Global Cooling

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:35 am

I'm still curious, though, as to the actual effects of global warming.

are they known, or, theory?

if it is said that warming will change weather patterns, is that necessarily bad?
I'd suppose it may be bad for some, good for others?

questions, though, in my mind (admittedly a largely empty space), are:

would weather patterns change without global warming?
Do they change over time, anyway?
if they change, do we know why?
How, if they change, do we know whether it's influenced by warming, or, it would have happened anyway?

I've read somewhere, that, large amounts of water vapor, mostly in the form of clouds, generated by warming, would reflect a lot of solar energy, triggering cooling?

Just wonderin'...........

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:52 am

we know that temps have changed throughout the history of the planet. but how can we know why? it's all speculation, it seems to me... informed, perhaps ... and i do not doubt that humans cause changes, that seems pretty obvious. but i think one should have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to ancient data ... and 100 years of data is NOTHING, IMHO, much less 50 years.

i live very green, myself ... but that may be why i have a very serious problem with people who spout about global warming then DON'T live green, like al gore. if he's so worried about the planet, why doesn't he become a good example? there is something so terribly phony about this ... and he is not the only one, either. just the most obvious.

climate change scientists who dissent are, presumably, also seeking the truth... and if they are corruptible, why not other climatologists? don't idealists exist in every profession?

a good website for both sides: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:27 am

bunch of fools sitting around talking about the weather.. none can do a thing about it..

Token · Post by **Token** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:39 am

ygmir wrote:I'm still curious, though, as to the actual effects of global warming.

are they known, or, theory?

Just wonderin'...........

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

Scandinavia was an island.
Trees grew well into the arctic circle.
Italy was no longer a boot.

The article suggests that this interglacial was only a couple degrees C warmer than the current one, but it don't say for how long, so we don't know how long it takes to melt 8 meters worth of ocean level with just a couple C.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:47 am

Don't forget that when the ocean waters are warmed, they will take up more volume. Glaciers don't have to melt in order for sea levels to rise.

Ygmir, there are so many unknown factors here. In the depths of many oceans are trapped pockets of methane, often frozen; atmospheric methan is another greenhouse gas, so if or when these pockets are released into the atmosphere, then the warming will be increased.

There are also reserves of frozen methane in the arctic tundra. Again, warming will free these into the atmosphere. Surely someone has the math figured out, but it would be mostly guesstimates.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:10 am

yeah, that's the thing that's interesting........we really don't know what will happen........or how it will effect anything......

again, not that we shouldn't do what we can to be green.

But, running around, claiming the sky is falling........well........that part, IMHO, is money/power driven.........calling for "devastating" effects, when, really, no one knows......is just, IMHO, using rhetoric and hyperbole to further a certain cause......

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:17 am

University in climate flap details inquiry
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
11:18 AM EST December 3, 2009

The British university at the center of what climate skeptics are calling "Climategate" on Thursday named an outside reviewer and detailed what would be investigated.

The University of East Anglia said Sir Muir Russell, until recently vice-chancellor at the University of Glasgow, will investigate whether scientists at its prestigious Climate Research Unit fudged data on global warming.
Hundreds of e-mails and other data stolen from university computers and then leaked online late last month have been seized upon by skeptics as proof that scientists conspired to hide evidence that global warming was not as strong as generally believed.

The university says Russell will "examine the leaked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes."

The university on Tuesday promised a probe, and said CRU Director Phil Jones, would step down for now, but didn't specify what the investigation would encompass. Thursday's announcement was the first acknowledgment that the data itself would be examined.
Russell, who has a degree in physics but is not a climate scientist, said in a statement that "given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."
The university said Russell would also review:

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:29 pm

PAGE1
Politics
Climate e-mails debated at House hearing
The Associated Press
7:13 PM EST December 2, 2009
House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and posted online about two weeks ago. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent, and conservative bloggers are dubbing it "Climategate."
In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.
The exploding controversy led Phil Jones to step aside as head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.
"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
Obama officials respond
The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate change.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1Â ofÂ 3Next>

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:34 pm

PAGE2
Politics
Climate e-mails debated at House hearing
The e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.
The hearing was supposed to focus on the latest in global warming scientific findings. Lubchenco even attempted a high school chemistry lesson with two quick experiments at the witness table. Donning one rubber glove, she demonstrated how adding carbon dioxide to water made it more acidic and said that is what's now happening in the world's oceans. Then she put chalk in acidic water compounds and showed it dissolving a bit, to demonstrate what will happen eventually to vital sea life.
But her bubble-inducing experiments were ignored in favor of the more explosive e-mails.
Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends.
Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."
Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren't stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting. He sarcastically asked Holdren and Lubchenco if they were part of a global conspiracy that even included fictional movie villain organizations. Holdren, played along, saying he was not.
'Scientific McCarthyism' alleged
After complaining of "scientific fascism" and "scientific McCarthyism," Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."
<Prev2>

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:37 pm

PAGE3
Politics
Climate e-mails debated at House hearing
What the e-mail, not read by Sensenbrenner, showed was that Holdren used ironic quotes around the word "Harvard" in describing two of his colleagues who are global warming skeptics. Holdren also had forwarded to other scientists an article he described as "for your entertainment" in which he was quoted as saying the two skeptics were "wrong." Holdren defended his e-mail.
Sensenbrenner attacked the work of Penn State's Mann, who is frequently brought up in the communications. Mann is the author of what is called the "hockey stick" theory, first described in the late 1990s. It suggested that the past 50 years had been the hottest in several centuries, if not 1,000 years, and that man-made global warming was to blame. That research was so controversial that the National Academy of Sciences studied the work in depth; it was used in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming.
Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann's hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann's theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann's methods but agreed with his results.
The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.
"The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick" theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.
Â© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<Prev3Â ofÂ 3

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:54 pm

It's interesting, how, some work fine with the above, since, they agree.......but are the same people who would be screaming if it was brought forth by some conservative/right wing group...........

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:03 pm

ygmir wrote:It's interesting, how, some work fine with the above, since, they agree.......but are the same people who would be screaming if it was brought forth by some conservative/right wing group...........

Some under standing of what the "fuck" is going on.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:32 pm

Once the earth was a ball of molten fire.

Without an atmospheric cover it cooled and froze..

The sun warmed the earth along it's belt line. Melting water released oxygen

Shit started to grow and release carbon.. An atmosphere begin to develop..

Then weather come into play

At one time the entire earth was a giant green house..

Then the earth started freezing and thawing..

Then men sat on there fat asses and talked about the weather.. But none do any thing about the weather..

When a big change comes about.. Men are in doubt.. So they run in cycles, scream and shout..

The weather has changed.. Men have not..

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:33 pm

ygmir wrote:yeah, that's the thing that's interesting........we really don't know what will happen........or how it will effect anything......

again, not that we shouldn't do what we can to be green.

But, running around, claiming the sky is falling........well........that part, IMHO, is money/power driven.........calling for "devastating" effects, when, really, no one knows......is just, IMHO, using rhetoric and hyperbole to further a certain cause......

I think that the case for global warming based in large part on human activities is pretty solid. The predicted consequences have large error bars, everything from merely unpleasant to widespread flooding and starvation (although it would be our children and grandchildren who bear the worst of it).

Let's suppose that we know that the consequences are at the lesser end of the scale. What are the adverse effects of going "green"? They are almost entirely based on projected increased costs for energy (I'll skip the ice age folks for now). The estimates for increased energy costs are also wildly spread out.

Let's go further down this route. Let's suppose that the cost of going green is more than the cost of the consequences of business as usual. In other words, we save some money in the short term. We still have to spend that money in the long term because we will run out of economically accessible fossil fuels. In other words, under the best reasonable case for business as usual we simply defer a cost.

There are some studies that claim that the net benefit of a 2 degree C warming might be beneficial (IPCC AR4, 2007). It's kinda tough luck if this means that your particular area is flooded (like Bangladesh) or dried up (like the American West or much of the land around the Mediterranean).

But the most likely projection for the business as usual case is for a global warming by 2100 in the 3-4 C range, with a continued warming over the following century of 0.5 C because the long-lived GHG amounts take a long time to go away. This puts the economic projections into the distinctly negative territory.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:04 pm

dr. p,

You right about going green..

I pay 6¢ to ride 22 miles..

Don't have a yard debre can. Paper, cardboard food stuff and yard clipings are turned into mulch.

LED lighting and timer switches have played in cutting lage electric costs.. Motion sencers turn off the computer, tv and other electronics.

Several plants I eat have been turned wild in the flower gardens. this makes for no tiling releasing of carbon.

Use pasive (sun) convextion for summer cooling.. Trying to design a heat collector on the south wall.

This is from a guy that only went to the 5th grade..

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:28 pm

If you want to get decisive action going, you don't say: "Or it may be very mild and pleasant."

Nobody would do anything.

You don't get people concerned about terrorism by minimizing the threat. "What if al-Qaeda gets bored and dies off?" That's politics, you have to exaggerate, you have to yell to get people's attention.

Just think how much destruction you could have saved if you were running aroung New Orleans before Katrina, as a "Chicken Little" - because you would have been right.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:30 pm

ygmir wrote:It's interesting, how, some work fine with the above, since, they agree.......but are the same people who would be screaming if it was brought forth by some conservative/right wing group...........

It's up to you, whether this is a scientific issue or a political issue.

The difference is that one is geared toward finding solutions and the other is not.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:55 pm

you mistake my stated observation, for agreement.......

I was making an observation. I think, a valid one.
That being, that, the folks here, perhaps rightly so, over looking this "playing loose with the facts issue", would be screaming if it was a subject they disagree with, or, was perpetrated by people they disagree with.......

I did not say I don't believe global warming exists.
I did not say human don't contribute.
I did not say we should not do what we can to be "greener".

I did say we really don't know what will happen, we only know what might happen, and, there are many possibilities.
How, can anyone say, that the present global warming will not end up moderating a coming ice age?......you can't.........
You can say, given what little we know, this is what we think might happen.

all I'm trying to point out, is, that it's very speculative regarding long term effects, and, even, root causes.
Will 1% change in CO2 make a difference? well........

as so aptly pointed out, there are many variables at work.......we are trying to put a simplistic spin on a complex problem.

Does anyone think, the weather/climate is static? I don't think so.......so,
how do we know what is to come?

I understand what you say about having to scream to be heard.
that, if you don't make it sound disastrous, no one will listen.
the problem, maybe just for me, with that, is, I lose faith in the messenger.......the chicken little syndrome, IMHO.
Changing peoples habits, IMHO, is best done through eduction, not hyperbole and scare tactics.......

*spelling edit*

thisisthatwhichis · Post by **thisisthatwhichis** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:24 pm

Ya know...... A lot of folks believed this.....................

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:43 pm

And it was precisely by studying that hypothesis that we began to learn a great deal of what was actually going on with the climate.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:56 pm

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense

Thanks for the link Ygmir. Great stuff.

This isn't a dog fight I'm not even interested in getting into. If there's one thing I've learned over the years is that adamant opposition to a scientific idea (and the associated proofs) does shit to dissuade the critics hell-bent with their counter arguments to what more often than not is the truth.

The fact of things.

Geekster's insistent myopia and reliance (repeatedly) on cherry picked bar graphs to wall up his contrarian position is a classic example. The strategy is not all that different from New Age fuck monkeys whinging about the coming 2012 cataclysm or young earth creationists insisting that wo/men co-existed with dinosaurs back when the planet was formed just five thousand plus years ago.

I'd rather just pull up a lawn chair and watch this cyclical pseudo-scientific, wheel spinning, circle-jerk unfold from the sidelines and be entertained rather than enraged.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:45 pm

well said........*clapping*.........

and,
I think the link was Dougly's...........

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:05 pm

wasn't the link JK's???

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:43 pm

you are, again, as usual, right, LF............

I get JK and Dougly mixed up a lot.......both such paragons of virtue, pillars of the community, and, erudite in the utmost..........

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:50 am

And I was ready to take credit.

Consider the source. You can't go wrong with Scientific American. It's not only scientific but...
Wait for it.
It's American as well!

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:03 pm

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:50 pm

Season's greetings;

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:35 am

And, for the more literate:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/press.html

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:00 pm

From that report;
"To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states."
Well, we better jump right to it. Shut off all the volcanoes, sea-algae, cow farts, composting bio-mass. Then figure what to do about all the water vapor in the air. That should get us to near-zero.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:19 pm

dr.placebo wrote:And, for the more literate:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/press.html

you can, at times, seem so pretentious and conceited,, if not narcissistic
.........

just sayin'............