Notices
Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #1 Global Warming 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Here is an assertion I hear a lot from skeptics:

    Lesson: If the Met can't predict the weather three months out, what can it know of the climate 100 years hence?

    Here is an astute reply to the queston given by one of our illustrious posters:


    Why do you assume this? Weather is by it's very nature turbulent and variable process, while climate follows completely different set of limits. When other ask me this question I sometimes ask them if I boiled bleached wheat noddle and a whole wheat noddle together--could I predict which would be higher than the other after exact 5 minutes of boiling? They always say no--and can explain about the bubbles, rolls of water etc. Than I ask them what's the temperature of the water? They usually get the difference at that point. Regardless of the great deal of turbulence in the pan there's a great deal you can tell about average conditions inside that pan--the general circulation, the temperature even the level of the water if you knew the size of the burner. The specific of where the noddles are is weather, the average conditions are analogous to climate.




    So according to this response, the goal of climate models is to give us a general idea about the climate, or an average. Why is this information as useful or more useful than the weather service which gives me exactly the information I need? To continue the boiled-noodle analogy, knowing the temperature of the water is not what people find useful, it is the temperature of the noodles they find useful (how the climate or weather will be on a given day and location.)

    If climate models can't tell us how an "average" temperature or climate will effect your area or any other local area with any reliability, then what good does it do to predict or project that there is a 66% probability that the average temperature will be X 100 years from now?


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 the "Global Warming" megathread 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Global Warming - Is it really happening? - I mean the Earth goes through periods of natural cycles and we havnt exactly been collecting data for that long. Is this not just yet another excuse for the governments to tax us even further ?


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    leohopkins, do we really need another thread on global warming ?

    at the last count we've had more than our fair share of global warming topics (although they all tend to end up sounding the same), so much so that a passer-by might be forgiven for thinking that earth sciences is nothing but climatology and global warming
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    *faceplant* NO! NO MORE! DEAR GOD PLEASE I CAN'T STAND THE STUPIDITY!
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Go and stand on Antartica and see for yourself...

    Then go back in another year to the same geographical co-ordinates, if you have to dig to get there, global warmings bull. If you step off your boat and turn into a popsicle, then it is true.... in which case hope it warms up a lot faster before you get pnemonia, frost bite, and god knows what else for stepping in that water....
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    in view of the fact that threads on global warming are in danger of flooding the rest of the earth sciences into oblivion, i'm making a stickied "Global Warming" thread, where any further discussions on the subject will hopefully find their natural home

    i'll leave the current threads on global warming and related debates open for the time being since merging them here would probably make a very confusing thread - however, once these have died a natural death, i expect members to post here rather than start a new one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Yes, we certainly need another thread clearly illustrating that two people will never agree on anything ever.

    Global warming threads are pointless, because nobody learns anything. They simply reinforce their dogmas. You'll forgive me if I don't think posts the size of the LOTR trilogy aren't worth reading or being posted.

    I say we ban new topics on global warming, remove this sticky, and let the topic rest in pieces.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    part of me agrees with you
    however, it's a fact of life that people will continue pointless discussions, and if they're no longer allowed to do it here they'll do it elsewhere

    the one thing that i want to prevent is the false impression that earth sciences is nothing but global warming - i don't want to stop ALL discussion of the subject, merely channel them so that they don't swamp the rest of the subforum
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I agree with a short moratorium on new climate threads--say two weeks.

    This one is ok but I won't participate because the subject is so broad and tied to so many other earth topics that it won't even have the pretense of being focused on a particular aspect of the climate science. Meaningful discussion only happens in focused threads. There are also a lot of climate topic which can be done completely independent of man's effect on the future, for example when does astronomical forcing suggest we'll have the next ice--and how severe will it be.

    Darius if no ones learning anything then there's really no point in there even being a science forum at all...I'm not so pessimistic. While I think people will sometime beat a dead horse or feel moribund to continuously echo a prior view they may have expressed, in many cases they do learn nevertheless--if only to hone their own arguments if nothing else. Often people's opinions are largely based on them not knowing what they don't know. Though rare, sometimes those same people will have the intellectual honestly to shift their opinions--though usually in another thread.

    Anyhow.
     

  11. #10  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Sticky thread? Excellent idea! Maybe other forums like physics could do that too. It gets annoying in there now and again when you get 'is light constant'? Photoelectric effect. Black holes, time etc.... ZZZZZzzzz....
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i said that i didn't want any more new threads on global warming (for the time being at the very least), so i merge this one with the Global Warming Mega-Thread

    the same will happen with any future climate change related threads until i feel that some sensible balance has been achieved
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232


    Which line are you talking about williampinn?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER


    Which line are you talking about williampinn?
    The green one. I thought you would have no trouble figuring out where to draw it. My instructions were fairly simple.
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    in view of the fact that threads on global warming are in danger of flooding the rest of the earth sciences into oblivion, i'm making a stickied "Global Warming" thread, where any further discussions on the subject will hopefully find their natural home

    i'll leave the current threads on global warming and related debates open for the time being since merging them here would probably make a very confusing thread - however, once these have died a natural death, i expect members to post here rather than start a new one
    On page one of this forum I count about 11 climate change posts out of 50 posts. I don't see the danger, but then I never saw any danger in small numbers. Maybe it would be more prudent to start a climate change forum. I personally have no interest in reading a big fat thread that is a hodge podge of climate issues.
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The green one. I thought you would have no trouble figuring out where to draw it. My instructions were fairly simple.
    Well, the first data point to the last data point line is the yellow one. The thing is, neither of them have any significance. You are making a line between a maximum and a minimum and thinking it has any significance? I'd say look at the blue line rather, or even the orange one, which shows a rough average (I added them, obviously, so they won't be 100% accurate).

    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  17. #16 U.S. Climate in Cooling Trend Since 1880's 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    I have read a lot of reports claiming that the United States has experienced global warming over the last century, but doesn't that depend on how you crunch the numbers? Take a gander at this chart:



    Remember back when you were sitting in physics class and you had to find the displacement of vectors? The displacement as you recall was the net gain or loss overall when all the vectors were added up. In the chart above, the easiest way to find the displacement is to draw a vector from the first point to the last. If you do that, you will get a surprising result: the mean temperature of the U.S. actually is down from where it was in the 1880s.

    You could even conclude that we experienced global cooling overall. Or you could crunch the data other ways and get a different result, but which result is more valid? Isn't it really subjective when it comes down to it? I wonder how many other temperature records there are where the total displacement is flat or negative like the U.S.?

    You could also ask how we got so lucky? We are probably the biggest belcher of GHGs on the planet, yet we come out unmarked and unscathed. I am assuming of course you , like me, are seeing the proverbial glass as half full, not half empty.

    :-D

    P.S. The red moving average in the chart could even be drawn differently. It could be drawn higher at the beginning and and lower at the end, making a downtrend instead of an uptrend.
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The green one. I thought you would have no trouble figuring out where to draw it. My instructions were fairly simple.
    Well, the first data point to the last data point line is the yellow one. The thing is, neither of them have any significance. You are making a line between a maximum and a minimum and thinking it has any significance? I'd say look at the blue line rather, or even the orange one, which shows a rough average (I added them, obviously, so they won't be 100% accurate).

    The first visible point I see starts at the green line. Apparently you think averages are more significant than displacements. The green line also makes up an average or median between the starting point of that line and its end point. I happen to think displacements are more useful, since they show the actual change from one point to another. It is the actual temperature that impacts the climate, not the average. As it stands today, we in the U.S. are no worse off than we were in the 1880s.
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    sigh - talk of lying with statistics
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  20. #19  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The first visible point I see starts at the green line. Apparently you think averages are more significant than displacements. The green line also makes up an average or median between the starting point of that line and its end point. I happen to think displacements are more useful, since they show the actual change from one point to another. It is the actual temperature that impacts the climate, not the average. As it stands today, we in the U.S. are no worse off than we were in the 1880s.
    It doesn't start at the green line, but ok. The thing is that by showing the mean between any two points, you are completely disregarding all that is between them. What matters is the trend, because it takes both maximums and minimums into account. What people have been trying to get through to you is that individual temperatures does not mean nearly as much as the overall trend. When you play poker and the amount of money you have is going down over a certain time, it is much more important than having one big score somewhere in between. Remember also that the amount of solar energy trapped in the atmosphere does not only translate into higher temperatures, but also into bigger and/or more frequent storms (during which it is colder). It takes energy to create winds, so one should also look at the amount of energy that is being trapped and how it translates into weather in the short term and climate in the long term. If it is shown that the average temperature has changed you can be damned sure that other extremes of weather will also increase in frequency.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    doesn't start at the green line, but ok. The thing is that by showing the mean between any two points, you are completely disregarding all that is between them. What matters is the trend, because it takes both maximums and minimums into account. What people have been trying to get through to you is that individual temperatures does not mean nearly as much as the overall trend. When you play poker and the amount of money you have is going down over a certain time, it is much more important than having one big score somewhere in between.
    I see your point, but taking your poker analogy, it is how much money you end up with that counts, not your average wins or losses. You might be winning on average, and maybe you see a nexus between winning and increased CO2 emissions, but your luck could turn on a dime.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Remember also that the amount of solar energy trapped in the atmosphere does not only translate into higher temperatures, but also into bigger and/or more frequent storms (during which it is colder). It takes energy to create winds, so one should also look at the amount of energy that is being trapped and how it translates into weather in the short term and climate in the long term. If it is shown that the average temperature has changed you can be damned sure that other extremes of weather will also increase in frequency.
    I think you can't be damned sure about extreme weather happening more frequently. The IPCC even admits a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding in that area. I could be mistaken though. Show me where the IPCC claims we can be damned sure that extreme weather is in the offing.

    Just for fun, you may want to look at this chart:



    Look how sharply the temperature increased 150,000 years ago! Were there humans burning large quantities of fossel fuel then? There must have been, because climatoligists tell us that they cannot account for such rapid temperature increases without factoring in anthropogenic GHGs. It was definnitely warmer then too. Too bad the people back then were not as worldly wise as you.
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I think you can't be damned sure about extreme weather happening more frequently. The IPCC even admits a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding in that area. I could be mistaken though. Show me where the IPCC claims we can be damned sure that extreme weather is in the offing.
    That is just simple physics. If there is more heat, more energy can be converted into other forms. It simply follows. The uncertainty and lack of understanding comes into precisely predicting what will happen. You can boil some water and when you turn up the heat it boils more vigorously. It is difficult to predict where and when bubbles will emerge, but you can be damned sure that it will boil more vigorously.

    Look how sharply the temperature increased 150,000 years ago! Were there humans burning large quantities of fossel fuel then? There must have been, because climatoligists tell us that they cannot account for such rapid temperature increases without factoring in anthropogenic GHGs. It was definnitely warmer then too. Too bad the people back then were not as worldly wise as you.
    They cannot account for rapid increases without anthropogenic GHG's now. We have much better info on what is happening now than what was happening back then, as you'll hopefully agree. I'd venture a guess and say that the cause and effect of the interglacial goes hand in hand 150 000 years ago. Remember when I told you about disrupting equilibriums and positive feedback systems that can tip over into a slippery slope scenario? I am guessing that it is exactly what happened.

    I see your point, but taking your poker analogy, it is how much money you end up with that counts, not your average wins or losses. You might be winning on average, and maybe you see a nexus between winning and increased CO2 emissions, but your luck could turn on a dime.
    This is doing the same thing that you did with the graph. The poker game never ends. If you are good, your money increases over time on average.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think you can't be damned sure about extreme weather happening more frequently. The IPCC even admits a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding in that area. I could be mistaken though. Show me where the IPCC claims we can be damned sure that extreme weather is in the offing.
    That is just simple physics. If there is more heat, more energy can be converted into other forms. It simply follows. The uncertainty and lack of understanding comes into precisely predicting what will happen. You can boil some water and when you turn up the heat it boils more vigorously. It is difficult to predict where and when bubbles will emerge, but you can be damned sure that it will boil more vigorously.
    I appreciate your knowledge of physics. One of my favorite subjects in my spare time. However, I think your analogy to boiling water is not the whole story. From what I understand, most storms don't happen in the summer months. They happen when the weather is cooler. The most severe storms I experienced personally came after a volcanic eruption, which cooled the mean temperature. The following winter we had heavy rain and wind storms. And there were severe snow storms in the North East. Even if warmer mean temperature translates into more storms, the mean temperature here in the U.S. is no higher than it was in the 1880's. So I think the U.S. weather and climate should match the 1880's. Whether the climate overall was good or bad back then is a matter of opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    [
    Look how sharply the temperature increased 150,000 years ago! Were there humans burning large quantities of fossel fuel then? There must have been, because climatoligists tell us that they cannot account for such rapid temperature increases without factoring in anthropogenic GHGs. It was definnitely warmer then too. Too bad the people back then were not as worldly wise as you.
    They cannot account for rapid increases without anthropogenic GHG's now. We have much better info on what is happening now than what was happening back then, as you'll hopefully agree.
    You seem to be implying that climate scientists don't know why the mean temperature rose so sharply back then in the absense of evil humans. Could it be that there is an unknown variable or variables that are the real cause of such rapid temperature increases? Surely you agree at this point that the chart shows that rapid temperature increases can happen in the absense of humans. I would think that would make you take another look at the anthropogenic warming hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I'd venture a guess and say that the cause and effect of the interglacial goes hand in hand 150 000 years ago. Remember when I told you about disrupting equilibriums and positive feedback systems that can tip over into a slippery slope scenario? I am guessing that it is exactly what happened.
    My hypothesis is we are peepsqueeks next to nature. Nature does what she wants to whomever she wants. A .03% concentration of CO2 ain't gonna stop her or make her start bigtime. The power of the sun seems a better candidate for the big moves in temperature. Using your boiling-water example, can the water bring itself to a boil through some positive feedback? Or do you need to add energy to it? Which is more likely to bring the water to a boil? The water? Or the burner?
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Once again you idiots are using GISS data. GISS data uses ground stations, but not just ground stations, urban ground stations. It's 0.5C hotter than the satellite data, as I've shown before. Not only that, but there are numerous projects that show hundreds of GISS stations breaking the guidelines for temperature monitoring. Being on rooftops, being in front of the ass-end of air conditioners, being ON blacktop, being next to parking lots, etc. All of it increases the temperature dramatically.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/

    Personally, I much prefer the hybrid chart I made. I cut off the temperature at about 1976, where satellite data started recording. Mysteriously after that period temperatures for GISS data started climbing like crazy, whereas satellite data shows no real climb until 1998, and after that just a steady anomaly with almost no average increase. On top of this, the lower troposphere is supposed to be warmer than the surface, but it's 0.5C cooler (at most). I would provide a chart for that, but I lost my chart data and I'm not redoing it to be ignored again (I assume most of you remember anyway).



    There's the chart I made that cuts off GISS data at the point I believe it starts going majorly awry. As you can see, satellite data (in orange or whatever) shows that NO warming was happening until 1998, and we can fully assume that the following years are because of 1998 (el nino). It is now believed, among many circles, that warming after 1998's el nino is simply a long lasting effect on weather that is most likely dissipating.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/0...or-march-2009/

    basically, any and all arguments I keep hearing are complete bullshit. This includes the uneducated bullshit from william and the other "anti-warming" dropouts. 1998 was el nino, before that yearly averages were pretty much in line from the 1950's. There is no global warming, nothing supports it. claiming that weather after the Super El Nino of 1998 proves it is ignorant on many levels. The following years are likely to prove this more and more.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    William, this belongs here. Changing subforums to post in will not let you get away with it.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I appreciate your knowledge of physics. One of my favorite subjects in my spare time. However, I think your analogy to boiling water is not the whole story. From what I understand, most storms don't happen in the summer months. They happen when the weather is cooler. The most severe storms I experienced personally came after a volcanic eruption, which cooled the mean temperature. The following winter we had heavy rain and wind storms. And there were severe snow storms in the North East.
    There are winter rainfall areas, summer rainfall areas, etc. The boiling water analogy is only supposed to give a rough idea of how the nearly closed system of the earth operates.

    A direct example is what happens to heated air. As it heats, it rises and then cools as a result of the gas expanding at it rises. The rising is movement and is a direct example of solar energy being converted into kinetic energy.

    On a global scale it becomes much more complicated of course, but the basics still apply. When you look at the whole picture, it becomes clearer. The sun irradiates the earth by a more or less constant amount over a certain time. The different wavelengths penetrate the atmosphere and hits the surface. Depending on the albedo, some of it is re-emitted as visible light and some as IR. The IR can then be absorbed by greenhouse gasses. Now, what is happening is that the solar energy is trapped within the atmosphere for a certain time. If you take the amount of solar energy that hits the earth over a certain time, then the important thing is how long it takes for that same amount of energy to be re-emitted back into space. The longer it takes, the more energy in available in the atmosphere. An increase in greenhouse gasses (among other factors) prolongs the time it takes for that energy to leave the earth system again.

    That is the most basic picture, but of course there are many complicating factors. 72% of the earth surface is covered with water. Water has a low albedo, which means it absorbs most of the light that hits it, heats up and then emits IR. Snow has a very high albedo, which means it reflects most of the solar radiation. What would happen when the snow/ice slowly melts away? Besides the increased water level, it means that more energy is absorbed. As the snow/ice clears, open ground or ocean water is revealed, which has a much lower albedo. The energy takes longer to be emitted back into space and so can get converted into other forms and can do work, which then paves the way for still more snow/ice to melt on average. As I said, the thing is not to look at local conditions, but at the overall increase in the energy contained in the atmosphere, oceans and on land. There are natural cycles of freezing and melting, but if the average temperature over a period increases, more snow/ice melt than is refrozen in the colder periods.

    It is all well and good to look at the amounts of gasses released by volcanoes, but this amount is also averaged out over a period. The only thing that is steadily pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, are humans. By far the largest amount of carbon fixing goes on in the oceans. Plants on land benefit from increased levels of CO2 and proliferates, but phytoplankton does not benefit in this way and so cannot help with fixing excess CO2. At the same time more and more forests are being felled, taking away from the ability of nature to absorb the excess CO2. The result? CO2 increases, more energy is available and the frequency and ferocity of extreme weather increases.

    PS: I wanted to add more, but I have to get some sleep now. :?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I hadn't seen this thread but will post a I did in response from another forum which will hopefully answer some of question:
    --
    Occasionally someone asks, “If climate forecast does not have the fidelity of weather forecast, then of what use is it to me?

    The answer is of course one of understanding what climate really is, and one of expectations. In addition, many already find climate information very useful for a wide variety of things even the absence of having specific weather information.

    Climate is generally taken as the average of weather conditions over a 30 year period. But despite the news media emphasis on temperature, it also means average precipitation, wind speed, humidity, cloudiness as well as other factors. A lot of this information is directly usable, especially when applied over the course of the year. For example, what is the average last frost, first frost, and length of the growing season? This is important to agriculture, and might signal shifts in what future farmers will grow at a specific location. We can derive other information as well, such as heating degree days, cooling degree days—both useful for planners, changes in insulation standards for building codes and energy companies when trying to project future electrical load for when they're planning new plants that will run for decades.

    With temperature and precipitation averages we can project evaporation which in turn can become projections of soil moisture, reservoir and underground aquifer recharge rates, all of which are useful whether you're in agriculture looking at future irrigation or have a planner trying to look at city's needs.

    Not only that, but with average climate data, you can calculate an entire range of data which we use every day. To a first approximation, as long as the general climate regime is similar, the variations in weather around that new average will remain about the same as the old variations did around the old average. For example a normal July high-low temperature of 70F to 50F around a 60 F can reasonably be expected to move to 74F high, 54F low around a higher 64F average temperature. Where this gets really useful is one can translate this into important thresholds such as figuring out the number of hard freeze days that sensitive crops might experience, or input it into environment models that can forecast if it will be cold enough to kill pest infestations such as the Pine Beetle that's currently destroying vast stretches of Rocky Mountain forest. A similar approach can be used for chance of precipitation and chance of damaging floods just by applying the same variability to the new projected climate as the old one. An overall + 20% precipitation for a region might be extrapolated into +20% more severe rain events, which in turn can be applied to hydrology models to evaluate change of hitting certain rivers levels, FEMA flood zone chances (e.g. 100 year floods) and many other useful calculations. Change of droughts would use similar techniques.

    Obtaining the ability to project both changes in average weather and any changes to variability would be the most useful but obtaining the latter is still in its infancy. Progress continues.

    Lynx
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Once again you idiots are using GISS data. GISS data uses ground stations, but not just ground stations, urban ground stations. It's 0.5C hotter than the satellite data, as I've shown before. Not only that, but there are numerous projects that show hundreds of GISS stations breaking the guidelines for temperature monitoring. Being on rooftops, being in front of the ass-end of air conditioners, being ON blacktop, being next to parking lots, etc. All of it increases the temperature dramatically.
    Yes, I read about the alleged problems of GISS data, but all data has its problems. That is why large sample sizes are taken--to cancel out the variances due to errors and other factors. I am not positive all the stations are located in a "hot' spot. If so, it must be a conspiracy...Bwahahahahaha!


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Personally, I much prefer the hybrid chart I made. I cut off the temperature at about 1976, where satellite data started recording. Mysteriously after that period temperatures for GISS data started climbing like crazy, whereas satellite data shows no real climb until 1998, and after that just a steady anomaly with almost no average increase. On top of this, the lower troposphere is supposed to be warmer than the surface, but it's 0.5C cooler (at most). I would provide a chart for that, but I lost my chart data and I'm not redoing it to be ignored again (I assume most of you remember anyway).

    Sounds intriguing but the gif on the page you linked to seems to be missing. I agree the troposphere should be alot warmer given that it is where the greenhouse effect is supposed to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    There's the chart I made that cuts off GISS data at the point I believe it starts going majorly awry. As you can see, satellite data (in orange or whatever) shows that NO warming was happening until 1998, and we can fully assume that the following years are because of 1998 (el nino). It is now believed, among many circles, that warming after 1998's el nino is simply a long lasting effect on weather that is most likely dissipating.
    You cut off the data where you think it starts going awry? Data fishing is not very scientific. I seriously doubt you did an audit on the data you cut off. The reason I used the NASA chart is because that is the one the proponents find credible. They are always touting NASA, so why not show how even NASA's chart shows an overall cooling displacement? It is a far more intelligent strategy than building your own little chart with your lego set. LOL!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/0...or-march-2009/
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    basically, any and all arguments I keep hearing are complete bullshit. This includes the uneducated bullshit from william and the other "anti-warming" dropouts.
    Well! I mostly agree with your position on the issue. If I am just an idiot as you seem to imply, then that would make you an even bigger idiot. At least the proponents on of this issue have the good sense to stick together. (Sigh!)
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    1998 was el nino, before that yearly averages were pretty much in line from the 1950's. There is no global warming, nothing supports it. claiming that weather after the Super El Nino of 1998 proves it is ignorant on many levels. The following years are likely to prove this more and more.
    Thanks for that update. Lil' ol' uneducated me had no knowledge of the things you mention--even though I have written countless articles on the subject. LOL! Time to take your meds.
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    William, this belongs here. Changing subforums to post in will not let you get away with it.

    Thanks for pointing that out, BIG BROTHER.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    You cut off the data where you think it starts going awry? Data fishing is not very scientific. I seriously doubt you did an audit on the data you cut off. The reason I used the NASA chart is because that is the one the proponents find credible. They are always touting NASA, so why not show how even NASA's chart shows an overall cooling displacement? It is a far more intelligent strategy than building your own little chart with your lego set. LOL!
    I did no such thing. It immediately starts diverging a year after satellite data starts being collected. This is obviously showing a flaw in how GISS stations record data. On top of that, we had urbanization explosions that started going bezerk in the 70's and the 80's, increasing ground temperature and development near GISS stations. I have very valid reasons for excluding GISS data.

    Then there's this little (awesome) gem: Satellite data used is supposed to be warmer than the surface. Yet GISS (ground data!) is hotter by a 0.5C (in some areas).

    My reasons for cutting it off there are very valid and based on observation. It in no way mines data, merely suggests that's a proper place. Also, where I cut it off shows a drop in GISS data that continues in UAH data, and a temperature trend that also agrees with prior GISS data. Clearly UAH data is a perfect substitute in that exact time I did it.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    --
    Occasionally someone asks, “If climate forecast does not have the fidelity of weather forecast, then of what use is it to me?

    The answer is of course one of understanding what climate really is, and one of expectations. In addition, many already find climate information very useful for a wide variety of things even the absence of having specific weather information.

    Climate is generally taken as the average of weather conditions over a 30 year period. But despite the news media emphasis on temperature, it also means average precipitation, wind speed, humidity, cloudiness as well as other factors. A lot of this information is directly usable, especially when applied over the course of the year. For example, what is the average last frost, first frost, and length of the growing season? This is important to agriculture, and might signal shifts in what future farmers will grow at a specific location.
    I can appreciate the intent to help farmers, but I don't see how a global average will help farmers at a specific location. An average specific to a location might do the job better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    We can derive other information as well, such as heating degree days, cooling degree days—both useful for planners, changes in insulation standards for building codes and energy companies when trying to project future electrical load for when they're planning new plants that will run for decades.
    Again, I think data specific to the area in question would be more useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Not only that, but with average climate data, you can calculate an entire range of data which we use every day. To a first approximation, as long as the general climate regime is similar, the variations in weather around that new average will remain about the same as the old variations did around the old average. For example a normal July high-low temperature of 70F to 50F around a 60 F can reasonably be expected to move to 74F high, 54F low around a higher 64F average temperature.
    Well the key assumption here is that the climate regime will be similar and so will any variations. This is where things get a little sticky, because the past does not have to repeat itself no matter how big your historical data might be. Add to that the fact the data reilied on was not consistently measured over the last 100 years, and is a miniscule dataset compared to geological history. What would really be impressive is if you could provide an anectdotal example. Preferably real-world one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Where this gets really useful is one can translate this into important thresholds such as figuring out the number of hard freeze days that sensitive crops might experience, or input it into environment models that can forecast if it will be cold enough to kill pest infestations such as the Pine Beetle that's currently destroying vast stretches of Rocky Mountain forest.
    You may want to expound on the Pine Beetle situation. How does knowing the mean global climate help solve a local problem? Would it not be easier to kill the beatles with pesticide than to try to convince the entire world to cut emissions? I would think it would be far less costly too.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    A similar approach can be used for chance of precipitation and chance of damaging floods just by applying the same variability to the new projected climate as the old one. An overall + 20% precipitation for a region might be extrapolated into +20% more severe rain events, which in turn can be applied to hydrology models to evaluate change of hitting certain rivers levels, FEMA flood zone chances (e.g. 100 year floods) and many other useful calculations. Change of droughts would use similar techniques.
    What success has there been in the area of flooding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Obtaining the ability to project both changes in average weather and any changes to variability would be the most useful but obtaining the latter is still in its infancy. Progress continues.
    Lynx
    And obtaining the former is no more useful than telling you that the average result of a pair of dice is 7. You can't take that information and expect to break the house. Most likely the house will break you. You need to know what the dice will do specifically.
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    You cut off the data where you think it starts going awry? Data fishing is not very scientific. I seriously doubt you did an audit on the data you cut off. The reason I used the NASA chart is because that is the one the proponents find credible. They are always touting NASA, so why not show how even NASA's chart shows an overall cooling displacement? It is a far more intelligent strategy than building your own little chart with your lego set. LOL!
    I did no such thing. It immediately starts diverging a year after satellite data starts being collected.
    Can you show the divergence between the ground surface measurements and the satellite surface measurements? Are you sure you weren't comparing troposheric measurements with surface measurements? The reason I thought you might be data fishing is because you said you found a few bad ground stations. At least that is the impression I got.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    This is obviously showing a flaw in how GISS stations record data. On top of that, we had urbanization explosions that started going bezerk in the 70's and the 80's, increasing ground temperature and development near GISS stations. I have very valid reasons for excluding GISS data.
    Maybe the satellite data is flawed. What kind of data audit was done to determine which data is the flawed data? Just showing a few examples of bad placement for ground stations does not give all 7000+ stations a bad name. You can drive home your points more effectively if you provide links to graphs and studies. That is what this uneducated idiot does when I want to convince someone I am right.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    Then there's this little (awesome) gem: Satellite data used is supposed to be warmer than the surface. Yet GISS (ground data!) is hotter by a 0.5C (in some areas).
    I think you might be refering to the descrepency between tropospheric data and surface data. If that is the case then the little chart you built is garbage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    My reasons for cutting it off there are very valid and based on observation.
    I think you have shown that both proponents and opponents can rape the scientific method. Basically you have a hypothesis that you have built around your observations, but you need to back it up with some empirical evidence before you can shout from a mountain top that you are right and the rest of us are just idiots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    It in no way mines data, merely suggests that's a proper place. Also, where I cut it off shows a drop in GISS data that continues in UAH data, and a temperature trend that also agrees with prior GISS data. Clearly UAH data is a perfect substitute in that exact time I did it.
    Well you fixed the data to fit your hypothesis. But you should test your hypothesis then adjust it to fit the results of your test.
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    --
    Occasionally someone asks, “If climate forecast does not have the fidelity of weather forecast, then of what use is it to me?

    The answer is of course one of understanding what climate really is, and one of expectations. In addition, many already find climate information very useful for a wide variety of things even the absence of having specific weather information.

    Climate is generally taken as the average of weather conditions over a 30 year period. But despite the news media emphasis on temperature, it also means average precipitation, wind speed, humidity, cloudiness as well as other factors. A lot of this information is directly usable, especially when applied over the course of the year. For example, what is the average last frost, first frost, and length of the growing season? This is important to agriculture, and might signal shifts in what future farmers will grow at a specific location.
    I can appreciate the intent to help farmers, but I don't see how a global average will help farmers at a specific location. An average specific to a location might do the job better.
    Not sure I understand you question. We already know the current average for specific locations, and the climate models provide a projected change with range of error for that specific area as well. What state do you live in? I'll try to provide you a few examples.

    PS.
    This thread is a hogpog. I didn't post here.
    It's not that climate threads dominate this forum, there are lots of threads started across a pretty good range of earth science--they just seem to be the one that get traction.
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Not sure I understand you question. We already know the current average for specific locations, and the climate models provide a projected change with range of error for that specific area as well. What state do you live in? I'll try to provide you a few examples.
    How about California?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    PS.
    This thread is a hogpog. I didn't post here.
    It's not that climate threads dominate this forum, there are lots of threads started across a pretty good range of earth science--they just seem to be the one that get traction.
    Thank you! We may disagree on a particular politically charged issue, but we both know a hodge podge when we see it. :-D
     

  35. #34  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Thank you! We may disagree on a particular politically charged issue, but we both know a hodge podge when we see it. :-D
    and to which YOU have personally contributed by deleting your posts once threads posted elsewhere were moved here - that way any response to your post will seem to hang in thin air, thereby turning this thread into a hotchpotch
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    A direct example is what happens to heated air. As it heats, it rises and then cools as a result of the gas expanding at it rises. The rising is movement and is a direct example of solar energy being converted into kinetic energy.

    On a global scale it becomes much more complicated of course, but the basics still apply. When you look at the whole picture, it becomes clearer. The sun irradiates the earth by a more or less constant amount over a certain time. The different wavelengths penetrate the atmosphere and hits the surface. Depending on the albedo, some of it is re-emitted as visible light and some as IR. The IR can then be absorbed by greenhouse gasses. Now, what is happening is that the solar energy is trapped within the atmosphere for a certain time. If you take the amount of solar energy that hits the earth over a certain time, then the important thing is how long it takes for that same amount of energy to be re-emitted back into space. The longer it takes, the more energy in available in the atmosphere. An increase in greenhouse gasses (among other factors) prolongs the time it takes for that energy to leave the earth system again.
    I understand how that works. What I don't understand is how a .03-06% concentration of CO2 can make it work to achieve the projections made. Here is an experiment you can try to illustrate my point: You know that when you sit in your car with the windows rolled up on a sunny day it gets warmer inside your car then the outside air. You know the glass lets in visible light and traps IR. But you also know that when you roll down the windows the heat escapes because the glass won't trap anything if there is a gap for the heat to escape through. So try this at home: take a piece of glass and hold it over your head while standing outside in the sun. (The glass represents the .03% concentration of atmospheric CO2.) Does your temperature go up? No? Try holding two pieces of glass over your head. (Increase the concentration of CO2.) How about now? Has your temperature increased? I think you will find it won't. The glass does the job. It lets visible light through and traps any IR coming from you or the ground, but any heat generated convects to the upper atmosphere as usual. That is why tropospheric satellite data fails to show any anticipated greenhouse warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That is the most basic picture, but of course there are many complicating factors. 72% of the earth surface is covered with water. Water has a low albedo, which means it absorbs most of the light that hits it, heats up and then emits IR.
    That's funny because I see water reflecting sunlight. You can see the light shimmering off the waves. But water certainly is a much better greenhouse material than CO2 since there is so much more of it. Although, without out it, our climate would be much like the moon's--unsuitable for life.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Snow has a very high albedo, which means it reflects most of the solar radiation. What would happen when the snow/ice slowly melts away?
    Well 90% of the snow and ice in the world is in Antarctica. It is such a cold place the ice will never melt on a few degree increase in temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Besides the increased water level,
    That depends if the ice is on land or already in water. If the Arctic melts, don't be surprised if the water levels drop. I refer you back to your basic Physics: water expands when it freezes and contracts when it melts. The Arctic is one big colossel ice cube. The Antarctic is another story--a meltdown there could raise sealevels 200 meters. Not good! But you need a lot more warming than we will ever get to make that happen. The mean temp would have to increase around 60 C. Even if we put every bit of carbon we have back into the atmosphere, that scenario probably won't happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    it means that more energy is absorbed. As the snow/ice clears, open ground or ocean water is revealed, which has a much lower albedo. The energy takes longer to be emitted back into space and so can get converted into other forms and can do work, which then paves the way for still more snow/ice to melt on average. As I said, the thing is not to look at local conditions, but at the overall increase in the energy contained in the atmosphere, oceans and on land. There are natural cycles of freezing and melting, but if the average temperature over a period increases, more snow/ice melt than is refrozen in the colder periods.
    The problem here is you must look at local conditions to calculate the average climate. And knowing the average climate does not help us solve local problems anymore than knowing the average of a pair of dice. To win, we need to know in advance specific outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    It is all well and good to look at the amounts of gasses released by volcanoes, but this amount is also averaged out over a period. The only thing that is steadily pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, are humans. By far the largest amount of carbon fixing goes on in the oceans. Plants on land benefit from increased levels of CO2 and proliferates, but phytoplankton does not benefit in this way and so cannot help with fixing excess CO2.
    I never heard of this. My research indicates that increased CO2 levels strongly benefit marine plants and blue-green algae and the species that feed on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    At the same time more and more forests are being felled, taking away from the ability of nature to absorb the excess CO2.
    Even if every last plant and tree became extinct, CO2 levels would be about the same. Did you know that before there was any plant life, the world's atmosphere was mostly CO2 and SO2? And before there was any plants, that CO2 was converted to O2? Then plants and animals evolved. It was the bacteria that cleaned the atmosphere and made it suitable for higher life forms. If it were not for bacteria, volcanic eruptions over the last 3 billion years would have overwhelmed the atmosphere with CO2, etc. I learned this fact when I took a college biology course. Wrote a paper on it and got an A.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The result? CO2 increases, more energy is available and the frequency and ferocity of extreme weather increases.
    Unfortunately that is a hypothesis. An interesting one, but it has failed many tests. One thing you might do is make an Earth/Moon climate comparison. The moon has an extreme climate: very hot in the day and freezing at night. Life can't survive there, so that makes it extreme. It also gets about the same amount of energy from the sun, so it is a good comparison. So why is its climate so extreme? Too much GHGs? No, just the opposite. The oceans and GHGs make climates more moderate--moderate enough for life to survive. You can check the heat coefficients for GHGs sometime. I think you will find it a real eye-opener. All GHGs absorb heat slowly and expell it slowly. Thus the climate becomes devoid of extreme high and low temperatures.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    PS: I wanted to add more, but I have to get some sleep now. :?
    I appreciate the Earth-Science lecture, but my studies have gone many science and math courses beyond that, and so now I am a skeptic--I am not some bumpkin who fell off a turnup truck as you might have assumed.
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Thank you! We may disagree on a particular politically charged issue, but we both know a hodge podge when we see it. :-D
    and to which YOU have personally contributed by deleting your posts once threads posted elsewhere were moved here - that way any response to your post will seem to hang in thin air, thereby turning this thread into a hotchpotch
    Well looky here. We have the pot calling the kettle black. If I am guilty of causing confusion, then so are you. And weren't you the one who started the mess? Why don't you take a poll and see how many here like having their posts yanked out from under them? I will graciously accept the majority's verdict.
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    sigh - talk of lying with statistics
    Really! Who lied? Here is a pop quiz: True or false; is the US mean temperature today lower than 1880 (See first and last visible data points on the chart provided.)

    Answer: True.

    Were the 1930's warmer than today?

    Answer: True.
     

  39. #38  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well looky here. We have the pot calling the kettle black. If I am guilty of causing confusion, then so are you. And weren't you the one who started the mess? Why don't you take a poll and see how many here like having their posts yanked out from under them? I will graciously accept the majority's verdict.
    thanks for admitting that you're deliberately sabotaging this forum
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  40. #39  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn



    The first visible point I see starts at the green line. Apparently you think averages are more significant than displacements. The green line also makes up an average or median between the starting point of that line and its end point. I happen to think displacements are more useful, since they show the actual change from one point to another. It is the actual temperature that impacts the climate, not the average. As it stands today, we in the U.S. are no worse off than we were in the 1880s.

    is the US mean temperature today lower than 1880 (See first and last visible data points on the chart provided.)
    you may well be convinced that this is statistical proof, but go and tell this in the maths forum and they'll have a good laugh at your expense
    your "proof" is nothing but a very poor interpretation of the data, and has very little to do with proper stats
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Not sure I understand you question. We already know the current average for specific locations, and the climate models provide a projected change with range of error for that specific area as well. What state do you live in? I'll try to provide you a few examples.
    How about California?
    We're lucky, you happen to live in one of the States that has been pretty active with their own agencies working on impact assessments:

    Going to link their draft report to their legislature but I think you'll find the type of info your looking for:
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publica...2009-003-D.PDF

    Here's a extract of their table of context so you see the breath of areas covered. There's quite a few specifics in the body of the report.

    1 Impacts of Climate Change on California’s Public Health, Infrastructure and
    Natural Resources .................................................. .................................................. . 1.1
    1.1 Introduction and Background .................................................. .................................................. 1.1
    1.2 Brief History of Climate Change Research Efforts in California ................................................. 1.2
    1.3 Impact Studies by Sector .................................................. .................................................. ........ 1.3
    1.3.1 Approach to Socio‐Economic Scenarios .................................................. ........................... 1.3
    1.3.2 Approach to Climate Scenarios .................................................. ........................................ 1.5
    1.3.3 Warming Trends .................................................. .................................................. ............. 1.5
    1.3.4 Precipitation .................................................. .................................................. ................... 1.7
    1.3.5 Sea‐Level Rise .................................................. .................................................. ................. 1.9
    1.3.6 Agriculture .................................................. .................................................. .................... 1.11
    1.3.7 Forestry .................................................. .................................................. ........................ 1.12
    1.3.8 Water Resources .................................................. .................................................. .......... 1.17
    1.3.9 Coastal Areas .................................................. .................................................. ................ 1.20
    1.3.10 Energy .................................................. .................................................. .......................... 1.23
    1.3.11 Air Quality .................................................. .................................................. .................... 1.26
    1.3.12 Public Health .................................................. .................................................. ................ 1.28
    1.3.13 Crosscutting Issues .................................................. .................................................. ....... 1.30
    1.4 Summary of Major Findings .................................................. .................................................. . 1.34
    1.5 References .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 1.35
    2 Economic Impacts of Climate Change on California ....................................... 2.1
    2.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 2.1
    2.2 Economic Valuations .................................................. .................................................. .............. 2.1
    Draft Biennial CAT Report Table of Contents
    2.3 Sectoral Economic Impacts .................................................. .................................................. ... 2.3
    2.3.1 Economic Impacts on Agriculture .................................................. .................................... 2.4
    2.3.2 Economic Impacts on Forestry .................................................. ......................................... 2.9
    2.3.3 Economic Impacts on Water .................................................. .......................................... 2.13
    2.3.4 Economic Impacts on Coastal Regions .................................................. ........................... 2.16
    2.3.5 Economic Impacts on Energy .................................................. ......................................... 2.21
    2.3.6 Economic Impacts on Air Quality .................................................. ................................... 2.24
    2.3.7 Ecological Services .................................................. .................................................. ....... 2.25
    2.3.8 Other Impacts Not Considered .................................................. ...................................... 2.27
    2.4 Summary and Caveats .................................................. .................................................. .......... 2.27
    2.5 References .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 2.28
    3 Climate Change Research in California .................................................. .......... 3.1
    3.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 3.1
    3.2 Overview of Research Programs .................................................. .............................................. 3.3
    3.2.1 National climate change research.......................................... ............................................ 3.3
    3.3 California state‐sponsored and directed climate change research ........................................... 3.6
    3.3.1 Regional climate modeling .................................................. ............................................. 3.12
    3.3.2 Impact and adaptation studies .................................................. ...................................... 3.13
    3.3.3 Greenhouse gas inventory methods .................................................. .............................. 3.16
    3.3.4 Greenhouse gas emissions reduction: Emerging technologies and strategies ................ 3.17
    3.3.5 Transportation .................................................. .................................................. ............. 3.17
    3.3.6 Electricity and natural gas .................................................. .............................................. 3.19
    3.3.7 Low greenhouse gas technologies for other sectors .................................................. ..... 3.21
    3.3.8 Carbon Sequestration .................................................. .................................................. .. 3.21
    3.3.9 Economic impacts and considerations .................................................. ........................... 3.23
    ii
    Draft Biennial CAT Report Table of Contents
    iii
    3.3.10 Social science to support implementation, education, and outreach ............................. 3.24
    3.3.11 Environmental justice impacts and considerations .................................................. ....... 3.24
    3.4 Conclusion: Research and the 2050 challenge .................................................. ...................... 3.25
    3.5 References .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 3.27
    3.6 White Papers from CAT Research Sub‐Group .................................................. ........................ 3.29
    4 State Efforts to Adapt to Current and Future Effects of Climate Change ...... 4.1
    4.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 4.1
    4.1.1 Executive Order S‐13‐08: the Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise Planning Directive 4.1
    4.1.2 California’s Dual Climate Strategy: Mitigation and Adaptation ......................................... 4.3
    4.2 Development of a Climate Adaptation Strategy .................................................. ...................... 4.4
    4.2.1 CAS Components: Science, Policy and Action .................................................. .................. 4.5
    4.3 Sector Working Groups .................................................. .................................................. .......... 4.6
    4.3.1 Water .................................................. .................................................. ............................ 4.7
    4.3.2 Transportation .................................................. .................................................. ............... 4.8
    4.3.3 Oceans and Coastal Resources .................................................. ........................................ 4.9
    4.3.4 Forestry .................................................. .................................................. ........................ 4.10
    4.3.5 Agriculture .................................................. .................................................. .................... 4.12
    4.3.6 Habitat and Biodiversity .................................................. ................................................. 4.13
    4.3.7 Public Health .................................................. .................................................. ................ 4.14
    4.4 Cross‐Sector Interactions .................................................. .................................................. ..... 4.15
    4.5 Early Actions ‐ Climate Adaptation Efforts .................................................. ............................. 4.16
    4.6 Climate Adaptation Tools for Stakeholders .................................................. ........................... 4.17

    --
    There's also a lot more specific reports, here:
    http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publ...cat/index.html
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    you may well be convinced that this is statistical proof, but go and tell this in the maths forum and they'll have a good laugh at your expense
    LOL! The physics forum has already had a good laugh at YOUR expense. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote "There is no physics to describe time travel."
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    your "proof" is nothing but a very poor interpretation of the data, and has very little to do with proper stats
    Well the the stats come from NASA, and one can rightly conclude that the U.S. mean temperature today is lower than it was in 1880. Try telling the math forum otherwise. I will be there watching and eating popcorn.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well looky here. We have the pot calling the kettle black. If I am guilty of causing confusion, then so are you. And weren't you the one who started the mess? Why don't you take a poll and see how many here like having their posts yanked out from under them? I will graciously accept the majority's verdict.
    thanks for admitting that you're deliberately sabotaging this forum
    LMAO! That's a good one! I thought if I moved my post to a different forum you would be glad to be rid of me, but I guess you just can't get enough of me so you moved it back, sugar. Kisses.
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Not sure I understand you question. We already know the current average for specific locations, and the climate models provide a projected change with range of error for that specific area as well. What state do you live in? I'll try to provide you a few examples.
    How about California?
    We're lucky, you happen to live in one of the States that has been pretty active with their own agencies working on impact assessments:

    Going to link their draft report to their legislature but I think you'll find the type of info your looking for:
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publica...2009-003-D.PDF

    Here's a extract of their table of context so you see the breath of areas covered. There's quite a few specifics in the body of the report.

    1 Impacts of Climate Change on California’s Public Health, Infrastructure and
    Natural Resources .................................................. .................................................. . 1.1
    1.1 Introduction and Background .................................................. .................................................. 1.1
    1.2 Brief History of Climate Change Research Efforts in California ................................................. 1.2
    1.3 Impact Studies by Sector .................................................. .................................................. ........ 1.3
    1.3.1 Approach to Socio‐Economic Scenarios .................................................. ........................... 1.3
    1.3.2 Approach to Climate Scenarios .................................................. ........................................ 1.5
    1.3.3 Warming Trends .................................................. .................................................. ............. 1.5
    1.3.4 Precipitation .................................................. .................................................. ................... 1.7
    1.3.5 Sea‐Level Rise .................................................. .................................................. ................. 1.9
    1.3.6 Agriculture .................................................. .................................................. .................... 1.11
    1.3.7 Forestry .................................................. .................................................. ........................ 1.12
    1.3.8 Water Resources .................................................. .................................................. .......... 1.17
    1.3.9 Coastal Areas .................................................. .................................................. ................ 1.20
    1.3.10 Energy .................................................. .................................................. .......................... 1.23
    1.3.11 Air Quality .................................................. .................................................. .................... 1.26
    1.3.12 Public Health .................................................. .................................................. ................ 1.28
    1.3.13 Crosscutting Issues .................................................. .................................................. ....... 1.30
    1.4 Summary of Major Findings .................................................. .................................................. . 1.34
    1.5 References .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 1.35
    2 Economic Impacts of Climate Change on California ....................................... 2.1
    2.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 2.1
    2.2 Economic Valuations .................................................. .................................................. .............. 2.1
    Draft Biennial CAT Report Table of Contents
    2.3 Sectoral Economic Impacts .................................................. .................................................. ... 2.3
    2.3.1 Economic Impacts on Agriculture .................................................. .................................... 2.4
    2.3.2 Economic Impacts on Forestry .................................................. ......................................... 2.9
    2.3.3 Economic Impacts on Water .................................................. .......................................... 2.13
    2.3.4 Economic Impacts on Coastal Regions .................................................. ........................... 2.16
    2.3.5 Economic Impacts on Energy .................................................. ......................................... 2.21
    2.3.6 Economic Impacts on Air Quality .................................................. ................................... 2.24
    2.3.7 Ecological Services .................................................. .................................................. ....... 2.25
    2.3.8 Other Impacts Not Considered .................................................. ...................................... 2.27
    2.4 Summary and Caveats .................................................. .................................................. .......... 2.27
    2.5 References .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 2.28
    3 Climate Change Research in California .................................................. .......... 3.1
    3.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 3.1
    3.2 Overview of Research Programs .................................................. .............................................. 3.3
    3.2.1 National climate change research.......................................... ............................................ 3.3
    3.3 California state‐sponsored and directed climate change research ........................................... 3.6
    3.3.1 Regional climate modeling .................................................. ............................................. 3.12
    3.3.2 Impact and adaptation studies .................................................. ...................................... 3.13
    3.3.3 Greenhouse gas inventory methods .................................................. .............................. 3.16
    3.3.4 Greenhouse gas emissions reduction: Emerging technologies and strategies ................ 3.17
    3.3.5 Transportation .................................................. .................................................. ............. 3.17
    3.3.6 Electricity and natural gas .................................................. .............................................. 3.19
    3.3.7 Low greenhouse gas technologies for other sectors .................................................. ..... 3.21
    3.3.8 Carbon Sequestration .................................................. .................................................. .. 3.21
    3.3.9 Economic impacts and considerations .................................................. ........................... 3.23
    ii
    Draft Biennial CAT Report Table of Contents
    iii
    3.3.10 Social science to support implementation, education, and outreach ............................. 3.24
    3.3.11 Environmental justice impacts and considerations .................................................. ....... 3.24
    3.4 Conclusion: Research and the 2050 challenge .................................................. ...................... 3.25
    3.5 References .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 3.27
    3.6 White Papers from CAT Research Sub‐Group .................................................. ........................ 3.29
    4 State Efforts to Adapt to Current and Future Effects of Climate Change ...... 4.1
    4.1 Introduction .................................................. .................................................. ........................... 4.1
    4.1.1 Executive Order S‐13‐08: the Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise Planning Directive 4.1
    4.1.2 California’s Dual Climate Strategy: Mitigation and Adaptation ......................................... 4.3
    4.2 Development of a Climate Adaptation Strategy .................................................. ...................... 4.4
    4.2.1 CAS Components: Science, Policy and Action .................................................. .................. 4.5
    4.3 Sector Working Groups .................................................. .................................................. .......... 4.6
    4.3.1 Water .................................................. .................................................. ............................ 4.7
    4.3.2 Transportation .................................................. .................................................. ............... 4.8
    4.3.3 Oceans and Coastal Resources .................................................. ........................................ 4.9
    4.3.4 Forestry .................................................. .................................................. ........................ 4.10
    4.3.5 Agriculture .................................................. .................................................. .................... 4.12
    4.3.6 Habitat and Biodiversity .................................................. ................................................. 4.13
    4.3.7 Public Health .................................................. .................................................. ................ 4.14
    4.4 Cross‐Sector Interactions .................................................. .................................................. ..... 4.15
    4.5 Early Actions ‐ Climate Adaptation Efforts .................................................. ............................. 4.16
    4.6 Climate Adaptation Tools for Stakeholders .................................................. ........................... 4.17

    --
    There's also a lot more specific reports, here:
    http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publ...cat/index.html
    Thanks for the info. I will look into it.

    * * *

    I went to the link you provided. I could not find anything regarding a track record of success or failure. What I am most interested in is actual results or success stories.
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Well the the stats come from NASA, and one can rightly conclude that the U.S. mean temperature today inis lower than it was in 1880. Try telling the math forum otherwise. I will be there watching and eating popcorn.
    Just curious why you didn't start your silly line from 1880, when the actual temp was -0.24 instead of 1881 +0.29 where you started your green line. It's even in your graph. Here's the table: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

    Start to End Point analysis doesn't show much in any case. Even linear regression is overly sensitive to the end point, but not too bad when there's as many data points as this.
     

  46. #45  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Well the the stats come from NASA, and one can rightly conclude that the U.S. mean temperature today inis lower than it was in 1880. Try telling the math forum otherwise. I will be there watching and eating popcorn.
    Just curious why you didn't start your silly line from 1880, when the actual temp was -0.24 instead of 1881 +0.29 where you started your green line. It's even in your graph. Here's the table: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

    Start to End Point analysis doesn't show much in any case. Even linear regression is overly sensitive to the end point, but not too bad when there's as many data points as this.
    Actually I added all lines except for the red one to ask that very question. He actually admitted fault, but still insisted on comparing individual temps. Now he is playing innocent again.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    Just curious why you didn't start your silly line from 1880, when the actual temp was -0.24 instead of 1881 +0.29 where you started your green line. It's even in your graph. Here's the table: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
    Well, the point of my post was to show that you can get different results depending on where you want to start and pointed out that it is largely a subjective process. If a person on the street asked you is it warmer in the U.S. today than the 1930's, they are most likely wanting specific information, like the actual displacement between two years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Start to End Point analysis doesn't show much in any case.
    Well if you mean it does not help establish that there is global warming happening, you are right. You would have to take a different approach to show that. In any case the U.S. is lagging behind the global average, even though it produces a lion share of emissions. The chart in any case, shows that the greenhouse effect is not working as expected. Compare the U.S. to the North Pole. The North Pole has more albedo and produces nil GHGs. I would assume the CO2 there would be a lower concentration, yet the temp there is allegedly exceeding the U.S. I notice little tidbits like that. Shouldn't high GHG production combined with low albedo produce higher temps than that chart shows? I am sure there are other factors involved, but according to the IPCC, Man is mostly responsible. If that is true, the U.S. should be one of the hottest places on Earth with runaway rising temps.
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Well the the stats come from NASA, and one can rightly conclude that the U.S. mean temperature today inis lower than it was in 1880. Try telling the math forum otherwise. I will be there watching and eating popcorn.
    Just curious why you didn't start your silly line from 1880, when the actual temp was -0.24 instead of 1881 +0.29 where you started your green line. It's even in your graph. Here's the table: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

    Start to End Point analysis doesn't show much in any case. Even linear regression is overly sensitive to the end point, but not too bad when there's as many data points as this.
    Actually I added all lines except for the red one to ask that very question. He actually admitted fault, but still insisted on comparing individual temps. Now he is playing innocent again.
    LOL! What am I guilty of, Mr. Conspiracy Theorist? I have always made clear that I was measuring the displacement from the "visible" starting point to the end point on the chart.
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I understand how that works. What I don't understand is how a .03-06% concentration of CO2 can make it work to achieve the projections made.
    Look HERE

    I'll quote:

    "The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity. This was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[5] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities."

    "As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is 100 ppmv (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv [1][2]. "

    "Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. Although natural sources represent most CO2 emissions, they do not contribute to the recent observed increase in concentrations because natural sources are balanced by natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[7] The increase in carbon dioxide concentration arises because the increase from human activity is not completely balanced by a corresponding sink."

    "During the 100,000 year ice age cycle, CO2 varies between a low of approximately 200 ppm during cold periods and a high of 280 ppm during interglacials. Recent human influences have increased this to above 380 ppm. There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans. In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans; without this effect CO2 levels would be even higher.[10]"


    Now look at THIS and THIS site, where the contributions of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is discussed.

    The IPCC estimates 0.6 to 1.7 ºC warming for an increase of 30% in CO2 at equilibrium.

    That's funny because I see water reflecting sunlight. You can see the light shimmering off the waves. But water certainly is a much better greenhouse material than CO2 since there is so much more of it. Although, without out it, our climate would be much like the moon's--unsuitable for life.
    Yes, but that only happens at certain angles of incidence. LINK. The rest has already been dealt with.

    Well 90% of the snow and ice in the world is in Antarctica. It is such a cold place the ice will never melt on a few degree increase in temperature.
    Fine, but when it comes to albedo you have to look at surface area, not volume.

    The Antarctic is another story--a meltdown there could raise sealevels 200 meters. Not good! But you need a lot more warming than we will ever get to make that happen. The mean temp would have to increase around 60 C. Even if we put every bit of carbon we have back into the atmosphere, that scenario probably won't happen.
    Not sure if it would require that much, but I am not too concerned either.


    The problem here is you must look at local conditions to calculate the average climate. And knowing the average climate does not help us solve local problems anymore than knowing the average of a pair of dice. To win, we need to know in advance specific outcomes.
    Yes and this is reflected in that quote of yours from the IPCC report about the uncertainty. Some changes are easier to predict that others, but it is still certain that more extremes will occur.

    I never heard of this. My research indicates that increased CO2 levels strongly benefit marine plants and blue-green algae and the species that feed on it.
    I would be interested to see this research, since what I get is that phytoplankton proliferation is mostly constrained by the availability of other nutrients like iron. In fact, it has been proposed to seed the oceans with trace nutrient in order to enable phytoplankton to absorb more CO2. LINK

    Even if every last plant and tree became extinct, CO2 levels would be about the same. Did you know that before there was any plant life, the world's atmosphere was mostly CO2 and SO2? And before there was any plants, that CO2 was converted to O2?
    You'll have to provide a citation for this, as land plants obviously do take up some of the atmospheric CO2 and provides a large portion the carbon we are made up out of.

    It was the bacteria that cleaned the atmosphere and made it suitable for higher life forms. If it were not for bacteria, volcanic eruptions over the last 3 billion years would have overwhelmed the atmosphere with CO2, etc. I learned this fact when I took a college biology course. Wrote a paper on it and got an A.
    Phytoplankton. To convert CO2 into O2 you need photosynthesis, i.e. plants. LINK

    The moon has an extreme climate: very hot in the day and freezing at night.
    You are making a fundamental error here. The moon has no atmosphere or climate and the reason the surface heats up so much is because of the slow release of radiated heat in comparison to conductive and convective heat, which requires an atmosphere.

    You can check the heat coefficients for GHGs sometime. I think you will find it a real eye-opener. All GHGs absorb heat slowly and expell it slowly
    Sure, but remember the water cycle. Water is continually recycled, which means a lot of the heat is returned to the oceans. This actually increases the effect of CO2.

    I appreciate the Earth-Science lecture, but my studies have gone many science and math courses beyond that, and so now I am a skeptic--I am not some bumpkin who fell off a turnup truck as you might have assumed.
    Yet you keep making fundamental errors in your understanding of the underlying factors. I'll freely admit that I don't know that much, but at present I am fairly confident that I know much more than you do.

    The core of the issue is that mid range average temps are slowly increasing and no other source than anthropogenic greenhouse gas production can account for it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well, the point of my post was to show that you can get different results depending on where you want to start and pointed out that it is largely a subjective process. If a person on the street asked you is it warmer in the U.S. today than the 1930's, they are most likely wanting specific information, like the actual displacement between two years.
    Even without applying any math most folks could eyeball the chart and admit it seems to be going up.

    If that street person had even an introductory course in statistics that he actually stayed awake through and saw the annual variability he'd know in an instant that point to point comparison isn't the best method, and more rigorous techniques would have to be brought to bare that can separate that variability from some sort of trend line that takes in all the data. Using more rigorous statistical techniques, when applied correctly and in accordance with a pretty mature set of accepted mathematics, goes quite far to remove the subjectivity.

    Once you take out the year to year variability you'd get something similar to that trend as well. It would be sort of like looking at natural reconstructions that remove year-to-year variability (and the alleged urban heating contamination!): borehole temperature reconstructions.

    The red line is bore hole data, the blue surface temps.
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Lynx_Fox wrote:

    Where this gets really useful is one can translate this into important thresholds such as figuring out the number of hard freeze days that sensitive crops might experience, or input it into environment models that can forecast if it will be cold enough to kill pest infestations such as the Pine Beetle that's currently destroying vast stretches of Rocky Mountain forest.

    You may want to expound on the Pine Beetle situation. How does knowing the mean global climate help solve a local problem? Would it not be easier to kill the beatles with pesticide than to try to convince the entire world to cut emissions? I would think it would be far less costly too.
    You asked for examples specific to locals areas, because that's the most useful info is getting specific about where you live, work, or harvest trees if you do that for a living. That doesn't mean the problem isn't part of a much wider problem, such as the case for the several relative species of pine beetles.

    The scale of the problem is massive:
    http://www.meltonengineering.com/Nor...c%20101708.pdf
    And that's just in Colorado region.

    British Columbia is being effected as well:
    http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biology/introduction_e.html

    And example of a good insect to temperature model that's been validated and matches observations pretty well (one of several models)
    http://www.maths.gla.ac.uk/~xl/semin...ell2005ISC.pdf

    Sorry I hate to spam with huge bulk reports like the above but whether you go through them or not I'm trying to make the point that the pine beetle has created a dire situation not only to the locals in Colorado, but it's part of a much larger dire situation. And in this case, with verified models that relate temperatures to beetle survival and massive forest devastation from warming winters we've had in the past two decades, make a pretty solid case that predictions of further warm winters will result in even more damage from these pest.

    I guess my other point is every problem is local to the person who lives there, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of unique problems in that local nor preclude similar problems over many local areas. It's easy to dismiss every individual problem (e.g. Florida can build dikes to save Miami from rising sea level, people from Bangladesh can move; the farmer can irrigate more; we can drop pesticide on beetles) the cumulative effects of trying to implement innumerable local solutions will be daunting to say the least--and many won't be viable.



     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Well, the point of my post was to show that you can get different results depending on where you want to start and pointed out that it is largely a subjective process. If a person on the street asked you is it warmer in the U.S. today than the 1930's, they are most likely wanting specific information, like the actual displacement between two years.
    Even without applying any math most folks could eyeball the chart and admit it seems to be going up.

    If that street person had even an introductory course in statistics that he actually stayed awake through and saw the annual variability he'd know in an instant that point to point comparison isn't the best method, and more rigorous techniques would have to be brought to bare that can separate that variability from some sort of trend line that takes in all the data. Using more rigorous statistical techniques, when applied correctly and in accordance with a pretty mature set of accepted mathematics, goes quite far to remove the subjectivity.

    Once you take out the year to year variability you'd get something similar to that trend as well. It would be sort of like looking at natural reconstructions that remove year-to-year variability (and the alleged urban heating contamination!): borehole temperature reconstructions.

    The red line is bore hole data, the blue surface temps.
    Oh look the chart is going up! Must be the CO2! LOL! If you look back on the thread you will see I posted a more long-term chart which shows a downtrend over the last 150,000 years. Is the Earth getting warmer or cooler. As I said before, it depends where you start and how you present the data. Your presentation is clearly biased in favor of global warming.
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Lynx_Fox wrote:

    Where this gets really useful is one can translate this into important thresholds such as figuring out the number of hard freeze days that sensitive crops might experience, or input it into environment models that can forecast if it will be cold enough to kill pest infestations such as the Pine Beetle that's currently destroying vast stretches of Rocky Mountain forest.

    You may want to expound on the Pine Beetle situation. How does knowing the mean global climate help solve a local problem? Would it not be easier to kill the beatles with pesticide than to try to convince the entire world to cut emissions? I would think it would be far less costly too.
    You asked for examples specific to locals areas, because that's the most useful info is getting specific about where you live, work, or harvest trees if you do that for a living. That doesn't mean the problem isn't part of a much wider problem, such as the case for the several relative species of pine beetles.

    The scale of the problem is massive:
    http://www.meltonengineering.com/Nor...c%20101708.pdf
    And that's just in Colorado region.

    British Columbia is being effected as well:
    http://mpb.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/biology/introduction_e.html

    And example of a good insect to temperature model that's been validated and matches observations pretty well (one of several models)
    http://www.maths.gla.ac.uk/~xl/semin...ell2005ISC.pdf

    Sorry I hate to spam with huge bulk reports like the above but whether you go through them or not I'm trying to make the point that the pine beetle has created a dire situation not only to the locals in Colorado, but it's part of a much larger dire situation. And in this case, with verified models that relate temperatures to beetle survival and massive forest devastation from warming winters we've had in the past two decades, make a pretty solid case that predictions of further warm winters will result in even more damage from these pest.

    I guess my other point is every problem is local to the person who lives there, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of unique problems in that local nor preclude similar problems over many local areas. It's easy to dismiss every individual problem (e.g. Florida can build dikes to save Miami from rising sea level, people from Bangladesh can move; the farmer can irrigate more; we can drop pesticide on beetles) the cumulative effects of trying to implement innumerable local solutions will be daunting to say the least--and many won't be viable.




    OK, so to kill the beetles we must convince the world to cut back on emissions? What if the world does not cooperate? Can we whip out the bug spray then? LOL! I am sorry; I am just trying to work out the logistics here. Even if we do convince the world to cut back, how do we stop the sun? Look at that 150,000 year chart I posted earlier. It shows that sharp temp increases can happen even in the absense of evil humans.
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I understand how that works. What I don't understand is how a .03-06% concentration of CO2 can make it work to achieve the projections made.
    Look HERE

    I'll quote:


    "Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. Although natural sources represent most CO2 emissions, they do not contribute to the recent observed increase in concentrations because natural sources are balanced by natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[7] The increase in carbon dioxide concentration arises because the increase from human activity is not completely balanced by a corresponding sink."
    Now why wouldn't our emissions be balanced by a sink? Whenever I here the terms "natural" and "human activity," they are used as though we are from another planet and we don't belong here and don't fit in. What are the odds I wonder that we would evolve on this planet and there would be no sinks for us? Perhaps our purpose is to put the carbon back that was taken out of the atmosphere long ago. Perhaps we are just part of the natural cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    That's funny because I see water reflecting sunlight. You can see the light shimmering off the waves. But water certainly is a much better greenhouse material than CO2 since there is so much more of it. Although, without out it, our climate would be much like the moon's--unsuitable for life.
    Yes, but that only happens at certain angles of incidence. LINK. The rest has already been dealt with.
    Well it does happen then. It sure looks that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Well 90% of the snow and ice in the world is in Antarctica. It is such a cold place the ice will never melt on a few degree increase in temperature.
    Fine, but when it comes to albedo you have to look at surface area, not volume.
    I am pretty sure Antarctica has plenty of surface area.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Some changes are easier to predict that others, but it is still certain that more extremes will occur.
    You still have not cited the IPCC report that states that extreme events are a certainty. I don't expect you ever will.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I never heard of this. My research indicates that increased CO2 levels strongly benefit marine plants and blue-green algae and the species that feed on it.
    I would be interested to see this research, since what I get is that phytoplankton proliferation is mostly constrained by the availability of other nutrients like iron. In fact, it has been proposed to seed the oceans with trace nutrient in order to enable phytoplankton to absorb more CO2. LINK

    Even if every last plant and tree became extinct, CO2 levels would be about the same. Did you know that before there was any plant life, the world's atmosphere was mostly CO2 and SO2? And before there was any plants, that CO2 was converted to O2?
    You'll have to provide a citation for this, as land plants obviously do take up some of the atmospheric CO2 and provides a large portion the carbon we are made up
    It was the bacteria that cleaned the atmosphere and made it suitable for higher life forms. If it were not for bacteria, volcanic eruptions over the last 3 billion years would have overwhelmed the atmosphere with CO2, etc. I learned this fact when I took a college biology course. Wrote a paper on it and got an A.
    Phytoplankton. To convert CO2 into O2 you need photosynthesis, i.e. plants. LINK
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

    "One of the earliest types of bacteria was the cyanobacteria, which formed into colonies called stromatolites. Fossil evidence indicates that bacteria shaped like these existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms. They were responsible for the initial conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic state (that is, from a state without oxygen to a state with oxygen) during the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to produce oxygen while sequestering carbon dioxide in organic molecules, playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere."

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You are making a fundamental error here. The moon has no atmosphere or climate...
    So you think the moon has no climate? You poor thing:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...id=chix-sphere
    You are right about it having no atmosphere, so it wouldn't have any GHGs as I stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Sure, but remember the water cycle. Water is continually recycled, which means a lot of the heat is returned to the oceans. This actually increases the effect of CO2.
    So I keep hearing, but I look at that chart for the U.S. (the U.S. being a large contributor of CO2) and our mean temperature has not made much progress or no progress since the 1930s. Yet we are told that our mean temperature is spiraling out of control. If it weren't for these kinds of contradictions, I might be more receptive to the idea that the end is near and CO2 is the cause, especially manmade CO2. Forgive me for looking at the bottom line and not allowing my imagination to run wild.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Yet you keep making fundamental errors in your understanding of the underlying factors. I'll freely admit that I don't know that much, but at present I am fairly confident that I know much more than you do.
    Well it is clear that you are an intellectual giant compared to me. I have learned so much from you about time travel only going backwards, and the moon's non-climate. Oh! I almost forgot! You taught me that extreme events are a certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The core of the issue is that mid range average temps are slowly increasing and no other source than anthropogenic greenhouse gas production can account for it.
    It couldn't be the switching over from radionsondes to satellite and other measurement upgrades. I won't deny that there is a human influence on temperatures but it might not be what you think. Try this article:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
     

  55. #54  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    LOL! The physics forum has already had a good laugh at YOUR expense. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote "There is no physics to describe time travel."
    and i still stand by that statement, which i intended to mean "there is no verified mainstream physics to describe time travel" (but then again, to you any clarification of an initial general statement is "moving the goalposts", isn't it ?)

    looking at the 3 possible ways described in the wikipedia article you quote :

    1. faster than light travel : there is no good evidence that faster than light travel is even possible
    2. going back on yourself in a closed universe : the wiki article itself admits that this type of time travel requires the universe to have properties that it does not appear to have
    3. wormholes : we don't even know whether wormholes exist, let alone that we can even travel through them

    all 3 options are so far away from mainstream physics that their very existence (as is that of time travel) is still under dispute - unlike the physics that underpins climate models
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    OK, so to kill the beetles we must convince the world to cut back on emissions? What if the world does not cooperate? Can we whip out the bug spray then? LOL! I am sorry; I am just trying to work out the logistics here. Even if we do convince the world to cut back, how do we stop the sun?
    You asked for applications of climate to local conditions, I provided several examples.
    You asked why they just couldn't fix one of the local conditions.
    I point out that the "local condition," was part of a larger area of similar problems.

    And now you ask if that similar problem for North America is enough to ask the world to change? I don't know the answer, but I do know, the pine beetle is not JUST one condition, or a condition that's JUST going to effect a small area. If you read the California impact study you see the range of problems just for one state; those problems and many others will be experienced across the globe. All will translate into problems for individuals. Ironically if you look at the climate models for North America, it's one of the least effected by temperature and precipitation change and we'll likely have the tech and wealth to mitigate many of the effects--the rest of the world are unlikely to be as well resourced, and if the forecast are right, will have to face an even larger range of problems.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    LOL! The physics forum has already had a good laugh at YOUR expense. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote "There is no physics to describe time travel."
    and i still stand by that statement, which i intended to mean "there is no verified mainstream physics to describe time travel" (but then again, to you any clarification of an initial general statement is "moving the goalposts", isn't it ?)

    looking at the 3 possible ways described in the wikipedia article you quote :

    1. faster than light travel : there is no good evidence that faster than light travel is even possible
    2. going back on yourself in a closed universe : the wiki article itself admits that this type of time travel requires the universe to have properties that it does not appear to have
    3. wormholes : we don't even know whether wormholes exist, let alone that we can even travel through them

    all 3 options are so far away from mainstream physics that their very existence (as is that of time travel) is still under dispute - unlike the physics that underpins climate models
    LMAO! Oh my! Don't we have a short memory. Let's review some mainstream physics. According to my calculations, using the Lorentz equation for relative time, If you took a plane ride and flew 20,000 miles at 600 mph, you would move forward in time approximately .00001 seconds. You see, when you move through space, you are also moving through time. Mainstream physics calls it spacetime. Now go post your ideas at the physics forum. I'll be watching and eating my popcorn.
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    LMAO! Oh my! Don't we have a short memory. Let's review some mainstream physics. According to my calculations, using the Lorentz equation for relative time, If you took a plane ride and flew 20,000 miles at 600 mph, you would move forward in time approximately .00001 seconds. You see, when you move through space, you are also moving through time. Mainstream physics calls it spacetime. Now go post your ideas at the physics forum. I'll be watching and eating my popcorn.
    Deliberately misunderstanding the discussion is not amusing, it is not productive, it is not intelligent and it won't win any arguments.
    The only excuse you could have for the above post would be that you are thick. Is that the excuse you wish to use?
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    OK, so to kill the beetles we must convince the world to cut back on emissions? What if the world does not cooperate? Can we whip out the bug spray then? LOL! I am sorry; I am just trying to work out the logistics here. Even if we do convince the world to cut back, how do we stop the sun?
    You asked for applications of climate to local conditions, I provided several examples.
    You asked why they just couldn't fix one of the local conditions.
    I point out that the "local condition," was part of a larger area of similar problems.

    And now you ask if that similar problem for North America is enough to ask the world to change? I don't know the answer, but I do know, the pine beetle is not JUST one condition, or a condition that's JUST going to effect a small area. If you read the California impact study you see the range of problems just for one state; those problems and many others will be experienced across the globe. All will translate into problems for individuals. Ironically if you look at the climate models for North America, it's one of the least effected by temperature and precipitation change and we'll likely have the tech and wealth to mitigate many of the effects--the rest of the world are unlikely to be as well resourced, and if the forecast are right, will have to face an even larger range of problems.
    But all that you described is based on the assumption that any change must have more negative consequences than positive. It is also based on the assumption that if we cut back on emissions, no negative consequences of some sort will occur. I honestly don't see the science that supports these assumptions. I do however see the politics and the opportunity for a special interest group to make a pile of money selling carbon credits or carbon sequestering services.
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    LMAO! Oh my! Don't we have a short memory. Let's review some mainstream physics. According to my calculations, using the Lorentz equation for relative time, If you took a plane ride and flew 20,000 miles at 600 mph, you would move forward in time approximately .00001 seconds. You see, when you move through space, you are also moving through time. Mainstream physics calls it spacetime. Now go post your ideas at the physics forum. I'll be watching and eating my popcorn.
    Deliberately misunderstanding the discussion is not amusing, it is not productive, it is not intelligent and it won't win any arguments.
    The only excuse you could have for the above post would be that you are thick. Is that the excuse you wish to use?
    Well, what I posted was not my idea, it was Einstein's. Are you saying he was thick? If so, what does that make you?
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    LMAO! Oh my! Don't we have a short memory. Let's review some mainstream physics. According to my calculations, using the Lorentz equation for relative time, If you took a plane ride and flew 20,000 miles at 600 mph, you would move forward in time approximately .00001 seconds. You see, when you move through space, you are also moving through time. Mainstream physics calls it spacetime. Now go post your ideas at the physics forum. I'll be watching and eating my popcorn.
    Deliberately misunderstanding the discussion is not amusing, it is not productive, it is not intelligent and it won't win any arguments.
    The only excuse you could have for the above post would be that you are thick. Is that the excuse you wish to use?
    Well, what I posted was not my idea, it was Einstein's. Are you saying he was thick? If so, what does that make you?
    Second time in succession. You are perfectly aware that I am not contesting the idea, but the relevance of it to the discussion. Deliberate obtuseness is merely making you look even more foolish than normal.
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    But all that you described is based on the assumption that any change must have more negative consequences than positive. It is also based on the assumption that if we cut back on emissions, no negative consequences of some sort will occur. I honestly don't see the science that supports these assumptions.
    How so? If you go through the California report there will be many positives--less likelihood of flooding if you live near rivers fed by the diminishing snow fields and many others. On the balance, though those that study the issue see mostly negatives, which makes sense considering many of the ecosystems as well as the norms we've come to expect will shift markedly. A forest takes a long time to move hundreds of miles North or thousands of feet higher in elevation--those transitions periods will be stressful to all life including us, regardless of whether they finally end up being beneficial a few hundred years from now.

    I understand you aren't convinced, and you aren't alone among the American public for a whole bunch of reasons including: poor presentation of sciences by the media; general lack of science education which leads to an inability to tell authentic scientific opinion from deliberate disinformation planted by the fossil fuel industry; a natural suspicion of anything international outside of what we buy at Wallmart, including anything done by the UN, the IPCC, and other agencies; a complex psychology of guilt, fear, and denial that our consumerist and wasteful society is directly responsible for the greenhouse gases that scientist are saying is a problem; and a simple desire not to change--well just because. It frustrates me and most other atmospheric scientist that the public is almost two decades behind the predominant scientific opinion--a monumental failure of our representative government.

    I do however see the politics and the opportunity for a special interest group to make a pile of money selling carbon credits or carbon sequestering services.
    I don't wish to rehash it, but it's simply not true. People thinking that mostly government funded researchers for two decades have been somehow beholden to an industry that doesn't even exist yet are desperately reaching or appallingly ignorant of how most of this research has been done. It might not be the whooper of conspiratorial ideas that folks clutch to their bosoms, but it's still pretty far fetched.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    I understand you aren't convinced, and you aren't alone among the American public for a whole bunch of reasons including: poor presentation of sciences by the media; general lack of science education which leads to an inability to tell authentic scientific opinion from deliberate disinformation planted by the fossil fuel industry;
    Yeah, only the evil fuel industry will mislead us. They are the bad guys. The agencies are the good guys. They would never lie to us. If I am unconvinced it is because I know enough about what is going on to know when someone is blowing smoke up my butt. My BS meter is one of the most sensitive, finely-tuned instruments you will encounter. Before I was informed, I went nicely along with the herd and chanted the mantra: Man is evil...nature is good...CO2 is evil...Anyone who disagrees is stupid and evil....You would have thought me brilliant then.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    a natural suspicion of anything international outside of what we buy at Wallmart, including anything done by the UN, the IPCC, and other agencies; a complex psychology of guilt, fear, and denial that our consumerist and wasteful society is directly responsible for the greenhouse gases that scientist are saying is a problem; and a simple desire not to change--well just because. It frustrates me and most other atmospheric scientist that the public is almost two decades behind the predominant scientific opinion--a monumental failure of our representative government.
    A monumental failure of government? How can they possibly screw up? LOL! Since they are screw-ups, maybe we should be cynical when they give us the "pitch" that will lead to more taxes and government control over our lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I do however see the politics and the opportunity for a special interest group to make a pile of money selling carbon credits or carbon sequestering services.
    I don't wish to rehash it, but it's simply not true. People thinking that mostly government funded researchers for two decades have been somehow beholden to an industry that doesn't even exist yet are desperately reaching or appallingly ignorant of how most of this research has been done. It might not be the whooper of conspiratorial ideas that folks clutch to their bosoms, but it's still pretty far fetched.
    Far fetched? You are so out of touch, so tell Peter Pan I said hi. Anyone reading this who has any doubts about what I said can Google "carbon credits and sequesteing."
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    LMAO! Oh my! Don't we have a short memory. Let's review some mainstream physics. According to my calculations, using the Lorentz equation for relative time, If you took a plane ride and flew 20,000 miles at 600 mph, you would move forward in time approximately .00001 seconds. You see, when you move through space, you are also moving through time. Mainstream physics calls it spacetime. Now go post your ideas at the physics forum. I'll be watching and eating my popcorn.
    Deliberately misunderstanding the discussion is not amusing, it is not productive, it is not intelligent and it won't win any arguments.
    The only excuse you could have for the above post would be that you are thick. Is that the excuse you wish to use?
    Well, what I posted was not my idea, it was Einstein's. Are you saying he was thick? If so, what does that make you?
    Second time in succession. You are perfectly aware that I am not contesting the idea, but the relevance of it to the discussion. Deliberate obtuseness is merely making you look even more foolish than normal.
    Well why don't you walk the walk yourself and get us back on track then. Post the least obtuse and least foolish comment you can manage. I am sure I will have no trouble dubunking it point by point, line by line.
     

  65. #64 My Interview With Nasa's James Hanson 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Yesterday I had the opportunity to interview James Hanson. Here is the full interview:

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.js...8&nav=MyGather

    Enjoy.
     

  66. #65 Re: My Interview With Nasa's James Hanson 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Yesterday I had the opportunity to interview James Hanson. Here is the full interview:

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.js...8&nav=MyGather

    Enjoy.
    Too bad your Walter Mitty interview didn't continue. He might have asked you why you hadn't used the current high latitude data. Or should he just have assumed it's because the older stuff from the latest "I hate science" web site are alway better than the current info so long as it supports your position?

    And the original current data:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...nn.Ts+dSST.txt

    An intellectually honest person would post the update on the gathering.

    Here's the actual temp trend from 64N-90N:
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  67. #66 Re: My Interview With Nasa's James Hanson 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Yesterday I had the opportunity to interview James Hanson. Here is the full interview:

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.js...8&nav=MyGather

    Enjoy.
    Too bad your Walter Mitty interview didn't continue. He might have asked you why you hadn't used the current high latitude data. Or should he just have assumed it's because the older stuff from the latest "I hate science" web site are alway better than the current info so long as it supports your position?

    And the original current data:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...nn.Ts+dSST.txt

    An intellectually honest person would post the update on the gathering.

    Here's the actual temp trend from 64N-90N:
    Well I am glad you are intellectually honest. LOL! Aren't you the guy who claimed that climate models predicted tropospheric data at my Climate Model Madness post? Yeah, I think you are. The problem is the climate models really failed to predict the tropospheric data. That would make you intellectually dishonest. Next time you declare that "climate models predicted such and such, give us the time stamp of the prediction, otherwise you are just BS-ing us. Of course hanson loves his surface data more than sophistocated satellite data. The surface data shows a greater warming trend. I'm sure that suits his purposes and yours.
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
     

  69. #68 Re: My Interview With Nasa's James Hanson 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Well I am glad you are intellectually honest. ...Next time you declare that "climate models predicted such and such, give us the time stamp of the prediction, otherwise you are just BS-ing us.
    I almost always do William and you know it. It's just odd that you'd start an entire thread on fishing for data, than purposely put up old stuff from a non-scientific web site even though NASA updates most of their charts on a regular basis. And than "coincidentally," the updated chart shows a warming trend that Ray Charles could see.

    And sorry there's already a thread on tropospheric radiosonde and satellites if you want to switch topics to that.

    Anyhow. You say you like to follow the money, I highly recommend you and others do a bit of research on the creator of junk science which Steven J. Milloy runs and see how he makes his money. You'll find him intertwined the Phillip Morris running the "tobacco is dangerous" denial campaign but in a similar tactics you'll also see his sources for Advancement of Sound Science Center and it's junk science page. The good thing is public disclosure of tax records reveals Exxon gives his organizations quite a bit of money. Here's the Exxon statement from the same year they decided to stop updating their arctic temperature chart (because it no longer suited their purpose) http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=4380
    You should probably be a bit more careful about what you pull from his web site--but at least it's titled correctly, not just in the way it's intended. It's deliberately set up to dupe those not familiar with sciences.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  70. #69 Re: My Interview With Nasa's James Hanson 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn

    Well I am glad you are intellectually honest. ...Next time you declare that "climate models predicted such and such, give us the time stamp of the prediction, otherwise you are just BS-ing us.
    I almost always do William and you know it.
    Really? Give one example. What? Can't do it? Of course not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's just odd that you'd start an entire thread on fishing for data, than purposely put up old stuff from a non-scientific web site
    That non-scientific web site caught NASA with its pants down. Hehehe! A blogger named Steve I believe did likewise. You see, the true scientists think for themselves. They don't go along with the herd. Try thinking for yourself, and maybe someday you will be a scientist too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    even though NASA updates most of their charts on a regular basis. And than "coincidentally," the updated chart shows a warming trend that Ray Charles could see.
    LOL! That any sucker can see, you mean. I don't blame NASA for updating that chart. It made the whole global warming thing look like a scam. The problem with their updated chart is no stations in that area produce any data that would justify the "warming trend." In my article I also posted charts that correlate with the one NASA removed and "updated." For some strange reason Greenland is cooling, so is Canada, but the arctic is warming off the charts. With all that albedo. Uh huh. Even Ray Charles can see through the BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Anyhow. You say you like to follow the money, I highly recommend you and others do a bit of research on the creator of junk science which Steven J. Milloy runs and see how he makes his money. You'll find him intertwined the Phillip Morris running the "tobacco is dangerous" denial campaign but in a similar tactics you'll also see his sources for Advancement of Sound Science Center and it's junk science page. The good thing is public disclosure of tax records reveals Exxon gives his organizations quite a bit of money. Here's the Exxon statement from the same year they decided to stop updating their arctic temperature chart (because it no longer suited their purpose) http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=4380
    Yes, everybody likes to make money including YOU! That is the way of the world. I thought I explained that already. Therefore it comes down to who is right, what the evidence shows. If you want to convince me there is a greenhouse effect happening, you need to show satellite data (which has full world coverage and not the spotty coverage of the radiosonde wind data) that confirms the troposphere's temperature is rising faster than surface temperatures, because that is what is supposed to happen. Even Yale scientists say so, so don't try to lie about it. Of course you will fail to do that because we both know the truth about the satellite data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You should probably be a bit more careful about what you pull from his web site--but at least it's titled correctly, not just in the way it's intended. It's deliberately set up to dupe those not familiar with sciences.
    Look who's talking! Your whole bag is to protect your little climate job. At least those guys did post a chart that existed at one time. It is not their fault NASA did an "update" on it to make it look like global warming is happening.
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    But all that you described is based on the assumption that any change must have more negative consequences than positive. It is also based on the assumption that if we cut back on emissions, no negative consequences of some sort will occur. I honestly don't see the science that supports these assumptions.
    How so? If you go through the California report there will be many positives--less likelihood of flooding if you live near rivers fed by the diminishing snow fields and many others. On the balance, though those that study the issue see mostly negatives, which makes sense considering many of the ecosystems as well as the norms we've come to expect will shift markedly. A forest takes a long time to move hundreds of miles North or thousands of feet higher in elevation--those transitions periods will be stressful to all life including us, regardless of whether they finally end up being beneficial a few hundred years from now.
    .
    Well as I understand it the temperature has increased a degree in the last 100 years?

    Which ecosystem has been wiped out by that?
    None that I know of.
    Infact nobody has even noticed!! Apart from that is a few climate scientist with ultra sensitive measurig equipment!
    My lawn still has grass on
    The ecosystem supporting it is alive and kicking (it needs cutting actually!!).

    It looks very much like alarmist nonsense to me.

    Such as "Warming may lead to cooling!!"
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0518172442.htm

    You could not make it up could you!!
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by esbo
    Well as I understand it the temperature has increased a degree in the last 100 years?

    Which ecosystem has been wiped out by that?
    I shall be happy to pm you links to sites that can help people with learning difficulties and reading problems. It won't be any problem, so don't be ashamed to ask.
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by esbo
    Well as I understand it the temperature has increased a degree in the last 100 years?

    Which ecosystem has been wiped out by that?
    I shall be happy to pm you links to sites that can help people with learning difficulties and reading problems. It won't be any problem, so don't be ashamed to ask.
    And I wil be happy pm you links for pompus stuck up small minded know it alls.
     

  74. #73  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I'll take that as a no.
     

  75. #74  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    when a thread descends into name calling, then i know the time has come to close it - goodbye
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •