Climate-gate

zgmc said:
Well, I guess its time to stock up on twinkies and spam.
Click to expand...
Decided to do a bit of research in to global emergency services climate change response development. ( ongoing )
From a quick glance at it there appears to be a massive amount of devotion to this issue.
...and with every event we as a world, are getting better at it ...

ie. Vanuatu Cat 5 cyclone, est: 11 fatalities (*?). (some of which due to refusal to evacuate I believe)

With out adequate preparation this event could have been considerably worse IMO
Post - event devastation mortality has also been reduced due to the rapid response planning.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
My guess is that it will only take a couple more major climate change disasters to occur and the worlds financial and insurance markets will go into melt down. .... just guessing...
Click to expand...
That's almost certain to happen. It has happened before and it will happen again.
 
<-----Has been looking at more on mis 11 (the Holsteinian interglacial).
From the Lake Baikal studies the climate was much warmer and at least 25% wetter, (less continental) with less seasonality than the Holocene in central siberia.
Support from studies in Germany, Lake Elgygytgyn, south china sea, etc...
meanwhile, the inferred temperature of the north atlantic was much the same as that of the holocene.
Greenland and the arctic shores were forested, and west antarctica was most likely ice free.

The prospect of global warming seems a whole lot like paradise to me.
What a great time to have been alive.
If only the promise of AGW were true.........but, I suspect much of the hype is hubris.
 
sculptor said:
The prospect of global warming seems a whole lot like paradise to me.
What a great time to have been alive.
If only the promise of AGW were true.........but, I suspect much of the hype is hubris.
Click to expand...
the threat is not from the warming itself...
but from the extremely rapid change as well as the possibility that we cannot change or adapt with it
or that it will get far worse far quicker than we can adjust to
or that it will run away into far more warming

Rapid climate change is likely far more dangerous than you think. Here is a good article talking about it with references to studies that support the conclusions held therein: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Rapid-climate-change-deadlier-than-asteroid-impacts.html

it si not hubris, it is science. this is similar to the pollution problem or even eating dangerous foods. The science tells us what is possible. if we ignore it, then we ignore it at our own risk.

Something else to consider: the climate is NOT some pendulum ... it warms or cools for a reason
this is about energy balances, and continuing to ignore the real possibility that it will cycle into something dangerous is really a very stupid idea... there needs to be a change for the better.
We are bad about polluting our own lives and ecosystems... and this is no different...
metaphorically speaking: we have defecated in our own bed and if we don't clean it up and deal with the problem, we will only make it worse or cause a situation that we cannot live with.

this article is relevant and makes a good point
A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
 
Weird!
As part of a dialogue in another thread brief research ( and I do mean brief ) suggests that Russia, although a significant land mass etc, has not recorded any significant Climate change events.
Why would that be the case do you think? ( press censorship perhaps or just plain lucky )
Could Russia actually benefit from AGW climate change? (given it's high latitudes)
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Weird!
As part of a dialogue in another thread brief research ( and I do mean brief ) suggests that Russia, although a significant land mass etc, has not recorded any significant Climate change events.
Why would that be the case do you think? ( press censorship perhaps or just plain lucky )
Could Russia actually benefit from AGW climate change? (given it's high latitudes)
Click to expand...

Sure they have. Your just looking at the wrong source (original russian data). You must go to GISS, USHCN, MET, etc to get the Adjusted (tortured) Data to find the AGW.

man made indeed.
 
F4.large.jpg

The long view/perspective:
As temperature proxies:
The trend is your friend:
Go long cold, and short heat.

.................
It seems that we have no accurate climate models.
We do, however, have history embodied within the proxies of this ice age that we are most likely still in.
..........
Inductive, abductive and deductive reasoning are all seeds from which different modeling trees will grow.
spliced or hybridized most would likely offer altered perspectives

.................
and about the magnetic reversals.........................
 
Last edited:
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
the threat is not from the warming itself...
but from the extremely rapid change as well as the possibility that we cannot change or adapt with it
or that it will get far worse far quicker than we can adjust to
or that it will run away into far more warming

Rapid climate change is likely far more dangerous than you think.
Click to expand...

Look into D_O events which put our pathetic little warming trend to shame. And, of which, we have survived many.

Something else to consider: the climate is NOT some pendulum ...
Click to expand...

Perhaps, perhaps not
as/re D_O events:
Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the Holocene is referred to as Bond events.
Click to expand...

pendulum?
Certainly something which we still do not understand.

If we do not understand the reasons behind extant and past climate change, we are most assuredly constrained in our ability to model our climate with any hope of accuracy.

That being said,
why would you use a phrase like:
...it will get far worse...
Click to expand...
?
 
sculptor said:
Look into D_O events
Click to expand...
researching it now... might take a little while considering the wiki link doesn't have much info

sculptor said:
D_O events which put our pathetic little warming trend to shame.
Click to expand...
ASSumption
plus, you cannot guarantee the warming trend is stopped, nor that it will stop anytime soon

sculptor said:
Perhaps, perhaps not
as/re D_O events:
Click to expand...
go back and read that link... it explains better than a short reply here can

sculptor said:
If we do not understand the reasons behind extant and past climate change, we are most assuredly constrained in our ability to model our climate with any hope of accuracy.
Click to expand...
this is reaching a bit, don't you think?

i can't explain why i didn't get shot during the Gulf war, either, but i can not only predict the likely casualties during a war/hostile event even with the extremely chaotic situation with more input's and variables than we can track, i can also teach soldiers and others how to minimize the risk: of exposure, safety, interactions and more
and that will limit the casualties to the minimal end of the spectrum (again, probabilities, just like the climate models - argument "models are not correct" is fallacious and based upon lack of information and the Assumption that models be 100% accurate while failing to remember the probabilities or error margins)

sculptor said:
That being said,
why would you use a phrase like: ?
Click to expand...
first off, look at the whole phrase, in context:
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
the threat is not from the warming itself...
but from the extremely rapid change as well as the possibility that we cannot change or adapt with it
or that it will get far worse far quicker than we can adjust to
or that it will run away into far more warming
Click to expand...
Secondly: the phrase means exactly what it says
there remains the possibility that the situation, left untreated, can become far worse

and that is where the argument becomes political etc
and i am not worried, nor willing, to argue politics... politics is subjective and irrelevant to the science
the science is accurate and provable

Politics/politicians and religious, conspiracy, pseudoscience acolytes out there that are muddying the waters trying to demand their attention be given credibility where there is no credibility to be found.
It is simple: there is an overwhelming amount of science that proves AGW and warming to exist. to deny that is to deny reality.
it also means that the person denying it will likely be a subset of a few finite groups of people who, for certain reasons, are not able to or willing to recognize the scientific evidence. See: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF for more information
 
possibility-----------------yes
but
probability?

Much of our warming of the last century was most likely from the grand solar maximum

Percentages of solar and anthropogenic forcings remain in doubt.
We keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere, while the warming has taken an hiatus.

multigraph.png
Ergo, my suspicion that the claims for agw are much of hubris.
Scientifically, when your predictions fail to match real world events, then more knowledge is needed.
Stepping back from preconceptions and viewing the experiment from a different perspective is usually a good way of inculcating new knowledge.

Do we have an adequate excess of heat in the atmosphere and in the earth to protect us from another volcanic winter from a magnitude 7 or 8 volcano?

There was widespread famine, disease and death following the last magnitude 7.
If we were to lose even one year's grain crops, could you guarantee no deaths from starvation?
Ken Verosub of the University of California, Davis estimated that future eruptions capable of causing "Volcanic Winter" effects severe enough to depress global temperatures by 2°F (1°C) and trigger widespread crop failures for 1 - 2 years afterwards should occur about once every 200 - 300 years. The last was 200 years ago.

The last known magnitude 8 is deemed responsible for the genetic bottleneck when we were reduced to less than 10,000 survivors.
The next one could well drop our temperatures 9 degrees F, resulting in famine and most likely a world war that could leave billions dead.

A little warming now could be of tremendous benefit within our children's lifetimes.

(Gas up the SUV darling, we've got a world to save)
If only the promise of AGW were true.
 
Last edited:
zgmc said:
Now the warming is a good thing?
Click to expand...
well it certainly has clearly demonstrated how vested interest, scientific/political esteem (hubris- pride) and social inertia can distort any solid theoretical speculations.
It has also demonstrated the nature of paranoia and how significant the role of fear plays in outcomes.
Certainly the push to find alternatives to big oil, generating a greater appreciation for the environment and eco systems etc are all long term benefits IMO


I guess that's a good thing.. Hopefully we may do better next time... if there is a next time...
 
sculptor said:
Much of our warming of the last century was most likely from the grand solar maximum
Click to expand...
this is ASSumption that does not match observation
it is also something already considered and the evidence says otherwise:
Lean and Rind (2008)performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
however, if you think you would prefer the study over the link above, which should explain it to you... go here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

the cumulative evidence shows that we are not dealing with your "solar maximum" warming
http://sun.stanford.edu/LWS_Dynamo_2009/61797.web.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf
there are plenty of references on the link i left after the quote that support the science and knowledge that it is not a solar maximum issue, nor is it a sun/natural cycle.

About your Some individuals, most notably Fred Singer, have argued that Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O, a.k.a. Bond) events could be causing the current global warming. D-O events are rapid climate fluctuations that occur quasi-periodically with a 1,470-year recurrance time and which, according to Singer, are "likely caused by the sun." However, there is significant debate as to the cause of these D-O events, with changes in solar output being just one possibility (NOAA Paleoclimatology).Dansgaard-Oeschger Events
this is what i have been able to dig up : also in that link i left
Regardless, the most obvious flaw in this argument is that the planet wasn't warming 1,470 years ago. The previous warm event was the Medieval Warm Period approximately 1,000 years ago.

Bond et al. (1999) added further evidence that the timing of D-O events disqualifies them from being responsible for the current warming, by showing that the most recent D-O event may have contributed to the Little Ice Age (LIA):

"evidence from cores near Newfoundland confirms previous suggestions that the Little lce Age was the most recent cold phase of the 1-2kyr cycle"

And a study by Rahmstorf (2003) also concludes that the LIA may be the most recent cold phase of the D-O cycle, and his research suggests that the 1,470-year periodicity is so regular that it's more likely due to an orbital cycle than a solar cycle.

"While the earlier estimate of ±20% [Schulz, 2002] is consistent with a solar cycle (the 11-year sunspot cycle varies in period by ±14%), a much higher precision would point more to an orbital cycle. The closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the 1,470-year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery."

However, according to Braun et al. (2005), D-O events could be caused by a combination of solar cycles and freshwater input into the North Atlantic Ocean. But their study also concludes that D-O events are not expected to occur during the Holocene (the current geologic epoch).

"the 1,470-year climate response in the simulation is restricted to glacial climate and cannot be excited for substantially different (such as Holocene) boundary conditions...Thus, our mechanism for the glacial ,1,470-year climate cycle is also consistent with the lack of a clear and pronounced 1,470-year cycle in Holocene climate archives."
​
The bottom line is that regardless of whether or not the D-O cycles are triggered by the Sun, the timing is clearly not right for this cycle to be responsible for the current warming. Particularly since solar output has not increased in approximately 60 years, and has only increased a fraction of a percent in the past 300 years, as discussed above.
​
Ironically, prior to publishing a book in 2007 which blamed the current warming on D-O cycles, Singer argued that the planet wasn't warming as recently as 2003. So the planet isn't warming, but it's warming due to the D-O cycles? It's quite clear that in reality, neither of these contradictory arguments is even remotely correct.
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

I can see no reason to argue that point given the studies supporting the above conclusions

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top