Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[uke2se]

Also from the Economist article:

Does the fact that a very small amount of studies - not even peer-reviewed it would seem - suggest a temperature increase on the low end of the IPCC estimate mean anything special to you?

The final sentence in the article betrays the authors bias, as well as his ignorance of the science.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Also from the Economist article:

Yes, Al. The same study dealt in
When Publicity Precedes Peer Review in Climate Science (Part One)

and announced with the press release:
Global warming less extreme than feared?

in complete accordance with Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

 

[aleCcowaN]

To complete the story

Unpublished estimates of climate sensitivity - From CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo)

 

[a_unique_person]

It's moisture and stress related as well in Ontario maples. Combination of factors and still be worked on.
I suspect NOAA cannot track frost free as it's very terrain and locale dependent...any bodies of water, slopes etc affect frost.

I have noticed the 'dew point' effect myself, locally. Grass survive on dew for extended periods. Take away the dew and it dies off quickly. As the dew point rises, plants that depend on it die off. When you are in Australia, where droughts are common, it makes it that bit harder for species to survive.

 

[macdoc]

There is nothing that casts the models in doubt - there ARE however two mechanisms that can counter rising atmospheric temps globally.

The first is straight forward and was responsible for the global dimming earlier. That is S02 and while Europe and North America has cleaned up ( and an accompanying steep rise in global temps in the 90s ) ....the emerging economies and container ships across the Pacific have added a fair high S02 load as well as carbon black.

The other is a rise in the frequency and duration of La Nina events which bury the heat tho do not address the root cause.

Certainly the 3.2 C rise in average winter temps across all over Canada and the continuing mass loss of glacials don't point to much of a pause at all.

Given how dramatic the ocean heat rise has been which is of far more significance in the long run than ephemeral atmospheric changes, I'd certainly suspect a change in vertical heat exchange might well mitigate for a few years.

That said....record heat across the US last year and Australia this year hardly points to being sanguine about the changes.
Australia had to add 2 extra divisions....52C and 54 C to it's temperature scale for maps.

Sydney busted all records

Sydney smashes temperature records but heatwave nearly over
https://theconversation.com/sydney-smashes-temperature-records-but...Jan 18, 2013 – Sydney experienced its hottest day on record today, with temperatures rising past 46 degrees Celsius at the airport, according to the Bureau of ...

and Australia recorded it's hottest summer on record.

Australia breaks hottest summer record - ABC News (Australian ...
www.abc.net.au/news/.../australia...hottest-summer-on-record/454774...Mar 1, 2013 – The weather bureau says unusually high temperatures in January means Australia has just experienced its hottest summer on record.

Even here in tropical Australia the temps got above the normal 30-31 along the coast and the rainfall patterns have been altered tho it's too soon to know why.

The monsoonal trough was well south of us as if the band had shifted.....flooding Brisbane again just two years after record floods while farmers here further north are worried.

The US despite cold snaps and snow storms still remains haunted by drought in many areas. A second round like last year will be devastating and last year looked wonderful in the spring with bumper crops expected.

The extremes make agricultural an very uncertain proposition which soaring food prices show. Insurers are getting hammered and in some areas getting insured for weather events and flooding simply is not available.

There is not a climatologist in the world that would not welcome a lower sensitivity ....there is not one I am aware of that thinks easing off on moving to carbon neutral makes any sense whatsoever.

I'd be satisfied if the first world just moved off coal. Ontario did it in 10 years from 25% to zero for a large industrial economy. It can be done and needs to be done.

 

[quarky]

It shouts "not statistically significant" doesn't it? It's a good illustration of what that actually means.

Anyhoo, that's all wrapped up now. r-j didnt mean winters are getting colder when he said it, they're not, looking back a century only conceals what's happening now and is thus pointless, and nobody gives a toss about benighted sinkholes like Kentucky. No offence meant to Kentuckians but for crying out loud, take a good look around you and move already.

Ahem?

I hate to go on the defense here, being as I live in Kentucky...but in spite of the negative influences of climate change, the southern Appalachian climax forests have remained fairly stable and productive for eons.

The water that flows through my farm has been doing so, steadily for millions of years.
The explosion of exotic wild flowers that is about to happen could bring tears of joy to many here.

True, not much going on culturally...

Yet, it has been a stable and awesomely gorgeous eco-system for a very long time.
True, it is getting gradually disrupted...

But where on Earth isn't that the case?

Come visit, before it's all screwed up.

It's not just the hillbillies, ya'll.

 

[macdoc]

The water that flows through my farm has been doing so, steadily for millions of years.

Kentucky IS lovely....but that would be thousands of years Quarky....not millions and you haven't had climax forests for eons....more like millenia

wiki image. last glacial maximum
but the sentiment is nice.

Now here in tropical Australia is one of the only two forests that have persisted since before Gondwanaland broke up ....100 million years ago...and some of the plants and animals persist.

I photographed one of them last year as he stepped out of that history..

http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/...tralia 2012/?action=view&current=P1030986.mp4

http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/...tralia 2012/?action=view&current=P1030986.mp4

Still - you got great motorcycle roads

 

[macdoc]

That 3.2 C average winter temps for Canada increase is just the beginning of the major shifts in the North

New Models Predict Drastically Greener Arctic in Coming Decades

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/03/130331165603-large.jpg
This set of images shows the observed distribution of Arctic vegetation (left) in relation to the predicted distribution of vegetation under a climate warming scenario for the 2050s (right). Data used to generate the observed image are from the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (2003). (Credit: AMNH/R. Pearson)

Mar. 31, 2013 — New research predicts that rising temperatures will lead to a massive "greening," or increase in plant cover, in the Arctic. In a paper published on March 31 in Nature Climate Change, scientists reveal new models projecting that wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 50 percent over the next few decades. The researchers also show that this dramatic greening will accelerate climate warming at a rate greater than previously expected.

"Such widespread redistribution of Arctic vegetation would have impacts that reverberate through the global ecosystem," said Richard Pearson, lead author on the paper and a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.
.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130331165603.htm

 

[macdoc]

one of the neatest bits of engineering and science I've seen in a while. Lot of implications for this

A Stanford team has designed an entirely new form of cooling panel that works even when the sun is shining. Such a panel could vastly improve the daylight cooling of buildings, cars and other structures by radiating sunlight back into the chilly vacuum of space.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-03-solar-cools-full-sunlight.html#jCp

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-solar-cools-full-sunlight.html

snip

Net cooling power The new device is capable of achieving a net cooling power in excess of 100 watts per square meter. By comparison, today's standard 10-percent-efficient solar panels generate the about the same amount of power. That means Fan's radiative cooling panels could theoretically be substituted on rooftops where existing solar panels feed electricity to air conditioning systems needed to cool the building. To put it a different way, a typical one-story, single-family house with just 10 percent of its roof covered by radiative cooling panels could offset 35 percent its entire air conditioning needs during the hottest hours of the summer. Radiative cooling has another profound advantage over all other cooling strategy such as air-conditioner. It is a passive technology. It requires no energy. It has no moving parts. It is easy to maintain. You put it on the roof or the sides of buildings and it starts working immediately.

This is just brilliant

 

[Dancing David]

It's not just the hillbillies, ya'll.

This billy would like some hills, we ain't even got hollers, we gots some ditches.. The moraines here in my county are only about fifty feet.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Kentucky IS lovely....but that would be thousands of years Quarky....not millions and you haven't had climax forests for eons....more like millenia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png
wiki image. last glacial maximum
but the sentiment is nice.

You should exercise critical thinking in a permanent fashion.

That map is an aberration, typical of Wikipedia, the webopedia that stammers bits of knowledge.

The caption "Map Generated by the National Geophysical Data Center" is misleading because that's just the tool used to generate the emerging land profile. Some dude put "100 metres below current level" and generated map and caption to later edit them and add the biomes, that is, the filming set of One Million Years B.C. with dinosaurs and Raquel Welch included.

So, a map for a planet similar to Earth was obtained so we can practice critical thinking. How do we spot it isn't our Earth? Well, we have a thick ice sheet covering all the way up to Chicago (about 42°N in our Earth) and then taiga until a gulf similar to our Gulf of Mexico puts and end to it (about 30°N in our Earth). On the other side of the map, we have an ice sheet covering something similar to our Andes, in the southern part, some place similar to our Patagonia, the ice sheet reaches the "Pacific" coast (50 to 55°S in our Earth) and covers areas that match low areas and elevation not higher than the Appalachians (in our Earth), but they are on the verge of a "temperate dessert", and that dessert or semi-dessert borders with a "tropical extreme dessert". Very interesting, because if it were our Earth the boundary between the southern temperate and extreme tropical dessert would lay on the same latitude where taiga ends in the ocean.

But I might be mistaken and what we have discovered is another impending menace: the Earth shows hemispheric schizophrenia whenever the temperature of the globe changes. It would be a good companion for ticking methane bombs, wouldn't it?

 

[quarky]

This billy would like some hills, we ain't even got hollers, we gots some ditches.. The moraines here in my county are only about fifty feet.

They never made it to hear. They stopped at the northern most part of the state

 

[batvette]

So I was duly informed this is the official climate change discussion thread.

Let the games begin.

As if my individual position meant spit, here it is. The earth is likely warming, it is reasonable AGW may be the primary factor but I have a somewhat different take on the solar factor and more importantly assert that the science IS perverted inherently by the line of work involved. (will be elaborated on)

Accepting a good chance this is shown false someday and not really afraid to admit I was in error if I was, the more important argument to me is the double pronged issue:

so called "alarmists" in the public largely care less about saving the planet than using the issue for political capital or moral posturing, or promoting various ideologies, proven by:

the fact that since the implementation of Kyoto Protocol, GLOBAL GGE have not only risen but seen the rate of their rise increase as well...

and when shown this virtually all alarmists ignore this, change the subject, or make cute remarks that it's okay that we allow China and India to pollute and industrialize because they will all industrialize with the green energy sources Americans cannot hope to afford now.

In other words a complete lack of concern about the doomsday issue and more focus on politics and finger pointing.

This finally reveals the most caustic position I will argue, related to the failure of Kyoto, and is motivated by my own ideology, which is curiously, saving the planet.

Those promoting AGW and blind acceptance of policies to supposedly mitigate it, have already put us on a path of doom because of the conflicting goals of their left leaning global socialism and environmentalism as religion ideologies.

making it easy to swallow the poison pill, you cannot mitigate a problem allegedly caused by human industrial activity, while you industrialize billions of humans

Some arguments were posted here already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

Say what you like I bet you haven't seen these before.

The introduction is obviously, umm, cavalier. I think you're going to have fun with this if you like this sort of thing. Because I'm always right, and when I find I'm not I admit it so fast and graciously you might not notice it happened- but it does.

 

[DC]

So I was duly informed this is the official climate change discussion thread.

Let the games begin.

As if my individual position meant spit, here it is. The earth is likely warming, it is reasonable AGW may be the primary factor but I have a somewhat different take on the solar factor and more importantly assert that the science IS perverted inherently by the line of work involved. (will be elaborated on)

Accepting a good chance this is shown false someday and not really afraid to admit I was in error if I was, the more important argument to me is the double pronged issue:

so called "alarmists" in the public largely care less about saving the planet than using the issue for political capital or moral posturing, or promoting various ideologies, proven by:

the fact that since the implementation of Kyoto Protocol, GLOBAL GGE have not only risen but seen the rate of their rise increase as well...

and when shown this virtually all alarmists ignore this, change the subject, or make cute remarks that it's okay that we allow China and India to pollute and industrialize because they will all industrialize with the green energy sources Americans cannot hope to afford now.

In other words a complete lack of concern about the doomsday issue and more focus on politics and finger pointing.

Some arguments were posted here already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

The introduction is obviously, umm, cavalier. I think you're going to have fun with this if you like this sort of thing. Because I'm always right, and when I find I'm not I admit it so fast and graciously you might not notice it happened- but it does.

so you think we should have prevented that they do that?
what is your point exactly?

While i see AGW as the biggest problem ever, i can totally understand China and INdia trying to get to the standard of living we have. only normal. They cannot afford more expensive energy sources, we on the other hand can. India for example has despite being a developing country, introduced a CO2 tax on coal.
Chine is heavy investing in alternative energy sources despite being a developing country.
we the already developed countries created the majority of the problem. we created most of the anthropogenic CO2. its up to us to lead the efforts to solve the problem.

 

[DC]

So I was duly informed this is the official climate change discussion thread.

Let the games begin.

As if my individual position meant spit, here it is. The earth is likely warming, it is reasonable AGW may be the primary factor but I have a somewhat different take on the solar factor and more importantly assert that the science IS perverted inherently by the line of work involved. (will be elaborated on)

Accepting a good chance this is shown false someday and not really afraid to admit I was in error if I was, the more important argument to me is the double pronged issue:

so called "alarmists" in the public largely care less about saving the planet than using the issue for political capital or moral posturing, or promoting various ideologies, proven by:

the fact that since the implementation of Kyoto Protocol, GLOBAL GGE have not only risen but seen the rate of their rise increase as well...

and when shown this virtually all alarmists ignore this, change the subject, or make cute remarks that it's okay that we allow China and India to pollute and industrialize because they will all industrialize with the green energy sources Americans cannot hope to afford now.

In other words a complete lack of concern about the doomsday issue and more focus on politics and finger pointing.

This finally reveals the most caustic position I will argue, related to the failure of Kyoto, and is motivated by my own ideology, which is curiously, saving the planet.

Those promoting AGW and blind acceptance of policies to supposedly mitigate it, have already put us on a path of doom because of the conflicting goals of their left leaning global socialism and environmentalism as religion ideologies.

making it easy to swallow the poison pill, you cannot mitigate a problem allegedly caused by human industrial activity, while you industrialize billions of humans

Some arguments were posted here already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

Say what you like I bet you haven't seen these before.

The introduction is obviously, umm, cavalier. I think you're going to have fun with this if you like this sort of thing. Because I'm always right, and when I find I'm not I admit it so fast and graciously you might not notice it happened- but it does.

the problem is not industrialisation itself. its the energy sources we used to do so. we can have industrialisation with reduced fossil fuel usage, and maybe soon without fossil fuels.

Also China is for a large part emitting CO2 to produce the goods we in the developed world consume.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j, Cherry picking data about local winters is just wrong

It's funny, because that is pretty much exactly what I see the people who deny the winter trend doing.

There is nothing to deny.
The actual measurements of winter tempertaures state that that the winter trend is warming.

As you said:

That anyone can look at that, and insist winters there have become warmer, is simply insane. Of course you can pick the coldest point on the record and make it seem like it, that's what a cherry pickin is all about. But when you see all the data, it's a lot harder to buffalo a farmer in rural Tennessee that it's global warming causing his woes.

But you had just done what you accused other people of doing !
That anyone can look at those cherry picked graphs, and insist winters there have become warmer, is simply insane. That anyone would present cherry picked graphs is equallly "insane" .

Your cherry picking of some states over some time periods having winters getting colder is what we sometimes see from climate change deniers. Sometimes we can blame this on their ignorance. Sometimes we can blame this on their political agenda.
The appropriate data is global winter temperatures over long enough periods so that we are looking at climate not weather. You might use USA temperature data as a proxy for global temperatures but that is prone to error, e.g. what about winter temperatures on the other hemispheres?

 

[aleCcowaN]

So I was duly informed this is the official climate change discussion thread.

Let the games begin.

As if my individual position meant spit, here it is. The earth is likely warming, it is reasonable AGW may be the primary factor but I have a somewhat different take on the solar factor and more importantly assert that the science IS perverted inherently by the line of work involved. (will be elaborated on)

Accepting a good chance this is shown false someday and not really afraid to admit I was in error if I was, the more important argument to me is the double pronged issue:

so called "alarmists" in the public largely care less about saving the planet than using the issue for political capital or moral posturing, or promoting various ideologies, proven by:

the fact that since the implementation of Kyoto Protocol, GLOBAL GGE have not only risen but seen the rate of their rise increase as well...

and when shown this virtually all alarmists ignore this, change the subject, or make cute remarks that it's okay that we allow China and India to pollute and industrialize because they will all industrialize with the green energy sources Americans cannot hope to afford now.

In other words a complete lack of concern about the doomsday issue and more focus on politics and finger pointing.

This finally reveals the most caustic position I will argue, related to the failure of Kyoto, and is motivated by my own ideology, which is curiously, saving the planet.

Those promoting AGW and blind acceptance of policies to supposedly mitigate it, have already put us on a path of doom because of the conflicting goals of their left leaning global socialism and environmentalism as religion ideologies.

making it easy to swallow the poison pill, you cannot mitigate a problem allegedly caused by human industrial activity, while you industrialize billions of humans

Some arguments were posted here already:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249353

Say what you like I bet you haven't seen these before.

The introduction is obviously, umm, cavalier. I think you're going to have fun with this if you like this sort of thing. Because I'm always right, and when I find I'm not I admit it so fast and graciously you might not notice it happened- but it does.

So, you're the famous acquiescent opinionated or do you believe in suspensive conclusions?

As you are new to this kind of threads, I tell you: fora are not chat-rooms; nobody is interested -or should be- in you changing your opinions: like your personal hygiene, our only interest is avoiding that something nasty gets stick to the general public. If that renders you in a cleaner cut, that is just a side effect. People is entitled an opinion. People is not entitled at all to their opinions to be the truth.

Major concerns here: people with not enough education to know that there are convergent and divergent problems and you can't apply the tools for solving one group to the other; talkative people who is innumerate; manipulative people who have liked from Perry Mason to The Good Wife and think that the adversarial system is a way to discuss scientific topic and not a special system circumscribed to the legal courts and in an improper way to politics; and people with sloppy educations which include a lot of courses about science in high school and university and who think they do know what science is.

Finally, the moral concerns are always present here, as it should be. But it is more of the kind of concerns about your intellectual "hygiene". It's call good faith and bad faith.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j, no answer to this yet:

The scientific method includes that the person making an assertion, e.g. that winters are getting colder, has to provide evidence. So r-j, just show the data that winters over say the last 100 years have become colder.

You could do the sensible thing and use global winter temperature data which takes a couple of clicks at Climate at a Glance.
I hope that you do not continue your irrelevant, cherry picking of some USA states over some time periods. You are getting close to spamming the thread with these cherry picked graphs.

 

[Reality Check]

If it was up to me, you would find your Division, and look at ALL of the data for it. ....

r-j, That would be insanely wrong for this thread.
Your assertion is that "winters are getting colder". That is really vague but given the thread topic you mean global temperatures and we have shown that you are wrong.
Global winter temperatures have increased by 0.07 F/decade (Climate at a Glance)
You may be talking about all regions over all time periods. To invalidate that assertion all we have to do is find 1 (count them r-j: 1, one, uno, etc. ) winter in some region in the world over some period that is not getting colder. Again this has been done so you are still wrong.

So what goal posts are you going to shift, r-j?
ETA: I hope that it is to the trivial and scientifically correct position that some regions over some time periods have winters that have gotten colder, some regions over some time periods have winters that have gotten warmer and globally (the subject of this thread) winter temperatures have become warmer.

 

[quarky]

There is always the potential for an event, whether it be from the sun or from volcanoes, that we will be glad and lucky that we heated up the place.

That doesn't negate the effect of massive quantities of hydrocarbons being oxidized; like never before.

We're bringing to the surface, ages of stored solar energy; all in a hurry, at least compared to the time involved in their sequestration.

Why would be expecting anything else?