Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 159 of 159
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: Opinions on Global Warming...

  1. #101  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Fossilborealis View Post
    Yes, unlike high standards of discussion like cut and paste. Cut and paste....google and cut and paste some more. Here' a chart showing the frequency of alien abductions over the....yawn....snore.We can all escalate aour position with more cut and paste.
    In your three days off please take the time to look up the scientific method as well at peruse a few examples of peer-review science publications so you understand the significant difference between a chart about fantasy/pseudoscience (e.g. alien abduction) and science. Furthermore if you make a claim you are expected to try to back up that claim, or at least provide its source so others might evaluate and discuss its merits and credibility. Broad brush unsupported generalizations don't cut it here.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 24th, 2013 at 03:56 PM.
    Paleoichneum likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I stated that climatology should regroup, hit the refresh button and present scientific findings rather than push an agenda. '
    1. How many more "scientific findings" do you suggest we need?

    Any specific topics?

    Try this http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...ce_history.php

    This is just a compilation according to people at the Skeptical Science site based on their list of climate myths. The important thing to note is the Neutral category. It doesn't mean that the paper stated no view or conclusions about global warming, it means that it could have been regionally based or entirely technical (about calibrating satellites or other procedural details) or it was mixed in its approach or conclusions.

    If you want to look at the papers in the compilation, go to A History of Climate Science and use the slider to look at how many papers are recorded for each year from 1824 onwards, hover over any bubble to see which year it relates to. Click on that year/category and you'll get the relevant list of papers.

    And then there's the latest IPCC report.

    5000 papers and reports considered for the WG1 section alone. How many more scientific findings do you want? And what about? What do you think is missing from this list in the technical summary?

    I know a lot of people are annoyed that scientists refuse to come out in public and say loudly and strongly what they say privately among colleagues at conferences and the like. But seeing as the cumbersome, UN idealised kumbaya round the campfire, every-country-has-to-agree-every-word process wouldn't allow those statements through and would likely lead to even more delay in getting the overviews out there, I don't blame them for keeping their heads down and their mouths shut.

    If you want some specific scientific data, analysis, procedure to be considered, tell us what you think is missing and one of us might - but only might - be able to lead you to the information you seem to be missing out on.

    EDIT: I see Lynx got busy while I was looking stuff up. Oh well.
    Bad Robot 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  
     

  3. #103  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    No, I am not a victim. I am a dude, just the same as you. My hands are tied just the same as you. I try to use the jeep less. I put my shopping in a rucksack thus avoiding plastic bags. I use energy efficient stuff, and that is about it. What more can I do ? Anyway being a denier is good fun,
    My hands are not tied. I work in the environmental sciences in an attempt to fix the problems created by people who either don't understand or don't care about their impact on the world around them.

    What more can you do? Quit your job, get an education in an environmental field, and apply your expertise to fix the problem. Worked for me.
    Flick, quit my job ? You must be crazy. How have you impacted on climate change ? You berate me. and yet you tell me that you are fixing problems created by people who either do not understand, or do not care about their impact on the world around them. What have you done dude ? Please tell me.
    I'm not going to justify your victimization appeal with a response, but my job is not in climatology. I am a hydrologist. I work to keep water clean here in a state with 90% of its wetlands lost and agricultural pollution at some of the highest levels in the country.

    I don't think it's crazy to restart your life. I had a great job in graphic design out on the west coast. The money was good, I loved where I lived, I was happy. Almost. I saw what was happening in the world around me and I felt compelled to do something. Having always been interested in science, I moved back to Indiana, got my degrees, and started working in a new field. It's called motivation. I was motivated to do my (small) part to make the world around me a better place. If that is​ crazy, better lock me up.
    "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  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    No, I am not a victim. I am a dude, just the same as you. My hands are tied just the same as you. I try to use the jeep less. I put my shopping in a rucksack thus avoiding plastic bags. I use energy efficient stuff, and that is about it. What more can I do ? Anyway being a denier is good fun,
    My hands are not tied. I work in the environmental sciences in an attempt to fix the problems created by people who either don't understand or don't care about their impact on the world around them.

    What more can you do? Quit your job, get an education in an environmental field, and apply your expertise to fix the problem. Worked for me.
    Flick, quit my job ? You must be crazy. How have you impacted on climate change ? You berate me. and yet you tell me that you are fixing problems created by people who either do not understand, or do not care about their impact on the world around them. What have you done dude ? Please tell me.
    I'm not going to justify your victimization appeal with a response, but my job is not in climatology. I am a hydrologist. I work to keep water clean here in a state with 90% of its wetlands lost and agricultural pollution at some of the highest levels in the country.

    I don't think it's crazy to restart your life. I had a great job in graphic design out on the west coast. The money was good, I loved where I lived, I was happy. Almost. I saw what was happening in the world around me and I felt compelled to do something. Having always been interested in science, I moved back to Indiana, got my degrees, and started working in a new field. It's called motivation. I was motivated to do my (small) part to make the world around me a better place. If that is​ crazy, better lock me up.
    No, I am not a victim. You use the word victim quite allot, are you aware of that ? You are a hydrologist and you are making a difference, good for you. We also need foot soldiers in society or things are just not going to work.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    More realistically, you could support politicians who want funding for environmental science and protection. You could write your politician and voice your concerns. You could donate your time or money to restoration projects (almost every state will accept volunteer help in removing invasives from protected forests or take donations).

    I used the word 'victim' because your attitude regarding the topic was one of victimization. You chose to compare yourself, in our eyes, as equivalent to a group everyone agrees is offensively ignorant. None of us ever suggested anything close to that. That is called playing the victim card. It is a strategy that irritates me. If you don't want to believe in accepted science because it suggests something you don't like, that's fine. It's also extremely immature, but it's your right. Do not try to paint us as the bad guys because we call you out on the fact that you have no logical reason to deny that science.
    "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. #106  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    More realistically, you could support politicians who want funding for environmental science and protection. You could write your politician and voice your concerns. You could donate your time or money to restoration projects (almost every state will accept volunteer help in removing invasives from protected forests or take donations).

    I used the word 'victim' because your attitude regarding the topic was one of victimization. You chose to compare yourself, in our eyes, as equivalent to a group everyone agrees is offensively ignorant. None of us ever suggested anything close to that. That is called playing the victim card. It is a strategy that irritates me. If you don't want to believe in accepted science because it suggests something you don't like, that's fine. It's also extremely immature, but it's your right. Do not try to paint us as the bad guys because we call you out on the fact that you have no logical reason to deny that science.
    Wow, this does come across as intellectual bullying.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Victim card again.

    Not sure why I bothered to reply.
    "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. #108  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    from NOAA
    The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero.
    then adelady's link (see #80 above) (I'd have been a tad more convinced it they had taken their model back a century) (but entertaining none-the-less)suggests that there is more "mean" warming via more weighting at the poles, which in turn suggest that "global" warming means a more equable climate
    which rather negates the fear of extinctions

    let us proceed
    Last edited by sculptor; December 24th, 2013 at 03:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    huh?
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    (adelady's link in #80)
    basically says that as/re noaa's quoted statement, the data from the poles was under rated, so they raised the weighting for the poles and came out with a difference to NOAA's quoted statement

    You gotta read her entire link-------

    Then my keyboarded in statement makes sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Still don't quite where you driving at. There has been differences between HADCRU and NASA's GISS methods for sometime because of the differences in how they treat the low density observations over the poles. The primary difference is NASA's uses Hanson's work that found a moderate to strong correlation between stations in the arctic out to 1200 km, (see http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha00700d.html), while HADCRU generally does not make similar interpolations for the low/non observed regions. Because most of the changes due to man-made green house gases are biased in the very regions least observed HADCRU tends to be biased toward regional fluctuations in low latitudes, such as Pacific and Atlantic oscillations (e.g El Nino, La Nina). The paper mentioned in post 80 looks at this bias for HADCRU.

    --
    Because the 1997 strong El Nino there was a one year spike in global temperature, and to no real surprise, it shows up stronger for HADCRU than for GISS temperature analysis.

    If you compare the temperature trends out to 2009, you can see the spike for 1997 in HADCRU, but also the overall increase in both ways to measure the temperature:

    Another view by latitude of surface differences, this one using GISS:
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I'd have been a tad more convinced it they had taken their model back a century
    What model?

    This is Cowtan and Way we're still talking about. Right? We're talking strictly observations, data, analysis. So all we've got to work with are the surface temperature observations - as they are recorded and processed - and the satellite observations - which only started in 1979.

    And if you're so unhappy with analysis and conclusions about short periods and recent times ... it's a bit of a mystery why it was you, it was you, wasn't it? who raised the issue of a short, recent period where the surface temperatures were not doing what you thought everyone else expected.
    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  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    yes Cowtan and Way
    same people
    did a reanalisys of the biases and reconstructed the temp change record based on kriging method
    ..............
    part of what they said was:
    Note that GISTEMP, UAH and NCEP/NCAR all show
    faster warming in the Arctic than over the planet as a whole,
    and GISTEMP and NCEP/NCAR also show faster warming
    in the Antarctic. Both of these regions are largely missing
    in the HadCRUT4 data. If the other datasets are right, this
    should lead to a cool bias due to coverage in the HadCRUT4
    temperature series
    and
    A problem arises when coverage changes over time.
    Because the Arctic has warmed significantly since the
    end of the HadCRUT4 baseline period, a drop in Arctic
    coverage leads to a cool bias in the mean of the observed
    cells. This effect increases as conditions diverge from the
    baseline period.
    and
    Incomplete coverage of the rapidly
    warming Arctic is the principal cause of coverage bias since
    2005, despite the comparatively limited area affected
    maybe we are reading this differently
    but
    for me anyway
    it goes to support the more equable climate hypothesis

    They did mention some problems with reconstruction to eliminate known bias(not in those words)
    as well as their reasons for following that path.

    Kriging offers several benefits. The reconstructed
    values vary smoothly and match the observed values at
    the coordinates of the observations. The reconstructed
    values approach the global mean as the distance from
    the nearest observation increases, i.e. the method is
    conservative with respect to poor coverage. Clustered
    observations are downweighted
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    maybe we are reading this differently
    but
    for me anyway
    it goes to support the more equable climate hypothesis


    What is "equable climate hypothesis?"

    The cold bias is that HADCRU is underestimating the warming AND high NH latitudinal warming because it effectively removes some of the high latitude data from its analysis compared to GISS.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Lynx
    roughly stated
    a warmer earth has less variability between the equator and the poles
    extrapolated = the tropics expand but the temperature remains unchanged(except in the high altitudes), the mid latitudes remain roughly unchanged, and the polar regions absorb most of the warming= a more equable climate= little temperature variability between the tropics and the poles= hippos and crocs in the polar waters and in their current range

    really standard stuff
    common in paleoclimatology
    look it up
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Lynx
    roughly stated
    a warmer earth has less variability between the equator and the poles
    extrapolated = the tropics expand but the temperature remains unchanged(except in the high altitudes), the mid latitudes remain roughly unchanged, and the polar regions absorb most of the warming= a more equable climate= little temperature variability between the tropics and the poles= hippos and crocs in the polar waters and in their current range

    really standard stuff
    common in paleoclimatology
    look it up
    One of us is enjoying the Holiday too much.... your description is rather confusing, because it's unclear whether you discussing the difference of the change, where the poles are warming faster (a greater variance), or the absolute temperature(T) difference between equator and pole, where there's a lower temperature gradient. I think you discussing the later. True?

    Some of the confusion is the use of variability, which is usually reserved to indicate fluctuations from a mean, such as the difference between winter and summer or differences between a set of summers (a dT/dt, where t is time), not the difference between two averages at different geographic (dT/dy, where y is latitude) locations.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    true
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Victim card again.

    Not sure why I bothered to reply.
    Happy Christmas dude.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    a more equable climate= little temperature variability between the tropics and the poles
    Crocodiles near the Arctic. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I thought the last time crocs were near the Arctic was 50 million or more years ago.

    "Equable" - to humans - means conditions they're more or less comfortable living with. (If you mean for the planet, that's irrelevant. This piece of rock will keep on spinning for a few more billion years until it expires along with its sun. Our only concern for climate is about ourselves and the rest of the thin skin of biological activity on the surface.)

    That is, more or less since agriculture has been possible, say less than ten thousand years. The continents weren't in their current conformation until 3 million years ago, when the north and south American continents joined up at Panama. Even India hadn't joined up with Asia properly until 40 million years ago. India joined with Asia 10 million years later than previously thought - MIT News Office And the winds, airflows like trade winds, ocean currents and other familiar features of our last 10000 years of climate are all dependent on the current geography dictated by the positions of the various tectonic plates. Any comparison or expectation of weather, especially seasonal conditions changing throughout the year - like the monsoon rains of India or the tornado season in the USA or the long dry summers of Mediterranean climates - depend on the location and the height of mountain ranges influencing when, where and how moist air, dry air, cold air will create the storms we need for rainfall or the crops they support or fear for the danger they bring.

    What we've been seeing since the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles, the North Pole especially, has declined has been a disruption of our expectations of seasonal weather. Heatwaves, downpours causing floods, and super snowstorms are becoming much more prolonged and severe as weather systems stall and stay over one area longer than we're accustomed to. I'm not sure that many people would agree with using the term "equable" for these conditions. If you want people to agree with your view of this expected change, you'll need a different concept or at least a change in vocabulary to get your point across.
    "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  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    there's the rub?
    the most equable of climates predates this current ice age
    but even with the recent (modest?)warming, the planet was headed toward a more equable climate
    which brings the question
    Is anthropogenic atmospheric forcing enough to create/recreate an equable climate?
    even in the face of a likely solar minimum over the next few decades?

    In Iowa:
    Last year was the warmest (without any record hot days) on record
    and this year has been the coldest(without many record cold days) on record

    I do not know what the climate is doing, and i'm pretty sure that the climate also doesn't know what it is doing either.

    I did not create, nor document the equable climate model
    I'm just an observer.

    ..................
    on another note, I was reading about the ice and sediment cores recently, and the author claimed that the atmosphere was richer in 14C during the glacial period.
    An atmosphere rich in 14C had been claimed to indicate an atmosphere bombarded by cosmis rays
    Cosmic rays increase during solar minima as the heliosphere weakens

    Panama, India, an enclosed arctic ocean and a continent poised over the antarctic move over on the bench there, we got a new player on the glaciation team.
    ?
    Last edited by sculptor; December 28th, 2013 at 07:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Not doing anything in this case is actually a case of continuing to do something dangerous without restraint and it is a significant choice that will have profound consequences. Ultimately blame will accrue to those in positions of trust and responsibility that made that choice by avoiding making a choice. Or by excessively delaying making a choice.

    Sculptor, You appear to want to see this unintended change to our climate reworked into a deliberate one so that we may bequeath an "improved" climate to our descendents. ("equable" I read meaning "improved" as well as more "even" temperature-wise between tropics and poles).

    Does this lead you to oppose and vote against policies intended to result in major emissions reductions? But if you don't trust climate modelling or other means of projection and prediction of climate change as these currently exist, how will you know what the outcomes are likely to be? Where is the 'sweet spot' that you think will result in the "most equable" outcomes and how is the process brought to an orderly conclusion before enough becomes too much? If the costs of a more equable climate for some regions include a less equable climate for other regions, how are the issues of iniquity and justice to be dealt with?

    Deliberate geoengineering involves genuine control over what is happening as well as understanding what the consequences will be. You appear to be saying you don't think we can know what the consequences will be but still expect they will be good overall. Most of the climate science community seems to be saying the opposite, that we are not headed for an improved climate and that the consequences will be very damaging to human and natural systems.

    But irrespective of whether it's damaging geoengineering or potentially beneficial geoengineering it is not intentional; what we are doing remains uncontrolled and unrestrained. The question arises whether you will team up with climate science deniers and obstructors to make sure "warmists" don't gain the political power and influence to put the brakes on and prevent or slow this shift towards a "more equable climate"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Ken we are in an ice age. This happens, but ain't normal. For most of earth's history, we were not in an ice age. The climate was warmer, and more equable. so--------you don't seem to understand the basics of an equable climate.
    In a one sentence explanation, equable climates are periods of roughly equal temperatures throughout the world. A more detailed description focuses on the equator to pole temperature difference (EPTD) and the seasonality in the high-latitudes, or regions that are above 60°N or below 60°S.
    from: Equable Climate Characteristics
    as/re;
    improved?
    We really need to learn more about those conditions.

    When you keyboard in
    Not doing anything in this case is actually a case of continuing to do something dangerous
    What I am reading is that you want to take some action in hopes of controling the environment.
    True?

    What I am doing, is nothing more than looking at the current information about climate and causal factors, or extrapolation to possible and or likely causal factors from known and consensus data. Within that I am looking at the likely consequences of our atmospheric loading. And approximating them to a baseline of insulation and energy storage.(I ain't got a comfortable bottomline on the strengths of the effects ---estimations on % effect of anthropogenic atmospheric loading vary widely) With an assumed anthropogenic energy input value, then looking at variances from expected results is where the real science begins to flower and blossom.
    ergo: My interest in solar activity, and the interplay between the troposphere and stratosphere and etc. etc. etc.

    We live in exciting scientific times wherein our knowledge base seems to be increasing exponentially.

    Never assume that I speak of a bottom line. As previously stated: Assume all statements by me to be within a greater series of questions. Many of which, I don't even know how to ask.
    One of the things I get in here is different perspectives and different knowledge bases and different biases. Even if I know that you are wrong, I still gain from your words.

    Open discussion and research may yet give us the tools to control the climate should we need to do so.
    We ain't there yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I'm a bit perplexed by your statement ...

    This one
    but even with the recent (modest?)warming, the planet was headed toward a more equable climate
    1. I'm not sure what you're getting at overall. From your link ...

    During the late Cretaceous period (~100 to 65.5 million years ago) and the early Paleogene period (65.5 to 34 million years ago), the poles were much warmer than they are currently and were much closer to equatorial temperatures than they are today. Additionally, the temperatures in the high-latitudes did not fluctuate as much as they do today, and in the winter, they remained closer to summer temperatures than they do now. This behavior can be termed low seasonality. Combining these characteristics defines equable climates. They are periods with a low EPTD and low seasonality.
    ...

    These details reveal the extent of the differences between the modern climate and the equable climates in the Cretaceous and Eocene.
    You're stating quite clearly that the planet is/was heading towards a climate that has never supported humans or the kind of ecology that we depend on - the sort that is suitable for agriculture and for the kinds of animals that we farm or hunt. No or very little seasonal changes, no or very little agriculture as we know it. And you do or don't (I've never worked out which) think that this is something that humans - and the ecology and food plants and animals we rely on - should or shouldn't (I'm not sure again) try to delay or ameliorate or avoid entirely because otherwise too many people will have to die an unpleasant early death for a much smaller human population to be able to survive on a completely different diet in completely different conditions in far fewer places. (Far fewer places? Cretaceous sea levels were 550 feet higher than today I'd say a sea level 170 metres higher than today cuts down our lifestyle options quite a bit.)

    2. I don't know why you think we were headed in this direction in the first place anyway. Looking at the Milankovitch cycles, we were heading, very slowly and gradually at the usual geologically ponderous pace, but very definitely, towards a re-glaciation. Many many generations hence, but a re-glaciation would have been inevitable. But now the warming of the last couple of centuries has interrupted this. It now looks as though we've rejigged the atmosphere so much that this prediction is pretty well off the table - but that's where axial tilt, eccentricity and precession were taking us. You apparently disagree. Do you have a reference for that?
    "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  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    it's simple, really
    as warming warms the poles the most, that is heading toward equable
    don't get hung up on only looking before this ice age
    look within these transitional periods also

    the tendence is a repeating pattern
    distance gained toward equability need not be absolute, it is the direction that guides us

    as/re #2 maybe not inevitable(we are an inventive species?)

    for the last couple centuries we've been recovering from the recent minima
    and
    we may be headed into another minimum now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    and this year has been the coldest(without many record cold days) on record
    ?? That might be one of those FOX News "facts."

    ==============================
    2013 On Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850[/h]Published: November 13th, 2013 ,
    Last Updated: November 13th, 2013

    The world is on track to have its 7th warmest year on record in 2013, which is up from 2012, which was the globe’s 9th warmest year, according to a new report released on Wednesday. The report from the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva found that the January to September period tied with 2003 for the 7th warmest such period on record, with an average global surface temperature that was 0.86°F above the 1961-1990 average. In addition, global average sea level reached a record high this year, with an average rate of increase of 0.13 inches per year, which is double the observed 20th century rate.
    ==================================
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    I never really got the point of the deebate. If global warming is real, we should stop burning so much fossil fuel because is dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If global warming is not real, we should stop burning so much fossil fuel because getting the stuff leads to wars, burning it dumps harmful chemicals into the air that kill people, and the fuels are running out in any case. So either way, we should stop burning so much fossil fuel. Why does anyone argue about this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor, I suspect you are being deliberately provocative, which is not really a problem - but I'm left being very unclear about what you really think or whether you really believe some of the things you say. For example I'd be surprised if you really think the process of change from the climate we have had to a more warmer but more equable/globally homogeneous climate would result in less species extinctions, even if a geologically stable period of globally more homogeneous climate would theoretically see the species adapted and suited to it be less subject to environmental changes that result in extinctions. Surely just the elimination of whole climatic zones means species specific to those zones are subject to extinction.

    I also don't think your interest in longer term consequences mean you are wholly unaware of the immediacy of the climate change problem and that the choices humanity makes now and in the immediate future will largely determine those consequences.

    I think if you are so certain that the science is too uncertain, that should logically put you into the group of people who think we should be more certain before we geoengineer the planet's climate; but mostly those who think it's more uncertain than mainstream science is saying are actually acting as if the opposite is the case. They are acting as if there is certainty - certainty that the consequences must be less damaging than the science is saying. Or perhaps that the long term consequences will be worthwhile and beneficial, eg ice ages avoided and a climate that is less variable. But the process of change is disruptive and that disruption is likely to be very costly, including costing environmental capital that can never be replaced.

    Geoengineering the world's climate by accident, with the consequences being uncertain and with no control over how much and for how long is a dangerous course to be taking. That it's complicated by our having unknowingly become highly dependent on excessive fossil fuel usage doesn't change the fundamentals of the problem, just makes it harder to deal with. Deliberate campaigns of misinformation, such as that which has been generating the "warming has stopped since 1997, climate science is completely unreliable" BS make it harder again.

    I'm not sure whether you have actually considered "why the global temperature hasn't risen since 1997" or why this claim you repeat is false and misleading or why the evolution of global Surface air temperatures over the period is actually compelling evidence of a continuing underlying warming trend, not evidence of it's absence. I'm not convinced you would be influenced at all by any explanations but if not for your benefit, then for general consumption -

    Global average surface air temperatures measure surface air temperatures; they are often treated as being 'global temperature', often by people who I think should know better. They are not. The atmosphere retains less than 3 percent of the accumulated extra heat from climate change; more than 90% goes into the ocean. During this SAT 'hiatus' we've seen global heat content continued to rise without any such hiatus.



    As you should be able to see, there is no hiatus in the rise in global heat content. The globe has not stopped warming since 1997.

    If you insist that the progression of global warming/climate change be discussed strictly in terms of global surface air temperatures, with oceans heat content is not counted as a definitive measure, then we should at least look at what natural causes of changes in global average SAT's have been doing as well as the temperatures themselves.

    The link between annual average SAT's and ENSO, TSI and volcanic aerosols are all relatively uncontroversial and uncontested; ENSO dominates year to year variability in SATs. Having just one or two more years of la Nina than el Nino during a period as short as 15 years will be enough to skew a running trend. It was never impossible or even unexpected that such a thing could happen, and it has happened. Having el Nino's at the start of a period that ends with la Nina's will also skew a running average during that period.


    Here are SAT's adjusted for the known natural influences of ENSO, TSI and volcanic aerosols - which shows that warming has not stopped, just been masked by natural variation (not quite up to present) -


    If the underlying warming trend had actually stopped then the la Nina's of the previous couple of years (that followed on from earlier el Nino's) would have resulted in a SAT decline of similar magnitude to the rise the earlier el Nino's produced. Temperatures going up then flat, up then flat is warming. It would need to be going up then down, in similar measure to be indicative of warming having stopped.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; December 27th, 2013 at 07:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    and
    Do you not find it odd that (as quoted above: #108) NOAA is seeing a pause in global warming, while your charts do not?

    To the best of my knowledge: It takes centuries to warm the deep ocean currents, which then take centuries to release that warmth. (we really need more detailed knowledge of deep ocean currents, eddies, upwellings, etc., etc.)

    as/re extinctions
    It was much warmer in the arctic and antarctic during previous interglacials(especially during the "superinterglacials") and yet, the species alive then are alive now.
    There is zero evidence that a warmer more equable earth will lead to mass extinctions.
    Quite the contrary.

    Anyone have a link to a good current weather map showing temperature and wind speed and direction over the Taklamakan? (as/re ssw events)?

    Anyone looked at the higher atmospheric 14C anomalies during periods of glaciation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    and
    Do you not find it odd that (as quoted above: #108) NOAA is seeing a pause in global warming, while your charts do not?
    Not really because I've actually read the entire NOAA post which explains why.
    Why did Earth
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Yeh, me too, Lynx
    I also follow NASA's studies into solar forcing(or the lack thereof)

    5 years ago, NASA sounded the warning bell that the sun was experiencing a phase change, and that our current #24 solar cycle would be weaker than normal.
    And, they were correct. As to #25, many heliophysicists opine that it will be even weaker than #24.............
    If so:
    It'll be a great time to witness the effects on the heliopause, and cosmic rays.
    With any luck at all, I'll have another 20 years or so to see what happens------------test the models(so to speak).

    back to 14C and the Taklamakan?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Sculptor is that brakes or no brakes on emissions while you wait 20 years or so to "test the models"? Should our geoengineering experiment on the climate proceed at full pace until you are satisfied that CO2 is far more influential than solar changes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    OK
    Why is antarctic sea ice continuing to expand? Why has arctic sea ice increased 50% over this time last year?
    Are we heading into a solar minimum? Are we heading into a grand (solar) minimum?
    Is the finding of an atmosphere enriched in 14C during periods of glaciation indicative of a quiet sun?
    Does the weather of the Taklamakan control ssw events(which cool the mid latitudes)?
    Why is this the coldest year on record for this little part of Iowa?

    So many things about the causal factors for our climate that we still do not know.
    Would I want to blindly start intentionally messing with the atmosphere without knowing the comparitive values of other climate forcing mechanisms?
    No way in hell!!!!!!!!!!!

    It could well be like locking up the brakes when driving on ice.
    Blind luck may save you from yourself, or it just might have taken the day off.

    Caution is always a good idea..........(I am less than carbon neutral----the trees I've planted and nurtured far outpace the carbon footprint of myself and my family)
    BUT
    What I do is very conservative.
    Would I support a more radical approach?
    Maybe, but not without some major study into the likely outcome.

    If you are advocating for government action, just who do you think will end up paying for it(and a healthy premium for the government hangers on)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Why is antarctic sea ice continuing to expand? Why has arctic sea ice increased 50% over this time last year?
    Are we heading into a solar minimum? Are we heading into a grand (solar) minimum?
    Antarctic sea ice.

    Surely you've read up about this. It's mainly about changes in the wind circulation around the continent along with some odd features specific to the southernmost southern ocean. Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent - Turner - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

    There's also the issue that warming in the atmosphere of that area increases precipitation in the form of snow. Once ice forms a covering of snow will insulate it from warmer air (though the concept of "warm" in this region is not one I wish to encounter).

    This Skeptical Science overview gives you a few references to cogitate over. Why is southern sea ice increasing?

    Solar minimum

    Haven't we discussed this before?

    The work has already been done to gauge the impact of a minimum equivalent to a Maunder Minimum. There's even this paper On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth - Feulner - 2010 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library which one of the authors discussed at RealClimate: What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum?

    In our study we find that a new Maunder Minimum would lead to a cooling of 0.3°C in the year 2100 at most

    relative to an expected anthropogenic warming of around 4°C.

    (The amount of warming in the 21st century depends on assumptions about future emissions, of course).


    So a repeat of a Maunder Minimum this century would mean (given not much change in the usual range of expected emissions) that the GAT would be 3.7°C higher than now rather than 4°C higher.

    Here's what the Maunder Minimum did in terms of TSI (and that's what those authors of the paper used as their basis). From here ... The upcoming ice age has been postponed indefinitely


    Figure 1: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from
    Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.


    Would I want to blindly start intentionally messing with the atmosphere without knowing the comparitive values of other climate forcing mechanisms?
    No way in hell!!!!!!!!!!!
    We're already messing with the atmosphere. Are you suggesting that the things we've done thoughtlessly should continue and that we should hold back from doing anything to remedy - or even to slow down - those thoughtless actions?

    Why is this the coldest year on record for this little part of Iowa?
    While it's the hottest year on record for Australia, and it's also the driest year on record for California Driest year ever in Calif. sparks fire, water fears

    As for record cold in Iowa. I couldn't easily/quickly get a statewide annual low temperature record - I did find this for Des Moines for record lowest daily temp.
    Des Moines Area (ThreadEx Station)

    ExtremesLowest Daily Minimum Temperature (degrees F)Days: 1/1 - 12/31
    Length of period: 1 day
    Years: 1878-2013
    Rank Value Ending Date
    1 -30 1/5/1884
    2 -29 1/12/1912
    3 -27 1/25/1894, 1/15/1888
    5 -26 2/3/1996, 2/13/1905, 2/2/1905, 1/19/1892, 1/21/1883
    10 -25 1/7/1912

    Last value also occurred in one or more previous years.This station's record may include data from more than one, possibly incompatible, locations. It reflects the longest available record for the Des Moines Area.
    You should be able to track down the info for the particular area you have in mind here - National Weather Service Climate

    But I'm not sure why you'd need this for a climate discussion. You're not one of those naive know-nothings who thinks that warming means there'll never be another record-breaking cold temperature ever again. It's irrelevant and you know it. What matters is the balance between the numbers of record hot and record cold temperatures and afaik the USA is still running at more than 2 to 1 on that score.
    "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. #134  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    The "doing something" and "not doing something" options are inverted when it comes to climate change.

    Sculptor, you ask where the burden of costs of "doing" something will go but who bears the burden of costs of "not doing" something? Given that it's a cumulative problem made worse by delay and you appear to be advocating a wait and see delay position to await the effects of a maybe solar minimum over the next couple of decades just to be sure... I think you are contributing to climate obstructionism whilst adding nothing significant to better understanding of the problem and better solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    If you are advocating for government action, just who do you think will end up paying for it?
    In this case, the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action.
    Implicate Order 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  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    There is no way around it - the climate costs will get paid; it's inexorable physics and chemistry and immune to what we think or believe. We do have choices about how big we let that debt grow but none about how much interest (via positive feedbacks) will be added to it as we argue.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    name the desired "action" and global implementation and expected outcome?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    name the desired "action" and global implementation and expected outcome?
    The recommended actions are many and espousing the implementation of all of them would take a considerable amount of time and space on this forum. I recommend you read up on recommendations in current publications regarding environmental health and atmospheric, geologic, and hydrologic science.
    "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  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    name the desired "action" and global implementation and expected outcome?
    Desired action - reduce carbon emissions
    Global implementation - switch from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear and renewables (including solar, wind, hydro, tidal, pumped storage etc)
    Expected outcome - mitigation of overall temperature rise
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    name the desired "action" and global implementation and expected outcome?
    1) ... Desired action - reduce carbon emissions
    2) ... Global implementation - switch from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear and renewables (including solar, wind, hydro, tidal, pumped storage etc)
    3) ... Expected outcome - mitigation of overall temperature rise
    1)... reduce carbon emissions------already doing that with windfarms, more efficient vehicles, solar cells,
    2) ...no new coal fired plants in USA

    3) ... mitigation of only CO2 temperature "rise".
    Curiously, the particulate emissions of coal fired plants is said to be mitigating the expected effect of the CO2(as/re Hansen)

    OK that's USA, how about the rest of the world?
    ....................
    AND
    All you are addressing is CO2?
    ,which, in all likelyhood, is only one of dozens maybe hundreds of components that effect climate.
    What can we control?
    and
    What can't we control?

    Why did arctic sea ice rebound 50% this year(by volumn more'n area, which indicates more multi-year ice)--------and how does that "negative" feedback play into your concepts?
    Why does antarctic sea ice continue to expand-------and how does that "negative" feedback play into your concepts?
    What is the causal factor in the Atlantic oscillations (A negative A.O. is said to have been causal in this winter's bitter cold , and records, over much of the central North America).

    Plants comprise over 99% of all biomass on earth, and plants thrive on higher atmospheric CO2(see the f.a.c.e. studies).
    How does that play into your concepts?

    I suspect that focusing on only one component is much akin to driving and only noticing potential left turns--------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    3) ... mitigation of only CO2 temperature "rise".
    Curiously, the particulate emissions of coal fired plants is mitigating the expected effect of the CO2(as/re Hansen)


    Not since the 1970s for US and Europe when we started scrubbing out most of the solid aerosols. It's still true in China, India and the developing world where ironically our reluctance to allow them nuclear power is forcing them to go down the same environmentally destructive road as we did (but that's another subject though related).
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    1)... reduce carbon emissions------already doing that with windfarms, more efficient vehicles, solar cells
    Carbon emissions are still increasing. They increased by 2 billion tons in 2012. No data for 2013 yet but signs point to an even greater increase.
    2) ...no new coal fired plants in USA
    The Edwardspoint and the Sandy Creek power plants both started operation in 2013. The Leucadia, Kemper, Cash Creek, Holcomb, Healey, Futuregen, Southheart, Las Brisas, Medicine Bow and Two Elk Energy plants are under construction.
    All you are addressing is CO2?
    In the above, yes.
    which, in all likelyhood, is only one of dozens maybe hundreds of components that effect climate.
    Agreed. It is simply the largest one.
    What can we control?
    CO2, CFC's, methane, land use and land albedo.
    What can't we control?
    Water and oxygen.

    Why did arctic sea ice rebound 50% this year
    Because each year is different. Next year it might be even lower than last year, or it might be something in between. The TREND is towards less ice due to rising temps.

    Why does antarctic sea ice continue to expand-------and how does that "negative" feedback play into your concepts?
    As Antarctica melts the sea ice will expand (ice flowing off the continent into the sea.) Indeed, the calving of a big glacier recently trapped some scientists down there. This will cause some negative feedback overall, slowing the increase in temperatures. (There is an obvious issue with relying on ice to protect you from higher temperatures, but it might provide some mitigation in the short term.)

    Plants comprise over 99% of all biomass on earth, and plants thrive on higher atmospheric CO2(see the f.a.c.e. studies).
    How does that play into your concepts?
    This is also a problem. Increased CO2 causes less transpiration, and that leads again to warmer local climates. From a recent Carnegie-Mellon study: ""There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming . . .This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas."

    I suspect that focusing on only one component is much akin to driving and only noticing potential left turns--------
    Well, more like trying to avoid an accident by steering and pressing on the brake. Sure, you might want to turn down the radio to help you concentrate, or adjust your seat for comfort, or call 911 on your cellphone just in case - but at the point at which you see the accident coming, avoiding the accident takes priority over a phone call. Once the accident is avoided, then it would make more sense to turn down the radio and adjust the seat. You deal with the biggest problems first.
    Last edited by billvon; January 8th, 2014 at 07:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Average lifetime of aerosols in atmosphere - 10 days. Average lifetime of CO2 - 100 years. The use of emissions to keep aerosol concentrations high to prevent the warming impacts of the CO2 is a losing proposition. Even without worrying about the pH impacts of higher CO2 levels on oceans.

    I used to think Sculptor was being provocative to promote serious discussion but I no longer think so; Sculptor persistently and consistently questions the validity of the major fundamentals of mainstream climate science and obsesses over questions he has no interest in explanations for. He shows little or no interested in the answers or explanations he gets raises; Sculptor just keeps repeating these questions/arguments regardless. If we (collectively via our institutions of science and academia) don't know everything we apparently know too little to make any kinds of meaningful policies or choices! Which looks like a variant of classic climate science denial to me.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    All you are addressing is CO2?
    ,which, in all likelyhood, is only one of dozens maybe hundreds of components that effect climate.
    What can we control?
    and
    What can't we control?

    Seeing as we're crossing the threshold of >400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and we've already increased ocean acidification by 30%, we have to think beyond reducing emissions.

    We have to start reducing concentrations. Using the biological carbon cycle with trees and biochar and the like won't be enough even though it's a very good idea. We have to accelerate the geological CO2 re-absorption cycle (even if not as much as we've accelerated the geological CO2 release cycle).

    Our burning of carbon fossils works out to the equivalent of about 3 million years of fossil deposition each year. We haven't been cracking appropriate rocks at the rate of 3 million years per year. Obviously.

    It's about time we got started.
    "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  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The green things accellerate their atmospheric CO2 consumption and growth up to 600 ppm, and beyond for some plants.

    Oak trees may not have grown this fast in millions of years. Fast dense growth makes the strongest wood, which means that less volumn is needed for the same strength.
    Vs low CO2 slow growth which tends toward brittleness.

    as/re:
    We have to accelerate the geological CO2 re-absorption cycle
    How?
    and
    What will be the side-effects of your preferred action?

    ..............
    If these cold snaps from disturbance of the solar vortex become more common,(which some have claimed) then the cold just may eliminate part(most? all?) of the insect problems which our forests have been experiencing.
    If we turn our attention to insuring to healthy greenery, we do no harm.
    ..........
    If we want to control the environment and climate, we need to formulate an ideal toward which we can work.
    I don't think much thought has been directed at this.
    ..................................
    as/re:

    which, in all likelyhood, is only one of dozens maybe hundreds of components that effect climate.
    Agreed.
    It is simply the largest one
    This I dispute, CO2 is not the largest climate forcing GHG nor the most powerful.
    ...

    Why does antarctic sea ice continue to expand-------and how does that "negative" feedback play into your concepts?
    As Antarctica melts the sea ice will expand (ice flowing off the continent into the sea.) Indeed, the calving of a big glacier recently trapped some scientists down there. This will cause some negative feedback overall, slowing the increase in temperatures.
    The problem with this is that antarctica, as a whole, ain't melting. It is actually gaining ice mass overall.
    ....

    Plants comprise over 99% of all biomass on earth, and plants thrive on higher atmospheric CO2(see the f.a.c.e. studies).
    How does that play into your concepts? This is also a problem. Increased CO2 causes less transpiration, and that leads again to warmer local climates. From a recent Carnegie-Mellon study: ""There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming . . .This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas."
    Think about this. Water vapor is a powerful GHG. If the plants ain't transpiring as much, it is because they are sequestering CO2, and stripping the H from H2O to build biomass.
    Where the trees are located, they indeed do moderate the climate, both warming and cooling-----(It is cooler under my trees when hot, and the frost comes last to the places under the trees)
    Trees do not exacerbate "global warming"(do you still trust idiots who use that phrase?) Trees moderate climate. (perhaps not individually to the extent of maritime or riverine ecosystems, but en-mass, forests are excellent climate moderators.
    ............
    Ken-----"eye of the beholder baby"
    .....
    I may be in the minority in electing to try every single "natural" approach before electing to use technology and geo engeneering to solve our problems/ control our atmosphere.
    We have much of the knowledge needed to engineer biological means of climate control...(eg: don't just plant trees, plant beneficial fungi along with them, then nurture them until they can survive on their own.
    .....................
    Meanwhile:
    consume less
    then
    repair
    rebuild
    reuse/retask
    recycle
    everything that comes under your control.
    Lead by example.
    .............
    Personally, I went carbon neutral over 2 decades ago, and by voting to spend more $ for electricity to build out the windfarm generation of electricity, may be extending that neutrality into the next generation or 2.
    I simply remain unconvinced that anthropogenic atmospheric loading of CO2 is essentially harmfull for the environment.
    If warmer means more equable(most likely from paleoclimate studies) then that means more space for the biomass of plants to moderate the atmosphere. (more $ for research into this would be nice)
    ...............
    Some have claimed that it is a warmer arctic that leads to disruption of the polar vortex, but this year we saw a 50% gain in arctic ice volumn, and a disturbed polar vortex.
    Obviously, we need much more research here too.
    ...........
    I ain't saying we should do nothing. Just that we should proceed well aware of our ignorance. "Don't slam on the goddamned brakes, tap 'em gently and see what happens to your control".
    ......
    What scares me, is idiots who think they understand one small part of the puzzle doing something really stupid, with a bunch of mindless folks jumping on the bandwagon.
    It has been noted that politicians don't vote to spend money on maintenance because it ain't sexy to maintain a bridge, but it is sexy to build a new one.
    Are we to turn our very planet over to people who think like that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    The green things accellerate their atmospheric CO2 consumption and growth up to 600 ppm, and beyond for some plants.
    Agreed. But when you add the rest of the effects of climate change, growth is actually suppressed:

    [h=1]===========================
    Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals


    The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters -- at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster.

    But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. . . .


    "Most studies have looked at the effects of CO2 on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied CO2 alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed."

    ====================================


    If these cold snaps from disturbance of the solar vortex become more common,(which some have claimed) then the cold just may eliminate part(most? all?) of the insect problems which our forests have been experiencing.
    May also eliminate "insect problems" like bees. I suspect we would not like that.

    If we turn our attention to insuring to healthy greenery, we do no harm.
    Agreed. Per the Stanford study, that might require significantly reducing CO2 levels and thus warming.

    This I dispute, CO2 is not the largest climate forcing GHG nor the most powerful.
    CO2 is the most powerful ANTHROPOGENIC forcing. (i.e. one we can change.)

    The problem with this is that antarctica, as a whole, ain't melting. It is actually gaining ice mass overall.
    =============================
    Published Online March 2 2006
    Science 24 March 2006:
    Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica


    Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellites, we determined mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002–2005. We found that the mass of the ice sheet decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 millimeters of global sea-level rise per year. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    ==================

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/31.../1754.abstract



    Think about this. Water vapor is a powerful GHG. If the plants ain't transpiring as much, it is because they are sequestering CO2, and stripping the H from H2O to build biomass.
    No, it is because they are closing their stoma and reducing total transpiration. Read the article.
    I may be in the minority in electing to try every single "natural" approach before electing to use technology and geo engeneering to solve our problems/ control our atmosphere.
    Sounds like you are 100% down with geoengineering, trying to use CO2 to change plant growth rates without even understanding why that's happening - or what the results will be.

    What scares me, is idiots who think they understand one small part of the puzzle doing something really stupid, with a bunch of mindless folks jumping on the bandwagon.
    Like people who might foolishly claim that CO2 always helps plants, and is therefore beneficial - without looking at what other negative effects that CO2 rise might have on plants? I agree - some more research is in order before people say such foolish things.
    Last edited by billvon; January 8th, 2014 at 08:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Trees do not exacerbate "global warming"(do you still trust idiots who use that phrase?) Trees moderate climate


    That completely depends on where, of what type, and if they are replacing another dominant forest type. Mid and high latitude evergreens where they replace deciduous or tundra are positive feedback loop into increased warming.


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

  48. #148  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I may be in the minority in electing to try every single "natural" approach before electing to use technology and geo engeneering to solve our problems/ control our atmosphere.
    What's "unnatural" about geology?

    Geology may operate at much longer periods over larger areas than puny humans are accustomed to. But that's the way the non-biological part of the carbon cycle works - plants and animals finish up in soil or at the bottom of the ocean with their carbon rich remains and that eventually gets recycled. Tectonic plates shift and jostle mountains higher and expose carbon-absorbing materials which erodes and blows/ washes away taking CO2 from the atmosphere and making that carbon available to the biological system again. This takes literally (tens of) millions of years.

    But if "puny humans" can dig up and burn 3 million years worth of fossil materials each and every year, I see no reason why we can't also dig up and crush and aerosolise or slurry those CO2 absorbing materials at a similarly accelerated pace. There must be several thousand mining sites no longer used because the once-desirable minerals are worked out - where the non-profitable rock is one of the CO2 absorbing types. And if we can blow up - even completely level - mountains to maximise our release of fossil CO2 then we can do the same to absorb it.

    The great advantage is that olivine is found almost everywhere in easy to access forms. Throwing rocks at CO2 - SmartPlanet

    25 billion tons of olivine could therefore capture all the CO2 produced by human industry in a year for about 200 billion euros.

    The environmental effects of scattering so much olivine dust across the tropics are unknown, but Schuiling regards them as relatively benign.


    Note that even if we did such a thing, it wouldn't give us a free pass to keep on emitting as we've done so far. We'd still need to reduce emissions drastically and enhance biological sequestration and stop deforestation and change agriculture significantly.

    Köhler and his colleagues determined that the olivine could help to negate higher levels of CO2 and warming if industrial emitters of CO2 leveled off -

    - but it could not prevent significant, potentially dangerous warming if CO2 production continues apace.
    "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  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    OK. Lynx
    Name a scenario wherein trees do not moderate their environment?
    ....................
    But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. . . .
    "Most studies have looked at the effects of CO2 on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied CO2 alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed."
    Which is why I referenced the Free Air Carbon Enrichment(face) studies.
    as/re temperature----------define limits please------greenhouse studies show that plants do well (with enough water) up to 110 degrees F---------then they stop growing, or their leaves shrink, or they die.
    ...
    May also eliminate "insect problems" like bees. I suspect we would not like that.
    Native species don't mind this weather as much. Africanized bees do die out. If we actually knew of a certainty what is causing the "european honey bee die off", that would be a nice problem to "fix".

    I never claimed that enriched CO2 was always beneficial to plants. (you might want to reference the face studies on loblolly(sp?) pine)
    No one thing is ever the answer.
    No one tool is ever the best possible solution.

    (the old saying: "If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon, all problems begin to look like a nail")

    Don't limit your knowledge nor toolkit to one tool and one problem.
    A hammer might be a good place to start a toolkit, but, if it ends there, it ain't much of a toolkit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as/re temperature----------define limits please------greenhouse studies show that plants do well (with enough water) up to 110 degrees F---------then they stop growing, or their leaves shrink, or they die.
    Really? You figure that plants are unaffected by changes in temperature up until a certain limit? Interesting theory - but unsupported by actual studies.
    ====================
    Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe

    Wilifried Thuiller
    Edited by Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University, Stanford, CA (received for review December 31, 2004

    Abstract

    Climate change has already triggered species distribution shifts in many parts of the world. Increasing impacts are expected for the future, yet few studies have aimed for a general understanding of the regional basis for species vulnerability. We projected late 21st century distributions for 1,350 European plants species under seven climate change scenarios. Application of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List criteria to our projections shows that many European plant species could become severely threatened. More than half of the species we studied could be vulnerable or threatened by 2080. Expected species loss and turnover per pixel proved to be highly variable across scenarios (27-42% and 45-63% respectively, averaged over Europe) and across regions (2.5-86% and 17-86%, averaged over scenarios). Modeled species loss and turnover were found to depend strongly on the degree of change in just two climate variables describing temperature and moisture conditions. Despite the coarse scale of the analysis, species from mountains could be seen to be disproportionably sensitive to climate change (≈60% species loss). The boreal region was projected to lose few species, although gaining many others from immigration. The greatest changes are expected in the transition between the Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian regions. We found that risks of extinction for European plants may be large, even in moderate scenarios of climate change and despite inter-model variability.
    ==============

    Native species don't mind this weather as much.
    ================
    Bees stung by 'climate change-linked' early pollination
    Ecologist

    7th September, 2010

    Climate change could be affecting pollination by disrupting the synchronised timing of flower opening and bee emergence from hibernation, suggests new US-based research.

    Declining numbers of bees and other pollinators have been causing growing concern in recent years, as scientists fear that decreased pollination could have major impacts on world food supplies.

    Previous studies have focused on pollinators and have linked falling populations to the use of pesticides, habitat loss and disease.

    However, a 17-year analysis of the wild lily in Colorado by scientists from the University of Toronto, suggests other factors may be at play. The study revealed a long-term decline in pollination, which was particularly pronounced earlier in the season.

    Study author James Thomson said while bee numbers had declined at their research site he suspected that a ‘climate-driven mismatch between the times when flowers open and when bees emerge from hibernation is a more important factor’.

    ‘Early in the year, when bumble bee queens are still hibernating, the fruiting rates are especially low,’ he said. ‘This is sobering because it suggests that pollination is vulnerable even in a relatively pristine environment that is free of pesticides and human disturbance but still subject to climate change.’ 

    ======================


    No one thing is ever the answer.
    No one tool is ever the best possible solution.
    Exactly. You need to use several tools to solve most problems - especially the complex ones. However, you will never, ever solve a problem by ignoring it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    could be
    just how definitive can you get?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    3) ... mitigation of only CO2 temperature "rise".
    Curiously, the particulate emissions of coal fired plants is mitigating the expected effect of the CO2(as/re Hansen)


    Not since the 1970s for US and Europe when we started scrubbing out most of the solid aerosols. It's still true in China, India and the developing world where ironically our reluctance to allow them nuclear power is forcing them to go down the same environmentally destructive road as we did (but that's another subject though related).
    EPA and the Clean Air Acts began mid 60's. If you compare northern hemisphere surface temperate against postwar boom 1945, and the onset of scrubbing, the correlation is stark. But I agree with the consensus that mitigation by ...smog... is a losing proposition. More in line with adelady's prescription, I favour a hand's-off policy regarding desertification and forest fire. Something's wrong with our understanding if we think those natural feedbacks must drive climate out of control.

    Can't surrender the farm to dustbowl though.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3
    The concept of Global warming is already discarded, because right now the weather is only getting more extreme, known as Climate Change. Now that it's winter, the temperatures in some places eg. New York is even colder than the past few years, so I think global warming is not happening right now. In the future, there might be more storms, more extreme temperatures etc. This is just my view though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Average, global, temperatures have risen though; the Earth has literally warmed. So regarding that, "global warming" is a useful, appropriate term.

    "Climate change" resulting in extreme weather like record snowfalls, is the immediate consequence of global warming, because a slight change in large systems can churn up unusual weather... in some parts that can be cold or moist air where it doesn't normally belong.

    Both terms are useful and appropriate.
    Ken Fabos likes this.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    OK. Lynx
    Name a scenario wherein trees do not moderate their environment?
    The largest in the world...the boreal forest, where replacement of decidous by evergreens as well as replacement of high reflective tundra is being replaced by forest. I've posted these studies before and am a bit frustrated you aren't taking the time to read, discuss and actually catch up.

    "The continuation of current trends in shrub and tree expansion could further amplify this atmospheric heating by two to seven times."

    Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic Summer Warming

    Furthermore, there's gathering evidence that the amount of methane released as high latitude regions warm will be much more of an effect than the slow uptake of Carbon--the net effect is a climate warming positive feedback, both modeled and thus far being strongly validated by observations.
    --

    As for New York being colder the past few years, this to is as untrue as it was for Iowa.

    For Central Park
    2013 warming than average:
    National Weather Service Text Product Display

    for a broader temporal view.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    6
    More fuel-efficient cars, less frivolous driving, improved insulation to decrease the fuel burned to heat and cool our homes, more efficient appliances, use of fluorescent rather than incandescent light bulbs, and careful monitoring of home electricity usage (turn off the lights and TV when not using them) can reduce our energy needs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    Quote Originally Posted by Lea Kan View Post
    The concept of Global warming is already discarded, because right now the weather is only getting more extreme, known as Climate Change. Now that it's winter, the temperatures in some places eg. New York is even colder than the past few years, so I think global warming is not happening right now. In the future, there might be more storms, more extreme temperatures etc. This is just my view though.
    Lea, the climate system continues to gain heat. At it's most fundamental, the changes to climate and the impacts on extreme weather are a consequence of that increased heat content and that heat content has continued to rise steeply, without significant pause over the past 30 years. It is Global Warming and it is Climate Change.

    Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpgNuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
    Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman Discere et Docere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    "global warming" is close to the sloppiest misuse of the language that I can imagine. (something I would expect from an idiot or a politician, and never from a scientist.)

    Anthropogenic atmospheric loading is much like adding another blanket. If the sun's activity remains constant (when has it ever?) then another blanket means a warmer atmosphere, whose effects will be felt mostly at high latitudes and high altitudes.

    For a more realistic picture, I recommend that you look into equable climate models
    I think the name is alright - it's just the way it is being used that gives it a different meaning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    6
    Many people tend to ditch items when they are broken, and purchase new items. However, by doing this, it creates more trash in the landfills, which contributes to global warming. Instead, by choosing to fix old items and reuse them, one person can considerably reduce the amount of trash that goes into landfills and thereby, reduce one’s carbon footprint.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Impact: Global Starvation and Societal Collapse
    By seregate in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 5th, 2013, 09:27 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 8th, 2012, 07:43 PM
  3. Global Bias in Global Warming Science?
    By GGII in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2012, 10:21 PM
  4. Global Warming
    By (In)Sanity in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2006, 11:58 PM
  5. Another Cause for Global Warming
    By ghost7584 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 12:42 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
  •