|
Post by trbixler on Sept 13, 2009 5:00:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Sept 13, 2009 10:30:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 13, 2009 11:35:55 GMT
Its surprising how they want to have it both ways. This 'soaring' level of CO2 is overcome by 'natural' climate drivers yet the New Scientist ran an article on how slash and burn farming prevented an ice age!
The ice age that never was Did a few million stone-axe-wielding farmers avert an ice age? The evidence supporting this controversial idea is growing stronger Hazel Muir New Scientist 03 September 2008
Either the climate is extremely and overpoweringly sensitive to CO2 or it is not - AGW wants to have it both ways.
However, I expect to see more arguments like this as the back stop protection of the AGW hypothesis. Summed up it is " It may be getting colder _now_ but when it stops getting cold its going to get really really warm" which is a longer restatement of Steve's 'heat in the pipeline' or SoCold's 'averaged' ocean heat content.
At some stage this will be accepted as a falsification of the AGW hypothesis. However, if the AGW proponents continue to hold conferences that only have AGW proponents presenting and with no requirement for defense of their hypotheses, they will continue to get a good press from magazines like New Scientist. That is then picked up with no checking by the mainstream media and becomes 'delivered wisdom'.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 14, 2009 23:18:06 GMT
Its surprising how they want to have it both ways. This 'soaring' level of CO 2 is overcome by 'natural' climate drivers yet the New Scientist ran an article on how slash and burn farming prevented an ice age! The ice age that never was Did a few million stone-axe-wielding farmers avert an ice age? The evidence supporting this controversial idea is growing strongerHazel Muir New Scientist 03 September 2008 Either the climate is extremely and overpoweringly sensitive to CO 2 or it is not - AGW wants to have it both ways. However, I expect to see more arguments like this as the back stop protection of the AGW hypothesis. Summed up it is " It may be getting colder _now_ but when it stops getting cold its going to get really really warm" which is a longer restatement of Steve's 'heat in the pipeline' or SoCold's 'averaged' ocean heat content. At some stage this will be accepted as a falsification of the AGW hypothesis. However, if the AGW proponents continue to hold conferences that only have AGW proponents presenting and with no requirement for defense of their hypotheses, they will continue to get a good press from magazines like New Scientist. That is then picked up with no checking by the mainstream media and becomes 'delivered wisdom'. It is always fun to find examples of the non-falsifiable nature of AGW.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 15, 2009 1:40:50 GMT
Its surprising how they want to have it both ways. This 'soaring' level of CO 2 is overcome by 'natural' climate drivers yet the New Scientist ran an article on how slash and burn farming prevented an ice age! The ice age that never was Did a few million stone-axe-wielding farmers avert an ice age? The evidence supporting this controversial idea is growing strongerHazel Muir New Scientist 03 September 2008 Either the climate is extremely and overpoweringly sensitive to CO 2 or it is not - AGW wants to have it both ways. However, I expect to see more arguments like this as the back stop protection of the AGW hypothesis. Summed up it is " It may be getting colder _now_ but when it stops getting cold its going to get really really warm" which is a longer restatement of Steve's 'heat in the pipeline' or SoCold's 'averaged' ocean heat content. At some stage this will be accepted as a falsification of the AGW hypothesis. However, if the AGW proponents continue to hold conferences that only have AGW proponents presenting and with no requirement for defense of their hypotheses, they will continue to get a good press from magazines like New Scientist. That is then picked up with no checking by the mainstream media and becomes 'delivered wisdom'. It is always fun to find examples of the non-falsifiable nature of AGW. Only it is no longer part of "the consensus" to call it AGW. Get with the program - it's now called "climate change". That way it is easy to attribute every climatic event as part of the "science".
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Sept 16, 2009 4:17:20 GMT
It is always fun to find examples of the non-falsifiable nature of AGW. Only it is no longer part of "the consensus" to call it AGW. Get with the program - it's now called "climate change". That way it is easy to attribute every climatic event as part of the "science". A wonderful and prescient example of bureaucratic ballet. Remove the word "anthropogenic" and any change in climate becomes the business of the UN. Of course, climate is always changing. Bureaucrats and would-be global rulers keep their jobs during the potential Eddy Minimum, complete with carbon tax and 1% of GDP.
Summary for Policymakers: A report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf. See the footnote: Footnote: "Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Sept 16, 2009 20:37:31 GMT
I have made a graph of relative growth/retreat of Swiss glaciers vs Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Number of observed glaciers is lower in the beginning of record, so the agreement is not as good as later. Glaciers of course react not only on temperature, but also on precipitation. Extra dry summer 1947 which plagued Czechoslovakia (and probably surrounding countries as well) is pretty visible, also 2003 with very hot summer. So much for "unprecedented" glacier melt, which is just a tad higher than in 40ties. If positive AMO is about to last as long as did previous positive period, we are in the middle now. This year AMO average is up to now barely above zero.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 16, 2009 21:11:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Sept 16, 2009 22:17:54 GMT
Whatever, but obviously 40ties were almost as warm as 2000s. It is cyclic AMO and no ad-hoc aerosol cooling theory. Watch out when AMO goes negative again. Together with already cold PDO and sun minimum it will be pretty spectacular.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 21, 2009 11:29:19 GMT
Utah was very warm this past couple of weeks. Probably due to all the CO2 emitted from the inefficient Chrysler I rented for my holiday
|
|
|
Post by bender on Sept 21, 2009 22:19:02 GMT
Earth approaching sunspot records The average person may not associate coolness with the sun. The sun releases energy through deep nuclear fusion reactions in its core and has surface temperatures as hot as 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA's Web site. Not cool at all. But the sun's recent activity, or lack thereof, may be linked to the pleasant summer temperatures the midwest has enjoyed this year, said Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence. The sun is at a low point of a deep solar minimum in which there are few to no sunspots on its surface. In July through August, 51 consecutive days passed without a spot, one day short of tying the record of 52 days from the early 1900s. As of Sept. 15, the current solar minimum ranks third all-time in the amount of spotless days with 717 since 2004. There have been 206 spotless days in 2009, which is 14th all-time. But there are still more than 100 days left in the year, and Perry expects that number to climb. www.cjonline.com/news/local/2009-09-20/earth_approaching_sunspot_records
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 6, 2009 0:47:57 GMT
The summer was quite nice (If you ignored the rainy and cloudy conditions). It wasn't to hot at all. Nothing like the scorchers we had in the 90's. It has been colder these past winters.
I know that Noticing local weather patterns around you may seem agnadotal (even un-scientific). This is what many people base there climate knowledge on (local variations).
Most people don't worry about environmental disasters in the 3rd world, which are mainly caused by deforestation, overpopulation, poor local investment etc... they do not ascociat these events to there own lives because they hardly ever happen.
Boscastle was used as an example of environment gone mad, when the same thing happened at Lynmouth/Lynton in the 1950's. So it wasn't unatural or uncommon.
Anyway. There is a cooling trend occuring, so there.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 6, 2009 5:36:12 GMT
The summer was quite nice (If you ignored the rainy and cloudy conditions). It wasn't to hot at all. Nothing like the scorchers we had in the 90's. It has been colder these past winters. I know that Noticing local weather patterns around you may seem agnadotal (even un-scientific). This is what many people base there climate knowledge on (local variations). Most people don't worry about environmental disasters in the 3rd world, which are mainly caused by deforestation, overpopulation, poor local investment etc... they do not ascociat these events to there own lives because they hardly ever happen. Boscastle was used as an example of environment gone mad, when the same thing happened at Lynmouth/Lynton in the 1950's. So it wasn't unatural or uncommon. Anyway. There is a cooling trend occuring, so there. Where are you, thingychambers69? Could I suggest again that posters update their profiles with a location? It doesn't need to be your street address. Even something generic like "Northern France" would help ...
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 6, 2009 9:32:17 GMT
The summer was quite nice (If you ignored the rainy and cloudy conditions). It wasn't to hot at all. Nothing like the scorchers we had in the 90's. It has been colder these past winters. I know that Noticing local weather patterns around you may seem agnadotal (even un-scientific). This is what many people base there climate knowledge on (local variations). Most people don't worry about environmental disasters in the 3rd world, which are mainly caused by deforestation, overpopulation, poor local investment etc... they do not ascociat these events to there own lives because they hardly ever happen. Boscastle was used as an example of environment gone mad, when the same thing happened at Lynmouth/Lynton in the 1950's. So it wasn't unatural or uncommon. Anyway. There is a cooling trend occuring, so there. Where are you, thingychambers69? Could I suggest again that posters update their profiles with a location? It doesn't need to be your street address. Even something generic like "Northern France" would help ... Sorted it out
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Oct 9, 2009 0:26:08 GMT
The Arctic temperatures as shown by COI look very odd: ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpAt present in the Mid-West US and Western Canada, temperatures are far below normal due to the ingress of a large Arctic air-mass. Presumably this was replaced by an equivalent mass of much warmer air, hence "explaining" the COI result. What I can't make up my mind about, is whether this represents a net cooling or warming for the planet. The air that entered the Arctic would cool very rapidly at this time of year, but the cold air further South would not radiate so much, but would provide a much higher albedo from snow and ice. Any ideas?
|
|