Top 10 global warming predictions

[Angus]

Moray:
"I do agree with your point about CO2 not being a major contributor though.  What high levels of CO2 allow for though, is just enough warming to get methane clathrate (hydrates) released from permafrost and deep ocean reservoirs.  If CO2 was the major problem, we'd already be too late, since levels are higher than they have been in millenia.  Methane release starts once temperatures get past the freezing point in a given location, although it can remain stable up to 18 degrees C if the pressure is high enough (deep undersea).  CH4 is a much more efficient greenhouse gas, as I'm sure you know.  "

Now, this is the creepy part, and the main issue to the "doomsday" theory, - when methane goes wild, and eventually surface water goes boiling...you're in hell.
But when that methane was tied down, from the air, how did that happen? Is it the Gaia theory at work, - the earth stabilizing back from the wildest of meneuvers before going "Venus"?
Anyway, while it's at the "wild ride", I'd rather not be there, and doubt civilization would survive.

[Simaril]

Hard to know what's true when the science gets so tied up in the politics of BOTH sides. Everybody applies their spin so much that you can't help but feel dizzy.


What's most concerning to me is the indisputable fact that our climate has warmed substantially in the last 150 years. Simply looking at photos of glaciers (like those on glacier national park) can show that the overall average temperature must be increasing. And consider the large changes already noted in Antarctic ice shelves, the decreasing ice mass near the north pole, and the fact that some low lying islands are losing surface area, the fact that the Great Lakes no longer overfreeze (which ironically LOWERS their water level through winter evaporation)...Not sure how else to interpret those measures of LONG TERM temperature change.

I suppose reasonable people (if any such beast inhabits the O club) might disagree about the causes, but even IF the process is entirely natural it seems to me that man made greenhouse gas production could only make things worse.

Unfortunately both sides of the discussion tend to go to extremes and absolutes, when it seems to me that we should approach the situation in terms of balancing the cost of reduction against the benefits to be gained.

[Angus]

Now that was a very good input!

[A8TOOL]

Mar's temp rose 1 degree. If we drive less and clean up our act a bit more maybe Mar's temperature will return to normal.

I'm only 1 percent sure the sun had anything to do with it.

[Chalenge]

Moray:

  Its not that I think I am smarter then you as clearly you have a great mind but it is a fact that I have seen both sides of this coin now (being old and gray does have some merits). I have seen scientists say that carbon dioxide is essential to life in and on the earth and that emissions from automobiles are not a bad thing as long as it is carbon dioxide and water. That line has changed in just the last five years. I can actually point to the beginning of this trend as one commentator on a BBC program on nature many years ago. Scientists at that time were saying it was dangerous to let him continue and yet the BBC kept him and his notions andthe trend built until today 'climate change' has become not only political but religious.
  The indisputable fact that a single volcanic eruption has and will again expel many more times the carbon dioxide than man could ever emit from his engines and devices is lost upon the cult of politics and religion of today. The Earth has in fact been destroyed before (if you consider mass extinction a destruction) and man was not present. At the time of the mass extinction I am referring to the first system to recover was the sea and it was nearly immediate and so you must be wrong in your conjectures.
  All that aside I want to point out something to you. When you enter into discussions (and by 'you' I mean YOU) there is a most decided tendency for you to attack and berate and badger anyone that has an opposing viewpoint (I think widewing said the same of you). Even though your wisdom and intellect shine forth when you resort to the methods you have used it takes away a great deal from your argument strength.
  And despite having valid points on the processes in seawater... this time you are on the wrong side. Global warming is a political ploy and a position of bad-science/religion. Whenever someone brings up global warming I think of the guys in the Ape movie with the cataracts protecting the nuke. Misguided comes to mind too.

[Angus]

"Global warming is a political ploy and a position of bad-science/religion."

That's what YOU say....
Must work well enough to affect nature. A well made ploy...

[MORAY37]

Hope everyone had a great holiday and spent it with family and friends.

Chalenge, you are probably right about some things about me.  I do tend to charge instead of sit there and scrape my feet.  My apologies if I offend.  The problem being, I severely dislike opinions being brought into science.  I know good science that has been ruined by opinion.  I did not use opinions to state my case.  I used science.  Your "opinion" that global warming is a ploy does not reflect out into the scientific realm.  The truth is what is there, and climate is undeniably shifting. 

The sun is currently "stuck" in a minimum, between solar cycles, and this is adding to the problem by masking some effects in global temperature.  Below is a picture of the sun (TODAY), and the clean optical disk (no sunspots) that has been there for months now.  And yet, even at low output, there are still climate issues around the globe.


But, maybe we'll get lucky and the sun will stay at this low activity for a long time.  We entered solar cycle 24 a few months ago, and have only had 8 sunspots since.  This indicates the 11 year cycle is kind of in a "holding pattern", and the solar output is way down (solar wind is below 300 km/s-1)  There is a little talk that we could be entering into another long term "minimum".  I don't subscribe to that, due to the slight slight uptick of sunspot (ie solar) activity towards the end of the graph below.



Honestly, and you can quote me, I'm waiting to see what the outliers are, climatologically speaking, when we get into 2011-2012.  Scientifically, that should be when the sun is at historical norms as far as output.  If we see huge variations in climate versus the historical average, we'll know we have serious issues coming.  I'm not a "sky is falling" kind of guy...I didn't buy into the hype in the early days.  Scientifically, the principle on climate change that has been put forth is sound.  CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, and is generally short lived <50 years in the atmosphere, but it does initiate feedback loops that make things happen.  Specifically, CH4 and water vapor increases in the lower and middle atmosphere.

Our current orbital mechanics are such that there aren't natural reasons that we should be in a shift.  As far as warming on Mars  (Tool), please see this article on the simple reason. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html  You remember how darker clothes get warmer?  It works everywhere, it turns out.

[A8TOOL]

  As far as warming on Mars  (Tool), please see this article on the simple reason. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html  You remember how darker clothes get warmer?  It works everywhere, it turns out.

"The study also predicted that Mars will continue to warm, due in part to a cycle caused by the planet's darkening surface." BUt does not say what the other part or parts are.

I don't know how long it takes for the effects of a sun flare to reach earth but I do know it can change our normal weather patterns. There are just to many unknown and known factors to consider when predicting the effects of any type of natural occurrence. We can hardly make accurate weather predictions and look at all the knowledge and tools we have.

There will always be arguments when in comes to natures science. Most of what you hear are just opinions backed up by his or her's selected authoritative persons  best educated guess on that particular subject of lifetime focus.....kind of like the weatherman. One channel says one thing and another says something similar but neither are exact and many times wrong... until it's actually happening.

I prefer to just let nature be , realize that I do have an impact on my own environment and use my best judgment to contribute less to any damaging affect.

 Worrying about something I have little to no control over will just upset my friends and stomach for absolutely nothing     I'll long be dead before something truly bad happens to this planet or try to avoid/accept death with the rest of you if it comes sooner.

                      Mother natures an unstoppable Biatch

[MORAY37]

"The study also predicted that Mars will continue to warm, due in part to a cycle caused by the planet's darkening surface." BUt does not say what the other part or parts are.

I don't know how long it takes for the effects of a sun flare to reach earth but I do know it can change our normal weather patterns. There are just to many unknown and known factors to consider when predicting the effects of any type of natural occurrence. We can hardly make accurate weather predictions and look at all the knowledge and tools we have.

There will always be arguments when in comes to natures science. Most of what you hear are just opinions backed up by his or her's selected authoritative persons  best educated guess on that particular subject of lifetime focus.....kind of like the weatherman. One channel says one thing and another says something similar but neither are exact and many times wrong... until it's actually happening.

I prefer to just let nature be , realize that I do have an impact on my own environment and use my best judgment to contribute less to any damaging affect.

 Worrying about something I have little to no control over will just upset my friends and stomach for absolutely nothing     I'll long be dead before something truly bad happens to this planet or try to avoid/accept death with the rest of you if it comes sooner.

                      Mother natures an unstoppable Biatch

I would also wish to point out that direct observational data from Mars is non-existent.  It has not been directly verified that there has been any warming on that planet, all measurements are of infrared and other source base.  It's tough enough with good observational data on the planet (Earth) we inhabit to get a handle on causality.  On a planet (Mars)  we've only had a handful of direct observations for the past 30 years.... a little more challenging.  Those that point out warming within the solar system measured by indirect methodology as being indicative of purely solar forcing..... yet contend the analytical data on this planet is too rough to make an astute observational theorem, are true marvels of inept thought.  Of course, that does not make them wrong, only inept.

Also, Widewing....
I honestly do not feel comfortable in making my real life identity known on this particular BBS.  Review of my published work will not give answers to your confrontational discourse.  My work deals primarily with coastal impacts of water chemistry, especially with invertebrates (Cnidaria).  I am a co-author on some of those papers I cited.  I work in Florida, currently.  I hold a master's and I'm currently scheduled to present my doctoral thesis in April.  I apologize if I've been confrontational to you.  I don't, looking back in pages, see where I have.  Perhaps maybe you just want to stick up for Chalenge, or feel he needed your assistance. Whatever your reason, it is misguided.  I have previously thought of your posts as intelligent and considered....perhaps that last one was simply an aberration. 

[Angus]

So you would know your stuff about...saturation

[wrag]

This may add to it!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

[wrag]

OOOPS and here is more.....

http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Politics-Examiner~y2008m12d22-Cracks-in-the-global-warming-consensus

[Angus]

Only 650? I thought they were...more. 

[bozon]

...
Scientifically, the principle on climate change that has been put forth is sound. 
...

And here is the source of the problem - science and "climate change". The climate always changes, that is true and sound. Beyond that is where science becomes fuzzy. It is NOT well established that there is global warming, that is why the term was replaced by climate change, which could mean anything. There are endless things that are disputed in the "evidence" for abnormal climate, I have no wish to get into that.

The worst part is the immediate following assumption that if something has indeed changed, SOMEONE is to blame for it. This is the door through which politicians, world views, personal interests and panic mongers creep through. This is where the real damage is being done. OK, lets say we do get to the conclusion that the climate is "changing" from empirical data. We still don't know the cause and it is very likely that it is not us to blame for it. Now we have the option of blowing billions of dollar, time and other resources, trying to prevent this from happening - which may turn out to be just as effective as sacrificing a goat, or we can spend them on trying to figure out how to deal with it.

Can't we just sacrifice a goat and move on to the serious stuff? By the time humanity has reduced the CO2 emission to what we think is "low enough" (a random goal that will be pulled out of our oscar), we will discover that we kept the larger fraction of humanity as under developed countries, that we poisoned ourselves with other kinds of real pollution and inspite of all our dead goats and efforts, the weather kept doing his own thing - whatever that may be.
 

[321BAR]

Totally to blame...oh hell no.
But to ignore that we have an influence at all, well that's the other end.
We do have a La Nina effect (actually spiced with a nice Volcanic eruption/S emission) which should form some cooling, and that was predicted, - not exactly guessed.
The big question was about the sea ice, but it didn't get to the all low minimum. Just close....
Anyway, that's good news.

ummm yeah, New England is setting record lows and record highs tempwise every summer and winter for a few of the past 5 years.