miniTAX wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:The global mean doesn't have to rise much at all to severely affect the weather which we have become accustomed to...
But all models, the same ones which predict a T rise, also predict a warmer world would lead to LESS variability !
Do you have a citation for this?
Quote:Which is something established in meteorology : extreme events are related to the difference in temperature betwen the tropics and the temperate zones. A GW would reduce this difference and hence bad weather events. You wouldn't find a scientific paper which states otherwise.
Do you have a single scientific study that says the tropics will cool while the rest of the world warms? I can't seem to find one. Your statement certainly ignores how hurricanes are formed. I would consider a hurricane to be an extreme event. I really don't see something as well established in meteorology as you claim that an extreme event is based solely on the temperature difference between the tropics and temperate zones. El Nino which greatly affects US weather for the year is caused by ocean temperatures not atmosphere.
blatham wrote:And just a tip...I don't have a nationalistic bone in my body. Reference to things Canadian will gain no special traction with the single exception of my affinity for the "I am a lumberjack" skit from Monty Python.
My example just happens to be an address to Canada as it may be to the Papouasia government. What was stressed is the emitters, not the receveir. BTW, you are confusing the science and politics. What is your political motivation is your personal choice. There is nothing to argue about it.
What is in question is the facts about GW. And the fact is that there is no consensus about ANTHROPOGENIC GW.
I can couter your accusations of industry medling by citing the enormous sums all green NGO have received thanks to renewed attention (hystery? ) about GW, I can tell about climate scientists under pressure or fired when Gore was vice president, I can tell about green activism at helm at the UN or in most governments when GW is about... But we won't have a sincere discussion based on collaborative research et information sharing. So I'm not interested.
Discussion terminated.
Please do tell us about the climate scientists fired when Gore was VP.
Provide a citation as well from an unbiased source.
miniTAX wrote:blatham wrote:And just a tip...I don't have a nationalistic bone in my body. Reference to things Canadian will gain no special traction with the single exception of my affinity for the "I am a lumberjack" skit from Monty Python.
My example just happens to be an address to Canada as it may be to the Papouasia government. What was stressed is the emitters, not the receveir. BTW, you are confusing the science and politics. What is your political motivation is your personal choice. There is nothing to argue about it.
What is in question is the facts about GW. And the fact is that there is no consensus about ANTHROPOGENIC GW.
I can couter your accusations of industry medling by citing the enormous sums all green NGO have received thanks to renewed attention (hystery? ) about GW, I can tell about climate scientists under pressure or fired when Gore was vice president, I can tell about green activism at helm at the UN or in most governments when GW is about... But we won't have a sincere discussion based on collaborative research et information sharing. So I'm not interested.
Discussion terminated.
But...you said you loved me. My mother was right about you all along.
As the poster above suggests, you really ought to provide some evidence for the Gore claim. And further, whether or not you might respond to my posts doesn't, of course, entail I won't comment on yours. For example, I'd really love to see you provide a credible comparison of the money spent by energy industries here versus 'green' folks (sending off what they can after cutting down on granola and soya purchases).
But you are correct on the matter of what I address. I don't have a science background adequate to critique a geophysical report or claim, etc. And I confess I'm not personally interested in gaining the sophisticated knowledge and expertise necessary.
On the other hand, political and logical address to the claims and issues is not only valid, but necessary.
So, I'll stick around.
blatham wrote:But...you said you loved me. My mother was right about you all along.
Yeah, love you, like love all humans and much more than the planet or the environment :wink:
blatham wrote:
First, that energy industries have acted as detailed above. There are many more such examples, it isn't a singular case. The goal has not been to forward "truth" or good science, but rather, to protect investment and wealth
It all depends on which side you consider propaganda. I think there is ample evidence of propaganda coming from the "sky is falling" crowd, as opposed to science supported by industry. I look at industry as the "doers" and "producers" in society, and they tend to have a more realistic view of the realities facing us in terms of energy required and how it can be most feasibly and efficiently produced. They have solutions to the problems.
On the opposing side, we have the alarmists that say we are headed for disaster based on questionable assumptions, and they have few practical solutions. Their alarm is based as much on emotion as it is evidence, and the solutions they propose are not realistic in practical and economic terms. In addition, even if their solutions were practical, they do not impact the problem in any manner that is commensurate with the gravity of the problem as they perceive it and explain it to us.
Perhaps someone would like to comment on the study below which referenced solar forcing on global surface temperature
N. Scafetta
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
B. J. West
Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
We study the role of solar forcing on global surface temperature during four periods of the industrial era (1900-2000, 1900-1950, 1950-2000 and 1980-2000) by using a sun-climate coupling model based on four scale-dependent empirical climate sensitive parameters to solar variations. We use two alternative total solar irradiance satellite composites, ACRIM and PMOD, and a total solar irradiance proxy reconstruction. We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 global warming, and 25-35% of the 1980-2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.
Received 19 December 2005; accepted 30 January 2006; published 9 March 2006.
Index Terms: 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513); 1626 Global Change: Global climate models (3337, 4928); 1650 Global Change: Solar variability (7537); 1699 Global Change: General or miscellaneous; 1739 History of Geophysics: Solar/planetary relationships.
*************************************************************
Or, someone could review these comments!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source-"The Skeptical Environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg-p. 277-278
Dr. Lomborg's comment on this problem is illuminating( no pun intended) when he wrote:
"This theory( more intense solar activity) also has the tremendous advantage, compared to the greenhouse theory, that it CAN EXPLAIN THE TEMPERATURE CHANGES from 1860 to 1950 which the rest of the climate scientists WITH A SHRUG OF THEIR SHOULDERS HAVE ACCREDITED TO
" NATURAL VARIATION"
end of quote
Isn' t that nice, "Natural variation"!!!!
Perhaps someone would comment on one of the CONCLUSIONS made by the IPCC(THE INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE--THE UN'S GLOBAL WARMIST GROUP) which said:
www.tcsdaily.com/article/aspx?id=060701F
QUOTE:
"Because there is CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, CURRENT ESTIMATES OF THE MAGNITUDE OF FUTURE WARMING SHOULD BE REGARDED AS TENATIVE"
end of quote
Considerable Uncertainty?
Estimates to be regarded as Tentative???
blatham wrote:Quote:Andean glaciers are melting so fast that some are expected to disappear within 15-25 years, denying major cities water supplies and putting populations and food supplies at risk in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1860206,00.html
Damn, I was going to post that article this morning. It has a nice graphic in the actual newspaper.
Oh well, it's the early bird that gets the worm....but the second mouse gets the cheese.
blatham wrote:Quote:Andean glaciers are melting so fast that some are expected to disappear within 15-25 years, denying major cities water supplies and putting populations and food supplies at risk in Colombia, Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1860206,00.html
I think there must be a logical error thinking that water supply comes from the melting of glaciers (and then deducing putative human catastrophes). If it were the case, glaciers NOT melting would have much worse consequences ! In fact, it comes from the water cycle. The melting of glaciers must account for a minuscule proportion of the volume of water from precipitation. And water availabilty is much more affected by deforestation and soil erosion (which reduces retention & regulation capacity and favorizes flooding and drought by abrupt variation in volumes of water). Besides, I doubt that countries like Ecuador, Columbia or Venezuela take their water ressources from glaciers rather than their rainforests. It would be absurd to think these rainy countries would lack water because of glaciers rather than poverty, crumbling infrastructure and bad governance. GW alarmism should not lead to such kind of outright deception.
But I agree with the article's conclusion "The international community must invest more in helping poor communities cope with the effect of climate change". I believe adaptation instead of spending ressources in reducing GHG must be a much higher priority. Much better to help the Bangladeshi build anti hurricane shelters than preventing them to use concrete (a big CO2 emitter) to reduce GHG emission.
P.S. BTW, Scandinavian or New Zealand glaciers are expanding, now.
A cute little item on corporate ethics...
Quote:U.S. Report: More Nicotine in Cigarettes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 29, 2006
Filed at 4:12 p.m. ET
BOSTON (AP) -- The level of nicotine found in U.S. cigarettes has risen about 10 percent in the past six years, making it harder to quit and easier to get hooked, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Massachusetts Department of Health.
The study shows a steady climb in the amount of nicotine delivered to the lungs of smokers regardless of brand, with overall nicotine yields increasing by about 10 percent.
Massachusetts is one of three U.S. states to require tobacco companies to submit information about nicotine and the only state with data going back to 1998.
Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. called the findings ''significant'' and said the report was the first new release on nicotine yield in more than six years nationally.
The study found the three most popular cigarette brands with young smokers -- Marlboro, Newport and Camel -- delivered significantly more nicotine than they did years ago. Nicotine in Kool, a popular menthol brand, rose 20 percent. More than two-thirds of black smokers use menthol brands.
Calls to Philip Morris USA, the United States' largest cigarette maker and manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., manufacturer of Kool and Camel cigarettes, were not immediately returned Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Increasing-Nicotine.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
So exceptional is this kind of view published on English mainstream newspaper (maybe with the help of a frigid August or because censors are all in vacations in warm places) that I post it here :
Source :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2331369,00.html
Quote:
There has long been a minority school of thought that is deeply sceptical about the extent to which rising temperatures on this planet can be explained, and blamed, on human activity. The most persuasive subsection of this community is convinced that the principal cause of climate change on Earth is the intensity of solar activity.
This argument is virtually unknown to the wider public. In part this is because the data required truly to prove the case have not been available, although Stereo should change that. It is also because the control exercised in this area by those who contend that global warming can only be man-made resembles that which the Roman Catholic Church once held over the character of the solar system. Public discussion is dominated by those inclined to the most doom-laden predictions, and this lobby is not that wild on the notion that astronomy may come up with a compelling alternative hypothesis. And it probably has not helped the proponents of solar influence that one of their most prominent advocates rejoiced in the name Harry van Loon.
miniTAX wrote:So exceptional is this kind of view published on English mainstream newspaper (maybe with the help of a frigid August or because censors are all in vacations in warm places) that I post it here :
Source :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2331369,00.html
Quote:
There has long been a minority school of thought that is deeply sceptical about the extent to which rising temperatures on this planet can be explained, and blamed, on human activity. The most persuasive subsection of this community is convinced that the principal cause of climate change on Earth is the intensity of solar activity.
This argument is virtually unknown to the wider public. In part this is because the data required truly to prove the case have not been available, although Stereo should change that. It is also because the control exercised in this area by those who contend that global warming can only be man-made resembles that which the Roman Catholic Church once held over the character of the solar system. Public discussion is dominated by those inclined to the most doom-laden predictions, and this lobby is not that wild on the notion that astronomy may come up with a compelling alternative hypothesis. And it probably has not helped the proponents of solar influence that one of their most prominent advocates rejoiced in the name Harry van Loon.
Well, not unexpected from Hames, a political writer who comes down on the conservative ideology side in pretty much all he writes, no?
MiniTAX wrote:
I think there must be a logical error thinking that water supply comes from the melting of glaciers (and then deducing putative human catastrophes). If it were the case, glaciers NOT melting would have much worse consequences ! In fact, it comes from the water cycle. The melting of glaciers must account for a minuscule proportion of the volume of water from precipitation. And water availabilty is much more affected by deforestation and soil erosion (which reduces retention & regulation capacity and favorizes flooding and drought by abrupt variation in volumes of water). Besides, I doubt that countries like Ecuador, Columbia or Venezuela take their water ressources from glaciers rather than their rainforests. It would be absurd to think these rainy countries would lack water because of glaciers rather than poverty, crumbling infrastructure and bad governance. GW alarmism should not lead to such kind of outright deception.
But I agree with the article's conclusion "The international community must invest more in helping poor communities cope with the effect of climate change". I believe adaptation instead of spending ressources in reducing GHG must be a much higher priority. Much better to help the Bangladeshi build anti hurricane shelters than preventing them to use concrete (a big CO2 emitter) to reduce GHG emission.
P.S. BTW, Scandinavian or New Zealand glaciers are expanding, now.
AND HE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
But, Minitax, if you think you will be getting any kind of a reasoned answer from these brain damaged left wingers, you are just fooling yourself.
And I will add to your contribution, MiniTAX-
The fear that "global warming" would melt the polar ice caps has no ground in reality. In fact, the global water levelhas risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the last hundred years and it is estimated that it wil rise by a further 39-49 centimeters over the next hundred.
Source--IPCC 1996a:4,6, 2001a:table 11.10, II.5.1.
MiniTax- The rest of the excellent article by Mr. Hames should be replicated.
Here is more of your link:
There are, nonetheless, three sound reasons to be open to this explanation.
The first is that the conventional global warming stance has huge limitations. It is widely accepted that the average surface temperature on Earth has risen by about 0.5 degrees centigrade over the past 125 years or so. Yet if man's activities were driving this warming process then one would expect the rate of that increase to have accelerated in modern times in response to increasing industrialisation, aircraft flights and so on. This evidence has singularly failed to materialise, despite satellites having been available to measure the Earth's temperature since the late 1970s.
This conundrum is compounded by the knowledge that dramatic climate change on Earth has occurred in the relatively recent past, but well before contemporary inventions came into play. Examinations of ancient tree rings and other data show that temperatures cooled in the 11th century, but rose quite sharply in the 150 years after that, when the Vikings were able to settle in Greenland. Then temperatures slumped again, so much so that the period 1645-1715, when the Thames froze solid most winters in London, is now referred to as "the little ice age", only to reverse course after 1800. None of this could possibly have been triggered by the deeds of low-cost airlines.
Finally, there is what we can already ascertain about the Sun itself. Solar activity has short-term fluctuations such as the familiar sunspot cycle with a duration of about 11 years, and much longer term patterns of solar flares about which we understand less.
There is little doubt that daily atypical solar activity can have an impact on our climate. That is hardly surprising as total solar irradiance (TSI) can vary as much in a space of time as short as a week as the total energy used by humans beings, globally, for a year. The overall energy output of the Sun is far greater in a single second than all human activity could produce in a million years. To the layman such as myself, the claim that the big round yellow thing in the sky may have more influence on the condition of this planet than the 10.45 easyJet flight from Stansted to Palma does have a kind of logic. We laymen are not alone.
In 2003 a team from Columbia University reported that the Sun's heat had increased by 0.05 per cent a decade since the 1970s, the point when completely reliable data started to be collected. This would be enough to have a big influence on the Earth's climate if it were a trend that had continued for many decades. The Columbia team believed that the pattern could be traced back to the mid-19th century at the very least. Others, working with carbon data material, insist that the Sun has been more vigorous in the past six decades than at any time in 8,000 years. It defies reason, surely, to conclude that this would be irrelevant to the climate. Indeed, there is a deep arrogance implicit in the sentiment that if anything on Earth is changing, human beings must be responsible.
end of quote--
An excellent article by Mr. Hames and I would challenge the brain dead left wing to attempt to rebut any of it!!!!
MiniTAX wrote:
May I insist :
1. Global warming is not refutable and easy to detect with modern accurate measurements. Since 1850 when the thermometer was invented, temperature has increased about 0,4°C until 1940, decreased about 0,2°C from 1940 to 1975, and then increased 0,4°C up to now.
2. Attribution of the warming to man activity, especially AGHG is the object of debate, because you have multiple causes to warming, from change in solar activity, albedo and forest change due to soil occupation, the role of aerosols, cosmic rays, astronomical parameters change, el Nino, North Atlantic Oscillation, vulcanism, ocean gaz exchange balance... all affected with considerable incertitude in measument and understanding and are generically called NATURAL VARIABILITY. If you are sure that the warming is anthropogenic, then I challenge you to tell how much we are responsible for the 0,6°C increase of the last century !!! 10%, 50%, 90% ? If you know it, I propose to help you to write a scientific article to be published in research reviews. Fame et reconnoissance guaranteed for you.
end of quote
And, with regard to the theory of more intense solar variation---It certainly has the obvious advantage, compared to the greenhouse theory, that it can explain the temperature changes from 1860 to 1950. When some climate scientists are asked to explain this --they credit 'NATURAL VARIATION"( See NATURAL VARIABLITY mentioned above)
And, MiniTAX, I have asked, on this thread, that someone give me a way to disentangle the NATURAL VARIABILITY( which no one would dare to say is not present) from the supposed warming caused by co2 emissions.
NO ONE HAS DONE SO.
Your point on the riches and fame due to anyone who can show that Natural Variability contributed X to the 0.6C rise in temperature and that Co2 emissions contributed Y to the 0.6C rise in temperaure is just a perfect example of QUESTIONS THAT THE GLOBAL WARMISTS CANNOT ANSWER.
Bernard, I am going to keep monitoring information and research into solar cycles. As you have pointed out, this is one huge, obvious chink in the global warmers / greenhouse gas / sky is falling crowd. They totally ignore this factor, but there are a few scientists around that are not ignoring it and I think are becoming increasingly aware of this factor, so I think more and more will be coming out on this. The evidence is rather compelling I would say so far, and the scientific reasoning is much more sound than all the hoops required to jump through by the manmade CO2 culprit crowd. The tree huggers do not want to look at solar cycles as a serious factor because of course - man does not and cannot influence this, so therefore it negates the political agenda they have embarked upon.
okie wrote:Bernard, I am going to keep monitoring information and research into solar cycles. As you have pointed out, this is one huge, obvious chink in the global warmers / greenhouse gas / sky is falling crowd. They totally ignore this factor, but there are a few scientists around that are not ignoring it and I think are becoming increasingly aware of this factor, so I think more and more will be coming out on this. The evidence is rather compelling I would say so far, and the scientific reasoning is much more sound than all the hoops required to jump through by the manmade CO2 culprit crowd.
Do you think we're all nuts to think anybody is capable of credible long range forecasts, either short term or long term?
All the experts warned us here in New Mexico that we would have another long, hot, dry summer and there was no indication of any break in our decade long drought that was increasing in severity.
Well we're at the end of our best monsoon ever with back to back record breaking rainfall in July and August and the mean temperature has been 7 degrees below normal.
Now of course the drought and heat could return with a vengeance. But nobody forecast a wet, cooler than normal summer for us.
I do not pretend this is any proof whatsoever that global warming is not occurring at a dangerous pace nor that there is no anthropogenic cause for that.
I'm not going to be the least bit surprised, however, that in another 20 years the climate gurus will have found another global crisis to do research on and the great imminent global warming threat of this decade will be a receding memory just like the imminent global cooling threat of the 1970's.
