Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Trakar]

Mr Lion

Please help me understand something

When an area of the world experiences higher temperatures it is credited to Global Warming

When an area of the world experiences lower temperatures it cannot be credited to Global cooling

Thank you

In general, "areas of the world" are largely irrelevant to "global" considerations. Just as the last (3-5-10, even 15) year's weather trends are largely irrelevant to "Climate" considerations, which really deal with trends over a minimum of 20-30 years with a preference for periods vastly longer.

 

[Trakar]

...What I hope you're trying to say is "current human activity is insufficient to cause this kind of change", which is debatable. But to say it's impossible seems to indicate that you are basing this opinion on ideology, not facts.

Anything is debatable, but if you stick to the data collected and compiled by mainstream science and industry, even this is a very short exchange.

 

[r-j]

I post (again) a whole lot of science, links and reasoning and everything, so I hope it was just a missed post. Otherwise, well, gosh darn.

With the record cold and snow ... (tons of science tldr level tons)

Of course what was writ before still exists. So it's easy to deflate the overblown claims with evidence.

Or, the person who wants to claim the models actually predicted this. Now that is funny.

and as an answer!

Your posts boil down to "it's cold now, so no AGW." That's silly and, I dare say, dangerous.

Give us a call when you're ready to take this debate seriously.

Please, give us call then.

 

[r-j]

You didn't understand the context in which I used it, nor did you understand the post I made addressing you.

You don't know that. Don't presume to know what other people think, that is woo woo.

I responded with rational reasoned words, and evidence. Try it, it's actually a lot of fun.

 

[r-j]

Citations for this claim?

Here's a start.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9742816&postcount=1782

But I know you want the exact paper, which would be http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf

It's the first line of the abstract.

The most up to date consensus from global climate models predicts warming in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes to middle latitudes during boreal winter.

That nobody here actually knows this is really surprising. Usually when somebody posts something obviously wrong the group is quick to correct. But for some reason certain things are ignored.

 

[lomiller]

Isn't cement making a huge source of CO2? (it is). Isn't turning forests into grass lands or cities also causing warming? (it is)

Yup according to the IPCC report these in fact are part of the problem, albeit a smaller part than burning fossil carbon. Are you trying to claim these are not anthropogenic in nature, because the last time I checked there were no naturally occurring cement plants.

This current brutal winter

What makes you think this winter is particularly “brutal”? Have you done any research into whether it’s

was not expected by the global warming, nor is it a prediction of AGW

Incorrect. The actual prediction is for more extreme weather relative to the previous norm. Most but not all of these extremes are expected to be heat events.

Increased precipitation, which in winter translates in to more snow has always been a prediction of AGW. AGW also predicts a more wavy jet stream prone to blocking events. This can at times take cold air masses farther south and this can cause air masses to stall causing a hot or cold spell to last much longer.

 

[Belz...]

I post (again) a whole lot of science, links and reasoning and everything, so I hope it was just a missed post.

How is that now "wow, it's cold now" ? Let's look at it:

With the record cold and snow ...

So it's cold, therefore no AGW. And:

Or, the person who wants to claim the models actually predicted this. Now that is funny.

Snark.

So don't be surprised if I don't take your objections seriously.

You don't know that.

Of course I do. Otherwise you would've answered with something substantial, rather than a grade-school level mirror sentence.

 

[Pixel42]

The graphs of seasonal trends, globally and per hemisphere, can be found here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics.html

 

[Trakar]

Then switch. Show the world. This constant petulant demanding that "everybody else" do something, all the while you won't, it makes the entire thing seem so hypocritical in the extreme.

Just as arguing that China and india should stop their CO2 emissions while US oil and coal producers are earning record profits shipping these products globally and US industry continues to emit an increasing annual net of CO2 emissions? - I agree, to have any authority in getting others to join in the effort, we have correct our own irresponsible behavior first.

On an individual basis that means energy efficiency in consideration of all that you do. Public transportation whenever possible, buy from local producers whenever possible. lobby your government for stronger environmental regulation and treaties, and vote for candidates who put climate change issues at the top of their agenda.

Is stopping burning carbon the solution?

No need for extremism, but we do need to dramatically cut back on the amount of fossil fuels that we burn for transportation, heavy equipment and electrical power generation. There is a wide range of alternatives that can replace fossil fuels for these purposes.

Isn't cement making a huge source of CO2? (it is).

Globally, cement production makes up about 2.4% of global CO2 emissions from industrial and energy sources (Marland et al., 1989).

Isn't turning forests into grass lands or cities also causing warming? (it is)

• Land-use change across the entire world has released on a net annual basis approximately 1.5 PgC as CO2 for the last several decades.
• Land-use change affects ecosystems that release CO2 and other ecosystems that accumulate C and such fluxes amount to approximately 4.3PgC of gross CO2 releases and 2.8 PgC of gross sinks according to Houghton’s land-use change model (data from 2000–2005).

(http://www.whrc.org/resources/publications/pdf/RichteretalCarbonMgmt.11.pdf)

What is the solution?

Reduce our emissions to 1/10th their current levels over the next half century, or roughly to the level they were at in the 1950s. This doesn't mean that we have to cut our energy usage back to 1950s levels, merely that we need to cut our fossil fuel usage levels back to about that period of time. That should buy us the time needed for further reductions if they are required.

Show me, don't just type more words about your thoughts. Show examples of how things will work in your view.

This requires public policy decisions to handle how things will go. We can talk about technologies and practices that could reduce carbon emissions while maintaining and allowing for growth in standards of living, but until we have a grip upon the public policy environment in which such technologies and practices would be implemented it is impossible to say which would be most cost effective and successful at achieving maximal returns on investment.

This current brutal winter, as well as many of the past winters, was not expected by the global warming, nor is it a prediction of AGW that winters would become much colder.

This is simply inaccurate and false.

First climate change predictions do not deal with seasonal or even annual predictions, they deal with average condition trends over a thirty (or more) year periods globally. It is your tautological misunderstandings that AGW somehow means an abrupt end of winter or cold weather events that is not in anyway associated with AGW predictions. Combined with the personal local, anecdotal perception that the 2013 winter is worse, globally, than it has ever been, it is relatively easy to understand where your errors lie.

You can make things up all day long, it won't change the world.

Exactly, please stop making up things and we can properly discuss climate change science and policy proposals that may actually lead to understanding and effective action.

 

[r-j]

The graphs of seasonal trends, globally and per hemisphere, can be found here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics.html

Wrong. Those are just the Time Series Graphs of Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies. No trends are there.

 

[Trakar]

what projection are you talking about exactly? can you give me a link or tell me the exact source for this IPCC "prediction" ?

I'm curious about this as well, as nearly every paper I've read talking about the impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes, indicates falling lake levels, most quantifying this at about .5-1 meter depending on the particular lake and feed watershed, and the model looked at.

examples:
"Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence System"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4296/cwrj2502153

...The transient scenarios from the CCCma's CGCM1 suggest a drier, warmer climate due to the'enhanced greenhouse effect'. Lake levels decline 0.2-0.7 mby 2030 and 0.3-1 m by 2050 (see Table 9). Except for Lake Ontario, the changes are greater than natural variability (Qrinn and Lofgren, 2000). Mean annual runoff and outflow also decrease. Higher air temperatures increase evapotranspiration and lake surface evaooration.
The Hadley HadCM2 scenarios suggest wetter and not so warm conditions as the CCCma CGCM1 scenarios (see Tables 2 and 5) (Sousounis, 2000). The lake levels (Table 9) decrease of 1 cm to an increase of5 cm by 2030 and decrease of 1 cm to an increase of 4 cm by 2050. However, the increases in lake levels are not greater than those resulting from natural variability (Qrinn and Lofgren, 2000)...

 

[Trakar]

Oh if only that were a requirement for posting in this thread! Then the people claiming the colder winters was predicted would have to show why they claim that.

I posted the source long ago, in the previous thread. It came up in the discussion of how boreal winter cooling has been observed, and it was unexpected. That anyone here doesn't know that global warming predicts the most warming in NH winters is sort of shocking.

Support your assertions or withdraw them. Honest people admit mistakes and own up to them, I have seen no record of you behaving in an honest manner in this thread.

 

[macdoc]

I see r-j is lying again..

The Arctic dipole has been discussed on here since 2009

5th September 2009, 08:22 PM
Replies: 1,363
Merged: Recent climate observations disagreement with projections
Views: 37,826
Posted By macdoc
Yeah - that's the the Arctic dipole plus the...

Yeah - that's the the Arctic dipole plus the fading La Nina - the whole midwest was cold and several records set in January for cold in both Russia and Canada. The high that normally concentrates...

He just says whatever suits him ....nothing relating to reality

NOAA was reporting on the dipole in 2006 and I'm sure if I hunt - further back than that

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report07/atmosphere.html

This was the major article in 2011 that answered the question of cold snaps.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/warmarctic.html

 

[Lennart Hyland]

With the record cold and snow, it's a good time to return to last winters attempt at education. It started with complaints about how quiet the topic was, and it also was a time of record cold and snow. Of course the fact that winters were getting colder was denied.

The first hurdle was getting the loudest posters to admit the winters were trending colder for large parts of the NH, especially parts where a lot of people live and work. Parts of Russia, China, India, Pakistan, most of Europe, Alaska and a lot of the US, Canada and Japan and Korea and Siberia. Those places.

It wasn't easy getting anyone to admit it, but after that hurdle, comes the next step. When the argument switched to how winters were colder, but it was actually global warming causing it! Then it turned into "colder winters was predicted", which was really a funny bit. Just joking around, it was really hard to get most of the usual suspects to even admit the winters were getting colder.

So there is this unusual thing where people deny the winters are colder, then when they realize it's true, they switch and say it's global warming causing it. Then when it is pointed out that the theory predicts the opposite, they say no it predicted colder winters.

woo woo alert here folks.

serious woo woo alert.

Of course what was writ before still exists. So it's easy to deflate the overblown claims with evidence.

Or, the person who wants to claim the models actually predicted this. Now that is funny.

I have no idea why you want to bring this stuff up? We already discussed it! Instead you might want to bring up old questions you havent answered...I know there are a bunch.

And it seems that you always refer to "people claming", "they think" etc but its really scientist that youre talking about...you even linked to them.

 

[Trakar]

Here's a start.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9742816&postcount=1782

unqualified news articles that in the several instances I checked don't even support your assertions.

But I know you want the exact paper, which would be http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf

It's the first line of the abstract.

That nobody here actually knows this is really surprising. Usually when somebody posts something obviously wrong the group is quick to correct. But for some reason certain things are ignored.

So the first line is as far as you got? what about the last couple of lines of the abstract:

Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming
trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling. Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales.

or more importantly the conclusion/discussion of the paper which is generally much "meatier" than the abstract:

A warmer, more moisture-laden Arctic atmosphere in the autumn contributes to an increase in Eurasian snow cover during that season. This change in snow cover dynamically forces negative AO conditions the following winter. We deduce that one main reason for models failing to capture the observed wintertime cooling is probably their poor representation of snow cover variability and the associated dynamical relationships with atmospheric circulation trends (Hardiman et al 2008, Jeong et al 2011). Incorporation of the
snow cover–AO relationship into seasonal forecasts is shown to greatly improve their abilities, and hence long-term climate solutions from coupled climate models may also benefit from improved snow–AO relationships.]

Ultimately this paper may have indicated a means of improving some of the seasonal modeling methods used for some NH areas, it does not, however, change the realities of AGW, nor alter the global climate predictions inherent to AGW, which relate to global trends over climatically significant timeframes. Do not confuse lay, or even personal scientific estimations and projections with how this plays out in individual regions of time over shorter time periods, such are not "AGW predictions" which are fairly few and relatively unchanged over the last several decades and more:

CLIMATE CHANGE
A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 1987) recently gave the following estimates of scientific confidence in predictions of the climate response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. This table summarizes only their conclusions concerning “the possible climate responses to increased greenhouse gases.” The full report should be consulted for the details.

Large Stratospheric Cooling (virtually certain). The combination of increased cooling by additional CO2 and other trace gases, and reduced heating by reduced ozone “will lead to a major lowering of temperatures in the upper stratosphere.”

Global-Mean Surface Warming (very probable). For an equivalent doubling: of CO2, “the long-term global-mean surface warming is expected to be in the range 1.5 to 4.5°C.”

Global-Mean Precipitation Increase (very probable). “Increased heating of the [Earth's] surface will lead to increased evaporation and, therefore, to greater global mean precipitation.” Despite this increase in global average precipitation, some individual regions might well experience decreases in rainfall.”

Reduction of Arctic Sea Ice (very probable). This will be-due to melting as the climate warms.

Polar Winter Surface Warming (very probable). Due to the sea ice reduction, polar surface air may warm by as much as 3 times the global average.

Summer Continental Dryness/Warming (likely in the long term). Found in several, but not all, studies, it is mainly caused by earlier termination of winter storms. “ Of course these simulations of long-term equilibrium conditions may not offer a reliable guide to trends over the next few decades of changing atmospheric composition and changing climate.”

Rise in Global Mean Sea Level (probable). This will be due to thermal expansion of seawater and melting or calving of land ice.

From: "The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Report to Congress." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...hdGZ2XprMO7hUpVEummT3qUYg#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Corsair 115]

Yeah, that's because your argument boils down to "it's cold now, therefore no warming."

What's interesting about that is that when the situation is reversed, and there's a major heat wave in the summer, they don't say "hot now, therefore global warming". Apparently their conclusion only points in one direction regardless of anything else.

 

[macdoc]

In summary, large-scale cooling has occurred during boreal winter over much of the NH landmasses over the last two and a half decades (figure 1(c)). With much attention on the effects of global warming on the climate system, the recent severe winter weather has heightened global warming scepticism among the general public. Traditional radiative GHG theory and coupled climate models forced by increasing GHGs alone cannot account for this seasonal asymmetry. Though we cannot conclude definitively that warming in the summer and autumn is forcing winter regional cooling, analysis of the most recent observational and modelling data supports links between strong regional cooling trends in the winter and warming trends in the prior seasons. A warmer, more moisture-laden Arctic atmosphere in the autumn contributes to an increase in Eurasian snow cover during that season. This change in snow cover dynamically forces negative AO conditions the following winter.

http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_ERL12.pdf

from the paper....this comes out in 2012 - when the Dipole has been discussed far longer and the the colder winters on the continents also observed.

This postulates a albedo reinforcement for those colder continental ( regional ) winters.

It in no way counteracts or in the least negates AGW and is in fact a result of AGW.

Instead, evidence suggests that summer and autumn warming trends are concurrent with increases in high-latitude moisture and an increase in Eurasian snow cover, which dynamically induces large-scale wintertime cooling.

Understanding this counterintuitive response to radiative warming of the climate system has the potential for improving climate predictions at seasonal and longer timescales.

and it helps seasonal predictions.....ie weather...

There is not one thing in that aside from an interesting albedo/snow cover postulate that has not beeen discussed here.

In this letter, we propose that the extensive winter NH extratropical cooling trend amidst a warming planet

laymans terms.....extreme weather events including snow and cold winters amidst a warming planet.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wrong. Those are just the Time Series Graphs of Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomalies. No trends are there.

They look like trends to me, quite obvious trends.

 

[Haig]

Penguins comment on the #spiritofmawson
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/turney_ice_boat.jpg

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 5. Do not hotlink images.

 

[Trakar]

US scientists convert algae into crude oil in under an hour

US scientists convert algae into crude oil in under an hour - See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23/us-s...de-oil-in-under-an-hour/#sthash.veAxShbE.dpuf

excerpt-

US scientists believe they may have cracked one of the great biofuel conundrums. They have turned a thick soup of algae into a mix of crude oil, gas, water and plant nutrients in less than an hour.

That is, they have taken 60 minutes to do what Nature does – at great pressures and temperatures – over millions of years.

Better still, the researchers at the US Government’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) believe they have invented a continuous process that is not only faster than the experimental methods pioneered so far for making oil from natural growing things, but cheaper, and more self-sustaining.

So far, the PNNL reactor handles only 1.5 litres of algae an hour. But, the team reports in the journal Algal Research, somewhere between 50% and 70% of the algal carbon is converted to potential energy in the form of crude oil, which in turn can be made into aviation fuel, gasoline or diesel.

The leftovers are clean water, a mix of fuel gases and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium that can be used to nourish more algae

As long as you use renewables or nuclear generated electricity it should be a very carbon neutral fuel.