456 replies to this topic

[biknut]

For some reason or other this forum is not displaying images at the moment so though I've embedded a couple graphs I also post the links to them.
Used a nifty little free program called Graph which you can get at http://www.padowan.dk/graph/

Flat? Not showing an increase?

http://www.mindsing.org/graph1.JPG


Here it is from 1987 on:

http://www.mindsing.org/graph2.JPG


I notice that if you go back further in that series it is even more pronounced but who the hell knows what that data is and why should we be looking at only the last numbers as displayed at http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt ?

biknut, you're not fooling me or, perhaps, platypus, but you seem quite wanting to see things only one way so you probably are fooling yourself.

These graphs are in err. 2007 is cooler than 2006.

[eternaltraveler]

the solution

http://www.ted.com/i...lks/view/id/192

Everyone needs to accept that we are not going to cut emissions. Attempts to do so will only result in subsidizing energy for nations that don't go along.

[Mind]

Nice talk by Keith. Thanks for the link Elrond. He is not the only one who talked about geo-engineering as a way to solve the possible climate problem. David Duetsch did as well.

I do have a couple bones to pick with Kieth's analysis. He says the only reason geo-engineering has been a tough thing to talk about is because of the "economic moral hazard". Basically, if people know they have an "out", a way to easily correct the problem, then they won't adjust their current behavior, which is the root of the problem. My feeling is that geo-engineering is not an easy subject to bring up in the climate discussion because the big environmental organizations are mostly socialist luddites. They reject anything "un-natural". The only solution they accept is conservation and redistribution of wealth (Kyoto in a nutshell).

Also, in the beginning of his talk and towards the end, he talks about carbon emissions as if they are going to rise forever. Given the leveling off of oil production and even the rising expense of coal, I seriously doubt carbon emissions will increase at the same rate for the next decade and will probably start falling before 2020. Not only because of diminishing resources, but because of advancing technology.

The geo-engineering strategy will eventually win out in some form or another. The engineering solution always wins out, because that's what humans do.

[eternaltraveler]

The engineering solution always wins out, because that's what humans do.

damn right.

[niner]

Also, in the beginning of his talk and towards the end, he talks about carbon emissions as if they are going to rise forever. Given the leveling off of oil production and even the rising expense of coal, I seriously doubt carbon emissions will increase at the same rate for the next decade and will probably start falling before 2020. Not only because of diminishing resources, but because of advancing technology.

Nice catch, Mind. I've read recently that coal reserves may have been significantly overestimated. If the health and ecological disasterousness of coal is not sufficient to turn us away from it, the world might be facing Peak Coal a lot sooner than it thought. Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer has put a date on the peaking of easy oil and gas: “After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.” (see http://www.greencarc...resen.html#more ) This environment is going to induce a lot of human ingenuity; in fact, it already has. We will deal with the carbon problem eventually. Whether it is sooner or later will depend on whether governments continue protections for entrenched fossil producers or create incentives for alternatives, (if sooner is desired) or the reality of the market and the physics of the situation, if later is desired. Later will be more painful, IMHO but I think that either way we will probably evade the worst of the GW scenarios.

[eternaltraveler]

there were times in the past when the earths average temp was 10 C higher than today. The earth is currently 40 million years into one of it's 100 million year cool cycles.

[platypus]

How it All Ends

[platypus]

More signs that sea level might rise a lot quicker than what is being currently predicted by the IPCC:

Antarctic Glaciers Surge to Ocean

By Martin Redfern
Rothera Research Station, Antarctica

UK scientists working in Antarctica have found some of the clearest evidence yet of
instabilities in the ice of part of West Antarctica.

If the trend continues, they say, it could lead to a significant rise in global sea level.

[platypus]

http://www.salon.com...iers/index.html

[biknut]

http://www.salon.com...iers/index.html

I read this with an open mind. I really do. It plainly says things are worse than the reports claim. The climate is going to warm up. When? It's not warmer now than last year. As a matter of fact the last few years it's been cooling. Where we stand as of right now the global average is, well , average. it's like in one year 250 years of warming disappeared. Will it come back? When?

What explanation will there be if it keeps getting cooler?

[platypus]

http://www.salon.com...iers/index.html

I read this with an open mind. I really do. It plainly says things are worse than the reports claim. The climate is going to warm up. When? It's not warmer now than last year. As a matter of fact the last few years it's been cooling. Where we stand as of right now the global average is, well , average. it's like in one year 250 years of warming disappeared. Will it come back? When?

What explanation will there be if it keeps getting cooler?

The warming-trend has not disappeared anywhere, even though the recent drop is large:

http://wattsupwithth...past-12-months/

If the world starts to grow cooler it would certainly be a big surprise.

[biknut]

'Climate change not due to greenhouse gases'
3 Mar 2008, 1104 hrs IST,PTI

NEW YORK: In a highly controversial paper, climate scientists at three US universities have contested claims that greenhouse gases were causing climate change and instead attributed it to earth's "natural cycle."

The scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia have said that the observed patterns of temperature changes over the last 30 years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict.

These observations are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data.

However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

Dr Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming," says that the current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments and stalagmites and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate change is still under discussion, but they are most likely caused by variations in the 'solar wind' that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere and influence cloudiness and thus the climate, he adds.

"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide makes only a minor contribution to climate warming. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions are ineffective and pointless," Singer adds. Once one accepts the evidence that carbon dioxide is insignificant in warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically and have a profound effect on energy policy, he says.

[dannov]

I believe the whole issue will die a fast death in the next 10 years as the climate starts to cool. (it's already peaked) and then you won't be able to find a scientist who claims he ever believed in global warming, just like it's hard to find one now that claims to have believed in global cooling in the 70s. I was in my 20s then, and I remember that at the time there were a great many. Probably in 10 years even platypus will claim he never believed in it.

After reading everything I can find both pro and con, I've come to the conclusion man made global warming is total crap. The warming we see is natural and nothing out of the ordinary. We peaked in 1998.

As far as the economy goes, it's true, a lot of money has already been made by a lot of crap science. No matter how it goes America will come out on top. All those little children in China working for 67 cents an hour will be working for us. All of China's most skilled people are already here working for us now. Check out TI, Erricson, IBM. You can spot the chinese nationals because their pants are 3 inches too short and their shirts are all wrinkled. They talk real loud in the lunch room and they all have PHD's.

If you want to live forever you got to stop being worry wort's. At this time, life is the best it's ever been. Nothing is going to stop it from being that way in the future, even global warming. At least if you live in Texas anyway.

Agreed. Scientists that subscribe to man-made global warming or cooling or whatever that aren't bought out by government or special interests are the ones on the lower rungs of the ladder, like those described in Ohio State University. They've already accepted without question that man is responsible for the climate change, and so then base their research on that assumption. That groundwater study didn't tell me anything about man-made climate change, but rather, just climate change. That's the nature of our planet--it's a dynamic, ever-changing environment.

Also, there is plenty of research that shows the Abiotic oil theory is legit. The Russians tried to share this research with us in the 90s (that they've been using since the seventies), but they were largely ignored and ridiculed. Yet, by applying this theory, Russians have a successful strike rate of 50% as opposed to our 10%. Post-Vietnam the Western nations (along with America) told the Viets that they had no natural resources to develop. The Russians told them that if they allow them to build their specialized deep-drilling rigs, they'd guarantee oil, and just want a % of the profits. The Vietnamese let them...go look up the "White Tiger Fields." Let's just say that the Russians were more than right.

http://freeenergynew...SustainableOil/

http://www.lewrockwe.../crispin11.html

http://www.gasresour...ntroduction.htm

Tons of bodies of scientific evidence on Abiotic oil...hell, the Russians and Ukrainians have literally hundreds of research papers on it over the decades. Feel free to research if you're interested, those are just some starting links.

The Peak Oil theory is bullshit and directly linked with oil giants wanting to keep oil prices high. The Russians, however, have their resources nationalized and don't allow sleazes like Rockefeller and Bush to get their grubby paws on their fields.

Edited by dannov, 03 March 2008 - 05:27 PM.

[platypus]

Dr Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming," says that the current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments and stalagmites and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Fred_Singer

"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide makes only a minor contribution to climate warming. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions are ineffective and pointless," Singer adds. Once one accepts the evidence that carbon dioxide is insignificant in warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically and have a profound effect on energy policy, he says.

I wonder where these guys published their results..

[platypus]

Agreed. Scientists that subscribe to man-made global warming or cooling or whatever that aren't bought out by government or special interests are the ones on the lower rungs of the ladder, like those described in Ohio State University.

You still cannot buy favourable peer review. Paranoia-levels are rising.

They've already accepted without question that man is responsible for the climate change, and so then base their research on that assumption.

No they don't. Studies can be and are replicated.

Also, there is plenty of research that shows the Abiotic oil theory is legit.

That must be the reason why most oil producing countries have passed their peak of production already. With crude abound 104$ per barrel it sure is pity they haven't heard of this research and cannot apply it.

Tons of bodies of scientific evidence on Abiotic oil...hell, the Russians and Ukrainians have literally hundreds of research papers on it over the decades. Feel free to research if you're interested, those are just some starting links.

See above.

The Peak Oil theory is bullshit and directly linked with oil giants wanting to keep oil prices high.

Strangely enough companies or countries just cannot find oil fast enough already for decades.

[platypus]

Forecast for big sea level rise

Sea levels could rise by up to one-and-a-half metres by the end of this century, according to a new scientific analysis.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7349236.stm

[bgwowk]

"Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess"

http://online.wsj.co...=googlenews_wsj

There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction. So it's like flipping a coin six times and getting tails each time. The chance of that occurring is 0.016, or less than one in 50. That doesn't mean that these revisions are all hooey, but the probability that they would all go in one direction on the merits is pretty darned small.

[Lazarus Long]

Actually there has been a lot of new evidence coming out that diminishes the importance of solar influence on climate. Not to mentino that major amounts of the Antarctic ice shelf are breaking loose.

More doubt on cosmic climate link
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7352667.stm

Research has thrown further doubt on the notion that cosmic rays are a major influence on the Earth's climate.

The idea that modern global warming is due to changes in cloudiness caused by solar influences on cosmic rays is popular with "climate sceptics".

But scientists found changes in cosmic ray flux do not affect cloud formation - the second such report in a month.

Separately, other researchers have found that particles from space may affect temperatures at the poles.

Both pieces of research were presented here at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) meeting.

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming
http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

[eternaltraveler]

Alternative technologies to oil are economically viable far below the current per barrel cost, making this debate pretty meaningless. The only thing keeping us reliant on oil is the huge momentum behind it. That is just barely starting to shift, and mostly for economic reasons, not because people care about whether global warming is real. Once we shift away from fossil fuels energy becomes unlimited, and we'll never have to worry about it again (well maybe we'll worry about it after we are a Kardashev level 2 or 3 civilization).

[platypus]

Alternative technologies to oil are economically viable far below the current per barrel cost, making this debate pretty meaningless.

Do the technologies scale and how many years/decades will it take to make the switch? Most biofuels are probably a bad idea as they can lead to famine and increased global food prices.

Edited by platypus, 21 April 2008 - 09:16 AM.

[platypus]

Next decade 'may see no warming'



The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7376301.stm

[biknut]

Looks like global warming isn't causing more hurricanes.

Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Sun May 18, 7:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors — anywhere west of Puerto Rico — will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors.

The biggest storms — those with winds of more than 110 mph — would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

It's not all good news from Knutson's study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent, Knutson's study says.

And Knutson said this study significantly underestimates the increase in wind strength. Some other scientists criticized his computer model.

MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, while praising Knutson as a scientist, called his conclusion "demonstrably wrong" based on a computer model that doesn't look properly at storms.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist, said Knutson's computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and "fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity."

Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said it is not just the number of hurricanes "that matter, it is also the intensity, duration and size, and this study falls short on these issues."

Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn't produce storms surpassing 112 mph.

But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn't part of this study, praised Knutson's work as "very consistent with what's being said all along."

"I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny," Landsea said.

Hurricane season starts June 1 in the Atlantic and a Colorado State University forecast predicts about a 50 percent more active than normal storm season this year. NOAA puts out its own seasonal forecast on May 22.

In a normal year about 10 named storms form. Six become hurricanes and two become major hurricanes. On average, about five hurricanes hit the United States every three years.

http://news.yahoo.co...ming_hurricanes

[platypus]

Methane rise points to wetlands


Higher atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas methane noted last year are probably related to emissions from wetlands, especially around the Arctic.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7408808.stm

(this can turn nasty if Arctic warming continues as it creates a positive feedback loop where warming creates even more warming)

Edited by platypus, 26 May 2008 - 10:00 AM.

[JonesGuy]

Biknut: what is your hypothesis? I know you don't believe that anthropogenic warming is occuring, and so you'll point out contradictory data. But make a prediction.
Here's my challenge: make a prediction about 2011-2012 that would be true if AGW wasn't true. It has to be reasonable and verifiable. Then we can go back and see if you were wrong.

I don't know where you're getting your data, but we're still warming over the last decade. Are you only going to count years above 1998 levels as 'warming'? You can't examine short-term timescales without being careful. Don't look at last week's DOW and this week's DOW and decide whether our economies are growing or not.

Nice talk by Keith. Thanks for the link Elrond. He is not the only one who talked about geo-engineering as a way to solve the possible climate problem. David Duetsch did as well.

I do have a couple bones to pick with Kieth's analysis. He says the only reason geo-engineering has been a tough thing to talk about is because of the "economic moral hazard". Basically, if people know they have an "out", a way to easily correct the problem, then they won't adjust their current behavior, which is the root of the problem. My feeling is that geo-engineering is not an easy subject to bring up in the climate discussion because the big environmental organizations are mostly socialist luddites. They reject anything "un-natural". The only solution they accept is conservation and redistribution of wealth (Kyoto in a nutshell).

Also, in the beginning of his talk and towards the end, he talks about carbon emissions as if they are going to rise forever. Given the leveling off of oil production and even the rising expense of coal, I seriously doubt carbon emissions will increase at the same rate for the next decade and will probably start falling before 2020. Not only because of diminishing resources, but because of advancing technology.

The geo-engineering strategy will eventually win out in some form or another. The engineering solution always wins out, because that's what humans do.

I don't like the geo-engineering strategy because each country would benefit with a different climate. We're talking the 21st century "gas wars".
I also have problems with the Kyoto strategy, but it's a stepping stone. I think to call it a 'redistribution of wealth' is a bit of a strawman, since the intent is to pay for what you use. If I buy bananas from the third world, I'm not redistributing wealth. If I pay Kenya to sop up my excess CO2 production (via their biomass), it's not 'wealth redistribution'.

Finally, I would except our CO2 emissions to continue growing unless we decide to stop raising them. While coal will become more expensive, we'll also be much wealthier than we used to be, and thus easily able to afford the coal

Edited by QJones, 26 May 2008 - 02:18 PM.

[Mind]

Finally, I would except our CO2 emissions to continue growing unless we decide to stop raising them. While coal will become more expensive, we'll also be much wealthier than we used to be, and thus easily able to afford the coal

This is not what history has shown. Throughout the last 50 years all measure of pollution have gone down in wealthy industrial (or now even post industrial) societies. Wealthy people can afford clean technology and they choose it. Our best bet would be to encourage more free trade and constitutionally based market economies. Wealthy people not only choose a cleaner environment, they have fewer kids. Instituting world-wide economic depression via carbon taxes will only prolong the trouble (if said trouble - AGW - really is a problem).

[JonesGuy]

Well, general pollution has gone down, but certainly not CO2 pollution (by any metric). edit: except, of course, in places that are bringing down CO2 intentionally due to GW concerns.

As well, capturing externalities (if AGW is a problem) is the ideal way of preventing an economic problem.
edit x2: and of course I'm completely in support of free trade of carbon credits. That's a no brainer. Let whoever sequester their own way.

Edited by QJones, 26 May 2008 - 08:55 PM.

[biknut]

Biknut: what is your hypothesis? I know you don't believe that anthropogenic warming is occuring, and so you'll point out contradictory data. But make a prediction.
Here's my challenge: make a prediction about 2011-2012 that would be true if AGW wasn't true. It has to be reasonable and verifiable. Then we can go back and see if you were wrong.

I don't know where you're getting your data, but we're still warming over the last decade.

You got that right.

This is what I know. Since 1998 CO2 has increased every year, warming has not. Since 1998 the average global temperature has dropped. I'm talking about the average for the last 10 years, not any particular year. I think it's going to continue dropping. Some scientists now believe warming will not return for 10 more years because of previously unknown, or not understood ocean currents. It's seems suspect to me that they can dream up reasons why the climate can cool naturally, but they can't seem to imagine any reason it would warn naturally. The climate can only warm if man causes it?

2011-12 that 3 to 4 years from now. I think it's pretty safe to predict that the global average temperature won't be any higher then, than it is now, and probably cooler. That's what some scientists are predicting already, but I doubt for the right reasons. That will mean a decade and a half, almost, of no additional warming, in spite of continuing CO2 increases every year.

BTW so far this year with 4 months global data it's .230c average.
Last year at the same time it was .514c I know no single year matters but how many years would say it takes to matter? A decade, maybe two?

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

[JonesGuy]

So, at least no more than half of the temperatures (from 2008 to 2012) will be higher than the 1999-2007 average? And we expect no more than one year higher than 1998?

[biknut]

So, at least no more than half of the temperatures (from 2008 to 2012) will be higher than the 1999-2007 average? And we expect no more than one year higher than 1998?

I don't really expect any year to be higher than 1998. The average for the next 4 years should be no higher than .421
I think it will be less than that.

[platypus]

Bad bad news coming from the Arctic:
Meltdown in the Arctic is speeding up
Scientists warn that the North Pole could be free of ice in just five years' time instead of 60<h2 id="stand-first"></h2> http://www.guardian....techange.arctic

This point was backed by Serreze. 'The trouble is that sea ice is now disappearing from the Arctic faster than our ability to develop new computer models and to understand what is happening there. We always knew it would be the first region on Earth to feel the impact of climate change, but not at anything like this speed. What is happening now indicates that global warming is occurring far earlier than any of us expected.'

This is not nice as it's a positive feedback loop. Moreover it can affect large-scale weather patterns, with unknown consequences. The writing is on the wall, climate-change sceptics...