Forum Index » Chaff » The Carbon Flame War


Display Avatars Sort By:
David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters on 02/27/2012 15:15:59 MST Print View

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17143269

The progressive shrinking of Arctic sea ice is bringing colder, snowier winters to the UK and other areas of Europe, North America and China, a study shows.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters on 02/28/2012 12:31:21 MST Print View

first we were going to get colder. now we are gettin warmer...EXCEPT - maybe temporarily - the global warming is gonig to make it colder...


And you wonder why people question...

Sean Staplin
(mtnrat) - MLife

Locale: Southern Cdn Rockies
warming causing cold. on 02/28/2012 13:08:59 MST Print View

Yea, but we are getting colder because we are getting warmer and we are having fewer tropical cyclones because it is getting warmer and more storms are created when it is warmer, except when its getting colder caused by warming.
I see exactly what you mean. Clear and concise. lol

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters on 02/28/2012 13:22:37 MST Print View

Assuming you're really questioning global warming, Michael:

Climate is complicated, that's why global climate change is a better description

(also covers your a.. if you're wrong, you skeptics will claim : )

What I like is that if it's warmer, then more water will be evaporated from the ocean, so there'll be more precipitation, and if you're at a cold latitude, it will be snow, so global warming will produce more snow

And the latitudes where it's wet and dry will change - maybe the Southwest U.S. will become drier, but the tropics or further North will get wetter

We are living an out of control science experiment

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Re: Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters on 02/28/2012 13:26:30 MST Print View

I'm questioning the truth...or the changing claims of the truth. I'm of the group that thinks we should hold off on making sweeping and broad policy changes until we can better understand what is going on.

In the meantime we can cut back on mercury pollution, etc. :)

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters on 02/28/2012 13:34:59 MST Print View

It's amazing to me how so many people believe everything scientist say about global warming/climate change. In all honesty I don't think anybody really has a clue. For goodness sakes this same group of scientist can't accurately predict the weather for this weekend. I mean really. I'm planning a hiking trip this weekend. I monitor the weather at the NWS, weather channel and accuweather. They all have a somewhat different forecast and it changes every single day. If we can't accurately predict weather for the weekend how in the world can we predict climate change and what impacts it.

Brad Fisher

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Melting Arctic link to cold, snowy UK winters on 02/28/2012 13:49:54 MST Print View

"I'm of the group that thinks we should hold off on making sweeping and broad policy changes until we can better understand what is going on."

We should at least make changes that are easy and will solve other problems

We're running out of fossil fuels. What we currently use is progressively more difficult to extract and is dirtier.

When we buy oil from the Middle East, they give a little of our money to terrorists that attack us. And we're supporting dictatorships that are awful to their own people, which p...es them off so they attack us. And it costs a lot of military expenses.

Fossil fuels also poison us with Sulfur, Mercury, Nitrogen,...

Another thing is we know how to put CO2 into the atmosphere, but we don't know how to get it back out. And there is a time delay from putting CO2 into the atmosphere to seeing what the effect is, so when it becomes clear CO2 is a major problem, there will be a lot of global warming "in the pipeline" so it will get a lot worse before the full effect is felt even if we quit putting new CO2 into the atmosphere.

We can make cars more efficient and drive less without ruining our quality of life. Houses and buildings can be more efficient. More efficient lighting is just as cheap when you factor in the cost of electricity and replacement.

Some alternate energy (windmills) are just as cheap today, but we have to solve the problem or providing power all the time. We should be working on this now because it will take a while to produce a total solution.

If we eliminated the subsidies and tax loopholes for fossil fuel then the alternatives would be more cost effective.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall on 02/28/2012 20:34:20 MST Print View

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109

"While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters. "

Edited by oware on 02/28/2012 20:56:26 MST.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
TEEPEE on 02/29/2012 11:13:18 MST Print View

Paul Larson, I like your Avatar. Here's an image to go with the debate;

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Also, there are plenty of articles like these to show things are not cooling off as some contend. One of the principle debators here continually claims the oceans are no longer heating and that we are in a cooling trend. Whether warming is natural or AGW, THAT person appears to be wrong;

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336669/title/Arctic_has_taken_a_turn_for_the_warmer

Edited by wildlife on 02/29/2012 11:26:59 MST.

Sean Staplin
(mtnrat) - MLife

Locale: Southern Cdn Rockies
Skeptics bah humbug on 03/01/2012 22:39:13 MST Print View

Not written by me:

Climate Science and Special Relativity

One cannot help but notice the events of the past few weeks (nay months if you include Climategate II), and the ad hominem attacks on both sides.

Fred Singer in his recent post here would have us place Climate Science advocates into three groups; deniers, sceptics and warmistas – but why the need for demarcation?

Way back in 1879, it may not have been evident to Pauline and Hermann that their new-born son would progress through his teenage years as a school drop-out – using a forged Doctor’s note to do so. Although later in life at the age of 16 he did enroll in a Polytechnic – but again failed in just about every subject.

At 17, he and his sweetheart enrolled again at the Polytechnic, stimulating the interest he held about electromagnetism

Married, divorced, married again, he couldn’t even get a job teaching, so ended up working as a clerk in the local Patent Office reviewing patent applications pertaining to electromagnetism. But boredom led to many thoughtful reflections on life, the universe and everything.

In 1905, by thesis, he obtained a Doctorate, and that same year published not one, but 4 ground-breaking papers.


His name of course is Albert Einstein – the amateur who proclaimed to the world the nature of matter, energy and relativity.



OK, so what has this little biography got to do with Climate Science – well I say it should teach us 2 things:

Firstly, an amateur working as a clerk is just as able to present the truth as the most gifted professional. The truth is the truth no matter who presents it. The unwillingness of many main-stream “Climate Scientists” to engage with alternate viewpoints sets them apart from “Science”. To many the science is not settled, and needs a full open and honest public debate.

Of course building on Einstein’s work, a humble Belgian priest Le Maitre (another gifted amateur) proposed a theory now well established regarding an expanding universe. I well remember a revered astronomer from my old school in Yorkshire, England – a certain Fred Hoyle who unwittingly creating a phrase bandied about to this day – in an attempt he states never meant to mock relativity and/or expansionism – he jokingly referred to a “big bang”. That particular phrase seems to have stuck with us somehow.

More recently, over on the Swiss border, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produced some unexpected results when Neutrinos were observed to be apparently travelling faster than light – something Special Relativity states is impossible.

Although I saw some rejection of this notion in various Fora, I saw no ad hominem attacks – simply a startled disbelief and a raging curiosity – could we be wrong after all these years? Do we have to rewrite the physics?

As we now know, a computer cabling glitch has been blamed for the neutrinos apparent haste – but hey – for a moment there it looked real cool – most physicists I know were both incredulous and incredibly excited at one and the same time.

So, my second point – true scientists – in this case physicists – are willing to be sceptical. They are willing – nay eager – to look at new possibilities and alternate explanations.

Compare that to the theatre that is “Climate Science”

Edited by mtnrat on 03/01/2012 22:50:46 MST.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Ocean Acidification to Hit 300-Million-Year Max on 03/02/2012 11:35:00 MST Print View

"A new paper in Science examines the geologic record for context relating to ocean acidification, a lowering of the pH driven by the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The research group (twenty-one scientists from nearly as many different universities) reviewed the evidence from past known or suspected intervals of ocean acidification. The work provides perspective on the current trend as well as the potential consequences. They find that the current rate of ocean acidification puts us on a track that, if continued, would likely be unprecedented in last 300 million years."

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ocean-acidification-peak/

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
just lookin around on 03/03/2012 15:11:55 MST Print View

I found this today that was written after LAST years tornado outbreak. It was written by Dr. Roy Spencer (we all know who that is);

"If there is one weather phenomenon global warming theory does NOT predict more of, it would be severe thunderstorms and tornadoes."

That came from his blog;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/more-tornadoes-from-global-warming-thats-a-joke-right/

With just a little bit of looking it is easy to find articles like this from 4 years before even;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071204121949.htm in which it says,

"Global Warming Likely To Increase Stormy Weather, Especially In Certain US Locations"

So I'm wondering is Dr. Roy Spencer just trying to misinform? He probably also was unaware that Dr. James Hansen wrote a book just a year before called The Storms of my Grandchildren. Both of these men worked or work at NASA. How could somebody like Spencer be so unaware and out of it? That alone says a lot about his 'research'.

Spencer probably forgot about this puppy;

http://www.universetoday.com/76724/most-intense-storm-in-history-cuts-across-the-us-as-seen-from-space/

Edited by wildlife on 03/03/2012 15:36:57 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
look a bit further on 03/07/2012 05:55:07 MST Print View

"Global Warming Likely To Increase Stormy Weather, Especially In Certain US Locations"


Not according to published papers detailed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/19/ryan-maues-paper-in-grl-in-agus-weekly-highlight/

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
look a bit further than a little bit further on 03/07/2012 07:18:05 MST Print View

According to the Herald Tribune (whatever that is) http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110812/article/110819861

"Scientist Ryan Maue documented the shift in a study published last month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and explained the weather trends responsible. He stopped short of linking the change to global warming because the 40-year data set is too short and the effect of a warmer planet on hurricanes is indiscernible now, compared to other influences."

His paper is not about whether global warming is causing more hurricanes

It's about the natural cycles in number of hurricanes

You "skeptics" glom onto any data that happens to show a short term trend that's consistent with your argument

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: look a bit further than a little bit further on 03/07/2012 10:34:31 MST Print View

"His paper is not about whether global warming is causing more hurricanes"

It's partly about whether we'd be able to tell, even if it did/was. Natural variation swamps the alleged signal, and Dan's 'glomming' onto the recent storm just demonstrates the naivety of the gullible.

The fact is, the (inaccurately measured) global warming of around 0.4C which took place in the latter half of the C20th represents a change in Earth's surface temperature of approx 0.14%

Does anyone have a coherent theory explaning how a 0.14% change in temperature can cause more/bigger extreme weather events? Not so far as I know. Feel free to point to one.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: look a bit further than a little bit further on 03/07/2012 12:41:55 MST Print View

I think the global warming warners are saying global warming is likely to cause more/bigger storms

Not enough warming yet to see anything with certainty

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: look a bit further than a little bit further on 03/07/2012 13:11:49 MST Print View

"You "skeptics" glom onto any data that happens to show a short term trend that's consistent with your argument"

Hmm, a bit like using satellite era data from 1979 to argue arctic ice is in a 'death spiral'? (Mark Serreze NSIDC)

Or using co2 and temperature data from 1950 to claim a co2 driven global warming scenario?? (even though changes in co2 lag behind changes in temperature at all timescales).

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
A better paradigm for understanding climate change in a nutshell on 03/08/2012 03:15:46 MST Print View

The co2 driven climate hypothesis insists that a slight change in air temperature can rapidly (over a few decades) change the bulk temperature of the ocean. The ocean is much more massive than the atmosphere and water has a far higher heat capacity than air. A brief visit to the tables engineers use to look up relative heat capacities would have saved us all a lot of time and money. Or they could have used the simple observation that near surface marine air temperatures lag sea surface temperatures by several months.

The bulk ocean temperature drives the air temperature, not the other way round. The tail does not wag the dog.

Furthermore, it is evident that changes in overall cloud amount reflect changes in solar activity, and amplify the effect of those changes, as shown by Nir Shaviv’s JGR paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter.
Whether or not the causal mechanism is along the lines proposed by Svensmark or Wilde doesn’t matter too much right now. What does matter is that the observed reality is attended to.

It seems more likely that the ocean can’t cool as quickly as the sun heats it unless its average bulk temperature rises to around 275K (2C), thus enabling its surface to evaporate, convect and radiate at a rate which enables it to be in equilibrium with the surface insolation. therefore any warming effect of greenhouse gases becomes moot, because their primary role must be to cool the planet, not warm it.

At this stage it becomes obvious that the C20th warming was a result of less cloud and a more active sun, as evidenced by the much closer correlation between sunshine hours and surface temperature, than that between co2 levels and temperature.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
EPA's household emisions calculator on 03/08/2012 07:34:38 MST Print View

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html

"You can use the following online calculator to get a rough “ballpark” estimate of your personal or family’s greenhouse gas emissions and explore the impact of taking various actions to reduce your emissions."

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: A better paradigm for understanding climate change in a nutshell on 03/08/2012 08:10:25 MST Print View

The March 2012 Scientific American interviewed Michael E. Mann, a leading climate scientist. About the absurdity of "climate gate" and deniers in general.

He started out being skeptical of global warming, but he became a proponent after studying it. (There's hope for you Rog).

He coined the term "Atlantic multidecadal oscillation” [AMO]. "They (deniers) love to argue that it’s responsible for just about everything, when, in fact, the reality is far more nuanced. These oscillations do appear to exist, but they can’t explain climate change."

A republican congressman tried to get him fired for his emails in "climate gate". He was accused of trying to hide temperature declines in the early 2000s. Funny thing is, the email that was quoted was from 1999 before the decline, and they took
two different parts of an e-mail and merged them together to construct something he didn't say.

His conclusion:

"We acted later than we should have with tobacco. We acted later than we should have with ozone depletion and the banning of chlorofluorocarbons. We presumably suffered far greater damage and loss of life because we delayed action. But we did take action."