|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 27, 2010 20:22:35 GMT
Neither will the 3C+ warming we will cause, but I bet it will cause a lot of problems. If New York had been built in the last glacial maximum it would now be under 200 feet of water caused by global warming. That stuff happens all the time. Its normal variation. Probably the only reason we don't know what happened to the Western US giant ground sloth is the last bones of it are in indian campfires 300 feet below the surface of the water off the coast of California. Of course it does, it is the natural variations of the Earth's climate. This playing around with the natural warming and cooling of the climate is one of the things that has happened at GISS over the last 15 years especially, and at NCAR, NOAA, and CRU. It will be shut down as soon as scientists are able to return to the actual study of the climate and not ideology. The period the world is now in is a global warming climate, and has been since about 1980. This, in my estimation, will continue to about the year 2016, when we will see stronger cooler signals begin to dominate into the 2020s and 2030s.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 27, 2010 21:11:25 GMT
That stuff happens all the time. Its normal variation. Probably the only reason we don't know what happened to the Western US giant ground sloth is the last bones of it are in indian campfires 300 feet below the surface of the water off the coast of California. Of course it does, it is the natural variations of the Earth's climate. This playing around with the natural warming and cooling of the climate is one of the things that has happened at GISS over the last 15 years especially, and at NCAR, NOAA, and CRU. It will be shut down as soon as scientists are able to return to the actual study of the climate and not ideology. The period the world is now in is a global warming climate, and has been since about 1980. This, in my estimation, will continue to about the year 2016, when we will see stronger cooler signals begin to dominate into the 2020s and 2030s. I fear that 2016 would be to late.. 6 years is alot of time to do economic damage as well as planning a new spin on "climate change". They are already trying to spin it around anyways: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/Greenhouse_gases_may_trigger_ice_age/articleshow/3934692.cms
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 27, 2010 21:54:43 GMT
Of course it does, it is the natural variations of the Earth's climate. This playing around with the natural warming and cooling of the climate is one of the things that has happened at GISS over the last 15 years especially, and at NCAR, NOAA, and CRU. It will be shut down as soon as scientists are able to return to the actual study of the climate and not ideology. The period the world is now in is a global warming climate, and has been since about 1980. This, in my estimation, will continue to about the year 2016, when we will see stronger cooler signals begin to dominate into the 2020s and 2030s. I fear that 2016 would be to late.. 6 years is alot of time to do economic damage as well as planning a new spin on "climate change". They are already trying to spin it around anyways: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/Greenhouse_gases_may_trigger_ice_age/articleshow/3934692.cmsMuch of the damage has already been done. Remember, overall, this has been going since about 1981, and Climategate shows how much time has been lost on supporting ideology, rather than what the climate actually is doing. And, that is the real threat. My long-range climate forecast calls for global cooling, to peak in the mid-2030s. This means more precipitation in a colder climate with frequency of ferocious storms affecting over half the planet. So, while the last 15 years has been consumed with global warming and anthropogenic ideology, time has been wasted on actual climate science, which could have been prepping the world for the onset of global cooling - which is on the way. There is still time to refit structures, and weatherize, as well as to adapt communities for the colder, stormier cold climate, but, waiting for some kind of "consensus" to emerge organizations that have clearly been compromised by AGW ideology is pointless. That simply wastes even more valuable time.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 3, 2010 15:54:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 4, 2010 23:54:40 GMT
You might discuss the significance of it, but it does show one obvious thing:
Surface stations and satellite measurements show equal warming between the decadal averages of the 90s and 2000 - 2009.
And it is rather inconvenient that it that is almost the same value as "predicted" by the climate models (even I believe that's a lucky shot, but we'll see what happens in the coming decades...).
modification: Oops, I see I have replied to the last post of the first page or something like that. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 8, 2010 0:55:57 GMT
Given site selection issues I think the one decimal is generous. "But this article: www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/05/science-climate-emails-code-releasehas a discussion of a survey of ’scientific programming’. one of my favorite bits? There is enough evidence for us to regard a lot of scientific software with worry. For example Professor Les Hatton, an international expert in software testing resident in the Universities of Kent and Kingston, carried out an extensive analysis of several million lines of scientific code. He showed that the software had an unacceptably high level of detectable inconsistencies. So here we have someone specifically studying the issues. And his result? What he also discovered, even more worryingly, is that the accuracy of results declined from six significant figures to one significant figure during the running of programs.
Gee. Someone else who measures real cattle and asks “Where’s the Beef?”… " chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/of-hypothetical-cows-and-real-program-accuracy/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 8, 2010 1:38:54 GMT
You might discuss the significance of it, but it does show one obvious thing: Surface stations and satellite measurements show equal warming between the decadal averages of the 90s and 2000 - 2009.And it is rather inconvenient that it that is almost the same value as "predicted" by the climate models (even I believe that's a lucky shot, but we'll see what happens in the coming decades...). modification: Oops, I see I have replied to the last post of the first page or something like that. Sorry! AJ "Surface stations and satellite measurements show equal warming between the decadal averages of the 90s and 2000 - 2009."Are the surface stations and the satellites measuring the same things?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 10, 2010 16:24:56 GMT
Easy to say global warming has not stopped when you just fiddle the numbers to make it so. "Why GISS Temperature Anomalies/Rankings Are Always Changing" "Well the answer came from E. M. Smith of the Musings from the Chiefio site: “It is inherent to the way GIStemp runs that every month will produce a new and different history. EACH and EVERY time the input data changes (by, for example, having a new month of data as time passes) will produce a different set of ‘homogenization’ adjustments and different UHI adjustments and GRID Box adjustments. One example: All records shorter than 20 years are disposed. If a record is 19 years 11 months long, it is simply thrown away. In the next month, ti will be 20 years old, and so kept. Suddenly there are 20 years of history for this new record and just as suddenly it will be used to fill in missing data in other temperature series for the past 20 years. More perniciously, it will also participate in UHI adjustments that may extend to the beginning of time in the data set (it can help determine the adjustment factor during the period of overlap, that may then be applied in far removed times.) So it is simply to be expected that history, in GIStemp, is a polite fiction that is re-written on each monthly computer run. So you can point this out to Hansen and friends and they will simply nod approvingly.” " icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Feb 15, 2010 16:46:55 GMT
And now Phil Jones says that there has been no warming of any significance since the late 1990's. Hansen, who has moved from rebel scientist to endorser of terrorism, needs to go. Far, far away.
|
|
|
Post by troglodytes on Feb 15, 2010 17:44:00 GMT
. My long-range climate forecast calls for global cooling, to peak in the mid-2030s. This means more precipitation in a colder climate with frequency of ferocious storms affecting over half the planet. Please explain how precipitation rates in "your forecast" go up with decreasing temperatures. This directly conflicts the thermodynamic properties of air.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Feb 16, 2010 0:24:15 GMT
We had best pray for a stable-to-lukewarming climate, what with a few billions of people who like to eat and everything.
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Feb 16, 2010 0:40:46 GMT
We had best pray for a stable-to-lukewarming climate, what with a few billions of people who like to eat and everything. If only we could somehow alter our atmosphere to better resemble the time when herds of hundred-ton reptiles roamed the land never going hungry due to the vegetation-friendly CO2 rich air
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Feb 16, 2010 14:08:12 GMT
We had best pray for a stable-to-lukewarming climate, what with a few billions of people who like to eat and everything. If only we could somehow alter our atmosphere to better resemble the time when herds of hundred-ton reptiles roamed the land never going hungry due to the vegetation-friendly CO2 rich air Good point. I believe there are some peer reviewed works available that show CO2 induced increases in plant growth are measurable and significant at this time. I also believe that NASA has some data showing that biomass in the oceans is up, as well. That would strongly imply a good outcome from CO2 increases. More plankton = more fish, etc.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 16, 2010 16:08:22 GMT
If only we could somehow alter our atmosphere to better resemble the time when herds of hundred-ton reptiles roamed the land never going hungry due to the vegetation-friendly CO2 rich air Good point. I believe there are some peer reviewed works available that show CO2 induced increases in plant growth are measurable and significant at this time. I also believe that NASA has some data showing that biomass in the oceans is up, as well. That would strongly imply a good outcome from CO2 increases. More plankton = more fish, etc. It has been known for years that CO 2 levels are critical for plant growth industrial growers flood their green houses with CO 2 up to 1000ppm to increase yields " Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value." "Costly methods of stimulating plant growth, in order to market them at optimum profit, are presently being used. One of these is extra heat (with open vents). This, however, increases operating costs and decreases profit. On the other hand, growers using CO2 are cutting their heating costs as much as 50% while realizing extra profit from increased crop production."www.homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm"The level of C02 in the air affects the rate of photosynthesis. Typical ambient outdoor air has about 350 ppm CO2. Research has shown that plants can increase growth and yield by increasing the CO2 concentration to 800 or 1000 ppm as long as light, temperature, etc., are optimum."General Aspects of Plant Growth - Florida Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook, Vol 31 G. J. Hochmuth University of Florida edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV26200.pdfon the other hand .... "The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable."www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p8.htm
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Feb 17, 2010 2:22:37 GMT
CO2 has more of an impact on plants than most people realize. Most equate the role of CO2 to plants as being similar to that of oxygen to humans. It's not quite that simple. If an environment has oxygen but will not otherwise support humans, adding more oxygen will not change that situation. However, it has been shown that plants will grow in places with enriched CO2 levels that they would not otherwise grow in at all. CO2 seems to compensate for other factors being unsuitable for plant life.
This, of course, implies that not only will crop yields improve with additional CO2, but more of the earth will support farming. The optimum CO2 level for plants seems to be about 1000 ppm. The closer it gets to 200 ppm, the more problems plants have with photosynthesis.
What's best for plants is best for the animal kingdom.
|
|