How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby anothershamus » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:59 pm

I listened to this show on Sun and amongst the people working at both poles, the climate is changing for the worse. They are pissed that there is ANY thought that is a hoax. They are living it. When it gets colder in unusual places, that is just an effect of Global Climate Change, (Not Global Warming, that is a misnomer.) It's worth a listen:
http://www.ricksteves.com/radio/streami ... ram239.asx

Polar Witness: The Last Polar Bear; Penguins on the Brink

Airdate: March 19, 2011

Program 239

Wilderness photographer Steven Kazlowski joins Rick to describe how climate change is impacting Polar Bears as well as the wildlife and Native people of the Arctic. Also, author Fen Montaigne explains what he witnessed at a penguin research station about the rapid warming on the Antarctic Peninsula.


Additional Links:

* Steven Kazlowski's photography website http://www.lefteyepro.com/
* Fen Montaigne's publisher's page for "Fraser's Penguins" includes a link to Fen's blog and Facebook page http://us.macmillan.com/fraserspenguins


)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:14 pm

wintler2 wrote:
tazmic wrote:“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Sorry, that sentance[sic] doesn't make sense to me, could you explain it?

Which of the words are you having trouble with?

(http://dictionary.reference.com/)
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Sweet Tooth » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:21 pm

[quote="tazmic"][quote="wintler2"][quote="tazmic"]“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”[/quote]
Sorry, that sentance[sic] doesn't make sense to me, could you explain it?[/quote]
Which of the words are you having trouble with?

([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/[/url])[/quote]

For such an obstinate, block-headed dunce, you sure are an arrogant dink.

Just my opinion, of course.
YOPJ
Sweet Tooth
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:33 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:22 pm

anothershamus wrote:I listened to this show on Sun and amongst the people working at both poles, the climate is changing for the worse. They are pissed that there is ANY thought that is a hoax.

When questioning the science behind the theory of AGW/CACC is seen as calling changes in the climate a Hoax, we'll be in trouble. Oh, wait...

But I'll give it a listen, thanks.
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby compared2what? » Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:10 pm

wintler2 wrote:You forgot your link, tazmic: http://ihatealgore.com/?p=1772
So wheres it from originally anyway? - which instruments, kept by who, and who did the postprocessing? Cos there is alot of wacky number crunching going on in certain well funded circles.


I assume that the graph is from the source at the bottom of the picture and (as I understand it, anyway) the data is good as far as it goes. But sadly, since it doesn't go to establishing "global cooling," it's basically just a way of using the truth to tell a lie to people who aren't familiar enough with the subject for them to be able to detect it. There's at least one major piece of legerdemain/fallacy to it, and maybe two.

But fwiw, the one I'm sure of is its exploitation of time frames -- 1998 was an El Nino year, so starting the graph there kind of constitutes a false visual implication -- ie, that it was status quo for global temperature to be that high in 1998, rather than an extreme anomaly. This graph, which shows eight-year trends (starting with every year) makes it pretty easy to see how you could plot the "travesty of global cooling" chart using perfectly good data and still be flat-out lying if you used it to allege a pattern of global cooling:

Image

IIRC, there's also something inherently misleading about using only satellite data -- it doesn't accurately reflect ocean temperatures or something like that, I think. And ocean temperatures are where most of the warming is. So it makes the globe looks much less warm than it really is.

That would be the second major fallacy, if it's correct. I'm not a hundred percent sure that it is, though. However, since the first one is enough to show the lie all by itself, it doesn't really matter, I guess.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:31 am

tazmic wrote:
wintler2 wrote:
tazmic wrote:“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Sorry, that sentance[sic] doesn't make sense to me, could you explain it?

Which of the words are you having trouble with?

(http://dictionary.reference.com/)

No, i understand the words, it is the sentance that doesn't make sense to me - thats why i asked you to explain it. Since you didn't, i presume you're not willing or able, whatever. I was going to get around to pointing out the cherrypicked timeperiod (really!), but bloody C2w did it with more grace than i could ever muster, so .. don't bother.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 82_28 » Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:53 am

wintler2 wrote:
tazmic wrote:
wintler2 wrote:
tazmic wrote:“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Sorry, that sentance[sic] doesn't make sense to me, could you explain it?

Which of the words are you having trouble with?

(http://dictionary.reference.com/)

No, i understand the words, it is the sentance that doesn't make sense to me - thats why i asked you to explain it. Since you didn't, i presume you're not willing or able, whatever. I was going to get around to pointing out the cherrypicked timeperiod (really!), but bloody C2w did it with more grace than i could ever muster, so .. don't bother.


Yeah she did. What "sentance" was the one you had in mind? Poor unwilling nor able members. The travails they must go through.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:16 am

compared2what? wrote:..since it doesn't go to establishing "global cooling"

Thanks for responding. I understand that a cooling interval is no more than that, and that interval selection can suggest erroneous long term trend interpretations. But the graph doesn't even claim that there isn't a long term warming trend.

If the GISTEMP '8 year trend' graphing you posted makes it a LIE to suggest a lack of recent warming, and it’s a convincing image, then what are NOAA talking about in the link?

"The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise."

And in the context of the post, which is about the possibility of identifying a zero warming trend of sufficient interval length to be significantly at odds with model predictions, wouldn't it be somewhat disingenuous, to say the least, to complain about interval cherry picking?
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:24 am

Study finds wind speeds on the rise

By Carl Holm for ABC Science Online

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... ion=justin

Wind speeds and wave heights over the world's oceans have been steadily
increasing for the last quarter of a century, a new long-term study shows.

The researchers at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne say the trend
could also have an effect on the transfer of energy between the sea and the
atmosphere - one of the great unknowns in climate change calculations.

The study, published today in Science Express online, uses 23 years of satellite
altimeter data taken from 1985 to 2008 to show that wind speeds over the oceans
have been steadily increasing.

The areas which show increased wind speeds in the study also show increased wave
heights.

Professor Ian Young, the lead author on the paper, says the study shows that the
largest increases are happening in extreme conditions.

"Extreme wind speeds have increased over most of the globe by approximately 10
per cent over the last 20 years, or 0.5 per cent every year," he says.

"Extreme wave heights have increased by an average of seven per cent over the
last 20 years."

"Off the southern coast of Australia, the highest one per cent of waves has
increased in height from approximately five meters to almost six meters."

Rising faster in higher latitudes

The researchers say average wind speeds over most of the world's oceans have
also increased, by at least 0.25 per cent per year.

The trend is stronger in the southern hemisphere than the north; and the rate of
increase is greater in extreme conditions, with wind speeds over the oceans
rising by at least 0.75 per cent per year.

Windier conditions might be expected to create higher waves, the researchers
say. But while they observed that at higher latitudes the heights of the largest
waves seemed to be increasing, they found no statistically significant increase
in average wave height globally.

Co-author Professor Alexander Babanin says it is unclear yet how, or if, the
trend relates to global climate change.

"All we can say is that there is an overall trend, but extrapolating that into
the future has to be done with caution," he said.

But he says the record adds an important and often overlooked variable to
climate change studies.

"If we talk about climate, usually we talk about temperature changing, we talk
often about precipitation; but we talk much less about the winds and the waves,"
he said.

"They are environmental indicators of changes in the climate just as the
temperature and precipitation and other parameters in the air-sea system."

Professor Babanin says the data are potentially useful because they can provide
independent validation and verification of what happens to the climate.

"Suppose it's the case that the temperature is rising globally. It will not do
that uniformly, because of land influences, because of the ocean circulation,"
he said.

"The ocean will be warmer in some parts and colder in other parts. That creates
pressure differences and that creates winds.

"When you change the pressure patterns and if the temperature difference is
getting bigger, pressure differences are getting bigger, the winds will perhaps
grow higher, and the patterns of the winds may change."

Professor Babanin says it is the first study to deliver such a complete picture.
Previous studies had relied on observations from ships at sea and wave buoys,
which meant most data was collected close to shore and in major shipping lanes.

"So in terms of the uniform and consistent global coverage this is the first one
of its kind," he said.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby compared2what? » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:22 am

tazmic wrote:
compared2what? wrote:..since it doesn't go to establishing "global cooling"

Thanks for responding. I understand that a cooling interval is no more than that, and that interval selection can suggest erroneous long term trend interpretations. But the graph doesn't even claim that there isn't a long term warming trend.


But it does claim that there's been a cooling trend for the last thirteen years. And there hasn't. As even the graph itself shows, there's been a slow warming trend over the last thirteen years. It just makes it looks like there hasn't at first glance, due to the misleading visual impression given by the nosedive in temperature following the anomalous peak in 1998 and the far less-dramatic-looking deviations that came after it.

If the GISTEMP '8 year trend' graphing you posted makes it a LIE to suggest a lack of recent warming, and it’s a convincing image, then what are NOAA talking about in the link?


They're talking about a slowdown and/or lack of global warming (within a margin of error that looks to me, at a glance, consistent with the eight-year trend graph I posted, but it's late and I didn't get out a ruler and measure the .05 degrees from point to point, so don't hold me to it if I'm off by .013 degrees here or there). Oh! And they're also talking about such a slowdown/lack not being a meaningful indicator wrt the long-term validity of the modeling that's showed, accurately, that we're in a period of generally accelerating global warming.

But none of that has any bearing on what I said it would be a lie to suggest. Because that was global cooling.

"The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise."

And in the context of the post, which is about the possibility of identifying a zero warming trend of sufficient interval length to be significantly at odds with model predictions, wouldn't it be somewhat disingenuous, to say the least, to complain about interval cherry picking?


I don't know. I didn't really complain about interval cherry-picking, I don't think. Or anyway, it wasn't my intention to do so. I just meant to point out, in neutral tones, that starting a graph that purports to show a 13-year period of global cooling in 1998 constitutes a false visual implication. Because the globe has not been cooling for 13 years. It's been warming in fits and starts for a long, long time (including between 1998 and the present), although there's occasionally an eight-to-ten-year period here or there during which the trend is comparatively flat or even actively reverses itself.

And I thought that's what I'd done. (I mean "pointed out in neutral tones, blah blah blah"). Okay? I hope so. Because I really wasn't trying to be contentious or personal or anything like that. It's just that the graph was misleading, and I knew one of the reasons for it. So I posted. That's really all there was to it.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:56 pm

European ‘Mega’ Heat Waves to Increase Over Next 40 Years, Researchers Say
Growing concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to cause “more frequent, persistent and intense heat waves” in Europe like the one in Russia last year that killed thousands of people and scorched land, researchers said.

The probability of another “mega-heat wave” like the ones last year and in 2003 will increase by a factor of five to 10 over the next 40 years, according to a study published today in the journal Science, written by scientists led by David Barriopedro from the University of Lisbon in Portugal.

“We were surprised,” Erich Fischer, a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and one of the study’s authors, said in an interview today. “We had thought it was an anomalous event.”

“Serious risks” of heat-related events over large areas will increase if no “adaptive strategies” are implemented, the authors wrote. Those strategies include telling people not to do sports during the hottest part of the day, caring for the elderly, warning farmers about drought and preparing hospitals for heat-related illness, Fischer said.

Heat waves in 2003 and 2010 broke 500-year-old records in some regions, the researchers said. The high temperatures in eastern Europe from late July through mid-August last year covered twice as much ground as the 2003 heat wave and temperatures deviated from the average to a much greater extent, Fischer said.

Last year’s heat wave led to 55,000 heat-related deaths in Russia, wildfires and a crop failure of 25 percent, according to the study. The magnitude was “so extreme” that the chances of another one on that level in the same region remains fairly unlikely until the second half of the century, researchers said.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:47 am

:)
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:41 pm

Ok then, a draft copy of the IPCC AR5 has been leaked, and though it is still a draft, the indications are that there are some surprises coming up for those of you who have just gone along with the MSM beat up on the global warming scenario...

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:30 pm

Climate scientists dismiss IPCC “leak” linking warming to cosmic rays
Last updated on 14 December 2012, 4:19 pm | By John Parnell

Conclusions drawn from a draft of the next IPCC climate science report by sceptics have left scientists bemused.

An unfinished version of the fifth IPCC assessment report (AR5) was leaked last night by climate sceptic blogger Alec Rawls.

Claims were then made by a number of commentators that cosmic rays were responsible for climate change.

Subsequent paragraphs dealing with the theory that increased solar magnetic activity was deflecting cloud forming cosmic radiation past earth, concluded that it was highly unlikely to have an impact.

“It beggars belief to see how people, apparently without relevant knowledge, could make up such nonsense and get the blogosphere buzzing,” IPCC author Dr Richard Klein of the Stockholm Environment Institute told RTCC.

Klein points out claims of a leak are baseless, given that the draft is available to anyone who registers as a reviewer, and says he is disappointed with the attention the claim generated.

But he does admit that transparency has its drawbacks, and that making drafts entirely open to the public would not be a wise move.

“First, IPCC chapter author teams need time to assess all relevant literature for its specific chapter, and to link with other chapters. This requires various iterations. It means that draft chapters are almost always incomplete and possibly inconsistent. Draft chapters are work in progress and, when made available to the public, could lead to confusion and misinformation,” he said.

“Second, anybody who considers themselves to be an expert, and that includes sceptics, can sign up to be a reviewer of the draft chapters. This is done in good faith, and the more experts provide genuine review comments, the better the IPCC chapters will be. This means that draft chapters are by no means secret, and therefore to suggest there has been a ‘leak’ is silly,” he said.

Cosmic rays

The lead author of the chapter published, Professor Steve Sherwood, told ABC in Australia that the conclusions drawn by the blogger responsible – that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) cause climate change – are way off the mark.

“Oh that’s completely ridiculous,” Sherwood told ABC’s PM programme. “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.”

UK climate scientist Professor Chris Rapley is confident the public will draw their own conclusions from attempts to distort the science.

“People have to decide who they believe. Personally I do not find it at all convincing that the quotes from AR5 undermine the case for man-made climate change; in fact the opposite, the leaked material appears to lend more support than ever to the science,” he told RTCC.

“My feeling is that journalists and the public won’t be fooled by this. What we all need is careful evaluation of the evidence to support prudent actions for a better future,” he added.

Timing

The publication of AR5, expected in September 2013, will build on the work of its predecessor, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Its release will come at a crucial time for the climate with a number organisations including the IEA predicting a deadline for substantial action before the end of the decade.

The UN climate change negotiations are also at a crucial juncture with just three years left to formulate a global deal on emissions reductions. The next IPCC could inject some urgency into the negotiations.

“The last roll of the dice for climate change sceptics is an appeal to cosmic rays from outer space,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“It’s a wacky theory, the evidence is pretty weak and if Alec Rawls had been honest enough to print the end of the section that he selectively quoted it is clear that the conclusion that the evidence is weak and it is unlikely to be an explanation if climate change.”

Rawls registered as a reviewer of AR5 and as such had access to the draft, but in registering, had agreed not to publish the unfinished work.

“The IPCC operates on a system, as most of the scientific community does, an honour system that the review process is meant to be confidential. It shows they [sceptics] are not willing to sign up to the same high standards of behaviour that the rest of the scientific community practice. It’s a disgrace,” Ward who is also a reviewer of the next report, told RTCC.

Ward also called on the IPCC to immediately debunk the claims of sceptics regarding the science, rather than focusing on process and how the information was made public in the short term.

Klein acknowledges that this might have to be a consideration in the longer term.

“The IPCC should do a better job at explaining its procedures, and why those procedures exist, and stick to them to the letter. Hopefully that would help to restore trust in the IPCC, and next time a draft becomes public, there’s no need for bloggers or other media to make such a fuss of it,” said Klein.

The IPCC has issued a statement in response to the release of the unfinished report.

”These drafts were provided in confidence to reviewers and are not for distribution. It is regrettable that one out of many hundreds of reviewers broke the terms of the review and posted the drafts.”
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:36 pm

Image
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests