|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 20, 2009 13:47:14 GMT
Agreed. It culminated in ~2001 and afterward when temperatures stalled. Note how clustered the data is until late 2007, then the big drop. What do you think is going on with the AMSU satellite data? Enormous quantities of heat are being moved upward. No doubt warmers are jumping for joy, is it a more ominous sign? This is why people should talk about 'heat content' and not atmospheric temperature. That heat has come from somewhere. The delivered wisdom is that most heating of the atmosphere comes from absorption of IR from the surface by water vapour and by various gases . Everyone agrees the energy from the Sun has reduced. Therefore any heat at those levels can only have come from the surface and literally as we discuss it, it is being radiated into space. Heat in the atmosphere is heat being lost Heat in the oceans is heat that has been gained
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Jan 20, 2009 16:29:07 GMT
[trim'd]This is why people should talk about 'heat content' and not atmospheric temperature. That heat has come from somewhere. The delivered wisdom is that most heating of the atmosphere comes from absorption of IR from the surface by water vapour and by various gases . Everyone agrees the energy from the Sun has reduced. Therefore any heat at those levels can only have come from the surface and literally as we discuss it, it is being radiated into space. Heat in the atmosphere is heat being lost Heat in the oceans is heat that has been gained Yabbut if the temperature of the sky is increasing, surface heat loss at night is decreasing. If heat is being lost, exactly where is it coming from, and how? If it's coming from the surface, have surface anomalies dropped? Or has the ocean dropped in temperature lately? Is it coming from NH freezing? Maybe not--arctic ice, at least, has flattened out again. Solar energy may be down, but not a lot. Is a puzzlement. And 'everyone agrees' is rarely true; there's always 4% that disagree with everything. I name no names.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 20, 2009 18:13:46 GMT
Agreed. It culminated in ~2001 and afterward when temperatures stalled. Note how clustered the data is until late 2007, then the big drop. What do you think is going on with the AMSU satellite data? Enormous quantities of heat are being moved upward. No doubt warmers are jumping for joy, is it a more ominous sign? This is why people should talk about 'heat content' and not atmospheric temperature. That heat has come from somewhere. The delivered wisdom is that most heating of the atmosphere comes from absorption of IR from the surface by water vapour and by various gases . Everyone agrees the energy from the Sun has reduced. Therefore any heat at those levels can only have come from the surface and literally as we discuss it, it is being radiated into space. Heat in the atmosphere is heat being lost Heat in the oceans is heat that has been gained Yes, hence my response in this post solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=180&page=28This year will definitely be an interesting test, although I still have limited understanding of if ocean currents moving heat from the deep to the surface can be used to predict what amount of warming will be seen on the surface. Are the surface temperatures we are measuring today a result of heat gained from last year? Ten years ago? 50 years ago? Longer?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 20, 2009 19:34:19 GMT
Magellan
Exactly. Which is why a simplistic measure of Global Temperature isn't indicative of anything other than change.
It's energy flux which is important. We are really dipping our toes in the ocean.
Current Climate science is analogous to a couple of children seeing the tide coming in over a few hours and running screaming to their parents that the sea is going to overwhelm everything.
The argument is really between those who look to past cycles to explain the present and the future, and those who try and apply a mechanistic approach to the present to predict the future.
The fundamental assumptions of each side are different.
Those who follow the cycles tend to be a bit more humble in the face of nature (or God for those of us who are believers) and don't tend to think of Man as masters of the Universe.
Those who both blame Man for the climate, and believe Man has both the understanding and the ability to control the climate (either by intent or accident) show both arrogance and total lack of humility. (And no acceptance of the possibility that they could be mistaken)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 20, 2009 23:11:43 GMT
The issue isn't about man "controlling" climate. Quite the opposite - it's about man significantly messing with the variables of the big old climate machine without knowing for sure what will happen. It's a massive uncontrolled experiment we are performing.
Doubling co2 to levels probably not seen for possibly tens of millions of years, decreasing the pH of the surface oceans to levels probably not seen for tens of millions of years. And our emissions in the past 150 years and ongoing will leave a mark for thousands of years into the future.
And given what we do know about the nature of co2 the risk is very real.
And yet despite all this people still prefer to speculate that the issue is invented by Al Gore as some money scam. I in fact believe the human race is organizationally inept and is incapable of preventing self-caused disaster in certain cases. I suspect that climate change might be one of these cases.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 20, 2009 23:28:19 GMT
And Praise God that "the human race is organizationally inept"
The organizationally gifted included Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin and every totalitarian leader since time began.
Have you considered that most of us would prefer a warm freedom? ;D
The desire for atheistic humanism to control (or the heavy boot stamping into the face of man) is great, and any sort of crisis is always the excuse for the exercise of brute power in the name of some higher good (usually for "the people" - which is as nebulous a concept as "the global temperature" and equally manipulated.
Obama has been whipped into some sort of Messiah - I hope & pray that he can rise above this & be a great leader of free people - and not a dictator of slaves. I fear the latter.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 20, 2009 23:41:28 GMT
And Praise God that "the human race is organizationally inept" The organizationally gifted included Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin and every totalitarian leader since time began. Have you considered that most of us would prefer a warm freedom? ;D The desire for atheistic humanism to control (or the heavy boot stamping into the face of man) is great, and any sort of crisis is always the excuse for the exercise of brute power in the name of some higher good (usually for "the people" - which is as nebulous a concept as "the global temperature" and equally manipulated. Obama has been whipped into some sort of Messiah - I hope & pray that he can rise above this & be a great leader of free people - and not a dictator of slaves. I fear the latter. Ah but what if mankind was causing a move towards a climate disaster? I wonder how you propose we would deal with that, or how we would even be able to spot it coming. I suspect with a lot of skeptics a world composed of clones of them would not spot such a disaster coming.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 21, 2009 0:02:49 GMT
Pray. To someone who controls all. If there is a disaster coming, we probably deserve it. Why do you think the Insurance companies call them "Acts of God" (Maybe they don't anymore!)
Actually, you totally fail to understand skeptics. Skeptics have open minds. They examine all the possibilities. They question and constantly look at new ideas. They are open to reason and rationally examine all the data.
What we have is an establishment, totally dedicated to an idea, unproved, and unable to predict the future. Frozen (no pun intended) in a fixed position, and so deeply wedded to the position that change is unthinkable.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jan 21, 2009 2:20:35 GMT
Ah Socold but what if the environmental movement was causing a move towards a freezing climate disaster? I wonder how you propose we would deal with that, or how we would even be able to spot it coming?. I suspect with a lot of greenies a world composed of clones of them would not spot such a disaster coming. You may have the skeptics to thank for your salvation.
|
|
|
Post by pacman on Jan 21, 2009 3:34:52 GMT
Hi Craker24 A late reply to your post of 18 January. The winter of 2008 was a shocker by NZ standards with widespread flooding in the North Island (and NOT just restricted to the tragic loss of pupils and teacher on an expedition down a gully. There was extensive snow cover in the South which made it into a bonza skiing season. Just load up the Range-Rover with chains and ski gear with just a minor hour and a quarter drive to some decent slopes with 2 - 3m of packed powder snow. On the domestic front it was more of a nuisance having to dig out the car from the garage five times and noticed for the first time in 28 years a layer of ice under the snow. By the way, I would take no notice of NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospherics). They are Government funded, invariably wrong in their projections and a bunch of warmists to a man. They usually have a hard time when interviewed by independent radio who are usually clued-up skeptics. I have just belatedly come up with this short link from Australia which may have been submitted elsewhere but thought it worth while to include. Remarkable as it reflects the delayed effect of the Mt Pinatuba explosion when we had a metre of snow drifting to twice that overnight. icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 21, 2009 19:58:48 GMT
The issue isn't about man "controlling" climate. Quite the opposite - it's about man significantly messing with the variables of the big old climate machine without knowing for sure what will happen. It's a massive uncontrolled experiment we are performing. Doubling co2 to levels probably not seen for possibly tens of millions of years, decreasing the pH of the surface oceans to levels probably not seen for tens of millions of years. And our emissions in the past 150 years and ongoing will leave a mark for thousands of years into the future. And given what we do know about the nature of co2 the risk is very real. And yet despite all this people still prefer to speculate that the issue is invented by Al Gore as some money scam. I in fact believe the human race is organizationally inept and is incapable of preventing self-caused disaster in certain cases. I suspect that climate change might be one of these cases. Its fair to say I think most of us understand your motivations. But lets face it the entire history of mankind has been an experiment. We have been changing the world for as long as we have lived here and as long as we have lived here we have had people very concerned about progress. Yet progress has worked, and worked better than the alternatives. Al Gore's collapsing sandpile theory is as old as the human race. Man as the incompetent messer with the Big Kahuna is in fact the mantra of the 3rd world.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 21, 2009 21:04:42 GMT
The issue isn't about man "controlling" climate. Quite the opposite - it's about man significantly messing with the variables of the big old climate machine without knowing for sure what will happen. It's a massive uncontrolled experiment we are performing. Doubling co2 to levels probably not seen for possibly tens of millions of years, decreasing the pH of the surface oceans to levels probably not seen for tens of millions of years. And our emissions in the past 150 years and ongoing will leave a mark for thousands of years into the future. And given what we do know about the nature of co2 the risk is very real. And yet despite all this people still prefer to speculate that the issue is invented by Al Gore as some money scam. I in fact believe the human race is organizationally inept and is incapable of preventing self-caused disaster in certain cases. I suspect that climate change might be one of these cases. Doubling CO2 will have half the impact of the previous doubling which was half the previous doubling. (I'll leave aside my contention that the CO2 absorption band is already saturated). The longest I have currently seen anyone state CO2 will 'remain in the atmosphere' is 200 years - so perhaps in your excitement you overstated things by an order of magnitude (most scientific studies say 2 - 5 years tops). The levels of CO2 have been far higher than double the current levels - and in those times the oceans teemed with life including the current corals and other of the older groups of sea life that still exist today - lowered Ph or not. (Reports from the less politically correct experts state that the coral like the Barrier Reef is NOT suffering but that's another argument). Given what we know about atmospheric CO2 concentration, that it has been higher in the past without the world turning into a desert and in fact when it was higher the Earth seemed more fecund, I don't see any danger in higher CO2. I am becoming less and less convinced by the hypothesis of AGW which depends on apocalypse to get 'action' which always appears to be higher taxes. I agree about the human race though. There have been many occasions where the complete opposite to the correct action was taken on best scientific advice - killing all the dogs and cats when the bubonic plague was carried by rats for example. Many theories held by the majority of scientists were wrong too - as with Phlogiston and recently with Flux Transfer Events. There is one thing that you can guarantee about humans and that is that some of them will put their personal financial advancement above all else. So with a weak scientific hypothesis that has not been borne out by actual events, and the main political benefactor of that hypothesis and the scientist he put in place, both making huge amounts of money from it. I and others feel like we smell a rat. Strangely the more the histrionics from the proponents of AGW the more the doubt in what they are saying. So it was the Nobel and Oscar winning "An Inconvenient Truth" that convinced me that CO2 driven AGW was probably not real. If one has to tell untruths to support a hypothesis - then it cannot be correct. So let us assume that the world was really going to come to an end in only 4 years with CO2 output as it is now. Is it responsible to reduce the number of temperature measuring stations and only keep those that are decrepit and known to be incorrect? Is it responsible to allow type approval to vehicles whose operation increases the CO2 in the atmosphere (locally or remotely)? Is it really responsible to allow the transoceanic and transcontinental transport of groceries? Is it responsible to allow China and India to carry on building coal fired power plants? etc etc What we DO see is taxation taxation taxation just enough to get money but not enough to stop what is going on - and the AGW proponents crying crocodile tears as they fly off to the next tropical convention center where they cram 4 hours work into 2 weeks. This is NOT a convincing case
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 22, 2009 17:59:56 GMT
It had to happen. Now "scientists say" Antarctica has actually warmed the last 50 years. Michael Mann is sharing the helm so that should give us confidence in the accuracy; no chicanery I'm sure ;D wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/I haven't read the complete report, but no doubt this is another hockey stick type analysis with "new" discoveries in statistical analysis, temperature extrapolations/interpolations etc., oh and of course a misreading of the data. Unfortunately, RealClimate has already bragged they knew all along Antarctica would be cooling. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/And people wonder why I use the term 'fraudsters'.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 22, 2009 19:46:35 GMT
It had to happen. Now "scientists say" Antarctica has actually warmed the last 50 years. Michael Mann is sharing the helm so that should give us confidence in the accuracy; no chicanery I'm sure ;D wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/I haven't read the complete report, but no doubt this is another hockey stick type analysis with "new" discoveries in statistical analysis, temperature extrapolations/interpolations etc., oh and of course a misreading of the data. Unfortunately, RealClimate has already bragged they knew all along Antarctica would be cooling. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/And people wonder why I use the term 'fraudsters'. I've always admired liars - it's a very hard road to choose because of the mental discipline needed to ensure one never contradicts one's previous lies. The sheer quality of imagination needed to shoehorn the new falsehoods into the artificial structure set up by the original set of untruths is staggering. Surely Liars are in the forefront of mental exponents as they perform the gymnastics required to avoid being caught? Oh... they goofed? Wait a moment, they'll find a way to make it all OK again. Something like 'we meant we knew the Antarctic would seem to get cooler until we found a way to measure it properly to show how much warmer it is getting.'
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 22, 2009 22:40:49 GMT
Doubling CO2 will have half the impact of the previous doubling which was half the previous doubling. (I'll leave aside my contention that the CO2 absorption band is already saturated). You have applied the diminishing returns once too many! It's each doubling has the same effect, not each doubling has half the effect of the last. You are confusing the average residence time of a single molecule, which is 2-5 years, with the time it takes for elevated co2 levels to return back to their previous level (which is a logarithmic decay function which still leaves some in the atmosphere thousands of years later. The species living in those periods were by definition adapted to it. Today's species are not necessarily, so you change conditions too fast and they will not have time to evolve an adaptation. It's all about the rapid speed of the change.
|
|