A Global Warming voice of reason?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Is piss-taking bastard a real occupation?

Yes, but they prefer to use their formal title - Politician.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Prove to me that the GW is happening.

How do you measure the temperature of the Earth?

When I first came to the Pacific Northwest of the USA.. I did a lot of climbing and spent many wonderful weeks in the high mountains here.

That was the early 1970's

Many of the peaks that had glaciers on them at that time are now devoid of glaciers completely. There are not even snowfields left over in the summer where the glaciers used to be.

On the high volcanos that do have remnant glaciers left they have retreated much farther up to their source areas and will also likely dissapear.. all this within my lifetime.

Just my own personal experience.. and I believe one that forshadows so very troubling times to come for MANY in the low lying areas of the world.

Our world has changed many times before but never this fast.. in so many places around the world.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Politicians... they take the piss and get paid for it... by the people that they are taking the piss out off.. Skill!

I can imagine it at Prime Ministers Question Time: "Is the right honourable bastard taking the piss?"

It would be funny if it wasn't true. Low-lifes that they are.

[billvon 3,120]

>It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes
>in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration
>would cause less than 1 deg C of warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a
>controversial statement..

Agreed. Now add in the fast feedbacks - the fact that the atmosphere will expand as it warms, the fact that sea ice will melt and expose more ocean, the fact that snow will melt and expose more rock. Now you are up to about 3C. (Actually 2.9C with 95% limits at 1.7C and 4.9C.) Again, this is NOT a controversial statement, and has been corroborated both with short term testing (reduction in insolation by volcanism) and long term analysis (change in temperatures due to change in albedo governed by ice sheets.)

Now you can add in the slow feedbacks - long term retreat of glaciers, rise in sea level adding low-albedo ocean, change in vegetation - and you get an additional 1 to 2 C. This _is_ controversial, and indeed is one of the open issues in climate change.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes
>in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration
>would cause less than 1 deg C of warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a
>controversial statement..

Agreed. Now add in the fast feedbacks - the fact that the atmosphere will expand as it warms, the fact that sea ice will melt and expose more ocean, the fact that snow will melt and expose more rock. Now you are up to about 3C. (Actually 2.9C with 95% limits at 1.7C and 4.9C.) Again, this is NOT a controversial statement, and has been corroborated both with short term testing (reduction in insolation by volcanism) and long term analysis (change in temperatures due to change in albedo governed by ice sheets.)

Now you can add in the slow feedbacks - long term retreat of glaciers, rise in sea level adding low-albedo ocean, change in vegetation - and you get an additional 1 to 2 C. This _is_ controversial, and indeed is one of the open issues in climate change.

So, it is not controverial to say these changes (through research) have been shown to happened before, correct?

And the things you point out here are changes from what we call "normal" today, correct?

So, how static do you think the climate should be? How much change would happen without human intervention?

How much change has been noted before man could have had any effect?

All these points you post have happened before man, correct?

(I admit I am stretching a bit looking for your feedback)

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>So, how static do you think the climate should be?

1) The climate will continue to change no matter how static I (or you) think it should be. So the question has no meaningful answer. It's like asking "how hard do you want to hit the ground if you jump without a parachute?" and thinking your answer has any physical meaning.

2) If your question really is "how variable is the climate ordinarily?" then take a look at the temperature graphs I have posted dozens of times and check out any time before 1850. You'll see the climate meander as various forcings (volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles, solar minima etc) come into play.

>How much change would happen without human intervention?

Right now? We'd be somewhat cooler, and vegetation would shift significantly. Sea levels would be slightly lower.

>All these points you post have happened before man, correct?

We've seen similar rises in CO2 and temperature before, yes. Volcanoes and meteor impacts can cause such rises, and CO2 will often amplify medium-duration warming trends.

[mnealtx 0]

And yet, nobody can seem to answer how the historical record shows CO2 lagging behind temperature, but now, suddenly, CO2 is driving temperature. Add the solar forcing temperature changes on other planets in the Solar System (but evidently not here on Earth) and yes, I think it's ok to reasonably skeptical about the GW "consensus".

(Speaking of which, jcd... just WHO do you think does those "peer reviews"? Thats right, the 'consensus' members.)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

> nobody can seem to answer how the historical record shows CO2 lagging
> behind temperature . . . .

?? That's been answered hundreds of times. This is one of those "but no one has PROVED that smoking can cause cancer!" statements.

> Add the solar forcing temperature changes on other planets in the Solar System . . .

As a hint, claiming that no scientist understands the Earth's climate well enough to understand what's happening with its temperature, but claiming that _you_ understand the Martian (or Pluto) climate well enough to understand their temperature changes, comes off as a bit silly.

>Speaking of which, jcd... just WHO do you think does those "peer reviews"?

Other scientists. Oddly enough, a journal of geophysical research gets physicists and geologists to review their publication rather than conservative talk show hosts.

[speedy 0]

Quote

We've seen similar rises in CO2 and temperature before, yes. Volcanoes and meteor impacts can cause such rises,

The only time I have seen volcanoes forwarded as a major contributor to a rise in CO2 was in connection with the snowball earth theory. In this case there was so little vegatation on the planet that any CO2 emitted from volcanoes could not be absorbed. This was one of the theories of how we got out of the snowball earth.

The climate experts have another reason for CO2 lagging temps. The reason is a natural warming cycle warms the oceans, this causes out gassing of CO2 from the oceans, which causes more warming. A positive feedback where CO2 is the feedback if you like.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[DZJ 0]

Quote

(Speaking of which, jcd... just WHO do you think does those "peer reviews"? Thats right, the 'consensus' members.)

Do you therefore seek out articles that aren't peer reviewed?

[shropshire 0]

Jeanne : I've noticed the same in the Alps (we've been going for a lot of years now and you can see the Glaciers receeding).... But I'm trying hard to not let the facts get in the way of an SC 'conversation'

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> nobody can seem to answer how the historical record shows CO2 lagging
> behind temperature . . . .

?? That's been answered hundreds of times. This is one of those "but no one has PROVED that smoking can cause cancer!" statements.

Sure it is... and I guess that if I just add ENOUGH inductance, I can make it occur BEFORE the voltage. Hint: ELI the ICEman

Quote

> Add the solar forcing temperature changes on other planets in the Solar System . . .

As a hint, claiming that no scientist understands the Earth's climate well enough to understand what's happening with its temperature, but claiming that _you_ understand the Martian (or Pluto) climate well enough to understand their temperature changes, comes off as a bit silly.

Equally as silly as saying that CO2 *has* to be the prime driver of the temperature here on Earth, *especially* given the temperature rise data above.

Quote

>Speaking of which, jcd... just WHO do you think does those "peer reviews"?

Other scientists. Oddly enough, a journal of geophysical research gets physicists and geologists to review their publication rather than conservative talk show hosts.

No, really? Damn, Bill, glad you clued me in on that...all this time I thought it was Jerry Springer that was approving this stuff.

Funny how all the review boards seem to be members of the consensus... makes it a bit difficult for anything not 'toeing the party line' to get a fair shake, wouldn't you say?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Politicians... they take the piss and get paid for it... by the people that they are taking the piss out off.. Skill!

I can imagine it at Prime Ministers Question Time: "Is the right honourable bastard taking the piss?"

It would be funny if it wasn't true. Low-lifes that they are.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

(Speaking of which, jcd... just WHO do you think does those "peer reviews"? Thats right, the 'consensus' members.)

Do you therefore seek out articles that aren't peer reviewed?

Seek them out? No...but I don't automatically dismiss them because they haven't been approved by the 'consensus', either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>Sure it is... and I guess that if I just add ENOUGH inductance, I can
>make it occur BEFORE the voltage. Hint: ELI the ICEman

Right. And since sometimes people start smoking _after_ they get lung cancer, it cannot possibly cause any harm.

>Equally as silly as saying that CO2 *has* to be the prime driver of the
>temperature here on Earth, *especially* given the temperature rise data
>above.

No one is saying that CO2 is the prime driver that determines temperature here on earth.

>Funny how all the review boards seem to be members of the consensus . ..

Here's something even stranger - all the reviewers have college degrees! I had no idea how deep the conspiracy went.

Next thing you know, we'll discover that all doctors go to a secret indoctrination center where they get the title "MD." If that's not a conspiracy to crowd out the non-consensus, free-thinking doctors of the world, I don't know what is.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Sure it is... and I guess that if I just add ENOUGH inductance, I can
>make it occur BEFORE the voltage. Hint: ELI the ICEman

Right. And since sometimes people start smoking _after_ they get lung cancer, it cannot possibly cause any harm.

>Equally as silly as saying that CO2 *has* to be the prime driver of the
>temperature here on Earth, *especially* given the temperature rise data
>above.

No one is saying that CO2 is the prime driver that determines temperature here on earth.

>Funny how all the review boards seem to be members of the consensus . ..

Here's something even stranger - all the reviewers have college degrees! I had no idea how deep the conspiracy went.

Next thing you know, we'll discover that all doctors go to a secret indoctrination center where they get the title "MD." If that's not a conspiracy to crowd out the non-consensus, free-thinking doctors of the world, I don't know what is.

Thanks for showing, yet again, that any information NOT fitting the manmade GW mindset is to be discounted and ridiculed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

Thanks for showing, yet again, that any information NOT fitting the manmade GW mindset is to be discounted and ridiculed.

Gotta love that victim card, always a winner!

[billvon 3,120]

>that any information NOT fitting the manmade GW mindset is to be
>discounted and ridiculed.

No problem. I cannot hold a candle to your (and RushMC's) efforts to ridicule and misrepresent climate science, but good to know that my efforts are appreciated!

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Thanks for showing, yet again, that any information NOT fitting the manmade GW mindset is to be discounted and ridiculed.

WEAK cop-out.

C'mon, you can do better than that.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Jeanne : I've noticed the same in the Alps (we've been going for a lot of years now and you can see the Glaciers receeding).... But I'm trying hard to not let the facts get in the way of an SC 'conversation'

The US National Snow & Ice Data Center has multiple on-line collections of glacier pairs, some going back to the 1890s. Most are from Alaska; there are a couple from Peru. The USGS at Glacier National Park also has an extensive collection of historic and current glacier pairs.

I’ve seen some pairs from South America (Cordillera Blanca) & the Alps (Rhone & Pasterze) back to the mid-1850s. A glacier pair from Rhone in the Alps comparing 1859 to 2001.

NB: These are *very* provocative photographs. They may be visceral illustrations of the effects of climate change. They are highly effective illustrative images. They are, however, not input data for climate change models: correlation does not equal causality. They may serve to provoke scientific research to understand the underlying mechanism(s) that led to the observations.

A *very* reasonable first question is: “well are there other glaciers that either aren’t receding or are getting larger?”

A May 2007 article from the well-regarded, peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research entitled “Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change” is the closest of which I am aware. (And that study is looking at the top of the glaciers not the terminus (bottom).) Otoh, studies of the terminus of Mont Blanc glaciers (both French & Italian sides) show receding, including L’Argentine for which there are historical records, of varying quality, back to the 1600s. Welcome observations of terminal glaciers that are not receding! Needs to be addressed.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 3,120]

>A *very* reasonable first question is: “well are there other glaciers
>that either aren’t receding or are getting larger?”

Yes indeed there are. From 1995 to 2000, 7 of 110 glaciers in Switzerland and 4 of 99 glaciers in Austria were growing; the rest were in retreat. Of the 69 glaciers in Italy and 6 glaciers in France, all were in retreat.

In 2006, 1 Swiss glacier was advancing; 84 were retreating. From 1990 to today, 5% of Himalayan glaciers were advancing; 95% were retreating. Since 1987, all the North Cascade glaciers have been retreating.

All the smaller glaciers in Glacier National Park are gone, and all the larger ones (like Grinnell) are in retreat. They should be almost gone by 2030 if current trends continue. (At which point, I guess, they will stop retreating.)

In Alaska, 99% of the estimated 2000 glaciers are retreating. In Patagonia, 2 glaciers are advancing, 4 aren't changing and 42 are shrinking.

Attached is an image showing glacier advances/retreats around the world, and a graph showing average glacier thickness changes over the past few decades. (Source WGMS and NSIDC.)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

WHO do you think does those "peer reviews"? Thats right, the 'consensus' members.

Do you therefore seek out articles that aren't peer reviewed?

Seek them out? No...but I don't automatically dismiss them because they haven't been approved by the 'consensus', either.

&

Quote

Thanks for showing, yet again, that any information NOT fitting the manmade GW mindset is to be discounted and ridiculed.

There’s a legitimate question in there.

If some group of scientists working under the scientific method reporting public data & generating reproducible results were systematically excluded that would be a completely reasonable & legitimate contention. If it were true. But it’s not.

(As an aside: there are groups for which that has been historically true; how true it remains is subject to some debate.)

If the contention were true, how did these guys get published in peer-viewed journals?

Gou, X; J. Peng, F. Chen, M. Yang, D.F. Levia, and J. Li. 2008. A dendrochronological analysis of maximum summer half-year temperature variations over the past 700 years on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Theoretical and Applied Climatology,

Or these guys?

Hansson, D. and A. Omstedt. 2007. Modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate on centennial time scale: temperature and sea ice. Climate Dynamics

Or these guys?

Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th Century climate change, C. Vincent, E. Le Meur, D. Six, M. Funk, M. Hoelzle and S. Preunkert, Journal of Geophysical Research, May 2007.Vol 112, D10.

Or these guys?

Van de Berg, W.J., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C.H., and van Meijgaard, E. 2006. Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional amtospheric climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2005JD006495.

Or these guys? (& this one is from Science!)

Monaghan, A.J., Bromwich, D.H., Fogt, R.L., Wang, S.-H., Mayeweski, P.A., Dixon,
D.A., Ekaykin, A., Frezzotti, M., Goodwin, I., Isaksson, E., Kaspari, S.D., Morgan, V.I., Oerter, H., Van Ommen, T.D., Van der Veen, C.J., and Wen, J. 2006. Insignificant change in Antarctic snowfall since the International Geophysical Year. Science, 313, 827-831.

Those are all from respected, peer-reviewed journals.

The World Climate Report Blog does a nice job of tracking them. Interestingly (to me), WCR touts (in order to demonstrate its credibility?) itself as “Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature [i.e., one of those peer-reviewed technical journals] now calls the ‘mainstream skeptic’ point of view.”

Don’t always agree with them; don’t always disagree with them. What I love about them is that they show the primary *data,* pull apart the *data,* and discuss methods! I do seek out challenges.
---- ---- ----

While not peer-reviewed academic publication, here’s a popular news piece detailing one of those academic institutions hosting a technical critic of climate change, Dr. Siegfried Fred Singer. They're paying for him to come and speak. Favorite lines from the piece:

“Singer passed out sugar cookies with ‘Every 1,500 Years’ written in frosting before he began his talk.”

“Singer also criticized a back-to-nature mentality. ‘Nature is not good and cuddly,’ he said. ‘It is harsh and it will kill you.’”

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Thanks, Marg - I'll give them a peek.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>So, how static do you think the climate should be?

1) The climate will continue to change no matter how static I (or you) think it should be. So the question has no meaningful answer. It's like asking "how hard do you want to hit the ground if you jump without a parachute?" and thinking your answer has any physical meaning.

Quote

In the long run this illistrates a point I try to make in our debates

2) If your question really is "how variable is the climate ordinarily?" then take a look at the temperature graphs I have posted dozens of times and check out any time before 1850. You'll see the climate meander as various forcings (volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles, solar minima etc) come into play.

To some degree I have but, do you really think that going back to only 1850 is far enough? I do not but in any case, a new deep ice study aimed directly at climate change is finishing up thier study. Data and conclusions soon to be published. I look forward to those conclusions and the subsequent reactions

>How much change would happen without human intervention?

Right now? We'd be somewhat cooler, and vegetation would shift significantly. Sea levels would be slightly lower.

Quote

Just how supjective is this answer?

>All these points you post have happened before man, correct?

We've seen similar rises in CO2 and temperature before, yes. Volcanoes and meteor impacts can cause such rises, and CO2 will often amplify medium-duration warming trends.

So, it has happened before, and life survived and the planets systems adjusted. It that what you are saying?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>do you really think that going back to only 1850 is far enough?

I said BEFORE 1850. The last chart I posted showed the last 2000 years. Here it is again.

>Just how supjective is this answer?

"Somewhat cooler" - not subjective. It's like a mathematical expression; A>B.

"vegetation would shift significantly" - subjective, based on the definition of "significantly." However, as I assume you have been on airplanes at some point, I suspect even you would agree that farms, development, irrigation of deserts and damming of rivers have had a significant impact on vegetation in the US.

"Sea levels would be slightly lower" - not subjective. Again, A>B.

>So, it has happened before, and life survived and the planets
>systems adjusted.

Sort of. It would be more accurate to say that "some life survived." Generally climate changes are associated with mass extinctions, where over 50% of all species died out. In one instance (the Permian extinction) 95% of ocean life and 75% of land creatures died off. This was most likely caused by volcanic eruptions that put high altitude aerosols in the air and caused rapid cooling. During the P-E thermal max, temperature and CO2 increased drastically and killed off around 50% of all species. This was likely caused by "basalt floods" - basically slow-leak volcanoes that aren't very violent but release megatons of rocks (and CO2.)

What is particularly worrisome about the P-E event is the likely participation of clathrates in amplifying the warming signal. Basically once the ocean temperatures got warm enough to melt the methane clathrates at the bottom of the ocean, they outgassed and started contributing to warming - which melted _more_ clathrates etc. If this happens to us, the predictions of the IPCC will look like a day at the beach. Fortunately there is, as of yet, no sign of this.