myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums 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 ... 198, 199, 200 ... 547, 548, 549  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2173

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Myles Allen, Oxford university professor of geosystems science, and head of its climate research network, has, along with a group of academics, just published a paper on the problem of atmospheric CO2 levels, the key point of which is ....

"The only thing that actually matters for climate policy is whether before we relaese too much (CO2) we get to the point of burying carbon at the same rate that we dig it up."

He is aware of the obvious fact that countries such as India, China, and now Germany, are not going to stop exploiting their coal reserves, and that a carbon tax is pointless in trying to reduce emissions.

He went on..."Nothing else matters, (the using/burying balance), not for climate anyway, provided we can meet that goal. Unfortunately, turbines, fancy taxes, and carbon trading schemes aren't going to help us do so."

It seems that being in touch with reality is still alive and well, in some academic circles!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4435

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another leading light in the UK climate arena is Lord Stern, who authored an extensive report on climate change for the UK government 7 years ago. That report has triggered billions in taxes on UK citizens. This weekend he spoke again.......

Lord Stern, who originally warned the Government about climate change, has admitted that global warming has been “fairly flat” for the last decade. "I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” he told the Telegraph Hay Festival audience.

It is surprising that a peer of the realm struggles with the English language. Global warming has not been flat for "a decade or so", it has not occurred. It's coming though, he grimly warns.......just wait and see.

I agree. Let's wait and see. Let's stay focused on the global warming predictions of people like Stern and the 500 scientists mentioned above. If we measure how accurate their predictions were on that topic, we are better prepared to assess the merit of their dire warnings on these other topics. I'm sure that's what they would want, otherwise they could be accused of trying to change the subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18356

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Let's stay focused on the global warming predictions of people like Stern and the 500 scientists mentioned above.

500? Just 500? How about the 31,487 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition* affirming that the GW "threat" is not sufficiently valid to warrant any government policies?

Oh, that's right; the AGW crowd declared them all nuts based on their declaration that "the GW "threat" is not sufficiently valid to warrant any government policies".

* Google it for a jaw-dropping refutation of the left's insistence that the consensus of scientists is that W is G, is A, and is a severe threat to mankind.

To think they cry foul when we say they just make it up!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9850

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There you go again! The man who is selective in his use of complicated information says, with no hesitation:

Global warming has not been flat for "a decade or so", it has not occurred. It's coming though, he grimly warns.......just wait and see.

Just to remind those who may be readily susceptible to brainwashing by the oil and coal industries: if global warming had continued at the pace it had for the past century, the rise in average temperature would have been about 0.1 degree. The commonly used analysis of temperature change, based on the last century of data, was an increase of about 1.2 degrees, plus or minus 0.5 degrees!

For those with integrity, and any conception of how to use sparse data, that means that there is a clear increase, but the data are not precise enough to tell us what the error bands are. For those who finished fifth grade, you can see that the expected rise of 0.1 degrees is well within the error bands of our measurements.

Why is this, why can't we see change more precisely, and is mrgybe's conclusion "warming has not occurred" warranted? Well you see Martha, there is weather and there is climate, and they are different, but not completely separate. Weather changes dramatically, within a day, day to day, and seasonally, by much more than 10 degrees. Differentiating a small change--like 0.1 degrees--from such a chaotic record is very easy if you have tons of reliable data, but nearly impossible if you have sparse data, which is less reliable as you go back in time. You can see this if you look at any of the long time series of temperature--sometimes the data seems to go up, sometimes it seems to go down. The only way to tell trends is to use a moving average of 5 or 10 years. You can, of course, see the same thing with sea level rise data. Seasonal phenomenon like El Nino create temporary anomalies, that may seem like rises, or falls in sea level--but they are really separate phenomena.

Of course a rational response to having too little data is to collect more, and to have such good quality control that you know what the data is telling you with great precision, and the error bands shrink (but don't disappear, and probably never drop below 0.1 degrees.) Do you think the carbon industry has supported that? Martha, don't trust the man who wants to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

By the way, mrgybe's vaunted scientist, Lord Stern, is, like Lord Monckton, an economist, not an atmospheric scientist. Taking the observations of economists on faith is kind of like believing the Catholic Bishops will protect children from predators, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2173

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr Gybe was NOT vaunting Lord Stern. Quite the opposite!

As stated, Lord Stern was in large part responsible for the imposition of Billions in taxes and subsidies on us, and forests of bloody windmills planted by our idiot politicians, based on global warming predictions which did NOT happen.

Thanks to him, and our stupid 'playing to the world gallery' politicians, our country came to within 6 HOURS (repeat 6 HOURS0 of running out of gas supply this severe Winter. That, in turn, would have triggered a melt down in electricity supply which now has no spare capacity to meet extra needs... thousands of bloody stupid windmills notwithstanding.

And why are we in crisis? Because we are closing down perfectly good NECESSARY TO MEET DEMAND coal fired power stations, all to meet some idiotic CO2 emission target, which will be the most stringent in the world! This, despiter the fact that we produce less than 2% of the worlds atmospheric CO2 as it is. We are crippling ourselves economically, while others.. India, China, Germany... are opening NEW coal fired power stations to meet their economic needs.

If our present policy isn't idiotic, I don't know what is? If I sound angry, it's because I am. I wonder how your country would react if, overnight, your petrol prices per gallon rose ...all in the name of combating global warming... to match the level of ours?

Boy, I can just imagine it!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 6936

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since I live at 65 foot elevation in Malibu, I'd only have a laugh if England and the east coast were to run out of power, and the ocean rose a few meters. Wink

Our species has had to adapt to change for tens of thousands of years. We don't know whether sea level will drop or rise. We should plan for both, because one or the other is assured.

Seriously, the scum that run our govt have us spinning our heads from one crisis to another. Terrorism, IRS scandal, AP scandal, Health Care Crisis, Global Warming Hoax. There is always a crisis, and always a tax or regulation to fix them. Obama is just as miserable a leader as any on these matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9850

PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--the point remains, virtually all scientists working in climate, biology, and marine science are deeply concerned about climate change. Citing economists--on whatever side--is not science. Economics and politics are important in determining what to do about scientific issues, but turning scientific inquiry over to economists is folly indeed. The claims that there has been no warming, ventured by the most arrogant fellow on the forum, ring hollow, given the nature of the data. Count on George Will, mrgybe, and the carbon lobby to flog them anyway. You've never responded to show an understanding that the lack of a 0.1 degree of warming--lost in the noise--doesn't affect the long term trend. The rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans might--but that would involve science, not denial propaganda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 6936

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it possible that all the volcanoes and the sun are partially responsible?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 9850

PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard--sunspots and volcanoes both contribute to short term changes in weather, which may look like changes in climate. The utter hypocrisy of sum can readily be seen in the posting of articles about solar flares, without any attendant understanding that such short term phenomena might mask the long term impacts of CO2 buildup.

The other thing that is going on is that some of the CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and some of the rest might be encouraging greater plant growth. The good news is that such phenomena will tend to mute the planetary climate response--at the expense of great damage to the marine environment. This is hardly news--from the initial comments that I've made I noted that I don't trust the more doomsday models because they don't account for 1) greater cloud cover with greater CO2 and temperature; 2) absorption of CO2 by the oceans, or 3) greater plant growth with any accuracy. Dr. Charles Keeling, one of the pioneer scientists in climate change, postulated that much of the CO2 might be absorbed by the oceans. With the levels we've reached that clearly isn't happening, but nobody really knows whether it will happen over time, or what the lag is between increased CO2 and climate responses.

Being skeptical of the more outlandish models and alarmists cries does not translate to continuing to ignore the problem, subsidize carbon pollution, and do little or nothing about alternatives. That strategy, adopted de facto by the U.S. at the urging of the carbon industries, does maximize oil company profits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 4350
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, this should be good news for mac and the other alarmists out there, it really should be good news, but I guess that would require an open mind.
What to Make of a Warming Plateau
Published: June 10, 2013

As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Somebody who wanted to sell you gold coins as an investment could make the same kind of argument about the futility of putting your retirement funds into the stock market. If he picked the start date and the end date carefully enough, the gold salesman could make it look like the stock market did not go up for a decade or longer.

But that does not really tell you what your retirement money is going to do in the market over 30 or 40 years. It does not even tell you how you would have done over the cherry-picked decade, which would have depended on exactly when you got in and out of the market.

Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth, they conclude that it continues to warm through time. Despite the recent lull, it is an open question whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift.

What to make of it all?

We certainly cannot conclude, as some people want to, that carbon dioxide is not actually a greenhouse gas. More than a century of research thoroughly disproves that claim.

In fact, scientists can calculate how much extra heat should be accumulating from the human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, and the energies involved are staggering. By a conservative estimate, current concentrations are trapping an extra amount of energy equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs exploding across the face of the earth every day.

So the real question is where all that heat is going, if not to warm the surface. And a prime suspect is the deep ocean. Our measurements there are not good enough to confirm it absolutely, but a growing body of research suggests this may be an important part of the answer.

Exactly why the ocean would have started to draw down extra heat in recent years is a mystery, and one we badly need to understand. But the main ideas have to do with possible shifts in winds and currents that are causing surface heat to be pulled down faster than before.

The deep-ocean theory is one of a half-dozen explanations that have been proffered for the warming plateau. Perhaps the answer will turn out to be some mix of all of them. And in any event, computer forecasts of climate change suggest that pauses in warming lasting a couple of decades should not surprise us.

Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.

Today, factory pollution from China and other developing countries could be playing a similar role in blocking some sunlight. We will not know for sure until we send up satellites that can make better measurements of particles in the air.

What happened when the mid-20th-century lull came to an end? You guessed it: an extremely rapid warming of the planet.

So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.

We might one day find ourselves looking back on the crazy weather of the 2010s with a deep yearning for those halcyon days.

I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
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 ... 198, 199, 200 ... 547, 548, 549  Next
Page 199 of 549

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