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

I should have reordered my post. The reasons I would cite mostly have to do with the first and second law of thermo.

T
K
O

0 Replies

username wrote:

ican, rather than "thinking the correct number", you might want to actually read some of the literature. The IPCC, in their SAR, TAR, and now FAR, have looked at the research and quantified contributions. From the SAR onward, solar variability has figured around 25-30%. The recent research, several papers of which have been cited, repeatedly, on this topic, support that figure. Human contribution has consistently been the PRIMARY (in your terms, over 50%) of the cause of climate change. They've done the numbers. If you disagree, rather than "thinking", or pulling numbers out of a hat, I suggest you tell us why. They've got the evidence. You don't.

This appears to be a significant admission, one which was not admitted a few years ago. Anyone can do a simple calculation to indicate the sun has increased in solar output to account for an increase of almost 0.3 C in the past 100 years. And this does not count the possibility that some bands of increased radiation may affect cloud cover. So that would mean the 25 to 30% is on the low side if anything.

And can anyone tell us how much the heat island effect has changed and can anyone tell us the effect of very questionable conditions immediately surrounding some weather stations? I posted this once before, but this shows how different the Armagh Observatory graph looks compared to other Central England stations, with the Armagh site being a location that has undergone very little land use change over the past 100 years, while other stations have undergone more change.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Armagh_vs_CET.html

I also like to cite ocean temperatures which are less likely to suffer bias because of the heat island effect, etc. The following graph starts in 1978, but although experiencing some rise during the past approximately 30 years, the November, 2007 temp of 16.05 appears to be about the same as 1978, which is hardly a precipitous rise and not as much as the graph of the surface air temperature.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsLand.html

0 Replies

Eco-friendly farts:

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3300953.ece

0 Replies

okie, the possible solar component in the IPCC assessments is not an "admission", not is it something that was 'not admitted a few years ago". If you people actually had actually read the IPCC reports, instead of relying on the naysayers who never present the whole picture and regularly omit data, you would have found out long ago that it was included in the assessment and has been for at least ten years or so, which was well before the denialist spinmongers got on their high horse--maybe even as far back as the first assessment report, which I haven't read. And, no, the figures have been consistent, and if you want to think they're on the low side, then you're going to have to do some research that contradicts all the research that's already been done.

Heat islands have also never been ignored. The successive assessment reports talk about them and some of the remaining uncertainties. So far there's no indication that they significantly alter the conclusions. Nor do you guys in your harping on them ever seem to consider the full effect of urbanisation, other than heat islands. Do you ever even think about the fact that cities (your "heat islands") tend to increase rainfall, both over themselves and downwind, since they are huge emitters of atmosphere particulates and aerosols, which

A. can increase albedo (depending on what the aerosols are), thus having a cooling effect, and

B. act as cloud condensate nuclei (you need CCNs for atmospheric water vapor to condense around, to make raindrops) increasing rainfall downwind, and again producing a cooling effect overall.

You gonna talk, do the walk. Deal with ALL the effects, and find out about ALL the data before you talk.

0 Replies

okie, and as I mentioned before, 2007 from recent reports was a la nina year. El ninos/la ninas appear around Christmas (which is why it's called "el nino" actually, if your Spanish is up to it)--give or take a month or two, so any ocean temperature for November is very likely to be low, because la ninas upwell a lot of cooler water over a large portion of the Pacific, Which of course Steve Milloy, the public relations hack who is Mr. "Junk Science", is not likely to mention. So don't try to draw any long-term conclusions from one sea surface temperature. Again. look at ALL the data, not just cherry-picked bits.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

username wrote:
ican, rather than "thinking the correct number", you might want to actually read some of the literature. The IPCC, in their SAR, TAR, and now FAR, have looked at the research and quantified contributions. From the SAR onward, solar variability has figured around 25-30%. The recent research, several papers of which have been cited, repeatedly, on this topic, support that figure. Human contribution has consistently been the PRIMARY (in your terms, over 50%) of the cause of climate change. They've done the numbers. If you disagree, rather than "thinking", or pulling numbers out of a hat, I suggest you tell us why. They've got the evidence. You don't.

This appears to be a significant admission, one which was not admitted a few years ago. Anyone can do a simple calculation to indicate the sun has increased in solar output to account for an increase of almost 0.3 C in the past 100 years. And this does not count the possibility that some bands of increased radiation may affect cloud cover. So that would mean the 25 to 30% is on the low side if anything.

One small problem with your "calculation" okie is that you don't account for the amount of the sun's energy that is radiated back into space. Just calculating the energy that reaches the earth doesn't tell you how much the earth would warm.
A simple example..
Assuming you are adding water to a bucket at a given rate and the bucket always remains 3/4 full. Now if we increase the rate we add water to the bucket will it get fuller or not? You can't tell just from the information given.
1. The bucket drains from a hole on the bottom that drained at the same rate we were previously filling it so increasing the rate of filling would add more water to the bucket.
2. The bucket is tipped at an angle and excess water runs out the top. No matter HOW fast we add water we can never fill the bucket more than 3/4 full.

Your calculation okie doesn't determine how fast the earth radiates heat. The calculations published by the IPCC do calculate those variables.

Satellite readings of solar energy have shown that the variations in solar sun spots has an effect of about 1% of the total energy output of the sun. The 25-30% argument is moot since it only relates to a 1% increase in energy. Satellite readings are NOT affected by cloud cover.

Quote:

I also like to cite ocean temperatures which are less likely to suffer bias because of the heat island effect, etc. The following graph starts in 1978, but although experiencing some rise during the past approximately 30 years, the November, 2007 temp of 16.05 appears to be about the same as 1978, which is hardly a precipitous rise and not as much as the graph of the surface air temperature.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsLand.html

You do like to cite this. Perhaps you like to cite junkscience because their data can NOT be checked. The supposed source for their data doesn't exist as they cite it. There is no datasource listed where they say it comes from. I have checked several times.

But I did find the data here..
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

You can now dispense with your specious claim that the ocean temperature for Nov 2007 was the same as Nov 1978. Nov 2007 was .15C higher.

0 Replies

username wrote:

okie, and as I mentioned before, 2007 from recent reports was a la nina year. El ninos/la ninas appear around Christmas (which is why it's called "el nino" actually, if your Spanish is up to it)--give or take a month or two, so any ocean temperature for November is very likely to be low, because la ninas upwell a lot of cooler water over a large portion of the Pacific, Which of course Steve Milloy, the public relations hack who is Mr. "Junk Science", is not likely to mention. So don't try to draw any long-term conclusions from one sea surface temperature. Again. look at ALL the data, not just cherry-picked bits.

Except okie doesn't look at the data. He looks at graphs and fails to read them properly time and again. This is not the first time he has claimed a graph supports his claim and when the data used to create the graph is checked it is completely different from his claim.

0 Replies

One tactic graph makers user to confuse the graphically challenged is to lop off the bottom 90% of the graph, thus making the deviations look much larger than they really are.

I've seen this time and time again from the global warming conspirators.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

One tactic graph makers user to confuse the graphically challenged is to lop off the bottom 90% of the graph, thus making the deviations look much larger than they really are.

I've seen this time and time again from the global warming conspirators.

What? You can't read the numbers on the sides?

0 Replies

Bert Bolin, a Swedish climate scientist and co-founder of the Nobel Peace-winning U.N. panel on climate change, has died at age 82.

His last book, ''A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' was published in November 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Obit-Bolin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm - One of the largest problems I have with your argument is that you put too much merit into the global average temp.

Do you know what the difference between heat and temperature is?

The First law addresses the net heat and work as being equal to the sum of the total amount of energy. The temperature of a system can reamain the same (or make very small change) with a large change in energy.

I have good reasons to suspect that solar radiation is not the primary cause of climate change.

T
K
O

Please post your "reasons to suspect that solar radiation is not the primary cause of climate change."

I do not now understand what your reasons are and I would very much like to.

Diest TKO wrote:

I should have reordered my post. The reasons I would cite mostly have to do with the first and second law of thermo.

T
K
O

Good! Please cite and explain those reasons which "mostly have to do with the first and second law of thermo."

0 Replies

ican711nm - I think I'll use parados's example with the bucket will help me explain.

Imagine the water to be energy, the net exchange of the energy is in flux with time.

Let's say that the water leaving is through a few hole small. The bucket is left outside with water running into it. Various fluxuations happen in waterpressure and sometimes the water level rises or falls. Either way, over time, equilibrium is achieved.

Let's say algae starts to grow in the bucket. Specifically around the holes in which the water escapes. At first nothing really happens, but after time it builds up and starts to decrease the amount of water leaving the system.

The next time a flux in water pressure occurs the bucket rises two inches instead of one inch. Further it takes much langer to reach equilibrium.

Now imagine a system where the holes are kept clean. there are 10 small fish in the bucket and they eat algae. The fish represent the trees.

Let's also introduce the fact that there is a rock composed of several minerals in the bucket. The rock represents earth and it's resources.

On the rock, there exists a micro-organism which breaks down the rock. As the rock is broken down, phosphorus is released into the water. The micro-organis represents the humans.

So as the rock is slowly broken down the phosphorus begins to escape. The increase in phosphorus makes the algae grow faster than the fish can eat it. To top that, the micro-organism kills 5 of the fish.

What happens to the holes?
What happens to the water level?

I believe the world responds in a similar way. There exists factors inside of the earth's system which seriously contribute to the earth's ability to achieve equilibrium. The earth's climate system then responds in more dramatic ways which damage ecology and create crisis for human beings.

This hypothesis is in argeement with the 1st and second law of thermo.
dw + dq = etot, thermal eficiancy, etc.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm - I think I'll use parados's example with the bucket will help me explain
....
There exists factors inside of the earth's system which seriously contribute to the earth's ability to achieve equilibrium. The earth's climate system then responds in more dramatic ways which damage ecology and create crisis for human beings.
...
This hypothesis is in argeement with the 1st and second law of thermo.
dw + dq = etot, thermal eficiancy, etc.

T
K
O

Thanks for your explanation.

I think there are also factors inside of the earth's system which strongly contribute to the earth's ability to achieve equilibrium. It is these latter factors that have managed to enable humans to survive on this earth for about 250 thousand years. I bet that some of those factors are what first enabled humans to evolve 250 thousand years ago. In other words, I'm daring to allege that our evolution was not a random series of random events, but was rather a deterministic evolution caused by the whole nature of the earth's system.

NOW BACK TO TOPIC
Your and parados's example does not provide sufficient reason for believing the earth's system itself isn't fully capable itself of limiting any long term danger of human emissions into our atmosphere without humans having to limit those emissions themselves. I claim that because their is little evidence that earth's climate is measureably affected by those emissions.

Yes, it's true that the earth has warmed from an annual average of 57.954F in 1911 to an annual average of 59.983F in 1998. That's a warming rate of 2.029F in 87 years = only 0.0233F per year. Since 1998 the earth has has cooled 0.238F in 9 years to an annual average of 59.745F in 2007. That so far is a faster cooling rate of 0.0264F per year than the previous warming rate of 0.0233F per year, and it occurred while CO2 emissions et cetera were increasing.

Who shall we believe? IPCC or several hundred desenting scientists?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Yes, it's true that the earth has warmed from an annual average of 57.954F in 1911 to an annual average of 59.983F in 1998. That's a warming rate of 2.029F in 87 years = only 0.0233F per year. Since 1998 the earth has has cooled 0.238F in 9 years to an annual average of 59.745F in 2007. That so far is a faster cooling rate of 0.0264F per year than the previous warming rate of 0.0233F per year, and it occurred while CO2 emissions et cetera were increasing.

Wow.. talk about selective statistics. Why don't you do the math from 1910 to 1998. Oh.. that's right. You want to be selective in your stats and pick out 1911 because it is an anomaly.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Who shall we believe? IPCC or several hundred desenting scientists?

It's not about "who," it's about what conclusion has been done with the best method.

I'm still curious as to why you focus so much on the global average tempurature as a means to disprove climate change. Can you clear this up for me?

ican711nm wrote:

Your and parados's example does not provide sufficient reason for believing the earth's system itself isn't fully capable itself of limiting any long term danger of human emissions into our atmosphere without humans having to limit those emissions themselves. I claim that because their is little evidence that earth's climate is measureably affected by those emissions.

My example was to illustrate what I believed and why, nothing more. I understand the world is not a bucket with water pouring into it. As for the earth's system for limiting the long term danger of human emmissions, the burden of proof is not on me. You're asking me to prove a negtive. If you believe this exists, you need to prove it, not me.

The statement that there is little evidence is incorrect. there is a great deal of evidence, and as we continue to study the evidence continues to converge.

Climate is not measureable by temp alone. Remember, their is no such thing as a "global average climate" to summarize the world's climate. Climate itself is a more closely defined entity. There is only local climates, and this is where ecology is being hurt.

You can't just say there is "little evidence." You can say you are surprized by the evidence, but you can't wish its non-existance.

T
K
O

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Yes, it's true that the earth has warmed from an annual average of 57.954F in 1911 to an annual average of 59.983F in 1998. That's a warming rate of 2.029F in 87 years = only 0.0233F per year. Since 1998 the earth has has cooled 0.238F in 9 years to an annual average of 59.745F in 2007. That so far is a faster cooling rate of 0.0264F per year than the previous warming rate of 0.0233F per year, and it occurred while CO2 emissions et cetera were increasing.

Wow.. talk about selective statistics. Why don't you do the math from 1910 to 1998. Oh.. that's right. You want to be selective in your stats and pick out 1911 because it is an anomaly.

I picked 1911, because it was the year with the coldest average annual global temperature in the 20th century. I picked 1998, because it was the year with the warmest average annual global temperature in the 20th temperature. I picked 2007, because it was until 2 days ago the current year.

TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS FROM THE REFERENCE NORM IN CELSIUS
1900 -0.223
1901 -0.302
1902 -0.431
1903 -0.509
1904 -0.554
1905 -0.412
1906 -0.329
1907 -0.507
1908 -0.559
1909 -0.564
1910 -0.548
1911 -0.581
1912 -0.491
1913 -0.489
1914 -0.305
1915 -0.213
1916 -0.434
1917 -0.506
1918 -0.388
1919 -0.331
1920 -0.314
1921 -0.261
1922 -0.381
1923 -0.347
1924 -0.360
1925 -0.274
1926 -0.162
1927 -0.254
1928 -0.255
1929 -0.376
1930 -0.165
1931 -0.124
1932 -0.155
1933 -0.297
1934 -0.159
1935 -0.184
1936 -0.152
1937 -0.034
1938 +0.009
1939 -0.001
1940 +0.018
1941 +0.077
1942 -0.031
1943 -0.028
1944 +0.120
1945 -0.007
1946 -0.205
1947 -0.197
1948 -0.204
1949 -0.211
1950 -0.309
1951 -0.169
1952 -0.074
1953 -0.027
1954 -0.251
1955 -0.281
1956 -0.349
1957 -0.073
1958 -0.010
1959 -0.072
1960 -0.123
1961 -0.023
1962 -0.021
1963 +0.002
1964 -0.295
1965 -0.216
1966 -0.147
1967 -0.149
1968 -0.159
1969 -0.010
1970 -0.067
1971 -0.190
1972 -0.056
1973 +0.077
1974 -0.213
1975 -0.170
1976 -0.254
1977 +0.019
1978 -0.063
1979 +0.049
1980 +0.077
1981 +0.120
1982 +0.011
1983 +0.177
1984 -0.021
1985 -0.038
1986 +0.029
1987 +0.179
1988 +0.180
1989 +0.103
1990 +0.254
1991 +0.212
1992 +0.061
1993 +0.105
1994 +0.171
1995 +0.275
1996 +0.137
1997 +0.351
1998 +0.546
1999 +0.296
2000 +0.270
2001 +0.409
2002 +0.464
2003 +0.473
2004 +0.447
2005 +0.482
2006 +0.421
2007 +0.414

THE RATE OF WARMING WAS AT ITS MAXIMUM BETWEEN THE COOLEST YEAR 1911 AND THE WARMEST YEAR 1998. THE RATE OF COOLING TO THE CURRENT YEAR FOLLOWED FROM THE CHOICE OF THE WARMEST YEAR 1998 AND THE CURRENT YEAR 2007.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

0 Replies

Not the rate of warming, the rate of temp with respect to time.

dT/dt =! dq/dt;

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Who shall we believe? IPCC or several hundred desenting scientists?

It's not about "who," it's about what conclusion has been done with the best method.

I'm still curious as to why you focus so much on the global average tempurature as a means to disprove climate change. Can you clear this up for me?

ican711nm wrote:
Your and parados's example does not provide sufficient reason for believing the earth's system itself isn't fully capable itself of limiting any long term danger of human emissions into our atmosphere without humans having to limit those emissions themselves. I claim that because their is little evidence that earth's climate is measureably affected by those emissions.

My example was to illustrate what I believed and why, nothing more. I understand the world is not a bucket with water pouring into it. As for the earth's system for limiting the long term danger of human emmissions, the burden of proof is not on me. You're asking me to prove a negtive. If you believe this exists, you need to prove it, not me.

The statement that there is little evidence is incorrect. there is a great deal of evidence, and as we continue to study the evidence continues to converge.

Climate is not measureable by temp alone. Remember, their is no such thing as a "global average climate" to summarize the world's climate. Climate itself is a more closely defined entity. There is only local climates, and this is where ecology is being hurt.

You can't just say there is "little evidence." You can say you are surprized by the evidence, but you can't wish its non-existance.

T
K
O

I thought temperature was one key indicator of climate change. Define global climate, and global climate change. Then tell me what is the evidence that humans are more than TRIVIAL causers of its changes.

Until you do that, I can most definitely say THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS ARE MORE THAN A TRIVIAL CAUSE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES.

You claimed: "the burden of proof is not on [you]." Yes the burden of proof is on you and your likeminded colleagues, because it is you all who are making the claim that humans are more than a TRIVIAL cause of climate change.

By the way, scientists have proven many a negative. For examples, they have proven that the earth is NOT the center of the universe; various scientific theories have been proven FALSE. Hell yes one can prove a negative. Negatives are easier to prove true than positives because positives usually have to be proven for all relevant cases whereas negatives only have to be proven true for one relevant case.

What dumbass professor told you otherwise?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Not the rate of warming, the rate of temp with respect to time.

dT/dt =! dq/dt;

T
K
O

OK! I stand corrected! I should have said rate of increasing temperature over time. However, I bet you are intelligent enough to have known that was exactly what I meant in the example I posted.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Satellite readings of solar energy have shown that the variations in solar sun spots has an effect of about 1% of the total energy output of the sun. The 25-30% argument is moot since it only relates to a 1% increase in energy. Satellite readings are NOT affected by cloud cover.

If thats true, then it is much larger than I have ever argued. Source?

Quote:

You do like to cite this. Perhaps you like to cite junkscience because their data can NOT be checked. The supposed source for their data doesn't exist as they cite it. There is no datasource listed where they say it comes from. I have checked several times.

But I did find the data here..
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

You can now dispense with your specious claim that the ocean temperature for Nov 2007 was the same as Nov 1978. Nov 2007 was .15C higher.

I clicked your site, Parados, okay no explanation of numbers, but if they are C above or below average, yes 0.15, but that is hardly much. It still indicates little change. The graph is hard to determine exact points, you are correct on that. Try 1979, which shows an impressive jump of 0.0205 C from November, 1979 to 2007. That is impressive, Parados.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know