|
Post by nickrr on Jul 29, 2011 14:09:40 GMT 1
Oh dear. I thought that I'd made it clear but obviously not. I'll try one more time.
1) The sun's output changes over time. This can cause changes in earth's climate.
2) Humans are releasing large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. This can also change the earth's climate.
These two scenarios are not mutually exclusive. They can both affect the climate at the same time.
Furthermore we can't do anything about 1), but we can do something about 2).
I can't make it any simpler than this.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 4, 2011 20:06:31 GMT 1
"Sunspots indicate colder winters" The Irish Times - Thursday, August 4, 2011 "Lockwood stresses that his results have no implications for global warming. The changes that Lockwood predicts are regional and only apply to winter, whereas climate change refers to average temperatures all year round and in all parts of the world. Colder winters in Europe have little effect on global mean temperature. When winters are colder in Europe it tends to be warmer in Greenland." "A vigorous and acrimonious public debate continues on the causes of the global warming we experienced in the 20th century. On one side a large majority of climate experts assure us that the warming is largely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. The opposing minority side, which includes many amateur voices, insists that any warming is largely caused by natural environmental changes and not by human activities. Over the past decade the minority side has often accused the majority of ignoring the role solar activity plays in global warming. However, these recent papers by Lockwood and collaborators, all scientists from the majority side, clearly acknowledge the influence of current solar activity on regional climate but claim that this does not ameliorate man-made global warming, which remains as big a problem as before." First question, why write this article now? The date of the paper/letter is Received 12 March 2010 Accepted for publication 31 March 2010 Published 14 April 2010 Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/5/024001 "and not by human activities" There are not many people who say that. All animals will have an effect on the environment. [We all do agree we are animals, don't we?] "clearly acknowledge the influence of current solar activity on regional climate" ...but not on the Earth as a whole? "When winters are colder in Europe it tends to be warmer in Greenland" That's not down to the Sun surely? [not sunspot wise] ---- For completeness, the abstract and paper... iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf[on reading the copyright rules, it doesn't look as though copy/paste in public is allowed] ---- StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 8, 2011 19:30:50 GMT 1
" The Polar region is the subject of intense day-to-day scrutiny by climate researchers, who are trying to understand what will happen to the sea ice as the Earth warms, and what the implications might be for ocean currents and global weather patterns. One thing is clear — summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant during the past 10,000 years. For big slice of that time, between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago, there was much less — by half — ice than now. The new study, to be published in the Journal Science, suggests that there was only half as much ice during that relatively warm period, known as the Holocene Climate Optimum. " " The new study shows that, as ice disappears from one region, it may build up somewhere else, probably as a result of shifting wind patterns. That wind factor hasn’t been completely accounted for in most current studies on the loss of sea ice, the researchers said. Since sea ice comes and goes without leaving much of a record, accurate observations of its extent only go back as far as the 1970s, the beginning of the satellite era, when photographic images began allowing scientists to map and measure the ebb and flow of the ice. " " Beach ridges and wave breaking The team also examined beach ridges along the coast. Today, perennial ice prevents any sort of beach from forming along the coasts of northern Greenland. But this had not always been the case. By mapping the wave-caused beach ridges for 500 kilometers along the coast of Greenland, the study shows that, during the warm period from about 8000 until 4000 years ago, there was more open water and less coastal ice than today. " " “Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice,” Funder said. “The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. " summitcountyvoice.com/2011/08/07/global-warming-ancient-driftwood-offers-sea-ice-clues/Comment: An amount of 'back-pedalling' is detected in some parts of the press. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 8, 2011 19:51:05 GMT 1
The Australian August 08, 2011 "A degree of uncertainty about how much the planet is warming " "*There are many additional factors that shape computations of the global climate and they require the biggest of today's supercomputers, which calculate algorithms beyond the comprehension of mere mortals or our intuition" Comments on this story. "Hugh of Gosford Posted at 5:53 AM August 08, 2011 An interesting article, Ziggy. So this whole climate scare started in 1896 with the inaccurate coupling of CO2 and temperature by Svante Arrhenius. Since when the scientists have struggled to fit the real world measurements with this hypothesis. I for one do not accept the peer-reviewed science, given the bias of grant-dependent climate scientists and the tip of the iceberg corruption exposed in the climategate emails and IPCC flawed computer modelling. Consensus is not the way science is done. There is a wealth of counter argument from eminent scientists. These are scientists who are either not grant-dependent, or those who have put their careers and reputations on the line in the face of brutal resistance by the warmist alarmists in power in government of the scientific community. But Truth will ultimately out, as the climate scare narrative is finally being opened up to question - even in articles as mild as yours, Ziggy. Watch this space! " www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-degree-of-uncertainty-about-how-much-the-planet-is-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1226110445328---- Comment: This article is a decent read. As I was saying back pedalling seems to be taking place, generally. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 8, 2011 20:31:54 GMT 1
IOPscience "Early onset of significant local warming in low latitude countries" I Mahlstein, R Knutti, S Solomon and R W Portmann Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (July-September 2011) 034009 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034009 Environmental Research Letters ---- Abstract. The Earth is warming on average, and most of the global warming of the past half-century can very likely be attributed to human influence. But the climate in particular locations is much more variable, raising the question of where and when local changes could become perceptible enough to be obvious to people in the form of local warming that exceeds interannual variability; indeed only a few studies have addressed the significance of local signals relative to variability. It is well known that the largest total warming is expected to occur in high latitudes, but high latitudes are also subject to the largest variability, delaying the emergence of significant changes there. Here we show that due to the small temperature variability from one year to another, [/color=Brown]the earliest emergence of significant warming occurs in the summer season in low latitude countries ( ≈ 25°S–25°N).[/color] We also show that a local warming signal that exceeds past variability is emerging at present, or will likely emerge in the next two decades, in many tropical countries. Further, for most countries worldwide, a mean global warming of 1 °C is sufficient for a significant temperature change, which is less than the total warming projected for any economically plausible emission scenario. The most strongly affected countries emit small amounts of CO2 per capita and have therefore contributed little to the changes in climate that they are beginning to experience. ---- Full Letter... iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034009/fulltext---- .pdf letter... iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034009/pdf/1748-9326_6_3_034009.pdf---- Comment: Some of "The most strongly affected countries" export a lot of the oil. To be burnt in the least affected countries. That in turn makes the most affected countries. Novel irony. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 10, 2011 18:22:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by principled on Aug 10, 2011 20:24:37 GMT 1
Stu:
More evidence, if any were needed, that the climate models as used are insufficiently comprehensive. Now, this isn't a criticism but and observation. However, it's time the climate scientists and the IPCC told the general public (and our technologically illiterate politicians) that the results of their climate models about future changes are no more accurate than the 5-day weather forecast from the Met! This may lead to a more sensible two-pronged policy of reducing the use of finite energy resources coupled with a policy to mitigate possible CC. P
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 10, 2011 22:17:19 GMT 1
P. Yes, As said further up the page, back-pedalling, re-engineering one's position, re-nuance-ing [oooo!], whatever.
They have not been trying to take, or attempting to take, the 'known unknowns' into account. In some cases quite the reverse, and removed some. We have seen [for those who will see] a cover up of 'embarrassing' results [CLOUD] as soon as it looks likely that they may go the 'other way'.
----
"and our technologically illiterate politicians"
When it started, for real, [with the last lot] it was seen as a 'nice little earner' for tax. In fact that's why it started, polarised by spin into two camps. One side far seeing, progressive heros of the Earth, versus reactionary degenerates on the road to hell. Hopefully, and it's a big hope, this lot seem a little better on this score.
----
"no more accurate than the 5-day weather forecast from the Met! "
much less so?
----
The 'head honcho' of CERN said a few weeks back about CLOUD results were to be presented without interpretation so that they would not be 'politicised'. [Words to that effect] Well pity he and others in similar positions didn't say that a few bloody years back. We wouldn't have the animosity that now exists.
That's not to say that charlatans do not exist on both sides. 'Big Oil' [and other corporate ilk] have a lot to answer for. My Dad's hobby horse, and of course His idea wasn't taken seriously by Yours Truly. It was seen in action very soon after starting work, on several occasions even from my 'worms eye view'. Good ideas would be tested and seen to be viable, along would come a corporate 'something or other', show an interest, buy an interest and the idea/device never seen again. Not because it was inviable, but because it wasn't!
----
If 'they' can show a saving, a decrease in consumption, a genuine pollution reduction, then people by and large will go along with it. A green stick to excuse another tax take is not a flyer.
---- "Now, this isn't a criticism but and observation."
I've formed my criticisms from observations of the so called 'climate scientists'. I've no doubt there are some good ones................somewhere. Unfortunately most seem to have some sort of political affiliations. In observing this climate evidence, it has been found wanting. In cases where honest findings have been given straight from the 'horses mouth', a return some time later finds a different interpretation evident. Unfortunately the 'good ones' are washed out with propaganda.
----
StuartG
ps. This sentence has been added not for support of anything written above but as a reference point for future argument.
"Talent usually comes at a cost" [to the whole personality.] 'Jack the Rat' tea maker and cleaner at my first job
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 10, 2011 23:46:29 GMT 1
"Studies find different reasons for global methane riddle" August 10, 2011 "Two new UC Irvine papers reach markedly different conclusions about why methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, unexpectedly leveled off near the end of the 20th century. They appear today in the journal Nature." One cites less dependency on oil, the other new farming practices — Irvine, Calif., August 10, 2011 — Two new UC Irvine papers reach markedly different conclusions about why methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas, unexpectedly leveled off near the end of the 20th century. They appear today in the journal Nature. Both note that after decades of increases due to worldwide industry and agriculture, the tapering off of the hazardous hydrocarbon in the atmosphere – which began in the 1980s – was remarkable. “It was an amazing mystery as to why this occurred,” said Earth system science professor Eric Saltzman, a co-author of one paper, which suggests that reduced use of petroleum and increased capture and commercial use of natural gas were the driving factors. A second UCI paper found that water efficiency and heavier commercial fertilizer use in the booming Asian farming sector provided less fertile ground for soil microbes that create methane, while at the same time increasing nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. .... Identifying methane sources is urgent. Research has shown that the fast-acting greenhouse gas is the second-largest contributor to climate change. Scientists around the world were heartened by the stabilizing levels, but there are now signs the hydrocarbon may be on the upswing again. today.uci.edu/news/2011/08/nr_methane_110810.phpStuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 12, 2011 18:43:03 GMT 1
illustration Jim Bradford "Man-made global warming debate needs level playing field" "If science isn't there, axe the carbon tax " —John O'Connor August 11, 2011 "If there were a time for global warming skeptics to be rubbing it in the noses of global warming proponents (let's call them warmists), now would be a good time." .... "Regardless of what side you stand on, you have to admit that the odds, legitimate or not, are stacked in the favour of the warmist's theory, because both warming and cooling trends are supposedly evidence that global warming is occurring as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. It seems even if the entire world were in a deep freeze for 12 straight months, the warmists would cry out that global warming had caused this bizarre cycle. Heads, I win, tails, you lose. Even if skeptics were able to show cooling trends—which they have, flawed warnings about polar caps melting and polar bears going extinct, and flawed science meant to show warming trends (Climategate), it wouldn't make a difference anyways, at least to the public, who are fed a steady diet of catastrophic, end-of-the-world scenarios all caused by man-made activity." .... Merritt News Friday August 12, 2011 www.merrittnews.net/article/20110811/MERRITT0302/110819961/-1/MERRITT/man-made-global-warming-debate-needs-level-playing-field
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 1, 2012 19:05:26 GMT 1
Here's an interesting example of "warming", or rather, an increase in mean temperature about which we are supposed to be sooo concerned!
Consider two regional climates. One ranges from 0c to 40c (like Melbourne) while another ranges from 6c to 38c (like Brisbane).
Let's say global warming increases the average temperature of Melbourne making it more like Brisbane's, i.e it changes from (0 +40)/2 = 20c to (6 + 38)/2 = 22c.
Which climate would you rather have 0-40 or 6-38?
Note that the average temp in Melbourne increased by 2 deg C but the temperature in fact became more moderate!
---------
Averages smaverages! There is no such thing as an average temperature!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 13, 2012 12:29:23 GMT 1
A warming world? Well, here's how it's done! Definitely Man-made! Thanks to Warwick Hughes! www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1490---------- Dr Phil Jones is back in the driver's seat with CRUTem4 updated land only global temperature data. It warms more than the UKMO CRUTem3. CRUTem4 is just released and shows more warming than the UK Met Office dominated CRUTem3 -------- The mixture as before. Ever more Warming of the present and ever more Cooling of the past. These alarmists really are immitigable shysters. Using the “Land” data from this University of Alabama at Huntsville site. CRUTem3 warms much faster than the satellites and CRUTem4 faster still.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 14, 2012 9:44:12 GMT 1
And here's how the "adjustment" of raw data by United States Historical Climatic Network (USHCN) leads to artificial inflation of trends. This does not even touch upon the distortions inherent in "homogenisation" i.e. the "smearing" of sparse results over an ever wider area and the raising of rural temps relative to urban. DR Roy Spencer says: When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments. more here wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/#more-61278-------- This makes me seriously doubt whether there has been anything like the scale of warming claimed by the IPCC climate alarmists and advocates.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 15, 2012 9:42:19 GMT 1
And here's how the CRUTem data departs from the UAH satellite data. An ever widening gap with each of Phil Jones's "versions" 2, 3 and 4 of the "actualité" From www.warwickhughes.com/blog/You will note that CRUTem4 data released only goes up to 2010. That is because after than it showed a levelling off that was inconsistent with the narrative of ever increasing global temps. Met Office being a little "economical with the actualité". The truth will out - eventually!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 22, 2012 13:32:10 GMT 1
|
|