Archive through December 01, 2009 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Superstorm / Climate Change » GLOBAL WARMING? COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES » Archive through December 01, 2009 « Previous Next »

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

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1266
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 18, 2009 - 7:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

There's been a record cold snap in Brazil. Buenos Aires (Argentina) has seen snow for the first time in 89 years.

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: 1268
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 12:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

For those still interested in following the Arctic's seasonal melt, 2009 has provided a few surprises.

Current AMSR-E Ice Extent Graph

Back in April/May 2009 rose above other recent years, prompting anti-agw groups to declare victory. Then in July 2009 extent began dropping rather precariously, eventually crossing beneath 2008, at which point pro-agw groups declared victory. (Got to love the politics!)

Now here's August, and 2009 has changed trends once again, with melting easing significantly in comparison to most recent years. It has recently crossed back above 2008, and also 2005, putting it in fourth place overall.

Although 2009 is proving very hard to pick, I'm going to stick with my earlier prediction that we will see greater minimum ice extent than either 2007 or 2008.

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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 571
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 9:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

There is an article on physorg, which tips the other way. see Vast expanses of Arctic ice melt in summer heat

I must admit it looks like a bit of a beat up, but the article does say that the nature of the arctic ice is changing in that a lot more is younger (one year old) ice.

Scientists say the makeup of the frozen polar sea has shifted significantly the past few years, as thick multiyear ice has given way as the Arctic's dominant form to thin ice that comes and goes with each winter and summer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1270
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 5:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Zendor. Yeah, that article appears to be a follow-on from the others I mentioned where certain groups had tried to "declare victory" early. It happened on both sides.

Also of interest, here's a daily plot of Arctic mean temperatures as compared to the average climate.

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: 1272
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 12:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

And boy, did I post the wrong link above, lol! Apologies, still not sure how that happened exactly, must have clicked on an ad I think.

Here's the daily plot of Arctic mean temperatures I was referencing.

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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 574
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 - 8:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Thanks, Nice link to "The Centre for Ocean and Ice" I will keep watching.
WE will know in a few months how this plays out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1239
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 - 11:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Small Fluctuations In Solar Activity, Large Influence On Climate

ScienceDaily (Aug. 28, 2009) — Subtle connections between the 11-year solar cycle, the stratosphere, and the tropical Pacific Ocean work in sync to generate periodic weather patterns that affect much of the globe, according to research appearing this week in the journal Science. The study can help scientists get an edge on eventually predicting the intensity of certain climate phenomena, such as the Indian monsoon and tropical Pacific rainfall, years in advance.

An international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) used more than a century of weather observations and three powerful computer models to tackle one of the more difficult questions in meteorology: if the total energy that reaches Earth from the Sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the approximately 11-year solar cycle, how can such a small variation drive major changes in weather patterns on Earth?

the rest...
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

xretsim
Senior Member
Username: xretsim

Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 6:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

in norway we have a saying, "liten tue kan velte stort lass." ("a small tuft can topple a big load.")

we have at least two of these "tufts" that i can think of. the sun is one, and human activity another.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1240
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 12:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The sun a small tuft? Yeah. OK.
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1273
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 6:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I would say that the earth's climate system has more than enough internal momentum to be capable of providing quite a few "tufts" within its own complex cycles. It has also had hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years to synchronize with regular solar fluctuations.

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: 1274
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 8:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

According to Spaceweather.com there have now been more than 700 days without sunspots this solar minimum. An average minimum has 485.

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

Whitley Strieber
Moderator
Username: strieber

Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 9:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The whole global warming debate boils down to this: should we do nothing so that a few big companies can make a little more money over the next couple of years, or do what we can to mitigate the risk of a vast disaster--and, in the process, see other companies make equal or greater profits?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 5583
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 9:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Whitley,

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

~Yotee Coyote
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1276
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 2:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mmmm, well I guess I feel that it can be dangerous to polarize our choice into something or nothing, where "something" is seen as definitively good. Corn ethanol was sold as something we could do about global warming, leading to lucrative government subsidies and tax incentives. Now it's another industry responsible for pollution, ecosystem destruction as well as increasing food shortages.

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

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1241
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 7:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Well, I have to run off to Pashto class, but here's my quick thought on doing 'something'....

Whether or not a company, ran by fellow Americans or other humans, who employ my neighbors makes a profit that some deem to be aggregious is irrelevant - scientifically.

Doing something when we don't know what we have done, what impact we truly have on our planet and what impact our current actions or future 'fixes' will have is effectively a null argument.

We have already instituted a number of laws in America that have had great impact on cleaning up our waterways, air and soil and I'm all for keeping things clean. Reduce, re-use, recycle. I implement those ideas everyday in my life and in my home.

But, jamming any law through a legislature that has anything to do with a political discourse that uses language regarding 'obscene profits by corporations' is doomed to failure. They need to focus on the science and keep the class warfare out of it.

Chris, I would agree with you on the synchronization, but do we know the real time effects of those synchs when the sun's output drops or increases by 0.1%??
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leibowitz
Advanced Member
Username: liebowitz

Post Number: 374
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 10:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

"Corn ethanol was sold as something we could do about global warming, leading to lucrative government subsidies and tax incentives."

Bad example. The only people who crammed corn ethanol down our throats (in America) were the quite powerful corporate farm lobbyists, corn belt Representatives and Senators, ethanol producers and farmers who were delighted to see the price of corn go up. (and rightfully so. I don't blame the farmers)

Corn ethanol was the wrong way to go. It was from the beginning.
"Miss Wormwood: What state do you live in?
Calvin: Denial.
Miss Wormwood: I don't suppose I can argue with that..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 576
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 6:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Is it already too late? here is a link that could be CH4 (Methane) starting to escape is large volumes in the North. Needless to say, Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This is potentially strong positive feedback to global warming.

See Climate trouble may be bubbling up in far north

"On a calm day, you can see 20 or more `seeps' out across this lake," said Canadian researcher Rob Bowen, sidling his small rubber boat up beside one of them. A tossed match would have set it ablaze.

"It's essentially pure methane."

Pure methane, gas bubbling up from underwater vents, escaping into northern skies, adds to the global-warming gases accumulating in the atmosphere. And pure methane escaping in the massive amounts known to be locked in the Arctic permafrost and seabed would spell a climate catastrophe.

Is such an unlocking under way?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1278
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 8:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Here's a graph showing methane levels over the past few decades. It will be interesting to keep an eye on it.

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

xretsim
Senior Member
Username: xretsim

Post Number: 1153
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 8:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

> The sun a small tuft? Yeah. OK.

the variations in solar output must necessarily be small(ish) because we are here to talk about it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1242
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 12:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

small(ish) enough for us to continue to exist but being as that is not nearly a scientific term, I would say it wouldn't qualify for a discussion of the effect of that minor (in our minds) output change on global temperature changes and sea levels.
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1279
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 1:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Sonork said:

quote:

Chris, I would agree with you on the synchronization, but do we know the real time effects of those synchs when the sun's output drops or increases by 0.1%??


Real time effects would be very difficult to measure due to the inherent synchronisation. Large effects built from relatively small causes may in reality be due to the repetition of the cycle over very long periods of time leading to amplification of the signal. Likewise, should the solar cycle change or falter, I would imaging that the momentum built up in the climate system would probably keep it following the old cycle for a certain period regardless.

Leibowitz said

quote:

Corn ethanol was the wrong way to go. It was from the beginning.)


And yet that didn't/doesn't stop them from marketing it as the environmental option. This is my point. Not all "somethings" are created equal. I felt that Whitley's comment overlooked this, though I'm sure in reality he would not.

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

Leibowitz
Advanced Member
Username: liebowitz

Post Number: 384
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 11:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Chris, it was only marketed that way by the lobbyists, corn producers, and ethanol producers.
Most environmental organizations usually came down on the side of consuming less fossil fuels, not replacing them.

On another note:
"How Sunlight Controls Climate
New computer models begin to suggest how changes in the sun's strength might change weather patterns"


http://www.scientificamerican.com
"Miss Wormwood: What state do you live in?
Calvin: Denial.
Miss Wormwood: I don't suppose I can argue with that..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1280
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 5:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I'm not disagreeing with you, Leibowitz, merely pointing out that the wider public is not no discerning. This opens the door for profiteering over people's sense of urgency that "something" must be done.

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: 1281
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 - 5:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

An interesting article from the BBC (of all places!) on a similar topic:

Hijacked by climate change?

As the UN climate summit in Copenhagen approaches, exhortations that "we must get a deal" and warnings that climate change is "the greatest challenge we face as a species" are to be heard in virtually every political forum.

But if you look back to the latest definitive check on the planet's environmental health - the Global Environment Outlook (Geo-4), published by the UN two years ago - what emerges is a picture of decline that goes way, way beyond climate change.

Species are going extinct at perhaps 1,000 times the normal rate, as key habitats such as forests, wetlands and coral reefs are plundered for human infrastructure.

Aquifers are being drained and fisheries exploited at unsustainable speed. Soils are becoming saline, air quality is a huge cause of illness and premature death; the human population is bigger than our one Earth can currently sustain.

So why, you might ask, are the world's political leaders not lamenting this big picture as loudly and as often as the climate component of it?


Habitat loss, not climate change, is the biggest cause of extinction


Humans failing sustainability audit
Has climate change hijacked the wider environmental agenda? If so, why? And does it matter?

These are questions I've been able to put to a number of leading environmental thinkers for a BBC Radio Four documentary, Climate Hijack.

Mike Hulme, who led the influential UK Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research until recently, believes the climate issue is rather enticing for the modern leader.

"The characteristics of climate change are quite convenient for politicians to use and to deploy both at a popular level but also at a political level," he says.

He argues that climate change is seductive to politicians because it is a long-term issue - so decisive action is always posited for some time in the future, at a time that can always be made yet more distant - and someone else can always be blamed.

So Europeans used to blame the US, the US would blame China and India, and developing countries would blame the entire developed West.

"It's very easy to pass responsibility for failure somewhere else… and in the process of doing that, one is able to keep one's own credibility and record, with the appearance of being much more progressive and constructive."

According to this analysis - and in contradiction to Al Gore's famous phrase - climate change has acquired its huge profile largely because it is a far more convenient truth than poor air quality or biodiversity loss or fisheries decline, where the actions needed are more likely to be national or local - and certainly more convenient than tackling the issues that underpin everything else, the size of the human population and our unsustainable consumption of the Earth's resources.

(article continues...)
"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: 1282
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 8:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Northern Sea Ice may have reached its annual minimum, or close to it at least. There could be a late season drop still, but it's getting very cold up there.

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

fortwynt
Senior Member
Username: fortwynt

Post Number: 9881
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Friday, September 11, 2009 - 9:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Reminds me of how skillfully the Politico will hijack religion, to achieve its means. Consider "green" as merely a new religious paradigm and it makes all the more sense why the politico would hijack it.
"I watch how the moon sits in the sky on a dark night, shining with the light from the sun, but the sun doesnt give the light to the moon, assuming the moon's gonna owe it one..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allen
Senior Member
Username: eastsider01

Post Number: 1346
Registered: 4-2005
Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 1:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

here's some interesting news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213025/Melting-ice-cap-opens- Northeast-Passage-British-ships.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1283
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 1:45 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Lol. Extraordinary. Allen, Russia operates 160 freighters on summer schedules in the Northeast Passage. They have been using it commercially for many years. The authors of that article have certainly tried their best to spin it in a provocative direction.

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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 577
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 9:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The article referenced above by allen states that " Scientists estimate the last time the passage was as ice-free as it is now was between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago." This may be a tough claim to prove, but there can be little doubt that there is much less ice in the northwest passage in the last few years, this is allowing very large commercial ships to safely negotiate the northwest passage where once the risk of getting stuck was too great.

I think the Russian freighters Chr15t05 mentioned may have been more capable of dealing with ice than the ships mentioned in the article, and therefore were using northwest passage with less risk.

Clearly the loss of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic is a strong positive feedback loop for global warming (white ice reflects sunlight back to space, open ocean absorbs the suns heat)

This is pure speculation on my part -- What is interesting is that at the poles the effect of H20 in the atmosphere (as a greenhouse gas) is very low because it is almost absent in air that is below 0 deg C (freezing point of H20) whilst CO2 levels are constant. This seems to imply that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere would have a greater effect in sub zero air, and therefore we should be seeing greater temperature rises at the poles -- this is exactly what we are seeing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1259
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 1:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Anyone here happen to have the data on exactly how long it takes the Earth to return to whatever its normal average temperature is after the conclusion of an Ice Age?
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1284
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 5:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Zendor, my point was that the article lied by omission. Quite blatantly, in my opinion. Once I see that level of subterfuge it is difficult for me to take the rest seriously, though you are welcome to try. To me it reads like a promotional piece for Russian shipping using the AGW mantra as its sales pitch.

Getting away from the article, Zendor you seem to be confusing evidence from the north and south poles. You reference a reduction in Antarctic sea ice that has simply not happened. In the arctic we have now seen two years of growth from 2007's minimum, representing an additional 1,000,000 sq km of ice. With the PDO still negative I will say once again that it will be very interesting to observe the continuing trend in the arctic over the next few seasons.

Speculation about the affects of CO2 over the poles is interesting, but it does go against what I understand about the role of H2O feedback as a necessary catalyst for warming in the AGW paradigm. I also find that the majority of changes in the arctic over the last few years have been attributed to wind and ocean currents rather than increasing air temperatures, as the public has been led to believe.

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: 1285
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 5:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Sonork, aren't we still recovering from the last ice age? I guess it depends on what you mean by recovery. There will be geological changes for many millions of years I believe due to the weight of the ice-sheets compressing the northern hemisphere.

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

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1262
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Chris,
Exactly. That was my point.

There will be changes for a long time that no one has yet to quantify and that that alone nullifies the overall 'conclusions' drawn by the UN politicians on this subject.

It is still 1633 and Pope Urban VIII still thinks the Earth and its inhabitants are the center of the Universe. Galileo is still screwed.
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

da~an
Senior Member
Username: daan

Post Number: 6117
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 11:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

i thought we were in the 1500s and
columbus has only recently sailed...
"up"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

da~an
Senior Member
Username: daan

Post Number: 6118
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 11:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

even so... i still am in awe of the melted
telegraph wires of 1859 as i riddle this out.
"up"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1289
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 5:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Once promising El Nino might ‘El Fizzle’

The U.S. Climate Prediction Center said in early July that an El Nino had developed in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and forecasters later added that the periodic, natural climate change — which can greatly enhance rainfall in Orange County — had the potential to become “moderate to strong.”

The CPC issued an updated forecast on Aug. 24, saying “El Niño is expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-10.”

But is the agency wrong? Maybe.

Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who studies El Nino and advises CPC, says in an email, “There is considerable uncertainty among scientists as to whether this event will have the staying power to deliver the dramatic impacts that were seen during the last intense El Niño episode, which happened in 1997-1998.”

Recent satellite images show that the distinct signature of El Nino that appears directly along the equator has faded, and that the system may have slipped into neutral status.


“At this time, it is a long shot for this El Nino to expand and intensify into the fall and elevate the present weak to moderate El Niño episode to a stronger event,” Patzert says. “For comparison, the August 21, 1997, TOPEX/Poseidon image of the macho 1997-1998 El Nino is included here. In size and intensity it dwarfs the present conditions.”

Patzert said that, based on the emerging evidence, it’s possible that Southern California will have a drier-than-normal winter. It must be noted, however, that the region can have heavy rainfall even if an El Nino does not occur. And scientists are not sure to what degree any El Nino influences the size and strength of a storm.

Translation: No one truly knows what’s going to happen this winter

(Original Article)
"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

Leibowitz
Advanced Member
Username: liebowitz

Post Number: 420
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 9:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Scientists pull an about face on global warming


quote:

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference--an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change --Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."




Bummer, I hate our winters here and I was so rooting for Global Warming.
http://www.calgaryherald.com
"Miss Wormwood: What state do you live in?
Calvin: Denial.
Miss Wormwood: I don't suppose I can argue with that..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1295
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 10:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been in its cool phase for two years. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is now following suit. It's not surprising that we are seeing some backpedaling on the AGW front. If the AMO does turn cool, expect further recovery in the Arctic next season.

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: 1299
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 4:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hey Zendor, how did you fare in all that dust mate? Wow that was sure something. My entire veranda is now red, and my driveway. Have never seen anything quite like that before. Got to love this country!

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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 579
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 5:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes, we awoke to an apocalyptic vision an orange - red sky. I have seen this before but nowhere near as much red dust. I thought it was a bushfire at first but soon realised what it was when I went outside. There is still red dust everywhere, everything is gritty.

Strange days indeed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1305
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 8:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yeah, I'm glad I didn't bother blowing it all off as we had another hit of the stuff overnight. Hopefully that's it now, or my carpet is going to need cleaning.

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

Bill Gabbert
Junior Member
Username: bill_gabbert

Post Number: 57
Registered: 9-2009
Posted on Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 9:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Thoughts concerning global warming...

1. As mans part is so minor; to combat global warming we would need to address the major contributors ; Volcanoes and Forest Fires.

Relive pressures of volcanoes before they erupt ..and Very early detection of fire.

2. With the population explosion of man continuing; We will soon be faced with the need for more land area ,to house and feed the tens of Billions...There is a great deal of land, Antarctic & Siberia that could be utilized if the earth were to warm a few degrees.

Also if the ice caps were to melt (= more water=more rain) a little more precipitation in many deserts regions could create gardens.

3. If the charts are even slightly off we could be headed into another Ice age in the very near future.

If we could in fact induce Global warming it could be the most valuable knowledge we have.

IMO
It's about science, not magic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1275
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 12:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

(sorry, couldn't embedded the link due to the hyphen)
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

xretsim
Senior Member
Username: xretsim

Post Number: 1178
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 3:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

> (sorry, couldn't embedded the link due to the hyphen)

reverse slash is your friend:

\newurl{http://www.news.com.au/story/0\,27574\,25348657-401\,00.html,Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away}

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leibowitz
Advanced Member
Username: liebowitz

Post Number: 440
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 11:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Antarctic coastal ice thinning surprises experts


OSLO (Reuters) - Scientists are surprised at how extensively coastal ice in Antarctica and Greenland is thinning, according to a study Wednesday that could help predict rising sea levels linked to climate change.

Analysis of millions of NASA satellite laser images showed the biggest loss of ice was caused by glaciers speeding up when they flowed into the sea, according to scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Bristol University.


http://www.reuters.com/
"Miss Wormwood: What state do you live in?
Calvin: Denial.
Miss Wormwood: I don't suppose I can argue with that..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leibowitz
Advanced Member
Username: liebowitz

Post Number: 441
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 11:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Meanwhile:

Himalayan glaciers grew during warm period

NEW DELHI: A small group of Himalayan glaciers grew in size when the Earth became hotter 9,000 years ago, new research says.

The study shows that responses to climate change can sometimes be difficult to predict.

Summer Rupper, professor of geology at Brigham Young University in the United States, reports in the September issue of Quaternary Research that a small group of Himalayan glaciers grew by several kilometres 9,000 years ago.

Curiously, the growth occurred during an 'interglacial' period when central Asia was hotter by 6ºC.


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/
"Miss Wormwood: What state do you live in?
Calvin: Denial.
Miss Wormwood: I don't suppose I can argue with that..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1309
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 11:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Re Antarctica, I think the posts above are a good example of the wide array of conflicting evidence coming from the region. It's cooling but warming, thickening but thinning, growing but shrinking. Is everyone clear?

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

Leibowitz
Advanced Member
Username: liebowitz

Post Number: 445
Registered: 3-2009
Posted on Monday, September 28, 2009 - 12:34 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The only thing that's clear to me is that the data is very confusing.

What we may be seeing is that regionally, different parts of Antarctica are responding different ways due to any number of reasons. Ocean currents, local geology, biological variance, salinity, solar radiation, local weather anomolies, or things we have yet to discover... all adding up to the fact that it's enormously more complex than we first thought.

I dunno.
"Miss Wormwood: What state do you live in?
Calvin: Denial.
Miss Wormwood: I don't suppose I can argue with that..."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1319
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 - 5:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

From the BBC:

What happened to global warming?
"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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 580
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 7:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes, 1998 was the peak of the global warming. However it has not drastically cooled down since 1998 -- it may be more accurate to say that the planets average temperature is been static for the last 10 years.

We have not started to cool down much since 1998, in fact most of the 10 years since then have still been in the top ten or so on record.

I naturally hope that this trend will see global temperatures slowly come down, but we will have to wait and see what happens.

I suspect that when solar activity increases as the current record solar minimum finally ends that we will see record global temperatures rise again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sonorK
Senior Member
Username: sonork

Post Number: 1285
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 10:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Well, according to our science czar, it'll be cold enough in about 10 years that we won't have to worry about high temps or food for that matter.
Universal Health Care: The DMV with wounds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1320
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, October 12, 2009 - 2:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Zendor. I realise I'm being slightly pedantic here, but let's be clear on a couple of points.

The difference between 2008 and 1998's annually averaged temperature is 0.2 degrees celcius according to Hadcrut. That's 0.2 degrees out of a total anomaly of 0.6. This cooling is why 2008 is ranked 10th overall, behind every other year this century.

Also of note is that the "super el nino" of 1998 was an atypically strong event, the run on effects from which could be seen in ocean heat content and global weather patterns for quite a few years subsequently. I have seen some strong arguments made that the oceans are only now, a decade later, fully returning to pre-1998 conditions.

So it's difficult to hold 1998 as the record without referencing that the nature of that event had lasting implications for the global climate. My own opinion is that global temperatures in the years following 1998 to (almost) present have been incorrectly held as distinct from this el nino, when in reality they were tied to it, but as you say we will have to wait and see what happens.

The sunspot situation is something I still find very interesting, but I believe it is secondary to the behaviour of the oceans. I realise this contradicts some of my earlier assertions on this board, but it's where the weight of evidence has left me. I live, I learn.

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
New member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 10:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

1998 was A peak in "global warming". The cost of doing nothing may far outweigh the costs of doing something.

AP: That global cooling trend we hear about is just statistical ignorance announcing itself to the world



The chanting from skeptics of anthropogenic global warming – or any kind of warming for that matter among some of them – has recently zeroed in on a so-called plateau or even cooling trend in the current decade. One version of the mantra is to say global warming stopped ten years ago.

At the AP reporter Seth Borenstein enterprisingly decided to check it out (i.e. acted as good reporters are supposed to act). He forwarded accumulated ground temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, while disguising its source, to four “independent statisticians” for a trend analysis. He also sent a data set often favored by skeptics and gathered by reputable scientists.

Answer: The last ten years comprise not only the highest data set in the record – no surprise – but they also have an internal, continued, positive trend. Ergo his story’s headline: Statisticians reject global cooling.


http://ksjtracker.mit.edu
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1321
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2009 - 5:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes. As public support for AGW has weakened noticeably in the United States, we're getting pieces like this quite frequently now in the lead up to Copenhagen. Here'a a fairly good response, also from a statistician.


The “Statisticians: ‘Global Cooling’ a Myth” story

“J’accuse! A statistician may prove anything with his nefarious methods. He may even say a negative number is positive! You cannot trust anything he says.”

Sigh. Unfortunately, this oft-hurled charge is all too true. I and my fellow statisticians must bear its sad burden, knowing it is caused by our more zealous brethren (and sisthren). But, you know, it really isn’t their fault, for they are victims of loving not wisely but too well their own creations.

First, a fact. It is true that, based on the observed satellite data, average global temperatures since about 1998 have not continued the rough year-by-year increase that had been noticed in the decade or so before that date. The temperatures since about 1998 have increased in some years, but more often have they decreased. For example, last year was cooler than the year before last. These statements, barring unknown errors in the measurement of that data, are taken as true by everybody, even statisticians.

Th AP gave this data—concealing its source—to “several independent statisticians” who said they “found no true temperature declines over time” (link)

How can this be? Why would a statistician say that the observed cooling is not “scientifically legitimate”; and why would another state that noticing the cooling “is a case of ‘people coming at the data with preconceived notions’”?

Are these statisticians, since they are concluding the opposite of what has been observed, insane? This is impossible: statisticians are highly lucid individuals, its male members exceedingly handsome and charming. Perhaps they are rabid environmentalists who care nothing for truth? No, because none of them knew the source of the data they were analyzing. What can account for this preposterous situation!

Love. The keen pleasures of their own handiwork. That is, the adoration of lovingly crafted models.

(Article continues)
"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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 581
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 7:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Snows Of Kilimanjaro shrinking rapidly, and likely to be lost
see The remaining ice fields atop famed Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania could be gone within two decades and perhaps even sooner, based on the latest survey of the ice fields remaining on the mountain .

Paleoclimatologist Lonnie Thompson, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University, and his colleagues amassed a trail of data showing the rapid loss of ice atop Africa's highest mountain:

85 percent of the ice that covered the mountain in 1912 had been lost by 2007, and 26 percent of the ice there in 2000 is now gone;

The ice fields atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro glow golden as the last of the afternoon sun hits these soon-to-be lost relics. Credit: Photo by Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University.
A radioactive signal marking the 1951-52 "Ivy" atomic tests that was detected in 2000 1.6 meters (5.25 feet) below the surface of the Kilimanjaro ice is now lost, with an estimated 2.5 meters (8.2 feet) missing from the top of the current ice fields;
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1323
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 5:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

It has been known for some time that the ice loss on Kilimanjaro can most likely be attributed to local deforestation. Must have been considered somewhat inconvenient, so was breezed over in favour of the more popular issue.

Below is the abstract to one related study, which appeared in American Geophysical Union in December 2008.


Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro

Studies show local climate in mountain regions are impacted by deforestation at upwind locations. Low land deforestation alters surface energy budget, especially during dry season, altering orographic cloud formation and also surface meteorology at montane locations. While the prior investigations have focused on the effect of low land deforestation on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, low land deforestation also has the potential to impact alpine glaciers. Retreat of alpine glaciers around the globe has be attributed to global climate change, but at sites such as Kilimanjaro impact of low land deforestation also need to considered. The focus of this study is to address this issue through the use of Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) utilizing satellite data to specify realistic land use change scenarios. The atmospheric fields from the RAMS modeling system will be linked to glacier mass energy balance and ice flow model to study the impact of low land deforestation on glacier retreat. The presentation will include details of model development and initial results from the use of the modeling system.


See also:

Of Mt. Kilimanjaro ice waving us good-bye due to deforestation

The recent scientific theory linking the loss of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro to increased deforestation on the mountain`s foothills is more than sad news as far as the welfare of the mountain`s biodiversity is concerned.

The theory is highlighted in a recent study report compiled by two researchers from Britain`s Portsmouth University -Nicholas Pepin and Martin Schaefer, who took eleven days to survey the mountain`s glaciers.

The researchers, who revealed their findings at a news conference in Dar es Salaam recently, said the mountain`s glacier surface had shrunk from 20 kilometres in 1880 to two kilometres in 2000.

They said the development was caused more by local than regional factors. Pepin believes that deforestation which is mainly due to extensive farming is the major cause.

``Deforestation of the mountain`s foothills is the most likely culprit because without forests there is too much evaporation of humidity into outer space. The result is that moisture-laden winds blowing across those forests have become drier and drier,`` he explained.

This revelation is another reminder of the catastrophic effects that deforestation can cause to the environment.


(Article Continues)


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

zendor
Senior Member
Username: wizardofoz

Post Number: 582
Registered: 5-2003
Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 8:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Is deforestation causing all the glacial loss in mountains just about everywhere on the planet?

If Kilimanjaro was the only mountain with glaciers in retreat then this argument would make some sense.

It seems like just about everywhere mountain glaciers are retreating. See Retreat of glaciers since 1850 Even if you don't accept any human connection to global warming, you must wonder why this is happening -- and be concerned

If we accept the deforestation argument, then we humans do indeed have a major impact on the climate of our little planet in the Goldilocks zone around a G2V type star.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1326
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 8:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

No, I agree. The planet has warmed, and glaciers have generally retreated over the last century or so, as would be expected during a period of warming. Not sure "concerned" is the right word, there are lots and lots of things I am personally more concerned about, but I acknowledge the trend.

However, you were talking specifically about ice loss on Kilimanjaro. What I take exception to is wilful ignorance of the affects of local environmental destruction in favour of broad, populist issues where the blame can be happily shifted elsewhere. I would have thought we would agree on this, Zendor.

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: 1327
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, November 07, 2009 - 4:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

From the UK Times (Emphasis added):

Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown

Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.

They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.

“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.

Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word” that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species. “I’m certainly not a climate change denier, far from it, but we have to have sound policies for managing our ecosystems,” she said.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature backed the article, saying that climate change is “far from the number-one threat” to the survival of most species. “There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist any more,” said Jean Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program, which is responsible for compiling the international Redlist of endangered species.

He listed hunting, overfishing, and destruction of habitat by humans as more critical for the majority of species.

However, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds disagreed, saying that climate change was the single biggest threat to biodiversity on the planet. “There’s an absolutely undeniable affect that’s happening now,” said John Clare, an RSPB spokesman. “There have been huge declines in British sea birds.”

The article, published today in the journal Science, reviews recent research on climate change and biodiversity, arguing that many simulations are not sufficiently detailed to give accurate predictions.

In particular, the landscape is often described at very low resolution, not taking into account finer variations in vegetation and altitude that are vital predictors for biodiversity.

In one analysis of the likelihood of survival of alpine plant species in the Swiss Alps, the landscape was depicted with a 16km by 16km (10 miles by 10 miles) grid scale. This model predicted that all suitable habitats for alpine plants would have disappeared by the end of the century. When the simulation was repeated with a 25m by 25m (82ft by 82ft) scale, the model predicted that areas of suitable habitat would remain for all plant species.

The article suggests that migration to new regions and changes in living patterns of species would take place but that actual extinction would be rare.

Other studies comparing predictions of extinction rates with actual extinction rates have come to similar conclusions. According to a high-profile paper published in the journal Nature in 2004, up to 35 per cent of bird species would be extinct by 2050 due to changes in climate. To be on track to meet this figure, Professor Keith Bennett, head of geography at Queen’s University Belfast, calculated that about 36 species would have to have become extinct each year between 2004 and 2008. In reality, three species of bird became extinct.

He said that many species are far more versatile than some prediction models give them credit for. “If it gets a couple of degrees warmer than they’re comfortable with, they don’t just die, they move,” he said.
"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

miaree9
Senior Member
Username: miaree9

Post Number: 3683
Registered: 5-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 2:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

As if things aren't confusing enough, here's some more conflicting research on Antarctica: Antarctic Ice Loss Vaster, Faster Than Thought.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

University of Texas professor Jianli Chen and colleagues analysed nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction in Antarctica.

Covering the period up January 2009, the data was collected by the twin GRACE satellites, which detect mass flows in the ocean and polar regions by measuring changes in Earth's gravity field.

Consistent with earlier findings based on different methods, they found that West Antarctica dumped, on average, about 132 billion tonnes of ice into the sea each year, give or take 26 billion tonnes.

They also found for the first time that East Antarctica - on the Eastern Hemisphere side of the continent - is likewise losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of about 57 billion tonnes annually.

The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.

Up to now, scientists had thought that East Antarctica was in "balance," meaning that it accumulated as much mass and it gave off, perhaps a bit more.

"Acceleration of ice loss in recent years over the entire continent is thus indicated," the authors conclude. "Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea level rise."


I'm so confused! Of course, the timing on the release of this particular information is rather convenient for some who will be attending the upcoming Climate Conference in Copenhagen.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ManyMansions
Senior Member
Username: manymansions

Post Number: 2155
Registered: 3-2008
Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 3:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi M9... I read that same news earlier this morning from another source with pictures. Mainly, about Greenland.

and this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18192-hacked-archive-provides-fodder-for-c limate-sceptics.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

and this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102112048.htm

... aaaaaand viewed this: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=wxQsLLOYC7Q&tid=169158
...“Fear is the Thief of Dreams”...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1328
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 4:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Well the Antarctic article just seems to be more of the same information packaged slightly differently. And I feel Miaree hit the nail on the head with her closing comments. There are a large number of presupposed "new findings" timed for release as Copenhagen approaches.

The article about the CRU hack that MM posted is interesting. I've been waiting to see how the dust settles on this one. While the released code will take longer to analyse, the emails represent confirmation of what many have suspected for a long time.

And no, I'm not talking about a "conspiracy" to fudge the numbers. However, I do see ample evidence that the peer review process has been subverted into only championing a pro-agw perspective, and that political "muscle" has been used repeatedly to silence critics. That's some great science there guys - nice job.

In case anyone was curious as to the specifics, a good summary can be found below. Regardless of our individual perspectives on this issue, I do think that it is beneficial to understand how mainstream climate science has been operating since achieving unprecedented popularity and government support.

Emails Summary

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: mthood

Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 11:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

As far as the "climategate" business, it says a lot more to me about the tunnel vision people get when pushing their world views, and the scientists who get caught up in the politics. I'm not sure of what exactly to make of it, but frankly, it only serves to entrench the "sides", when that is one of the reasons that makes it so polarizing. After reading through much of the material, I see the "anti-global warming crowd" making a bigger deal out of things then what is actually written. Conversely, it is clear that these scientist's mindsets were such that it gives the distinct impression of an "agenda". I'm not sure that is accurate, however.

As a life long environmentalist at heart, I have never been happy with hitching just about every green issue to "global warming", even if it is true. There are other reasons to change the way we do things.

Just follow the science. Unfortunately, politicians need to put forth public policy based on scientific research, bringing in the tidal waves of ideology that come with it. Either way, I'm not optimistic that the right thing will ever be done.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1329
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 26, 2009 - 4:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Agreed, mthood. Well said.

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: mthood

Post Number: 119
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Sunday, November 29, 2009 - 11:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Thanks Chris.

For that that think that scientists are suppressing climate data:

http://www.realclimate.org

Have fun.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1330
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 4:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I've never seen Real Climate work so hard, lol. I see that they are putting in a good PR effort, but I don't think they are posting anything that wasn't already available. The implications in the leaked documents stand separate from anything I see on the above page. They are clarifying the data that is available though, which will probably help.

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: mthood

Post Number: 121
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 12:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The point, I think, is that it was always readily available.

I believe that was in response to the admitted "deleting" of raw climate data from the 80's, most of which was stored on magnetic tapes and the like.


http://science.slashdot.org/

However,

much-ado-about-nothing

But then:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk

Just send Nick Griffin...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

but then there is that pesky sea ice...

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/

it's enough to make your head spin. Clearly, something is happening to the world's climate.

Humans did it! No they didn't, yes they did, no they didn't, ad naseum.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Intermediate Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 164
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 4:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Excuse me while I just leap in here but if I don't write this I'll burst:

"I see the "anti-global warming crowd" making a bigger deal out of things then what is actually written"

Oh really?

Let me first say that I have absolute sympathy for anyone who is confused by climate change in general and by 'climategate' in particular but I've read through a lot of the docs and files in question now and as a programmer myself I had to laugh at some of the comments in the code! There's really no reason to make a 'big deal' out of the data. It does that perfectly well by itself. For example: deleting data after FOI requests have been made, artificially adjusting data, deleting emails, organised attacks on those who oppose their view and attacks on organs that publish contrary views. It's all there, plain as day.

Anyway, what is overwhelmingly obvious to me is that there was a huge amount of effort put into trying to 'shoehorn' data into fitting a particular outcome. I mean, it's very obvious.

Also, there's no doubt that the data is extremely messy and hard to marshall into anything meaningful in any case. As one exasperated programmer admitted: 'our databases are a mess'.

But that's what you get when you spend all your time with your head in a monitor trying to put together a world view from raw data. It's the same with surveillance data, you get what you look for. And it's also what happens when you rely heavily on computer models to try and get a picture of a natural, chaotic amd immensely complex and fickle ecosystem.

So naturally you will understand how appalled I am that a global policy with massive consequences and of astonishing expense is being forged around such uncertain science. I don't believe it's necessarily a 'conspiracy' (although there's little doubt that an issue with such far-reaching ramifications is hugely attractive to certain people who love state control more than they love individual freedom), it's more to do with face-saving by academics who are emotionally wedded to their particular data and live in fear of funding cuts by their government benefactors.

It's interesting, isn't it? The world's leaders are running around like headless chickens, panicking about something that so far exists only in questionable computer models.

There's no doubt the climate is changing. You've only got to be over thirty to see that. But to suddenly start saying 'no argument! The science is settled and we've all got to become vegans to save the world' is foolish. Science has never been and will never be 'settled'. It's almost the whole point of science: to be in a continual state of enquiry and adjustment. And to say, as the CRU scientists have done, 'you can't see our data because we don't want your dirty hands all over it' is childish and, in the light of current politics, dangerous.

But that's how academics often are. They can be bitchy, childish and lack in common sense, yet be extremely intelligent too.

So it really does look as if we risk taking enormously expensive, eye-wateringly austere measures, all because a few scientists are having a spat over a computer program. Amazing.

You really would think there'd be a bit more scrutiny and checking over this stuff wouldn't you? And not by the close-knit, cosy little group of scientists who all happen to agree with each other either.

But no matter, while they huff and puff, nature just carries on doing what nature does - as it always has.

(Message edited by clicker on November 30, 2009)

(Message edited by clicker on November 30, 2009)
A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes. - Ghandi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1332
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 4:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Good post, Brit. I do agree that some in the anti-agw crowd are making a bigger deal out of things than what has been written, but only in the sense that they are claiming a massive global conspiracy to hide temperature data. This is providing RC with the option to reply as they have (above) and look like they are moving forward.

Mthood said, "The point, I think, is that it was always readily available."

Which is why this is nothing more than a PR exercise to anyone who follows the research relatively closely. They are deflecting the real issues and setting up a strawman built from opposing propaganda. Buy into it if you wish.


"but then there is that pesky sea ice..."

Happy to wait until next summer in the Arctic to see what happens. It has been interesting to watch the last few seasons, next one will be no different I suspect. We were told the ice was dangerously thin ("death spiral") after 2007 and 2008 melting seasons. And still the 2009 minimum was ~1,000,000 square km above the 2007 minimum.

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

allen
Senior Member
Username: eastsider01

Post Number: 1567
Registered: 4-2005
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

what about this?

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/41112
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1333
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes, that was the link I was responding to above. If you would like I can go back into my notes and dig out some similar stories from over the last couple of years. It seems that with every year of recovery there's another reason given why it isn't really.

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: mthood

Post Number: 125
Registered: 10-2009
Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Show me in those leaked emails where it points to any large scale global warming conspiracy Brit. The AGW crowd is jumping all over this like a crack addict on a binge, but all I see is group think and scientists invested heavily in their beliefs.

The Pro GW crowd is shrugging it off like no big deal, my feeling is that the truth, like most things, lies in the middle.


Allen, I posted that link above too.

I have a feeling that if you hacked Jane Goodall's emails you'd find all kind of pro-chimpanzee stance. Take a peek inside Richard Dawkin's emails and you'd find a pro-evolution stance and be "shocked" at the language and extent to which people will go, etc... As a layperson in a family of "scientists" I can attest that scientists are human, make mistakes, are mean and gang up on those they don't agree with, and a host of other behavior that absolutely everyone does that all of a sudden we find abhorant in this instance.

Edit to add, Chris, I think raw data can show a number of things, depending on who's interpreting it, the value of that link is a first hand account of someone who's spent 25 years out there, something satellite data can miss.
(Message edited by mthood on November 30, 2009)

(Message edited by mthood on November 30, 2009)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1334
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 - 2:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Mthood, to be fair I don't think brit was saying that there's a conspiracy. Or at least that's not how I read his post.

As I said, I'm happy to keep watching the Arctic, but I'm well past believing observations of limited coverage over widely collected data from multiple sources. I've just seen these types of claims too many times before. It's provocative, and probably contains some element of truth, so they will push the hypothesis hard, and then ignore it next season if the Arctic doesn't cooperate (again...).

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

brit
Intermediate Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 165
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 - 3:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

hi mthood

As I specifically said, I don't think there is a conspiracy. It's more to do with face-saving and covering asrses. However, there is one particular document that is very revealing but it's on my work computer at the moment. I'll post some extracts from it later today.

IMO, face saving is worse than a real conspiracy because it means the world will be spending trillions of dollars, with all it's attendant policies of enforcement and monitoring, over a bunch of scientists and their egos.

And as I said previously, it's very clear that these guys will stoop pretty low to stifle any meaningful debate on the subject. That's not science, it's bullying and does nothing to further our knowledge of the subject. I will post some extracts to prove that too. It's pretty shallow stuff for people whose opinions are taken so seriously.

Look, the stakes could not be higher. This is going to cost us huge amounts of money. All of us. It will deny development to those countries that really need it now. Because of this we need to check and double check everything. Not try and suppress opposing views or smear colleagues who don't agree with the AGW line of thinking. Doesn't that sound sensible?
A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes. - Ghandi
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Intermediate Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 166
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 - 7:21 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Later....

here's few quotes from the programmer. He's obviously not deliberately doing anything bad.
That's reserved for his bosses which is apparent from their emails where they discuss smear campaigns against opponents, tricks to 'hide the decline', and lobbying publications to keep out dissenting views.

The poor programmer is obviously having a very hard time trying to kick very dodgy data into shape. I feel for him:

"So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But
what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
that's useless..

Lots of 'issues'. We need to exclude 'background' stations - those that were relaxed to
the climatology. This is hard to detect because the climatology consists of valid values,
so testing for equivalence isn't enough. It might have to be the station files *shudder*.

You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master'
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Gotta love the system! Like this is ever going to be a blind bit of use.

Back.. think.. even more complicated. My head hurts. No, it actually does. And I ought
to be on my way home. But look, we create a new master database (for each parameter)
every time we update, don't we? What we ought to do is provide a log file for each
new database, identifying which data have been added. Oh, God. OK, let's go..

The suggested way forward is to not use any observations after 1989, but to allow
synthetics to take over. I'm not keen on this approach as it's likely (imo) to introduce visible jumps at 1990,
since we're effectively introducing a change of data source just after calculating the normals. My compromise is
to try it - but to also try a straight derivation from half-degree synthetics.

Wahey! It's halfway through April and I'm still working on it. This
surely is the worst project I've ever attempted.

The conclusion of a lot of investigation is that the synthetic cloud grids
for 1901-1995 have now been discarded. This means that the cloud data prior
to 1996 are static.

I really thought I was cracking this project. But every time, it ends up worse than before.

They're NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER. I really do hate this whole project. Ran the gridder again, just
for text output.. and..

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all -
we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH F**K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."


And so it goes. On and on.

And we're supposed to sacrifice money and freedoms over this? Give me a break!
A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes. - Ghandi