Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,644 comments
  • 221,495 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
First of all, let me thank you for humoring me. I appreciate your attempt at validating an older model, and I agree that comparison of the 2008 point appears to be quite convincing
No worries, and I appreciate your comments as well 👍 As you no doubt agree, it takes a hell of a long time to write these posts! (hence why there's only one or two per day!)

recent research indicates that agreement is going to get worse, not better. So if we see mild cooling between now and 2015 imagine holding the Broecker data up an accurate prediction or model.
You're justified in saying that if there is no further warming until 2015 as of now, then the Broecker projection would look less convincing, but this was not lost on Broecker who acknowledged that the predictive power of his climate model would be at the mercy of future events being taken into account. His prediction that the period 1975-2005 would see a ~0.6 deg C increase was about right, informed by data available to him in 1975 only. Is it surprising that the predictive power of his model might change as we get further away from the point at which the original data was used? Arguably. What I mean by that is, given the data in 1975, he couldn't have known what has actually transpired since then to change his assessment of what 'natural' forcings have been. One thing his model is still right about is current values of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, though. But it's in the nature of models to incorporate new data as and when it is available, and it would be interesting to see what an updated Broecker model looked like, i.e. from 1985 or 1995, if he had been able to update his assessment of natural forcings (or all forcings other than those from GHG emissions) with real observations (as he did in 1975).

One point is that the predictive power of a model is increased, not decreased, by the inclusion of new data. But although short-term variations will always provide a joker in the pack, the validity of long-term projections can always be strengthened by the inclusion of the most up to date information available at the time.

Danoff
Also fair. I suppose it depends on how you approach the problem. In my case, I approach it as waiting for validation before accepting credentials. Your approach seems to be more like waiting for a debunking theory. I'm not really sure either of us is wrong in general. I suppose it depends on what this is going to be used for. For general purposes, your approach may be better than mine. For making policy, I like my approach better.
I agree with this, but only insomuch as a consideration of the predictive value of models is concerned. But policy is not dictated solely by the predictions alone - it is also significantly influenced by empirical evidence and attribution of past climate change. For this reason, I think it is significant to put climate predictions into context - to give an assessment of the uncertainties and recognising the limitations, but at the same time not to take them as the only basis for making policy decisions.
 
This news story:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.warming19may19,0,7702350.story

Doesn't jive well with this movie cover.

inconvenient.jpg
 

It's kind of old news... there was a paper from 2007 which showed that higher temperatures could make it harder for hurricanes to form... arguably, the claim that anthropogenic global warming will result in more hurricanes is one that has already been largely debunked... but although the Knutson paper predicts a lower frequency of hurricanes in a warming climate, they also say that "the reduction in numbers is most pronounced for weaker storms"...

The use of the hurricane as a symbol of anthropogenic climate change is pretty misleading to say the least - but be that as it may, it is just that - a symbol devised by the PR company who marketed the movie. It's similar to a faux-pas almost made by my old department (the biology department of QMUL), where a design was sought for our foyer... some genius thought, "what better thing to have in an biology department, but a graphical depiction of the evolutionary chain of life!"... which, apparently, was a sequence of beasts starting with bacteria, then an insect, then a fish, then a horse, and ultimately a human! The foyer design committee were delighted with the idea, but the evolutionary biologists were horrified at the idea, and luckily the design was pulled before it was installed...

The problem was that the folks who wanted to portray an interesting subject didn't realise that their choice of symbolism would have been a major mistake, by inadvertently reinforcing the fallacious and out-moded concept that mankind represents the top of the tree, instead of the reality which is that mankind is the top of our tree, as is also the case for the other "inferior" beings depicted in the frieze... similarly, using a hurricane to symbolise mankind's influence on climate is visually appealling, but academically obtuse...
 
If I may digress gentlemen, quick, jump in your cars and create holes in the atmosphere! LOL! No offense, gents. Just pleasantly surprised at the loftiness of this discussion... Jeez, Mars, you should be a professor. Until the world's crude oil reserves run dry we won't begin to adress this problem. It's mankind's nature to destroy ourselves...
 
On the lack of sunspots and the impending doom of an ice age:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Thats the most intriging doomsday scenario I've ever read. :dopey: And I've found a new favorite quote :In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

But seriously recently I have started to deeply question the existence of global warming, even though at first I was shocked by the 'ignorance' of the American government to accept it.
Although I thought that sun spots were cool parts of the sun?? And also i seen a report a few weeks ago suggesting that the effects of global warming would be out weighed by the effect of global cooling due to ocean currents patterns which have gone into a cool phase which will last 10 years apparently, El Nino effect I think. But then also I heard reports last year that for the first time ever a trawler could pass through some previously blocked by ice pass that was supposedly melted by warming.

So really I dont know what to think, and I dont think anyone knows the truth. So for now I dont think we should attempt anything for fear of making either situation worse. One thing I'm sure of though is that we should be trying to run as fast as possible from the finite resource oil to more infinite resources.
 
Lets face it, the Earth is one big example of Le Chatellier's pinciple.

I actually subscribe to the ice age theory. The earth is been pinging back and for between ice age and "global warming" for years and lets face it, we're not in an ice age right now.
 
Posted: May 31, 2008, 3:07 AM by NP Editor
Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers, Climate change, global warming, carbon dioxide, sunspots
With the debate focused on a warming Earth, the icy consequences of a cooler future have not been considered

552865.bin



By Lawrence Solomon
You probably haven’t heard much of Solar Cycle 24, the current cycle that our sun has entered, and I hope you don’t. If Solar Cycle 24 becomes a household term, your lifestyle could be taking a dramatic turn for the worse. That of your children and their children could fare worse still, say some scientists, because Solar Cycle 24 could mark a time of profound long-term change in the climate. As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”
The sun, of late, is remarkably free of eruptions: It has lost its spots. By this point in the solar cycle, sunspots would ordinarily have been present in goodly numbers. Today’s spotlessness — what alarms Dr. Chapman and others — may be an anomaly of some kind, and the sun may soon revert to form. But if it doesn’t – and with each passing day, the speculation in the scientific community grows that it will not – we could be entering a new epoch that few would welcome.

Sunspots have been well documented throughout human history, starting in the fourth century BC, with written descriptions by Gan De, a Chinese astronomer. In 1128, an English monk, John of Worcester, was the first person known to have drawn sunspots, and after the telescope’s arrival in the early 1600s, observations and drawings became commonplace, including by such luminaries as Galileo Galilei. Then, to the astonishment of astronomers, they saw the sunspots diminish and die out altogether.

This was the case during the Little Ice Age, a period starting in the 15th or 16th century and lasting centuries, says NASA’s Goddard Space Centre, which links the absence of sunspots to the cold that then descended on Earth. During the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a time known as the Maunder Minimum (named after English astronomer Edward Maunder), astronomers saw only about 50 sunspots over a 30-year period, less than one half of 1% of the sunspots that would normally have been expected. Other Minimums — times of low sunspot activity — also corresponded to times of unusual cold.

The consequences of the Little Ice Age, because they occurred in relatively recent times, have come down to us through literature and the arts as well as from historians and scientists, government and business records. When Shakespeare wrote of “lawn as white as driven snow,” he had first-hand experience – Europe was bitterly cold in his day, a sharp contrast to the very warm weather that preceded his birth. During the Little Ice Age, the River Thames froze over, the Dutch developed the ice skate and the great artists of the day learned to love a new genre: the winter landscape.

In what had been a warm Europe , adaptations were not all happy: Growing seasons in England and Continental Europe generally became short and unreliable, which led to shortages and famine. These hardships were nothing compared to the more northerly countries: Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finland’s population fell by one-third, Iceland’s by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland were abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities. The cold in North America spread so far south that, in the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.

In the same way that the Earth shivered when sunspots disappeared, the Earth warmed when sunspot activity became pronounced. The warm period about 1000 years ago known as the Medieval Warm Period — a time of bounty in which grapes grew in England and Greenland was colonized — also was a time of high sunspot activity, called the Medieval Maximum. Since 1900, Earth has experienced what astronomers call “the Modern Maximum” — the 20th century has again been a time of high sunspot activity.

But the 1900s are gone, along with the high temperatures that accompanied them. The last 10 years have seen no increase in temperatures — they reached a plateau and then remained there — and the last year saw a precipitous decline. How much lower and for how long the temperatures will fall, if at all, no one yet knows — the science is far from settled on what drives climate.

But many are watching the sun for answers, and for good reason. Several renowned scientists have been predicting for some time that the world could enter a period of cooling right around now, with consequences that could be dire. “The next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do,” believes Dr. Chapman. “There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.”

We are now at the beginning of Solar Cycle 24, so named because it is the 24th consecutive cycle that astronomers have listed, starting with the first cycle that began in March, 1755, and ended in June, 1766. Each cycle lasts an average of approximately 11 years; each is marked by sunspots that first erupt in the mid latitudes of the sun, and then, over the course of the 11 years, erupt progressively toward the sun’s equator; each is marked by a change in the polarity of the sun’s hemispheres; each changes the temperature on Earth in ways that humans don’t fully understand, but cannot in all honesty deny.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com


Photo: The spotless Sun, as it appeared yesterday at 12:48 p.m. The Sun’s spotlessness is giving rise to speculation of another Little Ice Age.
(Solarcycle24.com)
 
The idea of a modern ice age is not a new one, and many people have suggested, both seriously and not so seriously, that it's getting very close.

Guess no one has considered how very close it might be.

Sucks to be you guys. I live in the tropics. And I would love for it to get a bit cooler than it is now.
 
Am I missing something here? I can't work out why, all of a sudden, sun "spotlessness" is likely to plunge us into another "Little Ice Age"...

zurich.gif


This graph, from NASA, shows the sunspot cycle.. what is so different about the current minimum??
 
This graph, from NASA, shows the sunspot cycle.. what is so different about the current minimum??
Can we get average global temperature charted over that? Because it does look as if the 1900's have had higher sunspot activity on average than the two previous centuries, but it could be a trick of the eyes.

Anyway, global temperature mapped over it would show if they have a point.
 
Am I missing something here? I can't work out why, all of a sudden, sun "spotlessness" is likely to plunge us into another "Little Ice Age"...


ssn_yearly.jpg


So the question is, are we headed into something like that? The last 14 months or so have been relatively quiet. But that doesn't mean it won't come back. I imagine 11 years ago there was similar speculation of this sort. One problem here is that we don't have a solid enough understanding of solar dynamics to know when it's going to heat up or cool down.

Something else that triggers an ice age is the Earth's orbital eccentricity. Though I'm not sure where that is at the moment. I suppose I should go dig...

Edit: Better Chart...
spots.jpg


Edit #2: Here we go...
cyclesoverlaid.jpg


Far from conclusive, but it does show that we're overdue for sunspots. We're currently in cycle 23. Cycle 20 was similar, but the others had all rebounded by this point into the cycle. And cycle 20 was a pretty low period for sunspots and temperature.
 
Far from conclusive is an understatement... the shape of the curve in Cycle 23 is virtually identical to that in Cycle 20.

I'm not getting why the article by Lawrence Solomon has such an alarmist tone - based on what?

The sun, of late, is remarkably free of eruptions: It has lost its spots. By this point in the solar cycle, sunspots would ordinarily have been present in goodly numbers. Today’s spotlessness — what alarms Dr. Chapman and others — may be an anomaly of some kind, and the sun may soon revert to form. But if it doesn’t – and with each passing day, the speculation in the scientific community grows that it will not – we could be entering a new epoch that few would welcome.

Where is he getting this from? "With each passing day", the "scientific community" is becoming more convinced that Cycle 24 isn't going to happen? What a load of rubbish. I am honestly at a loss to explain where they are getting this idea that "the sun is broked", or even that Cycle 24 is "late", when there is seemingly little evidence that it is anything of the sort...
 
Where is he getting this from? "With each passing day", the "scientific community" is becoming more convinced that Cycle 24 isn't going to happen? What a load of rubbish. I am honestly at a loss to explain where they are getting this idea that "the sun is broked", or even that Cycle 24 is "late", when there is seemingly little evidence that it is anything of the sort...

I agree with you, that the alarmist tone isn't entirely justified. But cycles 20 and 23 were the lowest since the 1930s. It is interesting and it does seem to correspond with leveling and even decreasing global average temperatures. Cycle 24 is definitely late though, the cycles are supposed to be 11 years long, and this one is at least 12. That makes 24 a little late. But I agree with the article - the later Cycle 24 is, the more important a result it becomes.

One more point. I'm not sure what years they're counting for Cycle 23. But if 2007 is the last data point on the chart (because 2008 is not finished yet), then 2008 does not look to be bucking the trend (so far). If it finishes as it has started (and assuming '08 isn't on that plot), the current cycle would appear to be a significant outlier.

Regardless, I think 2010 is probably the very earliest that the alarms should sound.
 
I think the real inconveninet truth for Al Gore is that he managed to prove that all this green crap does nothing but give him money.

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through the ideas of liberty. Visit TCPR online at: www.tennesseepolicy.org
 
He's had to turn the AC up so much, because of the hot air coming out his mouth (and other orifices).



Seriously though, how can his consumption be 232 times higher than the average US house? It must be quite big.
 
He's had to turn the AC up so much, because of the hot air coming out his mouth (and other orifices).



Seriously though, how can his consumption be 232 times higher than the average US house? It must be quite big.

Twelve times higher. His consumption per year equals 232 average homes per month.
 
Al Gore is officially the greatest politician that has ever lived. All politicians should try their best to to replicated him.

No other "profession" can be so hypocritical.
 
He's had to turn the AC up so much, because of the hot air coming out his mouth (and other orifices).



Seriously though, how can his consumption be 232 times higher than the average US house? It must be quite big.
Well, when you make $100 million from your latest scheme you can afford a big house.

I think the sticky point is that after adding all this green stuff, like solar panels, CFLs, new windows, etc he is using more power. And when you consider the solar panels that means that he is really using more than before.
 
👍 Very nice site - good to see an authoratitive scientific body such as NASA presenting the evidence in such a clear and balanced way. Sadly, the web is awash with blogs, people who claim (or are claimed) to be "authorities" on the subject, people who claim (or are claimed) to be the "real authorities", and the net result is that you end up reading only what you want to read. This website has very little (if any) polemic and plenty of restraint, carefully using non-sensationalist and matter-of-fact language, and a long way to countering the "it's all a hoax" attitude of many people, whilst keeping the argument about what's causing global warming in perspective.
 
Phew, that's a relief... it was looking a bit touch and go for a minute there, but since 2007 was colder than 2006, I guess we can finally put this global warming hoax to bed. Although 2007 was the 8th warmest year on record (the other seven warmest being 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006), this one year drop in global temperature clearly means that the panic is over! :cheers:

P.S. I take it by "This year", you really mean "Last year", since "This year" (2008) isn't over yet, therefore no annual mean figures can possibly exist for 2008 yet...
 

Latest Posts

Back