Global warming

[CapelDodger]

Not at all. Till now, the climate models, IIRC, could not include natural cycles into their programs due to complexity and resources. The Hadley Centre in GB now claims to be the first model to try to do just that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm

But one serious volcano and all bets are off .

Hats off to these guys. It's real cock-on-the-block stuff. That's confidence. My money's on them being right.

They predict mild La Nina conditions for the next two years, as I understand it, which might bring some temporary relief (or just more floods) to Australia. In the longer term, though, it doesn't look pretty.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

I'm surprised they have anything much to say about your "cycles". Hansen and the IPCC mostly concern themselves with the practical effect of 383ppmCO2. Mann is famous for his climate reconstruction (and fixation on hockey).

Their work is based on observations and physics, your "cycles" are purely statistical derivations of noisy data. The 60-80 year Arctic cycle is credible, and there's a similarly derived 60-80 year rainfall cycle in the continental US, the last minimum being around the Dustbowl. It may be a long-wave cycle of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the historic Arctic ice-extent data is heavily slanted towards the Atlantic end of things.

Whatever, your cycle is just another broken reed. There's a new player in town, and things will never be the same again. The world's first industrialised species is making its presence felt.

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

I'm surprised they have anything much to say about your "cycles". Hansen and the IPCC mostly concern themselves with the practical effect of 383ppmCO2. Mann is famous for his climate reconstruction (and fixation on hockey).

Their work is based on observations and physics, your "cycles" are purely statistical derivations of noisy data. The 60-80 year Arctic cycle is credible, and there's a similarly derived 60-80 year rainfall cycle in the continental US, the last minimum being around the Dustbowl. It may be a long-wave cycle of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the historic Arctic ice-extent data is heavily slanted towards the Atlantic end of things.

Whatever, your "cycle" is just another broken reed. There's a new player in town, and things will never be the same again. The world's first industrialised species is making its presence felt.

 

[a_unique_person]

A million bucks says they won't get bigger after you raise the temperature..

( I just remembered, I don't have a million bucks. Would you settle for a case of
Fosters Special Bitter ? )

The experiment you have set up has us controlling the temperature. How about we add in a little chaotic behaviour to the temperature, and some ice cream rain?

 

[CapelDodger]

How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

South Pole : Continent surrounded by ocean.

North Pole : Ocean almost surrounded by continent.


Very different beasts, very different ice-dynamics. In the south, sea-ice is dominated by the ice-flow off the continent; in the north it's dominated by how the ocean freezes.

 

[mhaze]

A million bucks says they won't get bigger after you raise the temperature..

( I just remembered, I don't have a million bucks. Would you settle for a case of
Fosters Special Bitter ? )

ice cream was so much fun.
Lets try some pie. But, is it a hot pie? They say it is about to burn up.
70% measures 2C hotter than it really is. Is our pie hot or not hot?



The pie chart of US temperatures monitoring sites.
Anthony Watt's interim results.
www.surfacestations.org
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#comments

 

[mhaze]

your "cycles" are purely statistical derivations of noisy data. The 60-80 year Arctic cycle is credible, and there's a similarly derived 60-80 year rainfall cycle in the continental US, the last minimum being around the Dustbowl. It may be a long-wave cycle of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the historic Arctic ice-extent data is heavily slanted towards the Atlantic end of things.

Whatever, your "cycle" is just another broken reed. There's a new player in town, and things will never be the same again. The world's first industrialised species is making its presence felt.

Yes, indeed we are.

By scoffing at alarmist claims of those species afflicted with climatoGOREfrezia, lobotowarmingmyopia, and the most incurable carbondioxidethrombosis.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

There were people nuts enough to live around the North-West Passage, and they didn't report anything like today's lack of ice. If you're going to take comfort from this cycle, it'll surely have to match the previous minimum. Sometime in the 1920's to 40's. Do you have any anectdotal evidence for an equivalent minimum?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures.

Sure looks like a cycle.

But there's a new influence. Human-induced greenhouse warming. An exponential influence, which is why it's only featuring in modern times. There is no refuge in the past

Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle ...

Your cycle has already been blown away by AGW. AGW has muscled its way into dominance.

... but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Ignoring the cycle actually reduces the observed AGW. Including a cycle that is working against AGW is an easy get-out, if one's intention is to exaggerate the effect.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

Your cycle lies kicked to death on the road we are going down.

 

[CapelDodger]

I see the observation was lost on both of you..

I see my point was lost on you. Do you seriously think several out of several hundred is significant?

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

Pass me the glacier, then ask me again.

If th planet isn't getting warmer, why are all the other glaciers retreating? That's a question from me.

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

It depends on where and how the ice is formed. For instance, in Patagonia there's a glacier that's advancing because its source is very high, in altitude and latitude, and is accumulating the extra moisture generated by the warmer southern oceans. That creates extra pressure on the whole glacier, and so thrusts out the bottom end. The increased melt-water (due to global warming) in the lower reaches lubricates the process. Wham, bam, advancing glacier in a warming world.

Pass me another one.

I see my observation was lost on you.

At least I answered your sort-of question. Are you still struggling to understand?

 

[CapelDodger]

The pie chart of US temperatures monitoring sites.

Well, won't that make a difference. Pie-charts as climate forcings ... it's new, I'll grant you that.

 

[CapelDodger]

Heck yeah. I'd bring popcorn

I'm still in recovery from Politics, I just can't go there. I lost years of my life to it (and made some friends), and I'll lose no more. I'm utterly sworn off.

I'm eager for reports, though : is that where Diamond et al are hanging out? Damn' little sign of them around here.

 

[mhaze]

AGW has muscled its way into dominance.

Really? It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

 

[a_unique_person]

Really? It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

Read the IPCC report.

 

[Tex Luthor]

Read the IPCC report.

This is one of the first times in modern history where we have science by inquisition. Follow the money, those who oppose the man created global warming stance are ridiculed, ostracised, and even fired - why?

 

[a_unique_person]

ice cream was so much fun.
Lets try some pie. But, is it a hot pie? They say it is about to burn up.
70% measures 2C hotter than it really is. Is our pie hot or not hot?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8267http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422446e877e251197.gif

The pie chart of US temperatures monitoring sites.
Anthony Watt's interim results.
www.surfacestations.org
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#comments

You are talking about UHI. It's already taken into account.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110

 

[a_unique_person]

This is one of the first times in modern history where we have science by inquisition. Follow the money, those who oppose the man created global warming stance are ridiculed, ostracised, and even fired - why?

Have you read the report?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Lets suppose you are a climate scientist in a position of power.
Your profession used to be boring and it looks that every other scientist (geneticist, chemistry, computer) were getting all the grants and the public attention.
But suddenly there is a new field of study. Global Warming. Earth is being menaced by a terrible force, and it looks that YOU are the one that can solve it.
You found yourself giving advice to police makers. The new budget for this field is 6.7 billion dollars for the next year. You are receiveing grants and public attention in a way you never dream off. But there come those little, small voices who start to raise doubts about the nature of the warming we are experimenting. They are even looking at the data and the algorithms you elaborated to demostrate your position. They are challenging your worst case scenarios......they are pointing the changing nature of the climate.

Imagine what a tragedy will be for you that somebody demostrate that you are wrong and there is nothing tho worry about !. Would you welcome that research?

For those who care, I guess that next year will be a very good time to cacth the discussion about AGW again . Data auditing and some revisions of the cycles theories are very active right now.

This is one of the first times in modern history where we have science by inquisition. Follow the money, those who oppose the man created global warming stance are ridiculed, ostracised, and even fired - why?

 

[a_unique_person]

Lets suppose you are a climate scientist in a position of power.
Your profession used to be boring and it looks that every other scientist (geneticist, chemistry, computer) were getting all the grants and the public attention.
But suddenly there is a new field of study. Global Warming. Earth is being menaced by a terrible force, and it looks that YOU are the one that can solve it.
You found yourself giving advice to police makers. The new budget for this field is 6.7 billion dollars for the next year. You are receiveing grants and public attention in a way you never dream off. But there come those little, small voices who start to raise doubts about the nature of the warming we are experimenting. They are even looking at the data and the algorithms you elaborated to demostrate your position. They are challenging your worst case scenarios......they are pointing the changing nature of the climate.

Imagine what a tragedy will be for you that somebody demostrate that you are wrong and there is nothing tho worry about !. Would you welcome that research?

For those who care, I guess that next year will be a very good time to cacth the discussion about AGW again . Data auditing and some revisions of the cycles theories are very active right now.

Fiction is now evidence?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Ask Hansen...or better, follow up the "code" saga.

 

[a_unique_person]

Hansens code has stood up to the test already, ten years after his presentation to congress, his projection has been accurate.