71
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 10:35 am
miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
and what mantra is that?

That one for example:
"the only habitable continent will be Antarctica by the end of the century if climate change is not controlled"

And that's not from simple rank & file AGW nuts, that's from ... Sir David King, GB Government's chief scientific adviser. http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/benny%20hill.gif


Is that Benny Hill? I haven't seen one of his shows in ages. I'm not much one for slapstick comedy, but he did make me laugh.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 10:38 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Nir Shaviv only said man's economic activity in forcing climate change does not dominate at the moment but will do next century.

He's not a AGW denier.

Moreover he's a cheat

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

Rahmstorf, Rahmstorf, let me see...
Isn't he the man who published in 2006 a simulation (translation "playstation science) which state that Europe may plunge into a imminent ice age because of a probable future hypothetical shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, shutdown which is formally excluded by the IPCC 's 2007 report ?

Isn't he the man who made a mini scandal at the publication of the 4AR SPM in Paris, for accusing the IPCC of being too moderate in sea level rise numbers ?

He's not only a hysterical AGWer, he is a cheat.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 10:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Is that Benny Hill? I haven't seen one of his shows in ages. I'm not much one for slapstick comedy, but he did make me laugh.

Yes that's him. RIP.
Now, for the laughing stock, he has been replaced by Sir David King. English humor quality has greatly declined unfortunately.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 03:26 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Rahmstorf, Rahmstorf, let me see...
... ... ...
He's not only a hysterical AGWer, he is a cheat.


Most certainly the University of Potsdam (Institute for Oceanic Sciences) will be glad when you give them your advice.

A cheating professor isn't something they like here.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 04:51 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

108.
Research physicist John W. Brosnahan develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for such clients as NOAA and NASA and has published numerous peer-reviewed research, as well as developed imaging Doppler interferometry for sensing winds, waves, and structure in the atmosphere. "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," Brosnahan wrote to EPW on December 10, 2007. "I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case," Brosnahan explained. "Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S. While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst," he concluded.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:57 pm
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20080516RZ1AP-McCainMutiny.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 08:36 pm
"Notes Shepherd "Recently lower global temps, likely caused by the late start of Solar Cycle 24, already have some greenhouse gassers nervous - particularly amid speculation of a possible impending 'little ice age.'"
Laughing Laughing

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html

The article is now expressing concerns for fruit growers in places like California:

"Warns meteorologist Anthony Watts: "Look out California agriculture. The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing season and more threats of frost, among other things."

This is so predictable. And some people are only happy with a crisis going on, and also perhaps their jobs depend on crisis, otherwise if they told us not to worry, everything is fine, perhaps we would all wonder why are we paying them to study something in perpetuity that isn't a problem.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 12:44 am
okie,Marc Shepherd's "article", which apparently sparked all this crap, seems to have been pulled, without explanation, from American Thinker. Probably with good reason. From the rightwing blogocracy's versions of it, it sounds remarkably far from what NASA actually said. Newsmax as usual seems equally far from reality, for example their phrase "much cooler temperatures". Purest bullshit. What NASA actually says is that the La Nina phase of the PDO will counteract a portion of the anthropogenic temp. rise for a few years, while when it switches to El Nino again in a decade or two, it will add temp. to the AGW rise, but AGW will be going on all the time, so the long-term trend is up. As we can see from the temp. graphs over the last century. No "much cooler" anywhere from NASA. Newsmax, the National Enquirer of the right wing.

Though I do have to say it's a strange kind of hypothesized cause-and-effect when the supposed effect predates each supposed cause by five or six years. I.e. PDO changes to Nina and Nino suggested for 1946 and 1976 respectively, but their supposed associated effects of cooling or heating are generally dated to 1940 and 1970, respectively. How do you get an effect before the change that's supposed to cause it kicks in?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 07:15 am
Then again . . . . who is to say this is any more far fetched than some of the discredited 'science' being used to stir up alarm about global warming?

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Phil Chapman
April 23, 2008

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 10:06 am
miniTAX wrote:
[[........]

Rahmstorf....

Isn't he the man who published in 2006 a simulation (translation "playstation science) which state that Europe may plunge into a imminent ice age because of a probable future hypothetical shutdown of the thermohaline circulation, shutdown which is formally excluded by the IPCC 's 2007 report ?

..........


Minitax - the professor you mention did, as you note, disagree with the IPCC on thermohaline circulation. His mathematical models are respected in the field; besides, considering the amount of nonsense generated by the IPCC (whose models are the laughingstock of the mathematics profession), I'd have thought you'd agree with him.

The way these clowns in the Middle East are talking I'm more worried about some version of "nuclear winter" (yes, cooling, exactly as Prof. Rahmstorf, though via a different etiology) combined with high radiation:

Quote:
They calculated that for the first five years following such a conflict, the ozone loss would average about 20% globally, 25 to 45% over mid-latitudes such as North America and Europe, and 50 to 70% further north. They say these losses are significantly greater than previous "nuclear winter/UV spring" calcuations, which did not adequately represent stratospheric plume rise.

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/33701

And yes, the article on the disappearing sunspots just posted by Foxfyre is yet another cause for worrying about cooling. Maybe we should send all our links to Al Gore Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 10:52 am
Even a non scientist like me does not need to be ignorant of all geography, history, biology, and/or anthropology. Humankind and many other species survived the last ice age and we will almost certainly survive the next one. And there will be a next one.

Meanwhile, there is no doubt that we need to feed six billion people now and will need to feed billions more over the next generations. Simple reason tells us that will be much more possible on a warm, fertile planet.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 11:39 am
Sure.. reason tells you that the best agricultural land is found in areas that get too much or not enough water. Changes in climate means that the rain fall amount could well change. Farmers will tell you that drought is just as bad as too much water.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 11:48 am
We were not talking about water. We are talking about warmer being better than colder. But there have always been seasons of drought and flood throughout the Earth too, and I doubt that is likely to change in the forseeable future either.

I did run across this rather interesting website this week though.
Excerpt:
Quote:
Precipitation in Climate Models
Climate model representations of precipitation processes are very crude. In fact, for warm air masses, the models don't actually grow precipitation systems. They instead use simple 'parameterizations' that are meant to represent the net effects of precipitation on the atmosphere in some statistical sense. There is nothing inherently wrong with using parameterizations to replace more complex physical processes - as long as they accurately represent what controls those processes.


What we really need to know is how the efficiency of precipitation systems changes with temperature. Unfortunately, this critical understanding is still lacking. Most of the emphasis has been on getting the models to behave realistically in how they reproduce average rainfall amounts and their geographic distribution -- not in how the model handles changes in rainfall efficiency with warming.


Fortunately, we now have new satellite evidence which sheds light on this question. Our recently published, peer-reviewed research shows that when the middle and upper tropical troposphere temporarily warms from enhanced rainfall activity, the precipitation systems there produce less high-altitude cirroform (ice) clouds. This, in turn, reduces the natural greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, allowing enhanced infrared cooling to outer space, which in turn causes falling temperatures. (Our news release describing the study is here.)


This is a natural, negative feedback process that is counter-intuitive for climate scientists, most of whom believe that more tropical rainfall activity would cause more high-level cloudiness, not less. Whether this process also operates on the long time scale involved with global warming is not yet known for sure. Nevertheless, climate models are supposedly built based upon observed atmospheric behavior, and so I challenge the modelers to include this natural cooling process in their models, and then see how much global warming those models produce.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 12:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Even a non scientist like me does not need to be ignorant of all geography, history, biology, and/or anthropology. .......


Foxfyre - of course not; I'm surprised this idea even crossed your mind - if anyone suggested it, he can't have read much of what you've written.

Besides, I'm no scientist either - mathematics isn't a science Smile
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 12:40 pm
Of course, temperature in one part of the globe wouldn't possibly affect the rain fall amounts on another part of the globe.

El Nino and El Nina must just be figments of somebodies imagination.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 12:54 pm
Thanks High Seas. I doubt anybody posting on this thread is a climate expert, but it is a subject that both fascinates me and bothers me.

A couple of days ago my daughter got home from a trip to Africa and was obviously moved by the abject poverty she saw there. The best part of American Idol for me this year was their "Idol gives back" segment and the charitable work among impoverished people they were promoting. The recent rice shortage protests should be a wakeup call to everybody. And here, in the land of plenty, I observe little old ladies and men, probably living mostly on social security, pick up small packages of meat or produce at the grocery store, check the price, put it back and move on with so very little in their shopping cart. Who can see that without caring?

To me we should be looking for ways to increase food production and lower its cost. We should be looking for ways to help people climb out of poverty instead of promoting policies that will likely keep them stuck there for many more generations to come.

And it is for all these reasons that I am interested in this global warming stuff and adament that we need to fully understand what we are dealing with and get it right before we start making international policy with the potential to so deeply affect people.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 03:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Explain your statement that 'he is a cheat' please.

Rahmstorf et al wrote:


The authors (Shaviv and Veizer) applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation.



Thats as near, in peer reviewed scientific papers, as it gets to saying cheat[/b]
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 03:31 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Explain your statement that 'he is a cheat' please.

Rahmstorf et al wrote:


The authors (Shaviv and Veizer) applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation.



Thats as near, in peer reviewed scientific papers, as it gets to saying cheat[/b]


With respect, Steve, that's not the case in mathematical modeling, though of course you must disclose any data filtering or other adjustments up front and in excruciating detail. I'd have to look at the original article to be more precise - do you have a link, or know the database that does?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 03:44 pm
only the original nasa publication which I believe links to the original data


http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 08:02 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/12/2024 at 04:18:20