Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[icerat]

Hence the paradox of calling it Global Warming, as the OP suggested.

which part of global != everywhere is it difficult to understand?

There is only a paradox if you choose to interpret words differently to the way in which the originator of the message is.

It's understandable to do that once. After that it's a conscious choice to be wrong.

 

[macdoc]

3b

That might be helpful in determining or the origins of AGW, but it doesn't explain the blind faith people express in the future of global warming.

how about the blind faith in "what me worry?" you promulgate. I'm sure you and Alfred E would see eye to eye

BTW the origins of AGW are in the acronym .

•••

I also keep my carbon foot print low but I'm not a shiver in the dark proponent - I see no reason not to have a high tech, advanced industrial society with all and more of the perks we have now in a near carbon neutral civilization.
Sweden thinks so too and is well on it's way.

My real concern is the political will to do so....the technology is available to get to carbon neutral tho not to reverse the existing carbon load.

The other concern which is not addressable is there are simply too many people for the planet .....agw is merely a sizeable added stress on that reality.

 

[DC]

A) we are not the main cause

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.

"Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals"

B) we cannot...unless we all just die off.

we are the main cause.

http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

and yes we cannot take it out completely, but minimize it.

 

[macdoc]

icerat
+1 - seems rather a habit with 3b ..making that "conscious choice" to be wrong.

••••

Originally Posted by deepatrax
A) we are not the main cause

Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.

"Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals"

You really don't understand the difference between a feedback and a forcing do you.

Tell us oh brilliant one....why was there more water vapor??
and yes grasshopper....we ARE the primary forcing.....period, full stop.

 

[bit_pattern]

I think you'll be hard pressed to prove that isn't exactly how religion has propagated.

As you're the one making the claim, I think it will be you that will be hard pressed to prove that it is.

 

[Pixel42]

its very hard for someone who is not a climatologist to understand how supposed global warming could actually cause cooler temps and more snow.

I understand it. Many folks at JREF grasp it. But your average Joe is gonna have a hard time.

In the UK at least it is well understood that our winters are warmer than they would be expected to be at this latitude because of "warm wet westerly winds in winter", as I was taught to recite at primary school. So the idea that if those winds are disrupted we'll get colder winters is easy for most Brits to grasp. I've explained it to several without difficulty myself.

"Coldest Winter on Record!"

Yea, I just make this stuff up...

The links you cite refer only to the coldest December on record. The "so far" is an important qualifier, its omission makes your original post a misrepresentation.

 

[Furcifer]

which part of global != everywhere is it difficult to understand?

There is only a paradox if you choose to interpret words differently to the way in which the originator of the message is.

It's understandable to do that once. After that it's a conscious choice to be wrong.

I didn't write the OP

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by deepatrax
"Coldest Winter on Record!"

Originally Posted by deepatrax
Yea, I just make this stuff up...

You make up the implications....you don't get the global versus local or that the interior of continents have a weather regime of their own when large enough....

It was not in any way the "coldest winter on record" in the Arctic, in fact likely will have proved to be the warmest winter on record there as well as being the warmest year on record for the planet.

But you can of course go on ignoring reality and our collective responsibility and getting deservedly dissed in a science forum...
your "choice" to be obtuse.... the information is there....

start here for the Arctic

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

 

[DC]

icerat
+1 - seems rather a habit with 3b ..making that "conscious choice" to be wrong.

••••

You really don't understand the difference between a feedback and a forcing do you.

Tell us oh brilliant one....why was there more water vapor??
and yes grasshopper....we ARE the primary forcing.....period, full stop.

why didn't you say that earlier
would have saved me some reading, i thought i was wrong, but i wasn't

 

[BadBoy]

wrong on too many fronts to even start

- the explanation for the cooler continental interiors is very straight forward and hardly a breakthrough.... try Occam sometimes...
The extra snow is simple....warmer ocean and atmosphere = greater water vapour content.
Stalled continental highs in the northern winter ( due to warmer Arctic ocean ) hit the warm moisture laden air and New York and Washington grind to a halt.

try some real climate science instead of media trash.

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

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

whoa, ease off a little. If you look at my post Im asking the question not making a statement. It is a fact is it not that we are at a sun activity minimum are we not?

Im aware also that despite this global temperature for first half of 2010 was the warmest on record and I understand that it has been discovered that the Suns activity plays a small role in global temperatures compared with AGW.

I was just asking though if the Suns current minimum could affect the weather over the past 2-3 years and be contributing to the colder winters, within the context of a net increase of global temperature.

I am also aware/heard what has been discussed here that Europe may actually get colder winters due to climate change due to a change in the jet stream. I go to realclimate often, though I find it a complex subject.

 

[This is The End]

Since when are global warming threads allowed outside of the global warming discussion?

 

[shadron]

Leave it be. It has been about 98% civil and wholesome for the whole family, if you can forget the consequences.

 

[shadron]

We're not going to stop it. We'll continue on our course of replacing fossil fuels with nuclear and alternatives as the market dictates. We'll adapt to any changes, and at some point we'll invent the technology to reverse the change if it proves detrimental to society.

Why do I get an itchy feeling down my spine about the number 7,000,000,000 and the amount of arable land decline that this likely represents?

 

[Furcifer]

As you're the one making the claim, I think it will be you that will be hard pressed to prove that it is.

lol, how many different discussion on different religions in different centuries would suffice? The threat of damnation is root of all religion. That is probably easier to prove than the colour of the sky

 

[Furcifer]

3b
how about the blind faith in "what me worry?" you promulgate. I'm sure you and Alfred E would see eye to eye

The tide rolls in, the tide rolls out. No amount of fussing is going to change that either.

I also keep my carbon foot print low but I'm not a shiver in the dark proponent - I see no reason not to have a high tech, advanced industrial society with all and more of the perks we have now in a near carbon neutral civilization.
Sweden thinks so too and is well on it's way.

Me too, but I don't see how anyone can legitimize gambling on a global scale. That's what's happening with Global Warming.

My real concern is the political will to do so....the technology is available to get to carbon neutral tho not to reverse the existing carbon load.

Yah, they don't seem to have a very good plan. There's no change without a world wide unified front and that isn't possible. The market has to dictate change, not politicians.

The other concern which is not addressable is there are simply too many people for the planet .....agw is merely a sizeable added stress on that reality.

I don't believe that for a second. I don't know how you could living in a country that you can drive for miles and not see a house. We're not even close to being efficiently distributed here in Canada. This country won't hit it's stride until it reaches a Billion. Turn the Trans Can into an 8 lane mag-lev that runs from Halifax to Vancouver the up to Alaska and across the Bering Sea... This country is still a fixer-upper.

 

[macdoc]

was just asking though if the Suns current minimum could affect the weather over the past 2-3 years and be contributing to the colder winters, within the context of a net increase of global temperature

The answer is no. The cooler internal continents have NOTHING to due with the sun's minimum ( which is over ) and the effect of a minimum is not what you assume....it is the inverse.

Does a Weaker Sun Mean a Warmer Earth?
Changes in the sun's output of various wavelengths of light have been warming the planet recently, contradicting scientists' computer models of the solar cycle
By David Biello | October 7, 2010 |

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weaker-sun-may-equal-warmer-earth

In either case the effect is a magnitude below GHG.

The situation in Europe and the US is due to stalled highs in the continents - called the Arctic dipoled, the dome of very cold intense high pressure during northern winters has split in two by a warmer Arctic and the intensely cold highs are parked over the dark continents - if they linger, and they have been, it gets colder and colder and when they break out the cold air masses can set records as they move south in the break up.
This is a good summary

Once more, that is weather not a forcing. Yes the jet stream has a role and is impacted by a warm Arctic.

I think tho you are confusing it with a slowing Gulf Stream which would indeed put Europe into a much colder climate regime than it enjoys now. That has occurred due to salinity changes in the deep past but is considered unlikely unless Greenland melt really takes off.

There has been some concern recently that rather than slowly the effect of the North Atlantic Drift ( warm air/water ) has been moderated by changes in the transpolar currents.
That aspect is very complex and a new satellite has gone up that will help.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/...an_circulation_in_the_arctic_basin/index.html

 

[Dancing David]

whoa, ease off a little. If you look at my post Im asking the question not making a statement. It is a fact is it not that we are at a sun activity minimum are we not?

Im aware also that despite this global temperature for first half of 2010 was the warmest on record and I understand that it has been discovered that the Suns activity plays a small role in global temperatures compared with AGW.

You might want to reread those sources and look at what the data actually says. It is not really reliable or related to global temperature. The problem is that the Maunder minimum was not associated with a global event.

I was just asking though if the Suns current minimum could affect the weather over the past 2-3 years and be contributing to the colder winters, within the context of a net increase of global temperature.

I am also aware/heard what has been discussed here that Europe may actually get colder winters due to climate change due to a change in the jet stream. I go to realclimate often, though I find it a complex subject.

The more problematic issue is the volcanic emissions, as far as something that would have a large impact outside of AGW.

 

[lomiller]

Though I must say, the clear paradox of Global Warming causing more snow and even colder winters, will make skeptics frown and say:

First of all winters are not colder. People are pointing at local cold snaps in the middle of the hottest year on record to try and sell the idea of cooling. This alone should tell you all you need to know.

As far as more snow, that’s not a paradox, in fact it’s one of the predictions of global warming. Warmer temperatures mean more evaporation, and since what goes up must come down we get more precipitation which in winter still takes the form of more snow. The short version is wet areas get wetter, dry areas get dryer and monsoons change course.

 

[lomiller]

To the best of my knowledge the little ice age was not invented. It is a period of time where the mean temperature was lower than the period before and after and therefor someone named it the little ice age. This name did not come about until the 20th century, but to say that it was invented gives it the feel of voodoo science, which to the best my knowledge is not the general accepted stance.

The “Little Ice Age” wasn’t particularly cold. It’s certainly an anomalous period but it’s mostly expressed in changing precipitation patterns, it’s really only Europe that gets cooler. Globally the temperature drops 0.5 – 0.8 deg C over some 300 years during the LIA. For comparison sake temperatures have risen 0.6 deg C in the last 35 years.
While they probably didn’t invent the phrase, Little Ice Age is largely propagated by people trying to downplay current climate change. It’s a spin phrase.

 

[lomiller]

I was just asking though if the Suns current minimum could affect the weather over the past 2-3 years and be contributing to the colder winters, within the context of a net increase of global temperature.

It’s not possible for the solar cycles to have a direct over a span that short. You will never see the Suns output on a graph that includes the zero axis because the line will look perfectly flat. Large variations in the Suns output are on the order of 0.1%, and if you look at the energy involved it’s simply too small to cause noticeable warming/cooling over a period that short.

A couple recent papers have found shifts in regional weather patterns related to the solar cycle, but these almost certainly involve changes that modulate how energy distributes itself in the atmosphere rather than general heating/cooling.