Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1438 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Well you can't tell very much from a decade's worth of data. The natural variability is large enough to swamp out the AGW effect over a decade. (realclimate.com looked at this a while ago) The problem of natural variation is large enough that if there wasn't a physical model that explained the recent warming as due to CO2 , methane and a reduction of aerosols we wouldn't be able to correlate the global warming with human activity. However we do have physical models and that makes all the difference. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1851 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:23 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Global dimming is the great climate boogeyman associated with peak oil - the idea that the reductions in particulate emissions that go with hydrocarbon depletion could drastically speed up the effects of global heating - perhaps even enough to trigger the dreaded cathrate gun.
Quote:
This is a film that demands action.
But what action? Reducing hydrocarbon use only brings on the reversal of dimming faster! This is the wild card in the deck... I can only think that we'll just have to wait to see how it pans out - and which way the climate, with its enormous, decades-long momentum, will fall. Peak oil could save us from runaway global heating - or it could trigger it. We may have to wait years or even decades, on pins and needles, to find out whether the remains of our culture will stand a chance or not. _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 39 Location: The field
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:52 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
This is a critique of global warming predictions which shows that tropospheric temperatures correlate well with ocean surface temperatures but do not correlate, within the last decade, with carbon dioxide.
Although theory and in vitro experiments illustrate that methane and carbon dioxide are excellent greenhouse gasses, they are but a small part of the total planet's thermodynamics, and they only contribute to the heat capacity, and therefore to the total heat, of the atmosphere. In contrast, the oceans have an enormous heat capacity and it would be impossible to calculate the total stored heat over time with sufficiently significant error bars, (logistically this is apparent because there are not enough deep sensors) however, importantly, these data illustrate that their affect swamps that of greenhouse gasses, that is all.
One might also conclude that 100 years of climate data is not enough to illustrate the effect of greenhouse gasses on climate.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:37 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
nero wrote:
Well you can't tell very much from a decade's worth of data. The natural variability is large enough to swamp out the AGW effect over a decade. (realclimate.com looked at this a while ago) The problem of natural variation is large enough that if there wasn't a physical model that explained the recent warming as due to CO2 , methane and a reduction of aerosols we wouldn't be able to correlate the global warming with human activity . . .
No.
The problem is there is ZERO correlation. That's the problem.
EDIT:
And everyday it looks more and more like "climate scientists" are more akin to economists than physicists - more guessing based on models than anything else.
Climate scientist credibility is getting hammered.
No correlation with CO2? Remember Al Gore's giant CO2 graph?
Al Gore definitely is clueless about causation/correlation, but when you don't even have correlation, even a guy as unscientific as Al Gore should get it.
So where's the evidence for GW?
Temperatures have been dropping and there is no correlation with CO2?
No wonder these folks have attempted to quietly change "global warming" to "climate change". _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
KevO wrote:
Had an anonymous letter through my physical letterbox last night 'officially' challenging climate change and global warming.
So I thought I'd put it to you guys, what do you make of the info at the pdf (link below)?
HERE
D'Aelo at icecap is a well-known GW skeptic, and loves the technique of pointing out "half" of the story to get his point across.
The main point to take away is that natural variability didn't all of the sudden stop when humans started burning fossil fuels. There is an underlying solar and oceanic baseline that is not at all constant. On top of that we have anthropogenic warming from greenhouse gases. The sun, which warmed us up from the Little Ice Age, basically stopped helping in the mid-20th century, and has been pretty stagnant since then. The PDO is also a factor, but cannot be implicated in the majority of the late 20th century warming.
So what we have right now is a decreasing solar input, and a decreasing PDO input. And since we are coming out of the La Nina, and temperatures are already rebounding, the best that the two negative factors together could do is to take us to a period of neutral temperatures. This could go on for a while still, but eventually it is going to turn and we are going to have + inputs from all three, and the CO2 input is going to be even higher. So what we are looking at in the 21st century is not a nice even IPCC-like curve, but more of a stepwise function, with decades of flat temps followed by decades of rapidly increasing temps.
Joined: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 1198 Location: Central NC
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:58 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
wxman wrote:
KevO wrote:
Had an anonymous letter through my physical letterbox last night 'officially' challenging climate change and global warming.
So I thought I'd put it to you guys, what do you make of the info at the pdf (link below)?
HERE
D'Aelo at icecap is a well-known GW skeptic, and loves the technique of pointing out "half" of the story to get his point across.
The main point to take away is that natural variability didn't all of the sudden stop when humans started burning fossil fuels. There is an underlying solar and oceanic baseline that is not at all constant. On top of that we have anthropogenic warming from greenhouse gases. The sun, which warmed us up from the Little Ice Age, basically stopped helping in the mid-20th century, and has been pretty stagnant since then. The PDO is also a factor, but cannot be implicated in the majority of the late 20th century warming.
So what we have right now is a decreasing solar input, and a decreasing PDO input. And since we are coming out of the La Nina, and temperatures are already rebounding, the best that the two negative factors together could do is to take us to a period of neutral temperatures. This could go on for a while still, but eventually it is going to turn and we are going to have + inputs from all three, and the CO2 input is going to be even higher. So what we are looking at in the 21st century is not a nice even IPCC-like curve, but more of a stepwise function, with decades of flat temps followed by decades of rapidly increasing temps.
That is a nice summary. Folks who insist that GW run on a predictable schedule are going to be disappointed. _________________ "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Quote:
So what we have right now is a decreasing solar input, and a decreasing PDO input. And since we are coming out of the La Nina, and temperatures are already rebounding, the best that the two negative factors together could do is to take us to a period of neutral temperatures. This could go on for a while still, but eventually it is going to turn and we are going to have + inputs from all three, and the CO2 input is going to be even higher. So what we are looking at in the 21st century is not a nice even IPCC-like curve, but more of a stepwise function, with decades of flat temps followed by decades of rapidly increasing temps.
the point being missed here is that the GCM's suppossedly take into account natural variability. The latest policy statement from the IPCC suggest the natural forcings are fairly well constrained (which isn't necessarily the conclusion in the body of the report). If you assume that is the truth then the lack of correlation of the past decade trend with any of the models (other than Hansens 1998 model which incorporated zero increase in CO2) means there is a serious disconnect between reality and the models. CO2 cannot possibly be as dominant a forcing as has been assummed. To use aerosol content as your major arguement for cooling means you have to have sudden huge increase in aerosols post 1939, a rapid decrease in aerosols in 1975 and then suddenly a rapid increase in aerosols after 1998. This level of volatility is not reflected in the record as far as I can see, certainly not when it comes to aerosols from anthropogenic sources. To suddenly revert to decreased solar influence flys in the face of the IPCC conclusions that solar radiation is of minimal importance. So either CO2 is much less important than the models assume, other negative forcings are more imporant, there are poorly understood negative feedback mechanisms or there are factors that are not yet understood at all.
So my question is....if the models are clearly non-predictive how can you argue the science is settled? The whole idea that anthropogenic CO2 will drive the globe to much higher average temperatures by the middle of this century are dependant entirely on models and hence on their predictive ability.
There are a lot of papers in the literature discussing the poor precitability of GCMs. A recent one:
Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, 2008: On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671-684.
states:
Quote:
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported
As I've said on other occassions ....the emporer seems to have been disrobed.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Kevo said:
Quote:
So I thought I'd put it to you guys, what do you make of the info at the pdf
I haven’t studied the long term data enough to draw a conclusion. Much of it seems to be too poor to draw an accurate evaluation from. Short term data, however, certainly seems to point to significant cooling.
January - June Global Temperatures
Land & Ocean
2008 0.44 C/0.79 F
2007 0.63 C/1.18 F
2006 0.50 C/0.90 F
2005 0.58 C/1/04 F
2004 0.54 C/0.97 F
2003 0.55 C/1.99 F
2002 0.64 C/1.15 F
‘02-’07
mean 1.032 F
std. 2.53
Data prior to ‘02 is not available for that six month duration.
There is less than a 2.5% chance that ‘08 temperatures came from the same population as ‘02 to ‘07.
NOAA
As I made mention of in the Airline Bankruptcy/Merger Thread on 06/21/08, there appears to be a good explanation for this phenomena. NASA did an in-depth study of global warming in 1997 which I refereed to.
Quote:
The climate has changed dramatically. Most of the country was above normal in ‘07, it is now mostly below. This happened at the same time the airlines started getting into serious trouble and slowed down and began cutting their routes.
Quote:
NASA scientists have that found cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.
"This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975,
SpaceRef
When NASA first published their study in 2000 (which I can not now find) they stated at that time that their research indicated that most of the global warming we were then seeing was the result of the effects of commercial airline exhaust. I guess it was not politically correct to produce such findings, and the media mainly ignored it. Apparently, so did most of the scientific world.
By the end of the year when we can use the full year’s data set from 1998 to present, we should be able to draw a definitive conclusion. In the mean time it appears we are in a significant cooling trend and that it most likely has to do with reduced commercial air flights.
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
Cashmere wrote:
And everyday it looks more and more like "climate scientists" are more akin to economists than physicists - more guessing based on models than anything else.
Climate scientist credibility is getting hammered.
No correlation with CO2? Remember Al Gore's giant CO2 graph?
Al Gore definitely is clueless about causation/correlation, but when you don't even have correlation, even a guy as unscientific as Al Gore should get it.
So where's the evidence for GW?
Temperatures have been dropping and there is no correlation with CO2?
No wonder these folks have attempted to quietly change "global warming" to "climate change".
Well, both climate science and economics are disadvantaged by the fact that there is no controlled laboratory environment in which to establish a groundwork, so they are constantly being challenged on the fundamentals of their discipline - which is healthy if done in good faith. But good faith is pretty rare in the political climate these days.
And it is possible we may find out that both disciplines were just hallucinations from the ground up.
However, as a layperson, I have yet to hear a GW "skeptic" that is convincing to me personally, and your post is typical of the genre. From the ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, to the insinuations of some shadowy conpiracy to soak up lucrative taxpayer grant money.
How exactly does one "quietly change" terminology, anyway? Isn't that one of those, what is it, oxymorons?
The problem is that these "skeptics" are by and large smear technicians in the service of businesses that are afraid they may be faced with profit-killing regulation, so they inject a bit of chaos into the debate and start flailing it around to inflict whatever damage they can. It is a political stance, not a scientific one. And the overwhelming portion of corrupting influence is available to the skeptical side, though you'd neven know that to hear their accusations.
Rove's political tactics are the blueprint for the AGW skeptics. Attack the other side with your weakness. If you are receiving payouts for corrupt science, accuse your opponents of the same thing. Simple, cynical, effective.
Then of course there are the true believers, the retarded offspring of the marriage between the fundy religious Xtians and the capitalist robber-barons. Those who think Jesus was an American and the "free market" is the manifestation of heavenly grace on earth. For them, AGW skepticism in the service of God and Capital is as evident as Intelligent Design.
Joined: May 28, 2008 Posts: 104 Location: Leon, Gto. Mexico
Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: Re: Is the world actually Cooling not warming?
aflurry wrote:
Cashmere wrote:
And everyday it looks more and more like "climate scientists" are more akin to economists than physicists - more guessing based on models than anything else.
Climate scientist credibility is getting hammered.
No correlation with CO2? Remember Al Gore's giant CO2 graph?
Al Gore definitely is clueless about causation/correlation, but when you don't even have correlation, even a guy as unscientific as Al Gore should get it.
So where's the evidence for GW?
Temperatures have been dropping and there is no correlation with CO2?
No wonder these folks have attempted to quietly change "global warming" to "climate change".
Well, both climate science and economics are disadvantaged by the fact that there is no controlled laboratory environment in which to establish a groundwork, so they are constantly being challenged on the fundamentals of their discipline - which is healthy if done in good faith. But good faith is pretty rare in the political climate these days.
And it is possible we may find out that both disciplines were just hallucinations from the ground up.
However, as a layperson, I have yet to hear a GW "skeptic" that is convincing to me personally, and your post is typical of the genre. From the ad hominem attacks on Al Gore, to the insinuations of some shadowy conpiracy to soak up lucrative taxpayer grant money.
How exactly does one "quietly change" terminology, anyway? Isn't that one of those, what is it, oxymorons?
The problem is that these "skeptics" are by and large smear technicians in the service of businesses that are afraid they may be faced with profit-killing regulation, so they inject a bit of chaos into the debate and start flailing it around to inflict whatever damage they can. It is a political stance, not a scientific one. And the overwhelming portion of corrupting influence is available to the skeptical side, though you'd neven know that to hear their accusations.
Rove's political tactics are the blueprint for the AGW skeptics. Attack the other side with your weakness. If you are receiving payouts for corrupt science, accuse your opponents of the same thing. Simple, cynical, effective.
Then of course there are the true believers, the retarded offspring of the marriage between the fundy religious Xtians and the capitalist robber-barons. Those who think Jesus was an American and the "free market" is the manifestation of heavenly grace on earth. For them, AGW skepticism in the service of God and Capital is as evident as Intelligent Design.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Next
Page 1 of 8
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
