Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
is it just me or are they using not well defined expressions. Deep oceans, for Trenberth this seems to be below 700m, for Landerer it seems to be below 2000m

reminds me of the confusion climatologists cause with the use of different definitions of ice age. meanwhile it seem usual to call glacial periods, ice ages as the IPCC does.
 
No. He is a denier. Take this interview for example:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/

When challenged on observations matching predictions he moves seamlessly from saying the models can't possibly predict anything because they are fudged to saying it doesn't matter anyway because warming is positive - that's the point where he brings up Greenland.

He also claims that warming is not global - which is completely fantastical. As Greybeard says, ask an Australian whether they think AGW is an Arctic phenomenon (or an American for that matter, just look at the Californian drought, or a European with the heatwaves, or a UKian with the massive flods etctetcetc)

That's classic denial, whatever the motivation.

Sounds to me like he had his nose put out of joint thirty years ago when working at Oak Ridge and is determined to take the professional grudge to the grave

From the link:

What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse.

So they say, ‘We represent cloudiness by a parameter,’ but I call it a fudge factor. So then you have a formula, which tells you if you have so much cloudiness and so much humidity, and so much temperature, and so much pressure, what will be the result... But if you are using it for a different climate, when you have twice as much carbon dioxide, there is no guarantee that that’s right. There is no way to test it.


He hasn't examined them in detail but he knows what's wrong with them? Sounds just like a YEC discussing evolution.

Could it be that he couldn't follow the math in the models so he rejected them?
 
Oh well. We are testing the models and the climate system in a huge experiment.
 
And that's a bad thing, right ? We all know that scientists are a bunch of frauds who are trying to... er... I don't know -- what's the point of global warming again ?

Protect our jobs.
 
Yet that period has featured several La Nina's....which one would think marked an increase in vertical mixing.
Apparently that mixing has mostly occurred within the top 2000m, which would mean it hasn't gone far away. The deep ocean paper is laced with caveats concerning data coverage, though. Much more research is needed (to protect scientists' jobs, of course :)).
 
Denial in Australia is driven by the same factors as in the US. A large and influential fossil fuel industry working in conjunction with certain press outlets to spread false information. The Australian newspaper has been printing pure BS on climate change for years.
Something we've seen before regarding other environmental issues, such as acid rain.

It's remarkable how totemic AGE denial has become on the political right, not just in the Anglophone countries but all across Europe at least. It's up there with xenophobia and tax-cuts for the rich as campaign issues. I realise that vested interests have a lot to do with that, but there seems to be something more to it, something visceral. I suspect it's to do with rejection of evidence-based thinking since evidence never seems to work for the political right. Reality, as they say, has a liberal bias, and they hates it.
 
...It's remarkable how totemic AGE denial has become on the political right,...

I find myself, occasionally, slipping into AGE denial, then I catch my own reflection in a mirror and reality slaps me hard!!

;)
 
And of course, no source, no evidence, not a single link to where this claimed outpouring of explanations of the theory happened. Why?
Yes, indeed, like so many things, just made up, and never any evidence to show.

What did happen of course, is easy to illustrate.



Not only was such nonsense repeated, nobody, not a single person in the thread ever responded to the nonsense. Not a single person commented on the wild claims that there is no theory.

Of course I posted a dozen valid sources showing clearly that there is a theory, but it didn't seem to matter at all.
Of course I not only defended every last thing, I posted sources for it all.

Those insisting they are right, they never posted a single source supporting their claim that there is no theory..

Priceless.

So, where is the post where you explained what the theory is, behind AGW?

you already lied on that and it got moved to the AAH.
but hey, if you want to continue demonstrating what a liar you are. pls go ahead. the more people see for themself what a dishonest troll you are, the better.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283776
 
Discussing the theory of global warming isn't allowed in the global warming topic.
 
Discussing the theory of global warming isn't allowed in the global warming topic.

and yet another lie of yours. in the previous 2 AGW threads the theory of AGW has been explained to you by me and others.
but then when i link to those posts, you simply lie about it, which is good, as everyone can see what kind of poster you are :)

keep going.
 
US east coast cities face frequent flooding due to climate change
From Miami to Washington DC, towns and cities on America’s east coast could see triple the number of tidal floods by 2030 as sea levels rise, say researchers.


The report, Encroaching Tides: How Sea Level Rise and Tidal Flooding Threaten U.S. East and Gulf Coast Communities over the Next 30 Years, from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), found most of the towns on America’s east coast will see triple the number of flooding events by 2030.

By 2045, those towns will see 10 times as many tidal floods – and those floods will seep further inland, and last longer, the researchers said.

Many coastal towns already see dozens of small tidal floods every year, typically lasting only a few hours.

But the frequency of such events is marching upwards because of sea level rise – which at some points along the east coast is more than twice the global average.



According to this article communities on the east coast are already starting to suffer.

There’s not much dispute these days, up and down the coast, about whether the ocean is rising. The question is: How high will it go here, and how fast?
 
Due to the high number of issues, this thread is now on Moderated status. Do not start or post in other threads about this subject to get around this status.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
The long hot tail of global warming - new thinking on the Eocene greenhouse climate
http://www.skepticalscience.com/long-hot-tail-eocene.html

(Warning : the following material contains catastrophes)

A trio of recent studies together represent a tipping-point in our understanding of this fluctuating greenhouse world. Littler et al present a detailed 8 million year record from a borehole drilled the South Atlantic, and compare that with another borehole in the Pacific. Turner et al integrate a 4.25 million year record from the equatorial Atlantic with published data to create a 10 million year record in the Eocene. Smith et al studied 1.8 million years of terrestrial sediments in Wyoming, cross-referenced to the same Atlantic marine sediment record as used by Turner et al. The focus of all 3 studies was the links between the Paleocene-Eocene climate and variations in solar energy distribution (insolation) caused by Earth’s orbital wobbles.

Superimposed on the background ‘hum’ of regular orbital cycles are several distinct spikes of strong climate change, too big or with too long a recovery time to be forced purely by orbital wobbles.

The earliest of these spikes is known as “ELPE” (Early Late Paleocene Event – 58.9 million years ago), which marks the end of the long term cooling trend in the Paleocene. It corresponds with a 4°C jump in ocean bottom water temperatures, swings in carbon isotope values, and ocean chemistry changes suggesting acidification. Intriguingly the ELPE coincides with a particularly violent phase of North Atlantic volcanic activity, resulting in the deposition of ash deposits like the Kettla Tuff in the Faroe-Shetland area, and contemporary volcanic ash deposits in western, and eastern Scotland, and igneous activity in Greenland and offshore Ireland.

Another sharp swing in ocean chemistry, carbon isotopes and abrupt ocean warming occurred at 57.7 Million years ago, known as the “Peak Paleocene Carbon Isotope Maximum” or “Peak PCIM.” Littler et al attribute the long term warming trend that began then and continued into the Eocene, to sustained carbon emissions resulting from North Atlantic Igneous Province activity.

The PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) is chief among the exceptional, non-cyclical, dramatic warming events, as these papers agree. Even though it began coincident with the 100,000 year orbital pacing, it was not in phase with the 405,000 year cycle that dominates the other Hyperthermals, suggesting an “extra push” was provided, probably by the spectacular eruptions from Canada to Norway that accompanied the opening of the North Atlantic at that time.



As was the case during the Paleocene, our modern Earth has reserves of permafrost and methane hydrates that were ‘banked’ during the cool Pleistocene ice age all the way up to the pre-industrial era. And even though some interglacials may have been warmer than the preindustrial era, deep-ocean temperatures appear to have been only slightly elevated, keeping most deep sea methane locked away - until now. A Paleocene-to-Eocene-like methane release is expected from modern climate change because the deep oceans are now warming by a magnitude unprecedented in the past several million years!

Last year Zeebe and Zachos compared the long tail of the PETM with our present human-caused global warming. They concluded that our own long hot tail will last tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. But they argued that future environmental effects will:

“more likely resemble the end-Permian and end-Cretaceous catastrophes, rather than the PETM,”

due to the far more abrupt nature of modern carbon emissions and warming.

"Likely not a PETM" is small comfort but you take what you can get. The article is worth a read, I think.
 
Now that the primary locus is moved on, this thread can be taken off moderation. This does not mean that a return to the behavior that got it there by other patrons will be tolerated, though. Keep it civil, folks.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Kmortis
 
Hey guys! I'm going to venture in here again, I think. Damn I'll miss DC.

SO... what about the Western USA drought, eh? Now they say the aquifers have been pumped out so far that the decreased weight is causing the mountains to raise...

And of course we saw what happened with the Aral Sea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom