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 ... 321, 322, 323 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5890

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some of us aren't extremists. I don't think that you can tie me to the liberalist polar bear message you're highlighting.

Increasingly, you're dragging the bottom to create discord. What I find lacking is more sound theory and the integrated facts that support a position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I missed this when it first came out. Tell me again about the moral compass of Republicans in the South:

Quote:
By Jane C. Timm
Republican state Sen. Brandon Smith of Kentucky has a new theory on why climate change couldn’t possibly be slowly warming the earth’s temperature, resulting in legions of effects to the environment and its inhabitants.

The reason, according to alternative paper LEO Weekly, seems to be that since Mars and Earth have identical temperatures, Earth’s climate cannot possibly be the result of human activity.

“As you sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change, but I will simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that,” said the senator in a video posted by the weekly publication. ”Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There are no factories on Mars that I’m aware of.”


THE ED SHOW, 7/8/14, 5:50 PM ET
Out of this world philosophy

Smith sits on the Interim Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Environment and serves as Kentucky’s Republican majority whip.

Despite the state senator’s statement, academia does not in fact agree that the temperatures on Earth and Mars are the same: According to NASA, the average temperature on Mars is -58 degrees Fahrenheit, while the average temperature on Earth is 58 degrees Fahrenheit. Mars’ climate is notably uninhabitable to life as we know it.

And while there isn’t a coal industry on Mars, there is one in Hazard, Kentucky, which is in the district Smith represents. The city first boomed as a coal-mining town in the 1920s, and the industry still employs many people in the area. Coal has been known to be a powerful force in the state’s politics.

Smith’s spokesman sent msnbc a statement on behalf of the senator on Thursday.

“I am dismayed by the agenda-driven dishonesty from which people approach the issue of climate change. Mischaracterizing the intent of my comments is just an attempt to distract from the fact that Barack Obama’s EPA policies are simply wrong for Kentucky,” he said.

Smith’s spokesman said the senator misspoke when he likened Mars to Earth and that he was talking about climate change, not the climates themselves.

“Sen. Smith has said many times before that this is much bigger than one industry – that to blame coal alone is unreasonable. What we are experiencing is much bigger than that. The reference to Mars and Earth was to point out that both their temperatures are experiencing change. He simply left out the word change,” the spokesman, Jodi Whitaker, said.

When Smith voiced this theory, he and others on the environmental committee were railing against the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon emissions ruling, which calls for power plants to cut their carbon emissions by 30% over the next sixteen years.


Well, honesty and intelligence are necessary casualties in the culture wars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4229

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Maui Weather Today...Is this part of the climate model?

Interesting: Update: Melting permafrost and Global Warming - You have probably heard that melting permafrost is a big contributor to increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and that melting permafrost may even cause an unstoppable acceleration of global warming.


New research, however, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), counters this widely-held scientific view that thawing permafrost uniformly accelerates atmospheric warming, indicating instead that certain arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they emit into the atmosphere.


The study, published this week in the journal Nature, focuses on thermokarst lakes, which occur as permafrost thaws and creates surface depressions that fill with melted fresh water, converting what was previously frozen land into lakes.


The research suggests that arctic thermokarst lakes are “net climate coolers” when observed over longer, millennial, time scales.


“Until now, we’ve only thought of thermokarst lakes as positive contributors to climate warming,” said lead researcher Katey Walter Anthony, associate research professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Northern Engineering. “It is true that they do warm climate by strong methane emissions when they first form, but on a longer-term scale, they switch to become climate coolers because they ultimately soak up more carbon from the atmosphere than they ever release.”


The researchers observed that roughly 5,000 years ago, thermokarst lakes in ice-rich regions of North Siberia and Alaska began cooling, instead of warming the atmosphere.


“While methane and carbon dioxide emissions following thaw lead to immediate radiative warming,” the authors write, “carbon uptake in peat-rich sediments occurs over millennial time scales.”


Using published data from the circumpolar arctic, their own new field observations of Siberian permafrost and thermokarsts, radiocarbon dating, atmospheric modeling and spatial analyses, the research team studied how thawing permafrost is affecting climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.


Researchers found that “thermokarst basins switched from a net radiative warming to a net cooling climate effect about 5,000 years ago,” according to their article, published online today. They found that high rates of carbon accumulation in lake sediments were stimulated by several factors, including “thermokarst erosion and deposition of terrestrial organic matter, nutrient release from thawing permafrost that stimulated lake productivity, and by slow decomposition in cold, anoxic lake bottoms.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beaglebuddy



Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 710

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac, always with the partisan politics, parroting the dnc talking points of the week, always trying to insult the intelligence levels of the opposition, always with the long winded nonsense. If I had a TV I could just listen to msnbc to hear the same crap you are spewing. Oh the horrors of talk radio, but that cnn, msnbc, well everyone but FOX, they are just so enlightened parroting the weekly talking points.
My contention is earth temperatures are directly correlated to sun spots (solar magnetic radiation) there is a direct link between the two.
My prediction; Sun spot activity has been very low recently and this correlates with the lower temps seen recently. Latest data shows very low sun spot activity, almost none, I predict a period of lower temperatures until such time we enter a solar maximum with greater sun spot activity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard--that was actually interesting and useful. Didn't come from Fox.

For the whining puppy--do you have a peer-reviewed scientific study that will support your view? Of course not. There is a relationship between sun activity and temperature; it depends on larger solar cycles, not just sun spots. It is well discussed in the literature. It is much smaller in amplitude than warming trends. And you wonder why I laugh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beaglebuddy



Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 710

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's see what happens with my (and many other scientists) prediction, then we will see who is laughing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1802
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac:
"For the whining puppy--do you have a peer-reviewed scientific study that will support your view? Of course not."

There you go again with that phony peer-review crap. There is no such thing as peer-review when all the peers are on the same side. What would they review punctuation and spelling?

Truly laughable.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh Beagleboy, you remind of Walt Disney comic books villains. It is frighteningly simple to find your source, http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Of course, the infamous Fred Singer works for these guys. If you actually want to pay attention to both sides of an issue, you can get a critique of them at http://www.desmogblog.com/people/fred-singer. Fred lost his gig as an apologist for tobacco when Koop looked at the science and declared it a health hazard. Now he is an apologist for DDT and climate change. Talk about fleas!

It is true that sunspots affect the amount of solar energy that reaches the earth, and over a short enough period of time, can have an impact on average temperature. But over the long term, periods of sunspots and non-sunspots, El Nino's, etc, average out. The unscrupulous--those willing to do bad science as apologists for tobacco and their ilk--select short periods of time to try to show an impact on global temperatures. This sort of nonsense has been thoroughly rebutted--by those that understand the credibility of sources matters. Here is detailed rebuttal:
Quote:

It’s obvious.

The sun provides 99.998% of the energy to the Earth’s climate (the rest coming from geothermal heat sources). The circulation patterns of the tropical Hadley Cell, the mid latitude storm tracks the polar high and the resulting climate zones are all driven by the gradients of solar heating as a function of latitude. So of course any significant change to solar output is bound to affect the climate, it stands to reason! Since we can see that there are changes in solar activity, it’s therefore just a question of finding the link. Researchers for over a century have therefore taken any climate records they can find and searched for correlations to the sunspots, the solar-cycle length, geomagnetic indices, cosmogenic isotopes or smoothed versions thereof (and there are many ways to do the smoothing, and you don’t even need to confine yourself to one single method per record). At the same time, estimates of solar output in the past are extremely uncertain, and so there is a great deal of scope in blaming any unexplained phenomena on solar changes without fear of contradiction.


Astute readers will notice that there is a clear problem here. The widespread predisposition to believe that there must be a significant link and a lack of precise knowledge of past changes are two ingredients that can prove, err…., scientifically troublesome. Unfortunately they lead to a tendency to keep looking for the correlation until one finds one. When that occurs (as it will if you look hard enough even in random data) it gets published as one more proof of the significant impact that solar change has on climate. Never do the authors describe how many records and how many different smoothing methods they went through before they found this one case where the significance is greater than 95%. Of course, if they went through more than 20, the chances of randomly stumbling onto this level of significance is quite high.

The proof that this often happens is shown by the number of these published correlations that fall apart once another few years of data are added, cosmic rays (which are modulated by solar activity) and cloudiness for instance.

Sometimes even papers in highly respected journals fall into the same trap. Friis-Christensen and Lassen (Science, 1991) was a notorious paper that purported to link solar-cycle length (i.e. the time between sucessive sunspot maxima or minima) to surface temperatures that is still quoted widely. As discussed at length by Peter Laut and colleagues, the excellent correlation between solar cycle length and hemispheric mean temperature only appeared when the method of smoothing changed as one went along. The only reason for doing that is that it shows the relationship (that they ‘knew’ must be there) more clearly. And, unsurprisingly, with another cycle of data, the relationship failed to hold up.

The potential for self-delusion is significantly enhanced by the fact that climate data generally does have a lot of signal in the decadal band (say between 9 and 15 years). This variability relates to the incidence of volcanic eruptions, ENSO cycles, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) etc. as well as potentially the solar cycle. So another neat trick to convince yourself that you found a solar-climate link is to use a very narrow band pass filter centered around 11 years, to match the rough periodicity of the sun spot cycle, and then show that your 11 year cycle in the data matches the sun spot cycle. Often these correlations mysteriously change phase with time, which is usually described as evidence of the non-linearity of the climate system, but in fact is the expected behaviour when there is no actual coherence. Even if the phase relationship is stable, the amount of variance explained in the original record is usually extremely small.

This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume. What is generally required is a consistent signal over a number of cycles (either the 11 year sunspot cycle or more long term variations), similar effects if the timeseries are split, and sufficient true degrees of freedom that the connection is significant and that it explains a non-negligible fraction of the variance. These are actually quite stiff hurdles and so the number of links that survive this filter are quite small. In some rough order of certainty we can consider that the 11 year solar cycle impacts on the following are well accepted: stratospheric ozone, cosmogenic isotope production, upper atmospheric geopotential heights, stratospheric temperatures and (slightly less certain and with small magnitudes ~0.1 deg C) tropospheric and ocean temperatures. More marginal are impacts on wintertime tropospheric circulation (like the NAO). It is also clear that if there really was a big signal in the data, it would have been found by now. The very fact that we are still arguing about statisitical significance implies that whatever signal there is, is small.

Over the multi-decadal time scales, there is more reasonable evidence for an NAO and surface temperature response to solar changes though the magnitudes are still small. Over even longer time scales (hundreds of years) there are a number of paleo-records that correlate with records of cosmogenic isotopes (particularly 10Be and 14C), however, these records are somewhat modulated by climate processes themselves (the carbon cycle in the case of 14C, aerosol deposition and transport processes for 10Be) and so don’t offer an absolutely clean attribution. Nonetheless, by comparing with both isotopes and trying to correct for climate (and geomagnetic) effects, some coherent signals have been seen.


Some contrarian commentators have recently fallen into the habit of mass mailing any new solar-related abstracts and implying that the existence of solar forcing in the past negates any possible recent anthropogenic impact on climate. Since these studies do not have any implication for the radiative impact of CO2, and don’t change the fact that there has been no effective change in any solar indices since about 1950, it is hard to see a substantial basis for this (implied) argument. For instance, there has been a lot of recent attention paid to Mangini et al. (2005) where a solar link to a new Alpine speleothem record was claimed. However, a quick analysis (right) indicates that the explained variance in the record (smoothed over 25 years) correlated to the 14C-production function (a slightly cleaner solar proxy than the resdiual atmospheric 14C (Muscheler et al, 2005 – see comment/link below)) is only about 5%. Hardly a definitive refutation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing.

A more interesting question is whether our current understanding of how solar forcing works is sufficient to explain the clearest solar impacts in the record. During the most studied period, the Maunder Minimum (MM) in the late 17th Century, sunspots were very rarely seen and that corresponded to a particularly cool period in the Northern Hemisphere (particularly in Europe as is seen in the speleothem record as well – NB. cooler temperatures are associated with increased isotope ratios). In order to assess that, all other forcings that were operating at the same time need to be considered as well. The MM was also a time of enhanced volcanic activity, and the cooling from this was probably comparable with the cooling due to solar effects (an exact attribution is impossible given the uncertainties in both forcings) .Another important factor is that the records of cooling at the MM are predominantly continental and mainly located in North America and Eurasia. This is consistent with the eveidence for a weak NAO at this time in independent reconstructions.

So can models using what we are reasonably sure of match these results? The answer is probably (us climate scientists always need to hedge!). Using the known amplification of the solar cycle (and presumably the long term trend) in the UV band, allowing stratospheric temperatures and circulation patterns to adjust and including the direct radiative forcings from the sun and volcanoes, we found that it gave temperature anomalies and spatial patterns that were in fair agreement with the observations (Shindell et al, 2003). To be sure, there is still some wiggle room – but within the uncertainties in climate sensitivity, the magnitude of the long term trend in the solar forcing and the error bars in the temperature reconstructions, the model-data fit is quite good. Should those error bars be revised in the future, that conclusion might have to be revisited, but as things stand there is no obvious discrepency that requires some new exotic physics to explain it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some other mechanism we haven’t thought of yet, but it does mean that you can’t claim that there must necessarily be such a mechanism.

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Update (Jul 24): Upon further investigation, it appears that the archived age model for the speleothem (cave record) from Mangini et al (2005) is the version that has been tuned to maximise the correlation to the Delta 14C record they used. Thus any correlation with the 14C production record I used (since it is different) will be minimised. This actually makes it very difficult to assess how significant any particular correlation is (a perennial problem in solar-climate studies) – ideally you would probably want to sub-sample the distribution and see how big a correlation you could get from wiggle matching random data (within the limits of the few measured dates). Thus, my contention that solar doesn’t explain much of the variability in this record isn’t valid. It could explain anything from 5 to 40% (with unknown error bars). Sorry for any confusion.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.
php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/#sthash.c40A9IA5.dpuf

Of course, a snarky comment is not a peer-reviewed study. Freddy can't get a peer reviewed study because he is not a climate scientist. Back to you denier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beaglebuddy



Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 710

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not going to read all that blather and neither are most of the people on this forum, too long, you ramble on.
Hilarious how leftists read a few pages of data and learn to cut and copy and suddenly they are scientists Confused
I'm with Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev on this, I think they are winning their bet so far.
Most of us realize deep down and the rest have convinced themselves otherwise that the climate change industry isn't about saving the planet but rather about control thru central planning. How many scientists have been caught falsifying data?
If this was really about saving the planet your ilk would be in favor of immediately building massive numbers of nuclear power plants like they are doing in India, China, Brazil and others and switching from coal to natural gas. Doing these things as a bridge until renewable energies and storage are viable. But your cult is completely against this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5360

PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The man who claims to want an adult conversation says he's "Not going to read all that blather." Right, you want to have a polite adult conversation about anything--not really. You give your source, and it is easy to find what you are talking about--it is all over denier sites:

Quote:
Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believe the climate is driven by the sun and predict global cooling will soon occur. The two scientists are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a UK scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to “compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018,” according to an April 16, 2007 article in Live Science.


The sad thing is that you think this is a gotcha. Now the climate record we have is over a hundred years long. It can be found here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Take a look at the first graph, I dare you, and then think. There have been two other downturns that reflect the fact that the average temperature is the result of various short and long term phenomena. One from 1895 to 1910, one from 1940 to 1955, and the current one. Only someone without any integrity would truncate that record for analytical purposes. It is a fool's bet--but it fools fools.

Then you turn around and dismiss all to the left of you with the false set of facts:

Quote:
If this was really about saving the planet your ilk would be in favor of immediately building massive numbers of nuclear power plants like they are doing in India, China, Brazil and others and switching from coal to natural gas. Doing these things as a bridge until renewable energies and storage are viable. But your cult is completely against this.


Of course, you are in over your head when you profess to talk about support for, and the cost, of nuclear power. Grew up with the concept--the problem is it doesn't work out financially without massive governmental subsidy. I could provide details, but you would find anything that doesn't fit into your belief structure blather.

Most people who windsurf know that going fast, turning easily, etc, is more complicated than it seems. Like virtually anything in life. But those who can't pay attention, or actually read "blather" don't seem to get it.
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 ... 321, 322, 323 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 322 of 349

 
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