GLOBAL WARMING? COLDEST WINTER IN DEC... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Superstorm / Climate Change » GLOBAL WARMING? COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through March 15, 2008Chr15t0575 3-15-08  2:17 am
Archive through August 20, 2008Edwina!75 8-20-08  10:18 am
Archive through January 21, 2009miaree975 1-21-09  7:03 pm
Archive through July 15, 2009Chr15t0575 7-15-09  6:29 pm
Archive through December 01, 2009brit75 12-01-09  7:21 am
Archive through March 06, 2010Chr15t0575 3-06-10  9:56 pm
Archive through January 07, 2011Jimmy 75 1-07-11  9:13 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 288
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Friday, January 07, 2011 - 9:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I think that wider swings in extremes is a pretty good indication that some pretty interesting changes are happening.

Personally, I think people get hung up on the "global warming" term, and there is always that confusion with weather/climate. If global warming is due to (all or in part) our activities, I don't think you will ever get people to agree or come together to make a difference. I think there is evidence that we are having an impact, but due to very wide ideological beliefs nothing will ever come of it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allan
New member
Username: allan

Post Number: 25
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2011 - 12:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Indeed Mike, that east to west current over the north atlantic and Canada started slowly again around the 3rd and is now in full swing as of today. Very curious to see it start up again like this..............
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1405
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2011 - 9:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

mthood said:

quote:

I think that wider swings in extremes is a pretty good indication that some pretty interesting changes are happening.


The roller-coaster ride over the last 2-3 years has certainly been fun. We've had a strong La Nina followed almost immediately by strong El Nino, and now we're back to strong La Nina. While not unprecedented, I do note the above time-line as interesting. These events were immediately preceded by the larger shift in the Pacific Ocean Decadal Oscillation, now in its negative, or "cool" phase after thirty years or so in the opposite "warm" phase. It will be interesting to observe whether these large swings continue, or if this has been an adjustment to the larger regime change.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 12:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

For sure Allan, there hasn't been a normal circulation so far this winter, the Nor'easter normally go north but instead they're stalling over Newfoundland for a week or more. They're simply moving eastwards and dumping rain and snow over eastern Canada and the NE U.S.

Hope the pattern breaks and goes back to the norm, otherwise it may indicate a new circulation pattern developing. If it is the beginning of a new ice age, it's interesting to see how the change in weather patterns occurs.

Brrrr.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geoff
Senior Member
Username: geoff

Post Number: 1208
Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 11:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The current La Nina is certainly devastating Queensland, Australia. "Inland Tsunami" is not a term I've heard before.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 171
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 1:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Check this footage of the 'inland tsunami' that his this stream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUpkPTcqPY&feature=player_embedded
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1406
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 7:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Toowomba is 150km west of Brisbane, where I am. I have friends and family there but all were ok. There is some astounding footage floating around though. It's really surprising as you have to climb up the range to get to Toowoomba - not the place you would expect to see a flash flood like that.

Here in Brisbane our river is expected to peak tomorrow morning at 5.5m, about as high as our last major flood in 1974. My house is up high enough to avoid the water and so far power is still on, but I'm pretty close to the river here so not sure if that's going to last. Lots of houses under water a couple of streets over from me.

Two years ago our dam levels were at 17%, now at almost 200%. That's something at least!

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1407
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 8:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

La Nina weather pattern as strong as the 1974 version

Extract:

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society president Neville Nicholls said the current La Nina phenomenon was at least as strong as that of 1974, two years after he began working for the Bureau of Meteorology.

"You wouldn't have seen La Nina mentioned in 1974," he said.

"It wasn't very high even on the meteorological radar at the time.

"That flooding was largely caused by actual rain in the Brisbane catchment itself, a stalled system that sat off the coast for a long time and dumped a lot of rain.

"As far as I can see, this one has been more inland, although it has been raining a lot in Brisbane and around the surrounds."

Professor Nicholls said technology had improved dramatically since the 1970s, but it was still difficult to predict the kind of flash flooding that tore through Toowoomba on Monday when two creeks surged. "We will never have the technology to predict that sort of thing that far in advance so people can avoid it," said Professor Nicholls.

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 9408
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 8:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I watched that amazing video.

Scary.
Understand that all things are sacred--yet nothing is sacred.

~Yotee Coyote


Blog: http://animalspirits--withoutfear.blogspot.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1408
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 8:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Some more Toowoomba footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgydxdFmOQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoV-Wjo7mZ8
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geoff
Senior Member
Username: geoff

Post Number: 1210
Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 8:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Glad you're ok Chris. As a daily viewer of the weather maps over Australia and NZ, I've found it interesting that as we have moved into summer, the usual weather patterns are there, but leading to different outcomes due to La Nina. I.e., each weather front tends to form over Australia, then move into a focused band out over the Tasman, then across to NZ and beyond, as usual. But instead of dropping rain gradually as it goes, it's instead dropping the rain in much greater quantities before it clears Australia, then by the time it reaches us in NZ, it doesn't really do much. We get the clouds, but little or no rain. As a result, you guys are getting too much water, and we are getting less. The main cause is that La Nina is pushing larger quantities of cold water from below South America, to the Australian east coast, which meets the warm tropical air and ocean currents, activating rain in larger, and more frequent, quantities.

They reckon La Nina will hang around about another three months, so it'll be interesting to see how much more it does during that time.

Personally, I'm enjoying its effects here. Lots of clear sunny days, and temps around 22-28 degrees. Just right for an enjoyable summer!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

miaree9
Senior Member
Username: miaree9

Post Number: 4675
Registered: 5-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 6:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Chris, hoping you and yours stay safe and dry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 346
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 11:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

hang in there Chris. It is pretty amazing to watch.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 348
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 4:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Australian Flood Images

Elephant Calf Died on Tree-Sri Lanka
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1409
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 1:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Thanks all. Clean up is now well under-way here and the city is starting to look (and smell!) somewhat normal again.

It's amazing to me that in 21st Century Australia we could have been so surprised by this. As late as Tuesday morning last week we were still being told that flooding would be minor with only a couple of hundred homes affected. We all went to work as normal. Then by mid-morning they were evacuating the CBD and by lunchtime it was a mad rush to get home. Felt like being on the Titanic!

A lot of the flooding could have been reduced if our government had taken steps to release water from our main dams in the weeks before. One dam had been built specifically for flood mitigation. But due to the recently ended drought I don't think that would have been a popular decision with dam levels finally back at near 100% after years of water restrictions. I have a feeling future generations will not be so hesitant when there is a La Nina of this size.

From The Australian newspaper:

Super storm was brewing for a while

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jimmy
Senior Member
Username: chippyo

Post Number: 1528
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 9:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

What say ye Chr15t05 of your past "no global warming" discussions? Going to try to explain this away as a blip or an aberation in the climatology stats or computer module manipulations?

jess sayin' thats all
"Don't take life to seriously;no one gets out alive."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1411
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 4:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Actually Jimmy, I don't see much about ENSO related events that can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming. The last time Brisbane flooded was in 1974, which was also the last time we had the combination of a strong la nina and a cool PDO. We do tend to get the most extreme global weather patterns when there are large swings from el nino to la nina and vice versa, and this is what has happened over the last few years. Any AGW signal would be above this background noise, and I've yet to see anyone claim to have isolated this (other than those making grand pronouncements that it must be true).

As I've said before, the reason I have kept posting in this thread was because I saw the change in the pacific decadal oscillation from warm to cool and thought this would be a good place to discuss the effects. Well in my opinion we are seeing the effects all over the place, and I admit I am somewhat intrigued by the ongoing attempts to try to convince people that every event is consistent with the AGW paradigm. But peace to you, Jimmy. Let me also reiterate again that I do believe humans have some level of climatic influence, just not to the extent of what has been claimed since billions of dollars turned an interesting hypothesis into a political movement.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 395
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 4:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Let me also reiterate again that I do believe humans have some level of climatic influence, just not to the extent of what has been claimed since billions of dollars turned an interesting hypothesis into a political movement.

To an extent I agree, however wouldn't you agree that the billions spent by energy companies and conservative ideologies dwarfs the green movement? Energy and fossil fuels has always been a political movement.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1415
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 9:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Energy companies spend billions and have an enormously biased outlook. Unfortunately environmental groups now also spend billions and have a similarly biased outlook. The melding of mainstream climate science with the environmental movement has caused science to lose objectivity in favor of activism in many cases. We don't expect energy companies to be objective, or if we do we're foolish. That's the main point of difference, in my opinion.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 401
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

But we rely on fossil fuels for most of the worlds energy uses. All other sources make up a tiny slices in a big pie. Wouldn't you say that the melding of geo science, chemistry, energy companies, and conservative groups provided a much more destructive path as well as padding science in favor of fossil fuel exploration? Are we to fear the environmental groups more than the status quo of energy companies controlling the world's supplies?

What environmental groups are spending billions? What environmental groups have "billions?" Any spending for influence by environmental groups is dwarfed by global and multinational energy interests.

Ones radical agenda is another's belief system. Even with consensus, you'll never get any movement without more widespread destruction. People don't care either way unless it hits them personally or in the pocket book. Beyond that, nobody cares, even if you subscribe to the idea that we can "fix" what we have started. (or didn't start_________insert belief here.)

The status quo always has something to lose, and they aren't going to give up without a fight. By then it may be too late, or maybe it already is, or maybe my upper midwest American climate could be more Mediterranean. I wouldn't get upset over that.

(Message edited by r_f on January 20, 2011)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bidaabin
Member
Username: bidaabin

Post Number: 79
Registered: 10-2010
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 12:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I agree with that statement Mthood. Well said. :-)
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” (author unknown)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 403
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 1:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

thanks bidaabin!

One more thing. Why do we expect energy companies to be biased when they (at least here in the US) receive subsidies from the US taxpayers, provide most of the worlds energy needs, and have carte blanche to destroy pockets of the globe if they find energy to use, but we hold climate science to a higher standard?

Seems to be a David and Goliath comparison, and you are continually holding David to a different standard than Goliath. Poor David has to wait for IPCC reports, find consensus between countries and scientists, then get out spent by Goliath before he can even wind up his stone. Goliath stomps on his head, and rolls on.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1416
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 10:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mthood said:

quote:

But we rely on fossil fuels for most of the worlds energy uses. All other sources make up a tiny slices in a big pie. Wouldn't you say that the melding of geo science, chemistry, energy companies, and conservative groups provided a much more destructive path as well as padding science in favor of fossil fuel exploration?


I absolutely agree that they provide a destructive path, that's not in question. My concern is that there is now an opposing movement in which science has merged with environmental, political and corporate interests under the banner of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or "Climate Change". As the public has learned more about the internal practices of the AGW movement, this has resulted in a loss of confidence and public support, and an unfortunate comparison can now be drawn between these competing interests, each focused on selling a predetermined ideology. Most dangerously of all, the two sides waging their perceptual war is increasing public apathy on the subject, which is now bound to environmentalism in general. I'm simply saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Mthood also said:

quote:

What environmental groups are spending billions? What environmental groups have "billions?" Any spending for influence by environmental groups is dwarfed by global and multinational energy interests.


The ClimateWorks Foundation brings in around half a billion annually, and the World Wildlife Fund has operated on a budget of $100,000,000 per year  (You may recognize their name from the recent controversy surrounding a number of their conclusions that made it into the latest IPCC report, which was purported to only include the latest peer reviewed science.) That's just two examples.   Again, please don't misunderstand, there's no argument from me that energy interests are awash with money and spend oodles to peddle their own agenda. My problem is that mainstream science has started to drift too close to that same model. That's what scares me.

Mthood also said:

quote:

One more thing. Why do we expect energy companies to be biased when they (at least here in the US) receive subsidies from the US taxpayers, provide most of the worlds energy needs, and have carte blanche to destroy pockets of the globe if they find energy to use, but we hold climate science to a higher standard?


Because Energy companies exist to make money and to perpetuate the need for their own existence.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's the reality of the situation.  As I said above, the merging of mainstream climate science with corporate and political interests that likewise want to ensure revenue and the continuing need for their own existence is where I see science failing with environmentalism in tow. An increasing number of people now view the AGW movement as a mostly political ideology, and this is a major concern, as I do think humans have some level of climatic influence, and that this is something that should be identified and addressed. 

Lastly, Mthood said:

quote:

Seems to be a David and Goliath comparison, and you are continually holding David to a different standard than Goliath. Poor David has to wait for IPCC reports, find consensus between countries and scientists, then get out spent by Goliath before he can even wind up his stone. Goliath stomps on his head, and rolls on.


I guess where we disagree most of all is that in the current situation I don't clearly see a "David". David didn't win the battle by becoming more like Goliath. That would, in my opinion, be a very different story with a very different outcome. 

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Smith
Member
Username: fractld

Post Number: 82
Registered: 12-2010
Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 - 12:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Why should we worry about the climate?
The CIA is doing it for us........

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/01/-ecoalert-has-la-ni%C3%B1a-unleashe d-a-wave-of-monster-floods.html#more



Maybe the teabag congress should cut their budget too!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 408
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 10:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

My concern is that there is now an opposing movement in which science has merged with environmental, political and corporate interests under the banner of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or "Climate Change".




My feeling is any movement would coalesce around data that might support their world view. I don't really have a problem with that and is a part of our human way of supporting belief systems. Anti-evolutionists will pick and choose their data, claim that intellectual scientists hide data, that findings that support their view are suppressed, and that the liberal media ignores it all. Sound familiar?


quote:

The ClimateWorks Foundation brings in around half a billion annually, and the World Wildlife Fund has operated on a budget of $100,000,000 per year




BP's profit, alone, was 5.6 billion dollars this year. That's not what they bring in, or their operating budget, that is the cake at the end of the day. Add that to the other oil companies around the globe, coal and natural gas and you have the most powerful special interest that has ever existed.
You mentioned "billions" of dollars. No environmental organization is anywhere near the level of influence that energy companies have. Since the beginning of the "environmental movement" energy companies and their associated interests have done a bang up job of creating doubt, because they know, that every battle is lost and won in the media, and all you need is a little doubt. Doubt that the science is wrong, doubt that the intellectuals are taking over, doubt that people's freedoms will be restricted. Frankly, it's been a brilliant campaign, and not helped by the fact that science and research institutions as a whole are relatively aloof in the marketing world. I think that's maybe where you are getting hung up. Why would science need marketing? The numbers speak for themselves, right?

The question comes down to, "how can corporations make money on energy". No matter the technology, whether it's solar, wind, geothermal, or whatever, the funding options are more abstract. Fossil fuel in the ground is money in the bank. We have industry and distribution to make sure that oil coming out of the ground on one side of the globe, gets to the other. That global mechanism scares me far more than any consensus of scientists and whether or not there is some politicalization.

I'm not really disagreeing with some of your stances, just that science is imperfect. People are imperfect, and at the end of the day, I feel more comfortable with a consensus of science, then I do with industry and those that raise their shrill voices against change that might impact their gold plated world.


(Message edited by r_f on January 26, 2011)

(Message edited by r_f on January 26, 2011)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1417
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 10:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mthood said (all quotes following):

quote:

My feeling is any movement would coalesce around data that might support their world view. I don't really have a problem with that and is a part of our human way of supporting belief systems. Anti-evolutionists will pick and choose their data, claim that intellectual scientists hide data, that findings that support their view are suppressed, and that the liberal media ignores it all. Sound familiar?


Yep. And now mainstream scientists will (admittedly) "lose" data needed to verify or refute their hypotheses, tell colleagues to delete records to avoid FOI requests, claim nefarious intent and/or cry “denier!” at anyone who happens to suggest that reality might be different to the popular view. We’ve drifted well past traditional scientific method here and I for one consider this a major concern.

You see I’m not interested in supporting a belief system; I’m interested in finding the truth. That’s what science is supposed to be about, and if it’s not about that any more than it shouldn’t be masquerading as science. I agree that there were always pockets of science-like groups (such as creationists, anti-evolutionists, astrologists, energy interests etc. etc.) who operated mostly in isolation, shut out conflicting conclusions and continued to preach their own beliefs to those who would listen. My issue is that this is how mainstream science has started to operate, with a focal point in climate science.

quote:

BP's profit, alone, was 5.6 billion dollars this year. That's not what they bring in, or their operating budget, that is the cake at the end of the day. Add that to the other oil companies around the globe, coal and natural gas and you have the most powerful special interest that has ever existed.


Again, I’m not here to argue about energy influence and how it measures up against environmental interests. We have no argument here. If you are asking me to pick a side, I choose environment, every time. My issue is that mainstream science should not be heavily aligned with either of these groups. Once science aligns itself with a political ideology it stops being about the search for truth. Throw tens of billions of dollars at it to continue to support said ideology (whichever ideology) and finding truth is no longer a possibility if truth conflicts with the overall agenda. That’s about where we are now, in my opinion.

quote:

Since the beginning of the "environmental movement" energy companies and their associated interests have done a bang up job of creating doubt, because they know, that every battle is lost and won in the media, and all you need is a little doubt. Doubt that the science is wrong, doubt that the intellectuals are taking over, doubt that people's freedoms will be restricted. Frankly, it's been a brilliant campaign, and not helped by the fact that science and research institutions as a whole are relatively aloof in the marketing world. I think that's maybe where you are getting hung up. Why would science need marketing? The numbers speak for themselves, right?


Almost, but not quite. That’s part of it, certainly. The other part is that science, now tied to environmental, corporate and political ideologies, has started to employ a very similar suite of tactics. But where energy influences manipulate doubt above truth, the opposing movement has been trading mostly in fear through implied causation. Fear that we cause droughts, fear that we cause floods, fear that we cause storms, fear that we cause heat waves, fear that we cause cold snaps - fear that we cause anything and everything that might support and prop-up the core ideology.


quote:

I'm not really disagreeing with some of your stances, just that science is imperfect. People are imperfect, and at the end of the day, I feel more comfortable with a consensus of science, then I do with industry and those that raise their shrill voices against change that might impact their gold plated world.


I don’t feel comfortable with either, but let me try to explain why I don’t.

My background is in media and communications, and believe it or not I’m actually pretty good at predicting ideological trends in society en mass. Generally, people’s perceptions on most issues are in a state of flux, and this combined weight will swing from side to side much like a pendulum on a string, as influenced by a number of factors: science, religion, politics, culture, and also (increasingly) media and pop-culture. These swings are a natural part of societal development, however they are particularly pronounced when perceptions are pulled to artificial extremes, leading people to feel that they have been manipulated on a given topic. It is in this way that energy influences have, in part, helped create and give strength to the opposing environmental movement once people came to better understand the tactics they have traditionally employed.

But in the same vein, by employing similar tactics and supporting a prolonged fear campaign to keep their favoured ideology front and centre in science, politics and the media, mainstream climate science has inadvertently created a similar situation to the one they oppose. And the pendulum has, once again, started to swing back in the other direction. I’m not saying that will be the end of the debate - far from it. More than likely there will now be a regrouping of science/corporate/political/environmental interests to attempt to get a swing back in their favour. But with each swing the perceptual weight of the issue lessens or dilutes. My overriding point is that the continued manipulation from both competing influences is what is doing the most damage to the perception of the issue in general. It is increasing public apathy, which in my opinion is the most dangerous situation of all.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1418
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 8:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Some more La Nina fun here in (formerly) sunny Queensland:

Cyclone Yasi upgraded to Category 5 as it moves towards North Queensland coast

For some added perspective, see also:

Queensland's Cycles of Havoc

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geoff
Senior Member
Username: geoff

Post Number: 1236
Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 2:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

There's an international conference on extreme weather here in NZ at present.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/extreme-weather-experts-discuss-recent-events-40 18566/video
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geoff
Senior Member
Username: geoff

Post Number: 1239
Registered: 4-2006
Posted on Monday, February 14, 2011 - 11:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Here we go again...

http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/significant-new-cyclone-threat-emerging
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 123
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 5:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Skepticism of Global Warming Skepticism.

lol, good site.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1420
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Skepticalscience is a pretty good AGW advocacy site if that's what floats your boat. It can pretty much be guaranteed to focus on any aspect of a skeptical position that can be rebutted, with a good lot of straw-men and misdirect thrown into the mix. On the flip side would be a site like wattsupwiththat.com; same deal, different polarity.

But in looking for a more central view, with respect to both camps, an interesting addition to the blogosphere has been climatologist Judith Curry, who runs Climate Etc.. Being a fairly well established climatologist, Curry is something of an outlier in that she is happy to entertain skeptical views on AWG, and openly discuss issues of politicisation and uncertainty in Climate Science.

She sparked a fairly rowdy dust-up in comments recently by posting a series of articles on her scientific and personal opinion of "Hiding the Decline". I don't think I have ever before seen so many prominent names from both sides of this issue come together in one forum. Highly recommended.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 9:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Good links Chris. I still fall on the side of feeling that climate change is due in part to human activities.

What happens when a climate change denier comes up with preliminary data that mirrors the same conclusions most climate science already know?

This:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

That is why, as I believe I have mentioned before, that many climate change "deniers" will never accept any science that may prove them wrong? Why? Because you can't back down, ever. Politics 101. Not to mention, at least here in the states, most groups that align themselves with the "deny at all costs" camps are conservative groups, corporate interests, and Bible thumpers who sell the "health, wealth and prosperity" gospel convincing people that since we are God's creation, we can't possible hurt the earth or it's ecosystems. I have a feeling Australia isn't much different.

You are much more likely to change the mind of a pro AGW scientist then you are the bastions of pro-business/anti-science forces that fund a variety of propaganda and science projects to make sure that business comes first.

Just my opinion of course.


(Message edited by dspaulding on April 04, 2011)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sahgwa
Senior Member
Username: sahgwa

Post Number: 501
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 10:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Its a natural process that would happen and is happening regardless of human intervention. Human intervention or waste is however helping it along and making it accelerate. Like most topics in society, both sides are partly right. Just like with the '2 party' system its another crappy way to get nothing done and argue all day.
While we are controlled.
Observation convinces me that there are beings of intelligence higher than human and that the only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings.Crowley
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 180
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 12:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

True. Why can't we do anything substantial about it? Because the extremes shout. You won't find anyone more conservative than many scientists, simply because, if the data doesn't support it, it isn't true. Try to get science to come out in support of NDE, Ufo's, sasquatch, abductions, etc...and they all run screaming from the room. So why should we trust the data and people giving it to us if they can't come to terms with "edge" topics? Because data is data, but it's all in how you spin it, and I see the denier culture spinning 'till their heads just about pop off to find any shred of pseudo-evidence that supports their view.

Which in the end is all irrelevant, because like many issues, there is really no common or middle ground, pretty much guaranteeing nothing of substance will ever occur.
Just my opinion of course.

(Message edited by dspaulding on April 04, 2011)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allen
Senior Member
Username: eastsider01

Post Number: 2409
Registered: 4-2005
Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago, it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

I think Upton Sinclair's observation exemplifies the reason many deniers remain steadfast in their take on the subject.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1422
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 6:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mthood said (all quotes following):

quote:

Good links Chris. I still fall on the side of feeling that climate change is due in part to human activities.


And there we agree. Thinking in absolutes is the mistake made by the extreme views on both sides of this issue.


quote:

What happens when a climate change denier comes up with preliminary data that mirrors the same conclusions most climate science already know?

This:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


I look forward to the Berkeley results, once they are known. The state of the surface station record is one of the large areas of concern, and if their methods are sound and can be reproduced, this should go a long way towards clearing up that aspect of this issue. At this stage, I don't believe this project has done anything other than partially examine a very small subset of data, and without using their full methodology. But whatever the end result, this has nothing to do with identifying the H2O feedback and tropospheric temperature changes necessary to validate hypotheses to explain past warming and future projections based on CO2 driven AGW.


quote:

That is why, as I believe I have mentioned before, that many climate change "deniers" will never accept any science that may prove them wrong? Why? Because you can't back down, ever. Politics 101. Not to mention, at least here in the states, most groups that align themselves with the "deny at all costs" camps are conservative groups, corporate interests, and Bible thumpers who sell the "health, wealth and prosperity" gospel convincing people that since we are God's creation, we can't possible hurt the earth or it's ecosystems. I have a feeling Australia isn't much different.


As I said above, thinking in absolutes is the mistake made by the extremes on both sides of this issue. By perceptually polarising the issue into "Scientists VS Deniers" and alienating your perceived opposition, you are in reality falling into the same trap, but from the opposing perspective.


quote:

You are much more likely to change the mind of a pro AGW scientist then you are the bastions of pro-business/anti-science forces that fund a variety of propaganda and science projects to make sure that business comes first.


"Scientists VS Deniers" again. Hmm... more absolutes...

And I would be remiss if I didn't state again that with Climatology we are talking about a science that in 20 years has rapidly grown into a hundred billion dollar enterprise tied to just about every major world government, all built around the AGW ideology. And again, I'm not claiming any nefarious intent, I just think Allen's Upton Sinclair quote above probably rings a bit true for all concerned.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 181
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 8:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I don't know if you've noticed Chris, but we live in a world where the absolutes determine policy for everyone.

In other news:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-extra-cold-winters-northeastern-north-americ a.html

Warm water causes extra cold winters in Northeastern N. America and N. Eastern Asia.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 1:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Gulf Stream could be threatened by arctic flush
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20338-gulf-stream-threatened-by-arctic-flu sh.html

"Arctic Flush" sounds like toilet bowl marketing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1423
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 5:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mthood said:

quote:

I don't know if you've noticed Chris, but we live in a world where the absolutes determine policy for everyone.


Interesting statement. Even if I agreed with that, my reaction would not be to become more absolute in my own thinking. I see that as becoming part of the problem, and I agree that there is a problem.

Re the gulf stream, I have read the first paper on Rossby waves, and found it very interesting that the warm current can cool the East Coast of the US. I haven't seen a paper from the group in the second article yet, but I will keep a look out.

As I said above, while it is interesting to note these changes, they do not of themselves validate AGW hypotheses. To do this we need to identify the H2O feedback mechanism and tropospheric "Hot Spot" anomalies consistent with climate model simulations.

But this is precisely what has not been achieved, after many years of looking. Without these mechanisms, it is not possible to explain 20th Century warming without including other forcings or increased internal variability, which likewise would significantly throw out future projections.

All politics aside, the fact that scientists continue to promote what they see as the effects of AGW without yet identifying the mechanism, is probably the biggest road block towards overall acceptance of the hypothesis. And as you said above, if the data doesn't support it, it isn't true.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 9780
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 5:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

It will be what it is going to be and it is too late to change it now.
Understand that all things are sacred--yet nothing is sacred.

~Yotee Coyote


Blog: http://animalspirits--withoutfear.blogspot.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 187
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 6:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

All politics aside, the fact that scientists continue to promote what they see as the effects of AGW without yet identifying the mechanism, is probably the biggest road block towards overall acceptance of the hypothesis. And as you said above, if the data doesn't support it, it isn't true.




What is the mechanism of gravity? Interesting to find a number of theories on the nature of gravity both on a large scale and quantum. Why are these crazy scientists promoting and reporting on the effects of gravity, without knowing the exact mechanism. Interesting to see we have a general consensus as it relates to gravity and that Einstein is correct however, there are competing view points. Open any text and you'll find the theory that a consensus of scientists agree on, with the possibility of pointing out other ideas that may have scientific merit.

The mechanisms of evolutionary biology are generally thought to be genetic mutation and genetic drift. Notice the underlined word. Yet we have a consensus of science that then builds on that until it is proven otherwise. I don't see any difference when it comes to climate science.


They postulate that man is warming the earth by observation. Nothing political there. The road block is not the reporting by scientists, it's the unwillingness to compromise and admit, even in the slightest, that AGW is factual by those that stand to lose politically and financially. Not only that, you will have, and will continue to have, the same kind of rabid denial of any climate science just as evolutionary biology is challenged to this day in schools everywhere. All you need is that seed of doubt, and you can convince somebody the moon is made of cheese.

(Message edited by dspaulding on April 05, 2011)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1425
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 6:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

What is the mechanism of gravity? Interesting to find a number of theories on the nature of gravity both on a large scale and quantum. Why are these crazy scientists promoting and reporting on the effects of gravity, without knowing the exact mechanism.


Basically, because gravity is both observable and measurable without needing to understand the mechanism involved. This is because there is very high signal to noise ratio in observing gravity. Observing AGW has one of the lowest signal to noise ratios of any field of science, so we need a confirmed mechanism before we can understand where the natural background noise ends and the anthropogenic signal begins.

Off to work, be back later if you still want to play.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: dspaulding

Post Number: 188
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 6:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

This is because there is very high signal to noise ratio in observing gravity. Observing AGW has one of the lowest signal to noise ratios of any field of science, so we need a confirmed mechanism before we can understand where the natural background noise ends and the anthropogenic signal begins.




Sorry Chris, that's bogus. I can name almost any field of science that has similar "signal to noise" ratios. That's all ya got?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 9781
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 9:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

It will be what it is going to be and there is nothing Humans can do now to change it. We made the bed for the whole damn planet.

You all can argue all you want...it is a waste of time and energy.

If you don't fear transition/death, you will be fine. If you fear death, you are screwed.


Understand that all things are sacred--yet nothing is sacred.

~Yotee Coyote


Blog: http://animalspirits--withoutfear.blogspot.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1427
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2011 - 6:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mthood said:

quote:

Sorry Chris, that's bogus. I can name almost any field of science that has similar "signal to noise" ratios. That's all ya got?


No, I was just late for work. But hang on, I notice that you left out the first part of my post in your above quote. This was:

quote:

Basically, because gravity is both observable and measurable without needing to understand the mechanism involved.


Try applying the same basic principal to AGW, and keep in mind that both you and I agree that observed changes are in part due to human activities. Can you describe how it is possible to attribute past warming as primarily anthropogenic, and project into the future based on this attribution, given that the proposed mechanism for warming does not match observations? (That's a genuine question) See I don't know the mechanism for gravity, but I can tell you what my laptop weighs down to the gram because gravity is a measurable force without any other significant forces getting in the way of measuring it.

Another main point of difference would be that, whichever theory you favour, the proposed mechanism for gravity is not observable currently. The proposed mechanisms for AGW should be observable, but when measurements have been taken they have either not matched the theory/models, or have been extremely mixed. None of this impacts the basic premise that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some level of climatic changes, it just makes it more probable that current estimates, which assume these intense feedbacks, are too high, and that other climatic influences have been underestimated.

Again, I have no issue with the basic theory of AGW, only that the uncertainties are being grossly misrepresented based on my current understanding of the science. And when observations don't match with estimates, it is very concerning when observations appear to be adjusted, omitted or presupposed as errors in order to keep supporting the overall hypothesis. Similarly concerning is the amount of money being pumped into this field in order to prove that there is a problem, as well as the associations with corporate, political and environmental groups, for whom reducing AGW attribution is simply not an option.

At this point, further politicisation and adversarial "Us VS Them" / "Scientists VS Deniers" tactics will likely only result on both extremes becoming more entrenched in their belief systems, and more moderates (or centrists) will begin to distrust both camps and become apathetic to the issue overall. The only true way forward, as I have said before in this thread, is to desensationalise the issue; acknowledge uncertainties, admit mistakes, and move forward on stronger footing. This is exactly what scientists such as Judith Curry, who I linked you to earlier, are attempting to achieve, and they have my full support.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 8:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Video from BBC Nature showing the instantaneous freezing of ocean floor sea life. Eerily reminded of the super storm scenario.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMhBuSBemRk&feature=topvideos_science
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allen
Senior Member
Username: eastsider01

Post Number: 2782
Registered: 4-2005
Posted on Friday, February 10, 2012 - 5:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

John Wahr of the University of Colorado in Boulder and colleagues, in a study published on Thursday, found that thinning glaciers and icecaps were pushing up sea levels by 1.5 millimeters (0.06 inches) a year, in line with a 1.2 to 1.8 mm range from other studies, some of which forecast sea levels could rise as much as 2 meters (2.2 yards) by 2100.

Sea levels have already risen on average about 18 centimeters since 1900 and rapid global warming will accelerate the pace of the increase, scientists say, threatening coastlines from Vietnam to Florida and forcing low-lying megacities to build costly sea defenses.

To get a better picture of the pace of the melting, Wahr and colleagues used a satellite that measures variations in gravity fields to study changes in the mass of large ice-covered areas. The data covered 2003-2010.

The glaciers and ice caps included those in the Arctic, South America, Asia as well as Greenland and Antarctica.

Globally, the rate of sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades to reach about 3.5 millimeters a year, with more than half coming from thermal expansion of the oceans.

Water expands as it gets warmer.

While the creeping annual increase might seem small, the rate of sea level rise is expected to grow. Yet scientists have struggled to refine estimates given the uncertainty about the future pace of global warming, growth trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and the rate at which ice caps will melt.

Using satellite data instead of more limited and time-consuming data from ground measurements was crucial, Wahr said in an email to Reuters.

The team found that loss ice from Greenland and Antarctica was pushing up sea levels by just over one millimeter a year, comprising most of the 1.5 mm annual rise.

Glaciers and mountain ice caps elsewhere comprised the rest, at 0.4 mm/yr between 2003-10.

"That's a large number, and represents a lot of melting ice," said Wahr. "But it's at least 30 percent smaller than previous global estimates, none of which have used GRACE," he said, referring to the name of the satellite.

FASTER MELTING

The United Nations' Climate Panel estimates sea global sea level rise of 18 to 59 centimeters from 1990 to the 2090s. But those numbers do not include melting from polar regions where the vast majority of the world's freshwater is locked away.

Some climate scientists say the rise is more likely to be between and 1 and 2 meters. They point to accelerating melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic icesheets over the past two decades. Both contain enough water to raise global sea levels by about 60 meters.

Other glaciers and mountain icecaps contain enough water to raise sea levels by nearly a meter.

GRACE measured the changes to ice mass over regions greater than 100 square kilometers. The data showed ice-covered areas in Asia, including the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges, was much less than other estimates, meaning the region contributed very little to sea level rise, in part because many glaciers were at freezing high elevations.

Wahr said the study gave a much clearer picture of what was happening to large ice-covered areas globally, particularly in remote parts of the Himalayas.

"There are simply too many glaciers, and most of them too remote to access, to be able to monitor all of them from the ground. There are more than 200,000 glaciers world-wide," he said, adding only a few hundred have been monitored over time spans of several years or more.

"With GRACE, though, we're able to directly monitor the sum total of all ice loss in an entire glacier system or ice cap."

Ongoing monitoring by the satellite should help scientists get a better handle on the pace of ice melting and sea level rise as the planet heats up.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, all 11 years in the 21st century so far, including 2011, rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year temperature record.

(Editing by Ed Lane)
The intuitive mind is a gift and the rational mind a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift

Albert Einstein
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr. Mthood
Intermediate Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 184
Registered: 4-2012
Posted on Sunday, July 08, 2012 - 2:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/06/00?sts[]=US#records _look_up

NOAA US Daily High Max Temperatures Set in June 2012

2,284 Records broken. 998 tied.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

man in
Senior Member
Username: thirdpal

Post Number: 876
Registered: 1-2010
Posted on Friday, November 30, 2012 - 7:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

report on ice melting more quickly than was once believed.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15518574-antarctica-greenland-ice- definitely-melting-into-sea-and-speeding-up-experts-warn?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr. Mthood
Advanced Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 392
Registered: 4-2012
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2013 - 10:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-aust ralia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html

Australia forced to extend temperature maps as summertime heat builds.

While recent days have seen Australian temperature maps displaying maximums ranging from 40 degrees to 48 degrees - depicted in the colour scheme as burnt orange to black – both Sunday and Monday are now showing regions likely to hit 50 degrees or more, coloured purple.
Clicking on the prediction for 5pm AEDT next Monday, a Tasmania-sized deep purple opens up over South Australia – implying 50 degrees or above.
Aaron Coutts-Smith, the bureau's NSW head of climate monitoring, though, cautioned that the 50-degree reading is the result of just one of the bureau's models. "The indications are, from the South Australian office, that we are not looking at getting any where near that (50 degree level)."
Still, large parts of central Australia have limited monitoring, so the 50.7 degree record may be broken.
"The air mass over the inland is still heating up - it hasn't peaked," Dr Jones said.
Australia's first six days of 2013 were all among the hottest 20 days on record in terms of average maximums, with January 7 and today likely to add to the list of peaks. That would make it four of the top 10 in a little over a week.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-aust ralia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html#ixzz2HOhwqhFr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1429
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - 11:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi all - thanks so much for keeping the thread active! I didn't expect to find it still on the board. Hardly anyone still posting here it seems!

Oh well. Just stopping by randomly and thought this animated graph taken from the recent IPCC AR5 draft leak might add some perspective to posts about regional weather:

IPCC Predicted Global Warming 1990-2012.

Cheers,

Chris (Your ol' resident 'lukewarmer' )
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sharon2
Senior Member
Username: sharon2468

Post Number: 4576
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2013 - 4:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Chris,
Good to 'see' you!
Our life is determined by the choices we make!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1512
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 9:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Chr15t05,
You see the report that got leaked that says solar activity may play a larger role in warming that previously thought?
"If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
- President Barack Hussein Obama, July 13, 2012
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1430
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 1:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

G'day Sonork, been a while mate.

Yeah I did read the IPPC AR5 Draft leaked recently. These kinds of leaks have happened before. Probably the most interesting aspect is in noting what gets sanitised before the final version is released to public.

With regard to the solar argument, from memory I think it stated that there was likely a theoretical mechanism other than Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at play in order to totally explain the solar influence on past climate. Rumours that it represents an official back-peddle on earlier IPCC statements on solar influence are premature, but it does at least open the door for more open discussion about alternative measures for solar influence, such as the much maligned cosmic ray hypothesis.

Cheers,

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: