Notices
Results 1 to 82 of 82
Like Tree32Likes
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 3 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By Ken Fabos
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 3 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: 340 months. If you're 28 or less, you may not know the difference.

  1. #1 340 months. If you're 28 or less, you may not know the difference. 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    340 months. 340 consecutive months.

    No one under the age of 28 has ever experienced a month in which global average temperatures were cooler than ... the 20th century average.
    For those who don't want to count on their fingers, that last month in question was February 1985. Record Heat in June Extends Globe's Streak to 340 Months | Climate Central

    37 years.

    You need to be 37 years old or more to have ever experienced a June which was cooler than the 20th century average June temperature.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Yet... I know many anti-climaters under 28.


    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    We need a new word.
    We have sexist, and raceist for those who would claim prejudice for an entire sex or race based on the actions of a few individuals.

    Global warming is a prejudicial, obfuscatory, innacurate, unrealistic phrase for a complicated set of events.
    To pull up some temperature anomolies for high latitudes and high altitudes, and then using a broad indiscriminate brush paint the entire climate with that same lack of focus does as much of a disservice as decrying all of a certain sex or race with one brush for the actions of a few.

    If we assume anthropogenic climate forcing through anthropogenic atmosphere loading as a viable analisys of an ongoing event, can we not find a better way of viewing the events and climatic changes?

    Surely, we should seek more accuracy in our phraseology, and decry those who would ignore the paleoclimate record and repeat the obfuscatory mind numbing "global warming". Paleoclimate during warm spells(warmer than today) = more equable climate(less difference between the equator and the poles). Which, interestingly enough is exactly what we are seeing.

    polar warming
    a tendency toward equableness
    What exactly is really important?

    alternately:
    (the linked article failed to mention polar temperature trends as contrasted to temperate temperature trends.)
    If you have a company of ten men, and the 9 workers make 10,000/year, and the owner makes 100,000----then you have an average of 19,000.
    It would seem as though the average worker was doing much better than his paycheck would support.
    Let us say that if the owner's pay were to be doubled to 200,000, we would then have an average of 29,000-------------wow the average pay for that company went up by 52%------------

    Do you see how meaningless and misleading the "average" is?
    Do you not see that assigning "global average" to climate is also meaningless and obfuscatory?

    Let us direct our focus to the real climate and eschew inacuracy, hyperbole, and obfuscatory rhetoric.

    ..............
    anyone got a word?
    ...................
    by the by, do you have a chart showing only arctic and/or west antarctic temperature change.
    The arctic, and west antartic ice and temperature is the "owner" in this simile.
    Last edited by sculptor; July 22nd, 2013 at 01:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Global warming is a prejudicial, obfuscatory, innacurate, unrealistic phrase for a complicated set of events.
    Most physical scientists I know either roll their eyes at the term or sigh heavily when someone uses it in a question.

    Climate change has become more widely accepted.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Considering there are very fews parts of the globe that aren't actually warming compared to the 20th century average, the term "global warming" is pretty representative. This is not a case of one small part of the planet warming so dramatically that's it's giving a false impression for the rest (such as your "workers" example). Of course there's lots more to discuss, and far more details, all of which the climate sciences are providing for those willing to dive deeper than the typical laymen or trying to get past simplifications for the purpose of easier communications.

    Here's an animation that shows the departures since about 1880.

    http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/15/2012GISStemp_datescolorbarcentered.m4v

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Considering there are very fews parts of the globe that aren't actually warming compared to the 20th century average, the term "global warming" is very misrepresentation at all. This is not a case of one small part of the planet warming so dramatically that's it's giving a false impression for the rest (such as your "workers" example). Of course there's lots more to discuss, and far more details, all of which the climate sciences are providing for those willing to dive deeper than the typical laymen or trying to get past simplifications for the purpose of easier communications.

    Here's an animation that shows the departures since about 1880.

    http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/01/15/2012GISStemp_datescolorbarcentered.m4v

    I don't think it is so much the idea that we aren't experiencing global temperature increases. To me, the problem seems to be that the term Global Warming lends itself to a very human experience, which doesn't jive with a geological one. For instance, you get a REALLY cold winter in the middle of "global warming" and people get confused and upset about scientists lying to them.

    Climate change, for better or worse, seems to try distancing itself from this problem through intentional vagueness.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    ... Climate change, for better or worse, seems to try distancing itself from this problem through intentional vagueness.
    (grumble, sigh) (predeleted expletives)
    "intentional vagueness" (more expletives)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I remember 1985, my red haired hamster that I had named Axl died that summer just from the heat alone. I had been making our bath tub into a swimming resort for him for him for a little while each day to keep him cool, but one day I was out all morning and when I came home at noon he was literally cooked in his cage. The temps in northern Indiana were over 105 that summer, and the flies were horrifying. My brother had to go to the hospital several times that year for his his asthma.

    In 1997, January 2, Saint Louis, it was warm enough to be out in shorts and a tshirt without catching a chill.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Climate change versus global warming.

    In 1956, Gilbert Plass referred to global warming in his paper on carbon dioxide.

    In 1975, Wally Broecker used the term, climate change, in an article in the journal, Science.

    NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

    (
    And for those who think that global warming is an invention of lefty pinko environmentalists, please bear in mind that Gilbert Plass worked on the radiative properties of CO2 to design heat seeking missiles.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    I prefer Global Warming - I think it carries the idea that it's an anthropogenic problem that Climate Change does not. Which was what Republican pollster, strategist and GW Bush advisor Frank Luntz found with focus groups and polling. We know that US Republicans deliberately chose an emphasis on 'climate change' over 'global warming' on his advice - to downplay the seriousness of the climate problem.

    "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

    "Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

    The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
    The reality is that both terms are interchangeable. But, as Luntz pointed out, terminology does affect reactions and attitudes. In this case his use of focus groups showed that -

    “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge".
    Importantly "Climate Change" is more suggestive of something natural whereas "Global Warming" was and probably still is more clearly linked in people's minds to human causes. Where GW is IMO more suggestive of anthropogenic, CC leaves things open for global warming to be attributed to anything and everything from cosmic rays to sunspots - or whatever the latest denier talking point is. Everything, that is, except human emitted GHG's.

    There isn't any doubt that a deliberate effort to change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" in order to alter public perceptions did occur - but just not by emissions reductions advocates; it was done by US Republicans (and aped elsewhere) to undermine the idea that human activities were complicit.The clear intent was to undermine public acceptance of the seriousness of the problem in order to impede and delay efforts to address it.

    Kind of surreal that it's the climate scientists and honest proponents of efforts to curb emissions are accused of changing the terminology in order to mislead. But the climate deniers and obstructors, who routinely mislead - especially the cynical and ethics free ones who know that the science is almost certainly valid - are clearly not above trying to dodge scrutiny of their lack of ethics by trying to tar climate scientists with their own brush.

    Of course meanings mutate and perceptions of "Global Warming" being more alarming than "Climate Change" will be subject to change - a decade or two from now, with many more serious extreme weather events under our belts and preference for 'climate change' to describe it could see CC become more alarming than GW. After all, mere warming (usually nice) might lose that less frightening connotation when compared to extreme floods, extreme tropical storms, extreme heatwaves being endured under 'climate change'.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; July 22nd, 2013 at 07:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor, that some regions might count the changes as improvements and produce some winners as well as the more prevalent losers from Global Warming is a valid point - but my understanding is that even for most of these, those 'better' climatic conditions are likely to be transitional, not permanent. Even the shorter term winners will not have immunity from longer term harm. And I don't think any nation or region can exist in isolation; the harms done to the agriculture and economies of the rest of the world will not be kept at bay by anything as insubstantial as an international border.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Importantly "Climate Change" is more suggestive of something natural whereas "Global Warming" was and probably still is more clearly linked in people's minds to human causes. Where GW is IMO more suggestive of anthropogenic, CC leaves things open for global warming to be attributed to anything and everything from cosmic rays to sunspots - or whatever the latest denier talking point is. Everything, that is, except human emitted GHG's..
    And that's what's maddening about the switch in terms.

    The only goodness about "climate change" is it's an opportunity to broaden and discuss the multitude of impacts to regions.

    For example, my little part of the world in western Washington State will warm by 3-5 F by 2100. That's the "warming part," but rather bla as a point to drive home. If broadened to climate change though here's the list of likely events compared to current climate:

    Even more pronounced seasonal variations:
    Wetter more flood prone winters and deeper and drier rainless summers. (last years 82 days without rain will be a norm).
    Less and higher elevation snow pack to fill salmon smolt filled rivers and provide water for the Puget Sound metropolis.
    Lower forest productivity for lumber as well as the introduction of nearly unheard of forest fire risk (for Western side).
    A switch in forest types faster than the natural northern/higher elevation can adjust (timber industry will plant different tress and cut marginally surviving trees earlier)
    Lower and warmer rivers with lower oxygen content for salmon producing streams. Salmon catches will plummet.
    Less water overall to irrigate farms--even new ones able to grow good wine grapes for the first time.
    Higher ocean acidity --already killing natural oyster reproduction.
    Inundation and retreat of of existing salt marshes as sea levels rise (especially in SW WA where there's no geological increases in elevation as there is in the NW Olympics)

    Ideally we probably call it "man-made climate change" to describe the cause and broad enough to account for all the other effects.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The only goodness about "climate change" is it's an opportunity to broaden and discuss the multitude of impacts to regions.
    Is it too cliche for me to blame the media? Global warming seems to carry connotations of alarmists and people who subsist only on nuts and grass telling us the end is nigh. Climate change seems to at LEAST be getting serious notice from political arenas.

    Part of me will use whatever term is necessary to get the issue the attention it deserves from the masses, but another part of me doesn't like beat-around-the-bush vaguetry and watered-down truth.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If broadened to climate change though here's the list of likely events compared to current climate:

    Even more pronounced seasonal variations:
    Wetter more flood prone winters and deeper and drier rainless summers. (last years 82 days without rain will be a norm).
    Less and higher elevation snow pack to fill salmon smolt filled rivers and provide water for the Puget Sound metropolis.
    Lower forest productivity for lumber as well as the introduction of nearly unheard of forest fire risk (for Western side).
    A switch in forest types faster than the natural northern/higher elevation can adjust (timber industry will plant different tress and cut marginally surviving trees earlier)
    Lower and warmer rivers with lower oxygen content for salmon producing streams. Salmon catches will plummet.
    Less water overall to irrigate farms--even new ones able to grow good wine grapes for the first time.
    Higher ocean acidity --already killing natural oyster reproduction.
    Inundation and retreat of of existing salt marshes as sea levels rise (especially in SW WA where there's no geological increases in elevation as there is in the NW Olympics)

    Ideally we probably call it "man-made climate change" to describe the cause and broad enough to account for all the other effects.
    Lynx:
    The current knowledge of paleoclimates does not support (all of?) your "likely events".
    for example, a pond pollen study in wisconsin showed a switch from pine to oak forest in less than a century(without our help).
    When we seek knowledge a good starting point is to try and recognize claims for what we do not know, and free ourselves from these prejudices.
    (damned difficult on a good day, as even the best of scientists must make assumptions from known data-----what my mother used to call--extrapolating from known data-------and, though necessary, it is in these extrapolations that logic can lead us astray of reality).
    .......
    as/re warming: The mantra of paleoclimatologists invariably couples warmer with wetter, "a warmer and wetter world". Logically, melting ice raises sea levels, and frees up the icebound water to enrich the atmosphere with more water vapor, which leads to more warming(and from increased cloud cover more cooling), and more precipitation.
    The greatest unknown is where/when/if the hadley, temperate and polar cells will stabilize. With the current greater amplitude of the rosby waves, and resultant atmospheric eddies, (and perhaps increase in ssw events?) we are indeed seeing longer time frames(durations) for high and low pressure zones, but, can we accurately extrapolate that to the future climate?
    ...............
    from your above link, i find it interesting that a colder area over the west antarctic started circa 1982, and lingers still while the north polar region continues warming. As I have said previously, A major change would seem more likely if/when the west antarctic ice sheet disintegrates.

    Meanwhile, I think that people with your perspective would benefit from eschewing the use of the word "deniers". I believe that that is why dr Lovelock began to say that "global warming" had become a religion---equating denier with heretic. "Denier" is an exclusionary term when what you should want is an inclusionary term. (to quote a tv show---the red green show) he always ends by saying "remember, we're all in this together".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    (to quote a tv show---the red green show) he always ends by saying "remember, we're all in this together".
    I thought it was, "If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."
    sculptor and babe like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    for example, a pond pollen study in wisconsin showed a switch from pine to oak forest in less than a century(without our help).
    A poor example, quick transitions between those particular types of forest is already part of the natural cycle at the same latitude--it's the same in Maine after large areas are cleared by forest fires, slides and other forest leveling events.
    Admittedly though, it might not be too hard on the forest industry in the Pacific NorthWest, since their big money maker is the Douglas Fir which is a very tough species --Red Ceder though with decreased summer rain and extended less to the South might be effected. There's an interesting sidebar discussions in this area about ethics of planting Redwoods and other non-native trees from much further South (there's several in Port Defiance doing well), that will thrive here in a few decades.


    Meanwhile, I think that people with your perspective would benefit from eschewing the use of the word "deniers". I believe that that is why dr Lovelock began to say that "global warming" had become a religion---equating denier with heretic. "Denier" is an exclusionary term when what you should want is an inclusionary term. (to quote a tv show---the red green show) he always ends by saying "remember, we're all in this together".
    Lovelock is a fool. When an entire industry and political engine establishes itself on outright lies to delay even reasonable measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and pushes positions as fact that nearly 100% of climate scientist disagree with, the word "denier" probably isn't derogatory enough. I'm also not quite sure why many of your post give the impression that Paleo climate isn't being factored into climate research, when nothing could be further from the trust--most programs in climate sciences, including the courses I took use Paleoclimatology as the backbone for the study of climate.
    Ken Fabos likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Perhaps, you missed what lovelock was saying. From my perspective of my understanding of his perspective, I gathered that he considered anthropogenic atmospheric loading leading to climate change was a done deal. Which then leads to studying nature's dampening mechanisms, and how we might best aide those mechanisms, and deal with a different climate. He may indeed be a fool---which I doubt---but his gaia model of a self regulating biom ain't foolish. He may have relied on his modeling a tad heavily, but there is much of value in the concept.

    When I studied climatology following the meteorology sequence, little was known about paleoclimatology(compared to today). Since I left the academy, we have recently had the Lisiecki and Raymo benthic stack, and the lake elgygytgyn studies and much much more. Much of what we thought we knew then has been replaced by better field data. (one of the reasons I attended Florida atlantic u., circa 1974-1975 was that they had researchers associated with the ocean coring studies). What was cutting edge then has become old hat. Even the LR04 data is being revisited yet once again at this autumn's AGU convention.

    Nothing in science stands alone. On average we have 80 different fungii living on our bodies, and 98000 Human endogenous retrovirus making up to 8% of our dna. How much of our evolution is governed by these visitors remains debated. So too our climate: We can understand but a small part of climate forcings, and dismissing solar and cosmic influences as denier rhetoric is folly. Whenever you think you have all the answers, look farther. Look for the outliers and find new perspectives.

    Most of our petrochemical atmospheric loading/forcing has happened within the last 60-70 years, and we are rounding the high spot in that graph within a decade or to(if not already). As our use of stored energy (wood, coal, oil, gas)(the current trend seems to be in optomizing non-stored energy) evolves, so too will our effects on the biom evolve. We have screwed up badly in the past, and will likely do so again. The trick is in the recognition of our effects on the biom, and then altering our behaviours to ameliorate the negative effects. Which requires an inclusive approach to problem solving, and a better understanding of the complexities of the whole.

    Personally, I feel that much more danger(for our biom) lies in our use of neonicotinoids than in our petrochemical dependency.
    I also find it foolish to assume that we can load the atmosphere without seeing changes from our actions.
    RobinM likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Global Warming is a theory and should be taken as such until an experiment can be desinged to properly, prove or disprove the theory
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Global Warming is a theory and should be taken as such until an experiment can be desinged to properly, prove or disprove the theory
    Incorrect. The word you meant to use was "Hypothesis" not "theory" and "Support" not "prove." You could also have used the word, "falsifiable."
    There is a lot of evidence that supports AGW.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Global Warming is a theory
    Just like plate tectonics and relativity are theories.

    It's older than both, and simpler than both.

    The only complexities are in the details.

    No need to do "experiments" to determine the radiative properties of gases. Tyndall worked this stuff out in the mid 19th century. John Tyndall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Further work, particularly Plass's work in the mid 20th century, has only confirmed and refined his original findings.

    The most important prediction of climate science is that as the concentration of CO2 (and other ghgs) in the atmosphere increases, we should see cooling of the stratosphere as less radiation gets through the troposphere. And that's exactly what's happening.
    Lynx_Fox and PhDemon like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore jakesyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    117
    Okay, I am goimng to assume for a moment that global warming is real, and that it's effects will pan out and flood all of us. My question is who cares, as the movie 2012 said, we take action on the brink of destruction. Also we have everything needed to rebuild earth and we all know all information is backed up. Truth is global warming will not cause anyone to take action, its affects in the future howoever will
    "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error; but who does strive to do deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    ... , we should see cooling of the stratosphere as less radiation gets through the troposphere. And that's exactly what's happening.
    Except (of course) for the ssw events and the brewer-dobson circulation patterns.
    Both of which may be increasing/accelerating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    My question is who cares
    Those of us who neither want to leave our children with a decimated world nor be responsible for a mass extinction event.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    My question is who cares
    That is defeatist and unbelievably cold-hearted.

    It is likely that many people's livelihoods will be damaged or destroyed by climate change (not just by flooding as you rather naively claim). There is likely to be large scale famine, water shortages, mass migrations, increased disease ...

    If we can do something to prevent or mitigate some of these things, then obviously we should. This could be efforts to try and slow the increase in greenhouse gases, finding alternative crops and new agricultural techniques, water efficiency measures, and so on.
    adelady and Flick Montana like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by jakesyl View Post
    Global Warming is a theory and should be taken as such until an experiment can be desinged to properly, prove or disprove the theory
    There is a big experiment of the sort you want already underway. Interim results already clearly and unmistakeably confirm the fundamentals of the theory. You may be okay with being in the test tube while it continues irreversibly but I am not.

    Waiting until you are satisfied, when you show no signs of bothering to be well informed or even of wanting to properly engage in scepticism* - scepticism requiring you to seek out relevant information and apply intellect and reason to them - is nonsensical.

    *I note that words do change meaning according to usage and increasingly sceptic (or skeptic) is coming to mean people who do the opposite to being sceptical - ie only information that support the pre-determined conclusion is 'relevant' and intellect and reason is about maximising the effectiveness of the rhetoric promoting that conclusion.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    You say climate change, I say global warming,
    You say sceptic, I say denier.
    It would be great if we could call the whole thing off.

    But that isn't really an option. Clearly words do matter and the less informed the target audience is, the more influential that choice will be.

    I don't have any problem calling influential and determined obstructors of timely action on climate and emissions "Deniers". Their followers too. I don't care if people associate this with Holocaust denial because that obstructive effort will end up killing more people than The Holocaust. For those who hold positions of trust and responsibility, who know that the science is almost certainly right and promote misunderstandings, misinformation and lies to prevent timely action being organised, I suggest that this is a crime against humanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Yet one more try to decry the horrible rhetorical of the use of the term "global warming" in some misguided attempt to "sell the science to the masses".

    For example, I offer the record temperatures both highs and lows for a nearby town, Cedar Rapids, Iowa for the month of July.
    Daily Averages for Cedar Rapids, IA - weather.com

    You will note that most of the record high temperatures were 1936 or before, (with many, a century old) while the record lows are more spread out, with several happening within the last few decades------and, we are expected to set yet another record low for today this night.

    The average person will see this and know of a certainty that the claims of "Global Warming" are a bare faced lie.
    And
    Instead of "selling the science to the masses" The silly claim "Global warming" will actually have, is actually having, the opposite effect. Trust is something that is hard to build, and easy to lose.

    Guys, the term "global warming" really SUCKS!!!
    I don''t know how to say it any stronger.

    I'm assuming that you and I know that the term means "average" and that we ain't gonna derive a world(global) average by focusing on Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
    But we don't need to be "sold" the science. (You've heard the phrase "preaching to the choir"?)

    The absolute worst sales tool that you can use, is one that is easily refuted. Which, from a(many) local perspective(s) "global warming" is.

    What really worries me, is that the messages of ecologists such as myself might suffer from the bad rhetoric of "global warming".

    If I try to warn people about the dangers of neonicotinoids, or the surfactants in roundup, or overfishing, or factory farms, etc.etc. I don't want people thinking I'm "just another global warming nut".

    Really guys:
    Eschew this dangerous rhetorical device and find something better.
    You are better than this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor[/quote
    You will note that most of the record high temperatures were 1936 or before, (with many, a century old) while the record lows are more spread out, with several happening within the last few decades------and, we are expected to set yet another record low for today this night.
    And?

    The average person will see this and know of a certainty that the claims of "Global Warming" are a bare faced lie.[/quote]

    Because American education has failed the "average person?"

    Seriously you don't need to know much to understand there's a difference between one tiny part of the globe's weather and the long term averages that make up climate. (I've taught middle children enough to distinguish between the two).

    But it is sad nevertheless, since it's such a missed opportunity to understand WHY is was so hot during the 30's on the Great Plains--a combination of natural response to Pacific sea surface temperatures combined with regional changes from horrible farming practices, dramatically elevated dust levels, low evaporation upwind that exacerbated several years of drought conditions and excessive heat. The complex relationship between the farming practices, dust load and weather that year have been successfully modeled with pretty good success (e.g. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div...l_GRL_2008.pdf). Without man-made regional effects, 1936 would have still been a hot drought year, but much less of one than it turned out to be.

    So do we ditch a term and allow the public to remain ignorant about the conditions from the 1930s? Or provide a bit of education that deepens their understand of not only human activity effect on the future--but a good example of human activity's effects in the past and how man changed those activities?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor @27 - Given that the suggestive power of the words used is proportional to the ignorance of the recipient, I fail to see that using the term "Global Warming" is inappropriate or in any way prevents acceptance of the seriousness of the problem. In other words if you have a reasonable grasp of the problem it doesn't matter what it's called. Personally I think the ongoing issue of "Global Warming" vs "Climate Change" is primarily driven by those who seek to keep people ignorant and confused - and blaming "warmists" for this being an issue is typical of climate Deniers.

    Actual evidence based inquiry - Polling and research conducted by Republicans - into the relative effects of the different terminology shows the opposite of what you are saying - calling it Climate Change is suggestive of global warming being unrelated to human activities and reduces public acceptance of the problem.

    Of course leading Deniers will try and use every new record cold - or even just colder than last year - to undermine public acceptance of Global Warming.

    So, Sculptor, you are expecting (probably already experienced) a cold night; is that an actual new local or regional record? Has your region's ongoing warming trend - I'd be willing to bet it continues to have a warming trend - been overturned? How many record highs vs record lows over the last few decades? Is the perception that warming has therefore stopped really a direct consequence of people who think the problem is serious saying GW and not CC? Or is it a consequence of poor to egregious journalism that enables Denier nonsense (local cold spell equals no global warming) to be reported as fact?

    As far as the appropriateness of "Global Warming" goes - I suggest that, given the overall heat content of ocean, air, land and ice continues to rise whilst you have a cold spell - it is more accurate and less misleading than "Climate Change" - which remains suggestive of being unrelated to human activities.


    Any journalist interpreting a cold weather event for the general public as evidence there is no "Global Warming" is engaged in deception. Whether out of ignorance or incompetence or for loyalty to some ideology or because the media proprietor wants the public misled - it's not the terminology that is to blame.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; July 27th, 2013 at 07:18 PM.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor[/quote
    You will note that most of the record high temperatures were 1936 or before, (with many, a century old) while the record lows are more spread out, with several happening within the last few decades------and, we are expected to set yet another record low for today this night.
    And?
    The average person will see this and know of a certainty that the claims of "Global Warming" are a bare faced lie.
    Because American education has failed the "average person?"
    Seriously you don't need to know much to understand there's a difference between one tiny part of the globe's weather and the long term averages that make up climate. (I've taught middle children enough to distinguish between the two).
    But it is sad nevertheless, since it's such a missed opportunity to understand WHY is was so hot during the 30's on the Great Plains--a combination of natural response to Pacific sea surface temperatures combined with regional changes from horrible farming practices, dramatically elevated dust levels, low evaporation upwind that exacerbated several years of drought conditions and excessive heat. The complex relationship between the farming practices, dust load and weather that year have been successfully modeled with pretty good success (e.g. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div...l_GRL_2008.pdf). Without man-made regional effects, 1936 would have still been a hot drought year, but much less of one than it turned out to be.
    So do we ditch a term and allow the public to remain ignorant about the conditions from the 1930s? Or provide a bit of education that deepens their understand of not only human activity effect on the future--but a good example of human activity's effects in the past and how man changed those activities?[/QUOTE]

    Yes DITCH THE TERM (what, you expected something else?)
    It is grossly inadaquate and inacurate.
    Educate the public as to the real changes.

    Of one thing, I am rather certain. The education system has failed the average person. The needed focus for advanced degrees has narrowed the knowledge base of most of the "well educated".
    I've probably said this before, but here it is anyway. I spend most of 13 years in 5 universities and was just barely scratching the surface of being well educated. The more our science has to offer, the longer it takes to understand the interplay of the diciplines.

    You did notice that over 1/2 the highs were 1913 and before = over a century old.
    Well before mechanized farming and the dust bowl.

    I would expect that the patterns we're seeing will play out thusly: The mid latitudes will see little overall change in temperature outside of "normal" weather/climate events. Meanwhile the warming north polar region will actually cool the midwest springs. And, if there is enough sea level rise to disturb the west antarctic ice sheet, we'll see escalating sea level rise. If it starts raining over greenland I'd begin to lean toward "superinterglacial".

    There is a lot of real good science involved. If you can sell that--teach that, then the gain will be long term.
    Meanwhile, a sound bite innacuracy will fade rather quickly.

    Every day of your life, you get to chose the path down which you will wander, and chosing poor phraseology for your knowledge seems a real waste of a good intellect.

    You know where I stand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor[/quote
    You will note that most of the record high temperatures were 1936 or before, (with many, a century old) while the record lows are more spread out, with several happening within the last few decades------and, we are expected to set yet another record low for today this night.
    And?

    The average person will see this and know of a certainty that the claims of "Global Warming" are a bare faced lie.
    Because American education has failed the "average person?"

    Seriously you don't need to know much to understand there's a difference between one tiny part of the globe's weather and the long term averages that make up climate. (I've taught middle children enough to distinguish between the two).

    But it is sad nevertheless, since it's such a missed opportunity to understand WHY is was so hot during the 30's on the Great Plains--a combination of natural response to Pacific sea surface temperatures combined with regional changes from horrible farming practices, dramatically elevated dust levels, low evaporation upwind that exacerbated several years of drought conditions and excessive heat. The complex relationship between the farming practices, dust load and weather that year have been successfully modeled with pretty good success (e.g. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div...l_GRL_2008.pdf). Without man-made regional effects, 1936 would have still been a hot drought year, but much less of one than it turned out to be.

    So do we ditch a term and allow the public to remain ignorant about the conditions from the 1930s? Or provide a bit of education that deepens their understand of not only human activity effect on the future--but a good example of human activity's effects in the past and how man changed those activities?
    Yes DITCH THE TERM (what, you expected something else?)
    It is grossly inadaquate and inacurate.
    Educate the public as to the real changes.

    Of one thing, I am rather certain. The education system has failed the average person. The needed focus for advanced degrees has narrowed the knowledge base of most of the "well educated".
    I've probably said this before, but here it is anyway. I spenT most of 13 years in 5 universities and was just barely scratching the surface of being well educated. The more our science has to offer, the longer it takes to understand the interplay of the diciplines.

    You did notice that over 1/2 the highs were 1913 and before = over a century old.
    Well before mechanized farming and the dust bowl.

    I would expect that the patterns we're seeing will play out thusly: The mid latitudes will see little overall change in temperature outside of "normal" weather/climate events. Meanwhile the warming north polar region will actually cool the midwest springs. And, if there is enough sea level rise to disturb the west antarctic ice sheet, we'll see escalating sea level rise. If it starts raining over greenland I'd begin to lean toward "superinterglacial".

    There is a lot of real good science involved. If you can sell that--teach that, then the gain will be long term.
    Meanwhile, a sound bite innacuracy will fade rather quickly.

    Every day of your life, you get to chose the path down which you will wander, and chosing poor phraseology for your knowledge seems a real waste of a good intellect.

    You know where I stand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The US is not the globe. It's 2% of the earth's surface.

    The difference shows up quite starkly in which years were the hottest globally and locally in the US. Protip. The 1930s don't show up at all in the global "hottest years ever" list.

    CapitalClimate: U.S. Record Warmest Year Confirmed by Unprecedented Margin



    Note there are 3 years earlier than 1998 in this record for the USA.



    For the global temperature. No years earlier than 1998 would appear in such a display. Have a good look at where the graph below puts the 30s in relation to later temperatures for the whole earth's surface.



    Long-Term Global Warming Trend Continues : Image of the Day
    Ascended likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    You really should double check your data sources against state by state records.
    There is an obvious discrepency in the records I linked and your information.
    one of your sources is a blogspot in au----who are choosing to report only the hottest day on record-------that ain't climate, that's weather.

    Meanwhile
    I know that Iowa ain't the world
    I know that the USA ain't the world
    Jeez lady

    Now lets examine your second link:
    The base period chosen was 1951-1980. Compare that to the page I linked. You will note that not one of the local record high temperatures was in that time period, but that 5 of the record lows were.
    An obvious conclusion is that the base (51-80) data from whence these claims derive has been cherry picked as the least warm three decades available.
    The records for much of this country go back over a century.
    Why were those decades chosen for comparison?
    Why chose the coldest 3 decades of the twentieth centure for the base?

    You should always ask yourself these questions!
    Ask yourself if you are given real numbers from which you can formulate your own opinion, or are you being sold a package deal that choses the data that best sells the package.

    If something looks too (blank) to be true, it most likely is.
    All the data you need to formulate an informed opinion is readily available.

    It is your mind. Chose to fill it wisely.

    ..................
    none of the above denies that anthropogenic atmospheric forcing is having an impact on our climate, nor that this is easily seen in high latitudes.
    ..........
    as/re your second picture
    Has anyone any information as/re that colder than "normal" spot over west antarctica?

    ...............
    back to the phrase "global warming" (global warming for the 3 decades since the 3 coldest US decades of the 20th century)
    Ditch the damned phrase.........find one of your own choosing that more closely approximates your understanding of the real climate change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Which one is in Australia?

    One is NASA. The other is literally Capital Climate - reporting on Washington/Maryland/DC/Virginia specifically, the US in detail, and the global climate occasionally. CapitalClimate

    An obvious conclusion is that the base (51-80) data from whence these claims derive has been cherry picked as the least warm three decades available.
    Obvious conclusion? That someone's deliberately cooked this up for nefarious purposes?

    As it happens, different institutions use different base periods for a variety of reasons. Obviously the satellite records can only be used since satellite observations began to be collected. The others are less obvious, but it doesn't matter anyway. What matters is the trend and they all come up with much the same answer.

    the base period for both satellite records (UAH and RSS) is 1979 to 1998.
    The GISS base period is 1951 to 1980.
    HadCRUT use the base period 1961 to 1990.
    NOAA use 1971 to 2000.


    If you want to see how you can line all these up, have a look at Comparing Temperature Data Sets | Open Mind
    Once you get past all the initial setting up, you get down to looking at what happens when all datasets are lined up against one baseline . (Being a statistician, the blogger is much more adept at this kind of stuff than any of us would be.) He also does further analysis whch may or may not be within any reader's skill set - so the post ends with a link to the whole dataset for those who want to play with the numbers themselves.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    You did notice that over 1/2 the highs were 1913 and before = over a century old.
    Well before mechanized farming and the dust bowl.
    You are assuming there wasn't wide spread destruction, nothing could be further from the truth--by WWI there was already wide scale destruction of the Great Plains natural environment and conversion and denuding of huge swaths of land for farming with complete disregard for sustainability and susceptibility to desertification in arid years. The following charts shows the areas of coverage by crops, and it doesn't even address the wholesale destruction of the Southern Plains grasslands by excessive free grazing before that point. Humans have been changing the Plains and its climate for at least a century and a half. (it's even more dramatic in the Eastern US--with complete states stripped of trees during the 18th and 19th century to fuel steel production and make room for farming). These changes are also one of the several reasons why the US temperature records sometimes doesn't reflect the global historical climate trends--it's a small part of the global which in large part was being dramatically transformed by human activities effecting local and regional changes.



    Of one thing, I am rather certain. The education system has failed the average person. The needed focus for advanced degrees has narrowed the knowledge base of most of the "well educated".
    I've probably said this before, but here it is anyway. I spent most of 13 years in 5 universities and was just barely scratching the surface of being well educated. The more our science has to offer, the longer it takes to understand the interplay of the diciplines.

    It's an interest idea, but I disagree--people getting more advanced degree than past generations doesn't mean they are getting less diversified in other areas--in fact in personal experience it's just the opposite. Especially in the sciences nowdays there's far more emphasis in interdisciplinary topics than even a generation ago. Last summer I was asked to teach the atmosphere part of an undergraduate Earth Science class--it's a requirement for all science degrees at the college I attend. The irony is I have a BS and an MS and never took an Earth Science class before, it was never required; current programs are broader than past programs. It's probably a great topic for a stand alone thread.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 27th, 2013 at 10:19 PM.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    capitalclimate.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/us-record-warmest-year-confirmed-by.html]CapitalClimate: U.S. Record Warmest Year Confirmed by Unprecedented Margin

    notice the au
    that aint short for astronomical unit, nor autism

    ...............
    I never keyboarded in
    "nefarious"
    I don't think Hansen is nefarious, just deluded----remember his "boiling oceans" he did after all start his career with studies of venus..and there is some carry-over-"runaway greenhouse effect"
    seriously, honor the man for what he got right, but never for what he got wrong------he is but a man, prick him and he will still bleed

    If you ain't figured out dr. Hansen's rhetorical style, you really gotta take a step back and look at the greater picture.
    I don't know about the rest of the planet, but rhetoric is a required course in Iowa (where he attended college)

    think of what you just said
    Satelites------------1951-1980--------are you following the bouncing ball? 51-80 was the base period for hansen's rap -'t'ain't nasa, we'll wait to see what nasa has after the hansen dust settles
    satelite started at the end of that base period

    apples and oranges baby
    apples and oranges

    Let us reason together
    You've a mind
    clense it and use it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You've a mind
    clense it and use it
    And you have eyes. Read my post again.

    The baseline for satellite records is set - by the initial use of satellites - 1979 to 1998. Only 20 years for this one, as against 30 years, 51-80, 61-90, 71-00, used by the major surface temperature data sets. But, once again, it makes no difference which baseline is used. What matters is the trend shown by each reporting agency and whether those trends match or diverge. There's no getting away from it. They match.

    Read that piece by Tamino (Grant Foster) and see what I mean.

    As for the .au on the Capital Climate blog, I'd never noticed it. I presume they've got a slave server in Oz to keep down the loads on their US system. (Note that it's a Planet 3.0 blog - they're definitely US based and US centric - though it's a bit hard to imagine how you could be more US centric than following Washington and US weather.)

    What's it got to do with Hansen anyway? He doesn't have anything to do with the temperature data collection and never had as far as I know.
    Even if Hansen or anyone else had personally sat down and written the GISS data by hand, he couldn't have done the same for the British or the other USA data collections, let alone the various European and Japanese and Australian records.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    What we call it is not the problem. Only amidst widespread lack of comprehension of the actual nature of the problem is it even be possible that what we call it matters!

    If any particular term arouses some kind of citizen outrage, I can only ask why? Can I suggest they would have needed to be schooled to that response, perhaps by repeated exposure to some form of derogatory ridicule of the term? Fox News or the like perhaps? Because I see no real provocation in any preference for "Climate change" over "Global Warming" in the communication of climate science by climate scientists. Actually I'm struggling to find evidence they even have any preference for one term over the other. Why is it even an issue? Well, apart from the denialist media seeking to make it an issue.

    Sculptor, I think what mainstream science says about climate is deeply alarming. I fail to see how communities can be motivated to call for - and tolerate - a timely and truly adequate response to the climate problem if their perception is that it is nothing to be alarmed about. A non alarming version would, by it's nature, not be true. You don't like me calling it Global Warming because that gives the wrong impression? I thought the recent complaints hitting the blogosphere were that the latter - "climate change"- is being cynically used in oder to give wrong impression! Which leaves me unsure which term you find more objectionable!


    Flick, Lynx - whether or not the term adequately describes the phenomena is another question. I still think Global Warming is more than adequate for ordinary usage - see Global Heat graph above for why - and any problem with it is almost certainly manufactured.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Flick, Lynx - whether or not the term adequately describes the phenomena is another question. I still think Global Warming is more than adequate for ordinary usage - see Global Heat graph above for why - and any problem with it is almost certainly manufactured.
    Fow what it's worth, I tend not to question whether the term is the best or worst, but rather the efficacy in prompting real debate. 'Global warming' lends itself to a reduction of credibility when laymen have an exceptionally cold winter. That doesn't mean I think generality is a good thing, I just see a different response to the two terms.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as/re SSW events: (which give us at least some of those n.h. cold winters)
    Why is the planet biased toward the advection of energy toward the North Pole versus the South Pole?

    Are ssw events causal to negative Artic oscillations(-ao)---some? or all?

    Any support for the concept that the causal factor for the recent ssw was formed as a warm bubble in the troposphere over the Taklamakan/tarim, was pushed south by northerly winds up against the altun and kunlun shan mountains, generating high positive omega, and burst up into the stratosphere, turned into a warm/thermal stratospheric energy wave the moved rapidly poleward?
    Then fell rapidly back into the troposphere over the pole, pulling mesospheric air down into the stratosphere?
    ----- Mesospheric intrusion and anomalous chemistry during and after a major stratospheric sudden warming

    Would then, locating high omega areas be an important step in unifying climate and weather?

    Anyone know of a good chart/map of stratospheric and mesospheric wind patterns?
    Or stratospheric tides?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as/re SSW events: (which give us at least some of those n.h. cold winters)
    Why is the planet biased toward the advection of energy toward the North Pole versus the South Pole?
    A good question. It's mostly because the North Hemisphere is a much stronger thermohaline circulation that bring equatorial surface waters to mid and high latitudes than the Southern Hemisphere.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    that answers for the oceans
    how about the stratosphere and troposphere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    that answers for the oceans
    how about the stratosphere and troposphere?
    The troposphere due to coupling with the oceans is also a bit higher in the NH than the SH, but not nearly as different with polewards heat transport. The stratosphere is so thin and dry its transport is very tiny compared to the oceans and lower atmosphere. You might want to look up a series of papers by Trenberth and Faullo, who've published some excellent work over the past couple years--here's one of their figures that compares the systems to each other. (Note the upper charts are scaled to northward transport red, southward transport blue).
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 29th, 2013 at 05:16 PM.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Flick, Lynx - whether or not the term adequately describes the phenomena is another question. I still think Global Warming is more than adequate for ordinary usage - see Global Heat graph above for why - and any problem with it is almost certainly manufactured.
    Fow what it's worth, I tend not to question whether the term is the best or worst, but rather the efficacy in prompting real debate. 'Global warming' lends itself to a reduction of credibility when laymen have an exceptionally cold winter. That doesn't mean I think generality is a good thing, I just see a different response to the two terms.
    And I think this is a function of poor media and government performance in their roles as democracy's informers, combined with the cultivation of false and misleading expectations - a lot of it deliberate - aimed at people who get these opinions spoon fed to them.

    I actually think selective use of one term over another can only minimal impact and if I hadn't read about Luntz encouraging Republicans to use one over the other I would not have been aware that there was much difference. Like I said it only works amongst the uninformed, because it is sown into fields of ignorance. And fertilised by the schooling of the public to cynically think there is some deeper, politically biased message in the choice of term. By "warmists" that is. Ignorance of Republicans and Deniers doing exactly that appears to be widespread.

    The Deniers may end up managing to thoroughly smear the term "Global Warming" successfully - seems like they've done so already in the USA, although the " 'warmers' keep changing the name" meme hasn't gained much traction here in Australia. Australians appear less affected by the use of one term over another. Or are less exposed to ridicule of them. Or I avoid too much exposure to mainstream media and haven't noticed.

    It looks to me like there has been an ongoing coordinated effort to smear the term "Global Warming" that has recently morphed into effort to smear "Climate Change" as well.

    Whatever new term you choose to adopt in their place will be smeared in the same way.

    The real substance in Denier campaigning on this is not how well it describes the phenomena or how the ignorant might get the wrong idea from it - ie what Luntz advised Republicans in order to ensure they get the wrong idea - but about creating the impression that climate science communicators are cynical manipulators, who will change the name at the drop of the hat. And with the implication that the climate problem is so devoid of substance that it can only be perpetuated by spin.

    It shows shows just how successful Denier efforts are that people who accept the science and urge action are on the defensive about what we call it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Point well-taken. I admit, I avoid using the term "global warming" in mixed company. I prefer "anthropogenic atmospheric variances resulting in climatological deviations from normal parameters". They're usually in a deep sleep before I finish the sentence.
    sculptor likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Ken
    'couple things
    You still seem to fear "climate change" and "global warming"
    (old saying-----"we fear that which we do not understand")
    From your fear, you use the word denier(s) far too often. You are forcing dichotomy and exclusion where you should be seeking unity and inclusion.
    You also seem to think that "fear" is a good motivator.
    I don't much care if you are trying to train dogs, horses, men or parakeets. Fear is a really poor motivator and is likely to have a negative backlash against the person selling the fear more than to the thing feared.

    If you really care about the shared co-evolutionary biom, ecology, etc... You really need to find a different way of expressing your concerns.

    (I suspect that only those who share your fear will accept your words.)
    .........................
    flip side: (bastardized Kipling)(old "Nam" joke) "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"---perhaps, you do not understand the true nature of the problem.
    ...............................
    Me too flick, when I start discussing the cold late winter via means of stratospheric forcing and rosby waves and stratospheric winds and ssw events and the polar vortex... eyes glaze over...
    something for which my wife uses the initials TMI(too much information)
    Which is why I would seek a better "soundbite".
    For which, we seem to be "coming up dry".

    (sigh)
    .................... Here's a nice link to see the disruption of the polar vortex, in a series of pictures, and an animation.
    http://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/researchhighlights/SSW/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor, I fear unaddressed global warming/climate change in a political environment where ignorance is encouraged and the ignorant are deliberately encouraged to believe climate change is not serious. It is serious and the consequences are genuinely frightening. So how is majority acceptance of the need to act to be achieved? Yes, I believe that the challenge is not beyond our abilities and that, faced head on, with conviction will enrich our lives, not impoverish us - but half hearted efforts, compromises piled on compromises, built in loop holes that coal ships can navigate through will not do it. People need to believe that kind of effort, that almost certainly involves some level of short term economic sacrifice, is necessary or they will refuse it. Compared to the sacrifices our ancestors made to secure a future for us, what is needed is paltry.

    In a climate where Climate science deniers , doubters delayers and obstructors influence across mainstream politics is strong every concession to them - such as falsely agreeing there is nothing to fear - makes the bipartisan unity of effort less, not more, likely to be achieved. Their influence is insidious and they consistently use fear - fear of change, fear of economic harm, fear of job loss, fear of dangerous ideology. It appears to me to be a powerful motivator. But I'm moving past the fear into anger. It's a good motivator too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Come to think of it, most of the outright, gut-wrenching, trembling fear I see in these discussions doesn't come from the advocates for action to deal with the threat of global warming.

    It comes from all the doomsayers fearing that measures to avoid or mitigate emissions or their consequences will lead to immediate economic misery along with a jack-booted authoritarian government taking away all their .....??? I'm never really clear on what all these nasty government actions are supposed to be, I have to admit. I realise that unimaginative people unfamiliar with the topic can't easily see that alternatives to most power generation and transport fossil technologies are already viable or so close to it as makes no difference.

    But the people who are in a position to make these things easier for people to comprehend and to deal with seem to be set, at least in the US media and politics and in several other countries, on turning their populations into weak-kneed do-nothings powerless in the face of this imaginary economic juggernaut that will flatten them and destroy their lives forever.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    long ago, I discovered the best tactic in negotiating was to pre-determine the argue points of the opposition, know them, and list them off and conceed some at the beginning of the negotiation------this left the "enemy" with no ammunition. And, time after time, I won.

    Conceed that some of the time, the earth was warmer during this holocene interglacial, and understand the difference between our atmospheric forcing and the "natural" processes-----when you've pre-conceeded the "talking points" then the floor is yours. Do with it as you will.

    Adelady, there is/are radicalism and fear on both sides. And, when people become entrenched in their fear and agruement, they ofttimes adapt radical unsuportable positions. Know these and know your own biases, and the outcome will be to your liking. Always know your enemy, his fears and stratagems
    and there is no battle. Read your sun tzu, use the knowledge.

    Personally, you know that i do not fear global warming. I see the climate change as a consequence of our energy using industrial jugernaut, and seek to understand how to ameleriate the potential damages while accepting that controlling the jugernaut is well beyond any person's abilities.
    Choose where you put your focus wisely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    long ago, I discovered the best tactic in negotiating was to pre-determine the argue points of the opposition, know them, and list them off and conceed some at the beginning of the negotiation------this left the "enemy" with no ammunition. And, time after time, I won.

    Conceed that some of the time, the earth was warmer during this holocene interglacial, and understand the difference between our atmospheric forcing and the "natural" processes-----when you've pre-conceeded the "talking points" then the floor is yours. Do with it as you will.
    Scientist don't negotiate facts. For one thing they are subject to change with new observations and as the science develops. For another your concessions are incorrect to best of our ability to determine. We areat the WARMEST point of the holocene interracial.


    understand the difference between our atmospheric forcing and the "natural" processes

    You mean do what atmospheric scientist have been putting nearly all their efforts into for the past 30 years?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    A 5,000 year alkenone-based temperature record from Lower Murray Lake reveals a

    2-3 degrees warmer?
    facts?
    who chooses?
    ................
    Your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    What really is/was the accurate picture of past climates?
    So many conflicting opinions by so many conflicting interests

    I say, "keep an open mind" but that never allows for, nor adaquately controls for, the entrenched enterest.

    dig deep dig fast

    "incoming!!!"

    is this war or science? or just maybe a little of each?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The Lower Murray Lake is at latitude of 81 degrees - within the Arctic Circle. Seeing as we know that any Northern Hemisphere warming is amplified in the Arctic, it's not exactly world shattering to discover such an anomaly during a period where we also know that several NH regions warmed at that time.

    If it was startling or remarkable or paradigm shifting, then it would have been noted. One of the authors, R.S. Bradley is a top notch paleoclimatologist and is also one of Michael Mann's co-authors in several of those well-known "hockey stick" papers.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    exactly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor, yes I do sometimes call the dedicated opposers and obstructors "deniers" - although, more often I'm slightly more polite and say "climate science deniers". I tend to use it a bit more when I know that opposers of action on climate are objecting to me doing so. Petty of me, I know.

    But I see no benefit at all in any compromises with them, even the compromise of refraining from using names and terms they don't like. Can't say Denier. Can't say Global Warming. Can't say Climate Change. Can't say anything that diminishes the credibility and respectability of climate deniers and obstructors. Can't use any terms that might encourage people think the climate problem is something to be seriously concerned about or there could be anything to fear in burning fossil fuels without restriction. Why should I co-operate with them in this?


    Deniers are either a danger to our future due to choosing to be ignorant and ill-informed and paranoid (and encouraging others to the same) or they are a danger to our future because they knowingly choose to spread distrust of science to prevent the truth about climate from being the basis of government policy. The latter are the scum of the Earth, and I don't think there is any polite way to phrase it that captures the truly vile nature of what they are engaged in.

    What I call them is is not what is keeping climate solutions in a political quagmire; I'm not even convinced "denier" is really offensive to Deniers - they choose to highlight the less flattering comparisons to Holocaust denier themselves, gratuitously as far as I can see. Even if some actually do feel offense I still see no reason to change the term, given how deeply offensive it is to me to see the climate equivalent of the Tsunami Warning Service subject to multiple fierce and concerted campaigns of denigration from the equivalent of coalitions of coastal business interests linked with paranoid fantasists.
    adelady and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The curious thing is that some people deny scientist like D'Andrea and Bradley when their field data indicate that the midieval warm period was warmer than today.
    It seems that there are climate science deniers on both sides of the "global warming" devide.

    Dichotomous positioning seems to be a constant negative as/re earnest communication.
    Is it actually possible to rid ourselves of exclusionary rhetoric?

    Hanging onto old modeled proxy data which has been disproven by field data reminds me of the Childe problem in anthropology. Which plagued acceptance of field data for well over 20 years.
    Or the "clovis first" guys deriding the people doing the calico hills dig as archaeology's "lunatic fringe". It turns out that the calico hills guys were correct---but painfully so.
    And, yet I see the same entrenchment all over again.

    (I ain't completely confused yet, but I am working on it.)
    Last edited by sculptor; July 31st, 2013 at 08:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    The curious thing is that some people deny scientist like D'Andrea and Bradley when their field data indicate that the midieval warm period was warmer than today.
    It seems that there are climate science deniers on both sides of the "global warming" devide.
    Why do you misrepresent their positions then. We show you composites of dozens of proxies and you think one site will convince otherwise--taken as part of the whole, it doesn't change the average or the likely conclusion that we are the warmest point in the holocene right now. Perhaps you should take the word of D'Andrea "“No single site is going to be able to inform us about the climate system. We had identified western Greenland as a site that was interesting to work in because there weren’t many records from there.” As as I and other have said for a long time here and elsewhere, while the term global warming is an accurate, if incomplete term for what's happening, the more important aspect is figuring the specific regional and local changes so we might avert or mitigate their impacts--that's the real value of looking at places like Western Greenland--or perhaps even how likely Iowa might suffer a particularly warm and dry, or cold summer. Armed with that information we'll make better choices now for our children.
    Flick Montana and PhDemon like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The curious thing is that some people deny scientist like D'Andrea and Bradley when their field data indicate that the midieval warm period was warmer than today.
    Exactly when did Ray Bradley say that the medieval period was warmer than today?

    The work he's best known for says the opposite. (That's for values of "known" outside the fairly small circle of paleoclimatology itself.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    The curious thing is that some people deny scientist like D'Andrea and Bradley when their field data indicate that the midieval warm period was warmer than today.
    It seems that there are climate science deniers on both sides of the "global warming" devide.
    Why do you misrepresent their positions then. We show you composites of dozens of proxies and you think one site will convince otherwise--taken as part of the whole, it doesn't change the average or the likely conclusion that we are the warmest point in the holocene right now. Perhaps you should take the word of D'Andrea "“No single site is going to be able to inform us about the climate system. We had identified western Greenland as a site that was interesting to work in because there weren’t many records from there.” As as I and other have said for a long time here and elsewhere, while the term global warming is an accurate, if incomplete term for what's happening, the more important aspect is figuring the specific regional and local changes so we might avert or mitigate their impacts--that's the real value of looking at places like Western Greenland--or perhaps even how likely Iowa might suffer a particularly warm and dry, or cold summer. Armed with that information we'll make better choices now for our children.
    better choices
    Only if we keep open minds.
    Childe was wrong.
    The clovis first mantra was wrong.

    When we see real field data trumping models we must accept the null hypothesis!
    Field data is the real science. Models are just mathematical approximations.
    Your conclusion
    that we are the warmest point in the holocene right now
    is wrong.

    The cited study stands not alone:

    After the termination of the
    glacial period, temperatures in our record increase
    steadily, reaching a period 2.5 K warmer
    than present during what is referred to as the
    Climatic Optimum (CO), at 8 to 5 ka. Following
    the CO, temperatures cool to a minimum of
    0.5 K colder than the present at around 2 ka.
    The record implies that the medieval period
    around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present
    in Greenland.
    http://pro.unibz.it/staff2/fzavatti/...ahl-jensen.pdf

    and:
    study concludes that the mean annual temperature of this region at ~9.5 ka was ~1°C
    greater than today. They also conclude that the area’s maximum temperature was
    between 6.5 and 5.4 cal yr BP, with near-modern climate present from 5.4 to 3.8 ka.
    An additional study of Rocky Mountain Holocene climate is a synthesis by Fall
    (1997). Her study used timberlines as a paleoclimate proxy in eight sedimentary basins
    in southern Colorado. Pollen and plant macrofossil data show that before 11 ka, the
    climate in the southern Rocky Mountains was 2-5 °C cooler than today with 7-16 cm
    greater precipitation. From 9 to 4 ka, the temperature was 1-2°C warmer than today
    http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/vi...47&context=etd

    This trend is consistent with a middle Holocene
    warm period and subsequent cooling to modern conditions
    during the late Holocene (Grayson, 2000; Lyford et al.,
    2002; Markgraf and Scott, 1981; Schmitt et al., 2002; Smith
    and Betancourt, 1998). However, the temperature trend in
    our data is greater than what has been suggested from
    previous work, which is 1.5–2jC warmer than present
    These studies suggest an early Holocene temperature
    maximum with gradual cooling to present conditions
    (e.g., Elias, 1996; Epstein et al., 1999; Vierling,
    1998), an early Holocene warm period and intense monsoon,
    but a middle Holocene dry period with temperatures
    about 1.5–2jC warmer than present
    http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/~mhre...t_al._Quat.pdf

    many many more if you want to look
    seek and yee shall find
    ask and it shall be given

    The point being, Lynx, that you are relying on climate models that were crap when they were made and are still crap.
    Like buying a crap wine and hoping it will improve with age; vinegar anyone?
    Always bet on the field data against the models.
    True in archaeology, and true in climate science also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The curious thing is that some people deny scientist like D'Andrea and Bradley when their field data indicate that the midieval warm period was warmer than today.
    Exactly when did Ray Bradley say that the medieval period was warmer than today?

    The work he's best known for says the opposite. (That's for values of "known" outside the fairly small circle of paleoclimatology itself.)
    800 AD and persisting until ~1200 AD, with temperatures up to 2-3 deg C warmer than the mean temperature for the past 100 years
    from the linked above
    and we know that temperatures are less than 1 degree C warmer that the last century's mean
    so, extrapolating from known data
    "warmer than today"

    It is there if you will but see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Can we get over this sillyness and get on with finding an accurate message?

    ....................
    just because this ain't the warmest period in the holocene doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate forcing isn't/will be without consequences.
    Let us look at/to the real science and try to formulate understandings that can lead to estimations of the potentials embodied whithin anthropogenic atmospheric forcing.

    Can we rid ourselves of positional misconceptions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    he record implies that the medieval period
    around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present
    in Greenland.
    ....
    the mean annual temperature of this region at ~9.5 ka was ~1°C
    greater than today.
    .....
    from the link - ..., it was unclear whether the
    observed climate changes in the Yellowstone region were
    the result of local or regional effects. The purpose of this
    study is to evaluate oxygen isotope values of goethite from
    ferricretes from high alpine catchments in both the northern
    and southern Rocky Mountains to determine the spatial
    variability of regional Holocene climate modification within
    the Rocky Mountain region. Herein we show that the
    isotopic records of the southern and northern Rocky Mountains
    are significantly different, suggesting that Holocene
    climate change was regionally variable.
    So why do you think that paleoclimatologists go to such lengths to get proxy records from as many different sources in as many different regions as they possibly can?

    It's because no one region and no single kind of evidence can be relied on to be consistent with the global average state or trend at any one time. Extreme regions can show both hotter during warming periods and colder during cooling periods. Others may have particular geographic or ecological or other responses that show varying effects at different times and circumstances.

    One site is exactly that. One site. It's only when you put all the site records together that you get any possibility of a global record being compiled - and even then you'll refine that picture as better techniques or new data (from an ice or coral or lake bed core, for instance). And when you put all the site records together you have to review and see if any particular kind of data, or any one region, is over-represented in your analysis and could potentially bias your results. (Having 100 data sets is of no real value if 30 are from lake beds in the Russian Arctic, 30 are from corals of the Great Barrier Reef and the others are scattered all over the shop from speleothems and tree rings and ice cores and all from geographically scattered sites.)

    Cherry picking one site that shows one particular temperature signal in one particular place tells no one anything worth knowing about global climate trends. Knowing that it is typical - or an outlier - for the region is helpful. Working out that it is typical - or an outlier - for the global record is even more helpful, but only if you're looking for a global average. If you're looking for regional effects within a given set of average global conditions, then you need both.

    And what we're finding is that what these high latitude proxies show is consistent with what theory tells us. That when a hemisphere, or the whole globe warms up, the effects are stronger, sooner, in high latitudes.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    ONE ????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Jezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Why are you being deliberately obtuse? For example your statement:
    When we see real field data trumping models we must accept the null hypothesis!

    If you had the most basic understanding of climate science, as you claim to have, you'd already know that for one that the separation of real and model data is artificial, particularly as it pertains to proxy data. Jenson is using proxy data, which is also mathematical approxiation--JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER DOZENS OF PROXY STUDIES. The same is true of the various attempt to marry them into coherent picture over tiny places like Western Greenland, that at most speak to about a 1000 km radius (see Hanson's work), so they can be combined into a global picture. Showing warmer temps over one or two places, doesn't change the body of other proxies from around the globe--anymore than your cold summer means the US isn't haven't a warmer summer than average. (mathematically modeling is key to all physical science...even things we consider direct measurements such pressure, temperature and wind speeds). You can show a half dozen more studies of Western Greenland and it doesn't change a thing; if you think it does you are playing into some odd sense of confirmation bias.

    Can we get over this sillyness and get on with finding an accurate message?
    If you want it simple it's this:
    Man-made global climate change.

    Don't think we haven't noticed your comparison to science embarrassments have nothing to do with climate science (a logical fallacy), and siting of rather dated materials, from which point climate knowledge has probably tripled.

    If you want it complicated you'll need a few hundred hours.


    PhDemon likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Today.

    One very important thing to remember for many of these studies, especially older ones. "Today" may not mean the today of ordinary conversation.

    If a temperature graph is smoothed to century averages for instance, the "today" for the last data point is certainly the middle of the 20th century - 1950 or even earlier. So no real comparison to the rise in global temperatures of the last 3 decades can be made without expert guidance.

    When we're looking at even longer periods, like tens of thousands or even millions of years, you're even less likely to have a normal version of "today". Look carefully into the words of any paper doing such a reconstruction so you can discern what the researchers are getting at when they're talking about "more recent" or "modern" times. They might be talking about the previous 20 or so years, check the date of publication. Equally likely, they might be talking about the last couple of centuries or millennia. It pays to be careful.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    When we see real field data trumping models we must accept the null hypothesis!
    Field data is the real science. Models are just mathematical approximations.
    I'm not a climatologist, so I won't speak for them. However, when I build hydrological models, it is from in situ measurements and data. It's not from maths I pulled out of my butt.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    How about:

    "To paraphrase W.S. Broecker; 'Climate is an ill-tempered beast, and we are poking it with sticks'."

    So far, the agw side of the great climate debate/devide have denied 5 scientist on this page alone.
    Pollen studies into Holocene warm periods to follow.
    (Pollen = yet one more proxy for temperature)
    (sigh)

    A dialogue requires a certain willingness to see the other guy's perspective and change one's own when change is due.
    Which brings up Ken's quetion in another thread.........

    Mathew 26:34

    ...................adelady
    bp, p =1950
    BP before present(from carbon dating) present is assumed to mean 1950
    if present is used without the before in front of it, I use the date of the study
    the murray lake studie used 20th century mean which leaves comparison to present within the known 20th century mean temperature.

    Remember, I came into paleoclimate studies out of archaeological studies---I must pause in my thinking a moment to acknowledge that bp might mean british petroleum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    So far, the agw side of the great climate debate/devide have denied 5 scientist on this page alone.
    I would be careful how you word that. They have not denied the findings of those scientists, they have denied the way you interpreted those findings. In fact, they appear to have agreed with those scientific findings in a couple cases.
    Lynx_Fox, sculptor and PhDemon like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thanks flick
    interpretation shifts as debate ebbs and flows. when debate has worn down maybe conversation can emerge without the dichotomous rhetoric?

    what was jesus really telling peter(his rock) in the above?
    I think it was reiteration of mathew 7:1.

    pollen studies to follow
    (after i fasten the rafters, which I finished cutting this morn, for the solar chimney cap )

    is ego an id function? or, is id an ego function? or are they functions of each other?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Ok
    here are a few more scientist who do not think that this is the warmest time in the holocene
    peruse
    contemplate

    It's 55 degrees F at Kangerlussauq, it's a balmy day in Greenland.
    ...
    When land up-lift has been taken into account this higher tree-line corresponds to a summer
    temperature of 1.5-2°C higher than today.
    The climate was warm and moist during the early Holocene and warm and dry during the mid-Holocene

    Holocene vegetation dynamics and climate changes in the Torneträsk area, northern Sweden - Lund University
    .......

    Evidence for a mid-Holocene thermal maximum in
    Scandinavia is considerable, and based on a wide range
    of proxies. Tree-lines reachedtheir maximum altitude
    up to 300m higher than today (Eronen andZetterb erg,
    1996; Barnekow andSand gren, 2001) andglaciers were
    much reduced or absent (Karl!en, 1988; Seierstadet al.,
    2002). Quantitative reconstructions indicate that temperatures
    were up to 2.0C higher than today

    http://www.gi.ee/~veski/10616.pdf
    .................

    Early-Holocene warming in Iceland caused rapid glacial ice melt which led to exposed landscapes
    on which soils developed and floras quickly established.
    Our chironomid-based records from northern Iceland suggest temperatures were up to
    2—2.5°C warmer than present throughout the first two millennia post deglaciation

    Lacustrine evidence of early-Holocene environmental change in northern Iceland: a multiproxy palaeoecology and stable isotope study
    ................

    We propose that this was due to warming (including a previously unrecognized period
    from ≈1,100 to 2,300 14C yr B.P.) that decreased coastal sea ice and allowed penetration
    of warmer-than-present climate conditions into the Ross Embayment.
    If, as proposed in the literature, the ice shelf survived this period,
    it would have been exposed to environments substantially warmer than present.

    Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea
    ......................

    study concludes that the mean annual temperature of this region at ~9.5 ka was ~1°C
    greater than today. They also conclude that the area’s maximum temperature was
    between 6.5 and 5.4 cal yr BP, with near-modern climate present from 5.4 to 3.8 ka.
    An additional study of Rocky Mountain Holocene climate is a synthesis by Fall
    (1997). Her study used timberlines as a paleoclimate proxy in eight sedimentary basins
    in southern Colorado. Pollen and plant macrofossil data show that before 11 ka, the
    climate in the southern Rocky Mountains was 2-5 °C cooler than today with 7-16 cm
    greater precipitation. From 9 to 4 ka, the temperature was 1-2°C warmer than today

    http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/vi...47&context=etd
    .....................

    Numerous proxies, including chironomidinferred
    July air temperatures, diatom-inferred lakewater pH, and sediment organic matter, reveal a pronounced Holocene thermal maximum
    as much as 5-C warmer than historic summer temperatures from ¨10,000 to 8500 cal yr B.P.

    https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/pa...eretal2006.pdf
    (caveat: winters lagged summers for heat more'n present at 8kybp)
    ...............

    pollen record from Chuna Lake, Kola Peninsula, Russia. ... temperatures being 1.5-2C higher than at present

    Quantitative reconstruction of Holocene climate from the Chuna Lake pollen record, Kola Peninsula, northwest Russia
    ................

    Ice remained behind its present margin for ∼7 k.y. during a warm period in the middle Holocene with sustained temperatures ∼2 °C warmer than today,

    Response of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, to Holocene climate change
    ....................
    After the termination of the
    glacial period, temperatures in our record increase
    steadily, reaching a period 2.5 K warmer
    than present during what is referred to as the
    Climatic Optimum (CO), at 8 to 5 ka. Following
    the CO, temperatures cool to a minimum of
    0.5 K colder than the present at around 2 ka.
    The record implies that the medieval period
    around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present
    in Greenland.

    http://pro.unibz.it/staff2/fzavatti/...ahl-jensen.pdf
    ..............

    By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today

    7(x) Earth's Climatic History
    .................

    Kola Peninsula with July temperatures being 1.5-2C higher than at present

    Quantitative reconstruction of Holocene climate from the Chuna Lake pollen record, Kola Peninsula, northwest Russia
    .................
    GRIP and GISP2 ice cores from Greenland suggest that
    the climate over Greenland and the North Atlantic during the Holocene
    Climatic Optimum or Hypsithermal c. 8000–5000 cal. yrBP was 2–3°C warmer than at present. ...

    https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle...ita?sequence=1
    ....................
    'nuff null hypotheses to shuffle off this " current warmest" coil?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor - I am curious where you source climate science information from. I don't think you are scrutinising every climate science paper that gets published yourself, so someone is pointing out bits they think are wrong and that offer you opportunity to criticise mainstream climate science. Is it possible they have an agenda with a climate obstructionist bias?

    The biblical quotes aren't doing anything for me - me being fortunate to grow up without much religious instruction - but... I took a quick look at the quotes in question. Are you really comparing my refusal to compromise and be nice to climate science deniers* to Judas betraying Jesus? Huh?

    And I should refrain from making judgements and disparaging remarks about deniers because I'll be judged too?

    We can't get by without making some personal judgements, but I will continue to defer to superior expertise - such as that of the US National Academy of Sciences or The Royal Society or Australia's CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.

    As for my question in another thread... I'm not sure which. I am capable of saying things I regret but I'd like to know which things before deciding if I actually do.

    *Would be obvious from context that (where I use it) 'denier' refers to climate science denial, but, just to be absolutely clear I've been gone out of my way to be more specific, so that those who have been schooled by denier propaganda to believe saying 'denier' is a deliberate comparison to Holocaust Deniers won't have cause to complain. That comparison just doesn't apply of course - Holocaust Deniers disbelieve that awful things have happened to millions of innocent people in the past, whilst Climate Deniers disbelieve that awful things will happen to billions of innocent people in the future. And want to obstruct others from doing anything to prevent that future. Not the same at all; climate deniers, especially the ones that know the problem is real and the fundamental science is valid are, IMO, worse than Holocaust deniers.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; August 1st, 2013 at 09:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Ok
    here are a few more scientist who do not think that this is the warmest time in the holocene
    peruse
    contemplate

    It's 55 degrees F at Kangerlussauq, it's a balmy day in Greenland.
    ...
    When land up-lift has been taken into account this higher tree-line corresponds to a summer
    temperature of 1.5-2°C higher than today.
    The climate was warm and moist during the early Holocene and warm and dry during the mid-Holocene

    Holocene vegetation dynamics and climate changes in the Torneträsk area, northern Sweden - Lund University
    .......

    Evidence for a mid-Holocene thermal maximum in
    Scandinavia is considerable, and based on a wide range
    of proxies. Tree-lines reachedtheir maximum altitude
    up to 300m higher than today (Eronen andZetterb erg,
    1996; Barnekow andSand gren, 2001) andglaciers were
    much reduced or absent (Karl!en, 1988; Seierstadet al.,
    2002). Quantitative reconstructions indicate that temperatures
    were up to 2.0C higher than today

    http://www.gi.ee/~veski/10616.pdf
    .................

    Early-Holocene warming in Iceland caused rapid glacial ice melt which led to exposed landscapes
    on which soils developed and floras quickly established.
    Our chironomid-based records from northern Iceland suggest temperatures were up to
    2—2.5°C warmer than present throughout the first two millennia post deglaciation

    Lacustrine evidence of early-Holocene environmental change in northern Iceland: a multiproxy palaeoecology and stable isotope study
    ................

    We propose that this was due to warming (including a previously unrecognized period
    from ≈1,100 to 2,300 14C yr B.P.) that decreased coastal sea ice and allowed penetration
    of warmer-than-present climate conditions into the Ross Embayment.
    If, as proposed in the literature, the ice shelf survived this period,
    it would have been exposed to environments substantially warmer than present.

    Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea
    ......................

    study concludes that the mean annual temperature of this region at ~9.5 ka was ~1°C
    greater than today. They also conclude that the area’s maximum temperature was
    between 6.5 and 5.4 cal yr BP, with near-modern climate present from 5.4 to 3.8 ka.
    An additional study of Rocky Mountain Holocene climate is a synthesis by Fall
    (1997). Her study used timberlines as a paleoclimate proxy in eight sedimentary basins
    in southern Colorado. Pollen and plant macrofossil data show that before 11 ka, the
    climate in the southern Rocky Mountains was 2-5 °C cooler than today with 7-16 cm
    greater precipitation. From 9 to 4 ka, the temperature was 1-2°C warmer than today

    http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/vi...47&context=etd
    .....................

    Numerous proxies, including chironomidinferred
    July air temperatures, diatom-inferred lakewater pH, and sediment organic matter, reveal a pronounced Holocene thermal maximum
    as much as 5-C warmer than historic summer temperatures from ¨10,000 to 8500 cal yr B.P.

    https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/pa...eretal2006.pdf
    (caveat: winters lagged summers for heat more'n present at 8kybp)
    ...............

    pollen record from Chuna Lake, Kola Peninsula, Russia. ... temperatures being 1.5-2C higher than at present

    Quantitative reconstruction of Holocene climate from the Chuna Lake pollen record, Kola Peninsula, northwest Russia
    ................

    Ice remained behind its present margin for ∼7 k.y. during a warm period in the middle Holocene with sustained temperatures ∼2 °C warmer than today,

    Response of Jakobshavn Isbræ, Greenland, to Holocene climate change
    ....................
    After the termination of the
    glacial period, temperatures in our record increase
    steadily, reaching a period 2.5 K warmer
    than present during what is referred to as the
    Climatic Optimum (CO), at 8 to 5 ka. Following
    the CO, temperatures cool to a minimum of
    0.5 K colder than the present at around 2 ka.
    The record implies that the medieval period
    around 1000 A.D. was 1 K warmer than present
    in Greenland.

    http://pro.unibz.it/staff2/fzavatti/...ahl-jensen.pdf
    ..............

    By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today

    7(x) Earth's Climatic History
    .................

    GRIP and GISP2 ice cores from Greenland suggest that
    the climate over Greenland and the North Atlantic during the Holocene
    Climatic Optimum or Hypsithermal c. 8000–5000 cal. yrBP was 2–3°C warmer than at present. ...

    https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle...ita?sequence=1
    ....................
    'nuff null hypotheses to shuffle off this "current warmest" coil?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I may have missed an exception, but all of those citations refer to locations at high latitudes.

    We already know that these areas react strongly to any warming from any cause in every period ever examined. What's the point of these examples?

    Every single one of these citations is a demonstration of Arctic amplification of climate trends, not a contradiction. They're not exceptions or null results countering or disproving any of the physics or meteorology or glaciology or any other sub-specialty included in climate science - these observations and records are entirely consistent with the theory and help to confirm climate scientists' conclusions.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    They are also included in the most recent Marcott, et al., reconstructions that included more than 70 other proxy studies from around the world. It illustrates the averaging problems as well, since most of the proxy studies and methods that glue them together are no better than 120-150 years resolution. This means a few things: 1) comparisons to today are actually comparisons to early 20th century for which the data is calibrated, 2) it's difficult to say with confidence that shorter term increases of the current error are necessarily unique because we simply lack the resolution from proxies for the rest of the Holocene. Obviously knowing the difficulties with direct comparison between grainy past Holocene and past several decades nearly all these studies conservatively place "current temps" as least as warm as past 75th percentile. Give it three or four more decades, or finer resolution proxy data and a higher confidence answer and comparison will emerge. Nevertheless, and with all those caveats about time resolution, it's still informative to look at the overall reconstruction:
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    No one under the age of 28 has ever experienced a month in which global average temperatures were cooler than ... the 20th century average.
    Yes, and there's a generational difference in understanding about "climate change" especially regarding atmosphere. It was decision-making adults during the 1960's who reasoned that if we just emitted pure CO2 - without the unsightly aerosol - we'd be improving the environment. Get rid of pea-soup smog and acid rain. So they passed all those clean air laws to modify our emissions and look what happened.

    I understand why people with an environmental mindset founded on the concept of "pollution" are confused or resistant to the data. No one wants to learn their good intentions unleashed an ongoing problem. I find the worst agreement I can reach with them is to attribute this post-60s warming to the smokestacks of developing countries. The best agreement I can reach is that fossil fuel is simply bad energy.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The best agreement I can reach is that fossil fuel is simply bad energy.
    My approach now is simply to refer only to fossils. Burning fossils, fossil industries, liquid fossils, gases from fossils.

    The other main thing to get across to (younger) people is just how antiquated the processes, and the concepts when you think about it, really are for all these fossil based, fossilised industries. The only modern thing about a new power station is the construction materials. Everything else is just tweaking or refining or controlling or sophistimacating 200 year old technology. Simply put, we're burning irreplaceable stuff to heat water to turn a turbine. The only essential part of that process in a centralised power generator is the turbine.

    If they wouldn't use a 1950s bakelite black phone with calls connected to them by telephonists operating an antiquated system, why should they use a power system designed on similar clunky principles?
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    That's a persuasive argument, but it undermines hydroelectricity... hydro being older than bakelite. I've whined here before that my local Green Party (British Columbia) scorns hydro in favour of "innovative" technology like photovoltaic or wind turbine though neither are appropriate for the region.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I may have missed an exception, but all of those citations refer to locations at high latitudes.

    We already know that these areas react strongly to any warming from any cause in every period ever examined. What's the point of these examples?

    Every single one of these citations is a demonstration of Arctic amplification of climate trends, not a contradiction. They're not exceptions or null results countering or disproving any of the physics or meteorology or glaciology or any other sub-specialty included in climate science - these observations and records are entirely consistent with the theory and help to confirm climate scientists' conclusions.
    Actually, you missed 2 one from colorado approximately 40 degrees north latitude, and another from mountains farther south-both high altitudes. There was another I read from washington or Idaho, but may have not included.

    That was actually a good part of the point of noteing that high altitude and high latitudes(N and S--elephant seals) tend to get most of the warming rather than "global warming" for most studies into paleoclimates which were warmer than present.
    The other part of the point was that the claim that it has never been warmer than present is easily refutable, and thereby not a good arguement.
    So far, over 120 studies into paleo climates have shown warmer conditions within the holocene. Some avoided stating temperatures, & some of these, relying on the pollen studies to inform as to the climate.

    I would readily agree that todays temperatures are in the 75th percentile of the holocene---2102 being above that, and 2013(so far) being below that percentile. ---(an entertaining side note to that was a headline on a denier site, proudly stating the inverse---that 28% of the holocene was warmer than today----) Some of those "anti global warming" sites seem to attract crazies like shit attracts flies.

    As previously stated, my wife is the only full professor currently in the rhetoric department at U of Iowa. Hyperbole is a recognized tool for rhetoric and political science. I have issue with hyperbole and sloppy phraseology being used in earth and climate sciences.

    Good news: From greenland to iceland to scandinavia to siberia to canada people are planting trees. Some for the value of forests, and some for the turning atmospheric CO2 into lumber.
    Nasa has launched a satelite to study the mesosphere and thermospheric winds, with more in the planning stage.
    A satellite designed to study a previously unexplored region of the atmosphere blasted-off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 1507 GMT on 7 December.

    Using an array of remote sensors, the satellite will capture the first detailed measurements of a region known as the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere/Ionosphere (MLTI).
    NASA satellite will monitor uncharted atmosphere - 07 December 2001 - New Scientist
    also:
    During the space shuttle main engine burn, some 350 t of water vapor are deposited at between 100 and 115 km. Subsequent photodissociation of water produces large plumes of atomic hydrogen that can expand rapidly and extend for thousands of kilometers. From 2002 to 2007, the Global Ultraviolet Imager (GUVI) on NASA's Thermosphere Ionosphere, Mesosphere, Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite imaged many of these hydrogen plumes at Lyman α (121.567 nm) while viewing in the nadir. The images reveal rapid plume expansion and occasional very fast transport to both north and south polar regions.
    A study of space shuttle plumes in the lower thermosphere - Meier - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (1978–2012) - Wiley Online Library
    and:
    Over the course of the plume's travels, these observations showed it spreading horizontally over a distance of some 2000 to 2500 miles. Those parts that drifted into the high latitudes near the North Pole formed ice particles which settled into layers of PMCs down at about 55 miles above Earth’s surface. The speed with which the plume arrived at the arctic was a surprise.

    "The speed of the movement in the upper atmosphere gives us new information for our models," says Stevens. "As you get higher up in the atmosphere, we just don't have as many measurements of wind speeds or temperatures. The take-away message here is that we need to improve the models of that region."
    NASA - Tracking Shuttle Exhaust Reveals More Information About Atmospheric Winds

    and:
    Data from NASA's MISR instrument on NASA's Terra spacecraft show that global average cloud height declined by about 1 percent over the decade from 2000 to 2010, or around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters).
    ... A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming. This may represent a "negative feedback" mechanism - a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it.
    Earth's Clouds Lowering

    ...............
    as/re fossil fuels
    Without them, we would have completely used up the forests and whales(for whale oil lamps) long ago.
    Fossil fuels have enabled industrialization which has led to this machine and this internet. Here in Iowa, my electricity bill has gone up over 100% in the past few years to build out the wind farms. It's a good (clean) investment for the future generations, paid for by the current(my) generation.
    We cannot stop the fossil fuel juggernaut immediately, (It's like imagining that you could stop a super tanker in 3 meters.) but we can slow it down as we transition to solar, hydro and wind and maybe some more nuclear.
    In the meantime, we will continue to drill deeper, frack and refine and use up some of what nature has stored for us.

    OK
    'nuff for one day
    I still say:
    We need a better descriptor of anthropogenic atmospheric forcing induced climate change.

    be green
    plant a tree
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Good news: From greenland to iceland to scandinavia to siberia to canada people are planting trees. Some for the value of forests, and some for the turning atmospheric CO2 into lumber.
    Not good news at all, CO2 uptake is extremely slow at such high latitudes, while it reduces the high latitude albedo--the overall effect is positive feedback to warming.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Wildest Arctic - DocuWiki
    Containing one third of the world's trees, the frozen forests of the Taiga truly are the “lungs of the planet”. This great forest spans right around ...
    The taiga is the worlds largest forest, and is largely responsible for the annual northern hemisphere summer dip in the amount of atmospheric co2.
    .................
    why do you say
    the overall effect is positive feedback to warming.
    ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You information is incomplete and a bit dated. Northern forest are changing for sure but a bit more uptake doesn't necessarily mean overall negative feedback on global warming:
    First a study that looks at changes already happening in Siberian forest and the effects of lower alebo.
    "Using contemporary MODIS albedo measurements, we determined that a conversion from larch to evergreen stands in low-diversity regions of southern Siberia would generate a local positive radiative forcing of 5.1±2.6 W m−2. This radiative heating would reinforce the warming projected to occur in the area under climate change."

    The next study looked at effects of increased transpiration and found another strong positive feedback to warming.
    "Arctic climate is projected to change dramatically in the next 100 years and increases in temperature will likely lead to changes in the distribution and makeup of the Arctic biosphere. A largely deciduous ecosystem has been suggested as a possible landscape for future Arctic vegetation and is seen in paleo-records of warm times in the past. Here we use a global climate model with an interactive terrestrial biosphere to investigate the effects of adding deciduous trees on bare ground at high northern latitudes. We find that the top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance from enhanced transpiration (associated with the expanded forest cover) is up to 1.5 times larger than the forcing due to albedo change from the forest. Furthermore, the greenhouse warming by additional water vapor melts sea-ice and triggers a positive feedback through changes in ocean albedo and evaporation."


    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/4/1295.full]Sensitivity of Siberian larch forests to climate change - SHUMAN - 2011 - Global Change Biology - Wiley Online Library


    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/4/1295.full


    The annual variability isn't a reliable indicator of total uptake, because those same trees give up much of the CO2 they take up. High latitude increasing forest aren't necessarily a good thing as perhaps once formerly thought.
    sculptor likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    more from the lake e folks:

    Understanding the evolution of Arctic polar climate from the protracted warmth of the middle Pliocene into the earliest glacial cycles in the Northern Hemisphere has been hindered by the lack of continuous, highly resolved Arctic time series. Evidence from Lake El’gygytgyn, in northeast (NE) Arctic Russia, shows that 3.6 to 3.4 million years ago, summer temperatures were ~8°C warmer than today, when the partial pressure of CO2 was ~400 parts per million. Multiproxy evidence suggests extreme warmth and polar amplification during the middle Pliocene, sudden stepped cooling events during the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition, and warmer than present Arctic summers until ~2.2 million years ago, after the onset of Northern Hemispheric glaciation. Our data are consistent with sea-level records and other proxies indicating that Arctic cooling was insufficient to support large-scale ice sheets until the early Pleistocene
    ok
    extrapolation time?

    If anthropogenic atmospheric forcing is enough to do the trick, (currently a tad over 400ppm co2) we should be seeing much more arctic warming for a generation or so. From lynx links and from other earlier readings of mine, I would suspect that we won't see the 2.2mybp arctic temperatures until the tree belt can colonize the arctic shores......(wild guess du jour) 2 human generations. When, under current atmospheric forcing, we might expect to see the arctic reaching those temps on a regular basis(though we may see surges into those temps sporatically before the trees arive, I suspect that they will be seasonally constrained anomolies).
    (2nd wild guess du jour): Untill the arctic stabilizes with the help of the trees, we will be seeing something more closely resembling the oft quoted : "Climate weirding" wherein we could see peculiarities in the mid latitudes.
    For example(anecdote): 2012 started out warm and stayed that way, then got dry too, though we had no local record hot days. I/we have 2 apricot trees which aren't supposed to fruit this far north, but last year we had quite a nice harvest of apricots. Plums here ofter succumb to fungi as they are ripening on the trees, and the harvest is small. 2012 we had a bumper crop-(the best in 20 years) of plums-----This year(2013), not a single apricot, and the plums look weak, and the nanking cherrys were few, but the apples are doing better. 2013 started out cooler than average, and by march we had had the coldest average 1st 3 month's temperatures ever for the eastern iowa record-----but with no record cold days.
    The noted changes on fruit harvests, were also true in the garden. Everything bloomed and fruited later here except the potatoes which ripened earlier(vines died back) than normal.
    (3rd wild guess):
    I expect to see the changes I have seen on these few acres become manifest throughout the midwest food production zones.
    Within that 1st generation(see above) our farmers will needs address a new paradigm. The studies into the stratosphere and thermosphere(go nasa) will become important predictors of growing season climate, and crops and practices will needs change from year to year in the more sensitive zones(which themselves will be changing as atmospheric forcings become more powerful directors of climate forcings.

    Assuming the three guesses ain't too far off the mark.
    And assuming that changing farming practices will lag crop failures. (if you have all your money invested in machines for one crop, you will tend to replant the same and resist change?)
    The chinese curse which I had thought an irish blessing:\
    "May you live in interesting times"
    May be a tad more unpleasant for the obese and starving than previously thought.

    ............
    (ok, I know that 2 years of observations ain't really anywhere near climate timeline scales without climate modeling assumptions made by others. Coupled together, they make at least an obvious platform for further observation.)

    (justapassing thought)
    also Nitrogen limit to tree growth and fungii
    seem to be becoming important
    Last edited by sculptor; August 12th, 2013 at 12:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Hi guys, finally my introduction of myself after 3 months!
    By RamenNoodles in forum Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 20th, 2013, 10:10 PM
  2. Elect New Governments for Six Months Only.
    By westwind in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 18th, 2012, 06:39 AM
  3. Eight Months Ago I said This...westwind.
    By westwind in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 4th, 2012, 01:21 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 11th, 2012, 12:41 AM
  5. over 60(or possibly 59 and 13 months old.
    By maddog67 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 10:34 PM
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
  •