Discussion in 'World affairs' started by mosaix, Jan 11, 2007.
It appears our Carbon Footprint is extending into the Solar System as well.
What the eff,"SPONSORED BY SHELL"
B***** **ll,where do these climate scientist come from?
Solar Variability,that old deus ex machina,strikes again.
The Sun has always been the main cause of climate change on Earth.
So Ben, are you denying that the sun, and thus the major source of heat in the solar system, has anything to do with planets heating up?
Let me get back to you on that.Have to read the Solanski article for that,AT LEAST,and some new GCM modelling articles for Mars,including dust cloud effects.And possibly the Byrne these on stratiform ice deposits on the South pole of Mars.
Of course the sun heats up the planet but, apparently, excess carbon dioxide is preventing it cooling down again.
A different choice of weights may
well give somewhat different results. The far better agreement
of the Frohlich and Lean composite with the Mg II
core-to-wing ratio, the standard proxy of UV irradiance
(which also agrees well with the UV-irradiance reconstruction
of [FONT="]Fligge and Solanki ), also provides strong[/FONT]
support for this composite. In view of this and the arguments
presented by [FONT="]Frohlich and Lean [1998b] we conclude[/FONT]
that the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global
warming since 1970 (unless it is through a channel not
Bard et al, EPSL,2006
Several studies clearly suggest that solar output has
varied on a time scale longer than the 11-yr sunspot
cycle. It appears that solar fluctuations were involved in
causing widespread but limited climatic changes, such
as the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.) that followed
the Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.).
FLIGGE AND SOLANSKI,GRL
For the 1700-to-present interval for which the
International Sunspot Number time series (SIDC,
2001) is available as an indicator of solar activity, a
wavelet cross correlation between annual sunspot
numbers and tree ring widths was performed to study
the evolution of their correlation coefficient (energy
transmission) and relative phase difference (time
response). The phase results seems to evidence
very complex temporal changes in Space-Earth
and zillion others
But.....cripes,frankly I give up.
Seems Dynamic Fraction Area models have been developed,with good results,to account for nonlinearity.New ice ablation computations,etc.
I've encountered too much Total Solar Input Models already.
Okay,everybody calorific solar output minus atmospheric and/or blackbody
if anything sunspots lower temperature,of course.
Studies of pollen variations in Holocene ombrotrophic peats have also pointed to variations,with DeVries cycles evident???
Attention worldbuilders:there is archeological evidence that sunspot variability has influenced human migration in Holland,due to changes in the moisture constant,thus influencing soil moisture content,and stability of dwellings.
Now who wants to build his house on a marsh?You,Daisybee
Australia and the Climate Change. Article in the West Austalian, no reporters name on the article.
Australia must prepare to take in more refugees from the Pacific if the worst fears of climate change are realised. There must be a strategy to relocate thousands of islanders when their island homes become uninhabitable.
Low-lying Pacific island nations like the Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu – which sit just a few metres above sea level – are at risk of being swamped as global warming forces sea levels to rise.
“There should be an international coalition which is prepared to do our fair share of aiding these nations” said one Environment Minister.
“Security risks could also arise from the displacement of these people” said another Minister. Does security take precedents over life, I wonder?
There will be millions of people losing their homeland in the coming decades and Australia has to take some responsibility for that. There are already 10 million environmental refugees worldwide.
Despite that another Senator was quoted as saying “rising sea levels were not yet regarded as inevitable. But to be planning in this year for something that may not happen for another 20 to 40 years, or may not happen at all, is wrong.”
The ice is breaking free from the Antarctic, glaciers are melting at a steady pace. Are these politicians so blind or paid too much to ignore these warning signs of global warming? So what will happen when the sea levels do rise, and as I see it, they certainly will? Do we wait until these people are sitting on the roofs of their houses before anything is done to help them? What is wrong with planning ahead?
If the sea levels rise, and it is an if. Sea levels if they've risen at all (and it's surprisingly hard to tell with any certainty), have not risen nearly as much as predictions ten years ago.
The climate is immensely complex. It was assumed that a warmer planet would automatically mean sea levels would rise. However, as the air is warmer it carries more mositure, there is a greater weight of ice in the Antarctic than ten years ago. It's snowing more down there.
What gets reported is dramatic slabs of ice breaking off the shelf. Not the deepening of the ice mass over the land.
Again what is news? It's pretty much always bad news. Hence any story of future horror, or any linkage to a problem of the age is bunged in there. The media likes to scare people.
Further caveats both to what I'm saying and what others might say is that 10 years is a very short time in weather system terms, the chaotic nature of the global weather system is very hard to predict, computer models are built on a lot of assumptions, the computer models of ten years ago have not been very accurate about todays weather.
It does seem clear that the world is warming. It has done so many times in the past. There is doubt as to whether we're doing it or whether it's the sun causing it. If the latter then there's not much we can do about it.
Nevertheless it seems logical for a myriad of reasons to reduce or end our dependence on polluting forms of energy.
Now who wants to build his house on a marsh?You,Daisybee[/quote]
Snitch! Besides the marsh is way over there..
I figure if we are having even the slightest effect on the climate (pollution etc) it makes sense to you know, stop. As soon as possible.
Makes sense to me anyway.
Rosemary, that must be really frustrating-if we don't plan now, when will we? Isn't that the point of planning, to cover all eventualities??
We have the other environmental extreme-all the way to fines on wheely bin "misuse". Whatever that is. Crazy world.
So you are agreeing with me there,Andrew?On the fact there is less certainty,IMO, than publicly displayed in reports?
Mind you,I I have always thought that we would have to cut down emissions and pollution,before anybody knew that GHG means Greenhouse Gasses..
Now why don't we hear about the Ozone Hole anymore?Slightly offtopic,
I suppose ,but..
BTW there are studies underway modelling PM distribution fractally in lung trachea ,instead of by chemical diffusion.Particulate matter on the submicron scale does seem to build up in the lungs ,and health effects are uncertain.
Well, here's the latest I've seen from this side of the pond:
Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 bln - Yahoo! News
Title: "Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 bln", from Reuters, by Mica Rosenberg, datelined Tue., May 29, 2007.
They call this a consensus?
Al Gore’s views have credible dissenters.
THE DENIERS — PART XXV LAWR ENCE SOLOMON 07june2
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded. “The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.”
An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC’s comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they consider a sham review process have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.
A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicinebetween 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occured, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.
Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world’s most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 “planetary emergencies,” among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being “Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone).”
Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right.
Interesting column from Orson Scott-Card about the famous "Hocky Stick Graph" that for a long time was a key pillar of the "man-made CO2 climate change" position. It's the graph Al Gore was waving around in "An Inconvenient Truth.”
Whilst Card obviously has a "viewpoint" to what he writes, and that has to be kept in mind, the basic facts about what happened with Mann’s graph do appear to be correct, from what I've read, even from various pro GW groups.
Civilization Watch - March 4, 2007 - All in a Good Cause - The Ornery American
Faking results is appalling. They should never work again. However, while you can pick and choose tree rings to count, you cannot fake Ice Cores. If the "hocky stick graph" you mention is the atmospheric CO2 then that is real. I don't disagree with Orson Scott Card's conclusions though:
By that I gather you mean the Vostok Ice cores of course.
Faking results is always bad science.
Just remember folks,one man's fuzzy data set is another man's
I still maintain there's a slight bias,because we humans live on geological short timescales,hell IRRELEVANT timescales.
Still as the climate system has curious dynamics,it's better to be safe than to be sorry.
I think the Hockey Stick graph hoax is worthy of serious note for two reasons.
1. It shows that deliberately faked or accidentally flawed scientific research can easily slip past the safety nets and become accepted fact. Mann’s graph was simply accepted as proven fact by scientists, Greenpeace and policy makers, without ANYONE checking or seriously trying to duplicate the results or test the data. A significant part of the scientific, political and environmental movement WANTED to believe this data, and so it was simply accepted as fact. It took a guy OUTSIDE the scientific community, someone who was not a scientist, to realize what was going on and expose it. And when he did, there was a concerted effort on the part of at least one scientific journal to, if not silence him, at least downplay what he’d uncovered. Even now, most people are not aware that this famous graph is rubbish. Even old Al Gore used it in his film AFTER it was proved to be bobbins. This leaves me wondering what else in this debate is, if not faked (I think most people are probably honest enough) then perhaps not properly tested and checked because people WANT it to be true.
2. The data from which this graph was created does not show increasing temperature. The trees were actually in the vicinity of a weather station that recorded LOWER than usual temperatures at these times. What the trees were showing was an increase in CO2 levels. The heading on the ORIGINAL STUDY said that. Even if the hockey stick graph were taken as correct in terms of CO2 increase, what it’s actually recording in this location is a rise in CO2 and a DROP in temperature. So whilst the hoax graph showed a CO2/warming link, the actual data showed EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. That’s not conclusive proof of anything on it’s own, but at the very least it deserves further study.
Personally, I think that for a lot of people, GW is no longer about science. Facts don’t matter anymore. This is about faith, ideology, politics and money. GW is the new cool, anti-GW is not cool. Kyoto was beyond reproach, any dissenting voices beyond contempt. Bono and Cameron Diaz endorse man-made climate change, George Bush and fat oil tycoons endorse the opposite. Man made climate change has all the right moves, walks the walk and has a winning smile. Its has a caring, sharing, cuddly, eco conscious message. How can you NOT want to save the planet?
At the end of the day, no amount of data can ever compete with that. Even if it was conclusively proved that climate change was mostly a natural phenomenon, I think a huge amount of people would ignore the data because they WANT the opposite to be true. Because they’d rather agree with Bono than Curious George.
(EDIT: Just realised, this thread is in the world affairs/political part of the forum, not the science part. Which slightly goes to back my point up to a degree.)
To be honest, you can pick and choose whatever you like, and fake anything you can get away with. It’s been done before many times in science (see above for just one) and that's why peer review and intense scrutiny is supposed to happen.
Re the ice-core thing, I might be wrong on this, but don’t ice core samples show that historically CO2 starts to increase about 800 years AFTER a warming trend begins? Thus being a by-product and not a prime causative factor?
But yeah, I agree with you about how news reports should have reference footnotes, or have to actually show you the data. Problem is it doesn’t make for good, sound-bite news, and requires the media to actually know in detail what it’s talking about. So I doubt that will ever happen.
well,I read the Journal of Climatology,GloPlaCha,P3 and all the other relevant stuff.
And Elsevier,for all their overblown prices,at least like to get their publications spot on.
MIS 4,the Younger Dryas,Jurassic and Cretaceous dendrochronology,
glendonites,Heinrich events,Julian-Madden Oscillations,hysteresis,
the role of eddy diffusion,rain forest evapotranspiration,ozone photodissolution,aerosol refractive properties,etc.you name it,
we know a lot,but even more is still unclear.
the number of climate models nowadays amounts to the ridiculous.
People,read Ganapolsky,Rahmstorff,Kutzbach,Crowley, and others.
I still think they should be able to blow all the hot air out through the hole in the Ozone Layer! A frivolous idea of course...
I dont understand all of the various things that are causing global warming but I do try and keep up to date as well as I am able, and to do what I can to help.
No-one on this planet understands global climate, even when it's steady state; like sociology, weather models are an attempt to explain something after it has happened. If, like the monsoon, the same basic effect keeps recurring you can refine your model to a high standard of elegance; it might be completely wrong, of course, but it'll be consistent, and allow for fairly accurate predictions. In a varying system, the predictions can only be accurate if we know all the factors, all the interactions involved. A tall order. It is within the limits of accuracy of the present state on knowledge that mankind's influence on the situation is negligable; in which case I can't see that reducing polluants and our dependency on fossile fuels is a bad think, at worst neutral, at best worth while in its own right.
It could be that industrial is the main cause of the heating, in which case it would probably be a good idea to slow down the effect as long as possible, so as to be able to adapt little by little.
But if anyone claims to fully understand, beware; they're talkin enough hot air to accelerate the process.
Separate names with a comma.