.  That is the single point in his discussion.

Perhaps you should reread the article.

And this time with an open mind.

Well, you're right and you're wrong.  The article deals strictly with the circulation patterns.  It also, as many current papers do, affirms that this multidecadal pattern is not tied concurrently with the ongoing global warming.  The use of this is not to infer the currents are a proof for or against AGW... the author is already giving that GW is a given already.  You both need to re-read the article.

[Airscrew]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_on_sc/un_climate_change

So nobody's gonna make any money off the climate change scam?

Tue Nov 27, 1:30 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS - Helping the world's poor adapt to more floods, droughts and other changes from a warming planet will cost the richest nations at least $86 billion a year by 2015, an expert panel warned Tuesday.

"They must have help from the rich world," said Claes Johnasson, a co-author of the report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program. "Climate is forcing people into human development traps."

Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel's report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters.

The report recommends the biggest share be paid by the United States and other rich nations, based on aid targets and financing calculations by the World Bank and Group of Eight major industrialized nations.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Airscrew
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_on_sc/un_climate_change

So nobody's gonna make any money off the climate change scam?

Tue Nov 27, 1:30 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS - Helping the world's poor adapt to more floods, droughts and other changes from a warming planet will cost the richest nations at least $86 billion a year by 2015, an expert panel warned Tuesday.

"They must have help from the rich world," said Claes Johnasson, a co-author of the report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program. "Climate is forcing people into human development traps."

Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel's report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters.

The report recommends the biggest share be paid by the United States and other rich nations, based on aid targets and financing calculations by the World Bank and Group of Eight major industrialized nations.

I see the spending part. You left out the making part. And the scam part. Is this an action serial?

[Airscrew]

Its cool outside, I thought I would throw another log on the fire..

[john9001]

Originally posted by Airscrew
Its cool outside, I thought I would throw another log on the fire..

oh sure, dump more carbon into the air.

[AKIron]

cheap exploit of thread to showoff grandkids

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Well, you're right and you're wrong.  The article deals strictly with the circulation patterns.  It also, as many current papers do, affirms that this multidecadal pattern is not tied concurrently with the ongoing global warming.  The use of this is not to infer the currents are a proof for or against AGW... the author is already giving that GW is a given already.  You both need to re-read the article.

Okay, where did I offer the quoted article as proof against GW?

After reading the article, I was under the impression that the author was saying, "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

Did I get that quote the article wrong?  I thought my copy and paste skills were better than that.

[Terror]

From:
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature...

In conclusion, if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and D24S03 SCAFETTA AND WEST: SOLAR CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 8 of 10 D24S03 MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 a. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms.

Seems that the Sun has more to do with GW than what the "climate models" have been taking into account...

T.

[lazs2]

ooops...

Oh well... we can always just tax the sun and offer sun credits tho right?

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Terror
From:
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature...



Seems that the Sun has more to do with GW than what the "climate models" have been taking into account...

T.

Yep.. in the same conclusion...

"Therefore our estimates about the solar effect on
climate might be overestimated and should be considered as
an upper limit."

(Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600)

Pick and choose your facts wisely and read the entire article before pasting.

[lazs2]

but it does have some effect.. anywhere from 25% to 75% depending on who you believe and.. it is not as well understood as the solar deniers pretend.

I would say that even at the lower limit.. that is a lot more of an effect than anything we are doing.   Perhaps you think our co2 is having a 25% effect on global climate?  if not.. what are we doing to make this much of a change?

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
but it does have some effect.. anywhere from 25% to 75% depending on who you believe and.. it is not as well understood as the solar deniers pretend.

I would say that even at the lower limit.. that is a lot more of an effect than anything we are doing.   Perhaps you think our co2 is having a 25% effect on global climate?  if not.. what are we doing to make this much of a change?

lazs

Laz... I have seen you flop around like a flounder on the beach for far too long.

Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect?  I read in your sig line that it was pretty much 100%.  That is certainly a wild swing.

Therefore, just by using your own statements..., the minimum effect you believe anthropogenic forcing to have is 25%....(the theoretical difference between having a 100 degree day versus a 75 degree day) so there is no man made climate forcing?  Or there is>?  You seem more confused than the sources you quote.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz... I have seen you flop around like a flounder on the beach for far too long.

Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect?  I read in your sig line that it was pretty much 100%.  That is certainly a wild swing.
 

Originally posted by Lazs
but it does have some effect.. anywhere from 25% to 75% depending on who you believe and.. it is not as well understood as the solar deniers pretend.

Moray my boy,

when Lazs says, "It does have some effect ... depending on who you believe" he is just trying to show that those who believe that the present warming is entirely anthropogenic are incorrect.

There is only 25% swing between 75% and "pretty much 100%" and a 50% swing between his stated 25% and 75%.  That wild swing you point out is probably not statistically significant depending on the data population size, which is either small or unknown at this point.

I would think a scientist such as yourself would be more careful in his data interpretation.