Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

BernardR wrote:

The Ipcc, in its own reports, said that it is debatable whether there is enough temperature proxy data to be representative of hemispheric, let alone global climate changes given the lack of large spatial scale coherence in the data

As I recall, IPCC's 2001 report said there was scientific consensus over the fact that the earth was warming more than it should.

The only debate was over whether humans were the cause of the unusual warming, with scientists finding that it was more likely than not, but not definite.

IPCC's 2007 report is expected to find that human activity is definitely the cause, and it is expected to find that earlier predictions that the warming would be "moderate at worst" can no longer be supported.

0 Replies

I think most people forget that manmade carbons is a relative newcomer on the scene of geological/atmospheric history. Great forest fires and volcanic activity has a much longer life span that seems to suggest what we are experiencing now are normal cycles of warming of this planet.

How many light years does it take for the sun's light to reach earth?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Great forest fires and volcanic activity has a much longer life span that seems to suggest what we are experiencing now are normal cycles of warming of this planet.

The scientific community disagrees.

cicerone imposter wrote:

How many light years does it take for the sun's light to reach earth?

Are you asking the distance to the sun in lightyears?

0.00001581285

0 Replies

Oralloy- I am very sorry but I am afraid that your recollection is faulty. I will quote from peer reviewed Science Sources.

quote

"At present it is debateable whether there is enough temperature PROXY DATA to be representative of hemispheric, let along global climate changes givewn the lack of large spatial scale coherence in the field" See Barnett et. al. "Detection and attribution of recent climate change: A status report"Bulletin of the American Meterological Society 80(12):2-631-60.

http://ams.allenpress.com

and

"Data seem to indicate that there has been regular recurrence of episodes like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in a roughly 1500-year climatic cycle over the past 140,000 years which would indicate that the 1000-year period is too short to reveal the relevant climatic pattern"

source

Broecker, Wallace S.

"Was the Medieval Warm Period Global"" Science 291(5,508)1497-9

Mr. Oralloy---- I eagerly await your rebuttal of the above and evidence to support your statement!

0 Replies

Mr. Imposter- Oralloy has already hinted that your question about the sun SUGGESTING that it takes a lot of time for the light from the sun to get to the earth shows that you know little about the sun, light from the sun, and the amount of time it takes for the light to get to the earth.

You ask:

How many light years does it take for the sun's light to reach earth?

LIGHT YEARS?

You are far far far off!

Since the Sun is about 92,000,000 miles from the earth and since light travels at a speed of 186,292 MILES PER SECOND, light from the sun trevels to the earth in about eight or nine minutes.

May I respectfully suggest that if you are unsure of your science, that you check it? A mistake like the above is embarrasing.

0 Replies

It's not embarrassing for me, so there's no need to apologize for my mistake. I really meant the stars, and confused it with the sun.

0 Replies

Apology accepted- We all make mistakes. No one can write perfectly on these posts. The only thing that is important is honesty and consistency.

0 Replies

He didn't apologize. He said none was needed.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think most people forget that manmade carbons is a relative newcomer on the scene of geological/atmospheric history. Great forest fires and volcanic activity has a much longer life span that seems to suggest what we are experiencing now are normal cycles of warming of this planet.

How many light years does it take for the sun's light to reach earth?

Fair point, however the human species has an unprecedented ability to influence its environment and so it certainly is not outside the realm of possibility that current signs of climate change are a result of man's influence.

I think the bottom line is that right now we only have theories based on an incomplete body of knowledge. The alarming aspect of this issue is the degree to which ideology and politics are influencing what should be objective scientific thought.

There is not much difference between religion trying to silence scientific discoveries that do not support their dogma, and ideologues trying to steer scientific conclusions towards ends that comport with their dogma.

I have no doubt that this is a dynamic that has operated since science was born, but it is a bit disturbing to see it continue in the 21st Century.

Of course the so-called liberal minded believe that interference with objective science is the lone purview of the conservative minded. The debate on Global Warming proves this is not the case.

Global Warming is, of course, not the only scientific issue which has been sought to be guided by the Left: Witness what happened to the president of Harvard when he had the temerity to suggest that there might actually be biological differences between men and women that extend beyond reproductive organs and secondary sex traits.

Witness the reaction of the Left to any scientist who might suggest that genetic imperatives reliably trump social dynamics in the formulation of personality.

Good scientists are well aware of the danger to the objectivity of their work presented by personal bias, and take great pains to avoid it. What we have with the Global Warming issue is an environment in which reduced allegiance to the scientific method is being rewarded. Scientists are no more capable of resisting temptation than anyone else.

If it is fact that human works are influencing global climate changes, it will stand up to any counter argument and ideological pressure is not needed to support it.

0 Replies

A good post, Finn, but I am sure that you recognize that two of the key problems with the so called Global Warming thesis are:

l. The fact that all of the predictions concerning the future "warming" is done on computers using computer models which make assumptions, some of which are very questionable

2. The fact that the temperature measured by satellites shows very little temperature rise in the last twenty years as compared with the IPCC's surface measurements which are loaded with possible errors because of insufficient coverage, the heat island effect and a short period of coverage--ONLY going back to the time when temperature coverage began.

0 Replies

By the way, Finn. your comment:
quote
Witness the reaction of the Left to any scientist who might suggest that genetic imperatives reliably trump social dynamics in the formulation of personality.
end of quote
is right on target. I have studied extensively in this area and know that the Boas/Mead Paradigm which insists that everything is environmentally based is very far off.

But even to utter a word in this regard leads to an inevitable murder by the PC police!

0 Replies

What is interesting to me about this issue is the notion that proving that human works are causing current global climate changes is somehow crucial.

First of all, considering that none of the current signs of global climate change seem to be unique in comparison to what we know has happened in the past, it is pretty difficult to see how there can ever be a conclusion that human works is the sole cause of these changes and not simply a contributor.

Secondly, what will we, realistically, do with the knowledge that our works are influencing climate change?

We know, without a shadow of a doubt, that mankind's deforestation of the planet is having significant ecological impact and yet to what extent has it been reduced? If the world can not make a few South American and Asian countries preserve their rainforests how does anyone really expect that all the nations of the world can be relied upon to make changes in their behavior for the sake of what now remains theory?

The Kyoto Accord is nothing but a political symbol. Even if the US had become signatory to it, it would not have made a significant difference on global climate changes.

Is this something the Left is willing to go to war on? There is nothing to suggest that China will not sacrifice the world's ecology, in the short term, for it's economical development. Should we force them to do so militarily?

The notion that Global Warming threatens civilization is exaggerate fear-mongering.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that melting ice caps release an enormous amount of water in the world's oceans, and not only raise sea levels but wreck havoc on the oceanic system of warming currents. Probably not something we want to experience, but the end of civilization?

Contrary to what many on the Left believe, civilization does not reside solely on the coasts, and even if somehow it does, the coasts are not going away with a rise in sea level, only moving further inland. And it will not happen overnight a la Hollywood's Day After Tomorrow. Presumably trillions of dollars will be spent to preserve the port cities of the world before they are abandoned, but if worse comes to worse and they must be abandoned and their riches moved inland is it reasonable to believe this will signal the end of civilization.

Or maybe there will be a new Ice Age. Will civilization be destroyed? Unlikely.

The bottom line is that no significant remedial actions will be taken until the crisis is upon us, and then it will likely be too late. Instead our heroic efforts will be focused on responding to the new world in which we live.

I bet on humans and their civilization as tattered and tawdry as it may be.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

A good post, Finn, but I am sure that you recognize that two of the key problems with the so called Global Warming thesis are:

l. The fact that all of the predictions concerning the future "warming" is done on computers using computer models which make assumptions, some of which are very questionable

2. The fact that the temperature measured by satellites shows very little temperature rise in the last twenty years as compared with the IPCC's surface measurements which are loaded with possible errors because of insufficient coverage, the heat island effect and a short period of coverage--ONLY going back to the time when temperature coverage began.

Yes, and I am not drawing any conclusions based on anything I have read. I think it's possible that human works are contributing to global climate changes. I also think it's more than possible that they are not.

I think it's possible that the extent of global climate changes has been exaggerated for ideological reasons.

I think it's possible that we are simply unfortunate enough to be the generation that exists when natural, major changes occur - some generation must be. In the millions of years that dinosaurs ruled the world, there were specific unfortunate individuals who were vaporized when the comet/asteroid hit earth and triggered the extinction of their species.

I don't, however, think it is possible that these changes will occur overnight.

I don't think that these changes, whatever they may be, will destroy any given nation, civilization, mankind, life, or the earth.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

By the way, Finn. your comment:
quote
Witness the reaction of the Left to any scientist who might suggest that genetic imperatives reliably trump social dynamics in the formulation of personality.
end of quote
is right on target. I have studied extensively in this area and know that the Boas/Mead Paradigm which insists that everything is environmentally based is very far off.

But even to utter a word in this regard leads to an inevitable murder by the PC police!

Very true, but there are many who would have us burned at the stake for uttering such heresy --- or simply driven from our professional positions.

0 Replies

Glad to read opinions based in reality. Thanks.
Say, a question about carbon dioxide monitoring Finn or Bernard. Doing internet searches seems to only turn up graphs on carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which I've known for a long time, but good grief, aren't there any other ones anywhere else? I can't seem to find any records. And Mauna Loa is a volcano. Even if its apparently idle, don't they realize volcanoes give off carbon dioxide?

Another question Finn or Bernard, I've seen it mentioned here, but carbon dioxide is only a secondary greenhouse gas next to water vapor. What are the percentages. I could not seem to find this either?

0 Replies

Agreed,Finn! And if we assume that Human Activity has somehow affected the climate, how are we to respond since, as you point out, the activities of China and, yes, India, may make any steps we take moot.

If China and India join us in taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions, on the theory that those emissions MIGHT be influencing the climate very slightly, it would seem that the world must take steps which take into account a cost-benefit ratio.

How can we, without destroying the world's economic output, change our production methods so that the economies keep producing and the ZCo2 is lessened?

There have been and are many proposals offered, not the least of which is nuclear power which, as you may know, has been used by the French, a very pragmatic group, to produce most of their electricity in France with no Co2 emissions.

I am certain that if we stop this insane politically driven chaos scenario, the nations of the world can take steps to bring about technological changes in the next twenty five or thirty years which will be, indeed cost -effective and pollution free!

0 Replies

Okie--You ask a vital question---Try to get

Hall, Alex and Syukuro Manabe 1999 "The role of water vapor feedback in unperturbed climate variablity and global warming" Journal of Climate"
12(8):2,327-46

It would appear that according to the IPCC it is estimated that the direct effect of doubling the atmosphere's CO 2 concentration would be a temperature increase of about 1- 1.2Centigrade. But, it must be noted that the atmosphere has a built in amplification mechanism, because as the Earth heats up, more water will evaporate and the water vapor will develop more heat leading to an effective warming of 1.5 - 4.5--the so-called climate sensitivity.BUT, this only works if the entire lower troposphere warms up making the troposphere able to hold more water. It must also be noted that the troposphere accounts for about 90 percent of the water vapor feedback.

So far, so good, but, the observed troposphertemperature shows NO trend. Little or no temperature increase in the troposphere measn much less water feedbalck and a much smaller warming estimate.

SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS HAVE FOUND ESSENTIALY NO WARMING TREND OVER THE LAST 27 YEARS!!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

oralloy wrote:
As I recall, IPCC's 2001 report said there was scientific consensus over the fact that the earth was warming more than it should.

The only debate was over whether humans were the cause of the unusual warming, with scientists finding that it was more likely than not, but not definite.

Oralloy- I am very sorry but I am afraid that your recollection is faulty. I will quote from peer reviewed Science Sources.

I will quote from IPCC's 2001 report:

"There is a longer and more closely scrutinised temperature record and new model estimates of variability. [b]The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely7 to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current models. Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years (Figure 1b) also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely7 to be entirely natural in origin.[/b]" "[b]Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone (i.e., the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century[/b] (see for example Figure 4a). However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century." "The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance). The anthropogenic sulphate aerosol forcing, while uncertain, is negative over this period and therefore cannot explain the warming. [b]Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely7 to explain the warming.[/b]" [URL=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm]http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm[/URL]

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

IPCC's 2007 report is expected to find that human activity is definitely the cause,

Quote:

Scientists: Humans cause of global warming
By UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Published March 1, 2006

LONDON -- World scientists are expected to soon say greenhouse gas emissions from humankind is the only explanation for ongoing major changes on Earth.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change previously said greenhouse gases were "probably" to blame.

But, in a report expected to be sent to world governments next month, the scientists say rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, must be the cause of simultaneous freak patterns in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems, ocean acidification and wildlife migrations, the BBC said Wednesday.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060301-15231200-bc-britain-climatechange.xml

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Agreed,Finn! And if we assume that Human Activity has somehow affected the climate, how are we to respond since, as you point out, the activities of China and, yes, India, may make any steps we take moot.

If China and India join us in taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions, on the theory that those emissions MIGHT be influencing the climate very slightly, it would seem that the world must take steps which take into account a cost-benefit ratio.

How can we, without destroying the world's economic output, change our production methods so that the economies keep producing and the ZCo2 is lessened?

There have been and are many proposals offered, not the least of which is nuclear power which, as you may know, has been used by the French, a very pragmatic group, to produce most of their electricity in France with no Co2 emissions.

I am certain that if we stop this insane politically driven chaos scenario, the nations of the world can take steps to bring about technological changes in the next twenty five or thirty years which will be, indeed cost -effective and pollution free!

Agreed Bernard, and you make an excellent point: What is the most viable alternative to oil? Nuclear energy, but who will do all in their power to obstruct nuclear energy? The very same people who are demanding we give up oil.

Let's use the sun or the wind! But wait, a group trying to create a windmill field on Cape Cod is running into obstruction from who else but the people who demand we give up oil and refrain from nuclear energy. In this case it's really a "Not In My Backyard" argument.

Here in Texas there is a group trying to develop a windmill field. Their opposition? Bird lovers. The commercial group is spending all sorts of money to determine ways to avoid killing birds, but still the bird lovers are howling. Zero tolerance is insane and the coward's way out.

All of this leads one to the conclusion that the Left is populated by the harebrained who have no concept of logic and allow their emotions to form their decisions. Wait a minute, I already came to that conclusion.

No oil, no nuclear, no wind...SOLAR...until someone discovers that the sort of incredibly massive solar panels in space that would be required to meet our energy needs represent a threat to some effin bug in Katmandu.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know