Global Cooling

[Isotopia]

If you bear with me and watch this video I think this high school teacher and father has come up with the most succinct explanation of why we should all consider the possibilities and work to do waht we can to avert what seems to be coming down the pipe.

What I really like about this guy is that he has NO agenda. He's just laying out the decision making tree in a very simple, rudimentary way that most people can understand. He's not screaming and shouting and most importantly he's encouraging YOU to make your own decision based on the information available.

Again, this is one of those classic little YouTube links that is almost priceless in the message that Mr (or Ms) Ordinary puts out that we can all learn from.

Well worth your time.

[youtube][/youtube]

[ygmir]

that's a good vid, thanks........and, he says "bacon"...............

[Trishntek]

Do you ever feel ashamed of harboring such blindingly stupid ideas as your above statement indicates?

Like you, I'm never ashamed to express my opinion. Unlike you, I would never defend my opinion by disrespecting yours.

Now since there is only an 80% chance the "climate" tomorrow will be as it was today. Who in their right mind does not think the climate changes naturally? You think the storms on the East Coast are bad this year? Where were you during the winter of 1978-79? I was surviving in the high plains of Wyoming where we did not see warmer than -20F for 2 weeks! Ahhh yes, putting soup cans over the exhaust pipe to keep it from clogging with blowing snow. Digging out the engine compartment so the belt could actually turn the fan. Yup, those were the days. Now I'm kinda glad it warmed up a bit since then.

One last thing. What ended the previous ice ages? What caused the previous ice ages? What was the precise average temperature of London, England in the mid 16th century? That was a measly 500 years ago. We compare what we know today with assumptions about the past. During the "blink of an eye" timeline that mankind even cared to know such information, we dare to assume we know precisely how the Earth "should" act? The very hubris of such thinking is astounding! And even more astounding is that we actually believe we can manipulate the climate? One volcano puts more pollution in the atmosphere than mankind in all history![/quote]

[Trishntek]

According to the high school science teacher esteemed enough to be an authority on the subject, the Gulf Coast of the United States should be evacuated and remain uninhabited. It is fact that climate change will strike there 100% per annum in a catastrophic manner. The choice to rebuild New Orleans, Corpus Christi or South Beach has been proven (real science here) to be futile because there is irrefutable evidence they will be struck by destructive and sudden climate change in the future.

And while we are at it, the Mississippi Valley should be void of human habitation because there is irrefutable evidence that this area will also be struck by severe flooding on an annual basis.

So, according to your esteemed science teacher, we should enslave ourselves to the expert opinions of those who say the debate is over. I, for one, would like to see the absolute science of those debates. When I was growing up, science was exact, precise and based upon absolutes. This "fuzzy" or "inexact" science should be left in the laboratory. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has sufficient merit of evidence. Theory is not a conclusion in fact until it is absolutely provable, repeatable and predictable.

It never ceases to amaze me that our scientists of the 50's and 60's put man on the moon with slide rules. The good old "2+2=4" and "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" kind of science.

[dr.placebo]

What ended the previous ice ages? What caused the previous ice ages? What was the precise average temperature of London, England in the mid 16th century? That was a measly 500 years ago. We compare what we know today with assumptions about the past. During the "blink of an eye" timeline that mankind even cared to know such information, we dare to assume we know precisely how the Earth "should" act? The very hubris of such thinking is astounding! And even more astounding is that we actually believe we can manipulate the climate? One volcano puts more pollution in the atmosphere than mankind in all history!

Q1. What ended/caused the previous ice ages?
A1. We don't know for certain, but the best guess is variations in solar radiation. For the last 450K years the cyclic nature of the ice ages corresponds with known orbital variations. Other variables include the sun's output and volcanic eruptions.

Q2. What was the precise average temperature of London, England in the mid 16th century?
A2. Irrelevant. We want to know approximate temperatures and distributions on a global basis, and we use multiple proxies to estimate them. It is true that we could use better data, and that is why the research in this area needs to continue.

Q3. And even more astounding is that we actually believe we can manipulate the climate?
A3. It is actually quite astounding to think that our behavior has no climate consequences, given the data.

Q4. One volcano puts more pollution in the atmosphere than mankind in all history!
A4. False for volcanoes in the historical past. The really big exceptions are mostly large igneous provinces, which have not occurred in the past few million years.

[Trishntek]

Q4. One volcano puts more pollution in the atmosphere than mankind in all history!
A4. False for volcanoes in the historical past. The really big exceptions are mostly large igneous provinces, which have not occurred in the past few million years.

I recall that Lord Byron wrote "The Time of Darkness" after Mt. Tambora erupted in Indonesia causing global cooling in the early 1800's. There were others in the 17th and 18th centuries credited with global climate affects.


Answer me this:

Have you ever spent any amount of time on the high plains of the Rocky Mountain West? Did you know there are fossils indicating the area was once a thriving tropical forest? There are ammonite fossils the size of dinner tables found in the Big Horn Mountains over 9500 feet in elevation. Fossils of palms, ferns and agate vines indicate a robust, mature climate much like the Amazon forest of today. One of the world's largest coal deposits is simply a prehistoric peat bog.

It boils down to these basic questions:

1. Is GLOBAL climate change natural or man made?

2. Is climate change a bad thing?

3. Why are General Electric, Al Gore and other Kazzilionaires so anxious to provide the means to tax the very air we breathe?

4. Why is it that the same scientists who predicted global cooling in the 70's, that by the year 2000 the average temperature would be 11 degrees cooler and that 80% of known species would be extinct are the same "scientists" spewing forth global warming propaganda today?

17,000 climatologists and meteorologists is a wee bit more than a "handful" of scientists refuting man-made climate change theory.

[chiefdanfox]

It actually doesn't boil down to anything basic or easily understood. It takes a lot of work to read, understand, interpret and synthesize climate morphology. The fact that it became politicized is proof enough that the science has been compromised. Any idiot knows that a good politician talks about the weather but never hazards a guess. A popular politician convinces a mob to lynch the weatherman. Ignorance is bliss. Powerful bliss.

[dr.placebo]

There certainly have been volcanic climate contributions in the recent past, mostly cooling from SO2 and dust. They tend to be short-lived, on the order of years, not decades. The human CO2 contribution is much greater over the past 200 years, and CO2 is a much more persistent gas, so the accumulation matters.

Global climate change is inevitable from natural causes. Species adapt or vanish, and have for hundreds of millions of years. The key issue for us is that the contribution by humans is causing a spike in the CO2 level and the associated warming that is likely to be too rapid for many species to adapt. And even though humans adapt rapidly to changing conditions, the rate of change seems likely to bring about a great deal of disruption and suffering for us.

As to following the money, there appears to be a lot of money to follow. A company might see this as an opportunity or a threat, and invest accordingly. There are companies that see an opportunity to build a lot of new facilities based on renewables (and, sadly, nuclear), and there are other companies (like most coal and oil producers) that see the threat and respond by denying the data and funding misinformation.

I am completely unaware of an air tax. Taxing the excessive carbon that goes into the air is not really the same thing.

Most predictions in the 1970's were for warming or no change, and only a few for cooling. The notion that there was a consensus for cooling at that time is not really true.

The 17,000 figure is a bit dated. The claimed figure is now over 30,000. But the consensus for global climate change remains.

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

[ygmir]

it is sort of interesting, regarding all those who screamed and decried nuclear (Nuc u lar? grin) power and it's evils.........how silent they are now.......
seems, many are conflicted between the fact that it's "their guy, or people" proposing it, that it will allow them to maintain their lifestyles, and,
that it will "create jobs".

and, no mention, that, it will of course, big a "big corporation" that builds and runs it......evil bastards that they are (to some).

gotta be tough to be in their positions right now.

[dr.placebo]

Personally I just don't trust nuclear power. A moderately clean version of fission has yet to be demonstrated, much less deployed (and yes, I know about breeder reactors). I've been hoping for clean fusion power, but it's rather slow arriving (seems to be a constant 50 years off). I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm not so eager to get bullshit. I don't care who is singing the tune now, and I'm not at all happy with Obama on this issue.

I don't think that big corporations are inherently evil. I work for one, and I actually get to see that social consequences are nearly always respected (one big exception: political donations). I do think that their power needs to be controlled, and I think that current practice is quite inadequate.

It's not too difficult for me to hold these positions, since I have had them for quite a long time. It does not make me happy that we have had retrograde motion on policy for several administrations, including this one.

[dr.placebo]

Sorry, careless writing. Any corporate observations I've made are personal and limited. Some corporations are truly evil, starting with the tobacco companies.

[unjonharley]

The state of Tx. is taking action agianst all this blah blab.. Said it's all flawed and worthless.

[Trishntek]

It seems there is a trend toward states claiming what is their Constitutional power over the Federal Gubmint on several levels. Number one would be Federal ownership of lands within each state. That, in itself is unconstitutional. It was the states which gave limited power to the Fed, not visa versa. But that would be another thread i'm thinkin' so I'll end with that.

[ygmir]

yay for the 10th ammendment, and 4th, IIRC............

[Ugly Dougly]

Can any of you predict the weather in your local area about one week from now?
Without looking at the Farmer's Almanac or weather.com I mean.
Do you know how meteorologists predict the weather this far in the future?
If you have no idea, then you might want to re-examine your assumptions.

[dr.placebo]

Can any of you predict the weather in your local area about one week from now?
Without looking at the Farmer's Almanac or weather.com I mean.
Do you know how meteorologists predict the weather this far in the future?
If you have no idea, then you might want to re-examine your assumptions.

It is always a good idea to re-examine assumptions, but it is also a good idea to limit the amount of energy one spends doing so to a reasonable amount.

Do I know if I will get into an auto accident one week from today? No.

Do I know all of the factors that will affect the likelihood of my having an accident one week from today? No.

Do I drive with reasonable care anyway? Yes.

Incidentally, I thought that the advocacy of risk assessment by the high school teacher was quite sound. It's a good approach, but many of those denying climate change are not going to buy into the risk estimates by experts, so we go back to square 1 (or square 0 if you program in C rather than Fortran [geek joke]).

[Ugly Dougly]

Yay!

Can I haz beer now?

[unjonharley]

Maybe this earth is hell.. We are going to know what it's like when it freezes over..

[theCryptofishist]

Can any of you predict the weather in your local area about one week from now?
Without looking at the Farmer's Almanac or weather.com I mean.
Do you know how meteorologists predict the weather this far in the future?
If you have no idea, then you might want to re-examine your assumptions.

Weather is not climate. Although, they are connected.

[Ugly Dougly]

AFIAK, climate influnces weather. They are similar in complexity, which is what my gist was.

[Trishntek]

My Poppa, who was a flight instructor in WWII always said, "Any weather man would have great credibility by simply predicting there is an 80% chance tomorrow's weather will be just like today."

[Ugly Dougly]

Partly cloudy, chance of rain.

[dr.placebo]

The most reliable prediction is dark tonight, somewhat lighter in the daytime. Provided that your latitude is sufficiently far from the poles.

The distinction between weather and climate is pretty artificial. All we really have is statistical descriptions at varying time and distance scales at varying locations. What we should talk about is statistical significance, but that starts to make my own eyes glaze over, and I like data.

[Isotopia]

No cites available but read somewhere that a rule of thumb for what constitutes climate (or a climate) is the 30 year average of what the weather in a region has been.

It sounds like a plan but haven't been able to verify.

Sort of like the old question of what defines a brook from a creek, a creek from a stream and a stream from a river.

We all that there's a difference but what that difference is seems...almost subjective.

[theCryptofishist]

Okay, okay. I'm sorry.

I do get a little tired of these examples that try to cut through to make a point, but are kind of only nonsense. Personal bugaboo.

[dr.placebo]

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

What is Climate?
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

I'm pretty sure that this is intended to be the minimum period for evaluating climate change, since the noise level is pretty high for many measurements involving global climate.

The other term I have problems with is "statistically significant," as if there were a simple cutoff. Actually, it's a much more complicated function. Some people use this term only when the statistical significance for a sample rises above 95%, but that's an arbitrary cutoff that only means that there is a 1 in 20 chance that random fluctuations could have produced the observed result.

One reason this term irks me is that report from the Daily Mail headlined "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

You see, this is a deliberate distortion from a BBC interview:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Prof. Jones is using the 95% figure for significance, and says so. So there could be only a 1 in 10 chance that the 15-year data (1995 to 2009) is actually random, despite the warming trend observed. But the "skeptics" confuse his claim about the significance falling below 95% with a claim that he did not make: there is no global warming since 1995. It's either dishonest or ignorant (or both) to claim that to be what he said.

[geekster]

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/ ... -2010.html

Basically we are looking at a total sea level decrease of -.53mm/yr or -5.3cm/century since 2004 using ARGO data. The U. Colorado data shows basically flat sea level, or no change, since 2005.

[dr.placebo]

I looked at the hockeyschtick blog, and noticed a troubling inconsistency. Over the period of 2004-2008 there is the claim that the Grace data (mass-based sensors), added together with the ARGO data (dynamic height), should give a decrease of -0.53 mm/year in ocean level. However, the graph slightly above that claim shows an increase in total sea level. That appears to be internally inconsistent, and is definitely inconsistent with the longer term total sea rise reported by the U. of Colorado site.

There are two main graphs showing the ARGO data. The first one has 5 years of slowly declining equivalent heights, followed by an uptick for the next year (2009). The second one leaves out the uptick for 2009 to arrive at a much faster rate of decline. So not only does this appear to be too short of a time span to reach a conclusion, it also appears that the second graph is cooking the books. I am not impressed.

Now, to pick a few more bones, the hockeyschtick blog has more problems with the data it presents. First, the lead graph starts in 1998, a very unusual El Nino year. Start with 2000 and you get different trends. Also, 12 years is not really enough to overcome the noise in the data. The lead graph only shows an increase in the CO2 trend, and decreases in the other 3 trends (PDO, TSI, and an RSS satellite temperature trend at unspecified altitude). But the small graph immediately below it shows an increasing global average temperature. If we combined the two graphs it might suggest that the CO2 increase was strong enough to overcome the other decreases. But we wouldn't want to say that, would we?

[Badger]

A most swoon-worthy post Doc.

[can't sit still]

Seems that the MET wants to do a new study. They have some questions.
"The IPCC has also come after under fire in recent weeks, after it was caught using a student's essay and an article from a climbing magazine to make claims about reductions in ice on mountains around the world."
"states that the reassessment of figures from 1850 will 'ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all the methods are transparent'.

"states that the reassessment of figures from 1850 will 'ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all the methods are transparent'."
Sounds good to me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... andal.html

I forgot the link for a different point of view;
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/20343 ... five-years