|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 8, 2011 16:15:24 GMT
socold: How much of the rise in co2 over the past 50 years is attributeable to mankind? No matter how I do it, the most I can come up with is 30ppmv. Can you show me where that figure is wrong?
As far as historical events. Current information abilities make them more widely known. I think of my region. The blizzards of the 1960's historically make the current blizzards look like a joke. I lived through them, and am having a hard time showing my children that blizzards are something to be concerned about. They have never seen 20' snow drifts, etc. My state no longer owns front mounted snow blowers which were used frequently in that time period to clear highways etc as there was no way to push the snow. There is a study which I will dig up that shows the monsoons over India/Pak etc have become less intense verses historical monsoons. The prediction that storms etc will become more severe is NOT being born out in reality. Once again, the predictive ability of GCM's is not worth looking at at this time. IPCC said that, the science part, not the political pages. Will you at least acknowledge this?
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 8, 2011 19:01:25 GMT
Funny how this news has been ignored in the MSM and by AGW experts. Yes I know its only a continent covered with ice. This cannot be right.. Because local newspaper here 2 days ago said cold was only local in norway and northern europe while rest of world including canada and greenland is having a fever and nearly burning up. ;( They also wrote that we will get a new cold spell in a week or two that is also caused by global warming which is also the case with rest of the cold winter and last winter. article in norwegian: www.adressa.no/vaeret/article1571867.ecegoogle translate: bit.ly/f*gzEZSome quotes from the delusional journalist: What is funny is that skeptics have predicted this change in jet stream due to low solar activity long before these idiots. This is the same guy who told us over last few years that winter snow would be a thing of the past and that norwegian climate would be like southern europe in just decades. Gotta love it when you cant even read a weather forecast without being fed global warming propaganda...
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 10, 2011 0:51:10 GMT
socold: How much of the rise in co2 over the past 50 years is attributeable to mankind? No matter how I do it, the most I can come up with is 30ppmv. Can you show me where that figure is wrong? I think it's at least 60ppm out of a 70ppm increase. If the ice core response is anything to go on the temperature rise can only account for about 10ppm of the rise. On a regional scale the GCMs are not worth looking at. There's too much uncertainty. Even at the global scale there is too much uncertainty to predict stuff like storm trends I think. The GCMs in my opinion are only useful as an estimation of the significance of CO2 rise on climate and an estimate of large scale changes in a warming world - like whether precipitation increases at higher latitudes or lower latitudes.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 10, 2011 0:57:33 GMT
socold: How much of the rise in co2 over the past 50 years is attributeable to mankind? No matter how I do it, the most I can come up with is 30ppmv. Can you show me where that figure is wrong? I think it's at least 60ppm out of a 70ppm increase. If the ice core response is anything to go on the temperature rise can only account for about 10ppm of the rise. On a regional scale the GCMs are not worth looking at. There's too much uncertainty. Even at the global scale there is too much uncertainty to predict stuff like storm trends I think. The GCMs in my opinion are only useful as an estimation of the significance of CO2 rise on climate and an estimate of large scale changes in a warming world - like whether precipitation increases at higher latitudes or lower latitudes. So throw out everything AGW climate science has told us for the last 20 years and wipe the slate clean. Cute. GCM's are a dismal failure in predicting the hydrological cycle as well. What's left?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 10, 2011 3:39:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 10, 2011 4:40:58 GMT
socold: How much of the rise in co2 over the past 50 years is attributeable to mankind? No matter how I do it, the most I can come up with is 30ppmv. Can you show me where that figure is wrong? I think it's at least 60ppm out of a 70ppm increase. If the ice core response is anything to go on the temperature rise can only account for about 10ppm of the rise. On a regional scale the GCMs are not worth looking at. There's too much uncertainty. Even at the global scale there is too much uncertainty to predict stuff like storm trends I think. The GCMs in my opinion are only useful as an estimation of the significance of CO2 rise on climate and an estimate of large scale changes in a warming world - like whether precipitation increases at higher latitudes or lower latitudes. Socold: Thank you. I have been looking at the increased co2 level with an open mind. The ice cores samples of co2 seem to have problems now that we have better tech to look at them. I am not dismissing them, I think they need a re-analysis with current technology. To be at the 60ppmv increase due to mankind, and based of the estimated fossil fuels burnt etc, one would have to agree that the oceans/calcium/ etc have not absorbed any co2 at all. I can't agree to that. Isotope data seems of current co2 seems to indicate that 30ppmv is atributable to fossil fuels. The rest lacks the isotope signature to indicate this. I looked back at sunspot levels. They are but onee proxy of the suns activity. I don't know how to post pictures, someday I might figure it out, but there is a deff lag to climate when talking a long term change in sunspot numbers. IT is not 100%, but there are certainly enough matches to indicate a cause and effect. The puzzling part is why it is not 100% till now. That tells me that something else, that we don't know, about is happening. My confidence in co2 as the driver is getting much smaller all the time. I think it is a contributor, but nowhere now does it appear that it is an actual driver. It seems to more of a follower. What tipped me off to this is past interglacials. Co2 keeps rising for 100's of years as the temp falls like a rock. What is different in this interglacial is that temps have been pretty much stable for approx 11,000 years. This interglacial does not seem to be a "normal" interglacial on a geo sense. Something is different. I don't know what that something is, and I don't think anyone does as of yet. I do know that someone should be looking at every possible cause that is at their disposal to try and figure this out. The pattern is starting to look more and more like the end of past interglacials. An ending spike in temp that is not explainable, and then a quit rapid decline in temps even tho co2 is at its maxiumum level and holding for 100's of years. Even the bond events of this interglacial are pale in comparrison to events of longer ago. Something else is at play here........what is it?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 10, 2011 12:09:30 GMT
Every interglacial is different. The load on the antarctic ice sheet gets higher (until it submerges the continent) and so does the greenland ice sheet loading changes. The sea levels change, the topography around land masses with ice sheets changes and the ocean circulation changes because of this...changing the loading of various pathways that distribute heat around the planet.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jan 10, 2011 21:00:50 GMT
Every interglacial is different. The load on the antarctic ice sheet gets higher (until it submerges the continent) and so does the greenland ice sheet loading changes. The sea levels change, the topography around land masses with ice sheets changes and the ocean circulation changes because of this...changing the loading of various pathways that distribute heat around the planet. Fascinating stuff - snowfall has been going up down there
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 13, 2011 11:28:29 GMT
Most of Australia is quite cool [comparatively] at present, courtesy of an immensely powerful tropical low over Eastern Australia. This has been responsible for the extraordinary rainfall in Queensland and Northern NSW. Apparently, an area hahf the size of Western Europe is under water.
Even in Victoria, where I live, it has been amazingly humid [feels just like the tropics]. We have also had large rainfall totals and flooding.
One can only speculate on the reasons for this. My personal view is that an immensely powerful La Ninya has combined with the effects of a dead solar cycle.
If you combine this episode with the [many] huge rainfall events which have been reported in the tropics and sub-tropics, I would say that there is some empirical validation of the Svensmark hypothesis.
I assume that nobody has anything about when results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN will appear?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 13, 2011 13:04:19 GMT
Most of Australia is quite cool [comparatively] at present, courtesy of an immensely powerful tropical low over Eastern Australia. This has been responsible for the extraordinary rainfall in Queensland and Northern NSW. Apparently, an area hahf the size of Western Europe is under water. Even in Victoria, where I live, it has been amazingly humid [feels just like the tropics]. We have also had large rainfall totals and flooding. One can only speculate on the reasons for this. My personal view is that an immensely powerful La Ninya has combined with the effects of a dead solar cycle. If you combine this episode with the [many] huge rainfall events which have been reported in the tropics and sub-tropics, I would say that there is some empirical validation of the Svensmark hypothesis. I assume that nobody has anything about when results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN will appear? Nigel Calder confirms to me that the results are not to be published for 2-3 years. He considers this a positive sign. His blog, for those who might be interested has a story about the reception of Svensmark's most recent paper here: calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/do-clouds-disappear/By the way, as I'm sure all here know, Svensmark did not create the CLOUD experiment but it does test his hypotheses. Jasper Kirkby is the one who ran the experiment. --Harold
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 13, 2011 23:09:42 GMT
Thanks for that. The Calder article was interesting - I think I can follow the physics and the politics.
I can understand why there will not be much published for a while. There is no competing experiment to threaten precedence, and the CLOUD group will no doubt want to have every point covered in what may be one of the political/scientific firecrackers of the century.
|
|
numas
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 94
|
Post by numas on Jan 14, 2011 1:22:06 GMT
Huge amounts of CO2 being sequestered across Australia: The greening of Australia's outback with all the rain over the desert & elsewhere Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 14, 2011 2:24:00 GMT
Thanks for that. The Calder article was interesting - I think I can follow the physics and the politics. I can understand why there will not be much published for a while. There is no competing experiment to threaten precedence, and the CLOUD group will no doubt want to have every point covered in what may be one of the political/scientific firecrackers of the century. Well said. Hard to wait though!
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jan 14, 2011 4:36:50 GMT
I agree and think we are in a new climate regime (cold PDO, cold sun) and this is our new pattern of weather. There have been periods where Lake Eyre has been permanently full (about 1500 years ago). Most of Australia is quite cool [comparatively] at present, courtesy of an immensely powerful tropical low over Eastern Australia. This has been responsible for the extraordinary rainfall in Queensland and Northern NSW. Apparently, an area hahf the size of Western Europe is under water. Even in Victoria, where I live, it has been amazingly humid [feels just like the tropics]. We have also had large rainfall totals and flooding. One can only speculate on the reasons for this. My personal view is that an immensely powerful La Ninya has combined with the effects of a dead solar cycle. If you combine this episode with the [many] huge rainfall events which have been reported in the tropics and sub-tropics, I would say that there is some empirical validation of the Svensmark hypothesis. I assume that nobody has anything about when results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN will appear?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 15, 2011 4:35:56 GMT
Huge amounts of CO2 being sequestered across Australia: The greening of Australia's outback with all the rain over the desert & elsewhere That is the DroughtFlood as predicted by AGW climate experts. tinyurl.com/68szo93Twaki, I've been wondering the same thing. Only the AMO is waiting to begin it's descent.
|
|