Author Topic: Climate oops?  (Read 6662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
OK, I could have sworn I posted this already, but as I can't find it the forum either ate it, or someone deleted it without PMing me, so here it is again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

Quote
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

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

So what on Earth is going on?

Wouldn't it be nice if a study took more than a few decades into account and looked at long-term trends without pre-supposing that CO2 is the only factor in climate change? I'm all for making human industry more environmentally-friendly and I don't think that we as a species should stick our heads in the sand when it comes to the potential changes we could make to reduce our ecological footprint... but, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be basing decisions with a massive economic impact entirely upon what amounts to politically-motivated science.

Anyway, I thought it was fairly telling that there's an elephant in the climate change room when the BBC (one of the biggest supporters of the idea that human activity is among the major factors influencing changes in global temperatures) publishes an article saying "hold on a minute here..."

Good read anyway.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline MR_T3D

  • 29
  • Personal Text
i would laugh and do donuts if it turns out were stalling an ICE age.

 

Offline watsisname

I don't suppose the fact that we're in the middle of a profound solar minimum has anything to do with it.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml
Quote
How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?
Judith L. Lean

Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C., USA

David H. Rind

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA

Reliable forecasts of climate change in the immediate future are difficult, especially on regional scales, where natural climate variations may amplify or mitigate anthropogenic warming in ways that numerical models capture poorly. By decomposing recent observed surface temperatures into components associated with ENSO, volcanic and solar activity, and anthropogenic influences, we anticipate global and regional changes in the next two decades. From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. But as a result of declining solar activity in the subsequent five years, average temperature in 2019 is only 0.03 ± 0.01°C warmer than in 2014. This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming. We further illustrate how a major volcanic eruption and a super ENSO would modify our global and regional temperature projections.

Received 29 April 2009; accepted 9 July 2009; published 15 August 2009.

Citation: Lean, J. L., and D. H. Rind (2009), How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15708, doi:10.1029/2009GL038932.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2009, 03:20:07 pm by watsisname »
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 

Offline IronBeer

  • 29
  • (Witty catchphrase)
Many, many variables affect earth's climate- isn't it a little irresponsible to swiftly assume that only one of them is responsible?
"I have approximate knowledge of many things."

Ridiculous, the Director's Cut

Starlancer Head Animations - Converted

 

Offline watsisname

I didn't say that only one was responsible.
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 
Anyway, I thought it was fairly telling that there's an elephant in the climate change room when the BBC (one of the biggest supporters of the idea that human activity is among the major factors influencing changes in global temperatures) publishes an article saying "hold on a minute here..."

Good read anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Quote
Climate(from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.[2] The standard averaging period is 30 years
(emphasis added)

 

Offline Kosh

  • A year behind what's funny
  • 210
Quote
Wouldn't it be nice if a study took more than a few decades into account and looked at long-term trends without pre-supposing that CO2 is the only factor in climate change?

I think what we should be looking at is whether or not the periods during solar minumums are on average getting hotter or just staying the same.
"The reason for this is that the original Fortran got so convoluted and extensive (10's of millions of lines of code) that no-one can actually figure out how it works, there's a massive project going on to decode the original Fortran and write a more modern system, but until then, the UK communication network is actually relying heavily on 35 year old Fortran that nobody understands." - Flipside

Brain I/O error
Replace and press any key

 

Offline Topgun

  • 210
the problem with global warming is that you can't really prove it. you would need global satellite data that includes the avg temp of the oceans going all the way back since before the industrial revolution.
we haven't had an accurate way of measuring the avg temp of the earth since the 80's, not the 1800's.

yes, we know how much co2 has entered the atmo due to burning of fossil fuels, but we don't know how that co2 reacts with the climate. we know that it *should* make it hotter, but we don't know how much co2 would be needed to make a significant difference.
really, the whole global warming thing is a political tool and always has been. there are many bigger things wrong with the environment that neither political party wants to deal with.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
From what we know of what Caesar wrote when he invaded the UK, Southern England had Vineyards and quite probably had a climate similar to modern day Mid-Southern France, so we do know that Climates move around a bit.

As for the bit about the Ice-Age, well, scientists have been saying that we are quite close (geologically - i.e. thousands of years) to an Ice Age for years, the warming was to be the precursor to it.

Personally, I'm not sold on the amout of impact humanity is having on Global Warming, but it doesn't hurt to be more environmentally friendly anyway, after all, if you think what those emmissions to do something the size of a planet, imagine what they do to your lungs, so I'm all for clean energy etc (and this from a smoker - ironic, huh?) but I am inclined to believe in shifts in climate over geographical periods of time (since there is very strong evidence of it both short- and long-term) and the possibility that one of the more profound shifts such as an Ice Age may not be too far away, though probably long beyond my lifetime.

Once again, it's not known how quickly an Ice Age actually settles in once it gets started, it could take thousands of years for glaciation, but evidence suggests it may well be a lot, lot faster, which is a sobering thought.

 

Offline Solatar

  • 211
I'm not really convinced global warming is because of CO2 emissions.

However. . .I have yet to see a drawback to cutting back on burning fossil fuels; so why not?

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
Anyway, I thought it was fairly telling that there's an elephant in the climate change room when the BBC (one of the biggest supporters of the idea that human activity is among the major factors influencing changes in global temperatures) publishes an article saying "hold on a minute here..."

Good read anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Quote
Climate(from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time.[2] The standard averaging period is 30 years
(emphasis added)

What's your point?  At no point did I say that temperature was the only factor in climate, and frankly an averaging period of 30 years when discussing changes in global climate is absolutely ridiculous.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
From what we know of what Caesar wrote when he invaded the UK, Southern England had Vineyards and quite probably had a climate similar to modern day Mid-Southern France, so we do know that Climates move around a bit.

Not actually as important as people think. The reason why English vineyards weren't common in the past is because English wine, by and large, is ****. Despite that fact there never has been a time since medieval days when English wine-making completely died out. It has always been warm enough to grow grapes in the south of England.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline watsisname

[aimless rant] SCIENCE!  Here's a list of the things that (to my knowledge) have impact on global temperature.  If I missed anything or am in error, please feel free to add or correct.

1:  Solar irradiance
2:  Earth's orbit  (specifically, average distance from Sol)
3:  Earth's albedo (% incoming light that is reflected back to space)
4:  Atmospheric composition (notably greenhouse gases)
5:  Aerosols/volcanoes… various random events such as meteor impacts
6:  Ocean currents, ENSO

Now then… 
1:  The solar physicists say that the sun’s output is increasing, but on very long timescales, and thus is negligible in the short term.  On the other hand there is the 11-year solar cycle which also has small effect on output – higher output during solar max, lower during solar min.  The change is very small, though, so it is still being argued whether or not it has detectable contribution to global temperature change.  The abstract I linked to earlier claims it does, but I’d like to see more data to support/reject that idea.

2:  Earth’s orbit – doesn’t change significantly over human timescales, so can be disregarded when it comes to the current warming trend, if it exists.

3:  Albedo.  Oceans are very effective at absorbing heat, so is vegetation.  Clouds and polar caps are very effective at reflecting heat.  Clouds obviously are pretty variable, but consensus on snow/ice coverage is that it is decreasing, which thus decreases albedo and pushes toward a warming trend.  This same principle, working both forward and reverse, is of major importance when considering the “snowball earth” hypothesis.

4:  Ahh, the atmosphere.  Finally something we know very well.  And we know that human activity is increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.  Let’s start with CO2 since everyone loves talking about it these days.  CO2 levels are currently about 380 ppmv (about 0.04%) and is increasing by about 10 ppmv every decade.  As for its greenhouse capability, to quote wikipedia:  “Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.”
   And of course CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas, nor is it the strongest.  Water vapor by far is the strongest contributor, especially if one includes the effect of clouds.  Whether or not we have an impact on water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, I do not know, though from what I’ve read it is minimal/localized.  That said, a warmer atmosphere will hold more water, and there’s another positive feedback effect.
As for other significant greenhouse gases, this is their change from pre-industrialization and the effect.

Gas   Preindustrial Level   Current Level     Increase since 1750     Radiative forcing (W/m2)
Carbon dioxide
280 ppm   387ppm   104 ppm   1.46
Methane
700 ppb   1,745 ppb   1,045 ppb   0.48
Nitrous oxide
270 ppb   314 ppb   44 ppb   0.15
CFC-12
0   533 ppt   533 ppt   0.17


5:  Mmm, volcanoes.  They release CO2, yes, but their effect on climate is actually a brief cooling trend, because of ash and sulfur emissions.  In recent years there have not been any (significant) eruptions.

6:  Ocean currents, not my area of expertise.  El Niño and La Niña obviously have short-term effects but maybe someone else can explain that?

So in summary, we have a combination of influences that effect the climate.  When considering the current trends (hundreds of years), I’d say we can disregard number 2.  Personally, I would argue that 3 and 4 are causing a warming trend, ala ‘global warming’.  5 causes short-term cooling trends, while 6 is also short term but possibly with various effects.  As for 1, it is also short term, but the strength of the effect is in question.
[/aimless rant]
In my world of sleepers, everything will be erased.
I'll be your religion, your only endless ideal.
Slowly we crawl in the dark.
Swallowed by the seductive night.

 

Offline WeatherOp

  • 29
  • I forged the ban hammer. What about that?
    • http://www.geocities.com/weather_op/pageone.html?1113100476773
You also have your atmospheric patterns and cycles, examples such as AO, NAO, PDO, which get over my head fairly quickly. Now with ENSO cycles, it get even more complicated, is the El Nino west based or east based? And I won't touch that with a long stick. :p
Decent Blacksmith, Master procrastinator.

PHD in the field of Almost Finishing Projects.

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
Hmm let's read this origin...

Quote
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

OH WELL THIS ONE GUY DISAGREES GUESS WE'RE DONE HERE

(It's not like the term "scientific consensus" has any meaning whatsoever)

edit: Looking at this Corbyn guy is a great sport, he's obviously what will bring down the global conspiracy to make the world a less horrible place to live in

« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 01:50:54 am by Janos »
lol wtf

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
to understand global warming denialism one shouldn't really look at their blog circles and nitpicking but inside their heads

i really want to know what these people think

practically thousands of studies from hundreds of organizations (which try to prove each other wrong!) that have all arrived to p. much a similar conclusion is apparently irrelevant. what is relevant is the fact that people don't really want to change the way they live and they know that if they accept the fact for what it is they really, well, can't

the climate change skeptism has been well and alive since 1990s and it has accomplished jack **** except changed the arguments every now and then
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 01:53:54 am by Janos »
lol wtf

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
theyre thinking "i wonder howmuch money i can make while all these idiots buy into the crap science i just put out there"
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
which is a fine position to take so long as understanding the other side is not one of your objectives.

people who don't believe in global warming (or any variation of that theme) can fall between simply not thinking the science is mature enough or doubting it based on their own investigation all the way to people who think it's a NWO conspiracy.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
my solution would be to kill 9/10th the population, but thats just me.
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
only 9?
that's unusually humane of you.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together