Meanwhile... Is the Globe Cooling?

[dhickey]

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
dhickey wrote:

I wonder what the people in the Maldives think…

Care to expand?

The Maldives is an island nation in the Indian Ocean. The highest land has an elevation of 2.4 meters. The 2004 tsunami actually submerged most of the nation for a few minutes. They have build a sea wall to protect the capitol city. If sea level rises, they have to abandon the nation or build sea walls.

They don’t have the luxury of denying global warming, so they have been paying to build sea walls.[/quote]

I am familiar with Maldives but still fail to see the point. Again, the planet has been warmer and cooler before we inhabited it. It will be warmer and cooler in the future. Is anyone arguing this?

There is no conclusive evidence that man’s actions will modify this reality in any significant way. It would be nice if we could. buying a gas guzzler to retard the next ice age would be convenient.

[dhickey]

[quote]Brayton wrote:

Nice to see a reasonable response that accurately addresses the scenario.

Has anyone else noticed that “global warming” has distracted a lot of us from considering the much more simple and scientifically understood concept of “pollution”. Remember pollution?

When someone defends their massive “carbon footprint” by pointing to the knotty science of global warming, they often forget that burning fuels releases toxins in the air - you know, good old-fashioned pollution. Hang out in Beijing for a while and see what I mean. That shit ain’t good.
[/quote]

Air and water quality are the only two environmental issues that even enter my radar. I would add wetland and forrest conservation, but there are armies of conservationists and kooks taking care of that already.

[Journeyman]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
I am familiar with Maldives but still fail to see the point. Again, the planet has been warmer and cooler before we inhabited it. It will be warmer and cooler in the future. Is anyone arguing this?

There is no conclusive evidence that man’s actions will modify this reality in any significant way. It would be nice if we could. buying a gas guzzler to retard the next ice age would be convenient.[/quote]

The level of CO2 has increased from under 320 PPM in 1960 to over 380 PPM today. If we look at ice cores from Arctic and Antarctic regions, we can see that there hasn’t been more the 300 PPM for in the last 400,000 years. The infrared absorption of CO2 was understood as early as the 1820 by Joseph Fourier.

By the end of the 19th Century, Svante Arrhenius had described the ‘green house effect’. This is all well established science. (See this review http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm by the previously maligned American Institute of Physics.)

A significant increase in CO2 isn’t the end of life on Earth. But if it continues, it could well be the end of many of the world’s coastal cities. The cost of this would be enormous, look at the cost of Katrina, which only affected a few hundred miles of coastline, or the 2004 Tsunami.

There is ample evidence that we are seeing the loss of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. The melting of sea ice does not raise sea level, as explained by others on this thread, but most famously by Archimedes after the original Eureka moment.

It is reasonable to expect, and is being observed, that when the sea ice is lost, that the ice on Antarctica and Greenland will begin sliding into the sea. This will raise sea level, quite plausibly by a meter or more within a 50-100 years. Why is this hard to understand? It is unpleasant to contemplate, but we are not ostriches that hide our heads in the sand.

The atmosphere is complex in its own right, and it is even more complex when we consider it as part of a system that includes oceans and life. There are many processes at play, some acting as negative feedback and some acting as positive feedback to greenhouse gas warming.

For example, there is strong evidence that the air pollution you have observed is resulting in a ‘solar dimming’. (I have noticed that the old ‘sunny 16 rule’ for estimating a correct exposure in photography seems to be 1/4 - 1/2 stop underexposed most of the time, so perhaps this is a low tech way to observe the dimming.)

So, this may be a ‘force for cooling’ that is partially offsetting the greenhouse effect.

So, we are facing what is potentially the most expensive calamity in history. More investigation and action seem like the prudent course.

[Journeyman]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The first thing these stupid climatologists need to understand is that there is no possible way to interpret a meaningful average temperature because there is always a variance.
[/quote]

OH OF COURSE! Scientists have always worked with theory and have never looked at how messy nature can be. They have never experienced any system that involved averages, so they never fully understood the concept of a variance.

Why, I’ll bet that a scientist that came up with a meaningful understanding of variance could become famous! They might even name a function after him. Quick, lets see who can be the first to describe a Gaussian Function to describe a ‘normal’ variance. No wait, Karl Gauss did that 1789.

[dhickey]

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I am familiar with Maldives but still fail to see the point. Again, the planet has been warmer and cooler before we inhabited it. It will be warmer and cooler in the future. Is anyone arguing this?

There is no conclusive evidence that man’s actions will modify this reality in any significant way. It would be nice if we could. buying a gas guzzler to retard the next ice age would be convenient.

The level of CO2 has increased from under 320 PPM in 1960 to over 380 PPM today. If we look at ice cores from Arctic and Antarctic regions, we can see that there hasn’t been more the 300 PPM for in the last 400,000 years. The infrared absorption of CO2 was understood as early as the 1820 by Joseph Fourier.
[/quote]

So? Are you saying man is the reason it is up to 380 now and that it hasn’t been over 380 in the past?

By the end of the 19th Century, Svante Arrhenius had described the ‘green house effect’. This is all well established science. (See this review http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm by the previously maligned American Institute of Physics.)

Who’s debating the greenhouse effect?

A significant increase in CO2 isn’t the end of life on Earth. But if it continues, it could well be the end of many of the world’s coastal cities. The cost of this would be enormous, look at the cost of Katrina, which only affected a few hundred miles of coastline, or the 2004 Tsunami.

Unless your conclusion is that man is responsible for enough added CO2 to bury coast lines, I don’t see the point. CO2 is one GH gas that is partially responsible for the greenhouse effect. We are a small CO2 contributer.

There is ample evidence that we are seeing the loss of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic. The melting of sea ice does not raise sea level, as explained by others on this thread, but most famously by Archimedes after the original Eureka moment.

It is reasonable to expect, and is being observed, that when the sea ice is lost, that the ice on Antarctica and Greenland will begin sliding into the sea. This will raise sea level, quite plausibly by a meter or more within a 50-100 years.

Why is this hard to understand? It is unpleasant to contemplate, but we are not ostriches that hide our heads in the sand.

I hate to do this again, but so what? Have these areas been covered by ice there entire existance? Again, the only question that needs to be asked is are we contributing enough of a partial contributor to the greenhouse effect to cause massive amounts of damage.

If you think the evidence clearly point to this, the next question is a matter of mathmatics. What will the devastion cost. Now compare this to the cost of the regulation or proposed solution.

The atmosphere is complex in its own right, and it is even more complex when we consider it as part of a system that includes oceans and life. There are many processes at play, some acting as negative feedback and some acting as positive feedback to greenhouse gas warming.

For example, there is strong evidence that the air pollution you have observed is resulting in a ‘solar dimming’. (I have noticed that the old ‘sunny 16 rule’ for estimating a correct exposure in photography seems to be 1/4 - 1/2 stop underexposed most of the time, so perhaps this is a low tech way to observe the dimming.)

So, this may be a ‘force for cooling’ that is partially offsetting the greenhouse effect.

Unless you provide a credible model for this, I would say this is a stretch.

So, we are facing what is potentially the most expensive calamity in history. More investigation and action seem like the prudent course.

Yep, more investagation is prudent. Knee-jerk regulation is clearly not prudent.

My only problem with global warming is it’s inclusion in politics. The histeria that still seems to be lingering is not the call for more research, but the assumption that the science is conclusive and that sweeping regulation will save us.

[Journeyman]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Statistically there is more likelihood to have glaciers than not to have them because water can evaporate, freeze and collect faster than it will melt and merge back with the oceans. This is not to say that it is impossible for all the ice in the world to melt completely at once it is just to say that we probably have nothing to worry about.[/quote]

There actually is something that says it is impossible for all the ice in the world to melt at once. It is called energy conservation.

The latent heat of the world’s ice is a huge number.

30 × 106 km3 - volume of Antarctic ice.
2.8 × 106 km3 - volume of Greenland. ( from World Book 1999)

So (32.8 × 106 km3) * ( 10^12 kg/km3) * 2260 kJ/kg
or approx. 74,000 EJ (ExaJoules). In 2005, total worldwide energy consumption was 500 EJ.

Why are you talking about stupid scientists when you don’t understand the basics of energy conservation?

[JamFly]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
My only problem with global warming is it’s inclusion in politics.
[/quote]

The hypocrisy of the elite is beyond parody. After Al Gore had produced his lying propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”, some reporters had the initiative to stake out his palatial residence. They found it pulsating with wasteful energy like a suburban Chernobyl.

His defence? He pays the requisite energy taxes. This agenda is about privilege, as well as corruption and wealth generated by submissive clowns to their Green masters.

[Journeyman]

[quote]JamFly wrote:
dhickey wrote:
My only problem with global warming is it’s inclusion in politics.

The hypocrisy of the elite is beyond parody. After Al Gore had produced his lying propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”, some reporters had the initiative to stake out his palatial residence. They found it pulsating with wasteful energy like a suburban Chernobyl.

His defense? He pays the requisite energy taxes. This agenda is about privilege, as well as corruption and wealth generated by submissive clowns to their Green masters.[/quote]

This is a classic ad hominem attack. Perhaps we will forget the message if you attack the messenger. I haven’t seen anyone on this post invoke Al Gore when discussing global warming. If I reference anyone, it is a scientist with a proven reputation.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
JamFly wrote:
dhickey wrote:
My only problem with global warming is it’s inclusion in politics.

The hypocrisy of the elite is beyond parody. After Al Gore had produced his lying propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”, some reporters had the initiative to stake out his palatial residence. They found it pulsating with wasteful energy like a suburban Chernobyl.

His defense? He pays the requisite energy taxes. This agenda is about privilege, as well as corruption and wealth generated by submissive clowns to their Green masters.

This is a classic ad hominem attack. Perhaps we will forget the message if you attack the messenger. I haven’t seen anyone on this post invoke Al Gore when discussing global warming. If I reference anyone, it is a scientist with a proven reputation.[/quote]

10,000 scientists think it is a bunch of crap, their petition has been posted here many times.

The only people that take this seriously are those that are set up to make money and gain power.

[JamFly]

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
JamFly wrote:
dhickey wrote:
My only problem with global warming is it’s inclusion in politics.

The hypocrisy of the elite is beyond parody. After Al Gore had produced his lying propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”, some reporters had the initiative to stake out his palatial residence. They found it pulsating with wasteful energy like a suburban Chernobyl.

His defense? He pays the requisite energy taxes. This agenda is about privilege, as well as corruption and wealth generated by submissive clowns to their Green masters.

This is a classic ad hominem attack. Perhaps we will forget the message if you attack the messenger. I haven’t seen anyone on this post invoke Al Gore when discussing global warming. If I reference anyone, it is a scientist with a proven reputation.[/quote]

Look dude, this is not a scientific but a political issue. Fear is the instrument used by governments to increase their power over citizens: the ‘War on Terror’ is an example. The grand peur orchestrated over climate change affords governments an opportunity to impose unimaginable restrictions on their populations.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Why, I’ll bet that a scientist that came up with a meaningful understanding of variance could become famous! They might even name a function after him. Quick, lets see who can be the first to describe a Gaussian Function to describe a ‘normal’ variance. No wait, Karl Gauss did that 1789.[/quote]

Uhhhh…what does that have to do with applying a meaningful interpretation to it – you know something qualitative and not quantitative? Besides, you cannot average temperatures – it doesn’t mean anything. Do not argue with a physicist you will get waxed my friend.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Statistically there is more likelihood to have glaciers than not to have them because water can evaporate, freeze and collect faster than it will melt and merge back with the oceans. This is not to say that it is impossible for all the ice in the world to melt completely at once it is just to say that we probably have nothing to worry about.

There actually is something that says it is impossible for all the ice in the world to melt at once. It is called energy conservation.

The latent heat of the world’s ice is a huge number.

30 × 106 km3 - volume of Antarctic ice.
2.8 × 106 km3 - volume of Greenland. ( from World Book 1999)

So (32.8 × 106 km3) * ( 10^12 kg/km3) * 2260 kJ/kg
or approx. 74,000 EJ (ExaJoules). In 2005, total worldwide energy consumption was 500 EJ.

Why are you talking about stupid scientists when you don’t understand the basics of energy conservation?

[/quote]

I am a physicst. I understand energy conservation quite well. It is you that does not. Energy conservation says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Meaning the ice COULD in fact melt all at once the energy would just be transfered to something else – you know HEAT?

[ninearms]

Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.[/quote]

Their methods of measurement are insufficient to determine a human influence or not. In fact, it is physically impossible to measure the effect of human influence without doing a very long term controlled study in the absence of human activity. No credible scientist would accept the methods used in this paper.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.[/quote]

You do realize that the IPCC is a political body and has repeatedly changed the reports made by scientists to fit their political objectives don’t you?

The IPCC is an absolute joke, you might as well ask the tobacco companies about lung cancer.

[ninearms]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.

Their methods of measurement are insufficient to determine a human influence or not. In fact, it is physically impossible to measure the effect of human influence without doing a very long term controlled study in the absence of human activity. No credible scientist would accept the methods used in this paper.[/quote]

As you are obviously an expert in climate science and the research methods thereof perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on the argument expressed above, noting how and why the methodology is flawed, and how this might be remedied in future research. I’m sure the world would appreciate your learned assistance.

I look forward to your comments.

Regards.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]ninearms wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.

Their methods of measurement are insufficient to determine a human influence or not. In fact, it is physically impossible to measure the effect of human influence without doing a very long term controlled study in the absence of human activity. No credible scientist would accept the methods used in this paper.

As you are obviously an expert in climate science and the research methods thereof perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on the argument expressed above, noting how and why the methodology is flawed, and how this might be remedied in future research. I’m sure the world would appreciate your learned assistance.

I look forward to your comments.

Regards.[/quote]

I think he was pretty clear.

[DoubleDuce]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

It was southern hemisphere ice, and in the past 25 years.

The graph I’m attaching is pretty interesting too.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]ninearms wrote:
As you are obviously an expert in climate science and the research methods thereof perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on the argument expressed above, noting how and why the methodology is flawed, and how this might be remedied in future research. I’m sure the world would appreciate your learned assistance.
[/quote]

Thermodynamic processes in an uncontrolled setting are too complex and rely on the mediation of an infinite variety of parameters which have to be first understood in relation to each other. In other words ultimate cause and effect cannot be known because everything effects everything else, ad infinitum. There is no controlled environment in which we can make comparisons to this or that effect and the infinite variety that occur due to other natural processes.

Current “experiments” rely on nothing but historical interpretation of data without a comparison of what we would measure without a human influence. That is bad science.

There is no way to know the extent of human influence on climate. This is not to say there is no influence but rather that if there is we cannot make any meaningful interpretation of it.

As a scientist I must be open minded to the possibility of natural phenomena but one of my firsts tasks is to ask: How can I know it?

Science is a useful tool but is has its limits.

[DoubleDuce]

Try that again.