New models predict drastically greener Arctic in coming decades

Mar 31, 2013
This set of images shows the observed distribution of Arctic vegetation (left) in relation to the predicted distribution of vegetation under a climate warming scenario for the 2050s (right). Data used to generate the observed image are from the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (2003). Credit: AMNH/R. Pearson

Rising temperatures will lead to a massive "greening" of the Arctic by mid-century, as a result of marked increases in plant cover, according to research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of its International Polar Year (IPY) portfolio.

The greening not only will have effects on plant life, the researchers noted, but also on the wildlife that depends on vegetation for cover. The greening could also have a multiplier effect on warming, as dark vegetation absorbs more solar radiation than ice, which reflects sunlight.

In a paper published March 31 in Nature Climate Change, scientists reveal new models projecting that wooded areas in the Arctic could increase by as much as 50 percent over the coming decades. The researchers also show that this dramatic greening will accelerate climate warming at a rate greater than previously expected.

"Such widespread redistribution of Arctic vegetation would have impacts that reverberate through the global ecosystem," said Richard Pearson, lead author on the paper and a research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation.

In addition to Pearson, the research team includes other scientists from the museum, as well as from AT&T Labs-Research, Woods Hole Research Center, Colgate and Cornell universities, and the University of York.

The research was funded by two related, collaborative NSF IPY grants, one made to the museum and one to the Woods Hole Research Center.

IPY was a two-year, global campaign of research in the Arctic and Antarctic that fielded scientists from more than 60 nations in the period 2007-2009. The IPY lasted two years to insure a full year of observations at both poles, where extreme cold and darkness preclude research for much of the year. NSF was the lead U.S. government agency for IPY.

Although the IPY fieldwork has been largely accomplished "in addition to the intensive field efforts undertaken during the IPY, projects such as this one work to understand IPY and other data in a longer-term context, broadening the impact of any given data set," said Hedy Edmonds, Arctic Natural Sciences program director in the Division of Polar Programs of NSF's Geosciences Directorate.

Plant growth in Arctic ecosystems has increased over the past few decades, a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate.

The research team used climate scenarios for the 2050s to explore how the greening trend is likely to continue in the future. The scientists developed models that statistically predict the types of plants that could grow under certain temperatures and precipitation. Although it comes with some uncertainty, this type of modeling is a robust way to study the Arctic because the harsh climate limits the range of plants that can grow, making this system simpler to model compared to other regions, such as the tropics.

The models reveal the potential for massive redistribution of vegetation across the Arctic under future climate, with about half of all vegetation switching to a different class and a massive increase in tree cover. What might this look like? In Siberia, for instance, trees could grow hundreds of miles north of the present tree line.

These impacts would extend far beyond the Arctic region, according to Pearson.

For example, some species of birds migrate from lower latitudes seasonally, and rely on finding particular polar habitats, such as open space for ground-nesting.

The computer modeling for the project was supported by a separate NSF grant to Cornell by the Division of Computer and Network Systems in NSF's Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering, as part of the directorate's Expeditions in Computing program.

"The Expeditions grant has enabled us to develop sophisticated probabilistic models that can scale up to continent-wide vegetation prediction and provide associated uncertainty estimates. This is a great example of the transformative research happening within the new field of Computational Sustainability," said Carla P. Gomes, principal investigator at Cornell.

In addition to the first-order impacts of changes in vegetation, the researchers investigated the multiple climate-change feedbacks that greening would produce.

They found that a phenomenon called the albedo effect, based on the reflectivity of the Earth's surface, would have the greatest impact on the Arctic's climate. When the sun hits snow, most of the radiation is reflected back to space. But when it hits an area that's "dark," or covered in trees or shrubs, more sunlight is absorbed in the area and temperature increases. This has a positive feedback to climate warming: the more vegetation there is, the more warming will occur.

"By incorporating observed relationships between plants and albedo, we show that vegetation distribution shifts will result in an overall positive feedback to climate that is likely to cause greater warming than has previously been predicted," said co-author and NSF grantee Scott Goetz, of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Explore further: New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1858

Related Stories

Warming turns tundra to forest

Jun 04, 2012

(Phys.org) -- In just a few decades shrubs in the Arctic tundra have turned into trees as a result of the warming Arctic climate, creating patches of forest which, if replicated across the tundra, would significantly ...

Invading trees?

Mar 09, 2012

Rumours of trees ‘invading’ the Arctic as a by-product of climate change have been ‘greatly exaggerated’ according to a polar scientist due to lecture on the subject at Cambridge University’s ...

Climate change generates more Arctic tundra vegetation

Apr 11, 2012

Researchers in Finland have discovered that climate change has impacted various regions of the Arctic tundra by helping increase the levels of vegetation. Their data suggest that this rise could potentially ...

Arctic getting greener

Jun 11, 2012

Recent years' warming in the Arctic has caused local changes in vegetation, reveals new research by biologists from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and elsewhere published in the prestigious journals ...

Could lemmings be involved in regulating our climate?

Nov 18, 2011

The mention of lemmings usually evokes images of small rodents throwing themselves off the top of cliffs in acts of mass suicide; however, their reputations might no longer be determined by hearsay as a new ...

Recommended for you

New research reveals Pele is powerful, even in the sky

5 hours ago

One might assume that a tropical storm moving through volcanic smog (vog) would sweep up the tainted air and march on, unchanged. However, a recent study from atmospheric scientists at the University of Hawai'i ...

Image: Wildfires continue near Yellowknife, Canada

6 hours ago

The wildfires that have been plaguing the Northern Territories in Canada and have sent smoke drifting down to the Great Lakes in the U.S. continue on. NASA's Aqua satellite collected this natural-color image ...

Excavated ship traced to Colonial-era Philadelphia

7 hours ago

Four years ago this month, archeologists monitoring the excavation of the former World Trade Center site uncovered a ghostly surprise: the bones of an ancient sailing ship. Tree-ring scientists at Columbia ...

Tropical tempests take encouragement from environment

8 hours ago

Mix some warm ocean water with atmospheric instability and you might have a recipe for a cyclone. Scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Atlanta Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory ...

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (39) Mar 31, 2013
Now trees and grass cause GW too.

Holding your breath probably causes GW too, they just haven't figured out how to prove it yet.
polifrog
2.1 / 5 (31) Mar 31, 2013
The new models, same as the old models only more wrong...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (34) Mar 31, 2013
...a trend that coincides with increases in temperatures, which are rising at about twice the global rate.
I'm not worried. The global rate is zero. 2 X 0 = 0.

http://www.woodfo...83/trend

Besides, more arable land sounds like a positive effect to me.

Shootist
1.8 / 5 (34) Mar 31, 2013
Gonna mine me some gold.
Gonna drill me some oil.

PAPER: 20-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists 'puzzled'...
http://www.theaus...09140980

PAPER: It's the cold, not global warming, we should be worried about...
http://www.telegr...out.html
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (27) Mar 31, 2013
Thermometer records are historically lacking but the self-leveling nature of the sea allows world historical tide gauge records to demonstrate utterly no trend change in our high CO2 era, seen in two quick glances:

http://s21.postim...mage.jpg

http://s10.postim...mage.jpg

For making these info-graphics in my spare time and posting them I've been banned from most European news sites and the BoingBoing.net blog who called my posts "libertarian talking points" and a team of Gorebot AstroTurf has oddly accused my closet hippie and Upper West Side self of being an oil money supported equivalent of a Nazi holocaust denier or even moon landing denier, so I also made a tribute to real moon walkers who are also, inconveniently, "denialists," a club that now includes pro-nuclear, anti-cap-and-trade James Hansen whose latest publication claims massive CO2 plant fertilization:

http://s21.postim...mage.jpg

radek
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 31, 2013
more snow coverege = higher albedo. Longer winters due to AO effect = shorter vegetation period (expecially in Syberia). We discussed this here http://phys.org/n...bal.html

both cannot be true
runrig
4.1 / 5 (15) Mar 31, 2013
Thermometer records are historically lacking but the self-leveling nature of the sea allows world historical tide gauge records to demonstrate utterly no trend change in our high CO2 era, seen in two quick glances:


Your links did not work for me.
And this does not agree with you assertion that there is "utterly no trend change in our high CO2 era"

http://sealevel.c...-removed

runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2013
more snow coverege = higher albedo. Longer winters due to AO effect = shorter vegetation period (expecially in Syberia). We discussed this here http://phys.org/n...bal.html
both cannot be true

No not longer winters - just more variable and locally colder, especially AWAY from the Arctic.
radek
1.7 / 5 (16) Mar 31, 2013
more snow coverege = higher albedo. Longer winters due to AO effect = shorter vegetation period (expecially in Syberia). We discussed this here http://phys.org/n...bal.html
both cannot be true

No not longer winters - just more variable and locally colder, especially AWAY from the Arctic.


this particular year winter in central Europe lasts much longer then normal. We have additional 10 cm of fresh snow here in Warsaw today and the country is fully covered. Ice on Masuria lakes exeeds 40 cm. Usually lakes were ice free at the end of March. It will have negative impact on vegetation for sure.

BTW we know how AO effect impacts winter/spring. Do You have any research how this type of winter/spring impacts the summer in mid lattitudes?
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (24) Mar 31, 2013
The faith demonstrated by the AGW congregation is remarkably solid.

However misguided it may be, I commend them, as "unshakable faith" is an admirable quality.

If/when AGW is proven to not exist, what will be the effect on the enviro-rads? Will they have another enviro-demon in their gun sights?? Will it be purple Kool-Aid time?? or will they simply go away?
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (22) Mar 31, 2013
"The faith demonstrated by the AGW congregation is remarkably solid."
I commend the efficiency you demonstrate by repurposing the existing "atheism/science is a religion" talking point. It's still a load of medium-grade malarkey, but it's efficient nonetheless.
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (21) Mar 31, 2013
Unfortunately, one cannot build ice roads on plants. With permafrost not being so perma anymore, replacement infrastructure will need to be built or alternative methods of transporting goods will need to be found. Don't expect the former to be cheap or the latter to be easy.
Steven_Anderson
3 / 5 (22) Apr 01, 2013
I actually wonder if the nay sayers are not the same individuals with different usernames for each personification. Did you know that Google can now identify you by your style of writing? What do you think will happen when I run it through Google's search engine? I watch you pushing your opinions as strongly as the AGW people. You post the same types of data over and over again. (Even though people come along and show you where your assumptions are wrong.)
Steven_Anderson
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2013
spinn3r.com API here I come!
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2013
Hmmm, sounds like five year old news. I blogged with an eskimo-friend at about that time who was complaining about wasps.
"WASPS!" she said, "I've never even seen a wasp before! Big green things!"
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2013
@ScooterG, I know from your post you're pretty bright, but why so anti-AGW. Termites modify the climate, why not men?
You may recall, I am a red herring of the AGW world. I think the idea of CO2 causing it is silly, and eventually broke down and created some proofs...
But honestly, every day mankind releases the equivalent of 10 nukes of THERMAL or waste energy. In what possible world can this not have an effect? How can cities that stretch for as far as the eye can see have no environmental impact?
Again, it is not "Warming"*(as a primary or equilibrium effect), but certainly the addition of energy to the Earth-Sun system must have some impact?

* A mis-nomer that annoys the fun out of me-but that we all will just have to live with.
Canis Maximus
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Alaska will have arable land and water for at least the next one to two hundred years, which is why I've left my genetic legacy here. They have a house -paid for- and enough skills to get through a winter with nothing but a 30.06, a sharp knife, and what they've been taught. Water is the key. Without water, there is nothing.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2013
Ya. Just look at the 20 year hiatus...

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

"PAPER: 20-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists 'puzzled'..." - Conservative Idiot

Where is it? I don't see it.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2013
"historical tide gauge records to demonstrate utterly no trend change in our high CO2 era, seen in two quick glances:" - NikkieTard

All of the graphs you link to show an upward trend in ocean level.

Have you been unable to tell the difference between up and down all of your life? Or was it caused by some kind of brain wasting disease.

Your link...

http://s21.postim...mage.jpg

Mooooooooorrrrrrrrroooooooonnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 01, 2013
I note that NikkieTard's second link omits the last couple of years of sea level rise data and surprise, surprise, leaves the impression that there has been a downward trend for the last 3 or 4 years.

An updated graphic can be found here....

http://www.cmar.c..._rem.jpg

Poor NikkieTard. It posts nonsense images from unsourced random images from the net, and thinks they should be taken with authority.

Absolute claptrap.

My up to date chart on the other hand is from CSIRO, which has real scientific credentials.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (20) Apr 01, 2013
More arable land means more food. Seems like a good thing.

Now, if we were expecting cooler temperatures, less arable land and shorter growing seasons, then the outlook would seem grim.
Jo01
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2013
Gonna mine me some gold.
Gonna drill me some oil.

PAPER: 20-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists 'puzzled'...
http://www.theaus...09140980


Good links, thanks.

J.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2013
Green, you gotta love green, well.... unless you're a Turd.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2013
Now trees and grass cause GW too.

Holding your breath probably causes GW too, they just haven't figured out how to prove it yet.


That's not what the article says. I do wish you would hold your breath though.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2013
Green, you gotta love green, well.... unless you're a Turd.


An idiotic statement from an idiotic conspiracist. Figured out the puzzle yet againstseeing?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2013

BTW we know how AO effect impacts winter/spring. Do You have any research how this type of winter/spring impacts the summer in mid lattitudes?


No I don't, As I've said, I'm a meteorologist by (late ) profession and I know how the atmosphere works. Cold winters in the UK are an interest of mine and I have followed closely their evolution for the last few. Recently the science of "teleconnections" and "statospheric warming" have come to the fore in forecasting. The UKMO now employs data points well into the Strat in it's routine modelling and have a quantifiable improvement in accuracy....
http://www.ecmwf....aife.pdf
The below is a weather forum page that lists/links to papers on atmospheric teleconnections. I link only for those prepared to REALLY investigate how climate works in the NH..
http://forum.netw...papers//
LariAnn
2.9 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2013
What mystifies me is why the AGW denialists aren't out there making a business selling "global warming insurance". If they are so certain that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the climate, why don't they milk all the AGW "believers" for their money, insuring them that AGW will not affect them in any adverse way? No sea level rise, no melting glaciers, no droughts, all is cool and good, according to them. Sounds like a gold mine if you are an AGW denier, unless said AGW denier is not so sure about it after all.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
... every day mankind releases the equivalent of 10 nukes of THERMAL or waste energy. In what possible world can this not have an effect? How can cities that stretch for as far as the eye can see have no environmental impact? Again, it is not "Warming"*(as a primary or equilibrium effect), but certainly the addition of energy to the Earth-Sun system must have some impact?

Wiki says this.... "The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. ...... The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined, http://en.wikiped...r_energy
"cities that stretch for as far as the eye can see"? 70% ocean & one hell of a lot of nothing too
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2013
What mystifies me is why the AGW denialists aren't out there making a business selling "global warming insurance". If they are so certain that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the climate, why don't they milk all the AGW "believers" for their money, insuring them that AGW will not affect them in any adverse way? No sea level rise, no melting glaciers, no droughts, all is cool and good, according to them. Sounds like a gold mine if you are an AGW denier, unless said AGW denier is not so sure about it after all.

That would just make us deceitful Turds, like you. Anyway, the real money is to be made on Carbon Credits, just check your Vicar Gore and where his millions are coming from.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Gonna mine me some gold.
Gonna drill me some oil.

PAPER: 20-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists 'puzzled'...
http://www.theaus...09140980


Good links, thanks.

J.


No puzzle to me of people who *really* know how the climate system works. This article is spin. Read it, sensible comments from most but with an emphasis on a few contrary? papers..
see.....
http://www.skepti...tsv3.gif

Blindingly obvious really looking at that. Unless you don't want to see the obvious that is. NO COMPLICATED SYSTEM proceeds in a straight line without movements from the mean. There are impinging cycles on top of the warming CO2 signal. Ged it?
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 01, 2013
That would just make us deceitful Turds, like you. Anyway, the real money is to be made on Carbon Credits, just check your Vicar Gore and where his millions are coming from.


No, that would force you to put your money where your mouth is, which, of course, you will not do.

Cause its dat GORE an his EVIL monies all STEALING and CONSPIRATORING an stuff! All getting dem CRONIES all STEALING and CONSPIRATORING togeather an all dat!

You're a moron conspiracist, nothing more.
LariAnn
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2013
That would just make us deceitful Turds, like you. Anyway, the real money is to be made on Carbon Credits, just check your Vicar Gore and where his millions are coming from.

Actually, your reply confirmed that you are the deceitful Turd, because if you are so completely certain you are right, selling global warming insurance is not deceitful, but just good business. No one wants to sell insurance covering a risk that is all but certain - that would be totally foolish. You sell insurance for which the risk is lower than the probability of profit. Since you are convinced that AGW is a hoax, then you would be foolish NOT to sell global warming insurance, as where else would you find such a sure-fire return on investment?

As for Gore being anyone's "vicar", he's just capitalizing on the issue, just as you are. Perhaps you just don't like the competition (preferring instead to have a monopoly on profitable deception).
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2013
LariAnn,

AGW is a political agenda. Climate changes and always has. What you want everyone to believe is that climate change is due to human activity so we can tax human beings (carbon taxes, for example) and redistribute resources.

AGW is political.
Climate is something else entirely.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2013
Green, you gotta love green, well.... unless you're a Turd.


An idiotic statement from an idiotic conspiracist. Figured out the puzzle yet againstseeing?

Turds do hate green.
ScooterG
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2013
@The Alchemist: You ask how I can be so anti-AGW.

How can any part of AGW be taken seriously when "researchers" seek and find funding for garbage like the Boston Marathon study?

http://phys.org/n...hon.html
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Shootist - 'PAPER: It's the cold, not global warming, we should be worried about..."

That Telegraph article is complete slop. Claudius already referenced it on another thread. The article provides no data - not reference to allow you to really dig into the issue. Claudius gave me the reference to the original article - Claudius just made the mistake of not reading the original research - which is very pro global warming - and expresses great concern about the future potential of the effect of climate change.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2013
AGW is a political agenda.

For you denialists, that is indeed the case. However, you err in believing that those who you oppose share your motivations.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2013
How can any part of AGW be taken seriously when "researchers" seek and find funding for garbage like the Boston Marathon study?


The real question is how can someone like you be taken seriously when you link to a sensationalist title and decry its underlying science, without even having taken to the time to find out what the science is about. Only someone stupid and unwilling to think for themselves takes headlines as a reflection of the science they report.

Same kind of stupid that listens to Youtube, then links to it as a reference.

Same kind of stupid that thinks there is a conspiracy that everyone except some perceptive few partakes in.

Same kind of stupid that claims a conspiracy, then denies claiming a conspiracy because they didn't use the word "conspiracy" to describe their conspiracy, but still doesn't get they are claiming a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, one can't fix stupid, so we have to deal with it on a science site.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 02, 2013
The real question is how can someone like you be taken seriously when you link to a sensationalist title and decry its underlying science, without even having taken to the time to find out what the science is about. Only someone stupid and unwilling to think for themselves takes headlines as a reflection of the science they report.

Same kind of stupid that listens to Youtube, then links to it as a reference.

Same kind of stupid that thinks there is a conspiracy that everyone except some perceptive few partakes in.

Same kind of stupid that claims a conspiracy, then denies claiming a conspiracy because they didn't use the word "conspiracy" to describe their conspiracy, but still doesn't get they are claiming a conspiracy.

Unfortunately, one can't fix stupid, so we have to deal with it on a science site.


Wow...you sure earned your shill wages today, LOL.

The credibility of the AGW cult is fading like the west Texas sun, and people like Magnus are helping it right along.
djr
4.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2013
The credibility of the AGW cult is fading like the west Texas sun, and people like Magnus are helping it right along.

If this were the case - you would not feel the need to troll the internet 24/7 with your bizarre conspiracy theories. The fact is that science goes where it goes. If the temperatures start heading down next week - then the temperatures will start heading down next week - and we will have more data. I think I understand why there is so much fear of science - the religionist culture recognizes that it's days are numbered - and control is slipping through it's fingers. Keep howling at the moon Scooter...
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2013
@The Alchemist: You ask how I can be so anti-AGW.

How can any part of AGW be taken seriously when "researchers" seek and find funding for garbage like the Boston Marathon study?

http://phys.org/n...hon.html

Darn good point, lots of articles confusing the truth. But to be honest, you've just done the same thing.
We've got huge un-natural cities which must have some climatic effect. We release enough energy everyday as 10 nuclear weapons, mostly near these cities. How can there not be AGW?
Again, emphasizing that the title is designed the same way the "Boston Marathon" article is designed-to confuse.
I can, for example, melt all the glacial ice on Earth, and not only NOT cause *warming* but put the world into a deep freeze.
How? Just melt the ice to 0 C and let it go into the environment via rivers, etc.. It will get cold.
ScooterG
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 02, 2013
Darn good point, lots of articles confusing the truth.


You are correct, we release energy that is otherwise "stuck". And yes, I believe it likely has some effect on our planet, but never would I surmise that that is detrimental in any way.

If you can
1) take the hyped-up emotional element out of climate research
2) take the money-grab element out of climate research
3) take the knee-jerk taxation element out of climate research
4) replace the above with common sense and sound science

then you'll have a situation I can get behind. When you mix known shysters, taxation, and knee-jerk enviro-emos who have demonstrated repeatedly their hard-on for capitalism, you have a recipe for an expensive disaster.

The knee-jerk emos are ignorant, gullible pawns. But even leaving them out of it, you still have a "follow the money" scenario that reeks of fraud and deception.
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2013
@ScooterG-I'll have to think about that...
I don't have an agenda-except to the truth, (as I sse it... Darn!)
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
The knee-jerk emos are ignorant, gullible pawns. But even leaving them out of it, you still have a "follow the money" scenario that reeks of fraud and deception.


Scooter's description of the conspiracy he thinks everyone is involved in.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
Alchemist
... We release enough energy everyday as 10 nuclear weapons, mostly near these cities. How can there not be AGW?


I replied to this assertion lower down the thread but you have not responded.

OK, I did a calculation based on Wiki's estimation of solar energy input ( 10,548 EJ/day ) and the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb ( 75 TJ ) so 750TJ for 10 bombs. That's a factor of 10*8 difference ?????????

From the energy received by the Sun each day.

Is this the calculation you are working on?
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
ScooterG

If you can


"1) take the hyped-up emotional element out of climate research"

There is none. The emotion comes across in the Media. Not the same thing, and outside of scientist's control.

"2) take the money-grab element out of climate research"

Human nature to Empire build. Therefore not feasible. Comes with all human endeavour.

"3) take the knee-jerk taxation element out of climate research"

Politician do what politicians do, depending on your system of government. It does not invalidate the science. Can I remind you this is a science site.

"4) replace the above with common sense and sound science"

Plenty of sound science and common sense out there. And some not so sound - like anything else we humans do. Talking of common sense, how about not lumping all science into the "bad basket" and take the probabilistic view - that the science is overwhelmingly towards AGW. Rhetorical!

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
Cont

Again like anything then you'll have a situation I can get behind. When you mix known shysters, taxation, and knee-jerk enviro-emos who have demonstrated repeatedly their hard-on for capitalism, you have a recipe for an expensive disaster. The knee-jerk emos are ignorant, gullible pawns. But even leaving them out of it, you still have a "follow the money" scenario that reeks of fraud and deception.

Your "known shysters" - Like the Koch's you mean. Or "Lord" Monkton, Heartland Institute?

"Knee-jerk" libertarians/tea-partyists who repeatedly demonstrate their hard-on for informed consensus and are ignorant gullible pawns, of the billionaire powerful petrodollar. There's your "Fraud and deception". Reeks in fact.

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
Cont

*IF* ( asterisks to avoid the inevitable riposte ) AGW comes about to anything like it's potential then we'll have more than an "expensive disaster". Precautionary principle anyone?

"Fraud and deception" ....... that doesn't come with the hegemony that Petrodollars has held over the world for a century. Does it? Where does the power lie? with the incumbent, always. So, if so, maybe that's what's needed to counter.

Do you see how that's done?
It's called twisting the truth with maybe a half-truth. And going to an extreme. Can be done from both sides of the argument. What the sensible do is null the equation and come back to the science. AND 98% of climate scientists agree AGW is real.
Yes even the "hockey-stick".
djr
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
Scooter: "then you'll have a situation I can get behind."

Do you think that the universe cares one whit what you get behind? Do you think that science is on hold until you give your approval? Such an ego! No - the science is the science - regardless of the approval of any individual - again you show a bizarre misunderstanding of how the universe works.
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2013
@The Alchemist check your PMs. You have mail.
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree AGW is real


A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

(cont.)
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree AGW is real


A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that "…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% of them attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." Regarding these results, APEGGA's executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

http://www.forbes...sus-not/
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree AGW is real

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society ...


I used to brief "media broadcast meteorologists". They are employed for being presentable on camera -not for their meteorological knowledge. Mr watts is a case in point I understand.
From Wiki..."American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus"
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2013
I noticed you avoided mentioning The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists.

So, where is your source for the 98% consensus on AGW?
djr
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
So Claudius references a newspaper article from Forbes - a well known right wing media outlet - that is famous for very bias - and anti global warming reporting - here is just a recent article I pulled up on a problem with Forbes - http://www.emptyw...-gender/

The article in question references APEGGA - and also the view of media meteorologists. Claudius could have looked at national level scientific organizations - but Claudius would have had trouble finding one that disagrees with current science on climate change. So instead look at Forbes - and a really limited and biased article. Here is a letter to congress from 18 national level organizations - including the American Meteorogical Association - showing a very strong consensus on the issue. http://www.ucsusa...from.pdf You don't have a political anti science agenda to push do you Claudius?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
So Claudius, you are convinced by the arguments of Larry Bell? The architech who specializes in Gish gallop? You do know that the official position of the AMS is that global warming is of national concern right? (see here:http://www.conbio...ter.pdf) You realize that Mr Bell is a well known climate warming denier right? That you have to take what he says with a large dose of salt because he is biased right?

Yep Claudius, we already know about your belief in conspiracy. Still misrepresenting yourself.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
I noticed you avoided mentioning The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists.
So, where is your source for the 98% consensus on AGW?


Here....http://en.wikiped...e_change

"A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
I see you've jumped on runrig for failing to mention the Alberta (ie home of the oilsands) based AEGGA, some 90% of whose members work in some capacity for oilsands companies. Can you say BIASED??? Even if they do say what Bell says they say (which I actually doubt, given the source) most of them are not scientists. You do know what a science is right? And you do realize that a "scientist" is someone employed to do "science" right?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
PS pssst hey Claudius - you do realize that engineers, geologists and geophysicists are not climate researchers right?

ScooterG
1 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2013
Do you think that the universe cares one whit what you get behind?


You must care or you wouldn't have posted a five-page response.

The Alchemist asked why I was anti-AGW and I answered him. People like you are one reason I don't trust anything AGW.
Claudius
1 / 5 (14) Apr 02, 2013
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC

So, a survey of peer-reviewed climate scientists. And having read the Climategate emails, we know how the AGW camp went to great lengths to ensure the peer-review process was controlled in their favor.

It is like taking a survey in a choir about whether they believe in God.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2013
@runrig-apologies...
178200000 joules/gal from gasoline
10200000 gal/day (used in commute)
1.81764E 15 joules/day (same as a Nuke)
1.00E 06 ml/m3
4.186 joules/deg
4.19E 06 joules to heat 1 m3 1 deg
4.34E 08 m3 heated 1 deg/day
5.44E 06 m3 ice melted per day
the world burns about 8-10x this in fossil fuels daily

I overcounted the nuke a bit, a tetra joule being 10 e 12.
The calculation I've been working on, and failing on, is calculating the temperature of the Earth w/o water. Only O2/N2 in the atm..
djr
5 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2013
"You must care or you wouldn't have posted a five-page response."

I care that a science web site is spammed by anti science bullies every time there is an article that has the word climate in the title. I care enough to throw my hat in the ring with other supporters of science - just a decision I have made to not totally yield the floor to the anti science tin foil hat brigade.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Claudius "It is like taking a survey in a choir about whether they believe in God."

Which is pretty funny - coming from the right wing echo chamber - the one who wants everyone to be polite - so that there is no opposition to right wing spin.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013
PS pssst hey Claudius - you do realize that engineers, geologists and geophysicists are not climate researchers right?
-- maggnus
Yet, they are quite capable of exposing the fraud your scientists conspire to perpetrate and fanatics like yourself blindly swallow.
http://en.wikiped...McIntyre
SteveS
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
@ The Alchemist

The heat of fusion of water is 334 j/g not 4.186 j/c. I think you are confusing heat capacity with heat of fusion.
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
coming from the right wing echo chamber


17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Claudius
1 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
98% of climate scientists agree AGW is real


8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
In a hacked email from Phil Jones (not cc'd to me), he wrote: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process"

So there is the source of your 98% consensus. Those polled were already vetted by the AGW community.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
@ The Alchemist

The heat of fusion of water is 334 j/g not 4.186 j/c. I think you are confusing heat capacity with heat of fusion.

Using both, thanks. Want everyone to know heating water and melting ice. Trying to make GW intuitive.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Yet, they are quite capable of exposing the fraud your scientists conspire to perpetrate and fanatics like yourself blindly swallow. "snip"


"My" scientists are they? So we're like, what picking teams? How moronic.

And sourcing McIntyre again? Really? The man who has spent his whole career running mining companies? How is he a climate researcher againstseeing? You do know what a researcher is right?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
In a hacked email from Phil Jones (not cc'd to me), he wrote: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that 'anti-greenhouse' science can get through the peer review process"

So there is the source of your 98% consensus. Those polled were already vetted by the AGW community.


A misrepresentation of the facts. How droll and expected.

At least five independant investigations of the so called "climategate" stolen emails were done, all of which confirmed there was no evidence of wrong doing. Yet unscrupulous conspiracy nutcases (like Claudius) still try to suggest some conspiracy because Mann and others can be human and get tired of being accused of being in a conspirracy by the right wing echo chamber (thnks djr). OLD NEWS!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
PS - special just for Conspirius:

http://www.uea.ac...treviews University of East Anglia

http://www.public...8708.htm report of the UK Parliament

http://www.nsf.go...0086.pdf NSF Report

http://epa.gov/cl...cts.html US EPA.

There's others. Try, you know, maybe researching a little bit.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013
I care that a science web site is spammed by anti science bullies every time there is an article that has the word climate in the title. I care enough to throw my hat in the ring with other supporters of science - just a decision I have made to not totally yield the floor to the anti science tin foil hat brigade.


I too support science - 100%. Nothing tin foil about it - I just don't believe enough climate scientists are accurate nor well-intentioned. Too much money involved, too many shysters, and enviro-radicals have an unpleasant history. It's a bad crowd you're hanging with.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
I too support science - 100%.

No you don't. If you did - you would read these articles with interest - and let the facts go where they may. Your statement above expresses a global conspiracy of scientists. You don't understand science or scientists. It is totally tin foil hat. The crowd I 'hang with' have developed antibiotics, computers, cell phones, etc. etc. One day we will cure all disease, and populate the universe with our intelligence. Scientists are on the whole a cool bunch - definitely some bad apples - but in time the process takes care of them.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013
And sourcing McIntyre again? Really? The man who has spent his whole career running mining companies? How is he a climate researcher againstseeing? You do know what a researcher is right?
-- maggnus
I can understand things must be really dense down in the depths of your ignorance so read slowly. Yes, I reference McIntyre again, because his exposing of the lie that is the hockey stick, was confirmed by the US government. Yet he is not a climate scientist as you questioned. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2013
No you don't. If you did - you would read these articles with interest - and let the facts go where they may. Your statement above expresses a global conspiracy of scientists. You don't understand science or scientists. It is totally tin foil hat. The crowd I 'hang with' have developed antibiotics, computers, cell phones, etc. etc. One day we will cure all disease, and populate the universe with our intelligence. Scientists are on the whole a cool bunch - definitely some bad apples - but in time the process takes care of them.


We were talking about climate scientists. no???

And here we go again with the conspiracy moniker - LOL.

You libs need to find a new way to demonize those you disagree with - the usual buzzwords you've relied on for so long are growing tiresome.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
Yes, I reference McIntyre again, because his exposing of the lie that is the hockey stick, was confirmed by the US government.


Omg what a load of BS! You seriously have no idea how moronic you sound do you? Confirmed by the US government was it? HAHAHAHAHA!

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?


That you remain a conspiracist, bunker-dwelling, moronic liar who has no understanding of science or climate studies and has come onto this site to promote his moronic version of the conspiracy he sees everywhere. And, because you see the conspiracy that is but a figment of your delusional mind everywhere, nothing you say about anything has any meaning beyond reinforcing your own sorry version of the imaginary conspiracy you expouse.

My point gets made every time you open your mouth.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
And here we go again with the conspiracy moniker - LOL.


The conspiracist who thinks he doesn't expouse a consiracy because he doesn't use the word "conspiracy" in his descriptions of the conspiracy he claims is occurring. LOL!!! What a maroon!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2013
.. moronic liar who has no understanding of science or climate studies...
-- magganusTurd
I'm going to need to go slow with you. So tell me science Turd, what is the scientific method?
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
OLD NEWS!


10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Claudius
1 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2013
At least five independant investigations of the so called "climategate" stolen emails were done, all of which confirmed there was no evidence of wrong doing.


The quotes are from the actual emails. They speak for themselves. There was obviously an effort to punish a journal for posting an anti-agw article, to get the author fired from his job, to change the peer-review process to make sure that no one with an anti-agw stance would get published. Hence it is obvious (or should be) that polling those who have passed through this process is like polling the Choir about their beliefs.

This apparently is not "wrong-doing" and I am unconcerned with whatever "whitewash" was later performed.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
.. moronic liar who has no understanding of science or climate studies...
-- magganusTurd
I'm going to need to go slow with you. So tell me science Turd, what is the scientific method?


Something you get taught in grade school. You should learn about it, help you to not look so moronic all the time.
Claudius
1 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2013
"Omg what a load of BS! You seriously have no idea how moronic you sound do you? Confirmed by the US government was it? HAHAHAHAHA!"

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
The quotes are from the actual emails. They speak for themselves. There was obviously an effort to punish a journal for posting an anti-agw article, to get the author fired from his job, to change the peer-review process to make sure that no one with an anti-agw stance would get published. Hence it is obvious (or should be) that polling those who have passed through this process is like polling the Choir about their beliefs.

This apparently is not "wrong-doing" and I am unconcerned with whatever "whitewash" was later performed.



5 quotes taken out of context and presented as representing something they did not, in fact, represent. Figures you would use them in the same manner, for the same purpose.

Your strawman argument fails Claudius, because you raised the issue in the first place. Calling old news "old news" in the context it was used by you is not a fallacious argument, despite your weak attempt to make it so.

Or, wait, was that more sarcasm?
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
'5 quotes taken out of context and presented as representing something they did not, in fact, represent. Figures you would use them in the same manner, for the same purpose."

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
ANd yet Claudius, all I see from you are the usual debunked claims of conspiracy, misrepresentations, and obfustication. You attempt to use the explanations of fallacy to underpin your particular version of the conspiracy you believe is out there, without due consideration to the lack of factual data supporting your version of that conspiracy, is yet another attempt by you to misdirect the discussion and misrepresent the position of those who call you on your lies and misrepresentations.

Typical, especially for you. Or wait, is that your way of using irony again?
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
"Typical, especially for you. Or wait, is that your way of using irony again?"

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2013
I hardly like to jump on the conspiracy band wagon, by why can't we just look on Google Earth to see how the gaciers and ice-caps are changing?
Or why are they badly photo-shopped/water-colored in? Or is this some artifact of GE I am unaware of?
All I want to do is derive a first order rate equation for when the polar-ice goes bye-bye.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.


Claudius - I take to mean respecting the conclusion of experts. None of us are experts on everything. I am a meteorologist by (ex) profession, not a climatologist - the two are very different but overlap and feed through to each other. I see things through the mirror of knowing how the atmosphere behaves ( wrt to way it has during my years at work/since ). Things are changing, I believe because of AGW. Research climatologists have come to this conclusion and I go with that, in part because I understand the science and because they haven't just been dragged off the street to give their opinions. I try to give explanations/links in my replies. I've found that being opinionated is counter productive.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2013

I can understand things must be really dense down in the depths of your ignorance so read slowly. Yes, I reference McIntyre again, because his exposing of the lie that is the hockey stick, was confirmed by the US government. Yet he is not a climate scientist as you questioned. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?


Err No - latest findings have just lengthened the "handle" by 9,000 years.

http://phys.org/n...nce.html
http://www.newsci...led.html

antigoracle
1.1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
Something you get taught in grade school. You should learn about it, help you to not look so moronic all the time.
-- magganusTurd
So you missed grade school.
Now try and stay afloat a little longer and tell me how you Turdentists apply the scientific method to climate science and conclude that human produced CO2 is responsible for global warming.
Claudius
1 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013

Things are changing, I believe because of AGW.


Currently, the changes are being attributed to anthropogenic influences. Also, currently, it is merely a matter of opinion.

Rising temperatures by themselves do not support AGW. CO2 levels increasing AFTER increases in temperature implies that CO2 is not the cause. Either way, correlation is not evidence of causation. There is no proof that anthropogenic CO2 levels are significantly affecting global climate, it is a matter of opinion. Models based on CO2 exaggerated what subsequently occurred. So something else is responsible. That is my opinion. You have yours. Only time will tell which of us is correct.

In the meantime, AGW policy is raising the costs to the consumer of energy, with deleterious effects. AGW policy is becoming very effective in creating fortunes for some and increasing taxes for all. Based on opinion only.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Currently, the changes are being attributed to anthropogenic influences. Also, currently, it is merely a matter of opinion.

The latter is not true, and a gross misrepresentation of the scientific evidence. A number of studies and scientific models have made testable predictions showing how the climate is changing and that the 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are clearly present.
Rising temperatures by themselves do not support AGW.

A specious argument, given in a manner intended to obfusticate the discussion.
CO2 levels increasing AFTER increases in temperature implies that CO2 is not the cause.

Except that CO2 levels are way ahead of the temperature curve, and the amound of CO2 now in the atmosphere in higher than at any point in at least the last 30 million years.
Either way, correlation is not evidence of causation.

Nor is it cause for dismissal.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
In the meantime, AGW policy is raising the costs to the consumer of energy, with deleterious effects. AGW policy is becoming very effective in creating fortunes for some and increasing taxes for all. Based on opinion only.


The conspiracy you claim is occurring. Based on no evidence except that you "feel" it must be so. Do you also "feel" the Earth is flat? Or the Earth is 6014 years old? That is the exact same argument they use, and it is just as correct.
Claudius
1 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
"A number of studies and scientific models have made testable predictions showing how the climate is changing and that the 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are clearly present."

Yet the "fingerprints" are merely assertions without proof. I have yet to see any kind of convincing proof except to say: "Look, the temperatures are going up" or "Look CO2 is going up." With fingerprints like this, you could never get a conviction.

And the models have failed dismally.

"Nor is it cause for dismissal."

Not so, since policy decisions are being made that affect us all. Time to reverse the policy decisions and put it all on hold.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Yet the "fingerprints" are merely assertions without proof. I have yet to see any kind of convincing proof except to say: "Look, the temperatures are going up" or "Look CO2 is going up." With fingerprints like this, you could never get a conviction.


Talk about fallacy! "I don't see it, so it is not happening." Try Tripoli 2009, Gnosh 2003, Stuiver et al 1984, Francey et el, 1999, Quay, Tilbert & Wong 1992, Luenberger 1993, or a dozen other studies. You don't see it because you refuse to, not because it's not there.

And the models have failed dismally.


The models have been consistantly correct in predicting the general trends of climate. They wer enever intended to predict weather. A specious argument, and a misrepresentation.

"Nor is it cause for dismissal."

Not so, since policy decisions are being made that affect us all. Time to reverse the policy decisions and put it all on hold.


You should put on hold your particular delusion of conspiracy,
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2013

Except that CO2 levels are way ahead of the temperature curve, and the amound of CO2 now in the atmosphere in higher than at any point in at least the last 30 million years.

And yet the world has been warmer in the last 11000 years
http://phys.org/n...nce.html
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013
Gnosh 2003 Demonstrates that there is more anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere.
Stuiver et al 1984 Ditto
Francey et el, 1999 Ditto

Couldn't find the others. So your "fingerprint" is in showing that anthropogenic carbon is increasingly seen in the atmosphere. I would have agreed with that in any case. Again, no conviction with these kinds of fingerprints.

"The models have been consistantly correct"

The last time I looked at the IPCC predictions, the predictions greatly overestimated the rise in temperature. In articles that maintained the predictions had been accurate, it was only after an "adjustment" was made to the prediction.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
"The models have been consistantly correct"

http://clivebest....omp1.png
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Alchemist ... I posted this some time ago ... actually a repeat of a post even before that. A response would be appreciated.

... We release enough energy everyday as 10 nuclear weapons, mostly near these cities. How can there not be AGW?


I replied to this assertion lower down the thread but you have not responded.

OK, I did a calculation based on Wiki's estimation of solar energy input ( 10,548 EJ/day ) and the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb ( 75 TJ ) so 750TJ for 10 bombs. That's a factor of 10*8 difference ?????????

From the energy received by the Sun each day.

Is this the calculation you are working on?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
"The models have been consistantly correct"

http://clivebest....omp1.png


That's not what this says ....

http://www.skepti...ians.gif
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
"That's not what this says ...."

Well, there are the original predictions, inaccurate. And then there are the "adjusted" predictions, highly accurate. Your graph is from the adjusted predictions.

"After an adjustment to account for natural fluctuations, the predictions and the observed increases matched up, the current research found."

"1990 IPCC Report Successfully Predicted Warming, New Study Shows"
http://www.huffin...453.html

That's a pretty neat trick. I wish I could make predictions, change them afterward if they don't happen and still be believed.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Well, there are the original predictions, inaccurate. And then there are the "adjusted" predictions, highly accurate. Your graph is from the adjusted predictions. .....
That's a pretty neat trick. I wish I could make predictions, change them afterward if they don't happen and still be believed.

Claudius..
I am from a background of dealing with probabilities ... Forecasts.
It is more than frustrating to apply absolutes to them. The original forecasts were made NOT knowing of the timing of natural overlying climate cycles. Most notably the present cool ENSO - but also the low solar flux and Chinese pollution which have become evident since. The models were unable to apply their effects in correct temporal sequence. FYI all weather forecasts are routinely updated with reality ... It is HOW forecasts are made. Please get real. Don't expect the impossible of forecasts. The general trend is nailed but the error bars are large ... May I say they are still within them.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
"May I say they are still within them."

Well, my graph has three predictions, which I interpret as estimations of error, and the actual temperatures lie below the "IPCC Low" line.

Since AGW relies heavily on these models, their accuracy is of some importance. If the forecast was inaccurate due to unforeseen events, publish the original forecast and explain what may have caused the difference, but don't adjust the forecast and use it as evidence of validation (as in: "Successfully Predicted Warming".) This seems very dishonest.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Claudius: Change the subject.

I was not changing the subject - I was extending the subject that you raised - accusing people of preaching to the choir - which I see as a fascinating assertion - coming from someone who clearly exists in an echo chamber - pot meet kettle kind of thing.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Scooter: We were talking about climate scientists. no???

I was talking about science - and the process of science - and how I have a high regard for the process of science. And no - it is not like a religion - it is like reality - just like I like computers and the internet - I think they are cool.

Maybe you are confused about what you were talking about - that fits.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
...Since AGW relies heavily on these models, their accuracy is of some importance. If the forecast was inaccurate due to unforeseen events, publish the original forecast and explain what may have caused the difference, but don't adjust the forecast and use it as evidence of validation (as in: "Successfully Predicted Warming".) This seems very dishonest.


It is dishonest IF they were not updated without notification of the reasons. I suspect they were.
I return to the nature of forecasts. It is a problem perhaps of our own making but the noise within the system is unlikely to be contained fully within the error bars, especially as time is integrated - that does not mean they will not return. Look at the actual temp graph - a forecast would never have mirrored it. It is human nature to take forecasts literally and an excursion outside the extremes will be seen as failure. This is ever present in forecasts of the future I'm afraid. A problem a weather forcaster can empathise with.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2013
"A problem a weather forcaster can empathise with."

If it were not for the fact that these models are being used as proof of AGW, I would be more sympathetic.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013

I can understand things must be really dense down in the depths of your ignorance so read slowly. Yes, I reference McIntyre again, because his exposing of the lie that is the hockey stick, was confirmed by the US government. Yet he is not a climate scientist as you questioned. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?


Err No - latest findings have just lengthened the "handle" by 9,000 years.

http://phys.org/n...nce.html


Uh huh. So much for the new hockey stick
http://www.thegwp...k-paper/
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
So your "fingerprint" is in showing that anthropogenic carbon is increasingly seen in the atmosphere.


Well duh, no kidding Dick Tracey. Carbon suspended in the atmosphere due to it being attached to oxygen. And again, a specious argument and a fallacy, to wit:

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.


You are playing pidgeon chess.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
.. moronic liar who has no understanding of science or climate studies...
-- magganusTurd
I'm going to need to go slow with you.

We know that you're a slow learner. No need to remind us of that.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 04, 2013
Something you get taught in grade school. You should learn about it, help you to not look so moronic all the time.
-- magganusTurd
So you missed grade school.

Actually, it's just that you missed seeing him there because his advanced studies standing allowed him to skip the elementary courses that you're stuck in.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2013
Alchemist ...
I'll keep trying .. I posted this some time ago ... actually a repeat of a post even before that, and again some time before that.

A response would be appreciated. ...

We release enough energy everyday as 10 nuclear weapons, mostly near these cities. How can there not be AGW?


I did a calculation based on Wiki's estimation of solar energy input ( 10,548 EJ/day ) and the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb ( 75 TJ ) so 750TJ for 10 bombs. That's a factor of 10*8 difference ????????? From the energy received by the Sun each day. Is this the calculation you are working on?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
Something you get taught in grade school. You should learn about it, help you to not look so moronic all the time.
-- magganusTurd
So you missed grade school.

Actually, it's just that you missed seeing him there because his advanced studies standing allowed him to skip the elementary courses that you're stuck in.
-- deepsandTurd
And, I'm guessing you know this, because you were the Turd, stuck up in him, and he hadn't squeezed you out yet.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
Something you get taught in grade school. You should learn about it, help you to not look so moronic all the time.
-- magganusTurd
So you missed grade school.

Actually, it's just that you missed seeing him there because his advanced studies standing allowed him to skip the elementary courses that you're stuck in.
-- deepsandTurd
And, I'm guessing you know this, because you were the Turd, stuck up in him, and he hadn't squeezed you out yet.

Wherein AO demonstrates his inability to employ logic.

Were AO's claims true, then I'd not be able to observe that AO is stuck in elementary classes that Maggnus was able to skip over.

AO is dumber than dog dung.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2013
@runrig, sorry this was the post I answered it on, it's buried. I reposted on the other but 1.81764E 15 joules/day (same as a Nuke) and 750TJ equals 7.5 E 14 good enough agreement for arguement's sake.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2013
Were AO's claims true, then I'd not be able to observe that AO is stuck in elementary classes that Maggnus was able to skip over.

AO is dumber than dog dung.
-- deepsandTurd
I know a Turd is dumb and blind, but I truly did not expect you to be dumb enough to confirm that you are deaf also. But then, who knows what effect, being stuck in the bowels of magganus, could have on a dumb Turd.
dog dung!! I say to you. It's a new low, for you to bring your cousin into this argument.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2013
AO continues to demonstrate his lack of a grasp of logic.
Pkunk_
1 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2013
Now trees and grass cause GW too.

Holding your breath probably causes GW too, they just haven't figured out how to prove it yet.

On the other hand, these Malthusians actually want about 90% of people on the planet to hold their breath , permanently. As they believe , that is the only permanent solution to all the problems of this world including GW . Fewer people mean now they are free to continue life with their usual profligate lifestyle and not worry about resources running out.
grondilu
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2013
Doesn't a growing tree fix some carbon in soil?
If man can use these new forests commercially (regularly cutting and planting trees), he could use them to control the amount of carbon dioxyde in the atmosphere. This could counter the positive albedo feedback.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2013
@runrig, so your assertion is that since the heat is eight orders of magnitude less than the Sun's it will have no effect?
It is a fair arguement.
However we must consider the effects. The Sun's energy is not all converted to waste heat. That waste heat is neccessary to bring the Earth up to status quo in temperature. Everything additional is, well, additional. I explained it to Vendi and Axemaster before, and their response was; since they didn't know, I was a tard, but I'll figure it out again.
Conversely, revisiting nuclear bombs: That you outright discount a nuke-energy from having possible climate impacts is admirable. I wonder if I mention that 80% of a nukes energy is disspated above the waste-heat level, making our fossil fuel consumption daily intuitively equivelant to 50 nukes a day.
Still tiny compared to Sol, true, but we are talking 365 days a year. And if a butterfly flapping it's wings...:o)
Allex
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2013
Now trees and grass cause GW too.

Holding your breath probably causes GW too, they just haven't figured out how to prove it yet.

I know of a perfect place to put all the excess CO2 mankind is producing - the infinite empty void of your skull.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
I know of a perfect place to put all the excess CO2 mankind is producing - the infinite empty void of your skull.

Or, they could bury it in the depths of your ignorance, as they have done the truth about GW.
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2013
I know of a perfect place to put all the excess CO2 mankind is producing - the infinite empty void of your skull.

Or, they could bury it in the depths of your ignorance, as they have done the truth about GW.

AGW is deducible from first principles.

Deal with it.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
AGW is deducible from first principles.

Deal with it.

Sir, if it were, there wouldn't be a debate.
Your disruptive one-liners have psychological value.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2013
AGW is deducible from first principles.

Deal with it.

Sir, if it were, there wouldn't be a debate.

Only if you wrongly assume that all are equally knowledgeable and understanding of first principles, which is obviously not the case for the denialists.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2013
AGW is deducible from first principles.

Deal with it.

Sir, if it were, there wouldn't be a debate.

Only if you wrongly assume that all are equally knowledgeable and understanding of first principles, which is obviously not the case for the denialists.


Aristotle used the term 'first principles' to illustrate his belief that gathering knowledge was a process of gaining experience, building upon what is already known to be true.
He used first principles to conclude that the earth was at the center of the heavens and the sun revolved around it. That belief was held up to the year 1687 and anyone who claimed otherwise were branded heretics.
Those AGW computer models, are neither based on first principles nor the truth. Deal with that.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2013
Wherein AO demonstrates his inability to distinguish between that which can be deduced from first principles and that which seeks to mathematically describe the behavior of a complex system.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2013
Wherein AO demonstrates his inability to distinguish between that which can be deduced from first principles and that which seeks to mathematically describe the behavior of a complex system.
--deepsandTurd
You're certainly a dense one, you can never stay long enough at the surface and so it's no wonder you struggle to see the light. You keep harping about "first principles" and I've presented to you the fact that, even if you can explain something with it and have it accepted by the religious fanatics, for centuries, in the end you can be dead wrong.
Then you confirm just how dense you are by stating that first principles is not applicable to computer modeling.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2013
"Then you confirm just how dense you are by stating that first principles is not applicable to computer modeling."

Not what I said at all. Obviously your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.