EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:30 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
No It only proves you do not understand that there are other things that effect climate, such as the huge amounts of aerosols that we are pumping into the atmosphere which we know is having a cooling effect. Nor do you seem to understand that the rate of warming is about currently around 0.2 Deg C per decade but that naturally the temperature can vary by nearly that much in a single year, which means you need a longer time period to identify the warming trend. Also you are guilty of cherry picking as 1998 was one o f the strongest El Nino events we have seen in a century and we know that kicks the temperature up. Currently the northern hemisphere is experiencing its warmest summer on record.


There are lots of factors which can effect climate!

Fantastic result! You have joined the thinking side of humanity. The idea that you can predict the climate based on it's temperature behaviour between 1970 and 1998 is silly. Just as the statement that the absence of warming since 1998 and 2011 cannot utterly disproove AGW the rise between 1970 and 1998 cannot 100% proove the theory that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas at the levels we have today.

Northern Europe is having a wet and cool summer, it's just America which is having a long, hot and dry one.

When thinking about such climatic events it is vital to have a sense of proportion and not see a tiny change over 3 decades as a reason to think that there will be a drastic "exponential" continuation of this.

It is akin to having a graph of the speed of your car traveling along a highway. When the speed is 55mph your pasenger is happy, when the graph plots up to 57 mph the pasenger panics because the car is about to accelerate untill the machine disintergrates at the sound barrier. When the graph shows a slowing to 53mph the panic is of the sudden stopping of the car and the trafic behind slamming into the back of the car.

Climate varies about quiote a lot.

Because we live fairly short lives we do not rember the droughts of the dust bowl. We do not rember the medevil warm period. We do not rember the frost fairs on the frozen Thames.

We should take these dire warnings with a big pinch of salt.

The sea level rose by 18cm last centuary, how many cities flooded because of this? This centuary looks like it could be twice as bad, maybe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Tim the Plumber wrote:
The idea that you can predict the climate based on it's temperature behaviour between 1970 and 1998 is silly


Oh so that's how they predict the climate. I always thought that they also use fundamental physics amongst other things. That's why climate change due to increased carbon dioxide was known about long before 1970.

Are you really this dim Tim or are you trolling us?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:01 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2247
Location: Central Colorado
He's a troll, spot, "rember"?? He can't even spell, let alone understand global warming and overpopulation, and related projections.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:33 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Tim the Plumber wrote:
The idea that you can predict the climate based on it's temperature behaviour between 1970 and 1998 is silly. Just as the statement that the absence of warming since 1998 and 2011 cannot utterly disproove AGW the rise between 1970 and 1998 cannot 100% proove the theory that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas at the levels we have today.

Nobody is trying to predict temperatures based on historically temperatures over the last 40 or so. The predictions are based on our understanding of earth's climate over hundreds of millions of years and particularly the last 4 million years of recurring ice ages. The climate while complicated has to obey some very simple basic physical rules that is the energy coming in has over time to equal the energy going out. Change that simple relationship in some way and the temperature will change change until such time as the equation is back in balance. It is certain that greenhouse gases reduce the amount of energy that leaves the earth.

Quote:
Northern Europe is having a wet and cool summer, it's just America which is having a long, hot and dry one.

No my original statement is correct
According to NOAA:-

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

Quote:
The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

And:-
Quote:
The Northern Hemisphere average land temperature, where the majority of Earth's land is located, was record warmest for June. This makes three months in a row — April, May, and June — in which record-high monthly land temperature records were set. Most areas experienced much higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including most of North America and Eurasia, and northern Africa. Only northern and western Europe, and the northwestern United States were notably cooler than average.


Tim the Plumber wrote:
When thinking about such climatic events it is vital to have a sense of proportion and not see a tiny change over 3 decades as a reason to think that there will be a drastic "exponential" continuation of this.

The temperatures changes over the last 3 decades simply confirms our basic understanding of the climate.


Quote:
It is akin to having a graph of the speed of your car traveling along a highway. When the speed is 55mph your pasenger is happy, when the graph plots up to 57 mph the pasenger panics because the car is about to accelerate untill the machine disintergrates at the sound barrier. When the graph shows a slowing to 53mph the panic is of the sudden stopping of the car and the trafic behind slamming into the back of the car.

No it is more being in a car where the cruise control is stuck and the speed just keeps increasing.

Quote:
Climate varies about quiote a lot.

Because we live fairly short lives we do not rember the droughts of the dust bowl. We do not rember the medevil warm period. We do not rember the frost fairs on the frozen Thames.

This is why we maintain weather data which shows that the current conditions are both worst and different.


Quote:
We should take these dire warnings with a big pinch of salt.

Dire warnings should be assessed on the merits and action taken if necessary but never ignored.

Quote:
The sea level rose by 18cm last centuary, how many cities flooded because of this? This centuary looks like it could be twice as bad, maybe.

So as long as we split the sea level rises into 18 cm chunks it will be no problem ?
I am reminded of camels transporting straw.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
In 1970 there were dire warnings of global cooling.

If the idea of CO2 as a driver of climate is so clear why is there on peer reviewed paper which clearly confirms this?

But ignoring that issue the "consensus" IPCC numbers have a worst case scenario which does not frighten me. The headlines and hype around the numbers is very alarming. Please try to keep the actual scale of the "catastrophy" in mind; a sea level rise twice as big as last centuary, maybe.

I came across this;

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... 1/art00009

It has a value of 5cm sea level rise due to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet by 2100 if current melt rates continue but since it shows a gain of ice in the middle and a melting around the edges there may well be a slowing of melting as the ice around the edges is replaced by tundra. If this happens then the sea level rise by 2100 will be well below the 20cm point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:01 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20481
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
In 1970 there were dire warnings of global cooling..


From one fringe group the media hyped up, but not from the majority of scientists.

Quote:
If the idea of CO2 as a driver of climate is so clear why is there on peer reviewed paper which clearly confirms this?


HUH?

Quote:
But ignoring that issue the "consensus" IPCC numbers have a worst case scenario which does not frighten me. The headlines and hype around the numbers is very alarming. Please try to keep the actual scale of the "catastrophy" in mind; a sea level rise twice as big as last centuary, maybe.


Based on your "expert" review and opinion? I thnk not.

Quote:
I came across this;

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... 1/art00009

It has a value of 5cm sea level rise due to the melting of Greenland's ice sheet by 2100 if current melt rates continue but since it shows a gain of ice in the middle and a melting around the edges there may well be a slowing of melting as the ice around the edges is replaced by tundra. If this happens then the sea level rise by 2100 will be well below the 20cm point


It also shows a clear acceleration in the later years so the melt rates would not be expected to continue on a linear path. I did not see anything related to the replacement by tundra in the paper. Is that another assumption read into the science? How thick are the glaciers that you believe will so quickly melt away and turn to tundra? Which are they specifically?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
I am assuming that the majority of the low altitude melting (below 2000m) would be done by the ice outside the quickly moving glaciers. This will begin to be all melted at some point as the thick stuff is generally in the middle of the island.

The higher terminal point of the glaqciers will, as the paper notes, make some impact on the flow rate so increasing the flow rate out of the central ice sheet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2247
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
He's a troll, spot, "rember"?? He can't even spell, let alone understand global warming and overpopulation, and related projections.

"In 1970 there were dire warnings of global cooling." I guess you must be older and still not too educated.
I was around then and don't remember any "dire warnings" of rapid global cooling. As a Geology Major I knew about the gradual cooling toward the next ice age in around 2500 years from then. It is too bad that natural path has been changed by AGW to tipping points of natural positive feedback, and eventually AETM, and ELE completion. Sea level rise will be the lesser of concerns in trying to survive after 2050, to the finish of the thermal maximum and species die offs in around a millennium.
The next two ice age cycles will be completely skipped, and evolution will take several million years to achieve the number of species in the biosphere at the beginning of this interglacial ~12K years ago.
Greenland will probably actually become green for a period of time, with whatever plants survive the +30*F heat and whose seeds make it there. Humans will be extinct from ecocide. :razz:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
He's a troll, spot, "rember"?? He can't even spell, let alone understand global warming and overpopulation, and related projections.

"In 1970 there were dire warnings of global cooling." I guess you must be older and still not too educated.
I was around then and don't remember any "dire warnings" of rapid global cooling. As a Geology Major I knew about the gradual cooling toward the next ice age in around 2500 years from then. It is too bad that natural path has been changed by AGW to tipping points of natural positive feedback, and eventually AETM, and ELE completion. Sea level rise will be the lesser of concerns in trying to survive after 2050, to the finish of the thermal maximum and species die offs in around a millennium.
The next two ice age cycles will be completely skipped, and evolution will take several million years to achieve the number of species in the biosphere at the beginning of this interglacial ~12K years ago.
Greenland will probably actually become green for a period of time, with whatever plants survive the +30*F heat and whose seeds make it there. Humans will be extinct from ecocide. :razz:


Johhny,

No scientist is predicting this. This is your private fantasy.

All others,

Here is a prime example of the need to have a doom scenario to worry about which a lot of people seem to have. Johhny is a highly capable and otherwise seemingly intelegent person. Yet he needs to believe that doom is around the corner. This psychology is also present in the universities of the world. When you read the headlines spend a little time to digest the actual numbers.

The important numbers concearned in this thread are that last centuary the sea ose by 18cm(7 inches) and this centuary might be twice as bad. That the headlines say things about cities being flooded sells news papers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:46 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20481
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
The important numbers concearned in this thread are that last centuary the sea ose by 18cm(7 inches) and this centuary might be twice as bad. That the headlines say things about cities being flooded sells news papers.



Or three times as bad, maybe even four times if there is sufficient acceleration, but you misuse the use of averages.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:33 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20481
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/21/159551828 ... =17&f=1001

While many cities around the country grapple with drought and excessive heat this year, city planners in Boston have something else on their minds: the prospect of rising water.

In this coastal metropolis, scientists and computer models predict that climate change could eventually lead to dramatic increases in sea level around the city. Coupled with a storm surge at high tide, parts of the city could easily end up under water.

The area that's home to Boston's Faneuil Hall, the city's first public market, is one of them. The land the hall was built on was once waterfront property, but by the late 1800s, the growing city needed more room. So the marshes and mudflats along the wharf were filled in — and the city expanded.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group