|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2011 17:55:15 GMT
Hairball, If you want to admit that you are disinterested in your descendents' future then by all means do so. But your justification for your casual attitude is weak as you don't understand that our coasts are far more crowded now than they've ever been, and our communities far less mobile (not everyone lives in a trailer park). And you don't realise that if humans built flood defences in the past it was because they had experienced flooding!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2011 17:37:52 GMT
When one is losing the argument the lesson seems to be to get the lawyers involved. Sickenly McCarthyistic.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 10, 2011 15:02:32 GMT
The effect noted in this paper seems to be as a result of the ice sheet flowing *over* a mountain range. This doesn't really tell us whether the effect slows the rate of ice sheet flow or whether the effect is relevant where glaciers flow out to the oceans.
Since we are observing ice shelf collapse and loss of Antarctic ice in West Antarctica, I would say sea level rise is a big threat - though a longer term big threat. If one claims to have an understanding of historical context then one should be able to understand the concept and desire for a civilisation to build itself a long term future that doesn't involve spending on vast infrastructure to protect or move cities, buildings and monuments. This may not be apparent to your average Texan.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 9, 2011 10:30:33 GMT
the central premise to AGW is that everything else is constant or doesn't vary enough to make a difference except CO2. It's not the central premise. The central premise is that the amount of CO2 is likely to warm the earth by 1.5-4.5C based on its radiative forcing plus the most likely range of feedbacks. That many scientists do not think the sun has significantly influenced global mean temperatures over the past 50 years is based on a lot of observations. It's an interesting discussion, but we also know the sun is hot enough to fry an egg or evaporate gallons of water. When you do the calculations you find that even the biggest X class flares emit of the order of 0.001W/m^2 (measured at earth) which is less than one-thousandth that of current estimated net forcing since 1750. One may look for effects that are not just related to the energy (and there is acknowledgement of such effects in the "AGW literature"). But you also have to ask whether the rate of flares and so forth has changed over the past 50 years.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2011 14:20:14 GMT
What do you mean? There are lots of explanations.
Indeed. But to state after asking a lot of questions and being challenged by "an over riding political agenda, or a group of people" who "are trying to effect public policy for their own gain", that current warming is likely caused by CO2 is not reckless at all.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2011 11:52:12 GMT
spaceman, the 0 point of the graph looks like it represents 2000, so 0.2C is roughly 0.9C above 1900 temperatures. The bands of the envelope represent the spread of all the models that contributed data to the IPCC process. There was no drop off after 1998. 1998 was a blip which went away. It would seem that the CO2 signal has emerged from the noise since the early 1980s. Since then each decade has been warmer than the preceding decades. I expect 2010-2019 will be about 0.2C warmer than 2000-2009.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 8, 2011 10:48:05 GMT
Magellan,
You missed out the important caption of your picture:
Essentially we are supposed to believe that the memory of the sun existed (in the oceans?) for 34 years before influencing the streamflow of the Mississippi.
Now that may be so, but another interpretation is that the two series were simply shifted back and forth till the best fit was found at 34 years, and then the scientist said "Aha!".
It is reasonable to me that something that affected the hydrology of a large basin like that of the Mississippi 34 years ahead would have had much stronger effects when it first happened. Unless you apply homeopathy "science" perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 4, 2011 10:36:47 GMT
Oh, loved your cherry picked quote from many thousands, 600,000 links v one innocuous quote proves what? and no it wasn't one contrary fact proves me wrong as in Einstein, what I pointed out was a link, connection, many thousand strong. Cherry picking from the Wall Street journal! Here's one from pajamasmedia which basically says the same thing but adds a paranoid spin: The "loose alliance" quote links to an article that does not say anything about there being a loose alliance. pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/28/elbaradei-friend-of-the-muslim-brotherhood/
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 3, 2011 16:28:24 GMT
This was the Bastardi guess.
Reading it again he seems to be getting confused between HadCRUT3 and UAH. The "0.44C above normal" refers to a Met Office prediction that he'd heard on the grapevine (I've not myself heard the Met Office guess). The Met Office prediction would be for HadCRUT3.
But the 0.18C figure he then mentions for December is to be the UAH figure, so I think his guess actually relates to UAH. In which case on the one hand he is not out of the running yet, but on the other, the guess is not so much off the wall given that the 13 month average spent some time below 0C during 2008.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 3, 2011 10:20:29 GMT
glc, you know the temps of the oceans in 1900's how? All we have is basically land records. And even those are under some questions such as UHI. Not at all. Ships have been taking temperatures for centuries. Recently, for example, the logs of temperature observations from the explorations of the NW Passage in the early 1800s were digitized. Yes I have. It's absolutely minuscule compared to the energy of the sun. Have you calculated it? Like northsphinx you are diverted onto "CO2 or nothing" sorts of comments. We're talking about whether warming has occurred. Not what caused it. The fact is that all your examples turn out to be less important than you (and probably the scientists who carefully designed the ideal weather station) think.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 15:10:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 14:54:51 GMT
Nova say: Ahh! What is Akzo Nobel? A University? a climate research department? Um...no: What does he say: I rest my case. Hunter, just because you think we're deluding ourselves with dubious science doesn't mean that you have to lower yourself to our standards
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 14:30:41 GMT
So Your point is that mankind is responsible for increased temperature ONLY because of CO2. Not because of land use, or UH, population growth, by agriculture reason, or by dust and other pollution. Only because of CO2. Not because of the sun or other natural reasons. And You say I cherry pick? You are diverting the conversation. The actual cause of the real warming is a separate discussion (which, as it happens you also have no clue). I've not ignored the other causes of warming. I've looked at and discussed the evidence many times. You are claiming that the temperature rise doesn't exist at all because it is all down to UHI increasing. You use cherry-picked evidence that you've believed without thinking about it. It is easily shown to be inconsistent. Its importance has been distorted and exaggerated by a dissembler like Hoyt. Meanwhile you ignore all the evidence that says that UHI is almost irrelevant, including many studies by noted sceptics such as Pielke Jr. You also ignore the observations of the ocean and the satellite observations of the mid troposphere. If there is no land warming, how come these other instruments show warming of a similar amount?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 12:32:27 GMT
Have I understand You right? The UH signal in GISS and Hadley records are the observed temperature increase. As quoted/linked from last post in the link You provided "“As Doug Hoyt has noted, in 1900, world population is 1 billion and in 2000, it is 6 billion for an increase of a factor of six. If the surface measuring stations are randomly distributed and respond to this population increase, it would equal 2.2 log (6) or 1.7 C, a number already greater than the observed warming of 0.6 C. If however we note that UHIs occur only on land or 29% of the Earth’s surface, than the net global warming would be 0.29*1.7 or 0.49 C which is close the observed warming. It is not out of the realm of possibility that most of the twentieth century warming was urban heat islands”" icecap.us/docs/change/URBAN%20HEAT%20ISLAND.pdfBasically you are cherry-picking articles that fit your view. Hoyt's references measured the *maximum* UHI (in ideal conditions which of course don't occur all the time), and only measured it in 5 different towns. This is not enough for a statistical analysis, let alone accounting for possible geographical reasons for the differences in temperature. Hoyt's further underlying assumption, that a 6 times increase in world population means a 6 times increase in size of towns is obviously complete and utter nonsense. More people means more towns and more cities, not just bigger towns and cities. Hoyt should have realised that if he read his references! In his citation, Melbourne's population did not increase from 1972 to 1992 despite a 42% increase in world population and a 33% increase in Australian population over that same period. Also, the population of Europe has increased slower than the population of the US, yet Europe has measured more warming than the US. Google "world population statistics" Pielke Jr did some work on urban transects as a result of the Parker investigation, and it's all gone a bit quiet suggesting that nothing significant was found (again). PS. Presumably the huge growth of Laputa is responsible for the UHI in the satellite records.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2011 10:25:25 GMT
Matt, that's an insult to tripe.
|
|