Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on October 18, 2009, 02:58:22 pm
-
OK, I could have sworn I posted this already, but as I can't find it the forum either ate it, or someone deleted it without PMing me, so here it is again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Wouldn't it be nice if a study took more than a few decades into account and looked at long-term trends without pre-supposing that CO2 is the only factor in climate change? I'm all for making human industry more environmentally-friendly and I don't think that we as a species should stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the potential changes we could make to reduce our ecological footprint... but, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be basing decisions with a massive economic impact entirely upon what amounts to politically-motivated science.
Anyway, I thought it was fairly telling that there's an elephant in the climate change room when the BBC (one of the biggest supporters of the idea that human activity is among the major factors influencing changes in global temperatures) publishes an article saying "hold on a minute here..."
Good read anyway.
-
i would laugh and do donuts if it turns out were stalling an ICE age.
-
I don't suppose the fact that we're in the middle of a profound solar minimum has anything to do with it.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml)
How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?
Judith L. Lean
Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C., USA
David H. Rind
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03 ± 0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. We further illustrate how a major volcanic eruption and a super ENSO would modify our global and regional temperature projections.
Received 29 April 2009; accepted 9 July 2009; published 15 August 2009.
Citation: Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009), How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15708, doi:10.1029/2009GL038932.
-
Many, many variables affect earth's climate- isn't it a little irresponsible to swiftly assume that only one of them is responsible?
-
I didn't say that only one was responsible.
-
Anyway, I thought it was fairly telling that there's an elephant in the climate change room when the BBC (one of the biggest supporters of the idea that human activity is among the major factors influencing changes in global temperatures) publishes an article saying "hold on a minute here..."
Good read anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Climate(from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.[2] The standard averaging period is 30 years
(emphasis added)
-
Wouldn't it be nice if a study took more than a few decades into account and looked at long-term trends without pre-supposing that CO2 is the only factor in climate change?
I think what we should be looking at is whether or not the periods during solar minumums are on average getting hotter or just staying the same.
-
the problem with global warming is that you can't really prove it. you would need global satellite data that includes the avg temp of the oceans going all the way back since before the industrial revolution.
we haven't had an accurate way of measuring the avg temp of the earth since the 80's, not the 1800's.
yes, we know how much co2 has entered the atmo due to burning of fossil fuels, but we don't know how that co2 reacts with the climate. we know that it *should* make it hotter, but we don't know how much co2 would be needed to make a significant difference.
really, the whole global warming thing is a political tool and always has been. there are many bigger things wrong with the environment that neither political party wants to deal with.
-
From what we know of what Caesar wrote when he invaded the UK, Southern England had Vineyards and quite probably had a climate similar to modern day Mid-Southern France, so we do know that Climates move around a bit.
As for the bit about the Ice-Age, well, scientists have been saying that we are quite close (geologically - i.e. thousands of years) to an Ice Age for years, the warming was to be the precursor to it.
Personally, I'm not sold on the amout of impact humanity is having on Global Warming, but it doesn't hurt to be more environmentally friendly anyway, after all, if you think what those emmissions to do something the size of a planet, imagine what they do to your lungs, so I'm all for clean energy etc (and this from a smoker - ironic, huh?) but I am inclined to believe in shifts in climate over geographical periods of time (since there is very strong evidence of it both short- and long-term) and the possibility that one of the more profound shifts such as an Ice Age may not be too far away, though probably long beyond my lifetime.
Once again, it's not known how quickly an Ice Age actually settles in once it gets started, it could take thousands of years for glaciation, but evidence suggests it may well be a lot, lot faster, which is a sobering thought.
-
I'm not really convinced global warming is because of CO2 emissions.
However. . .I have yet to see a drawback to cutting back on burning fossil fuels; so why not?
-
Anyway, I thought it was fairly telling that there's an elephant in the climate change room when the BBC (one of the biggest supporters of the idea that human activity is among the major factors influencing changes in global temperatures) publishes an article saying "hold on a minute here..."
Good read anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Climate(from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.[2] The standard averaging period is 30 years
(emphasis added)
What's your point? At no point did I say that temperature was the only factor in climate, and frankly an averaging period of 30 years when discussing changes in global climate is absolutely ridiculous.
-
From what we know of what Caesar wrote when he invaded the UK, Southern England had Vineyards and quite probably had a climate similar to modern day Mid-Southern France, so we do know that Climates move around a bit.
Not actually as important as people think. The reason why English vineyards weren't common in the past is because English wine, by and large, is ****. Despite that fact there never has been a time since medieval days when English wine-making completely died out. It has always been warm enough to grow grapes in the south of England.
-
[aimless rant] SCIENCE! Here's a list of the things that (to my knowledge) have impact on global temperature. If I missed anything or am in error, please feel free to add or correct.
1: Solar irradiance
2: Earth's orbit (specifically, average distance from Sol)
3: Earth's albedo (% incoming light that is reflected back to space)
4: Atmospheric composition (notably greenhouse gases)
5: Aerosols/volcanoes… various random events such as meteor impacts
6: Ocean currents, ENSO
Now then…
1: The solar physicists say that the sun’s output is increasing, but on very long timescales, and thus is negligible in the short term. On the other hand there is the 11-year solar cycle which also has small effect on output – higher output during solar max, lower during solar min. The change is very small, though, so it is still being argued whether or not it has detectable contribution to global temperature change. The abstract I linked to earlier claims it does, but I’d like to see more data to support/reject that idea.
2: Earth’s orbit – doesn’t change significantly over human timescales, so can be disregarded when it comes to the current warming trend, if it exists.
3: Albedo. Oceans are very effective at absorbing heat, so is vegetation. Clouds and polar caps are very effective at reflecting heat. Clouds obviously are pretty variable, but consensus on snow/ice coverage is that it is decreasing, which thus decreases albedo and pushes toward a warming trend. This same principle, working both forward and reverse, is of major importance when considering the “snowball earth” hypothesis.
4: Ahh, the atmosphere. Finally something we know very well. And we know that human activity is increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Let’s start with CO2 since everyone loves talking about it these days. CO2 levels are currently about 380 ppmv (about 0.04%) and is increasing by about 10 ppmv every decade. As for its greenhouse capability, to quote wikipedia: “Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.”
And of course CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas, nor is it the strongest. Water vapor by far is the strongest contributor, especially if one includes the effect of clouds. Whether or not we have an impact on water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, I do not know, though from what I’ve read it is minimal/localized. That said, a warmer atmosphere will hold more water, and there’s another positive feedback effect.
As for other significant greenhouse gases, this is their change from pre-industrialization and the effect.
Gas Preindustrial Level Current Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (W/m2)
Carbon dioxide
280 ppm 387ppm 104 ppm 1.46
Methane
700 ppb 1,745 ppb 1,045 ppb 0.48
Nitrous oxide
270 ppb 314 ppb 44 ppb 0.15
CFC-12
0 533 ppt 533 ppt 0.17
5: Mmm, volcanoes. They release CO2, yes, but their effect on climate is actually a brief cooling trend, because of ash and sulfur emissions. In recent years there have not been any (significant) eruptions.
6: Ocean currents, not my area of expertise. El Niño and La Niña obviously have short-term effects but maybe someone else can explain that?
So in summary, we have a combination of influences that effect the climate. When considering the current trends (hundreds of years), I’d say we can disregard number 2. Personally, I would argue that 3 and 4 are causing a warming trend, ala ‘global warming’. 5 causes short-term cooling trends, while 6 is also short term but possibly with various effects. As for 1, it is also short term, but the strength of the effect is in question.
[/aimless rant]
-
You also have your atmospheric patterns and cycles, examples such as AO, NAO, PDO, which get over my head fairly quickly. Now with ENSO cycles, it get even more complicated, is the El Nino west based or east based? And I won't touch that with a long stick. :p
-
Hmm let's read this origin...
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
OH WELL THIS ONE GUY DISAGREES GUESS WE'RE DONE HERE
(It's not like the term "scientific consensus" has any meaning whatsoever)
edit: Looking at this Corbyn guy is a great sport, he's obviously what will bring down the global conspiracy to make the world a less horrible place to live in
-
to understand global warming denialism one shouldn't really look at their blog circles and nitpicking but inside their heads
i really want to know what these people think
practically thousands of studies from hundreds of organizations (which try to prove each other wrong!) that have all arrived to p. much a similar conclusion is apparently irrelevant. what is relevant is the fact that people don't really want to change the way they live and they know that if they accept the fact for what it is they really, well, can't
the climate change skeptism has been well and alive since 1990s and it has accomplished jack **** except changed the arguments every now and then
-
theyre thinking "i wonder howmuch money i can make while all these idiots buy into the crap science i just put out there"
-
which is a fine position to take so long as understanding the other side is not one of your objectives.
people who don't believe in global warming (or any variation of that theme) can fall between simply not thinking the science is mature enough or doubting it based on their own investigation all the way to people who think it's a NWO conspiracy.
-
my solution would be to kill 9/10th the population, but thats just me.
-
only 9?
that's unusually humane of you.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Climate(from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.[2] The standard averaging period is 30 years
(emphasis added)
What's your point? At no point did I say that temperature was the only factor in climate, and frankly an averaging period of 30 years when discussing changes in global climate is absolutely ridiculous.
Ehm, why is that ridicolous? It's basically the definition of climate, and if we talk about climate change we talk about that average.
So, 11 years ago was a particularly hot year? What has that to do with climate?
Climate change doesn't mean that a year has to be hotter than the one before. And that's why the article isn't an argument against the existence of (manmade) climate change at all.
That was my point - a single year says nothing about climate.
-
it's ridiculous because it's such a small sample.
-
Why is 30 years a "small sample"?
[edit]
I'm really confused now..
-
Mainly, I think, because weather is fractal in nature, take a tiny snip of behaviour, such as 30 years, and you can get all sorts of results out of it that tell you nothing of the general trends, however, take ten thousand years of it via Core-Samples etc, and you can start to get a picture.
That's why climate is such a massive cause for debate, because it's very difficult to argue that the weather isn't doing what it should be doing, because no-one's actually certain what it should be doing.
-
In terms of climate, you are dealing with cycles that can be measured in decades, or centuries. Just looking at the data from the last 30 years is generally insufficient to make good long term predictions or observations.
-
You are misunderstanding what that averaging means:
It means that I can't compare the temperature of 1998 to the temperature of 2009, but I have to compare the average temperature of 1968-1998 to 1979-2009 (or to 1870-1900 if I want to look at some time in the past - or 1000-1030 etc)
-
What they're saying is that the sample isn't large enough for a system as large and variable as global climate is.
-
Why is 30 years a "small sample"?
[edit]
I'm really confused now..
because the earth (and it's climate) is 5,000,000,000 years old. 30 < 5,000,000,000.
-
I don't think science works when you decide that nothing can be concluded without a complete picture of everything.
-
only 9?
that's unusually humane of you.
i need some slaves to grow my dope and build my shrine
-
Why is 30 years a "small sample"?
[edit]
I'm really confused now..
because the earth (and it's climate) is 5,000,000,000 years old. 30 < 5,000,000,000.
So you want to average a period of time of 5,000,000,000 years?
And then you have a SINGLE data point, and what are you planning to compare it to?
It seems like you think climate means comparing values WITHIN a 30 year interval - that's wrong.
It means in a 5,000,000,000 year period we got 166,666,667 data points, and not 5,000,000,000.
If someone is talking about climate change it's supposed to mean the average of the temperature in the years 2010-2039 is higher than the average between 1980-2009.
-
we have 10 of those 166666667 data points. saying the temperature in the last hundred years is higher than the last thousand means nothing if you don't have a clear picture of if the last thousand years was hotter or colder than the last million.
-
we have 10 of those 166666667 data points. saying the temperature in the last hundred years is higher than the last thousand means nothing if you don't have a clear picture of if the last thousand years was hotter or colder than the last million.
I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.
Or to be more precise, what any of that has to do with my initial argument.
Maybe to help me understand you, answer the following questions:
1.What would be your suggestion for an averaging period? Why?
2.If there is not enough data with the current averaging period, how will your intervall be more helpfull?
3.How does the fact, that million of years ago the temperature depending on a certain averaging period had a certain value affect the fact that the averaged temperature currently increases? (I'm not talking about the implications, I'm asking how it is supposed to make that fact somehow wrong)
-
It doesn't make it wrong, it's just not enough information to come to the conclusion that is attempting to be thrust upon us...that the Earth's climate is getting warmer and it's our fault.
-
It doesn't even matter, emissions reduction and renewable energy are worthy goals. If they can convince people that we're all going to die unless we do it, that only means that we get there faster.
-
It doesn't make it wrong, it's just not enough information to come to the conclusion that is attempting to be thrust upon us...that the Earth's climate is getting warmer and it's our fault.
BLAAAA BLAAA BLAAA
My morning's off to great start! First, I find a relatively new article: Axford et al. 2009: Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique
within the past 200,000 years. - PNAS 42(106).
Then I surprisingly find Liberator rejecting scientific consensus. What do you really think? Why do you do such a thing? What level of cognitive dissonance is required to reject everything everyone says and believe otherwise? You're a paleodenier, since you seem to reject the idea that climate is even becoming warmer. I'd like you to point out how this could happen, since this is so ageless denialist stuff that I find it rather amusing. What do you base your assumption on - I can point out mine, which is IPCC and, well, let's be gracious and say this study I cite right here:
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations,
but it remains largely unknown how these changes
compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake
sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm
periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This
record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and
predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically
intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The
early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial
(Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past
200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding
today’s at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data
indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized
by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater
pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent
decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring
natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is
unique within the past 200 millennia.
chironomids climate change diatoms paleolimnology polar
[...]
Through the mid to late Holocene, declining summer insolation
has caused progressive cooling in the Northern Hemisphere
(23) and under natural forcing, climate would on average be
expected to cool over coming centuries. Indeed, chironomids
record cooling through the late Holocene at Lake CF8, as
cold-tolerant taxa became increasingly dominant. But after
approximately AD 1950, chironomid taxa with cold temperature
optima abruptly declined (Fig. 2), matching the lowest abundances
of the past 200,000 years. The two most extreme cold
stenotherms, Oliveridia/Hydrobaenus and Pseudodiamesa, disappeared
entirely (14). At the same time, aquatic primary production
(inferred from chlorophyll-a and C:N) increased, as has
been documented at other lakes in the region (16). Such
evidence for 20th-century warming at Lake CF8 adds to mounting
evidence from high-latitude northern sites suggesting that the
natural late-Holocene cooling trajectory has been preempted in
the Arctic (2, 24).
Although 20th-century warming is clearly recorded in the
proxy data, Lake CF8 is not simply returning to the environmental
regime seen during past warm periods (i.e., the early
Holocene and MIS 5e). Rather, recent warm decades are
ecologically unique.
And guess what - this is but one study out of the hundreds that yield similar results, and this one has an advantage of looking even further back and yet coming up with the idea that "hey, **** is happening quite fast".
-
Then I surprisingly find Liberator rejecting scientific consensus.
The only part I reject is the part that the racial fatalists are trying to push, that it's our fault.
Also, I'll remind you that the "scientific consensus" also said the world was flat, that Earth was the center of the universe and that stars are torchlights hanging in the sky. Consensus in this argument means bupkis. This is a religious argument, except instead of you guys denying the existence of a my deity, I'm denying the existence of yours in the form of man-cause global warming. And you are deluded if you think it isn't.
-
Don't be dumb.
A 'deity' is constructed from whole cloth. It cannot be disproven.
A scientific consensus is based on data. It could be wrong. That happens when better data comes along. (All those 'scientific consensuses' you pointed out weren't exactly the product of rigorous scientific investigation; in fact, the merest investigation knocked them right over.) Global warming is going to turn out to be right or wrong. It's fundamentally falsifiable, by its very nature.
If the data we have right now points to global warming, which it apparently is believed to, then that's not a fabrication. It could be a broad misinterpretation, it could be that we're missing something - some key we need, some long-term perspective - but it is no way comparable to religion.
Personally, I don't know what I think about global warming, but if a large number of climate scientists seem to believe that it's a problem, I'm going to give that real weight.
I'm going to take a post from the above Janos post (a good one) and modify it slightly:
The world is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability.
I can't imagine you disagree with that. And I don't see how there's any 'racial fatalism' in there.
Stop getting your science from talk radio, dude.
Now read this and explain your data or methodology-based critique of it, please:
In recent
decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring
natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is
unique within the past 200 millennia.
chironomids climate change diatoms paleolimnology polar
[...]
Through the mid to late Holocene, declining summer insolation
has caused progressive cooling in the Northern Hemisphere
(23) and under natural forcing, climate would on average be
expected to cool over coming centuries. Indeed, chironomids
record cooling through the late Holocene at Lake CF8, as
cold-tolerant taxa became increasingly dominant. But after
approximately AD 1950, chironomid taxa with cold temperature
optima abruptly declined (Fig. 2), matching the lowest abundances
of the past 200,000 years. The two most extreme cold
stenotherms, Oliveridia/Hydrobaenus and Pseudodiamesa, disappeared
entirely (14). At the same time, aquatic primary production
(inferred from chlorophyll-a and C:N) increased, as has
been documented at other lakes in the region (16). Such
evidence for 20th-century warming at Lake CF8 adds to mounting
evidence from high-latitude northern sites suggesting that the
natural late-Holocene cooling trajectory has been preempted in
the Arctic (2, 24).
Although 20th-century warming is clearly recorded in the
proxy data, Lake CF8 is not simply returning to the environmental
regime seen during past warm periods (i.e., the early
Holocene and MIS 5e). Rather, recent warm decades are
ecologically unique.
-
Also, I'll remind you that the "scientific consensus" also said the world was flat, that Earth was the center of the universe and that stars are torchlights hanging in the sky.
No it didn't. The ancient Greeks figured out that the world was round ages earlier using science and then the Christian church came along and hid/burnt all that knowledge and then denied it every single time someone actually did something scientific. :p
There was very little science and a whole lot of religion in the denials that the world was round. Funnily enough that seems to be exactly what happens when people deny global warming too.
-
Does anyone actually really think anymore that we are UNCAPABLE of affecting the climate? :wtf:
I cna immagine no greater blindness or state of denial than that.
There's 6+ billion of us and we're using advanced technology. This isn't the stone age anymore. We really have the power to affect things on a large scale.
Heck, we divert rivers, make lakes, drill trough mountains, even make islands for fun.
With all the explosives we have, we could level Mnt. Everest - and if that wouldn't affect flow of air currents and the climte globably, then I don't know what will.
Just do a little research into the total energy output of the human race. And energy is pretty much heat.
There's no question if we can affect things ...the question is just how much are we affecting them right now?
And here comes the second part of hte mental excercise - take a little gander at nature. You'd notice a pattern called balance. And the funyn thing about balance is that it doesn't take much before you loose it.
so even if we werent't doing much, it only takes a little for everything to go fubar.
-
Does anyone actually really think anymore that we are UNCAPABLE of affecting the climate? :wtf:
Anyone who seriously thinks that is ignorant. Not only are we capable of affecting the climate, we already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming)!
-
I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.
Or to be more precise, what any of that has to do with my initial argument.
Maybe to help me understand you, answer the following questions:
1.What would be your suggestion for an averaging period? Why?
2.If there is not enough data with the current averaging period, how will your intervall be more helpfull?
3.How does the fact, that million of years ago the temperature depending on a certain averaging period had a certain value affect the fact that the averaged temperature currently increases? (I'm not talking about the implications, I'm asking how it is supposed to make that fact somehow wrong)
the issue is we do not in my opinion have a very good volume of data, averaging period is not really the issue so much as the width of the raw data, we only have 300 years of reliably recoded temperature readings, we are looking at changes on an extremely small scale and trying to extrapolate from them, I think we need to have a much better understanding of temperatures on the planet over at least the last few million years before we can start making any judgments over what's happening now. we do not have enough data to establish a strong 'control' temperature, we don't have enough data to establish what the temperature would be if we were not here.
what data I have seen operating in these scales indicates to me that we are in an unusually cool and erratic period dominated by repeated ice ages, and are currently in the warming phase of one of these ice ages. however I am sticking to my position that we don't have a solid enough historical framework to be making conclusions.
-
Op said 11 years ago was the hottest year, later implying that this means climate doesn't change.
I said, a single year doesn't mean anything for climate models, because climate is about averaging over multiple years.
How has your statement anything to do with this? How are you arguing that averaging over 30 years in itself is "ridiculous"?
I just got the feeling you are trying to make a completely different point, that has nothing to do with my original statement. That you didn't answer my questions is another indication..
-
Your going around in circles because one is arguing apples and the other oranges :p
-
well the 30 year average is not it's self my issue. though I would say 100 or 1000 years would give a better idea of global temperature change (including calculating std deviation).
my initial response was directed at using one 30 year average and extrapolating everything from that.
-
my initial response was directed at using one 30 year average and extrapolating everything from that.
Well, I didn't say something about extrapolating, and didn't intend to. Also I never said anything about using one 30 year average, that seems to be your idea. On the other hand how can you extrapolate from a single data point?
Probably "Our value never changed, so we are extrapolating it to be constant". ;)
well the 30 year average is not it's self my issue. though I would say 100 or 1000 years would give a better idea of global temperature change (including calculating std deviation).
Ok, we apparently agree that a single year alone is not describing climate. That's what I was initially trying to say. As a result a single year is no indication for the existence or inexistence of climate change.
Your going around in circles because one is arguing apples and the other oranges
Well, we were arguing different things, but I hope we are no longer.
-
Did nobody read the paper Janos posted? It uses evidence from many thousands of years to attempt to examine the issue of climate change.
-
Kara, the concept of geoengineering from your linked article troubles me. We don't have anywhere else to go, so if we were to make a mistake on a project that large it would take to long to correct and we'd be done. Frankly, it strikes me a bit like the people who build houses in California and then are aghast and shocked when there are wildfires during the dry season and landslides during the wet season. There are certain things you don't **** with.
-
Did nobody read the paper Janos posted? It uses evidence from many thousands of years to attempt to examine the issue of climate change.
the one that said the previous interglacial period was as warm or warmer and said that species were dieing off in the north without considering anything other than rising temperatures (for example pollutants, humans are putting more than CO2 into the environment)? or that failed to explain what it meant by unique (all I saw was it talking about cold tolerant species dieing off or maybe that was the only criteria they used)?
granted it was only a snipet and there these issues could have been addressed elsewhere in the paper
-
I'm calling attention to it not because it Proves Global Warming, but because it provides an interesting example of one piece of convergent evidence.
-
Did nobody read the paper Janos posted? It uses evidence from many thousands of years to attempt to examine the issue of climate change.
the one that said the previous interglacial period was as warm or warmer and said that species were dieing off in the north without considering anything other than rising temperatures (for example pollutants, humans are putting more than CO2 into the environment)? or that failed to explain what it meant by unique (all I saw was it talking about cold tolerant species dieing off or maybe that was the only criteria they used)?
granted it was only a snipet and there these issues could have been addressed elsewhere in the paper
"Snippet", bfaff - the paper is readily available if you are willing and the abstract+discussion readily explain what the study had to do with. You are trying to criticize the paper you haven't read for not answering the questions you just made up. How about you read the paper and try to think what questions it is trying to answer to and then regard those, not the questions you come up and the paper is not even trying to answer to? Huh?
Speaking of temperature, by the way, are the sedimental approximations only available just 300 years into the past? How about oxygen isotopes? They too? What about this entire glacial air bubble thingamungie. How about the timespan of the change? Could that effect something too? Hey, how about we cross-check athmospheric CO2 to measured global temperature?
-
Kara, the concept of geoengineering from your linked article troubles me. We don't have anywhere else to go, so if we were to make a mistake on a project that large it would take to long to correct and we'd be done. Frankly, it strikes me a bit like the people who build houses in California and then are aghast and shocked when there are wildfires during the dry season and landslides during the wet season. There are certain things you don't **** with.
Like the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere?
The whole geoengineering point was that it was suggested as a possible solution when the "There's no such thing as global warming/We aren't doing it" crowd finally pull their heads out of their collective asses and realise how badly we've ****ed ourselves over.
It's a much worse solution than cutting CO2 emissions in the first place and may be worse than simply putting up with the consequences of the changes caused by global warming. But that's why it's only mentioned as a possible solution.
-
Just do a little research into the total energy output of the human race. And energy is pretty much heat.
Our energy output is nothing compared to the power of weather. :p
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html)
Subject: D7) How much energy does a hurricane release?
* Method 1) - Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or
6.0 x 1014 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity - an incredible amount of energy produced!
* Method 2) - Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated:
For a mature hurricane, the amount of kinetic energy generated is equal to that being dissipated due to friction. The dissipation rate per unit area is air density times the drag coefficient times the windspeed cubed (See Emanuel 1999 for details). One could either integrate a typical wind profile over a range of radii from the hurricane's center to the outer radius encompassing the storm, or assume an average windspeed for the inner core of the hurricane. Doing the latter and using 40 m/s (90 mph) winds on a scale of radius 60 km (40 n.mi.), one gets a wind dissipation rate (wind generation rate) of
1.3 x 1017 Joules/day or
1.5 x 1012Watts.
This is equivalent to about half the world-wide electrical generating capacity - also an amazing amount of energy being produced!
-
True, but I'm not sure I understand your point. Our activities influence the heat transfer between the Earth and space. Weather is a result of heat transfer throughout the atmosphere.
-
True, but I'm not sure I understand your point. Our activities influence the heat transfer between the Earth and space. Weather is a result of heat transfer throughout the atmosphere.
I really had no point. It's just totally amazing that a normal sized hurricane totally whips our output by a few hundred times in just one day of it's existence.
-
Ah, yes. Kind of makes one feel small, doesn't it? ;)
-
Kind of makes one feel like coming up with some way to wrap a metaphorical lasso around a hurricane and solve all of our energy needs in one fell swoop. :p
-
"Snippet", bfaff - the paper is readily available if you are willing and the abstract+discussion readily explain what the study had to do with. You are trying to criticize the paper you haven't read for not answering the questions you just made up. How about you read the paper and try to think what questions it is trying to answer to and then regard those, not the questions you come up and the paper is not even trying to answer to? Huh?
hard to understand exactly what you are getting at, but I was asked if I read the article you posted, that was all I could find, maybe you should post a link and better explain what it's trying to prove, I was under the assumption that it was going to provide evidence for humanity's causeing global warming
Speaking of temperature, by the way, are the sedimental approximations only available just 300 years into the past? How about oxygen isotopes? They too? What about this entire glacial air bubble thingamungie. How about the timespan of the change? Could that effect something too? Hey, how about we cross-check athmospheric CO2 to measured global temperature?
made mention of the fact that we have some data, and that it did not support your position, and that I wasn't going to close my mind to the possibility that there will be new samples made that refute my position.
here (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png) is one of my favorite graphs, it shows that, at these two antarctic sites, it seems as though the last 4 interglacial periods were 3 to 6 degrees warmer than currently (was made in 2004).
oh, I just noticed, I've been saying 300 years for directly measured temperatures, I was mistaken it was only 100 years that we have been doing that, it's been a while since I've been involved in this discussion.
-
Kind of makes one feel like coming up with some way to wrap a metaphorical lasso around a hurricane and solve all of our energy needs in one fell swoop. :p
Bah, they're too pesky to control for our own use. Them and tornadoes. I'd rather just kill 'em all.
http://www.xkcd.com/640/ (http://www.xkcd.com/640/)
-
"Snippet", bfaff - the paper is readily available if you are willing and the abstract+discussion readily explain what the study had to do with. You are trying to criticize the paper you haven't read for not answering the questions you just made up. How about you read the paper and try to think what questions it is trying to answer to and then regard those, not the questions you come up and the paper is not even trying to answer to? Huh?
hard to understand exactly what you are getting at, but I was asked if I read the article you posted, that was all I could find, maybe you should post a link and better explain what it's trying to prove, I was under the assumption that it was going to provide evidence for humanity's causeing global warming
It says that the current changes in global climate are unique. They are not similar to previous glacial periods. There are two periods that in summer temperatures compare to this. To measure the changes the group uses changes in fauna, estimated pH and sedimental biochemistry during the last 200 000 years. Species extinctions are a commonly used tool in sediment studies. Species often exist in certain type of communities. Aquatic insects are heavily dependant on temperature. So are diatoms. They are a standardized method for measuring temperature change and have been used in that role for decades, if even not for a century. Pollutants themselves do not cause entire faunal combinations to die off because that is not how they work. If we are to trust the glacial period theory - the one you espoused here - then the estimated trend of global temperature should be downwards. It is not. This is but one recent study.
I gave the citation but yeah, it was kinda hidden in that post. Axford et al. 2009: Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years. - PNAS 42(106). There you are, go hog wild.
Speaking of temperature, by the way, are the sedimental approximations only available just 300 years into the past? How about oxygen isotopes? They too? What about this entire glacial air bubble thingamungie. How about the timespan of the change? Could that effect something too? Hey, how about we cross-check athmospheric CO2 to measured global temperature?
made mention of the fact that we have some data, and that it did not support your position, and that I wasn't going to close my mind to the possibility that there will be new samples made that refute my position.
here (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png) is one of my favorite graphs, it shows that, at these two antarctic sites, it seems as though the last 4 interglacial periods were 3 to 6 degrees warmer than currently (was made in 2004).[/quote]
Indeed they have been. There's no one disputing that. There's only that little problem that you are
A) looking at millions of years
B) the changes have taken at least thousands of years
C) the current one is not doing so, but proceeding extremely rapidly.
I don't see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. The fact that there have been warmer periods in history has nothing to do with whether a very rapid and ongoing change is bad or not.
oh, I just noticed, I've been saying 300 years for directly measured temperatures, I was mistaken it was only 100 years that we have been doing that, it's been a while since I've been involved in this discussion.
... and yet you are citing a map of global temperatures as a proof of your argument, really makes you wonder, doesn't it.
-
I really had no point. It's just totally amazing that a normal sized hurricane totally whips our output by a few hundred times in just one day of it's existence.
And we kinda dump as much heat as a hurricane produces into the atmosphere EACH DAY by just our power plants. Then add cars, various gases and every other appliance (since they all dump some heat).
Nature is swell and powerfull, no one is denying that. But it's balanced. And we are dumping buttloads of energy into that system daily. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that sooner or later the s*** is gonan hit the fan.
-
I got a question for someone knowledgeable on the subject:
Methane. Lots of it. Frozen under the arctic. And even more that would will be released by plant matter when the permafrost thaws.
Anyone know of an estimate for how much could be expected to be released over how much time, or maybe link to a relevant article?
Quotes from wiki:
At high pressures, such as are found on the bottom of the ocean, methane forms a solid clathrate with water, known as methane hydrate. An unknown, but possibly very large quantity of methane is trapped in this form in ocean sediments. The sudden release of large volumes of methane from such sediments into the atmosphere has been suggested as a possible cause for rapid global warming events in the Earth's distant past, such as the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum of 55 million years ago, and the Great Dying.
Theories suggest that should global warming cause them to heat up sufficiently, all of this methane could again be suddenly released into the atmosphere. Since methane is twenty-five times stronger (for a given weight, averaged over 100 years) than CO2 as a greenhouse gas; this would immensely magnify the greenhouse effect, heating Earth to unprecedented levels (see Clathrate gun hypothesis).
Although less dramatic than release from clathrates, but already happening, is an increase in the release of methane from bogs as permafrost melts. Although records of permafrost are limited, recent years (1999 to 2007) have seen record thawing of permafrost in Alaska and Siberia.
-
Can't recall of the top of my head. Huuuge quantities.
We're talking many millions of cubic meters.
-
I really had no point. It's just totally amazing that a normal sized hurricane totally whips our output by a few hundred times in just one day of it's existence.
And we kinda dump as much heat as a hurricane produces into the atmosphere EACH DAY by just our power plants. Then add cars, various gases and every other appliance (since they all dump some heat).
Nature is swell and powerfull, no one is denying that. But it's balanced. And we are dumping buttloads of energy into that system daily. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that sooner or later the s*** is gonan hit the fan.
No we don't, not even close.
A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x1013 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 1013 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html)
Not to argue anything about global warming, just don't have the time anymore. But, weather is not balanced, not by any stretch of the imagination.