• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scientists wrong on Greenhouse Warming, Again.

Schneibster said:
I did some looking around, and I don't see a contradictory study; the Willis et al. 2004 paper deals only with data up to 2003, and the Levitus et al. paper deals also with data up to 2003; whereas the Lyman et al. paper deals with data from 2003 to 2005.
Click to expand...

You're quite right, I should have made it clear that as evidence of a long term trend there are numerous papers demonstrating warming; in fact, this one does too. Josh Willis has put in on record that, "This cooling is probably natural climate variability. The oceans today are still warmer than they were during the 1980s, and most scientists expect the oceans will eventually continue to warm in response to human-induced climate change."

It is still contradicted by sea-level measurements, however. Willis again, "The recent cooling episode suggests sea level should have actually decreased in the past two years. Despite this, sea level has continued to rise. This may mean that sea level rise has recently shifted from being mostly caused by warming to being dominated by melting."

Ironically, Willis et al. being right is actually more frightening than them being wrong. If sea warming were to resume at the same rate that they maintain it has reversed... Wanna consider the additional thermal expansion on top of the accumulated meltwater rise?!
 
Excellent points all, DeviousB. I didn't see a paper from Willis that mentions these results, however; the Willis et al. paper I was referring to predated the Lyman et al. paper, which was published in August of this year. I don't have any subscriptions, so can you direct me to a place I might be able to see Willis' latest in the public domain? Perhaps a preprint from arxiv?
 
DeviousB said:
Um, That'll be exactly one more piece of evidence for Global Warming. And from a single location at that.
Click to expand...
It's only evidence for CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Evidence of global warming has to be sought in the here-and-now. The atmosphere is very well-mixed, so the single location is not important.

Fortunately, climatologists have a lot more evidence to work with and don't have to generalize the entire world's climate from a single ice core!
Click to expand...
Indeed, but the ice-cores do indicate that current atmospheric conditions are ... unusual. Which takes some wind out of denialist sails.

Welcome to the forum. :)

eta : thanks for the NASA link. I was under the impression that meltwater was an order of magnitude below thermal expansion, but perhaps not so.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
It's only evidence for CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Evidence of global warming has to be sought in the here-and-now. The atmosphere is very well-mixed, so the single location is not important.
Click to expand...

Yet the SiB2 model specifically models CO2 variation at local, regional and global scales, via a process that was implemented in NCAR's CCSM as the Community Land Model (CLM).
:)

Indeed, but the ice-cores do indicate that current atmospheric conditions are ... unusual. Which takes some wind out of denialist sails.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they only partially help with the problem of attribution. The smoking gun for human involvement is the falling C14 content of the atmosphere. I started reconstructing the atmospheric C12/C14 balance for another thread, using the INTCAL04 data (I lost it in a crash :( ). It becomes rather clear that either a massive new source of C14 poor carbon is entering the atmosphere or the laws of atomic physics were changed sometime in the 70s or 80s (I mustn't have got that memo).

Gosh a huge source of atmospheric carbon that has the C14 content of a fossil?!
Nope, can't think of one.
 
And yes, I know most fossils don't contain a lot of carbon-anything. It's a joke.
 
Hmmmm, lemme think now- could that possibly be... coal? Or oil?

Sorry to ruin the joke- I thought it was funny too. Don't be so obscure- some might not get the point.
 
DeviousB said:
Yet the SiB2 model specifically models CO2 variation at local, regional and global scales, via a process that was implemented in NCAR's CCSM as the Community Land Model (CLM).
:)
Click to expand...
CO2 varies regionally? I did not know that. Locally I'd expect it, if you have a volcano at the end of your street you'll likely have more CO2 than elsewhere. But on a larger scale? :confused:
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm pretty sure it's "Decepticons", with "deception" being a root for the word.
Click to expand...

The winners write the history. I'm sure if the Decepticons won they'd have named themselves the "SuperIncrediblyCoolAwesomeGoodGuyBoticons."
 
Greenhouse warming, continuing...

Hello all,

What might we now do about this problem in our lives as individuals and as animals in a collective who truly care about our environment?
Viktor Schauberger has written extensively about the water subject and given several possible solutions. The USA has a unique resource capability to reverse these trends and possibly outsurvive many other countries. I think we can all now agree the global temperature rise trends are alarming. The real question is how can we give real solutions to the public now. How can we apply (or not apply/obsolete) technologies to reverse the trends or survive the coming droughts and floods?? Water and CO2 have some unique interactions to "scrub" and balance out imbalance in our thermal system(s), but I feel we know so little and need more research to learn... can we all start by lowering our CO2 outputs today? Is implosion technology the key?
Explosion technologies have failed so what do we do next?

Vicktor links to read:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Viktor_Schauberger
http://www.cast.uni-linz.ac.at/Department/Publications/Pubs2001/Engl_Haydu.doc

I would love to hear any comments you all might have! Is explosion technology (oil, internal combustion) killing everything?

every penny we spend now can make a huge difference in the future.

comments / solutions?

lh
 
CapelDodger said:
CO2 varies regionally? I did not know that. Locally I'd expect it, if you have a volcano at the end of your street you'll likely have more CO2 than elsewhere. But on a larger scale? :confused:
Click to expand...

Ahh, you've not heard of the "Urban CO2 Island" effect yet!

Apparently, CO2 levels have been found to rise rapidly over places like Washington DC, Westminster in London, etc. Surprisingly, so have CH4 levels! Currently the proposed mechanism is that small self-contained cells of hot air, circulate about these places doing very little, fueled by the break down of local reservoirs of organic matter (presumeably the source of the methane). These 'gassy wind-bags', as they've been named, seem to persist for around 4 years - though some appear to last much longer - unless disrupted by a Severe Cross-Altitudinal Non-Dispersive Atmospheric Lumping (or SCANDAL, for short).
:p
 
DeviousB said:
Ahh, you've not heard of the "Urban CO2 Island" effect yet!
Click to expand...
:D

The hot-air cells appear to be stabilised by methane, the more old farts they contain the greater the SCANDAL required to blow them away. Some are impervious to anything less than a Complete Overhaul of Usual Procedures.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

This seems like a good reference. Most of it is still over my head though, but I think it is a good source to judge others by.
Click to expand...
RealClimate is an excellent source. An anchored point in a turbulent and often ill-informed sea. The Cuckoo Eggs piece is a good example, it lays out the essential point before getting deeper into what can only be described as a public flaying of the cuckoos. Sadly, not public enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom