Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe that co2 added to the atmosphere will in time change the biosphere. Whether the effects are bad or good depends on what region of the planet. Of course the biggest issue won't be the temperature change, but the sea level rise. The problem is that the climate models are full of ****.
Illinois, which according to numerous studies will either dry up and burn up, or turn into the subtropics in less than half a century.... Here is 90 years of "global warming" for my state thus far annual trend...
This is where the models have us in a number of decades: In 18 years, my summers will be more like Arkansas, and when my grand children are old, they will be living in a East Texas-like climate. According to the models that is. Give me a freaking break.:lol:
Here is reality: No change. Actually -0.1 degree per century for summer, and for the winter +0.7F per century. I think northern Missouri is a lot warmer than that during the winter.
So, global warming better hurry up! It has only 17 years to get it right!
Surface Air Temperatures are only ONE component of global warming. No wonder you don't understand the models.
Ok, fair enough, lets say that Dyson has completely no understanding of the earth's physical processes.... So apparently you would only ask a climate scientists who believes in catastrophic man made global warming? What about the other climate scientists who accept that man has a role in current warming, but an impeding catastrophe is not in the making? Are they ALL paid for by big oil?
No, I would ask ALL scientists who specialize in climate science. The vast majority of whom accept AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
(Lindzen youtube)
Richard Lindzen is little better than Spencer. He's another Creationist signatory to the Conservative Christian Cornwall Alliance. In fact that's where Spencer gets some of his ideas about cloud feedback from. You know who is another signatory? Ross McKitrick - the darling of the denialists (an economist, not a climate scientist).
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Btw, Muller is a physicist as well....
Muller put together a team of climate scientists. Personally, I don't much care for Muller himself - he has a huge ego and I find him rather obnoxious.
Which doesn't support your statement that meteorologists are 'evenly divided'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
I know the BEST study, which is why I called him a man made global warming believer. What doesn't change is the fact that he criticized Mann's methodology in his hockey stick. Nowhere does he state he doesn't believe that temperatures have not increased, but here is what he had trouble with
Muller was NOT a "man made global warming believer" when he made that video. If you knew about BEST, then using that old video was complete dishonesty.
Muller criticized Mann's methodology until he put together his own team and did his own studies, then he said that Mann's methodology had been sound. Muller just think his team's methodology was better - which it was. In that old video, he had also got it wrong about Mann's graph not being 'transparent' - it was. It was all in the original paper.
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections." - Richard Muller 2011.
Surface Air Temperatures are only ONE component of global warming.
So you agree that the models predicted warming over land is well overstated at least within the time frames? If you actually think Chicago will have East Texas summers and Oklahoma winters within the next 75 years, I have a bridge to sell you on Michigan Ave
Quote:
No wonder you don't understand the models.
Yes the old "oceans ate my global warming" mantra
Of course you would be correct. The oceans have warmed by 24X1022 Joules which translates to a whopping 0.09C over the last 50 years. Is that even detectable by our instruments?
Quote:
We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C.
This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
No, I would ask ALL scientists who specialize in climate science. The vast majority of whom accept AGW.
So do I, but that doesn't mean that all climate scientists believe in catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes. My beef is with the models.....
Quote:
Richard Lindzen is little better than Spencer. He's another Creationist signatory to the Conservative Christian Cornwall Alliance. In fact that's where Spencer gets some of his ideas about cloud feedback from.
Those cloud feed backs could indeed be negative right?
Quote:
Muller put together a team of climate scientists. Personally, I don't much care for Muller himself - he has a huge ego and I find him rather obnoxious.
So many of those professor types are knowitalls....
Quote:
Which doesn't support your statement that meteorologists are 'evenly divided'.
Ok, not evenly divided, but 36% is not a small number either.
Quote:
Muller was NOT a "man made global warming believer" when he made that video. If you knew about BEST, then using that old video was complete dishonesty.
Yes he was. And NO I'm not being dishonest. You are not as informed as you think you are... Read the New York Times article that I posted, he cites a published a study that he conducted back in 2004
Quote:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
Of course he could be right, about natural fluctuations that could be on a decadal timescale. J Curry has recently coauthored a paper on stadium waves
Quote:
Stadium Waves' Could Explain Lull in Global Warming
Oct. 10, 2013 — One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as 'unpredictable climate variability' that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean.
Share This:
2
The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this 'unpredictable climate variability' behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper's authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called 'stadium-wave' signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a 'wave' propagates through the audience. In like manner, the 'stadium wave' climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.
The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.
Building upon Wyatt's Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal's tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of 'braking,' in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes -- multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling -- evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular -- the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt's thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.
The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the 'stadium wave.' The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures. "The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.
Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Previous work done by Wyatt on the 'wave' shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models' inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.
"Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system," Curry said.
The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse. After temperatures peaked in the late 1990s, hemispheric surface temperatures began to decrease, while the high latitudes of the North Atlantic Ocean continued to warm and Arctic sea ice extent continued to decline. According to the 'stadium wave' hypothesis, these trends mark a transition period whereby the future decades will see the North Atlantic Ocean begin to cool and sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic region begin to rebound.
Most interpretations of the recent decline in Arctic sea ice extent have focused on the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, with some allowance for natural variability. Declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal, and the wave's continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice. "The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic," Wyatt said. "Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal."
The stadium wave holds promise in putting into perspective numerous observations of climate behavior, such as regional patterns of decadal variability in drought and hurricane activity, the researchers say, but a complete understanding of past climate variability and projections of future climate change requires integrating the stadium-wave signal with external climate forcing from the sun, volcanoes and anthropogenic forcing.
"How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation," Wyatt said. "While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability."
Marcia Wyatt is an independent scientist. Judith Curry's participation in this research was funded by a Department of Energy STTR grant under award number DE SC007554, awarded jointly to Georgia Tech and the Climate Forecast Applications Network. Any conclusions or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsoring agencies.
Please...... I guess I didn't cash my check from the TRILLION dollar energy and manufacturing industries of the world.
Did you cash the 2 trillion one from the renewable sector? Fossil fuels do not dominate the energy sector becsue of politics, they dominate becsue they are cheap and reliable. The humorous part about your assertion is you want to trade in one profitable industry for an even more expensive industry.
Perhaps you need to stop sounding like a jackass No, Muller doesn't believe that a crime was committed here if that was your point... Just admit that Muller clearly believes that their methods in producing the Hockey Stick were substandard, and below the peer review process.
Absolutely. But Muller still believes in anthropogenic climate change so obviously he feels that what they did had no bearing on the big picture. So what was your point?
I wouldn't ask Einstein about climate science either if he were still alive. It's not his field of expertise.
Freeman Dyson is barely still alive and is a physicist, not a climate scientist.
That's like saying I wouldn't ask the window guy about heat from the sun keeping my house warm and I'm going to stick with plumber. There is many variables involved with this and subsequntely numerous fields of study. You cannot predict climate withoput understanding the sun which menas you need physicists and we need to understand ancient climate which means you need the expertise of geologists. Those are just two examples.
Did you cash the 2 trillion one from the renewable sector? Fossil fuels do not dominate the energy sector becsue of politics, they dominate becsue they are cheap and reliable. The humorous part about your assertion is you want to trade in one profitable industry for an even more expensive industry.
The humorous part of your response is that you can only think in the present and near future. We humans are in this for the long haul. What you think is going to happen when the developing world develops more and won't put up with cheap and reliable fossil fuels that cause a great deal of smog and particulate matter? Why are you assuming fossils fuel will last forever and be forever cheap?
My assertion was that presently fossil fuels are a much bigger industry than renewable and how more clout.
The humorous part of your response is that you can only think in the present and near future.
My concern is about things I know will happen with carbon cap, it will decimate US indutry even further and drive prices up across the board. In the meantime China and other emerging economies will be laughing their asses off.
Quote:
What you think is going to happen when the developing world develops more and won't put up with cheap and reliable fossil fuels that cause a great deal of smog and particulate matter?
They will never develop without them hence the reason these UN treaties include massive transfers of wealth and technology .
Quote:
Why are you assuming fossils fuel will last forever and be forever cheap?
The very tip of this pyramid of active mines is nearly 20 years worth of coal.
Quote:
My assertion was that presently fossil fuels are a much bigger industry than renewable and how more clout.
When you hit the bottom line cost is the only thing that is relevant hence the reason for cap and trade type legislation which is designed to drive up the costs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
