72
   

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

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 08:52 am
@Frank Apisa,
35.9°C in the moment.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2015 09:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
Very Happy Actually it is a measurement joke . We artificially segment all natural processes for our convenience . Water is rather convenient for measuring and there are some benefits for a life form to use it to measure heat . It would be messy to use something like the frequency of radiation given off and the material and its state, but humans have gauged the heat in things like glass and metals very accurately by their radiation before 'degrees' were invented . Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 10:10 pm
So...back to the topic . If the planet warmed we would use less CO2 because we currently use more for heating then we do for cooling . There is no scientific evidence man made CO2 will warm the enitre planet, which is after all, a self correcting system . The climate of the Earth and any changes should be measured in cycles of 100,000 years, not parados's aunt Nelly's arthritis is worse this year . The sun is the main driver of climate on earth, and the effect of that is tempered by the location of continents and their size and shape, mountains, ocean currents, shallow and deep seas, and volcanic activity .

No one can prove climate change by man . The test tube is way too big and complex and takes a very long time by human terms to change . Most of what the GWThuggees come up with is alarmist politics driven by green and greed .
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 08:03 pm
@Ionus,
I wonder whether we can accurately measure pH of the ocean in various plces?
In chem lab, we could measure pH down to 0.01 pH units.
The oceans are basic, but that oceanic pH has decreased by about 0.1 units in the last 150 years, (thats actually a pretty detectable value based upon all the techniques weve had at our disposal in the last 100 years or so (acid titration, Eh/pH meters, free probes, etc).
I am unsure the cause of climate warming but I am certain we can measure every classical symptom of it with pretty good accuracy.
I think you should read other mags than just anti GW literature. The web is loaded with the anti side , mostly because its all self published.
Climatological data cant ignore the fact that climate is changing an conveniently, its change corresponds with the industrial revolution. NOW, in my mind, is the amount of industrial effluvia enough to be effective at tipping the scales toward a fast warming cimate??

Im convinced of aerosol and oceanic chemistry . The ocean is a big "sink" for about a third of the daily output of methane and CO2 9and other gases).
The CO2 seems to be dissociating and the change in the pH that results is showing us that some coral tests and molluscan shells (THOSE made of Aragonite, not calcite) are actually thinning and going into solution.

As far as water level rise, the USGS standard for measurement of water level rise is based on minimal acceptable datum points that must be accurate to 0.01 ft. on routine monitoring and to 0.001 ft for environmental hydrology.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 08:27 pm
@farmerman,
I think we can agree that in practice it is very difficult to measure sea level water rise . We have only been doing it for a very short time but it does not show enough for concern . I need to research more on ocean acidity .

Quote:
I think you should read other mags than just anti GW literature.
That is definitely good advice and I have done that starting some years ago . That is why I decided GW was bullshit .

No where has anyone said what the temperature of the earth should be, how wide is its normal fluctuations, and where are we in respect to natural cycles that bring about Ice Ages . Without this knowledge, GW is a guess .

Most of the scientific papers on GW support it and are done by the same 200 people furiously trying to convince others by volume .

It is redundant to tell an actual scientist like yourself of how many changes the Earth has gone through . Every modern change we witness must be carefully sorted for man made and natural causes . To say it is happening at the same time as industrial spread is meaningless . One has to prove causative relationships . Not a "what else could it be" approach . Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs and before I hand over any money to stop humans progressing I want to be convinced it is absolutely necessary .

There is a conspiracy element in that the greens, never known for their rational nature are on one side, and big business is on the other . Two old enemies and thrown into the mix is too many wars over oil . However, we already have a mechanism for sorting out dwindling resources, and its called a free economy . Why do GWTuggees want to bypass the democratic process and have everyone do as they say ?

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 09:31 pm
@Ionus,
GW is real, I dont think you can deny that . You seem to want to deny the means of measurement of sea level rise. There are quite a few different techniques involved and all seem to agree within acceptable method limits. An avg of about 2mm /yr, with a spike or two in the end of the last century.
We can mesure it by geostationary satellites with ultra accurate clocks all calibrated for every kind of wobble and precession and planetary cycle we can measure. Tidal gages , also, are very sophisticated instruments that are corrected for tectonic forces in active areas (we also can measure continental drift in the cm/yr area0.
Theres a trick called Ghyben Herzberg and a newer hydrodynamic equation set that allows ocen measurements by monitoring ground water levels along sea coasts.
All these are methods that say the same numbers.

You know we can measure an atoms vibration and the distance to a star by parallax?
We can measure the ionic radius of almost all the elements. SO, measuringsomething to a mm or a cm is like a highway.

Mesurement of the acidification fo the ocean, although not a direct cause of GW, is, at least, a symptom.

The warm periods of the Cenozoic have shown to be rather cyclic and the specific sunspot or woble or Daansgaard cycles may be the entire cause or part cause. I dont think , as an earth scientist, I fully buy the "its all humanity's fault". But the more evidence I see, the more that this GW cycle seems to be reaching higher avg temps worldwide than the previous interglacial periods and, MOTS IMPORTANT, the measurments on sea acidifcation and ice core isotopes, and chemical erosion of marble statuary(and things like tombstones) since the 1700;s show an acceleration of chemical erosion with time since the 1700's . I cant ignore these data. I certainly cant say its bullshit. Its data that is repeatable, comes together by several overlapping means, and has been done by thousands of scientists.

As far as the "200 scientists", I think that we are both not accepting anthropogenic GW. WHere we differ is that I dont deny its occurence and Im still looking at as much data as I can read. (both sides). Theres hundreds of thousands of real scientists who accept an anthropogenic GW. You and I are in a minority
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 09:53 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
GW is real, I dont think you can deny that .
I can, whether I am right is another matter Very Happy If we look at Ice Ages as having a cycle and Glacial Advances within those ages having their own cycle, why cant GW enthusiasts tell us where we are as they need to discount that in order to confirm we are experiencing AGW ? They have taken a very small snapshot and said it must be man's fault .

We have .5 C degrees rise in temp . Not quite a calamity . Most scientists do not agree that even if AGW is true, that it will be catastrophic . That is the green crowd and their agenda .

Quote:
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."


We are not alone, FM.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 09:58 pm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v357/n6376/abs/357293a0.html

Quote:
Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios

T. M. L. Wigley & S. C. B. Raper

Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.

A new set of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios has been produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Incorporating these into models that also include the effects of C02 fertilization, feedback from stratospheric ozone depletion and the radiative effects of sulphate aerosols yields new projections for radiative forcing of climate and for changes in global-mean temperature and sea level. Changes in temperature and sea level are predicted to be less severe than those estimated previously, but are still far beyond the limits of natural variability.

For starters, it is only land ice that will affect sea levels . The models used are constantly adjusted down because they have repeatedly shown inflated figures . The first models left out water vapour, as shockingly stupid as that may seem, because they didnt have the data . I maintain they dont have the temp data either . How did they decide what is natural variability ?

Will IPCC ever conclude it is wasting money and disband itself....hahahahahahaha
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 10:54 pm
The problem with measuring sea level height is not how accurate we can measure a body of water, it is where to measure and what degree of accuracy is a best reflection of events . This is a problem of fractal mathematics . How long is a coastline . What scale do we measure the impact of rising seas on the world ? Knowing which level to get off at is very important . Discounting sinking land masses is also very important .

Burntcoat Head in the Minas Basin, Nova Scotia, has the greatest mean spring range with 14.5 metres (47.5 feet) and an extreme range of 16.3 metres (53.5 feet) . The smallest tides in the world occur in the Mediterranean, peaking at just 2-3cm (1") . The Bathurst Bay Cyclone, also known as Tropical Cyclone Mahina, which struck Bathurst Bay, Australia on March 5, 1899, is generally credited with the world record for storm surge . The cyclone's storm surge is variously listed at 13 - 14.6 meters (43 - 48 feet) . Individual storm waves and ocean rollers range from a regular 7 metres (23 feet) to 30.5 metres (100 feet) .

Most data is based on the last 18 years . Whilst science can overcome these many problems, it should not be taken as an iron clad guarantee of real events as the techniques methodology are all new .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 11:32 pm
@Ionus,
The problem really is that tide gauges are located along coasts, therefore large areas of the ocean aren’t being included in data and estimates. So simple averages aren’t representative of a true global mean value.

See: Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise

Ionus wrote:
Most data is based on the last 18 years .
From whom do you know this?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 02:41 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I think you should read other mags than just anti GW literature. The web is loaded with the anti side , mostly because its all self published.

That's not the reason. Simply, all this web propaganda is fake science all paid for by big oil to confuse the debate.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 03:06 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Quote:
Ionus wrote: Most data is based on the last 18 years .

From whom do you know this?
Several sources use data from 1992 to 2010 for the studies . 1992 was the first use of satellite measuring . I should have been more accurate then to say the last 18 years . I also found references to some studies that werent dated but I believe were published around 2010 .
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 03:14 am
http://www.sciencealert.com/why-we-should-be-more-concerned-than-amazed-by-the-plankton-lighting-up-tasmania-s-waterways

Quote:
The beautiful plankton lighting up Tasmania are actually really worrying
"The displays are a sign of climate change."


And before anyone asks, no, I'm not actually reading this thread. Mr. Green

Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 03:26 am
@FBM,
The planet is a self correcting system . A little in one direction is no need to panic . That warm current change is headed south to cool down . Before GW enthusiasts became trendy it probably wouldn't have been noticed, let alone thought of as the harbinger of doom .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 03:33 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Several sources use data from 1992 to 2010 for the studies . 1992 was the first use of satellite measuring . I should have been more accurate then to say the last 18 years . I also found references to some studies that werent dated but I believe were published around 2010 .
You didn't mention at all that you referred to satellite measuring .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 07:51 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
The planet is a self correcting system
tell that to the guys back in the PErmian, Ordovician, Cretaceous, and the mid Cenozoic extinctions. It appears that life is the only card that is lost whenever the planet "corrects itself"
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 08:00 am
@farmerman,
Yet here we are....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 08:04 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
This is a problem of fractal mathematics

Interesting,How do you arrive at that??

Quote:
Burntcoat Head in the Minas Basin, Nova Scotia, has the greatest mean spring range with 14.5 metres (47.5 feet) and an extreme range of 16.3 metres (53.5 feet)
and this means what specifically? Are you aware of the myriad of tidal and Fundy stilling columns that exist in the entire BAY (Minas basin is one of two fault defined "Splits" in the Bay of Fundy and it is from much of the tidal gages in Minas and Chignecto that we can get accurate readings on post Pleistocene rebound).
As far as being "dubious" data, perhapps , as I said before, the continuous acceptance of anti GW literature without deeper inspection and review, constitutes "Agenda driven" worldviews.

Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 08:08 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
and this means what specifically?
It means it has the most extreme range of tide in the world . Why did you select that one of the statistics I gave ?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 08:25 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
It means it has the most extreme range of tide in the world


That has nothing to do with your attempt at debunking GW. The Bay of Fundy has always been known to have some of the widest ranges of tides in the world. Thats why its all gaged up like a cardiac patient. The segement on the noel shore of Minas is an area where industry has been doing reserch on tidal power generation so Its pretty well understood and the increases of the tidal range in its seasonal cyclicity has evidenced sea level rise, even in this, a difficult area to analyze.

Some of the most interesting evidence are the "presumpscott Formations" of coastal Maine and Nova Scotia. These are marine deposits that occured in the late Pleistocene as the Ice melted and sediments built up coastal bars that contained all kinds of marine fossils. These formations had been lifted high as the land rebounded from the unqeighting of Ice. Now, these formations are once again being inundated as sea levels are rising (These formations are stked and GPS surveyed by thousands of geology students from Nova SCotia Universities and New ENgland U's who are doing all kinds of geotechnical theses and dissertations.

There is so much data on the deep eb regarding Minas basin nd Fundy and Noel bank gages that it could choke a whale.


Merely posing a flick without any understanding of what you can do with it, doesnt help any arguments that are supposed to be "open minded"

Your statement that the IPCC should disband itself says a lot about how folks make up their minds and close off any other input.
Not that Im accusing you of that.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 07:25:15