myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 160, 161, 162 ... 322, 323, 324  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1393

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Seems like the temperature hasn't change for 16 years...


Of course you don't see a problem if you don't look at the relevant data:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

The most worrying indicator is the sea surface temperature graph.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4958

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feuser--thanks for the post. Numerical methods was the most brutal graduate course I took, and it takes both insight and analytical skills to see what is happening. There is a clear, but rather small downward inflection over the past 10-15 years that can be seen in the temperature graph. Less dramatic when you smooth the data, which any responsible scientist would do. Even relatively open minds like Gurgle Trousers can be fooled by this.

Nobody has ever said that a chaotic phenomenon like climate change proceeds in smooth steps, and downturns are to be expected. The bigger trend is what you pointed out, water temperatures. Large thermal masses--the oceans and glaciers--integrate larger trends, and ignore the blips of chaos. The fact that glaciers are retreating--except in the Antarctic where it is too cold to notice warming--and the seawater is warming, are the trends to fear. They now know this in New Jersey and New York. The cost will be many trillions.

Where are the carbon apologists when it is time to make fun of them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5685

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's interesting to contrast the single graph that Bard posted with the many different graphs and data presented in the EPA and NOAA graphs from the links that Florian posted. Seems to me that the deniers are grasping for anything that might make their case. It certainly isn't a stretch to find more reason to side with the more substantive data compiled from a much broader base of study and analysis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1306

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, steady on Mac!

I quoted the East Anglian Climate research Centres admission that global warming 'APPEARS' to have been on hold for the last 14/15 years, and that computer modelling from such a confusing state of affairs is too uncertain to be relied upon. (i.e. Past modelling was wildly wrong.)

Neither prof Jones, the Met Office (or even myself) are saying that global warming won't once again continue eventually. They are all just admitting that to make further predictions without a much deeper understanding of what is going on, ESPECIALLY in the oceans, cannot reliably be made.

Many with geological backgrounds (even rudimentary knowledge such as mine) recognise that understanding what is happening in the oceans is key to future climatic developments. I fail to see how rejecting the sillier computer modelling nonsenses which are patently wrong, (as all now admit), makes me a fool.

Perhaps those who are so sure they know what is really happening need to question their own sense of absolute certainty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4958

PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Easy on, GT, I did not suggest that you--or Jones--were fools. Rather, that there was more to warming, over long periods, than a short term blip in chaotic data.

By the way, I have never subscribed to models--I learned modeling in numerical methods. Models are useful for testing scenarios, and are infinitely more sophisticated, and accurate, than when I was in graduate school. But there is still much to learn. I agree with you that we shouldn't alter our economy in response to the most doomsday models. But that doesn't correspond to the carbon industries pleas to do nothing and let them continue to transfer costs to the public.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1393

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Easy on, GT, I did not suggest that you--or Jones--were fools. Rather, that there was more to warming, over long periods, than a short term blip in chaotic data.

By the way, I have never subscribed to models--I learned modeling in numerical methods. Models are useful for testing scenarios, and are infinitely more sophisticated, and accurate, than when I was in graduate school. But there is still much to learn. I agree with you that we shouldn't alter our economy in response to the most doomsday models. But that doesn't correspond to the carbon industries pleas to do nothing and let them continue to transfer costs to the public.


What do you mean 'you don't subscribe to models'?

Predicting the future is impossible and that is not what models are meant for. They are meant to predict the outcomes for a range of possible scenarios.

Just like Hurricane track models, the range of possible outcomes (tracks) diffuses the farther out you run that model. That is why Hurricane track predictions are cones, not thin lines.

Rejecting climate modeling just because one of the possible scenarios has not materialized is just like saying that you will never heed another hurricane because the the track of the last one didn't exactly follow the center of its predictive cone.

Yes, we need climate modeling so we can look at the worst-case scenario as well as the more likely outcomes. Absolutely no-one is seriously saying that we have to concentrate our spending for preparedness on a few outliers.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1535
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

feuser wrote:

Yes, we need climate modeling so we can look at the worst-case scenario as well as the more likely outcomes. Absolutely no-one is seriously saying that we have to concentrate our spending for preparedness on a few outliers.


Tell that to the EPA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 17, 2012 at 1:00 am
EPA rejects bid to relax ethanol mandate
2012 drought prompted request over corn fuel use

By David Shepardson
Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington — The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday rejected a request from eight governors and nearly 200 members of Congress to waive requirements for the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline, after last summer's severe drought wilted much of the nation's corn crop.

For the rest~
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121117/AUTO01/211170359#ixzz2CV7uq6ae
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4958

PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Florian--NW's comment is too silly to warrant response. Drudgery and hatred seem to be the order of his days.

My approach to modeling is much as yours--the purpose is to test scenarios and craft appropriate responses. In most cases, good modeling suggests a series of actions about which we will have no regrets. In other words, where we should start, knowing that such actions are likely to be cost effective and start us on the path towards improvement, while we continue to refine our information systems and models to tell us how well they are working.

My particular problem with climate models, and the more doomsday scenarios, comes from knowing some of the first who announced their concern about warming--James Titus of EPA, Al Gore as a more recognizable name. They have tried to galvanize public action, and in the process not acknowledged the uncertainties in their models, and helped bolster the hands of the unprincipled who will gladly lie to the public about the risks of warming. The early models did not account for either an increase in cloud cover in response to increased CO2 levels, or the likelihood of planetary systems functioning to mute the response, for example by increasing carbonic acid levels in water. Later models have begun to look at these factors, and I am sufficiently bored by monitoring that I cannot comment on the relative accuracy of those refined models. I simply know that they will steadily get better--but will always simplify the physics, and thus cannot be used for accurate future prediction.

A significant part of my concern remains with the focus on reducing carbon emissions primarily by alternative energy sources rather than by well thought out conservation. It has been clear since the Jimmy Carter administration (he got this one right) that conservation of energy is cheaper per unit than discovering and producing new energy. California has taken a leadership role in this effort, and the results are clear by comparing California's per capita carbon generation to that of Texas or Wyoming. (Care must be used in interpreting such sources, because the presence or absence of industries, and the nature of climate, skew the data. Nevertheless, California ranks in the top 5 for efficiency and Texas in the lowest 10, despite California's iconic reliance on the automobile.)

So I see subsidies for energy conservation, and a sensible amount of Federal funding for pushing renewable energy technology, as actions that we will never regret. Wholesale subsidies for wind and solar, which can ignore the relative cost-effectiveness of those efforts compared to conservation, are another matter.

Perhaps a long-winded answer, but it is not a simple subject where answers are provided simply based on whether you voted for Gore or Bush.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1535
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heh, I just like to bug you guys every now and then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 20, 2012
C.I.A. Closes Its Climate Change Office
By JOHN M. BRODER

The Central Intelligence Agency has disbanded its Center on Climate Change and National Security, a unit formed in 2009 to monitor the interplay between a warming planet and intelligence and security challenges.

The creation of the office drew fire at the time from some Republicans, who said it was an unnecessary expense and a distraction from the agency’s focus on terrorism and other more immediate threats. The agency did not say whether the closing was related to budget constraints or other political pressures.

Todd Ebitz, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency would continue to monitor the security and humanitarian challenges posed by climate change as part of its focus on economic security, but not in a stand-alone office.

“The C.I.A. for several years has studied the national security implications of climate change,” Mr. Ebitz said in an e-mailed statement. “As part of a broader realignment of analytic resources, this work continues to be performed by a dedicated team in a new office that looks at economic and energy matters affecting America’s national security. The mission and the resources devoted to it remain essentially unchanged.”

The closing of the office was first reported Monday by Greenwire.

The C.I.A. did not conduct its own scientific studies on climate change, instead relying on other government agencies and academic researchers. The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies of Science, released an extensive report to the intelligence community last week on how it can better assess and respond to the impacts of climate change on vulnerable states.

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, has been the most vocal critic of the C.I.A.’s climate change work. He welcomed the closing of its office.

“Closing the Climate Change Center at the C.I.A. was the right decision,” Mr. Barrasso said in a statement. “I offered an amendment on the Senate floor to eliminate the center because it was unnecessary, wasteful and totally out of place. It’s critically important for the C.I.A. to focus its resources on preventing terrorism and keeping Americans safe.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/c-i-a-closes-its-climate-change-office/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3205

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac
Your post is so well thought out I cut and pasted into my files.
Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 160, 161, 162 ... 322, 323, 324  Next
Page 161 of 324

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group