|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 16, 2009 20:43:20 GMT
"It'll take decades" here is another graph showing the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere over time: www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/atmcfc_concentration.htmlWhile the levels of man made CFC's have not continued to rise, they have not fallen at all so IF they caused the ozone hole, it can never recover. Of course it's highly unlikely that made any real impact on ozone levels in the first place Man made CFC's have plateaued and gone into very slow decline in the 2000's - since that chart in your post. Natural CFCs: Methyl Chloride & Methyl Bromide make up about a third of current atmospheric CFCs, assuming the scientific estimates are correct. The Ozone hole is a natural product of spring, and would occur with or without man made additives. It is a little more complex than the simplistic interpretations of a few decades ago. The Ozone hole is likely to be with us forever, as it probably was before the great scare. But that is no excuse to pollute the planet with long lasting CFC's or industrial chemicals.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 16, 2009 21:20:51 GMT
Now DERE is a right minded indivdule. "A bacteria living in the stomach, and it's causing ulcers? Balderdash! Impossible" sayeth the scientists. Ever one of em... until one day You and I would have been irrational to believe it before the scientists did. It took an expert to see it. If you take life on a strategy of betting against the experts you will ocasionally make a win, but most of the time you will lose. Socold, This is why I've dismissed you as someone to believe; you don't do anything but parrot the official line of thought, you don't actually know anything but what is fed to you. Just off the top of my head, here are some recent large scale "The world is going to end due to" campaigns in some semblance of order: 5th column (leading to internment of US Citizens of Japanese descent) (40s) Communism (50s) Cold War (Duck and Cover) (50s) Space Race (60s) Global Cooling (70s) Military Superiority of the Other Side (80s) Nuclear Winter (80s) Placement of "peacekeeper" missiles in Europe (80s) Abortion (80s,90s) Ozone Holes (80s) Global Warming (90s) Globalism (90s) Y2K societal collapse, planes falling from the sky (90s) Terrorism (00s) Gay Marriage (00s) Weapons of Mass Destruction (00s) Climate Change ( ?) (00s) When will you figure it out that it really is quite easy to manipulate societies and it is really hard to see it when you're inside it? If you want to make a difference, spend your time looking for problems with the doctrine not looking for ways to support it. If the doctrine is solid it will survive with or without your support, if it isn't solid you might be helpful in dismantling it. The only evidence that AGW due to CO2 exists is the fact that the planet has been warming. But the planet has been warming for an extremely long time and the models disagree vastly with one another. The reality is that we do not yet have the ability to model the climate sufficiently to be able to predict anything in any timeframe; we barely have the ability to measure some aspects of the climate in some fairly granular and limited ways; we do not know how the earth as a system is compensating and will compensate for additional longwave radiation absorption in the atmosphere. We just don't. The scientists (and some activists) that make up the organizations on which you are relying are looking at scant evidence and incomplete models and are making extreme hypothesis from them. And their livings.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 16, 2009 22:11:40 GMT
Socold, This is why I've dismissed you as someone to believe; you don't do anything but parrot the official line of thought, you don't actually know anything but what is fed to you. I stick to the "official" line because that's the line which human endeavor has brought us down. All those experts working away for decades have generated knowledge and it would be arrogant of me to assume I can better that knowledge by imagining my own pet theory of how the climate works. Afterall I don't have the detailed knowledge to contribute either way. I can only know what is fed to me. I am quite sure this is true of most if not all people on this board. When you read climate audit or watts blog you are reading what they tell you, or what someone else tells them to tell you. Abandoning the sources and going on an imagination bender just takes us into fairy land. I could, if I chose, make all sorts of guesses about how the climate works (or how it doesn't) based on a couple of simplistic notions I have of how convection works and this and that. I assure you I would be capable of weaving simple facts and laws of science into grand hypothese that could see the Earth becoming 20C warmer by 2100. 20C warmer by 2100? that's crazy. Sure, but only if you accept the official line. If you abandon the official line then a lot of crazy things become possible and anyone's guess becomes as good as anyone elses. Without the constraint of knowledge of climate produced by experts a whole lot of things become plausible. Pattern seems to be to me that the only ones that have survived are climate change (global warming) and ozone hole. These are also, perhaps coincidentally, the only science based ones on the list. I don't believe laypeople can produce knowledge - either positively or negatively. Only experts. The field is too far too advanced that Bob can walk outside and visualize something. It takes years of work to understand current knowledge in detail let alone further it or find problems with it. That isn't the only evidence, not by far. The models all consistently show AGW. No disagreement whatsoever on that point. Sure we do. Models predict that when certain large volcanic eruptions go off there will be a large negative forcing, which almost inevitably leads to a drop in temperature. Models also predict that the forcing will drop off after a few years. It certainly won't stay put. We can see from the past that climate sensitivity is far higher than zero.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 16, 2009 23:33:01 GMT
I agree but modern society depends on producing nasty products. To abritrarily target CFC's and demonise them when they are having no measurable effect on the atmosphere is not the answer. The fact that the levels rose three or four fold since someone noticed the ozone hole does not mean that they will have any real effect if they rose another 10 fold. It's just some bod deciding that we need to get back to where we were in 1960 on the mistaken notion that it was causing a problem.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 17, 2009 0:17:19 GMT
Socold, This is why I've dismissed you as someone to believe; you don't do anything but parrot the official line of thought, you don't actually know anything but what is fed to you. I stick to the "official" line because that's the line which human endeavor has brought us down. All those experts working away for decades have generated knowledge and it would be arrogant of me to assume I can better that knowledge by imagining my own pet theory of how the climate works. [... snip ... blah blah blah ... snip ...] Really, Mr. Genius? Tell me, please. What effect has Mt. Pinatubo has had on current day climate. You described the short-term weather impact of a volcano, not of its climate effect. You say that the GCMs "all show warming" and while that is a true statement, that leads you down an incorrect path of logic to assume that they are all then correct, or even that one of them is correct, when the opposite is true. Science is not formed from a consensus of incorrect models. They all disagree with the extent of warming, which means that all but one of them is incorrect, at best. If there are many models each with their own experts you laud, and almost all current models are incorrect, and all past models have been incorrect, then it is more likely than not that ALL are incorrect. Until such a time occurs that climate science is able to predict short term climate changes (how the oceans will behave this month, how they will behave next month) then the system is not understood and assumptions about behavior 10 or 20 or 50 years down the road cannot be made. The earth may very efficiently store or remove heat that falls out of bounds for a number of reasons, including that water is the predominant cycle limiter. AGW proponents believe the earth will store heat that is retarded by atmospheric CO2. I say.... tell me about something simple like clouds in the IPCC predictions. They don't even understand clouds' effects, never mind whether and what type will increase or decrease or stay the same, they are ignored completely for Pete's sake. Are you blind man? "Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty."
"Models differ considerably in their estimates of the strength of different feedbacks in the climate system, particularly cloud feedbacks, oceanic heat uptake and carbon cycle feedbacks"
"Aerosol impacts on the magnitude of the temperature response, on clouds and on precipitation remain uncertain."www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdfPattern seems to be to me that the only ones that have survived are climate change (global warming) and ozone hole. These are also, perhaps coincidentally, the only science based ones on the list. That's totally incorrect. In fact one of Global Cooling's biggest proponents was Stephen Schneider a member of ar4's CORE WRITING TEAM. He's the propagandist who led the world down that path, now he's leading the world down this path. You know what? Forget it. If I want to read the party line, I'll go read the IPCC ar4 over and over again. You bring nothing new to the table whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 19, 2009 0:22:54 GMT
I stick to the "official" line because that's the line which human endeavor has brought us down. All those experts working away for decades have generated knowledge and it would be arrogant of me to assume I can better that knowledge by imagining my own pet theory of how the climate works. [... snip ... blah blah blah ... snip ...] Really, Mr. Genius? Tell me, please. What effect has Mt. Pinatubo has had on current day climate. You described the short-term weather impact of a volcano, not of its climate effect. The kind of short-term climate effect (cooling over several years) you talk about later: You disagree with the models more than they disagree with each other. In the same light it is more likely that temperature will be close to the range of the models (ie significant warming) than completely different. That means you can't can't tell me what would happen if the solar minimum got even lower and lasted for 50 years. By your own argument until you can predict short term climate changes you can't tell me that a prolonged deep solar minimum will cause cooling. It's an incorrect argument because on long time scales with big forcings it becomes far easier to predict the climate change than it does over short time periods with tiny forcings and lots of internal noise. They are not ignored completely. The uncertainty is represented by different models handling them differently. None of that uncertainty range covers insignificant warming and the models reflect this. The scientific community was never behind global cooling like it is behind global warming today. There were more global warming papers published in the 70s than global cooling papers.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 19, 2009 1:11:02 GMT
The scientific community was never behind global cooling like it is behind global warming today. There were more global warming papers published in the 70s than global cooling papers. That may be true. But what is also true is the scientific community is less behind global warming today than it was at its peak a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 19, 2009 21:38:22 GMT
The scientific community was never behind global cooling like it is behind global warming today. There were more global warming papers published in the 70s than global cooling papers. That may be true. But what is also true is the scientific community is less behind global warming today than it was at its peak a few years ago. I disagree
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 22, 2009 0:27:18 GMT
That may be true. But what is also true is the scientific community is less behind global warming today than it was at its peak a few years ago. I disagree Try not to breathe too deeply or yawn - the sand will make you sneeze
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 22, 2009 1:07:35 GMT
That may be true. But what is also true is the scientific community is less behind global warming today than it was at its peak a few years ago. I disagree You can keep your blinders on socold but the anti-alarmist element in the science community has grown immensely. Almost daily new science is hitting the street taking the air out of AGW alarmism. . . .not to speak of the number of believers calling for pulling back on the rhetoric. . . .thats what you do when you are trying to get out the fire exit. First it was dropping temps, oh must be ocean weather! Oceans are cooling, oh must be an error! Ocean's are really cooling, oops no heat in the pipeline! Bottom line socold its odds on a favorite that models in error today will be in even bigger error tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 22, 2009 22:21:45 GMT
All I can agree with is that Almost daily new science is hitting the street and being misinterpreted as taking the air out of "AGW alarmism"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 22, 2009 23:40:19 GMT
All I can agree with is that Almost daily new science is hitting the street and being misinterpreted as taking the air out of "AGW alarmism" You need to clarify. Its your view that 1) The science is being misinterpreted; or 2) Its being misinterpreted as having a negative effect on the number of AGW alarmists. If its #2 you lost this argument, every poll being taken is showing a precipitous drop in belief of imminent catastrophic AGW. If its #1 you need to explain yourself. You guys were relying on the heat in the pipeline argument (e.g. all we are seeing is weather) and it appears thats a tenuous thread at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 23, 2009 13:19:19 GMT
All I can agree with is that Almost daily new science is hitting the street and being misinterpreted as taking the air out of "AGW alarmism" You need to clarify. Its your view that 1) The science is being misinterpreted; or 2) Its being misinterpreted as having a negative effect on the number of AGW alarmists. Both What polls are you thinking of? Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: www.woodfortrees.org/plotSo when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 23, 2009 16:41:16 GMT
You need to clarify. Its your view that 1) The science is being misinterpreted; or 2) Its being misinterpreted as having a negative effect on the number of AGW alarmists. Both What polls are you thinking of? All polls whether they be the major polling organizations or just evolving lists of people taking positions. Too numerous to itemize. Tenuous because? We are in La Nina conditions, with negative PDO, low solar cycle and still temps are up there amount the 00s years, many of which contained El Ninos: The answer seems obvious. You guys have called all that stuff weather. Fact is bud when everything becomes weather we are talking climate. There has to be a physical manifestation of climate somewhere. . . .so where in your view where is it? Previously you argued it was heat in the pipeline. So where is the pipeline now? www.woodfortrees.org/plotSo when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C? LOL! So its your take that when all the climate drivers go sufficiently positive again it will get warm again. I agree!!! But the next PDO shift is a generation off, SC24 is widely predicted to be weaker than SC23 which has produced the cooling we have seen. Things are not looking good for anything but more cooling. Now if SC19, the strongest solar cycle ever observed, had not interrupted the last negative PDO; we might not be having this debate today. So I am in agreement with you that if we have a strong solar cycle in the next generation we will probably not achieve all the cooling we normally would and the stage might be set for more solar driven heating during the next phase of the PDO.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 23, 2009 19:44:27 GMT
The answer seems obvious. You guys have called all that stuff weather. Fact is bud when everything becomes weather we are talking climate. There has to be a physical manifestation of climate somewhere. . . .so where in your view where is it? Previously you argued it was heat in the pipeline. So where is the pipeline now? The reason we call it weather is that it dominates trends over periods of a few years. For example the magnitude (and even sign) of trend of any 5 year period is dominated by ENSO irregardless of the longer term trend. This decade we have seen a great example of such a pattern. ENSO was strongly positive in 2002-2003, in 2007-2008 it was strongly negative. This has the effect of making the the trend over the period 2002-2007 lower. www.woodfortrees.org/plotSo when ENSO goes positive, the solar cycle ramps up and the PDO goes positive, how much higher will that take temperature? 0.1C, 0.2C? 0.5C? LOL! So its your take that when all the climate drivers go sufficiently positive again it will get warm again. I agree!!![/QUOTE] We are already warm. Look at the end of the graph. This year so far would be classed as exceptionally warm if it had occured in the 90s, let alone the 80s. The PDO could go positive again if there is an El Nino. It went negative in 1999/2000 (la nina) and then switched back to positive (el nino) until 2007-2008 (la nina). www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980The best case for cooling is probably hadcrut: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000Yet that looks largely flat to me. There is a slight downturn near the end, but considering 2002-2003 featured a strong el nino, who wouldn't expect the end of 2008-2009 (weak la nina conditions) to be slightly cooler? In fact I would expect it more cooler than it actually is, but perhaps that's a few months off. I think we are mainly seeing the underlying warming trend continued with ENSO variations overlaid on the top. There was a reported effort to correct the temperature records for ENSO here: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/I think solar driven warming will require cycles significantly stronger than 22+23.
|
|