Warming over, Ice age on its way

[Corona Gigante]

Interesting recent piece in Salon.

The cold truth about climate change

Caution! May contain actual science!

[tnip23]

As I said in a previous post, to those who believe in rapid man-made climate change it is like a religion and very hard to argue with them rationally. But here goes, this is a link to a Q&A that presents scientific interpretation that differs with that in the article CG linked. http://cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf

On this issue, however, most have already made up their minds and any facts to the contrary will be as beloved cigar smoker Mark Twain said "lies, damn lies, and statistics"

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by tnip23

As I said in a previous post, to those who believe in rapid man-made climate change it is like a religion and very hard to argue with them rationally. But here goes, this is a link to a Q&A that presents scientific interpretation that differs with that in the article CG linked. http://cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf

Well, I read the first two pages, and got to this part:

Originally Posted by cei pdf

Both James Hansen of NASA (the father of greenhouse theory) and Richard
Lindzen of MIT (the most renowned climatologist in the world) agree that, even if
nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global
temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his
colleagues “predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a
warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade.”4

Then I found the original article here:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...C%3E2.0.CO%3B2
And the abstract says (highlighted in blue the part CEI references, and in red the part they neglected to mention):

Originally Posted by abstract

The authors simulate climate change for 1951–2050 using the GISS SI2000 atmospheric model coupled to HYCOM, a quasi-isopycnal ocean model (“ocean E”), and contrast the results with those obtained using the same atmosphere coupled to a passive Q-flux ocean model (“ocean B”) and the same atmosphere driven by observed SST (“ocean A”). All of the models give reasonable agreement with observed global temperature change during 1951–2000, but the quasi-isopycnal ocean E mixes heat more deeply and hence sequesters heat more effectively on the century timescale. Global surface warming in the next 50 yr is only 0.3°–0.4°C with this ocean in simulations driven by an “alternative scenario” climate forcing (1.1 W m−2 in the next 50 yr), only half as much as with ocean B. From the different models the authors estimate that the earth was out of radiation balance by about 0.18 W m−2 in 1951 and is now out of balance by about 0.75 W m−2. This energy imbalance, or residual climate forcing, a consequence of deep ocean mixing of heat anomalies and the history of climate forcings, is a crucial measure of the state of the climate system that should be precisely monitored with full-ocean temperature measurements.

Also from here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/sun_01/
Which seems to be talking about the same simulation/paper:

It is desirable to have more complete ocean measurements, with better geographic and depth sampling in the coming decades, since they will provide an invaluable indicator of the climate system and will help refine our knowledge of the planetary energy imbalance — which is important for determining future global climate change. It's also important to check the changes in the ocean's heat distribution in order to predict the geographical distribution of climate change. A more complete dataset of ocean heat storage also can be used to check the ocean models' abilities to simulate the distribution of heat anomalies and provide much needed guidance for mixing parameterization in ocean modeling.

The sense I get is that with different assumptions they can get different results, they don't know which assumptions are best, and they want more data so they can decide. (unfortunately the full text doesn't seem to be available for free).


So the CEI pdf is awfully selective about the quote, implying that result is what the scientists expect, rather than that result is what they expect under one of a handful of different possibilities.

I found this in the first article I looked up for myself, so while that CEI article may contain some truth, it doesn't seem to be trustworthy in what it draws from other publications, and since I don't have time to try to track down and verify every citation, I can't trust the article...

Originally Posted by tnip23

On this issue, however, most have already made up their minds and any facts to the contrary will be as beloved cigar smoker Mark Twain said "lies, damn lies, and statistics"

Now THAT I would certainly agree with.

[rumballs]

Originally Posted by abstract

The authors simulate climate change for 1951–2050 using the GISS SI2000 atmospheric model coupled to HYCOM, a quasi-isopycnal ocean model (“ocean E”), and contrast the results with those obtained using the same atmosphere coupled to a passive Q-flux ocean model (“ocean B”) and the same atmosphere driven by observed SST (“ocean A”). All of the models give reasonable agreement with observed global temperature change during 1951–2000, but the quasi-isopycnal ocean E mixes heat more deeply and hence sequesters heat more effectively on the century timescale. Global surface warming in the next 50 yr is only 0.3°–0.4°C with this ocean in simulations driven by an “alternative scenario” climate forcing (1.1 W m−2 in the next 50 yr), only half as much as with ocean B. From the different models the authors estimate that the earth was out of radiation balance by about 0.18 W m−2 in 1951 and is now out of balance by about 0.75 W m−2. This energy imbalance, or residual climate forcing, a consequence of deep ocean mixing of heat anomalies and the history of climate forcings, is a crucial measure of the state of the climate system that should be precisely monitored with full-ocean temperature measurements.

So what is this "alternative scenario"?
Good question.
Another paper by James Hansen, also from 2003, this one the whole thing is available:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Hansen.pdf
Which says:

I have discussed elsewhere [Reference 6] a specific “alternative scenario” that keeps added
climate forcing in the next 50 years at about 1 W/m2. Expected global warming by 2050 is
between ½°C and ¾°C, i.e., a warming of about 1°F [References 1b, 1c].
This alternative scenario has two components: (1) halt or reverse growth of air pollutants,
specifically soot, O3, and CH4, (2) keep average fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the next 50 years
about the same as today. The CO2 and non-CO2 portions of the scenario are equally important. I
argue that they are both feasible and make sense for other reasons, in addition to climate.

So now it seems the CEI article is not just focusing on one possibility presented the paper, but actually ignoring the necessary assumption which drive the conclusion.

And more recently, in 2007, I'm guessing still talking about the same basic scenario:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/...en_etal_1.html

The alternative scenario, with peak added forcing ~1.5 W/m2 in 2100, keeps further global warming under 1°C if climate sensitivity is ~3°C or less for doubled CO2. The alternative scenario keeps mean regional seasonal warming within 2σ (standard deviations) of 20th century variability, but other scenarios yield regional changes of 5-10, i.e., mean conditions outside the range of local experience.
...
Growth of non-CO2 forcings has slowed in recent years, but CO2 emissions are now surging well above the alternative scenario. Prompt actions to slow CO2 emissions and decrease non-CO2 forcings are needed to achieve the low forcing of the alternative scenario.

All this to say.... I don't know what I think of Hansen's research, but I DO know what to think of the CEI paper misrepresenting his views...

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by yamaha6000

May I ask how one goes about measuring the temperature of the earth?

Rectal thermometer.

[Blueface]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Rectal thermometer.

I held off on this response but glad you posted.

Now,
Where does one find the a$$ end of the world?
If not easily located, where can one find the armpits instead?

[glking]

Temparature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

[SIZE=4]Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
[/SIZE]
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

[SmokeyTheKid]

Originally Posted by Blueface

I do recall having taken logic in college, back when said institutions were formed.
Here is a logic statement:
I make a point
The point is called a "reductionist argument"
Logic dictates I therefore am being called a reductionist, whether you now say it is or not.

Look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over this. If you believe that any attack on an argument is therefore an attack on the idividual, then ... we're going to have to agree to disagree.

As it relates to the part in bold, since you have so well defined that for me, can you please address the question I originally posed?

I thought I did. It's nonsense. And that's not me insulting you. You wrote it with the intent of it being absurd in an effort to belittle the other side's argument, so I'm sure you know this already.

It seems you're taking personal affront to this, so I'm going to let this one go. I think both of our positions are clear. I just wish we could have kept it impersonal.

[SmokeyTheKid]

Originally Posted by tnip23

As I said in a previous post, to those who believe in rapid man-made climate change it is like a religion

Of course. Anyone who believes what the facts are telling is must be a sheep, unable to think for himself. A convienant means of dismissal for the other side, eh?

[Blueface]

This thread has inspired me like none lately.
So much so, a new business has been created.
I creatively have named it "red and green row boats".
Please see my first batch, available for immediate delivery.
Mention CS and receive a 20% discount.
PM me if interested.

[tnip23]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheKid

Of course. Anyone who believes what the facts are telling is must be a sheep, unable to think for himself. A convienant means of dismissal for the other side, eh?

not at all what I said if you read my first post. I simply stated that those who believe in a scenario which has not been proven (by completing the final testing part of the scientific method which is nescessary to label any hypothesis a theory) are engaging in an act of faith. beliefs fueled by faith, right or wrong are akin to religion. they often have devout believers, preaching apocalypse if others don't adhere to their belief system and argument with them is often futile as they look upon those who disagree as unenlightened non-believers. what the enlightened believe is doctrine, more accurately dogma that is not to be challenged.

[tnip23]

Okay as I feel this thread is going to change no one's mind and all we'll do is continue a pissing contest of statistics and hypotheses supporting one side or the other (interspersed with some needed levity, thanks carlos and tom) I just want to give my opinion on the issue itself.

Do I care about the environment? Of course I do and so does everybody on both sides of the argument.

Do i believe the earth is warming? The facts clearly show we have been in a warming trend since 1850.

Who's responsible? No one knows. i surmise it's probably a combination of factors both natural and man-made.

Are we approaching a climate crisis? No, but those with political and financial motives would like us to believe so.

Finally I probably should have posted this link first as it comes closest to stating what I believe and is much easier to read (and less biased in it's selected examples, good research mmblz)than the pdf i posted earlier. It's a transcript of a speech by author michael crichton (yes that one) and neatly combines the facts and common sense on the issue in an apolitical fashion. enjoy. http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

[fizguy]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheKid

Actually, you're hitting on a key point without (I presume) even realizing it. Global warming doesn't simply mean everywhere gets warmer. It's an average global rise, with those rises peaking much higher at certain areas (the poles for example) because of things like the Atlantic current.

What it does/will mean about everywhere is climate change. When you're talking about things like the stalling of major ocean currents because of a lack of salinity, you're talking about things that could majorly impact weather (and not just in a warming way - a stalling of the Atlantic current would almost certainly throw Europe into vastly colder tempertures).

It's not a simple problem with simple results. Global warming is a catch phrase, but a better description is "rapid climate change." It's an idea that's easy to scoff at reflexivly. People don't like to think about it, or about big changes in general. But if you really study the facts objectivly, I think you'll find them eye-opening.

The problem is, it is all in hindsight.

A theory is suspect if it is used only to explain observations rather than make predictions. It reminds me of the joke about the experimentalist that brought his graph to the theorist. The theorist said, "ahhh, we can explain the dip in the graph because .....(long winded explanation)." The experimentalist turned the graph over and told the theorist he had been holding it upside down. "Ahhhh," said the theorist, "we can explain the peak in the graph because...."

[Bigga Petey]

I, for one, am more inclined to believe the ground hog when he pokes his nose out of the burrow on February 2 than the phalanx of climatoligicistical eggheads telling us to buy Prius's.
Remember when 'they' predicted global cooling, crop failures, and mass starvation in the 70's? Nada. I was truly disappointed as I was trying my best to lose weight at the time.

A less known scientific predicition in the 1800's predicted that Chicago would be six feet deep in animal manure due to the proliferation of horses and livestock in the city. (I wish I could source this). It never happened. What did happen was that Mrs. O'Leary's cow heard the dire prediction. Fearing she would be vilified for creating the waste, and quite possibly turned into a chuck roast or taco meat, the cow kicked over a lantern causing the great Chicago Fire. I'm not kidding, this could have happened.

Some people take this stuff waaaay too seriously.

I think I'll go home and burn some bubble wrap.

[Blueface]

Personally, I am stressed out.
Got up this morning and made a list of things to freak out over.

Serious Issues:
Global warming
Whales
Sharks
Bees
world hunger
Inequity in the world
Communism
Terrorism
value of dollar v. Euro
Reefs
Hurricanes
Glaciers
White Seals
Chrysler
Mafia
Wife shopping
Amazon Forest
Mayan calender - 2012
Death
Mortgage
War
Asteroid hitting Earth
Earthquakes

None of which I have any control over.
None of which I should therefore panic over.

As far as global warming? Doing my part.
Driving less
Changed all my bulbs to the new curly type
Avoiding passing gas as much as possible but tough with all those Cuban beans for dinner.
If everyone can now do the same, I am certain we should be able to add a day or so to time.
If anyone has a better idea, like eliminate all combustibles, stop use of fossil fuels and start walking, stop farting, breathing and living, lets all do it but lets not freak out along the way.