|
On January 30 2012 02:15 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 01:46 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Here's a new article about the latest revised temperature data from NASA. You can read it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
That last sentence is quite the understatement. You are using the daily mail as a source and dare to remark on the believability of scientists (or really anybody)? I completely agree with the basic point that solar cycles are an understudied factor of climate change, but so far we only have evidence for warming, DESPITE the solar cycle being one of the weakest in history. I still don't know why people put more trust in an article from a shitty newspaper than in the large amount of scientists who, you know, actually studied this shit and are doing their very best to model it. Are the models perfect? No, it's incredibly complex material. However, if our very best models all show that there's a problem, isn't it better to do something about it than insist that there's not enough evidence (until it's too late)? The models of the warm-mongers have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and they are wholly unscientific as they are closed systems that are not allowed to be reviewed by outside parties. To be worried about something because models like that tell you to be is to worry for nothing. We are presently colder than James Hansen's lowest prediction in 1988, scenario C, which predicted temperatures if drastic measures were taken to reduce CO2 emissions by 2000. Obviously that did not happen, and yet we are colder, by GISS' OWN NUMBERS, in 2011 than scenario C predicted in 1988. What good is it doing you to be worrying about what models like this tell you? They are completely worthless and wholly unscientific. + Show Spoiler +It is hardly settled science at all and if you doubt that perhaps you should read some of the quotes from the over 700 scientists dissenting on global warming in this report by the U.S. Senate. + Show Spoiler +Here are some of the better quotes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” "Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. It is really worth a read there are dozens more excellent quotes from top scientific minds around the world. I used to believe in global warming since 1992, but when I really looked into it I have found a fraud of monumental proportions that would require it's own separate thread and I don't want to hijack your thread about what political forces would benefit from the implications of control over all CO2 emissions on earth, so I'm just going to leave it to the scientific aspect. If anyone wants to discuss the politics surrounding global warming they can PM me on TL.
Firstly, reciting quotes from scientists is fundamentally NOT the way of going about the debate on climate science, because there are way too many quotes on either side already. In fact, the whole debate in general, as most of your quotes seem to show is FAR more about mudslinging than about science. The science behind it is largely ignored by most of the media (and governments) and is scary.
The quotes you post are by some very respected scientists, however, I feel you are pulling them quite seriously out of proportion. The debate has heated up way too far and anybody voicing doubts about the matter is put away as a crackpot. I don't believe that. I believe that there is a LOT of room for improvement and the solar cycle theory is just one of the areas that has not been properly explored yet. However, so far, the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect.
Being a scientist (I am one, but not a climatologist) requires you to have a strong opinion. I am therefore not surprised at all that there are plenty of climatologists who voice, vehemently, that the current predictions are incorrect. It's like Stephen Gould stating that Darwinian evolution is incorrect. He didn't mean that to be taken literally, in fact, he was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century. However, he did mean that parts of the theory were, provably, incorrect.
In this case, the scientists are, almost certainly (didn't fact-check, but am fairly up-to-date on the matter) not stating that the world isn't undergoing major climate change. That's point one. The world is, demonstrably, warming up.
Man-made climate change is a larger issue for debate, however, so far the best explanation is man-made, so it is prudent to believe that (even if it in the future turns out to be the phlogiston of the 21st century).
Believing it and not acting upon it is, in my opinion, utterly destructive and immoral. Thus, a prudent, rational, human being, should act as if the man-made greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct (but always have reasonable doubt and don't go all frothy-mouthed about it). That means, reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources rapidly.
|
On January 30 2012 02:17 Chunhyang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2012 07:11 TheLOLas wrote:
Honestly, I think we should be able to discuss anything on TL. Short of anything extreme like pedophilia and racial supremacy. We really should! [Racial supremacy: "Terran is imba"] Um, I really wanna ask whether this is the sort of thing that is a strict divide beween American political party lines? I mean, if you're a Republican are you more likely to believe in global warming?
The political objections in the US don't really come from the study of climate change or even the theories. The problem is that, based upon these far-from-certain theories, these scientists are advocating policy changes that have very real and harmful economic effects.
|
On January 30 2012 03:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 02:15 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 01:46 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Here's a new article about the latest revised temperature data from NASA. You can read it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
That last sentence is quite the understatement. You are using the daily mail as a source and dare to remark on the believability of scientists (or really anybody)? I completely agree with the basic point that solar cycles are an understudied factor of climate change, but so far we only have evidence for warming, DESPITE the solar cycle being one of the weakest in history. I still don't know why people put more trust in an article from a shitty newspaper than in the large amount of scientists who, you know, actually studied this shit and are doing their very best to model it. Are the models perfect? No, it's incredibly complex material. However, if our very best models all show that there's a problem, isn't it better to do something about it than insist that there's not enough evidence (until it's too late)? The models of the warm-mongers have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and they are wholly unscientific as they are closed systems that are not allowed to be reviewed by outside parties. To be worried about something because models like that tell you to be is to worry for nothing. We are presently colder than James Hansen's lowest prediction in 1988, scenario C, which predicted temperatures if drastic measures were taken to reduce CO2 emissions by 2000. Obviously that did not happen, and yet we are colder, by GISS' OWN NUMBERS, in 2011 than scenario C predicted in 1988. What good is it doing you to be worrying about what models like this tell you? They are completely worthless and wholly unscientific. + Show Spoiler +It is hardly settled science at all and if you doubt that perhaps you should read some of the quotes from the over 700 scientists dissenting on global warming in this report by the U.S. Senate. + Show Spoiler +Here are some of the better quotes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” "Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. It is really worth a read there are dozens more excellent quotes from top scientific minds around the world. I used to believe in global warming since 1992, but when I really looked into it I have found a fraud of monumental proportions that would require it's own separate thread and I don't want to hijack your thread about what political forces would benefit from the implications of control over all CO2 emissions on earth, so I'm just going to leave it to the scientific aspect. If anyone wants to discuss the politics surrounding global warming they can PM me on TL. Firstly, reciting quotes from scientists is fundamentally NOT the way of going about the debate on climate science, because there are way too many quotes on either side already. In fact, the whole debate in general, as most of your quotes seem to show is FAR more about mudslinging than about science. The science behind it is largely ignored by most of the media (and governments) and is scary. The quotes you post are by some very respected scientists, however, I feel you are pulling them quite seriously out of proportion. The debate has heated up way too far and anybody voicing doubts about the matter is put away as a crackpot. I don't believe that. I believe that there is a LOT of room for improvement and the solar cycle theory is just one of the areas that has not been properly explored yet. However, so far, the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect. Being a scientist (I am one, but not a climatologist) requires you to have a strong opinion. I am therefore not surprised at all that there are plenty of climatologists who voice, vehemently, that the current predictions are incorrect. It's like Stephen Gould stating that Darwinian evolution is incorrect. He didn't mean that to be taken literally, in fact, he was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century. However, he did mean that parts of the theory were, provably, incorrect. In this case, the scientists are, almost certainly (didn't fact-check, but am fairly up-to-date on the matter) not stating that the world isn't undergoing major climate change. That's point one. The world is, demonstrably, warming up. Man-made climate change is a larger issue for debate, however, so far the best explanation is man-made, so it is prudent to believe that (even if it in the future turns out to be the phlogiston of the 21st century). Believing it and not acting upon it is, in my opinion, utterly destructive and immoral. Thus, a prudent, rational, human being, should act as if the man-made greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct (but always have reasonable doubt and don't go all frothy-mouthed about it). That means, reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources rapidly.
It's funny that you claim posting quotes from respected scientists dissenting from your view is bad science, but then go and say that the "man-made greenhouse effect," whatever that is, is the BEST explanation with absolutely no proof given. Is that supposed to be good science? The whole point of posting that link and those quotes was to show that in the minds of several highly qualified experts that is not the best explanation at all.
The world is not demonstrably heating up, that was the whole point of the other links I posted before the Senate report. Just the opposite in fact, the warm-mongers' claims have all been shown to be fear-mongering and completely out of touch with the actual recorded temperatures, which are lower than Hansen's best case scenario C. Even the British Met Office, one of the worst repeat offenders for warming hysteria, is admitting warming hasn't been going on since 1997. Of course they still deny the link between solar activity and climate variations. But hey, one step at a time.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Even if global warming is a hoax, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere when we know they lead to health issues.
|
On January 30 2012 04:05 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Even if global warming is a hoax, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere when we know they lead to health issues.
exactly! I love when people are like, wait guys, what if global warming is a hoax? we'll be making the world a better place for no reason!
|
On January 30 2012 04:05 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Even if global warming is a hoax, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere when we know they lead to health issues.
CO2 is not a poisonous gas lol it's what plants need to breathe to survive.
|
On January 30 2012 04:07 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 04:05 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Even if global warming is a hoax, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere when we know they lead to health issues. CO2 is not a poisonous gas lol it's what plants need to breathe to survive.
I don't think he means CO2 specifically although that is what some people think causes global warming. I think he means toxic waste.
EDIT: The poster below me hit the mark.
|
On January 30 2012 04:07 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 04:05 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Even if global warming is a hoax, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere when we know they lead to health issues. CO2 is not a poisonous gas lol it's what plants need to breathe to survive.
He's probably thinking about NOx and SO2 etc. which are byproducts of fuel combustion (either because temperature, fuel type or both). Many deaths are attributed to these every year.
|
i do believe we have an impact on the climate, but look at this...worth pondering!
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/GDP%20vs%20Temperature.png)
so is co2 the majorly responsible...
|
On January 30 2012 04:03 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 02:15 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 01:46 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Here's a new article about the latest revised temperature data from NASA. You can read it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
That last sentence is quite the understatement. You are using the daily mail as a source and dare to remark on the believability of scientists (or really anybody)? I completely agree with the basic point that solar cycles are an understudied factor of climate change, but so far we only have evidence for warming, DESPITE the solar cycle being one of the weakest in history. I still don't know why people put more trust in an article from a shitty newspaper than in the large amount of scientists who, you know, actually studied this shit and are doing their very best to model it. Are the models perfect? No, it's incredibly complex material. However, if our very best models all show that there's a problem, isn't it better to do something about it than insist that there's not enough evidence (until it's too late)? The models of the warm-mongers have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and they are wholly unscientific as they are closed systems that are not allowed to be reviewed by outside parties. To be worried about something because models like that tell you to be is to worry for nothing. We are presently colder than James Hansen's lowest prediction in 1988, scenario C, which predicted temperatures if drastic measures were taken to reduce CO2 emissions by 2000. Obviously that did not happen, and yet we are colder, by GISS' OWN NUMBERS, in 2011 than scenario C predicted in 1988. What good is it doing you to be worrying about what models like this tell you? They are completely worthless and wholly unscientific. + Show Spoiler +It is hardly settled science at all and if you doubt that perhaps you should read some of the quotes from the over 700 scientists dissenting on global warming in this report by the U.S. Senate. + Show Spoiler +Here are some of the better quotes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” "Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. It is really worth a read there are dozens more excellent quotes from top scientific minds around the world. I used to believe in global warming since 1992, but when I really looked into it I have found a fraud of monumental proportions that would require it's own separate thread and I don't want to hijack your thread about what political forces would benefit from the implications of control over all CO2 emissions on earth, so I'm just going to leave it to the scientific aspect. If anyone wants to discuss the politics surrounding global warming they can PM me on TL. Firstly, reciting quotes from scientists is fundamentally NOT the way of going about the debate on climate science, because there are way too many quotes on either side already. In fact, the whole debate in general, as most of your quotes seem to show is FAR more about mudslinging than about science. The science behind it is largely ignored by most of the media (and governments) and is scary. The quotes you post are by some very respected scientists, however, I feel you are pulling them quite seriously out of proportion. The debate has heated up way too far and anybody voicing doubts about the matter is put away as a crackpot. I don't believe that. I believe that there is a LOT of room for improvement and the solar cycle theory is just one of the areas that has not been properly explored yet. However, so far, the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect. Being a scientist (I am one, but not a climatologist) requires you to have a strong opinion. I am therefore not surprised at all that there are plenty of climatologists who voice, vehemently, that the current predictions are incorrect. It's like Stephen Gould stating that Darwinian evolution is incorrect. He didn't mean that to be taken literally, in fact, he was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century. However, he did mean that parts of the theory were, provably, incorrect. In this case, the scientists are, almost certainly (didn't fact-check, but am fairly up-to-date on the matter) not stating that the world isn't undergoing major climate change. That's point one. The world is, demonstrably, warming up. Man-made climate change is a larger issue for debate, however, so far the best explanation is man-made, so it is prudent to believe that (even if it in the future turns out to be the phlogiston of the 21st century). Believing it and not acting upon it is, in my opinion, utterly destructive and immoral. Thus, a prudent, rational, human being, should act as if the man-made greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct (but always have reasonable doubt and don't go all frothy-mouthed about it). That means, reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources rapidly. It's funny that you claim posting quotes from respected scientists dissenting from your view is bad science, but then go and say that the "man-made greenhouse effect," whatever that is, is the BEST explanation with absolutely no proof given. Is that supposed to be good science? The whole point of posting that link and those quotes was to show that in the minds of several highly qualified experts that is not the best explanation at all. The world is not demonstrably heating up, that was the whole point of the other links I posted before the Senate report. Just the opposite in fact, the warm-mongers' claims have all been shown to be fear-mongering and completely out of touch with the actual recorded temperatures, which are lower than Hansen's best case scenario C. Even the British Met Office, one of the worst repeat offenders for warming hysteria, is admitting warming hasn't been going on since 1997. Of course they still deny the link between solar activity and climate variations. But hey, one step at a time. + Show Spoiler +
re point 1: I didn't give proof, because I wasnt really trying to defend the point, just make a point about those scientists' quotes.
re point 2: the world is demonstrably warming. Michael Mann's hockeystick graph has not only been vindicated, it has been continued into the 00s.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Here, btw is NASA's data, with apretty graph showing the warming:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
As for Hansen's prediction? Here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
|
On January 30 2012 04:05 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Even if global warming is a hoax, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases into the atmosphere when we know they lead to health issues.
That is purely tangential and does nothing to address the purpose of the thread, "Climate change". No one is going to deny that putting unbreathables into the space where people breath is bad, but that has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.
What's more, as was mentioned above, CO2 is not "poisonous", so I really am at a loss as to what you were trying to say.
|
i dont wanna deny climate change or w/ev.. i just wish i jumped on al gore's band wagon and made money of it like him
|
On December 20 2011 23:30 dabbeljuh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2011 16:06 gogogadgetflow wrote:On December 13 2011 11:42 gogogadgetflow wrote:On December 13 2011 07:53 Buubble wrote:
I don't care - our money is better spend on building infrastructure and eliminating disease. It is better for 2012 india to build a coal plant today than to build solar panels. Based on the precipitation of that wealth and well-being created today by building the coal plant, it is also better for 2112 india to build a coal plant today rather than solar panels. They will be much more wealthy in the future and able to deal with the +.0001 or whatever degree change caused by the coal plant. that is a complex topic and a justified way of thinking about it. the problem is, as some has mentioned, that the cost of strong climate change will most certainly not be linear (as in many people live close to coastlines, precipiation changes will influence agriculture on a global level). it is there not only a cost-benefit analysis but also a cost-benefit-risk analysis, that societies should do around the world. i agree that the amount of "staatlichkeit" (dont know the english word, something like strength of the state) is decisivie for the ability to cope with climate change. if we can increase that today, we should probably do it. it is still useful, from a risk point of view, to think that a combination of adaptation (your example) and mitigation (we prevent it from happening) and not a neither / or will be the optimal way for society. I'm glad to see a climate scientist respect the merits of adaptation compared to mitigation. I just find it hard to believe that anyone who compares the actual dollar cost estimates of adapting to (2 - "x") est. warming over the next century to the dollar cost of mitigating "x" degrees through government policies, would favor any increase in government policies on carbon use at all. I wonder if you are familiar with Bjorn Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist." Furthermore, its difficult to formulate reasonable policies when the IPCC (to name the most obvious source) hardly even knows what its dealing with. Climate models are nowhere near where they need to be before we can lean on them to toss away Billions of dollars on climate policy. Correct me if I'm wrong, climate guru but isnt there *recent* and *significant* doubt cast on our understanding of [CO2]'s forcing effect on [H2O]. I understand you want to talk science not politics (policies), but if you are going to take it upon yourself to make people understand CO2 emissions raise global average temperature (a no-brainer), shouldn't you feel responsible for PROVING the effect carbon emissions have on the earth is significantly detrimental to mankind (its currently impossible to prove at all, let alone pin down a number) and for PROVING (let us take a hypothetical instance where every nation at Kyoto signed and adhered to the Kyoto protocol.) that postponing warming from 2100 to 2105 is worth a cost of $180 billion annually. I guess I understand why he never answered this - he put himself ina position where he had to defend his livlihood. I did not answer the post because a) most of the points have been talked about earlier, see OP, b) I tend not to answer if someone calls me "climate guru" and c) I am just busy at the moment due to end of the year work all around  But to be comprehensive anyway: yes, I am familiar with Bjorn Lomborg, he does reasonable science for most parts of this work but I dont believe all his conclusions, that would be a point by point discussion, though. no, I dont know of recent significant doubt of our CO2 forcing understanding on H20. We are very certaint of the direct CO2 influence, less certain on the follow-up feedback of water vapor. That is something that is very well described in the IPCC AR4 (that I believe many people who criticize it have never read. it is freely available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html ) last point: I try to answer questions, dont try to make people believe anything. It is quite clear that long-term consequences of massive climate change are detrimental to Earth (maxium temperature in tropical regions that allow for agriculture, sea level rise + ). I am not an expert to judge from which level on it might be detrimental to which countries, it will be a complicated, regionally diverse response and countries with money will be able to adapt better than others. This postponing penalty is the most egoistical point in the full discussion I have ever heard of. The long-term goal of any policy of any government should be sustainable growth / development, in the sense that Earth will stell be operable after our and potentially the next generation. Kyoto or any related attempt to reduce global emissions is just one attempt to transform a economic system that ignores external costs (i.e., climate change, pollution, human rights in other countries) into one that is slightly more sustainable. I am a natural scientist and not an expert on the best way to do this, I am open to suggestions. I am fairly certain though, that business as usual will not be the way to go  Best and thanks to all constructive comments in this thread, I consider it a great success story so far, W
I read the AR4 section on water vapour and it offered no evidence of the forcing effect of CO2, nor did if offer a ballpark figure. - it only stated that climate models support a forcing effect. Models cannot be used as evidence in this fashion.
As far as me making an egotistical point, if trying to find the solutions which do the greatest good for the greatest number is egotistical, guilty as charged. If anything, policies like Kyoto are the egotistical ones because they are enacted by people with no scientific knowledge, either out of sheer ignorance or in order to gain political points (likely some combination thereof), with utter disregard for carrying out their duties as policymakers and looking at the scientific facts in order to help their constituencies and non-constituents around the world
Nobody is an expert on the best way to proceed, because it is unprecedented in the history of mankind that we realize we have such an effect on our environment. I am fairly certain that the best way forward is the way of the greatest wealth for the greatest number. The best system for achieving this result yet known does largely disregard external costs. There is room for policymakers in this picture... and its far far away.
edit: as far as casting doubt on water vapor forcing, there is this paper http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
|
I think this topic is really interesting actually.
One thing people do not address as much is the chemical nature of global warming and climate change.
For example... increases in CO2 changes the equilibrium between CO2(g) and CO2(aq) which can lead to a change in pH in the oceans. Over time our oceans can become more acidic as a result... which can also affect the frequency of acid rain over time.
Even if we use alternative fuels, there must be ways of addressing chemical equilibriums in the environment (perhaps removing excess) and other POPs (persistent organic pollutants)
|
On January 30 2012 04:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 04:03 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 02:15 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 01:46 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Here's a new article about the latest revised temperature data from NASA. You can read it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
That last sentence is quite the understatement. You are using the daily mail as a source and dare to remark on the believability of scientists (or really anybody)? I completely agree with the basic point that solar cycles are an understudied factor of climate change, but so far we only have evidence for warming, DESPITE the solar cycle being one of the weakest in history. I still don't know why people put more trust in an article from a shitty newspaper than in the large amount of scientists who, you know, actually studied this shit and are doing their very best to model it. Are the models perfect? No, it's incredibly complex material. However, if our very best models all show that there's a problem, isn't it better to do something about it than insist that there's not enough evidence (until it's too late)? The models of the warm-mongers have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and they are wholly unscientific as they are closed systems that are not allowed to be reviewed by outside parties. To be worried about something because models like that tell you to be is to worry for nothing. We are presently colder than James Hansen's lowest prediction in 1988, scenario C, which predicted temperatures if drastic measures were taken to reduce CO2 emissions by 2000. Obviously that did not happen, and yet we are colder, by GISS' OWN NUMBERS, in 2011 than scenario C predicted in 1988. What good is it doing you to be worrying about what models like this tell you? They are completely worthless and wholly unscientific. + Show Spoiler +It is hardly settled science at all and if you doubt that perhaps you should read some of the quotes from the over 700 scientists dissenting on global warming in this report by the U.S. Senate. + Show Spoiler +Here are some of the better quotes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” "Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. It is really worth a read there are dozens more excellent quotes from top scientific minds around the world. I used to believe in global warming since 1992, but when I really looked into it I have found a fraud of monumental proportions that would require it's own separate thread and I don't want to hijack your thread about what political forces would benefit from the implications of control over all CO2 emissions on earth, so I'm just going to leave it to the scientific aspect. If anyone wants to discuss the politics surrounding global warming they can PM me on TL. Firstly, reciting quotes from scientists is fundamentally NOT the way of going about the debate on climate science, because there are way too many quotes on either side already. In fact, the whole debate in general, as most of your quotes seem to show is FAR more about mudslinging than about science. The science behind it is largely ignored by most of the media (and governments) and is scary. The quotes you post are by some very respected scientists, however, I feel you are pulling them quite seriously out of proportion. The debate has heated up way too far and anybody voicing doubts about the matter is put away as a crackpot. I don't believe that. I believe that there is a LOT of room for improvement and the solar cycle theory is just one of the areas that has not been properly explored yet. However, so far, the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect. Being a scientist (I am one, but not a climatologist) requires you to have a strong opinion. I am therefore not surprised at all that there are plenty of climatologists who voice, vehemently, that the current predictions are incorrect. It's like Stephen Gould stating that Darwinian evolution is incorrect. He didn't mean that to be taken literally, in fact, he was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century. However, he did mean that parts of the theory were, provably, incorrect. In this case, the scientists are, almost certainly (didn't fact-check, but am fairly up-to-date on the matter) not stating that the world isn't undergoing major climate change. That's point one. The world is, demonstrably, warming up. Man-made climate change is a larger issue for debate, however, so far the best explanation is man-made, so it is prudent to believe that (even if it in the future turns out to be the phlogiston of the 21st century). Believing it and not acting upon it is, in my opinion, utterly destructive and immoral. Thus, a prudent, rational, human being, should act as if the man-made greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct (but always have reasonable doubt and don't go all frothy-mouthed about it). That means, reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources rapidly. It's funny that you claim posting quotes from respected scientists dissenting from your view is bad science, but then go and say that the "man-made greenhouse effect," whatever that is, is the BEST explanation with absolutely no proof given. Is that supposed to be good science? The whole point of posting that link and those quotes was to show that in the minds of several highly qualified experts that is not the best explanation at all. The world is not demonstrably heating up, that was the whole point of the other links I posted before the Senate report. Just the opposite in fact, the warm-mongers' claims have all been shown to be fear-mongering and completely out of touch with the actual recorded temperatures, which are lower than Hansen's best case scenario C. Even the British Met Office, one of the worst repeat offenders for warming hysteria, is admitting warming hasn't been going on since 1997. Of course they still deny the link between solar activity and climate variations. But hey, one step at a time. + Show Spoiler + re point 1: I didn't give proof, because I wasnt really trying to defend the point, just make a point about those scientists' quotes. re point 2: the world is demonstrably warming. Michael Mann's hockeystick graph has not only been vindicated, it has been continued into the 00s. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-everHere, btw is NASA's data, with apretty graph showing the warming: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistempAs for Hansen's prediction? Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
What point were you trying to make with no evidence? That's not how making a point works. Just stating "the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect" does not make it so. Why is that the best hypothesis? Why is what you say true when so many people so much more qualified than you on the subject disagree with you?
I posted those quotes because of this myth of consensus that most people involved in climate science accept this notion of AGW as a serious threat to humanity's future. There is no consensus, the science is not settled, and I, like you, used to believe it was as well until 2009 when I started to really investigate it. If I had to say which climate scientist I listen to most I would say now Henrik Svensmark, but there are many competing schools of thought and I am not a climate scientist so I am not an authority. I just know how easy it is to dismiss every skeptical argument as "oil funded research" or whatever and keep on believing because that's what I did for so long.
As to your graphs you can read Roger Pielke, PhD in Meteorology discuss in detail why the Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change is a bad metric for measuring climate impacts and non-linearities in climate that GAMSATC can't measure.
+ Show Spoiler +
The world is not demonstrably warming. Again just stating something does not make it a fact. The British Met Office, which for so long has defended the global warming "official story" is even admitting it has not been warming for the last 15 years. How do you brazenly remain adamant that the world is demonstrably warming when faced with articles like this? Do you even read them?
From the article:
"The data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food."
If you deny the cooling taking place even after this then who is the real denialist?
|
On January 30 2012 04:03 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 02:15 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 01:46 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Here's a new article about the latest revised temperature data from NASA. You can read it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
That last sentence is quite the understatement. You are using the daily mail as a source and dare to remark on the believability of scientists (or really anybody)? I completely agree with the basic point that solar cycles are an understudied factor of climate change, but so far we only have evidence for warming, DESPITE the solar cycle being one of the weakest in history. I still don't know why people put more trust in an article from a shitty newspaper than in the large amount of scientists who, you know, actually studied this shit and are doing their very best to model it. Are the models perfect? No, it's incredibly complex material. However, if our very best models all show that there's a problem, isn't it better to do something about it than insist that there's not enough evidence (until it's too late)? The models of the warm-mongers have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and they are wholly unscientific as they are closed systems that are not allowed to be reviewed by outside parties. To be worried about something because models like that tell you to be is to worry for nothing. We are presently colder than James Hansen's lowest prediction in 1988, scenario C, which predicted temperatures if drastic measures were taken to reduce CO2 emissions by 2000. Obviously that did not happen, and yet we are colder, by GISS' OWN NUMBERS, in 2011 than scenario C predicted in 1988. What good is it doing you to be worrying about what models like this tell you? They are completely worthless and wholly unscientific. + Show Spoiler +It is hardly settled science at all and if you doubt that perhaps you should read some of the quotes from the over 700 scientists dissenting on global warming in this report by the U.S. Senate. + Show Spoiler +Here are some of the better quotes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” "Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. It is really worth a read there are dozens more excellent quotes from top scientific minds around the world. I used to believe in global warming since 1992, but when I really looked into it I have found a fraud of monumental proportions that would require it's own separate thread and I don't want to hijack your thread about what political forces would benefit from the implications of control over all CO2 emissions on earth, so I'm just going to leave it to the scientific aspect. If anyone wants to discuss the politics surrounding global warming they can PM me on TL. Firstly, reciting quotes from scientists is fundamentally NOT the way of going about the debate on climate science, because there are way too many quotes on either side already. In fact, the whole debate in general, as most of your quotes seem to show is FAR more about mudslinging than about science. The science behind it is largely ignored by most of the media (and governments) and is scary. The quotes you post are by some very respected scientists, however, I feel you are pulling them quite seriously out of proportion. The debate has heated up way too far and anybody voicing doubts about the matter is put away as a crackpot. I don't believe that. I believe that there is a LOT of room for improvement and the solar cycle theory is just one of the areas that has not been properly explored yet. However, so far, the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect. Being a scientist (I am one, but not a climatologist) requires you to have a strong opinion. I am therefore not surprised at all that there are plenty of climatologists who voice, vehemently, that the current predictions are incorrect. It's like Stephen Gould stating that Darwinian evolution is incorrect. He didn't mean that to be taken literally, in fact, he was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century. However, he did mean that parts of the theory were, provably, incorrect. In this case, the scientists are, almost certainly (didn't fact-check, but am fairly up-to-date on the matter) not stating that the world isn't undergoing major climate change. That's point one. The world is, demonstrably, warming up. Man-made climate change is a larger issue for debate, however, so far the best explanation is man-made, so it is prudent to believe that (even if it in the future turns out to be the phlogiston of the 21st century). Believing it and not acting upon it is, in my opinion, utterly destructive and immoral. Thus, a prudent, rational, human being, should act as if the man-made greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct (but always have reasonable doubt and don't go all frothy-mouthed about it). That means, reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources rapidly. It's funny that you claim posting quotes from respected scientists dissenting from your view is bad science, but then go and say that the "man-made greenhouse effect," whatever that is, is the BEST explanation with absolutely no proof given. Is that supposed to be good science? The whole point of posting that link and those quotes was to show that in the minds of several highly qualified experts that is not the best explanation at all. The world is not demonstrably heating up, that was the whole point of the other links I posted before the Senate report. Just the opposite in fact, the warm-mongers' claims have all been shown to be fear-mongering and completely out of touch with the actual recorded temperatures, which are lower than Hansen's best case scenario C. Even the British Met Office, one of the worst repeat offenders for warming hysteria, is admitting warming hasn't been going on since 1997. Of course they still deny the link between solar activity and climate variations. But hey, one step at a time. + Show Spoiler +
Y'know, real-science.com is a hardly even-handed website, right? If you want to see a decidely 'unbiased source, look up "climate change concord primack" in Google.
Using data collected on plants and flowering times, it's proven that temperatures have risen at least a degree over a few years.
Nature is an unbiased source, pseudo-political websites aren't.
|
You do realize guys that you use sources that get funding right ? Duh, what the hell do I mean ? There is always some form of economic interest in these issues. A lot of guys with PhD's ( high esteemed college professors in NA ) have been bought to support specifics paradigms, and this has been proven in economics. I'm sure it's the same in the field of stuff about climate, and I talked to my teacher who was at a college in Canada to learn about climate change and stuff and he said that it's an extremely complex field that is rather young really and you can't really draw strong conclusions yet. Vague stuff, but still ...
Of course you can't do shit without funding but still, that is the reason we have scientific researches and proofs to support both of the sides...
What do I think ? I don't have the knowledge to talk about it, and I believe most studies are backed up by special interests, so I could easily be manipulated to believe in a specific paradigm...
And anyways, people try to profit from this "global warning", whether if it's true or false( the fact that humans affect climate in such a dramatic way, I think it's bullshit ).
|
hi. i'm studying physics and recently heard a talk given by mr gerhard knies about desertec at my uni (aachen) .
three points: 1. he showed the typical plot with average temperature and CO2 contentration over time. judged by the eye, the correlation between both in the last century seems very obvious. from your advanced knowledge, what makes you so sure that its neither just a coincidence that co2 and average temperatue are raising at the same time and the main reason is not yet understood, nor that the co2 concentration is getting higher, because of the hotter earth (tundra ice, co2 from oceans..)
2. i was always not sure, if the present climate change was made by human or nature. it always seemed like a question of belief, because you get to hear many "scientific" arguments supporting and other ones denying the hypothesis of artifical climate change (we even saw a film at school, doubting it). from your point of view, is it really only a big campaign by mighty companies that don't want to lose their money? how is it possible that they are this successful? is there no serious scientific evidence to justify to doubt CO2 is the reason of global warming?
3. what do you think in short about desertec? do you share their opinion that soon, some kind of turning point will be arrived and damage will be irreversible?
thanks for this great thread!
|
hi. i'm studying physics and recently heard a talk given by mr gerhard knies about desertec at my uni (aachen) .
three points: 1. he showed the typical plot with average temperature and CO2 contentration over time. judged by the eye, the correlation between both in the last century seems very obvious. from your advanced knowledge, what makes you so sure that its neither just a coincidence that co2 and average temperatue are raising at the same time and the main reason is not yet understood, nor that the co2 concentration is getting higher, because of the hotter earth (tundra ice, co2 from oceans..)
2. i was always not sure, if the present climate change was made by human or nature. it always seemed like a question of belief, because you get to hear many "scientific" arguments supporting and other ones denying the hypothesis of artifical climate change (we even saw a film at school, doubting it). from your point of view, is it really only a big campaign by mighty companies that don't want to lose their money? how is it possible that they are this successful? is there no serious scientific evidence to justify to doubt CO2 is the reason of global warming?
3. what do you think in short about desertec? do you share their opinion that soon, some kind of turning point will be arrived and damage will be irreversible?
sorry for my disordered questions. im almost asleep
thanks for this great thread!
|
On January 30 2012 05:16 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2012 04:29 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 04:03 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 03:37 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 02:15 Perdac Curall wrote:On January 30 2012 01:46 Acrofales wrote:On January 30 2012 01:23 xDaunt wrote:Here's a new article about the latest revised temperature data from NASA. You can read it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
That last sentence is quite the understatement. You are using the daily mail as a source and dare to remark on the believability of scientists (or really anybody)? I completely agree with the basic point that solar cycles are an understudied factor of climate change, but so far we only have evidence for warming, DESPITE the solar cycle being one of the weakest in history. I still don't know why people put more trust in an article from a shitty newspaper than in the large amount of scientists who, you know, actually studied this shit and are doing their very best to model it. Are the models perfect? No, it's incredibly complex material. However, if our very best models all show that there's a problem, isn't it better to do something about it than insist that there's not enough evidence (until it's too late)? The models of the warm-mongers have been shown repeatedly to be wrong, and they are wholly unscientific as they are closed systems that are not allowed to be reviewed by outside parties. To be worried about something because models like that tell you to be is to worry for nothing. We are presently colder than James Hansen's lowest prediction in 1988, scenario C, which predicted temperatures if drastic measures were taken to reduce CO2 emissions by 2000. Obviously that did not happen, and yet we are colder, by GISS' OWN NUMBERS, in 2011 than scenario C predicted in 1988. What good is it doing you to be worrying about what models like this tell you? They are completely worthless and wholly unscientific. + Show Spoiler +It is hardly settled science at all and if you doubt that perhaps you should read some of the quotes from the over 700 scientists dissenting on global warming in this report by the U.S. Senate. + Show Spoiler +Here are some of the better quotes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” "Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history"…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. It is really worth a read there are dozens more excellent quotes from top scientific minds around the world. I used to believe in global warming since 1992, but when I really looked into it I have found a fraud of monumental proportions that would require it's own separate thread and I don't want to hijack your thread about what political forces would benefit from the implications of control over all CO2 emissions on earth, so I'm just going to leave it to the scientific aspect. If anyone wants to discuss the politics surrounding global warming they can PM me on TL. Firstly, reciting quotes from scientists is fundamentally NOT the way of going about the debate on climate science, because there are way too many quotes on either side already. In fact, the whole debate in general, as most of your quotes seem to show is FAR more about mudslinging than about science. The science behind it is largely ignored by most of the media (and governments) and is scary. The quotes you post are by some very respected scientists, however, I feel you are pulling them quite seriously out of proportion. The debate has heated up way too far and anybody voicing doubts about the matter is put away as a crackpot. I don't believe that. I believe that there is a LOT of room for improvement and the solar cycle theory is just one of the areas that has not been properly explored yet. However, so far, the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect. Being a scientist (I am one, but not a climatologist) requires you to have a strong opinion. I am therefore not surprised at all that there are plenty of climatologists who voice, vehemently, that the current predictions are incorrect. It's like Stephen Gould stating that Darwinian evolution is incorrect. He didn't mean that to be taken literally, in fact, he was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the previous century. However, he did mean that parts of the theory were, provably, incorrect. In this case, the scientists are, almost certainly (didn't fact-check, but am fairly up-to-date on the matter) not stating that the world isn't undergoing major climate change. That's point one. The world is, demonstrably, warming up. Man-made climate change is a larger issue for debate, however, so far the best explanation is man-made, so it is prudent to believe that (even if it in the future turns out to be the phlogiston of the 21st century). Believing it and not acting upon it is, in my opinion, utterly destructive and immoral. Thus, a prudent, rational, human being, should act as if the man-made greenhouse effect hypothesis is correct (but always have reasonable doubt and don't go all frothy-mouthed about it). That means, reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel energy sources rapidly. It's funny that you claim posting quotes from respected scientists dissenting from your view is bad science, but then go and say that the "man-made greenhouse effect," whatever that is, is the BEST explanation with absolutely no proof given. Is that supposed to be good science? The whole point of posting that link and those quotes was to show that in the minds of several highly qualified experts that is not the best explanation at all. The world is not demonstrably heating up, that was the whole point of the other links I posted before the Senate report. Just the opposite in fact, the warm-mongers' claims have all been shown to be fear-mongering and completely out of touch with the actual recorded temperatures, which are lower than Hansen's best case scenario C. Even the British Met Office, one of the worst repeat offenders for warming hysteria, is admitting warming hasn't been going on since 1997. Of course they still deny the link between solar activity and climate variations. But hey, one step at a time. + Show Spoiler + re point 1: I didn't give proof, because I wasnt really trying to defend the point, just make a point about those scientists' quotes. re point 2: the world is demonstrably warming. Michael Mann's hockeystick graph has not only been vindicated, it has been continued into the 00s. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-everHere, btw is NASA's data, with apretty graph showing the warming: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistempAs for Hansen's prediction? Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ What point were you trying to make with no evidence? That's not how making a point works. Just stating "the hypothesis that BEST describes the situation is a man-made greenhouse effect" does not make it so. Why is that the best hypothesis? Why is what you say true when so many people so much more qualified than you on the subject disagree with you? I posted those quotes because of this myth of consensus that most people involved in climate science accept this notion of AGW as a serious threat to humanity's future. There is no consensus, the science is not settled, and I, like you, used to believe it was as well until 2009 when I started to really investigate it. If I had to say which climate scientist I listen to most I would say now Henrik Svensmark, but there are many competing schools of thought and I am not a climate scientist so I am not an authority. I just know how easy it is to dismiss every skeptical argument as "oil funded research" or whatever and keep on believing because that's what I did for so long. As to your graphs you can read Roger Pielke, PhD in Meteorology discuss in detail why the Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change is a bad metric for measuring climate impacts and non-linearities in climate that GAMSATC can't measure. + Show Spoiler +The world is not demonstrably warming. Again just stating something does not make it a fact. The British Met Office, which for so long has defended the global warming "official story" is even admitting it has not been warming for the last 15 years. How do you brazenly remain adamant that the world is demonstrably warming when faced with articles like this? Do you even read them? From the article: "The data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food." If you deny the cooling taking place even after this then who is the real denialist?
So... I post data from NASA and Nature and you cite someone's blog and the Daily Mail, but I am the denialist.
Here is the press release from the Met Office your articles are referring to:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/solar-output-research
It says nothing whatsoever about the so-called end of rising trend in world temperatures. If you want blogs, however, I challenge you to beat this:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/one-or-two-warm-years-is-not-global.php
Global warming is a fact. Whether it's man-made? That we can discuss, but unless you come up with an actual scientific article showing why all the evidence for global warming is wrong, there's no real reason to continue here.
Btw, your own link doesn't claim global warming is not real. The problem Pielke is pointing at is that surface temperatures are a bad indication of LOCAL climate changes. We cannot use them to predict that Spain will get drier, or Brazil hotter. However, global average surface temperatures are still an excellent indication of GLOBAL trends.
He denies this and states that, because of the energy content of the ocean, is also a bad indicator of global trends. However, nowhere does he provide evidence for this hypothesis, nor does he state that the world is not warming. However, it ignores a very important fact: global surface temperatures have been, demonstrably, warming. This is not a statistical fluke, as proved by the number of statisticians who tried to show the hockey stick graph, yet it stood basically every statistical test known to man (that is not to say, we might still be wrong, but to the best of our knowledge global surface temperature is rising).
Any better metric for warmth of the earth, or energy content of the earth, as Pielke wants to call it, should include an explanation for why the global surface temperature is increasing, remembering that the null hypothesis (statistical noise) has already been rejected.
EDITED: response to Pielke deserved a bit more complete answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
