Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saggy said:
Well, it's a separate issue, but one I'd like to understand too.

So, starting with the graph, what does it mean? I can't figure it out. The vertical axis is labeled .... ice volume anomaly relative to 1979-2010 ... I assume this is an error. What does the graph show, in plain English?

Then, of course, we have to ask, how was it measured/calculated.
Click to expand...

This records how much more or less ice volume there is at any given time from the average for the period the graph covers. At the beginning of the period there was a lot more ice, and in the recent years a lot less ice.

In fact we were to the point in September where we were not too far from no significant ice at all. If the (accelerating) trend continues, we will have a nearly ice-free arctic ocean at the end of summer some time in the next decade.

By giving the anomaly rather than the actual value, we factor out the sinusoidal seasonal variation that might mask a trend.

Note that is is not ice AREA, but VOLUME, a combination of area and average thickness. You can have what looks like a significant area of ice, but it is very thin, so this is a better measure in many ways than area or extent.
 
Of course global warming, so-called, isn't real. We are no warmer than we were in the 1930's. Hence we have to assume the effect of (ALLEGED) extra CO2 is feeble, whether its a net warmer or a net cooler.
 
Well thats a powerful argument you have there fella. I don't think the woo-town-clan are going to best that fantastic argument of yours.

Yet the fact is that we cannot show any warming since the 30's. So much for the effect of CO2.
 
Chodorov said:
Well thats a powerful argument you have there fella. I don't think the woo-town-clan are going to best that fantastic argument of yours.

Yet the fact is that we cannot show any warming since the 30's. So much for the effect of CO2.
Click to expand...
You'll find that you won't be taken seriously on this board if you make any claim without offering supporting evidence, let alone a claim so easily proven false.
 
Well thats a powerful argument you have there fella. I don't think the woo-town-clan are going to best that fantastic argument of yours.

Yet the fact is that we cannot show any warming since the 30's. So much for the effect of CO2.
Click to expand...

okay want the other side that you really don't deserve that you haven't and won't read anyway

here you got - be sure to let us know when you're done


Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/pat...s_11_13_07.htm

Current over view
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpre...science_kw.pdf

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport

Skeptic » The Magazine » Featured Article
https://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

and another good basics
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

Net mass loss of glaciers is a significant indicator as the energies involved are shocking in scale.

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet decay, continued « The Way Things Break
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheet-decay-continued/

Net mass loss in Greenland alone is 100 cuKm annually and to put that in some perspective...it is as if the world is carpet bombing Greenland with 2000+ Hiroshima nuclear weapons a DAY!!
1/2 million a year in thermal equivalent to melt that much ice. And the same applies to the Western Antartic and also the mid-latitude glaciers...

a variety of sources - the Arctic Report is very multidisciplinary - I like analog signals - hard to fool the critters

This one gives you a real overview of the strong signals from biota and cryosphere

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Getting started links and links to other info sources

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm

http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/

http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/



Keeping up to date

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/

http://www.physorg.com/space-news/

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network

http://www.globalchange.gov/whats-new/news

How bad could it be...

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the*
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-to-1-billion/

Monaco declaration
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0519134843.htm


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6529307.ece
•••••

The stance of the vast majority of the climate science community made by one of their own
•••••

where do I stand??.....in agreement with this

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
Click to expand...


Links to Climate Change articles...115 pages from mainstream sources..

Here are the links to the threads from the dawkins science forum....all 115 pages of articles from main stream climate and science sources
From Nov 2006 to current

Most current 15 pages
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Global Climate Change Science News (Pt. 2)
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/74571-1.html

previous thread 100 pages
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Global Climate Change Science News
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/2184-1.html


and the fossil fuel companies knew this in the mid 90s..

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
Click to expand...


Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2



let us know when you wake up to reality
 
Magnificent. A link-explosion but no evidence.

Its a failed theory. Since were it not a failed theory we would have expected some sort of warming between now and the 1930's.
 
Chodorov said:
Magnificent. A link-explosion but no evidence.

Its a failed theory. Since were it not a failed theory we would have expected some sort of warming between now and the 1930's.
Click to expand...

so you deny the global warming? based on what data?
 
Pixel42 said:
You'll find that you won't be taken seriously on this board if you make any claim without offering supporting evidence, let alone a claim so easily proven false.
Click to expand...

He's doing the same thing on one of the vaccine/autism threads. Obvious troll is obvious.
 
Chodorov said:
Magnificent. A link-explosion but no evidence.

Its a failed theory. Since were it not a failed theory we would have expected some sort of warming between now and the 1930's.
Click to expand...

The data in the picture is just up to 2007, but I guess everyone will be able to get the point...

thum_28147cd8e2bb41e8.jpg
 
BenBurch said:
This records how much more or less ice volume there is at any given time from the average for the period the graph covers. At the beginning of the period there was a lot more ice, and in the recent years a lot less ice.

In fact we were to the point in September where we were not too far from no significant ice at all. If the (accelerating) trend continues, we will have a nearly ice-free arctic ocean at the end of summer some time in the next decade.

By giving the anomaly rather than the actual value, we factor out the sinusoidal seasonal variation that might mask a trend.

Note that is is not ice AREA, but VOLUME, a combination of area and average thickness. You can have what looks like a significant area of ice, but it is very thin, so this is a better measure in many ways than area or extent.
Click to expand...

OK, I see 'anomaly' means deviation from the seasonally adjusted average for the period.

Before we can declare game over we need to know what the total volume of the arctic ice for the region is, and how its volume is measured/calculated, and perhaps its history for the last 1000 years say. Got this info? Links?
 
Chodorov said:
Magnificent. A link-explosion but no evidence.
Click to expand...
Suggestion: Before writing off a mountain of evidence with the wave of your arm, I suggest that you allow more than 7 minutes to pass before you reply, so then maybe a sucker or two will believe you actually followed the links. :D
 
lomiller said:
Did you really just ask how volume is calculated?
Click to expand...

I did, and just found the answer .... (note - right clicking on the photo didn't work for me, using Firefox, but just going up the chain in the URL did) .. at

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) developed at APL/PSC by Dr. J. Zhang and collaborators.


So, it's an elaborate procedure with measurements, models, etc., etc., with the definitive description here ..

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/index.html

From the above link .....

A Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) is used for this project. PIOMAS is a coupled Parallel Ocean and sea Ice Model (POIM, Zhang and Rothrock 2003) with capabilities of assimilating ice concentration and velocity data. It is formulated in a generalized orthogonal curvilinear coordinate (GOCC) system and designed to run on computers with a single processor or massively parallel processors. PIOMAS couples the Parallel Ocean Program (POP) with a thickness and enthalpy distribution (TED) sea-ice model. The POP model is developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The TED sea-ice model is a dynamic thermodynamic model that also explicitly simulates sea-ice ridging. The model originates from the Thorndike et al. (1975) thickness distribution theory and is recently enriched by enthalpy distribution theory (Zhang and Rothrock, 2001). It has 12 categories each for ice thickness, ice enthalpy, and snow ((Zhang et al., 2000). This multicategory TED model consists of seven main components: a viscous-plastic ice rheology that determines the relationship between ice internal stress and ice deformation (Hibler 1979), a mechanical redistribution function that determines ice ridging (Thorndike et al. 1975; Rothrock, 1975; Hibler, 1980), a momentum equation that determines ice motion, a heat equation that determines ice growth/decay and ice temperature, an ice thickness distribution equation that conserves ice mass (Thorndike et al. 1975; Hibler, 1980), an ice enthalpy distribution equation that conserves ice thermal energy (Zhang and Rothrock, 2001), and a snow thickness distribution equation that conserves snow mass (Flato and Hibler, 1995). The ice momentum equation is solved using Zhang and Hibler's (1997) ice dynamics model that employs a line successive relaxation technique with a tridiagonal matrix solver, which has been found to be particularly useful for parallel computing (Zhang and Rothrock, 2003). The heat equation is solved over each ice thickness category using a modified three-layer thermodynamic model (Winton, 2000). The configuration of the finite-difference grid of PIOMAS is shown below.

OK, so how many people on the planet understand the above?

So, does it boil down to - Do you trust Jinlun Zhang, or not?
 
Last edited:
Did someone declare this humour the denier trolls week?:rolleyes:

Total-Heat-Content.gif


http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/...ooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/

Now I wonder where that heat came from ??? Pixies with kettles?

From the article

The planet is heating up, thanks to human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases. But as a new NOAA-led study, “An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950” (subs. req’d, release here) concluded:
ince 1950, the planet released about 20 percent of the warming influence of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to outer space as infrared energy. Volcanic emissions lingering in the stratosphere offset about 20 percent of the heating by bouncing solar radiation back to space before it reached the surface. Cooling from the lower-atmosphere aerosols produced by humans balanced 50 percent of the heating. Only the remaining 10 percent of greenhouse-gas warming actually went into heating the Earth, and almost all of it went into the ocean.
​
Note that this Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres study was done “without using global climate models.”
Click to expand...


flat earth society over yonder in the dunce corner along with the anti-evo and AGW denier crowd :garfield:
 
Last edited:
This is one of the most compelling arguments I have come across and if you know your way around excell or apple numbers or any other number crunching platform, you can repeat it yourself and calculate climate sensitivity to increased CO2 almost any way you like.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Graphs-from-the-Zombie-Wars.html

You get very nice correlation coefficients for a multivariable system tracking only one variable (CO2) and ignoring all the rest(the sun, volcanic aerosols, orbital variances ect)

No climate models involved, just temperature and CO2 data.

That's correlation but the causation requires a little more science, if you are ready to walk the Planck and harmonize the oscillators, maybe you can get it.
 
You are welcome to your entirely unsupported opinion.

The physics of C02 in the atmosphere has been around oh about the same length of time as say evolution.

Perhaps you should start reading the science instead of pontificating about a subject you clearly are ill-informed on.

Background/history
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

Carbon cycle
http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201_07/notes/notes_11_13_07.htm

As with evolution we have more to learn - we know quite enough to understand the risks of the change that we HAVE engendered.

We have already altered the climate so we are moving out of the Holocene range of +/- 1 degree C within a few decades. We are .6 of the way there and even if we stopped cold - getting back to a radiative balance means another .6C minimum assuming no methane feedback occurs.

The last time C02 levels were this high was 15 million years ago.

I'll take MIT's "opinion" over your's or whoever you decide to trot out as a spokesperson for an entirely failed AGW denial meme.

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

No climate scientist I am aware of thinks we will hold with a 2 degree C rise by the end of the century and most see 4-6 C which matches with the global climate when C02 was equivalently high millions of years ago.

Don't ascribe your particular ignorance of the state of climate science to others....

The reality is

It's getting warmer
We're responsible...

Did you not get the memo from the fossil fuel company's own scientists 15 years ago??

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
Click to expand...

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

Perhaps you could explain your alternative state of atmospheric physics that overturns over a century of knowledge and observation and provide peer reviewed support for it.

This is after all a moderated climate science forum....should not be too hard to find papers from say Nature that supports your "claim". :garfield:

We'll wait.
 
Chodorov said:
Magnificent. A link-explosion but no evidence.

Its a failed theory. Since were it not a failed theory we would have expected some sort of warming between now and the 1930's.
Click to expand...

Century old established physics says we can compute the effects of CO2.

If you are such a genius that you can overturn that physics, by all means do so and win the Nobel Prize. You'll be a shoo-in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom