457 replies to this topic

[william7]

What do you think of the recent heat wave we're experiencing in the United States? This news video, at http://cosmos.bcst.y...3258053&lang=en, says the temperature reached 128 degrees in Las Vegas ("sin city"). How hot would it have to get before you would change your thinking and agree that serious changes are warranted?

[biknut]

This is a El Niño year. Whenever this happens it's hotter in the west, and wetter, and cooler in Texas. That's exactly what's happening. We haven't even had one 100 dregree day yet. It was predicted last winter.

If there's really man made global warming why was the warmest year 10 years ago? Try and answer that when CO2 increases every year.

Global warming is growing cool as a theory.

[william7]

So you don't think this prediction scientists are making that the Southwest will experience a megadrought for 90 years is any good? See http://abcnews.go.co...=3352465&page=1. Below the picture the article's caption says: "A recent heatwave in the Southwest is a reminder that global warning is well underway."

[biknut]

The answer is no it's not any good. That prediction is bs.

It's hotter there, it's cooler here. Does that mean global warming, or global cooling?

Overall the world is not getting any warmer for the last 10 years, soon to be 11. How many more years of no additional warming will it take for you to see that there's no global warming?

[william7]

The answer is no it's not any good. That prediction is bs.

It's hotter there, it's cooler here. Does that mean global warming, or global cooling?

Overall the world is not getting any warmer for the last 10 years, soon to be 11. How many more years of no additional warming will it take for you to see that there's no global warming?

So I take it you're not watching the Live Earth concerts then?

[william7]

If you want to learn how global warming is already effecting the world today check out Vital Signs of Global Warming: the science, impacts and scenarios of climate shifts, at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19463513/, for a very informative website packed full of videos and slideshows.

[biknut]

The answer is no it's not any good. That prediction is bs.

It's hotter there, it's cooler here. Does that mean global warming, or global cooling?

Overall the world is not getting any warmer for the last 10 years, soon to be 11. How many more years of no additional warming will it take for you to see that there's no global warming?

So I take it you're not watching the Live Earth concerts then?

I guess I wasn't the only one not interested.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Live Earth branded a foul-mouthed flop</span>

By TAHIRA YAQOOB - More by this author »
Last updated at 16:02pm on 9th July 2007

Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures.

But BBC's live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000.

In the evening, when coverage switched from BBC2 to BBC1, the figure rose to just 2.7 million.

And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5 million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before.

Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985.

The BBC blamed the poor figures on Saturday's good weather and said its Wimbledon tennis coverage had drawn away afternoon viewers.

Critics said however that the public had simply snubbed what they saw as a hypocritical event.

Musicians including Bob Geldof, Roger Daltrey and the Pet Shop Boys pointed out that a concert highlighting climate change had itself generated huge carbon emissions.

Performers were criticised for flying to concerts that were staged simultaneously on seven continents.

The BBC's coverage, which ran for 15 hours from 12.30pm on Saturday to 4am yesterday, also sparked dozens of complaints about bad language.

The swearing started at 1.30pm when Phil Collins, the first act on in London, used the f-word while singing with his band Genesis.

Razorlight singer Johnny Borrell used the same expletive a few minutes later in one of his songs. And Chris Rock swore while introducing fellow comic Ricky Gervais, who soon followed suit.

The bad language prompted a number of angry postings on BBC messageboards.

One viewer wrote: "Why did the BBC transmit this during daytime TV when many children will be watching? Why hasn't an apology been immediately forthcoming?" Another said: "It was disgusting behaviour." Other comments included: "It was pretty bad at that time of day" and "There is a line to be drawn".

http://www.dailymail...in_page_id=1770

[william7]

Critics said however that the public had simply snubbed what they saw as a hypocritical event.

Musicians including Bob Geldof, Roger Daltrey and the Pet Shop Boys pointed out that a concert highlighting climate change had itself generated huge carbon emissions.

Performers were criticised for flying to concerts that were staged simultaneously on seven continents

This is the way I saw it too, but I watched alittle of it on the Internet. The performers are the jet set crowd of super rich are they not? Checkout this MSN news video on the new rich, at http://video.msn.com...e...=00&fg=copy. I wish they all would've renounced their lavish lifestyles in favor of more simpler, less materialistic, ones.

Just think of all the wealthy fans who flew there or drove long distances to attend. Couldn't they all have gotten together through the Internet someway and produced the whole concert from their homes?

[biknut]

So you don't think this prediction scientists are making that the Southwest will experience a megadrought for 90 years is any good? See http://abcnews.go.co...=...2465&page=1. Below the picture the article's caption says: "A recent heatwave in the Southwest is a reminder that global warning is well underway."

elijah3, this is a real big deal report. The desert southwest is going to be hot and dry for 90 more years on top of the 15,000 years it's already been hot and dry. They're really sticking their necks out on that one


It's not that surprising to read that it's hot or a little hotter in places that it's always hot anyway. What's interesting is that now it's cool, cold, or very cold in a lot of places in the world where normally it doesn't get that cold. So far Texas is one of them.

[Lazarus Long]

That there is a natural global climate temp cycle up and down is something that should not be overlooked however the idea that humans can influence that cycle in a variety of constructive AND destructive ways is also something has now passed the point of sufficient evidence for proof.

The real question for most people is about what are the most accurate predictive models of what will happen both if we do something and if we do nothing and how the costs of both of these actions will be distributed because no matter what happens the only certainty there will be costs (consequences) who pays and how much are all that are yet to be determined.

One problem with climate modeling the human percent of the equation is how to *value* specific components relationally and demonstrate the interactivity of these component variables with respect to the potential synergystic/impedent relationship to strictly natural components. Not only do we not fully grasp how human interaction impacts nature, we do not have very good models yet of how some aspects of human interaction impacts other aspects of human input to the problem.

For example while it is valid IMO to discuss CO2 emissions as important it is not valid to discuss them without also discussing the dozens of other greenhouse gasses humans produce, as well as gasses like fluorocarbons (BTW a subject where we heard this whole debate before) we contribute to the mix.

Speaking of chlorofluorocarbons, the damage was real to the ozone layer(though vociferously denied the whole time), the threat was real and documentation subsequently only validates the threat more as well as the damage already done in rising cancer rates and the ability for our species and economies to absorb and reverse the trends was also demonstrated once a political will to do so was asserted.

I suspect after much debate too little will be done in time because this time the threat is more complex than the impact of a single gas on a single strata of the atmosphere.

For example when looking at greenhouse gas CO2 is significant by total volume but methane (CH4) is 30 times as important chemically so one thirty the amount of atmospheric methane provides a doubling of the effective greenhouse gas effect COMBINE with CO2's. Atmospheric chemistry is also only aspect of the model that needs refining as the issue of solar thermal impact is also measured not simply by solar radiation in the form of retention (greenhouse effect) but reflection (albedo) and it s here that we run into some pretty devastating data involving glaciers and ice caps. It is here that issues of soot become very important even though soot can be both positive and negative, like cloud cover.

As soot collects at the poles from BOTH human and natural sources it does not disappear, it gets covered up. As the glaciers melt and wind patterns change not only does much of this soot increase its rate of deposition, it also increases the rate of emergence and this increases the rate of melting. Ever notice mid to late spring thawing snow in the urban regions?

Humans are not responsible for volcanism, cosmic dust and desert sands but we are responsible for our own contribution to desertification, construction debris, deforestation, increased runoff to the oceans, wet land destruction and rain forest burning. Denying the contribution these factors represent on the scale of human population today is at the very least irresponsible if not approaching criminal. We are not some isolated tribe living in the late bronze age anymore despite how it appears at times that even some transhumanists, not just the religious, long for such scenarios of simplicity and innocence.

The problem is developing an accurate predictive model of all of these factors together and here I think any serious climatologist will acknowledge that we have a ways to go yet but this is no excuse to ignore the growing threat that ignorance represents.

Here is the link to the other recent thread started on the subject:
http://www.imminst.o...&t=16772&hl=&s=

However I do not promise that I might not merge these two later along with one or two that may benefit from being combined here IMHO.

[geost]

"The problem is developing an accurate predictive model of all of these factors together and here I think any serious climatologist will acknowledge that we have a ways to go yet but this is no excuse to ignore the growing threat that ignorance represents."

The Hamaker hypothesis seems to fit the evidence rather well: http://www.remineralize.org

[recyko]

Global warming has been such a big problem to our society, and many have tried to persuade the industrial industries to limit the emission of their waste from their factories. In the twenty-first century, i think it's almost impossible to stop global warming, the annual temperature has inclined quite rapidly.

[Live Forever]

The Science Saturday Bloggingheads from today is mostly on Global warming (with a science reporter that covers it regularly, Andrew Revkin). Andy tries not to go to much to one side or the other, it seems (as far as the whole debate is concerned) so it makes for a good conversation. Just fyi for anyone interested. Here is the link to it.

[niner]

Andy tries not to go to much to one side or the other

I haven't watched it, so this is hypothetical, but if one side is telling the truth and the other is spreading misinformation, the journalist who gives them both equal weight is not doing us any favors. If a journalist is not capable of basic fact checking and questioning, then they really have no business being in that position.

[Live Forever]

I haven't watched it, so this is hypothetical, but if one side is telling the truth and the other is spreading misinformation, the journalist who gives them both equal weight is not doing us any favors. If a journalist is not capable of basic fact checking and questioning, then they really have no business being in that position.

And, he addresses that very question at one point. He doesn't give "equal" weight to everything as far as some things are concerned (where the facts warrant it), but in some instances (concerning mostly the implementation aspects I believe) he is more open to people on both sides of the spectrum. I am probably muffing up his position, though, but anyway, yeah he doesn't give equal weight to each side. He is probably the most respected journalist on the subject, though, so I would defer to him to describe his position since I am probably not doing him any favors.

[Athanasios]

Freeman Dyson writes on global warming at 'The Edge':
HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
http://www.edge.org/...nf07_index.html

[biknut]

May 8, 2007
Neptune News
Filed under: Climate Changes —

http://www.worldclim...8/neptune-news/

Neptune is the planet farthest from the Sun (Pluto is now considered only a dwarf planet), Neptune is the planet farthest from the Earth, and to our knowledge, there has been absolutely no industrialization out at Neptune in recent centuries. There has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gases there, no deforestation, no rapid urbanization, no increase in contrails from jet airplanes, and no increase in ozone in the low atmosphere; recent changes at Neptune could never be blamed on any human influence. Incredibly, an article has appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters showing a stunning relationship between the solar output, Neptune’s brightness, and heaven forbid, the temperature of the Earth. With its obvious implications to the greenhouse debate, we are certain you have never heard of the work and never will outside World Climate Report.


In case you have forgotten your basic science lessons on the planets, Neptune orbits the Sun at a distance 30 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun and Neptune revolves around the Sun once every 164.8 Earth years. Neptune has 17 times the mass of the Earth, its atmosphere is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with traces of methane that account for the planet’s distinctive blue appearance. It was the only planet discovered mathematically – scientists noted variations in the orbit of Uranus, they calculated the orbit and position of a yet undiscovered planet that could cause the variations noted for Uranus, they determined where the planet should be, and on the first night they searched for it (September 23, 1846), they discovered the large planet sitting within 1 degree of their predictions. The new planet was named for Neptune, Roman god of the sea, given its distinctive blue color. Observations from Earth and a 1989 Voyager 2 flyby have revealed that Neptune’s cloud tops are extremely cold (−346°F) being so far from the Sun while the center of the planet has a temperature of 13,000°F due to high pressure generating extremely hot gases.

In the recent article, Hammel and Lockwood, from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona since 1950. Obviously, light from Neptune can be related to seasons on the planet, small variations in Neptune’s orbit, the apparent tilt of the axis as viewed from the Earth, the varying distance from Neptune to Earth, and of course, changes in the atmosphere near the Lowell Observatory. Astronomers are clever, they are fully aware of these complications, and they adjust the measurements accordingly.

As seen in Figure 1, Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth. But with no one to blame, Hammel and Lockwood explored how variations in the output of the Sun might control variations in the brightness of Neptune.


Figure 1 (a) represents the corrected visible light from Neptune from 1950 to 2006; (b) shows the temperature anomalies of the Earth; © shows the total solar irradiance as a percent variation by year; (d) shows the ultraviolet emission from the Sun (Source: Hammel and Lockwood (2007)).

What would seem so simple statistically is complicated by the degrees of freedom in the various time series which is related to the serial correlation in the data (e.g., next year’s value is highly dependent on this year’s value). Nonetheless, they find that the correlation coefficient between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness is near 0.90 (1.00 is perfect). The same relationship is found between the Earth’s temperature anomalies and the solar output. Hammel and Lockwood note “In other words, the Earth temperature values are as well correlated with solar irradiance (r = 0.89) as they are with Neptune’s blue brightness (|r| > 0.90), assuming a 10-year lag of the Neptune values.” The temporal lag is needed to account for the large mass of Neptune that would require years to adjust to any changes in solar output.

Hammel and Lockwood conclude that “In summary, if Neptune’s atmosphere is indeed responding to some variation in solar activity in a manner similar to that of the Earth albeit with a temporal lag” then “Neptune may provide an independent (and extraterrestrial) locale for studies of solar effects on planetary atmospheres.”

World Climate Report has covered many articles in the scientific literature showing that variations in solar output, including variations within specific wavelengths (e.g., cosmic, ultraviolet, visible, infrared) are highly correlated with temperature variations near the Earth’s surface. Believe it or not, when the Sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the Sun cools down, so does the Earth. The Hammel and Lockwood article reveals that the same is true out at Neptune; when the Sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter given a decade lag.

If for some reason you do not believe that the Sun is a significant player in determining the temperature of the Earth (after all, we are told repeatedly that humans are causing most of the observed warming on the Earth), then asked yourself if you believe that Neptune’s temperature is controlled by the Sun. How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.

If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.

[biknut]

These are the 10 hottest years on record in the US in order starting with #1

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

3 are in the last decade. 4 were in the 30s. From Goddard's GISS

[platypus]

These are the 10 hottest years on record in the US in order starting with #1

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

3 are in the last decade. 4 were in the 30s. From Goddard's GISS

It's the global temperatures that matter, of course. What would be the figures for arctic temperatures, btw?

[biknut]

These are the 10 hottest years on record in the US in order starting with #1

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

3 are in the last decade. 4 were in the 30s. From Goddard's GISS

It's the global temperatures that matter, of course. What would be the figures for arctic temperatures, btw?

Less than in the 30s.

[jackinbox]

Yes, there is a peak of temperature in the Arctic in the 30s-40s but the long-term trend is up:
http://www.frontier....ata/sat_slp.php

Anyway, it's called "global warming", not "USA warming":
http://en.wikipedia....cord_since_1880

"Currently every one of the last 13 years (1994-2006) is one of the warmest 17 on record"

[biknut]

Yes, there is a peak of temperature in the Arctic in the 30s-40s but the long-term trend is up:
http://www.frontier....ata/sat_slp.php

Anyway, it's called "global warming", not "USA warming":
http://en.wikipedia....cord_since_1880

"Currently every one of the last 13 years (1994-2006) is one of the warmest 17 on record"

I'm sorry, but your information is outdated. The numbers had to be revised after NASA's Goddard Institute found out they were in error.

http://www.thestar.c.../article/246027


No matter what you want to claim about the Arctic, nothing is happening there now out of the usual. The 1930s where warmer there than now, and happened faster too.

[platypus]

"Currently every one of the last 13 years (1994-2006) is one of the warmest 17 on record"

I'm sorry, but your information is outdated. The numbers had to be revised after NASA's Goddard Institute found out they were in error.

http://www.thestar.c.../article/246027

This was discussed in realclimate.org, the changes are minuscule and do not change the trends or conclusions of the IPCC at all.

No matter what you want to claim about the Arctic, nothing is happening there now out of the usual. The 1930s where warmer there than now, and happened faster too.

That is not true. The drastic speedup (at least during the summer of 2005) of many of the Greenland outlet glaciers due to increased basal lubrication is a very worrying observation. Many of these glaciers have retreated a lot, which changes their mass-balance and speeds them up more. The change is moving northwards in Greenland and summers still seem to be getting hotter in the Arctic (sea-ice extent). If the glacier speedup during summer increases, this can really start to influence global sea-levels. See the links I posted in the other Global Warming thread, w should discuss this over there.

[biknut]

[quote][quote]This was discussed in realclimate.org, the changes are minuscule and do not change the trends or conclusions of the IPCC at all. [/quote]

It's not nearly as "minuscule" as they'd like you to believe. All global warming is minuscule (1 degree F rise in a century) so even a "minuscule" change is big. In addition after this "minuscule" change it can no longer be said that the last decade was the hottest on record because the decade of the 30s was even hotter. That's pretty big news don't you think?


[quote]That is not true. The drastic speedup (at least during the summer of 2005) of many of the Greenland outlet glaciers due to increased basal lubrication is a very worrying observation. Many of these glaciers have retreated a lot, which changes their mass-balance and speeds them up more. The change is moving northwards in Greenland and summers still seem to be getting hotter in the Arctic (sea-ice extent). If the glacier speedup during summer increases, this can really start to influence global sea-levels. See the links I posted in the other Global Warming thread, w should discuss this over there.[/quote]

I'm sorry but the latest greatest study on Greenland says you're wrong. The 1930s were warmer, faster than now.

Abstract:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming
period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is
not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of
a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in
1995 - 2005.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/...nd_warming.html

[jackinbox]

What wrong with you Biknut? I provide data for the Arctic and the whole earth and you keep confusing the issue with US data. Meanwhile, the NASA is not the only source of temperature record. Anyway, those ajustement are really insignifiant. I mean, really:
"Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant"

http://www.realclima...4-and-all-that/

This is a .02 ºC change. 1/50 ºC!!! 1998 and 1934 are statistically equal because the margin of error is 0.1 ºC. Do you understand that?

[Lazarus Long]

What wrong with you Biknut? I provide data for the Arctic and the whole earth and you keep confusing the issue with US data.

For the record Biknut I noticed this too and planned on pointing it out when I had the time. Jackinbox beat me to it.

This issue is much larger in significance than just about the US and its citizens or even its economy, it is about the entire planet and the not only the whole human race but all the species currently alive on earth.

BTW the Neptune data is a red herring.

[platypus]

I'm sorry but the latest greatest study on Greenland says you're wrong. The 1930s were warmer, faster than now.
Abstract:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming
period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is
not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of
a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in
1995 - 2005.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/...nd_warming.html

Regardless what happened in the 1930s, the current situation is worrying, as it seems to be getting worse (surging glaciers detected further and further north). At the moment it does not look like that the trend is turning, and similar things are happening in Antarctica. Hopefully the trend turn, as probably happened in the 1930s...but what if it doesn't? That's a big risk to take.

Anyway, your article talks about rate of warming, but what are the absolute levels?

[biknut]

Yes, there is a peak of temperature in the Arctic in the 30s-40s but the long-term trend is up:
http://www.frontier....ata/sat_slp.php

If this study is what's bothering you, you sure seem like a worrywort.

The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2C,

What is this, like 2 degrees F in 132 years. I'm sure this means the world is over as we know it.

The complicated nature of arctic temperature and pressure variations makes understanding of possible causes of the variability, and evaluation of the anthropogenic warming effect most difficult.

These guys don't know why it's warming, but of course you do? Stop me if I'm wrong. You think it's man made global warming caused by greenhouse emissions, and it couldn't possibly be anything else.

[moddex]

There's dozens of possible theories why the earth's climate is rapidly changing over the years. If we look back at the past decade, we'll see how our weather has become very erratic and far more destructive than in previous history. Take all of the major hurricanes that have occurred for example. They're become very common and even more powerful than ever.

Another sign might be how the honey bees are strangely dying off and disappearing. This could be from the intense heat and climate changes that are slowing emerging.

Now I speculate that another contributer to this disaster is axial shift. The earthquake that had occurred in Sri Lanka last year had shifted our planet's axis. Since Earth's ecosystem hangs on the tettering balance between chaos and perfection, just the slightest nudge could drastically change things globally. This could have some part in the global warming, but not single handedly of course.

[platypus]

These guys don't know why it's warming, but of course you do? Stop me if I'm wrong. You think it's man made global warming caused by greenhouse emissions, and it couldn't possibly be anything else.

That's by far the best explanation available at the moment.