Global warming

[mhaze]

Okay, quick answer. Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, constitutes 0.0360% of the earth's atmosphere. That's nothing. That's small enough for us to change drastically. When I first heard this at the tender age of 15, way back in the early 70's, I thought "Hey, we're burning billions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons. Won't that have an effect?" Uh huh. Even a 15 year old could figure that one out. The math is actually pretty simple.

There is a great deal of political propaganda to convince you of this and weak scientific support on this theory.

Exhibit 2: The arctic circle is now the object of heavy competition between multiple countries--well, between the oil companies of multiple countries. Why is that? Nobody gave a damn about it ten years ago. But now, the arctic is melting. It's all opening up, it's all becoming navigable. Do you remember the Northwest Passage, an expedition of an oil tanker called the Manhattan and a small Canadian icebreaker? They gave up on it--the Manhattan got ripped to shreds by the ice. Had it not been for the icebreaker, they would have lost the whole ship. If it had been carrying oil, all the oil would have ended up in the ice. Thirty years later, that's not the case. But hey, aren't these oil companies the same people claiming that the temperature is not warming? Or that the sun is doing it (disproven.) Or that volcanoes are doing it (also disproven.)

The very people telling you it isn't happening are positioning themselves for the very outcome they say will not happen. They know it's happening. By now, so should you.

No, there is no giant Exxon plot.

Natural forces and cycles are at work.

I had a question for you based on this snip.

1. Last year, when a conference was held at Tuktoyaktuk on the shores of the Beaufort Sea, news reports blamed global warming for the massive coastal erosion that is endangering the community.
2. However, research has documented that such erosion has been occurring along this part of the Mackenzie Delta at a rate of tens of metres per year for centuries, if not millennia.

What would you do about the liars in (1)?

 

[a_unique_person]

There is a great deal of political propaganda to convince you of this and weak scientific support on this theory.

The theory is quite basic and understood for over 100 years now. Intensive research and empirical evidence has confirmed it. Read the IPCC.

 

[mhaze]

Okay, quick answer. Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, constitutes 0.0360% of the earth's atmosphere. That's nothing. That's small enough for us to change drastically. When I first heard this at the tender age of 15, way back in the early 70's, I thought "Hey, we're burning billions of years worth of stored hydrocarbons. Won't that have an effect?" Uh huh. Even a 15 year old could figure that one out. The math is actually pretty simple.

Exhibit 2: The arctic circle is now the object of heavy competition between multiple countries--well, between the oil companies of multiple countries. Why is that? Nobody gave a damn about it ten years ago. But now, the arctic is melting. It's all opening up, it's all becoming navigable. Do you remember the Northwest Passage, an expedition of an oil tanker called the Manhattan and a small Canadian icebreaker? They gave up on it--the Manhattan got ripped to shreds by the ice. Had it not been for the icebreaker, they would have lost the whole ship. If it had been carrying oil, all the oil would have ended up in the ice. Thirty years later, that's not the case. But hey, aren't these oil companies the same people claiming that the temperature is not warming? Or that the sun is doing it (disproven.) Or that volcanoes are doing it (also disproven.)

The very people telling you it isn't happening are positioning themselves for the very outcome they say will not happen. They know it's happening. By now, so should you.

While you mull over my prior request for your opinion on how to handle groups that actively use misinformation and propaganda (which is not Exxon) here is another interesting tidbit.

An article today in Ad Age:

"But now one of the most hotly contended pitches out there is for the Alliance for Climate Protection, the organization formed last year by Al Gore. Four elite agencies — Crispin Porter & Bogusky, Bartle Bogle Hegarty, the Martin Agency and Y&R — are squaring off for the business and are expected to present to the former vice president himself early next month, according to executives familiar with the review.



The budget for the "historic, three-to-five-year, multimedia global campaign," as the request for proposals puts it, is contingent on how much money the alliance raises. Media spending will likely be more than $100 million a year."


​

Who is the big spender to influence public opinion? Oil companies, or greenwash?

 

[mhaze]

Yes. But the H2O emitted into the atmosphere goes back out again - we have this funny natural phenomena called rain, so the vapor never stays in the atmosphere for long enough to cause warming. Co2, on the other hand, when released in too big numbers, stays up there for hundreds of years.

You would want to go back and consider the Wentz 2007 link in post #883, and reconsider what happens to atmospheric moisture with increases in temperature.

And then check Schwartz 2007 regarding the time constant of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is likely to be 5-15 years instead of "hundreds of years".

These may affect your opinion; if not, they still refute the "traditional argument" you have presented.

 

[BobK]

It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link
It will be interesting to see what is discovered.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Computer predictions of a dramatic decline of sea ice in regions of the Arctic are confirmed by actual observations, according to scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Yes, it will be up for peer review;

Their research paper will be published Saturday in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600ap_wst_low_ice.html
-----------------------------------
Admittedly, it's a computer model, though still disconcerting;

WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 — and the entire population gone from Alaska — because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday.

Only in the northern Canadian Arctic islands and the west coast of Greenland are any of the world's 16,000 polar bears expected to survive through the end of the century, said the U.S. Geological Survey, which is the scientific arm of the Interior Department.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20645362/

 

[David Rodale]

The theory is quite basic and understood for over 100 years now. Intensive research and empirical evidence has confirmed it. Read the IPCC.

"Read the IPCC".

How about you quoting IPCC and it's empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 being the main driver of climate.

One snippet from AR4 SPM is thus:

Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region

If you have read IPCC, didn't that stick out at all?

So why all the talk about catastrophic sea levels when the IPCC Holy Scriptures doesn't implicitly state it?

You will also find nothing in IPCC implying "tipping points".

 

[David Rodale]

The models have been validated on past records using standard statistical methods. The projections aren't going to be perfect, and the model owners will tell you that up front. They are our best insight into what is coming. To just say they aren't perfect, therefore we should stick our collective head in the ground, is stupid. The model projections for Australia are holding up quite well, the South East is still in the grip of unprecedented drought, despite hopes that an El Nina would bring some relief this year. If only it weren't for the drought, Australia's farmers would be making a mint.

Quoting Gavin Schmidt is not evidence for climate models.

"Unprecedented".....seems like we've heard that term tortured enough.

You should become familiar with how climate models are constructed first before making such unsupportable statements.

Climate models are not "validated on past records", they are tuned (forced) to match. Models can be made to output any result the programmer wishes. It is a perpetual process as described here:
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/charles/Jackson_Sen_Stoffa_JCL.pdf

One source of uncertainty for climate model predictions arises from the fact that climate models have been
optimized to reproduce observational means.

Translation: fudge factors.

Models can give correct results for the wrong reasons, that being the parameterizations. Do yourself a favor and study climate models rather than posting opinions and non-evidence.

When observational evidence exceeds model predictions, that is not a validation of climate models.

 

[David Rodale]

Yes, it will be up for peer review;

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6600ap_wst_low_ice.html
-----------------------------------
Admittedly, it's a computer model, though still disconcerting;



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20645362/

More newspaper hype.

So, how did polar bears survive for thousands of years in previous periods with much warmer climate? The disclaimer "it's a computer model" says volumes.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf

During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.

That's odd. Nowhere in those news articles does it mention previous climate.

Curious musings from one of those news articles:

The models do not do as well accounting for wind and cloud patterns and other factors that may have contributed to recent warming, Overland said.

But the contribution to warming by greenhouse gas emissions likely are set, he said. Emissions stay in the atmosphere for 40 to 50 years before being absorbed by the ocean. The amount put out in the last 20 years and the carbon dioxide put out in the next 20 will be around to influence the half-century mark, Overland said.

Why not 100, 200 years for atmospheric CO2 life cycle? Why? Because there is no evidence to support even 40-50. Where is the "missing sink"? Junk science.

 

[Rob Lister]

It seems Hansen has finally released his code. Link
It will be interesting to see what is discovered.

Indeed, it seems Steve M's combination of 1) proving one part wrong and 2) enlisting the help of the internet to reverse engineer the methods from the data presented left Hanson -- or much more likely, Hanson's bosses -- with little choice. They were going to figure it out with or without the code.

At least Hanson was gracious (not).

Nothing like joisting with the jesters.

 

[a_unique_person]

Indeed, it seems Steve M's combination of 1) proving one part wrong and 2) enlisting the help of the internet to reverse engineer the methods from the data presented left Hanson -- or much more likely, Hanson's bosses -- with little choice. They were going to figure it out with or without the code.

At least Hanson was gracious (not).

Nothing like joisting with the jesters.

Where were the whoops of joy from the denier camps over the errors found in Christy's satellite data? Why didn't McIntyre find it?

Hanson knows that no matter what he does, the onslaught will never let up. Gracious given is as gracious received. The demands are not about truth, but about attacking.

 

[a_unique_person]

More newspaper hype.

So, how did polar bears survive for thousands of years in previous periods with much warmer climate? The disclaimer "it's a computer model" says volumes.

Maybe it's because the hockey stick is more accurate than the temperature records that people want to believe.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdfWhy not 100, 200 years for atmospheric CO2 life cycle? Why? Because there is no evidence to support even 40-50. Where is the "missing sink"? Junk science.

The evidence is there. You just choose to not believe it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Part of the chips falling as they may is the ability to verify the correctness of the raw data, the modeling, including the algorithms and actual computer program, thence the ability to replicate the results independantly. That's why the work of Steve McIntyre is so important.

Where is McIntyres in depth investigations of Christy, Singer, Lindzen, and the rest. I won't be holding my breath.

You have a group of people trying to get trillions of dollars in taxes, fees and fines due to the alleged effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in many critical cases, they won't let us see their data or methods.

It's a double bind, you want more research, which will cost even more money. They are quite happy to reduce the spending on research into the science, and spend more on preventing the problem. Don't make up motivations for them.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, how did polar bears survive for thousands of years in previous periods with much warmer climate?

Polar bears are a sub-species of the brown bear and have been around for about a hundred thousand years, as I understand it. There's no good evidence for thousand-year stretches of warmer climate than today during that period. There is good evidence against them - polar bears aren't extinct. Without human intervention, they will be soon. Their survival up to now can't be attributed to humans. Ergo, nothing like this has happened in any polar bear's experience, dead or alive.

There is no refuge in the past.

 

[CapelDodger]

Where were the whoops of joy from the denier camps over the errors found in Christy's satellite data? Why didn't McIntyre find it?

He's too busy trying to cool down Africa (where they really need it) having already cooled down the US of A. If you're lucky, McIntyre and his numerate minions will be along your way to do their cooling thing. Alphabetical seems fair, neh? Greece shouldn't get special preference for their entirely incidental cultural heritage. It's not Australia's fault that its deep cultural heritage could - and probably will - see this out as they've survived their own Unintended Consequences for tens of thousands of years. Australia hasn't inspired World Culture the way Greece has .

We're in the same group for the World Cup. Time for you to relocate to Old South Wales and join the winners .

 

[mhaze]

Nothing like joisting with the jesters.
​

Where were the whoops of joy from the denier camps over the errors found in Christy's satellite data? Why didn't McIntyre find it?

Hanson knows that no matter what he does, the onslaught will never let up. Gracious given is as gracious received. The demands are not about truth, but about attacking.

Well... FYI. ..

"jesters" (Hansen's word) were the only ones at court always allowed to speak the truth

 

[mhaze]

Where is McIntyres in depth investigations of Christy, Singer, Lindzen, and the rest. I won't be holding my breath.

It's a double bind, you want more research, which will cost even more money. They are quite happy to reduce the spending on research into the science, and spend more on preventing the problem. Don't make up motivations for them.

There is no double bind.

You are getting your audits for free.

I wonder why that is disliked...

 

[mhaze]

By-the-book AGW Strategy.

1. Run for the ICE!
2. Plead for the BEARS!
3. Reverently invoke the Authority of the Computer MODEL.

Dodge facts and published articles in science.

 

[David Rodale]

Maybe it's because the hockey stick is more accurate than the temperature records that people want to believe.

The evidence is there. You just choose to not believe it.

Unique, repeating the same errors over and over will not heal the broken hockey stick. I doubt you've ever read the details of it.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/archive/pr0310.html

Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

The studies are available. Search and you shall find.

 

[David Rodale]

So, how did polar bears survive for thousands of years in previous periods with much warmer climate?

Polar bears are a sub-species of the brown bear and have been around for about a hundred thousand years, as I understand it. There's no good evidence for thousand-year stretches of warmer climate than today during that period. There is good evidence against them - polar bears aren't extinct. Without human intervention, they will be soon. Their survival up to now can't be attributed to humans. Ergo, nothing like this has happened in any polar bear's experience, dead or alive.

There is no refuge in the past.

Can you read?
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/269.pdf