Climate is warming - despite 'ups and downs'

Dec 28, 2010

Periodic short-term cooling in global temperatures should not be misinterpreted as signalling an end to global warming, according to an Honorary Research Fellow with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Barrie Hunt.

“Despite 2010 being a very warm year globally, the severity of the 2009-2010 northern winter and a wetter and cooler Australia in 2010 relative to the past few years have been misinterpreted by some to imply that is not occurring,” Mr Hunt said.

“Recent wet conditions in eastern Australia mainly reflect short-term climate variability and weather events, not longer-term climate change trends. Conclusions that climate is not changing are based on a misunderstanding of the roles of climatic change caused by increasing greenhouse gases and climatic variability due to natural processes in the climatic system.

“These two components of the climate system interact continuously, sometimes enhancing and sometimes counteracting one another to either exacerbate or moderate climate extremes.”

Mr Hunt says his climatic model simulations support what is clear from recent observations – that in addition to the role of climate change linked to human activity, natural variability produces periods where the global climate can be either cooler or warmer than usual. Mr Hunt’s results were published in the latest edition of the international journal Climate Dynamics.

He says some such natural temperature variations can last for 10 to 15 years, with persistent variations of about 0.2°C.

“Such natural variability could explain the above average temperatures observed globally in the 1940s, and the warm but relatively constant of the last decade.”

Mr Hunt also found that seasonal cold spells will still be expected under enhanced greenhouse conditions. For example, monthly mean temperatures up to 10°C below present values were found to occur over North America as late as 2060 in model simulations, with similar cold spells over Asia. Variations of up to 15°C below current temperatures were found to occur on individual days, even in 2060, despite a long-term trend of warming on average.

“These results suggest that a few severe winters in the Northern hemisphere are not sufficient to indicate that climatic change has ceased. The long-term trends that characterise climate change can be interpreted only by analysing many years of observations.”

“Future changes in global temperature as the concentration of greenhouse gases increases will not show a simple year-on-year increase but will vary around a background of long-term warming. Winters as cold as that recently experienced in the Northern Hemisphere, however, will become progressively less frequent as the greenhouse effect eventually dominates,” Mr Hunt said.

This underlying warming trend, reflected in the projections of future climate and the observation that the past decade has been the warmest in the instrumental record, underline the need to both adapt to what is now inevitable change and mitigate even greater changes.

Explore further: Earthquakes occur in 4 parts of Alaska

Related Stories

Aerosols -- their part in our rainfall

Feb 12, 2009

Aerosols may have a greater impact on patterns of Australian rainfall and future climate change than previously thought, according to leading atmospheric scientist, CSIRO's Dr. Leon Rotstayn.

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

Jul 25, 2014

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

NASA maps Typhoon Matmo's Taiwan deluge

Jul 25, 2014

When Typhoon Matmo crossed over the island nation of Taiwan it left tremendous amounts of rainfall in its wake. NASA used data from the TRMM satellite to calculate just how much rain fell over the nation.

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (78) Dec 28, 2010
I would agree if there was enough data available to rule out short term trends, but there is not enough base line data available to draw long term predictions.

The prior decade has not seen global temperature raising as predicted, and that time period makes up nearly a tenth of the data since industrial times!

The AGW graphs since 1880 show, in the scope of such a chaotic subject, nothing more than a blip, then they duck tape onto it a graph of use of carbon based energy, and you end up with weak speculative science.
sstritt
2.9 / 5 (38) Dec 28, 2010
Title should read: "Climate is warming, despite all evidence to the contrary"
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (33) Dec 28, 2010
"Whether it warms or cools, AGW is true!"
LariAnn
4.4 / 5 (28) Dec 28, 2010
I'd be really interested in knowing how this debate would pan out were there no politics or attempts to tax or regulate people in connection with it. I'm talking a pure scientific discourse, bereft of any political considerations. Would the "pros" and "cons" be as passionate for their positions if there was nothing to win or lose politically? Could this climate change/global warming topic really be looked at from a purely dispassionate position?
NotParker
2.4 / 5 (29) Dec 28, 2010
Quick ... make up a counter argument! Create a model that bears no relationship to reality. Make it say something that isn't true. Use 1% of the computing power the Met used to predict a warm winter in the UK.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (76) Dec 28, 2010
@LariAnn
No, because 1) the proposed solutions are all from the left-wing perspective (not a coincidence),.. redistribution of wealth, social engineering, anti-capitalistic, one world governance, government control, etc, and 2) Too many wildly speculative and hysterical statements by scientists, over what amounts to a few tenths of a degrees C per century,... a remarkably stable temperature, even if they have such a handle on global temps, which is doubtful.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (37) Dec 28, 2010
I'd be really interested in knowing how this debate would pan out were there no politics or attempts to tax or regulate people in connection with it.


Well ... a "scientist" would look at 800,000 years of Vostok Ice Cores and note:

Every 100,000 years there is a warm interglacial and then after 10,000 years or so temperatures plunge 10C and return to the current ice age.

This interglacial started abruptly 11,500 years ago.

If man is actually forestalling the end of the interglacial ... then we should keep doing what we are doing, because when the interglacial ends, so will most of the agriculture outside of the tropics and billions will die!
Doug_Huffman
2.2 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2010
Weather reports are mere natural history observations. The problem of demarcation, demarcating induction from deduction may be solved by falsificationism, if it can't be falsified then it ain't science.
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (21) Dec 28, 2010
Quick ... make up a counter argument! Create a model that bears no relationship to reality. Make it say something that isn't true. Use 1% of the computing power the Met used to predict a warm winter in the UK.


A computer model is only useful if:

1) the formulae it uses are actually correct with respect to the laws of nature.

2) The resolution and accuracy of input data is arbitrarily close to perfect.

A virus such as swine flu, is an example of how in the real world a single molecule can literally change the whole planet. If one person is infected by a single flue virus, they can potentially infect every other person on the planet. So literally, a change in one instance of one molecule can change the entire planet, and on a very, very macroscopic and macro-economic level.

The weather is the same way. It just isn't always as obvious.
Dobbin
3.1 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2010
Could this climate change/global warming topic really be looked at from a purely dispassionate position?


Inherent in the to camps is a large ideological divide. Not everyone on each side of the debate holds the full set of beliefs associated with the respective camp but the trends are there.

Creating the divide is an almost mystical belief in a benign natural order that by definition excludes anything man caused as unnatural and therefore bad man. Widespread fictions like the existence of a "balance of nature" shows how entrenched the we are spoiling the earth crowd is.

I don't see a dispassionate discussion of the data when basic world views are at stake.
bbd
3.3 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2010
"Whether it warms or cools, AGW is true!"

...and there are many people taking that to the bank.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (25) Dec 28, 2010
Global warming? Not according to Piers Corbyn and his predictions:
hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkzNmWlCig8&feature=player_embedded
If man is actually forestalling the end of the interglacial ... then we should keep doing what we are doing, because when the interglacial ends, so will most of the agriculture outside of the tropics and billions will die!
Billions are going to die at any rate, peacefully and in their sleep for most. Whether people suffer or not because of climate change depends on how many are born to replace those who die. Time for humans to get a real grip on their tropical reproduction rate, worldwide. The west has done this; only those obsolete religionist cultures, which use reproduction as a means of conquest, continue to be the problem.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (23) Dec 28, 2010
"The prior decade has not seen global temperature raising as predicted..." - Johnny Lick-spittle

Sorry Johnny no one in the scientific community has made any decadal forecasts since climate is defined on a minimum timescales of 2 to 3 decades, and since the temperature change over the last decade is under the .5'C (approx) that is the envelope of natural variation.

Your idiotic statement is equivalent to saying that the trend of people getting taller is invalid because the last 10 people who entered your house did not follow the statistical trend line.

Only a fool would expect them to.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (25) Dec 28, 2010
"Global warming? Not according to Piers Corbyn.." - Tard of Tards

If you are going to use practicing astrologers like Corbyn, then why not include the expert opinions of Witch Doctors and Sanitation Engineers as well?

Personally I have a lot of respect for Sanitation Engineers. Modern society wouldn't be possible without them.

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (23) Dec 28, 2010
Title should read: "Climate is warming, despite no evidence to the contrary" - TardZilla

Correct

Jonseer
3.5 / 5 (24) Dec 28, 2010
Scientists need to STOP ANSWERING questions about daily, weekly, yearly weather in the context of climate change.

Instead they should give the true and proper answer, climate change does NOT predict IS NOT A method of predicting day to day, week to week or month to month weather patterns will be.

Climate change addresses the rapid warming OVER DECADES into the next century due to human activity.

Climate change does NOT replace the weather forecast on the TV, radio or internet.

It is a method of estimating weather decades or more into future in order to determine what will happen if we do not alter human activities to forestall it.

As long as Science continues to answer questions regarding daily, weekly or monthly weather, they will continue to reinforce the false notion Luddites use to attack it that one can prove or disprove climate change by checking today's weather.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.4 / 5 (22) Dec 28, 2010
"the proposed solutions are all from the left-wing perspective" - Tard-O-Matic

Cap and trade was what was originally demanded by Conservative Economists.

But Conservatives need to lie about that fact now that the method was accepted and they needed to oppose change by opposing what they had originally demanded.

I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.

Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (62) Dec 28, 2010
"The prior decade has not seen global temperature raising as predicted..." - Johnny Lick-spittle

Sorry Johnny no one in the scientific community has made any decadal forecasts since climate is defined on a minimum timescales of 2 to 3 decades, and since the temperature change over the last decade is under the .5'C (approx) that is the envelope of natural variation.

Your idiotic statement is equivalent to saying that the trend of people getting taller is invalid because the last 10 people who entered your house did not follow the statistical trend line.

Only a fool would expect them to.


Numb-nutz, ...If you're going to quote someone, don't cut the sentence in half.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (71) Dec 28, 2010
I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.


I never meet a left winger who wasn't a mush-headed PETA'esque naive dolt.
sstritt
2.6 / 5 (27) Dec 28, 2010
I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.


I have never met a progressive who was able to defend their position without sinking to puerile ad hominem attacks.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (28) Dec 28, 2010
I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.


I have never met a progressive who was able to defend their position without sinking to puerile ad hominem attacks.

That has been my experience as well.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (25) Dec 28, 2010
"Global warming? Not according to Piers Corbyn.." - Tard of Tards
-But it was on Fox. It must be true. Marjon says so.
bbd
3 / 5 (20) Dec 28, 2010
Scientists need to STOP ANSWERING questions about daily, weekly, yearly weather in the context of climate change.


Scientists will continue to answer whatever questions bring them grants, tenure and an early and comfortable retirement. They are the factory workers of the climate change industry.
ted208
2.6 / 5 (25) Dec 28, 2010
The Global Warning /Cooling/ Disruption Hoax Dream is wearing off and it will rot and fall away, one person at a time!
The Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds”
“it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one” – Charles MacKay, , written 1841

Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (62) Dec 28, 2010
"Global warming? Not according to Piers Corbyn.." - Tard of Tards
-But it wasn't on MSNBC, ABC, NYT. It must be true.
Justsayin
2.2 / 5 (30) Dec 28, 2010
Didn't that guy who invented the internet...Al Gore tell everyone in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that all models forecasted warming. If he and his ilk were so omniscient why didn't they tell us about the radical cold weather we are having. Wouldn't it have shown up in their fair and pure as the wind driven snow honest predictions?
toddao
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 28, 2010
when you zoom into an intraday chart of the Dow, today looks like "runnaway warming"...

when you zoom out to a couple of years of data, its just the teeniest blip of nothing..

I wish these guys would finally put the co2 thing with its 800 year lag BEHIND temperature, and only 4%(!) contributed by man anyway, to bed. finally.
and maybe focus on something more potentially productive like like the sun/cosmic ray/low level cloud cover theory that has astonishing long and short term correlations with climate. (and actually makes sense)
Code_Warrior
4.2 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2010
Unfortunately, climate modeling is very imprecise and the variables are not understood anywhere near well enough to make specific claims just yet. However, I think that enough is known that caution is warranted and that it makes sense to design systems that minimize the impact to the environment over their life cycle.

Now that the issue is exposed, more people are working on these problems and I feel confident that inexpensive solutions will be found. IMO I think that more money should be spent on developing Thorium reactor technology. That technology solves many environmental problems, while minimizing radioactive waste longevity and buys us a couple thousand years to figure out environmentally benign means of energy production.
jlantrip
4.2 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2010
It seems crazy the level to which some people believe that there is some sort of conspiracy. Undoubtedly there is money to be made, but that is consistent with all technological endeavors relating to energy. It is the capitol of the world, if we are too dumb to progress naturally into a more sustainable and renewable production/collection of energy then its better to force people to cap their waste and direct the flow towards that end before the planet forces it with much more dire consequences. The planet does have a balancing factor to it called the laws of physics, which on such a large scale is extremely complicated to model and predict.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (61) Dec 28, 2010
Unfortunately, climate modeling is very imprecise and the variables are not understood anywhere near well enough to make specific claims just yet. However, I think that enough is known that caution is warranted and that it makes sense to design systems that minimize the impact to the environment over their life cycle.

Now that the issue is exposed, more people are working on these problems and I feel confident that inexpensive solutions will be found. IMO I think that more money should be spent on developing Thorium reactor technology. That technology solves many environmental problems, while minimizing radioactive waste longevity and buys us a couple thousand years to figure out environmentally benign means of energy production.

I agree with everything you just stated.
jlantrip
3.8 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2010
But to imagine that all scientists are somehow collaborating in conspiracy to produce the astounding amounts of research and data that points to climate change is asinine. It is coming from all over the globe and reveals the reality in so many different disciplines, from chemical composition of lakes and rivers, to migration patterns, to Ice cap changes, to tundra, to simple measurements in the atmosphere, and on the ground and glaciers melting. Every scientist I have known(not that there aren't some bad apples) does research because they love and are passionate about the processes of the planet, it's chemistry, physics and all underlying aspects of the pursuit of knowledge. And the beautiful thing about science is the aspect of replication and reproduction and collaboration. False scientific claims fall by the wayside quickly as the correct hypothesis is revealed through is predictive and explanatory power.
jlantrip
4.1 / 5 (20) Dec 28, 2010
The evidence that we affect our environment is staggering, from the small to the large the impacts are so obvious and blatant that it is insanity to assume otherwise. In fact from the beginning life has been changing the planet drastically, bacteria expelled oxygen as a by product and completely changed the atmosphere. This was over a long period of time no doubt, but the change was dramatic. Our by products are very measurable and the reality that we are changing the atmosphere is a real one. How and when it will pan out is the more complicated part. But as our technical ability to model and predict and our database of information continues to increase the nay sayers will have no choice but to let go of their excess and understand there is a way to have both cheap energy and a clean and healthy living environment, better sooner than later.
Dobbin
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 28, 2010
The AGW alarms assume a delicate balance and a climate system potentially dominated by positive feedback. Some say that we or past the "tipping point" of a catastrophic climate latchup.

The fact that the large perturbations of the past didn't cause the runaway heating feared today means that the system is governed more by negative feedback that tends to regulate the climate towards moderate and temporary excursions.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (28) Dec 28, 2010
Okay, so now it's "climate change" and not global warming. Obviously, this is a caveat which allows them to be right, no matter what happens!

I hope it's warming. Historically, a warmer world has much more arable land (perhaps as much as double what we have now).
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (21) Dec 28, 2010
If man is actually forestalling the end of the interglacial ... then we should keep doing what we are doing, because when the interglacial ends, so will most of the agriculture outside of the tropics and billions will die!
At first I was going to put an, "LOL!" but then it occurred to me that glaciation can begin with just slightly more than average snow over several seasons. It's beginning to look like we're on our way! ...oh my!

P.S. To the fools that believe any scary sounding thing they read: Get a life.
toddao
2.7 / 5 (20) Dec 28, 2010
does research because they love and are passionate about the processes of the planet, it's chemistry, physics and all underlying aspects of the pursuit of knowledge. And the beautiful thing about science is the aspect of replication and reproduction and collaboration. False scientific claims fall by the wayside quickly as the correct hypothesis is revealed through is predictive and explanatory power.


i agree with your sentiments competely. (very nicely stated)
but everything i have read points to the complete hijacking of the process, from hype, fear mongering, politics, data manipulation to support bassackwards underlying assumptions, funding and the hijacking of the peer review process under threat of ostracization, etc.

as an amature scientist i feel offended by what i have seen...
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (68) Dec 28, 2010
But to imagine that all scientists are somehow collaborating in conspiracy to produce the astounding amounts of research and data that points to climate change is asinine.

Indeed it would be had someone said that. They're indeed discovering things about the climate,.. it's dynamic. The raw data is questionable and conclusions are not falsifiable.

There IS a collaboration, though I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, as it is intrinsic in progressive political philosophy. Those who have propagandized AGW into hysteria are political progressives, who wish to redistribute wealth from the "offenders" to poorer nations, ...they want global social engineering,.. they want control over capitalism.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (69) Dec 28, 2010
...My issue is that the hypothesis (and that is as best as it can be) of 'cataclysmic' AGW does not warrant such massive changes to economies and governments. AGW is being used as a foot-in-the-door for the socialistic left. This is a fact obvious to anyone who is remotely literate about world events. Perhaps climate scientists could speak up about it,....
apex01
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2010
"the proposed solutions are all from the left-wing perspective" - Tard-O-Matic

Cap and trade was what was originally demanded by Conservative Economists.

But Conservatives need to lie about that fact now that the method was accepted and they needed to oppose change by opposing what they had originally demanded.

I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.



wow, that was a bold statement at the end. Maybe you should try getting out more from your bubble.

Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (61) Dec 28, 2010
Don't mind him apex01, he's a 2.8 that deals with caricatures since they require less thought.
Ablee
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 28, 2010
Heee, the title states it all you need not even read the article, more fascist propaganda about the devil carbon dioxide, the plants are all terrorists as they take in the evil C02 .
mongander
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2010
Oops....how did I tune into the religion channel?
Parsec
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 29, 2010
Only fools close their eyes and minds to scientific evidence because of politics and/or religion. The climate change deniers are the modern version of the old flat earth society.
Loodt
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 29, 2010
So Parsec,

How is it going at the 'Grand Academy of Lagado'.

Is the Warden in and how is the project going to extract sun-beams out of cucumbers?

Gulliver's Travels - Jonathan Swift; who foresaw the current AGW mob and their anti-science stance so clearly centuries ago!
Kedas
3.3 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2010
I guess the temperature behaves a bit like the stock market.
Some will lose and some are winning but there is a rise over the long term.
The faster CO2 is rising the more and bigger the ups and downs will be.

And like the stock market everyone can explain why it went up or down after it happened.
bluehigh
2.4 / 5 (16) Dec 29, 2010
.. and meanwhile millions die from preventable diseases, significant populations do not have access to clean drinking water as the idle and comfortable argue moot points on the long term climate outlook.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 29, 2010
Climate has been warming for thousands of years. So much so it has melted the glaciers that covered ND, SD, MN, WI, ME, MA, NH, VT, and most of Canada.
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (10) Dec 29, 2010
ACtually its cooling...

you can get big flow by raising the heat side, or lowering the cold side...

if its by the heat side, you get more water, without snow
if its by dropping the cold side, you get more water, but its snow

the transition periods btween the two conditions, are less water, etc..

irradiation is the same whether artic or equator, the key is whether the heat gets banked in the north before escape.

since the behavior is emergent, its not opposite in action, but varying in action based on the differential.

all these systems act like pendulums and so they naturally align given positive and negative input variances... feedbacks only make things more stable filtering out the more short term variances .

sad thing is that this can easily be shown in a simple math model. and the idea of the energy being banked in such a way in which it is both saved AND used violates some very basic physics...
3432682
2.8 / 5 (19) Dec 29, 2010
The best indicators of Earth temperature are ARGO ocean buoys and satellites, not the land-based temp stations the IPCC loves (and loves to cull out, and to "adjust"). ARGO shows a slight cooling for the last 8 years. Satellites confirm that.

To put supposed warming in perspective, look at the long-term temperature history - the last million years, 100k years, 10k years. The normal usual state of Earth for the last million years is ice age. Temps in the last 10k years are below the average for this interglacial period.

None of the dire predictions, and there are hundreds, have come true.

If we are causing global warming, we're going to find it extremely useful when the next ice age arrives.
Jimee
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2010
Left? Right? How about reality? The changes that are already obvious do not look good for us billions of humans alive now and in the near future. Let's try to understand what's going on. On the other hand, getting rid of polluting fuels and processes to replace them as rapidly as possible with cleaner technologies seems like a no-brainer.
Sean_W
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 29, 2010
There is never a single warmer than average season that goes by that is not used as definitive evidence of global warming. Not one.

But every colder than average season is "misunderstood" by critics of global watming fantasy since such short term events are weather not climate. If I could, I would love to buy a coal powered car and drive it an extra ten kilometers every time a climate diviner said something obviously false, condescending or just pig ignorant.

The only way I am going to live without fossil fuels is after getting rid of the people who took them away. Some time ago, the French developed a handy little contraption to deal with people who limited the production of wealth for their own ideologies and personal benefit. It was like a giant meat slicer only it worked on human necks rather than luncheon meats.
Titto
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2010
If this website continues to back-up the crap of global warming, then I am withdrawing from this BS.
Too many idiots out there man!!!!
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2010
I have never encountred a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.


I never meet a left winger who wasn't a mush-headed PETA'esque naive dolt.

Ladies, ladies, please. Don't drop the entire conversation into generalizations and useless wastes of space as per usual.

If you want to debate AGCC, debate it. Don't act like morons.
Moebius
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2010
Titto: If this website continues to back-up the crap of global warming, then I am withdrawing from this BS.
Too many idiots out there man!!!!


You must be a great scientist, what is your evidence that the vast majority of scientists who say it's real are wrong? I base my beliefs on facts and logic so you can change my mind any time with either. Got any? Got a logical explanation for where the 10's or 100's of billions of tons of greenhouse gases we add to the atmosphere every year go that you think they do nothing? Do you have some proof maybe they aren't really greenhouse gases? Do you believe we have been doing this throughout the earth's history so things aren't really any different now? Prove to me that change doesn't breed change and I might be willing to think all those scientists are wrong too.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2010
I base my beliefs on facts and logic

But you just deferred to the 'vast majority of scientists'?
Do you have some proof maybe they aren't really greenhouse gases?

What proof do you have that CO2, which is roughly .04% of the atmosphere, is the major driver of any climate change.
alq131
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2010
So what do you all think? Does it really matter if we are causing global warming or not...I mean, we know that the climate has changed radically in the past and even with the past not being an accurate prediction of the future, we can probably reliably say the the climate will change in the future (Man-made Global warming or not). So while people argue about whether WE are doing it or not, the climate WILL change.

Shouldn't the arguments be around how we as a global society (or individual Nations) can put tools/technology/culture in place to absorb the outcome of the eventual change? The US midwest may shift to lose its Agriculture potential, but Canada and Russian Tundra might become the new breadbasket. Europe might plunge into a "Canadian Artic" type clime. The questions being argued should be, how do we as Humans ensure access to food, water, etc? To what lengths will wars or nationalism be acceptable to hold the changing resources? (cont…)
usagill69
3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2010
The world has been warming for 10000 years, anyone that contributes a trace element to the warming trend is an imbecile. At 381 part per million Carbon is not a problem, misinformation is the problem. It is causing the warming of another scam on the world.
jsland
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
I'd be really interested in knowing how this debate would pan out were there no politics or attempts to tax or regulate people in connection with it. I'm talking a pure scientific discourse, bereft of any political considerations. Would the "pros" and "cons" be as passionate for their positions if there was nothing to win or lose politically? Could this climate change/global warming topic really be looked at from a purely dispassionate position?

Well asked. The passion comes from those who refuse to look or do not have the science skills to debate the issue.
jsland
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
The only way I am going to live without fossil fuels is after getting rid of the people who took them away. Some time ago, the French developed a handy little contraption to deal with people who limited the production of wealth for their own ideologies and personal benefit. It was like a giant meat slicer only it worked on human necks rather than luncheon meats.

Well argued. You have advanced the argument on your side really well, and everyone has learned a lot from your reply. You can really tell someone who knows their profession by the way they respond to opinion, don't you agree?
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2010
When you listen to people like the person who wrote the above article, you can either be critical or you can take what they say for granted. I prefer to be critical because I've noticed that it's hard to find sources that tell the truth these days.

If you rely on sources like television and radio, then you are hopelessly under-informed and lied to daily. If you listen to politicians, it's the same there. If you listen to special interest groups like big oil or greenpeace, then once again, you are being deceived.

It takes a LOT of reading to get past the bull that so many people want us to believe.

Everyone has an opinion about climate change, but hardly anyone ever reads good source material about it. My advice is that people should read more before they make an opinion.

I see it as a matter of magnitude, not a question of true or false. The science I can find seems to think that's the real question. Winter storms don't mean squat in the big picture.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2010
Some data on the 'consensus':
"a 2003 poll by German researchers of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed just 34.7 percent endorsing the AGW hypothesis, while 20.5 percent rejected it"
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2952

sherriffwoody
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
I wonder? How much evidence to the contrary has been thrown out as it doesn't fit with the current theories??
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2010
Some data on the 'consensus':
"a 2003 poll by German researchers of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed just 34.7 percent endorsing the AGW hypothesis, while 20.5 percent rejected it"
How many times do you need to be reminded that these polls from 2003 are before the reconciliation of the two camps of climatology?

There's a reason why the theory of AGW was discarded, and AGCC came to be. Saying that the result of climate feedbacks produced pure warm weather events was incorrect. Even I've argued so prior to 2005. I would be included in the converse 70% at the time of that poll because the hypothesis was incorrect. It has been corrected, we now all primarily agree on the oscillation understanding of inputting or retaining more energy in the climate system.

We put more work in. You and FOX news have not. Up your game and learn something new, it's not 1997 anymore.
PinkElephant
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2010
@3432682,
The best indicators of Earth temperature are ARGO ocean buoys and satellites, not the land-based temp stations the IPCC loves (and loves to cull out, and to "adjust"). ARGO shows a slight cooling for the last 8 years. Satellites confirm that.
Wow, really?

Let's see what the ARGO project actually says on the matter:

h ttp://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.
And what about satellites vs. ground measurements?

h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Wow, gee, what a shocking lack of disagreement. How very disappointing.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2010
Pink, you know that wiki isn't a good source. Do you have a better source than that? Everyone knows that satellite data is callibrated based on land data. The satellite data isn't the holy grail of data. You can read about the problems and limitations of satellite data at NASA, NOAA, NCDC, ESA, IPCC, and many other reputable sites. You're right about the sea surface temps, but the satellite data commpared to the land data isn't a good way to argue the point, since the satellite date is based on the land data in large part.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the satellite data is wrong, I'm just asying that it has limitations in terms of comparrison with ground data. It isn't proof of the ground data as much as it is a lack of unproof.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2010
Dyson says the climate models are inadequate; I'll stick with Dyson (Models are Dyson's specialty). Pournelle says the climate statistics and measuring methodology sucks; ditto for Pournelle (statistics and measurement are Pournelle's specialty).

Neither one are talking outta their ass.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010
@GSwift7,

Why, I'm truly appreciative that you so reliably come out to remind us all about all the potential errors in every single measurement you don't like.

Odd, then, that you failed to pipe up when 3432682 posted two utterly blatant falsehoods in rapid-fire succession.

Oh, whom am I kidding. It's not odd at all...
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2010
@Shootist,

Dyson's main problem used to be with the unknowns of cloud feedbacks. Not too long ago, there was a study that showed the cloud feedback to be most likely positive, and even if (unlikely) negative, of insignificant magnitude:

h ttp://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-cloud-feedback-affects-global-climate.html

But I very much doubt that ANY evidence to the contrary will ever change his mind on the matter. He's too deeply invested, and far too proud. Dyson has a penchant for contrariness, and a gigantic ego to go with it. But this time, he's just flat-out wrong: yet another old-man scientific dinosaur, kicking and screaming against newfangled notions and findings that don't fit his congealed worldview.

Pournelle is a sci-fi writer and a journalist, whose specialty used to be computers back in the day when he still wrote for Byte.

Got any other whoopty-doo heavy-weight academicians to lean upon?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2010
Shootist, sometimes I wonder what you're reading.

It's like you froze in time on this issue 5 years ago.
Howhot
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2010
Excuse me Skeptical H; and Mr Pink; while I call GSwit7 and the others a bunch of paid for professional propagandists that are here to do nothing than to promote a right-wing agenda to screw good people like you and me.
Egleton
2 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2011
"There is no global warming.
If there is global warming, it is not caused by humans.
If Global Warming is caused by humans, it is benign.
If Global warming is caused by humans and is not benign, then there is nothing that can be done about it."
Position taken by the Australian coal lobby.
All hail King Coal.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2011
Happy New Year!! Love and peace to all. Love to all.


" The best indicators of Earth temperature are ARGO ocean buoys and satellites, not the land-based temp stations the IPCC loves (and loves to cull out, and to "adjust"). ARGO shows a slight cooling for the last 8 years. Satellites ... " YOU LOOSER! BS! BUZZZZZ.

ARGO does not show anything like cooling for the last 8 years. Nothing... Nada. You sir, are a lier! Everything I've read indicates warming; Scary warming. Killer warming. You sir are a LIER!

You earth killer dick.

Howhot
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2011
You know all, this is the bottom-line issue we (everyone) need to deal with. Through years of massive industrialization and civilization growth we have dumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is now acting as a major green house gas; slowly heating everything.
Stupid people deny this. Think crabs boiling in a pot; the ones crawling on top of dead one to get to a cooler surface area.
Funny tasting tea leave due to global warming; Yeap, I bet it the tea crop has been effected.


Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2011
opps. you pollut0rs; HOPE YOU LOVE A DEAD EARTH.
Truthforall
3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2011
Obviously there is AGW, all those fuel that we burned would end up as waste heat and all those CO2, aerosols, carbon soots would cause green house effect. The question is whether CO2 alone would cause run away warming and requires immediate drastic action to curb CO2 emmision to the point of affecting human progress and lives.
The problem is AGW activists have this leap of faith that not every scientist shares but nevertheless are bull dosing over any contradicting vioce, call any one not on their camp denier. The truth is many so called denier are just asking for more proof and un-enhanced data to draw their own conclusion. They may even believe in AGW, only not to the same degree and certainly not by CO2 alone.
A true scientist welcomes the truth and would welcome any sceptic to find the tiniest flaw in thier work in order to perfect his theory.
Lets not be hasty, lets stop calling names. Allow open discussion and open access to code and data. Time will tell.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2011
A true scientist welcomes the truth and would welcome any sceptic to find the tiniest flaw in thier work in order to perfect his theory.

Yup.

But then we must recall Planck:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2011
@ryggesogn2
"som er det gamle navnet på Rygge sogn"
-?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "

We're still waiting on the one that will address global climate change seeing as we've effectively stated that the globe will be or is being impacted by mans activities since the 1860's.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2011
we've effectively stated that the globe will be or is being impacted by mans activities since the 1860's.

Still waiting for the proof.
If the past can't be modeled, how can the present and future be accurately modeled?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2011
Still waiting for the proof.
Start reading the reseaarch rather than the political briefs and internet blogs.
If the past can't be modeled, how can the present and future be accurately modeled?
Not sure, I'm not a modeling expert. I can ask one if you'd like.
Loodt
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2011
Hola Heuvon Skeptic,

Show us you can spell...

reseaarch?

Picon!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2011
Not sure, I'm not a modeling expert. I can ask one if you'd like.

You have not do so already?
_nigmatic10
3 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2011

Climate change exists, always has, always will.
AGW(Al Gore Warming) is a man made farce.
Pollution exists. THAT is man made and a real tragedy.
Plastic islands are fun for no one.
Habitat destruction is real.
Junk science is real and often propagated by greedy scientists looking for a larger budget. Computer models often are the crystal balls these losers use too.

This article is weak and should have no more place here than a commentary.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2011
"... but there is not enough base line data available to draw long term predictions." - Dingo Tard

Fortunately climatological change is not predicted by appealing to an historical trend line but by using physical models to compute how much surface energy is maintained near the earth's surface by the thickening layer of CO2 above.

It is surprising how you could be so clueless.

It must take considerable effort.

Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2011
"Climate is warming, despite all evidence to the contrary" - Tard of Tards

Meanwhile 2010 was the third warmest year ever recorded.

Since you don't understand anything about science... Why are you here Tard Boy?
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2011
"Climate change exists, always has, always will." - Tard-O-Matic

So does death, hence by your Tard Logic, there is no such thing as murder.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2011
"If the past can't be modeled.." TardQuan

In fact the past is modeled with good accuracy.

Poor Tard Boy.....
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
Not sure, I'm not a modeling expert. I can ask one if you'd like.

You have not do so already?

I've never asked that question, as it isn't my stance that the past can't be modeled, it is yours. Since you won't find a modeler who can answer your question of your own accord, I'm willing to ask one for you. So the question is, are you interested in receiving an answer, or have you already made up your mind?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2011
"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. "
http:/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

"“Should policy makers
base decisions on the results of current climate
models?” Of course the answer is no. George Box is credited with saying "All models are wrong, some are useful".
It applies to climate models especially well."

http:/sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ogmius/archives/issue_22/ogmius.pdf
Howhot
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. "

Yeap. And just how gullible are you on stupid scale? Ryggeson2. I can't even imagine how moronic you must sound in person. Just read your citation; and then read the article (yeah; it directly at the top of the comments). Looser polluter. I hope you choke on a cloud of fly ash.

Truthforall
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2011
Using computer model to predict climatre is in a way not unlike using Symcity to plan social deveopment. It is dependent on the programmer's coding skill, understanding of the real world, the data fed in and the modeling short corners cut that made the model managable.
We have put in far more resources in studying, analysing and predicting the stock market than climate but we still suffer from the occasional crash. So why are we so certain of the Climate model?
Qualified Bull and Bear experts run predictions next to each others making use of 5, 20, 50, 100 day lines, drawing on the same data but only succeeded in being right taking turns.
So are we so sure with the present climate model? Back in the 70's I was told margerine is good and butter is bad for health, so said top scientists with huge media and government support. Now we know better and goes back to butter.
Keeping an open mind is not such a bad thing afterall. I wish there is someone I can sue.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2011
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
Climate and CO2 is not a 1 to 1 relationship. There are multiple forcings involved. To focus and harp on one is foolhardy of you. Especially when you're quoting an editorial piece. I'm going to assume you don't want me to ask an expert to discuss modeling with you as you haven't answered. I'd recommend you cease using that falsehood if you aren't interested in hearing why it is incorrect.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2011
Okay, here's a peer-reviewed article in regard to evaluating the accuracy of climate model retrodiction. I didn't cherry-pick anything, this is just the first one that comes up in google.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4BRKMKW-9&_user=10&_coverDate=03/31/2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1594833295&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e2e5db72bec9ed169f5de15c077c54cd&searchtype=a
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2011
Oh, here's a really great article that talks about the current debate between two of the most corrupt people in the climate debate: Michael Mann and Joe Barton. This should sufficiently piss off both sides of the debate and get me a solid 1/5 from everyone, since almost nobody here knows how to be reasonable or how to think clearly. Since links aren't posting right on this site any more, google the following and pick the first thing that comes up. This article nicely summarizes my views on this issue.

Sparkie on Climate Science, Skepticism, and Optimism

It's an opinion piece, and that's all.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2011
GS, the first link didn't come through however the second link was excellent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2011
There are multiple forcings involved.

What are they and what are their uncertainties?
How were they determined?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2011
Here's a really off-the-wall recent study. I don't really buy it, but it is thought-provoking. I think what this one shows best is that correllation doesn't always imply a relationship of causality. Try to google this and select the second thing that comes up to get the free version of the study:

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications

Please keep in mind that I said I'm not buying this one. They are only showing two and a half cycles of correllation. That's not enough in my book.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 03, 2011
Here's a really off-the-wall recent study. I don't really buy it, but it is thought-provoking. I think what this one shows best is that correllation doesn't always imply a relationship of causality. Try to google this and select the second thing that comes up to get the free version of the study:

Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications

Please keep in mind that I said I'm not buying this one. They are only showing two and a half cycles of correllation. That's not enough in my book.

First plus, this research is by physicists, not climatologists.
Second plus, it is straightforward to correlate with data from the past.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2011
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
That research was found to be false afterwards. This is the recently debunked cosmic ray nucleation process. If we're tlaking about the same research, the hypothesis was that cosmic rays are a seed process for cloud nucleation resulting in greater negative feedback in times of low solar wind, high cosmic ray penetration.
First plus, this research is by physicists, not climatologists.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces. Climatologists study broad scale physical force interaction. Physics studies the sub sections of the overall climatological system. In some cases a physicist's credentials are valid.
Second plus, it is straightforward to correlate with data from the past.
Word salad.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2011
"Environmental activists have come up with various approaches to try to make the topic of climate change attractive again."
"Climate protection activists also risk harming their cause when they try to present themselves as being completely objective, Merten suggests. "Environmentalists have their own interests, like anyone else, and they should disclose them," he says -- otherwise, they risk their credibility."
"Climate activists have begun directing millions in funding into training programs for environmental journalists, with the goal of encouraging what's known as "advocacy journalism.""
http:/www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,737451,00.html
Maybe they should spend more time on objective science instead of propaganda.
"

Physics studies the sub sections of the overall climatological system.

Physics is the study of everything in the universe from quarks to quasars.
sstritt
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2011
@ryqqesoqn2,
Advocacy journalism, like advocacy science, are oxymorons. Objectivity is an endangered species, but the journalists are more interested in the polar bears.
Howhot
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2011
From Gswift7 ; Professor Dr. Mann vs (R) Congressman Joe Barton of TX on Man-Made-global-warming. Lol. Ok; I now recognize you GSwift7 as a real person. Let see; Congressman Barton was the only guy to stand up and say that "America" apologizes to BP for KILLING THE GULF OF MEXICO. OOOOHHHH OOHHHH OOOHHH. What more do you want??? OHHHHHHHH.

Professor Dr. Mann simply claims that excess CO2 from industrial sources correlates with global temperature rise. Ohhhhh Ohhhh Ohhh IT'S DAMN DOOMS DAY to a repug.

AGW should not be a political issue. It's an emergency call. A full blown 911 environmental call!
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2011
Physics studies the sub sections of the overall climatological system.
Physics is the study of everything in the universe from quarks to quasars.
No, physics doesn't study emotional states or social interaction, those are just two things in the universe that do not fall under physics. Thanks for poorly quotemining and making an ass of yourself in the process.
Truthforall
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2011
Finding a statistical correlation between climate warming and anthopogenic activity may create a strong arguement for AGW, but the science cannot be settled by concensus pointing finger on CO2 alone. It has to be proven scientifically. And if there is doubt, let everyone voice their theory let sceptics prove themselves wrong, or right.
Finding birds as H5N1 carrier does not mean that killing all birds and chicken is the only solution in preventing pandemic.
Finding a strong correlation between male population and convicted rape cases, does not mean that castration is the answer.
Lets prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ANTHOPOGENIC CO2 causes run away climate warming before we cut our legs and replace them with wooden pegs because there are snakes in the garden.
We must not waste energy barking up the wrong tree. If AGW can be proven beyond doubt, not just shouted down and imposed through CONCENSUS, then lets unite and do something about it.
phlipper
3 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2011
It appears evident that the warming, if such exists as claimed by the AGW side, is so tiny that it will not be detectable from the noise of natural variability for perhaps thousands of decades. Yet, there appears to be a panic, among those same AGW believers, to force Cap 'N Trade down everyone's throats - immediately!! It's about the money, it's about left wing politics, it's about wealth re-distribution, always has been - plain and simple.
Truthforall
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2011
I have been watching a BBC Knowledge decumentry on South American glaciers. What bugs me is why ppl should think that glaciers would last? If the glaciers keep piling up Earth will run out of fresh water. That would mean progressive decline of crops.
When first snow fell on top of the Andes eons ago, there was no glacier. Then weather cools and the layers added up. Now the weather warms and the glaciers retreat. Its all a natural cycle.
Why would anyone expect the Earth to be able to maintain perfect equillibrium? Earth climate has never been stable and has seen much warmer days. It is fun to see some ppl quote Venus as example on green house warming.
Engineers on the applied science branch, know to build accelerators but are concious of their limitation on hard mathematics and physics. Unfortunately this self awareness is not always evident in Climate Science, lots of self proclaimed programmer and statisticians.
Howhot
2.2 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2011
@Truthforall,

I like your logic but "Why would anyone expect the Earth to be able to maintain perfect equillibrium?"

Simple question to a question; Long term or short term? Sure earth has had spikes in CO2 with some spikes lasting for 10s of thousands of years. The last one was hitting a peak of 400ppm or so as best as science can get for now. For reference; global CO2 levels have gone from 310ppm in 1960 to 390 in 2010. And correspondingly global temperatures have risen. Weather is a mess from the additional water vapor in the air from the added evaporation from the global temperature rise.

It's a damn serious issue.
Howhot
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2011
Global CO2 levels have gone from 310ppm in 1960 to 390 in 2010! And the increase is exponential. I mean; how hot do you want it to be?
Truthforall
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
The rise of CO2 concentration is indeed thought provoking. Just stepping out of the little ice age,CO2 level hovered around 280-300ppm. Men were few then, so were animals and plants. Now we are 90ppm higher and increasing, but that includes contribution from a substantially increased population of animal, insect, etc too.
From this angle, human is not really increasing CO2 concentration by a lot, yet. Remember that Earth did went to 400ppm without our help. If that level could cause run away warming we will not be here. In fact natural event ran its course and the Earth cooled again. Not to mention that CO2 is not a great achiever in the whole family of green house gases.
Past ice core rearches had shown that CO2 concentration increased AFTER warming so we must prove beyond doubt that the present CO2 rise is not the result of climbing temperature in the past.
Our hockey plot, despite its flawed code, ended in 2000, it would be interesting to see it updated to 2010.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2011
"Historically, and at one significant point indeed, CO2 atmospheric concentrations were much, much higher, 6,000 plus ppm. And guess what? The earth was more than just fine. It was incredibly filled with life"
http:/www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2011
Historically, and at one significant point indeed, CO2 atmospheric concentrations were much, much higher, 6,000 plus ppm. And guess what? The earth was more than just fine. It was incredibly filled with life
And your source there didn't live in those times, did he?

So Marjon, are paleoclimate reconstructions accurate, or not accurate. You seem to state they are accurate when they agree with you and they're inaccurate when they do not. You need to pick a consistent stance so we don't disregard your statements as propaganda at first glance.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2011
are paleoclimate reconstructions accurate, or not accurate


I know you were asking marjon, but I'd like to comment on that one on his behalf. When the paleo proxies show changes on the scale of three orders of magnitude, I tend to believe that they are in the ballpark. When the proxy claims to show changes very near the limit of error bounds, I will question them a bit. I reserve the right to question anything I like, whenever I see something that's questionable, and I don't think your arguement against questioning the proxy sometimes and not other times is valid in that context. There's a big difference between detecting a co2 level of 6000 ppm and detecting a change in global temperature of only a couple degrees.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2011
I know you were asking marjon, but I'd like to comment on that one on his behalf. When the paleo proxies show changes on the scale of three orders of magnitude, I tend to believe that they are in the ballpark. When the proxy claims to show changes very near the limit of error bounds, I will question them a bit.
I'm asking Marjon because unlike the majority of us he has no idea what statistical significance or magnitude means.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2011
SH, why don't you critique the source of the data?

BTW, how significant is this:

http:/www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

1-2 W/m^2 makes quite a difference.
1 W/m^2 => ~12 mega watts over the entire earth.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2011
SH, why don't you critique the source of the data?
I'm not critiquing the data, I'm critiquing how you handle it and how you selectively accept and reject it based on your preconceptions.
sstritt
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
@ryqqesoqn2,
nice reference, but think you underestimated total irradiance. SA of the Earth is 5.1x10*14m^2 so that's about 500 TW.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2011
@ryqqesoqn2,
nice reference, but think you underestimated total irradiance. SA of the Earth is 5.1x10*14m^2 so that's about 500 TW.

I was looking at the deltas. Compare the fluctuations to climate changes. Even 1W/m^2 can have an impact.
sstritt
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
@ryqqesoqn2,
nice reference, but think you underestimated total irradiance. SA of the Earth is 5.1x10*14m^2 so that's about 500 TW.

I was looking at the deltas. Compare the fluctuations to climate changes. Even 1W/m^2 can have an impact.

I didn't mean total irradiance, I too was speaking of the delta irradiance over the total surface of the Earth. Unless I miscalculated, that extra W/m^2 amounts to about 500TW.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2011
@ryqqesoqn2,
nice reference, but think you underestimated total irradiance. SA of the Earth is 5.1x10*14m^2 so that's about 500 TW.

I was looking at the deltas. Compare the fluctuations to climate changes. Even 1W/m^2 can have an impact.

I didn't mean total irradiance, I too was speaking of the delta irradiance over the total surface of the Earth. Unless I miscalculated, that extra W/m^2 amounts to about 500TW.

You are right. I didn't use the cross-sectional area of the earth.
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2011
If you really want to get technical, you have to use the cross-sectional surface area of only the daylight side of the Earth when you add up the radiation, then you should probably distrubute the energy gained over the entire spherical surface.

However, when you talk about 1 W/m2 change in solar radiance, are you talking about that amount being absorbed by the earth, or are you talking about that amount of change in the energy output of the sun? If it's the sun's output, then you have to also account for about 30% being reflected away before it is absorbed. Google: Earth's energy budget.
sstritt
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
@GSwift7
I realized that this morning driving to work. I calculated using surface area of entire sphere instead of cross section.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2011
There's a million m^2/km^2, so 1 w/m^2 is 1 MW/km^2. So, 1 W/m^2 leads to .7 MW/m^2 being absorbed after reflection. Earth's radius is 6378 km, so cross section area is about 127.796 million km^2. That gives us a total of 89 megawatts(MW) for a 1 watt/meter change in solar radiance according to my back of the envelope work. Reality is a bit more messy than that, but it's not anywhere near a Terawatt. Even if you use the spherical area, spherical area is 4 times the cross section area, so that's 356 MW, not TW.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
oops, sorry. 89 million megawatts, so it is 89 TW. I should work for the IRS, with my skill in decimal points.
sstritt
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2011
oops, sorry. 89 million megawatts, so it is 89 TW. I should work for the IRS, with my skill in decimal points.

Wish you did! M$ instead of T$!