Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 262597 reads   2 posts
  • Wed, Dec 17, 2008 - 10:15am

    #31

    gyrogearloose

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 396

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

[quote=Doug]
The truth is that your posts were confused that it wasn’t clear to me what point you were trying to make
[/quote]

 

The point I was trying to make was that you posted a lot of links without reading them objectively yourself.

[quote=gyrogearloose]

Does this mean you want me to read through massive a screed of sites and select for objective articles that support your position ?

Well I think I will look for ones that you cite that lack objectivity………..
[/quote]

In a sort of summary of my post :-
The part of the webpage I selected to examine for objectivity claimed to prove part of " the great global warming swindle" wrong, but it cited another article which actually agreed with the "great global warming swindle" over the point in question.

I suggest that someone cites an article without bothering to check that it supports their position, and yet claim it does, you can hardly be considered to be objective. ( or logical )

 

[quote=Doug]

Assuming it was the point made by Hewittr about too little CO2 in the atmosphere, but that you took credit for, the following is pretty much the state of the science:

[/quote]

If you are talking about the bit I think you are.

I was most certainly not taking credit. I was pointing out that the claim made by Hewittr, without any supporting citations of "Co2 97% natural, 3% man made "
With a bit of math based on stated assumptions, arrived at the conclusion "Without contrary data or analysis the claim of 97% natural 3% man made looks like it has been disproved"


The problem I have with the AGW dabate is that so many of the links posted are good examples of a poor understanding of science or bad logic…….

CheersHamish

  • Wed, Dec 17, 2008 - 03:31pm

    #32
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1387

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

gearloose

[quote]The problem I have with the AGW dabate is that so many of the links posted are good examples of a poor understanding of science or bad logic……. [/quote]

I find precisely the opposite.  Most links I see posted by denialists lead to some right wing or denialist blog, rather than to peer reviewed scientific findings.  The last cite I made above is to actual peer reviewed scientific findings with cites to other studies.

  • Wed, Dec 17, 2008 - 06:41pm

    #33
    Nogbad

    Nogbad

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 16 2008

    Posts: 8

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

[quote=Doug]

I find precisely the opposite.  Most links I see posted by denialists lead to some right wing or denialist blog, rather than to peer reviewed scientific findings.  [/quote]

 Your use of the word "denialist" shows me only that you have FAITH in the AGW hypothesis. Like any religious faith this is belief without proof. I cannot disprove the AGW hypothesis, which in many ways is plausible. Equally there are some rather significant unknowns; so it is perfectly rational for me to be open minded, and to hold the view that the evidence is insufficient to ruin the economy in the pursuit of the so called "precautionary principle".

Good god man; if you really believe in the precautionary principle, maybe you better not descend the stairs for breakfast lest you slip and break your neck.

  • Wed, Dec 17, 2008 - 10:04pm

    #34
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1387

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

[quote=Nogbad]

 Your use of the word "denialist" shows me only that you have FAITH in the AGW hypothesis.[/quote]

You couldn’t be more wrong.  My use of the word "denialist" is quite deliberate.  After untold numbers of hours reading the research and discussing with many folks, including denialists and skeptics, I have reached the conclusion that to absolutely deny the possibility that global warming (even the denialists have to admit the climate is warming) may be influenced by man’s activities is quite literally being in denial.  Those who have doubts are skeptics.

[quote] Like any religious faith this is belief without proof.[/quote]

You adopt one of the denialists’ talking points.  I have found, parenthetically, that those who accuse we who accept the science of AGW of being religious, frequently claim to be very religious themselves.  It’s a curious irony.

[quote]I cannot disprove the AGW hypothesis, which in many ways is plausible.[/quote]

Good, you are open minded. 

[quote]Equally there are some rather significant unknowns; so it is perfectly rational for me to be open minded, and to hold the view that the evidence is insufficient to ruin the economy in the pursuit of the so called "precautionary principle".[/quote]

You make an intellectual leap between acknowledging some unknowns (in what field of science aren’t there unknowns?) and ruining the economy.  There is a very real possibility that we have passed some kind of tipping point, but that isn’t a certainty.  My position is that we should be doing what is necessary anyway to deal with peak oil.  Develop alternative energy sources and conservation technologies as quickly as possible.  If we are past a tipping point, its too late anyway, and if we aren’t, then we have the possibility of preventing it.  But, and this is a big one, doing little or nothing at this point is close to suicidal, given the rate at which carbon based energy sources are being built in the developing world.  At any given moment there are 600 coal fired power plants being built in China alone.

[quote]Good god man; if you really believe in the precautionary principle, maybe you better not descend the stairs for breakfast lest you slip and break your neck. [/quote]

This is condescending and unworthy of a reasonable discussion.

  • Thu, Dec 18, 2008 - 05:34am

    #35

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Data from the Ulysses spacecraft, a joint NASA-European Space Agency mission, show the sun has reduced its output of solar wind to the lowest levels since accurate readings became available. The sun’s current state could reduce the natural shielding that envelops our solar system. 

"The sun’s million mile-per-hour solar wind inflates a protective bubble, or heliosphere, around the solar system. It influences how things work here on Earth and even out at the boundary of our solar system where it meets the galaxy," said Dave McComas, Ulysses’ solar wind instrument principal investigator and senior executive director at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "Ulysses data indicate the solar wind’s global pressure is the lowest we have seen since the beginning of the space age."

"The sun cycles between periods of great activity and lesser activity," Smith said. "Right now, we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-178

  • Thu, Dec 18, 2008 - 05:53am

    #36

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Over the last few years, the evidence that sunspots on our sun are directly related to climate change on earth has been steadily increasing.I explained the exact proposed mechanism in some detail previously. Great work in this field is being carried out by Dr Henrik Svensmark and coworkers in Denmark and elsewhere.

Briefly, the mechanism is that cosmic rays impact on the earth from deep space. These cosmic rays penetrate our atmosphere and lead to the formation of cloud cover. The cosmic rays nucleate sites in the atmosphere, from which clouds form from the natural water vapour.

If one puts a spoonful of coffee powder into a cup of microwaved water, the water forms bubbles of foam on the coffee grains. This is basically the same principle as the cosmic rays forming clouds in the atmosphere.

The earth’s magnetic field, which acts as a shielding, is altered by the sun’s activity, which, in turn, is indicated by means of the number of sunspots. As the earth’s magnetic shield varies, so the cloud cover varies. Few sunspots mean a weaker earth shield, which means more cosmic rays, which mean more clouds, which mean a cooling earth.

The correlation for this effect, going back thousands of years, is good, remarkably so. Scientifically, this looks believable, and it is consistent with the theory and observation.

In contrast, the argument that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing warming does not fit the facts at all.

Evidence of sunspot involvement in climate change compelling

  • Thu, Dec 18, 2008 - 07:22am

    #37
    stan.chucks

    stan.chucks

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 02 2008

    Posts: 5

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

A couple of thoughts / suggestions on this recurring subject of Global Warming:

1.) A poll of the site’s membership (but only those with a scientific training) – convinced, unconvinced or undecided.

2.) Each side to provide the most important original article(s) which has convinced them of their position.

My own disclosure is:

I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry.

I am undecided leaning to the unconvinced and as such see more value in obtaining further data rather than spending trillions$ on only one of the possible scenarios (warming / cooling).

Stan 

 

  • Thu, Dec 18, 2008 - 01:18pm

    #38

    Nichoman

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2008

    Posts: 140

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

[quote=stan.chucks]

A couple of thoughts / suggestions on this recurring subject of Global Warming:

1.) A poll of the site’s membership (but only those with a scientific training) – convinced, unconvinced or undecided.

2.) Each side to provide the most important original article(s) which has convinced them of their position.

My own disclosure is:

I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry.

I am undecided leaning to the unconvinced and as such see more value in obtaining further data rather than spending trillions$ on only one of the possible scenarios (warming / cooling).

Stan 

 

[/quote]

 

@stan

 

Aaaah…a science person.  Hit the key…the data and asking questions toward merging w/ theory. 

Don’t comment anymore on Climate Change issue here (as in most venues) as too many on both sides not open to discussion or interested in asking correct questions.  See my other posts regarding qualifications and basic thoughts on subject.  Will add this hurts us in my field (and society) greatly.   A small example on how ignorance…dogma…misunderstandings are why our world is in the mess were in?

 

Nichoman (Atmospheric Physicist)

  • Thu, Dec 18, 2008 - 03:41pm

    #39

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Garth Paltridge, then a senior Australian CSIRO researcher, published in 1974 one of the very earliest papers (following Ralph Lorenz in 1960) on what is the burgeoning technical field of Maximum Entropy Production (MEP). The science of MEP, which now generates a substantial amount of mainstream literature every year, is resulting in a thorough review of the science of Earth’s climate and of Global Circulation Models (GCMs).

It is already becoming clear this spells the death knell for a high temperature sensitivity to a CO2 doubling. For example: Kleidon et al. (2006) Maximum entropy production and the strength of boundary layer exchange in an atmospheric general circulation model. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L06706 show that the climate sensitivity to a 10x increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 3.3 K. Noting the usual log-linear relationship this is equivalent to a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of only about 1.0 K. 

In this setup, entropy was produced by radiative transfer (absorption of solar and terrestrial radiation at the surface and in the atmosphere), the turbulent transport of sensible heat in the vertical, and horizontal heat transport by large-scale atmospheric circulation. Due to the exclusion of the water cycle (evapotranspiration, latent heat transport), entropy production associated with the hydrologic cycle [Paulius and Held, 2002a, 2002b] was not considered. Inclusion of the water cycle would mean the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is very likely to be even significantly less than 1 deg. C. I don’t think I have to spell out to you what this implied for even the lower limit to CO2 sensitivity vis-a-vis IPCC AR4 2007.

Yet nowhere in IPCC AR4 2007 will you find a single reference to the now 38 year long MEP-based literature record! This despite a steady groundswell of papers and the publication of an excellent review text edited by Axel Kleidon and Ralph Lorenz in 2005 (Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and the production of Entropy. Life, Earth and Beyond. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg).

As CO2 goes up and tends to increase troposphere temperature, MEP requires that meridional, latitudinal and convective movement must increase. This in turn increases cloudiness (both convective and orographic) and hence rainfall thereby increasing the net amount by which clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet i.e. presently the -13 – -21 W/m^2 which we know acts against the ~4 W/m^2 predicted for a doubling of CO2. 

I would also note that biotic processes are also subject to MEP. Rising CO2 increases continental plant biomass (already observed) and oceanic cyanobacterial primary productivity (earlier this year I posted the clear evidence for that for the Southern Ocean from NOAA’s own data on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog) simply due to CO2 fertilization which increases biogenic aerosol production rate which in turn increases both cloud nucleation rate and cloud-based opacity/albedo. This aspect is the as-yet almost forgotten biotic sibling of abiotic MEP.

Thanks to both abiotic and (soon) biotic MEP we can expect a cloudier, rainier planet rather than a hotter one. 

Atmospheric CO2 may go where it will but I suspect in due course its rate of increase will eventually slow. The same thing will happen to any oceanic pH decline as increased raininess increases continental weathering rates which increases the export of total alkalinity, Fe and Si into the ocean (which in turn tends to CO2-absorbing primary productivity, neutralize CO2-induced acidity and so on).

Given:

* the lack of the IPCC-predicted stratospheric heating; 

* the observed reduction in tropical-polar temperature gradients (underestimated by GCMs); 

* the known 30 year trends in continental potential evaporation (down), cloudiness, rainfall (both up), oceanic wind speeds (up) etc; and 

* the confounding 20 year surface temperature record just before and since the 1998 El Nino (up then down),

I think we can reasonably expect to see a majority of top level climate researchers in the next few years cautiously promulgating a more moderate view of global climate CO2 sensitivity and a more optimistic view on climate homeostasis and so-called ocean acidification. It is already happening at various reputable overseas universities (e.g. MIT, several Max Planck Institutes, Uni. Hamburg etc) and even now is slowly creeping into other institutions, including here in Australia. 

Of course the monstrous egos, the chronically dogmatic, the hopelessly compromised, the committed members of the AGW herd won’t like it but, hey, that’s entropy for you.

 

An email from Steve Short [[email protected]] of Ecoengineers Pty Ltd, http://www.ecoengineers.com. He points out that even a doubling of CO2 could lead to a temperture rise of only one degree 

  • Fri, Dec 19, 2008 - 08:07am

    #40

    stocks321

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 13 2008

    Posts: 20

    count placeholder

    Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

IPCC reports “Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.” Furthermore, they note “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”

A major article on this subject appears in a recent issue of the Journal of Climate by William Chapman and John Walsh of the University of Illinois. The two scientists extensively review the literature on temperature trends in Antarctica and conclude “These studies are essentially unanimous in their finding that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed since the 1950s, when many of the surface stations were established.” They note “Recent summaries of station data show that, aside from the Antarctic Peninsula and the McMurdo area, one is hard-pressed to argue that warming has occurred, even at the Antarctic coastal stations away from the peninsula and McMurdo.” Furthermore, they write “Recent attempts to broaden the spatial coverage of temperature estimates have shown a similar lack of evidence of spatially widespread warming.” We completely agree having covered this subject at World Climate Report many times in the past – there is some warming in Antarctica but it is largely confined to the relatively small peninsula extending away from the bulk of the continent and is largely confined to the winter season (see below – the Antarctic Peninsula extends toward to southern tip of South America).

 

Here is the interesting twist to the story. Notice in the graph of seasonal and annual temperature trends that the coldest years occurred at or near the beginning of the record. Chapman and Walsh find “Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates with starting dates before 1965 producing overall warming and starting dates from 1966 to 1982 producing net cooling rates over the region.”

 

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/05/antarctica-warming-cooling-or-both/ 

Viewing 10 posts - 31 through 40 (of 1,010 total)

Login or Register to post comments