Page 84 of 115 < 1 2 ... 82 83 84 85 86 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#1101351 - 26/04/2012 02:07 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Governments are taking action, some of which are geniune attempts and some of which are just a facade to keep the greens happy and/or off the government's backs.

It is politically correct(/absolutely required) to appear to be doing something but is not economically effective to actually be doing anything.

AND, CO2 levels do not reflect any change in the trend as a result of these actions, it is still slightly accelerating.

The Kyoto Protocol, recent actions do not appear to have made a dent in the data at all. (Makes one wonder how much of the action was of the facade or completely ineffective variety).

Top
#1101384 - 26/04/2012 09:27 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Bill Illis]
Coxy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 1044
Loc: Jindalee, QLD
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

Governments are taking action, some of which are geniune attempts and some of which are just a facade to keep the greens happy and/or off the government's backs.

It is politically correct(/absolutely required) to appear to be doing something but is not economically effective to actually be doing anything.

AND, CO2 levels do not reflect any change in the trend as a result of these actions, it is still slightly accelerating.

The Kyoto Protocol, recent actions do not appear to have made a dent in the data at all. (Makes one wonder how much of the action was of the facade or completely ineffective variety).


Indeed. The Aust Government's own modelling of their carbon emissions under the new legislation shows that Australia's REAL emissions at 2020 are higher than now. So far from cutting emissions, it's "Creative accounting" to use purchased credits to reduce them statistically.
And people believe this crap.

Top
#1101394 - 26/04/2012 10:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Coxy]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
From Paul Homewood's website "Not a lot of People Know That

China will invariably reduce it's pollution output over the next couple of decades. It seems to be a characteristic of nations as they industrialise that pollution output invariably rises. And then as they create a higher standard of living for their people, the desire comes to clean up their own environment which they can then afford to do as the national wealth is increased and public resources can be turned to items other than just creating jobs, building infrastructure, providing much better public facilities like clean water, sewerage and power and communication access to the entire population, improving health facilities and etc.
Then cleaning up their environment becomes another item on the agenda which a prosperous nation can afford to do.

So it won't surprise anybody who thinks things through a little that China will set about cleaning up after it's great ongoing leap into the industrial / technological age.

So how is China [ and India , another rapidly industrialising nation which is just as big in population as China's 1.3 billions ] doing in the CO2 emission stakes.

Who’s Reducing CO2 Emissions–And Who’s Not?

Note the comment here that the data is not yet in for 2011 and is only provisional for 2010,
As I have repeatedly said, the whole anthropogenic CO2 emission data is not actually measured. It is calculated on the basis of the modeled consumption of fossil fuels and there is no verification process for this data that I have come across yet.



And China's Carbon emissions [ as above ; multiply by 3.667 ] for CO2 emissions] are up by 17% and India's up by 19% and that is only from 2008 to 2010.
And China with the second biggest economy in the world has some 50% more emissions than the great Satan of the environmentalists and global warmers, the USA.

As a side comment, before the advent of the Industrial Revolution starting around 1750 which prior to that time, energy was derived almost solely from human and animal power so the population numbers were a fair indication of the size of an economy, China with it's population of some 300 millions which was vast relative to any other nation, was for a couple of thousand years, the largest economy on Earth.
They may become that again sometime in the 21st century.

Top
#1101588 - 27/04/2012 13:40 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7166
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: ROM
But if they [scientists] want to change our entire society and economic system based entirely on some completely unproven scientific hypothesis then they damn well can't make any mistakes at all nor will they be allowed to change our economic and societal structure without a damn good fight.

[] Added.
I very much doubt they do…! That is, if we are talking science!

Top
#1102903 - 06/05/2012 13:26 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7166
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)
Originally Posted By: ROM
But if they [scientists] want to change our entire society and economic system based entirely on some completely unproven scientific hypothesis then they damn well can't make any mistakes at all nor will they be allowed to change our economic and societal structure without a damn good fight.

[] Added.
I very much doubt they do…! That is, if we are talking science!

Having said that, I do not believe a proclamation of the science being “set in stone” would be an accurate representation of either the conclusions drawn which are expressed in degrees of certainty or the uncertainties involved. We are still learning!


Edited by -Cosmic- (naz) (06/05/2012 13:27)
Edit Reason: Correction

Top
#1103084 - 07/05/2012 17:21 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Clouds and Climate Change

During the last week, there have been a number of articles associated with the New York Times on the subject of cloud responses to climate change (e.g., Justin Gillis, Andrew Revkin) that have attracted a lot of online attention. That looked like a good opportunity to blend science and current news into a Times Union blog post. There are a few technical points in this article given the complexity of the subject but I’ve tried to maximize readability.

http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/clouds-and-climate-change/2129/

Top
#1103542 - 10/05/2012 13:25 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
It's great to see our tax dollars at work combating the misinformation by skeptics...

The Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have put together a handy and recommended resource: Accurate Answers to Professor Plimer's 101 Climate Change Science Questions. This is in response to Plimer's book How To Get Expelled From School, a compilation of climate misinformation targeted at school children. One section of the book features 101 questions that he suggests children ask their teachers.

"Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimer’s book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science. The answers and comments provided in this document are intended to provide clear and accurate answers to Professor Plimer’s questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer reviewed science, and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists."

Click
_________________________

Top
#1103926 - 12/05/2012 23:15 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Bob Tisdale; Climate Observations blog which is the go to site for any ocean / climate information really lays into Hansen and the GCM's uselessness in his latest post;

Note yet again that the GCM's can't model the single most influential climate and weather changing event on the planet, the ENSO.

But they can of course predict the temperature rise from global warming one hundred years into the future.
And that temperature rise according to AR4 will be between 1.4 C to 6.4 C, a five degree range in accuracy where even the MWP was only a couple of degrees or less above today's temperatures.
And they claim they can't get any more accurate than that because they don't know what the CO2 levels will be so they have five scenarios for CO2 and that is right from the horses mouth, a Proff Briggs who claims he was part and parcel of the CRU Team, now of Monash Uni's destroy the skeptics, climate change program.


An Unsent Memo to James Hansen

Quote:
I’m one of very few independent global warming researchers who study sea surface temperature data and the processes associated with the natural mode of climate variability called El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO. ENSO is a process that is misrepresented by many climate scientists when they use linear regression analysis in attempts to remove an ENSO signal from the global surface temperature record. Those misrepresentations ensure misleading results in some climate science papers.

ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.” In fact, there are no climate models used by the IPCC that are capable of recreating the frequency, magnitude and duration of El Niño and La Niña events. And I know of no scientific studies that show any one climate model is capable of correctly simulating all of the fundamental coupled ocean-atmosphere processes associated with ENSO.

If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles. As a result, the climate models exclude the variations in the rates at which the tropical Pacific Ocean releases naturally created heat to the atmosphere and redistributes it within the oceans, and those climate models also exclude the varying rate at which ENSO is responsible through teleconnections for the warming in areas remote to the tropical Pacific.

&

It also illustrates and discusses how the climate models used by the IPCC in their 4th Assessment Report show no skill at being able to reproduce the global surface temperature record since 1901. Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause.

Top
#1104085 - 14/05/2012 10:11 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
From the Germany [ translated ] Pierre Gosselin's "NoTricksZone" blog.

Papers Showing Sun As Main Driver Keep Rolling In – IPCC Focus On CO2 Looking More Like A Delusional Obsession

Oases of the Chinese Taklamakan Desert Greened Up In Sync With Solar Millenial Cycles
by Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt.

Fritz Vahrenholt of course was one of the leading lights of the German green movement and a minister in a German government. He was a committed believer in the global warming meme until as an expert in alternative energy he was asked to go over the alternative energy chapter in the IPCC's AR4.
When he started to examine the IPCC science behind the alternative energy claims he found the so called science so bad that he then started to examine other sections of the AR4 and found equally bad science that supposedly supported the global warming claims.
Subsequently he has recently recanted on the CAGW meme and is scathing about the quality of the science supposedly supporting the so called global warming belief.

Luning was also a believer but not as committed as Vahrenholt so it is interesting that they are now moving to a belief in the major role of the Sun in controlling and influencing the the shifts and changes in the global climate system.

From the NoTricksZone posting
Quote:
The Taklamakan Desert is bounded by the Kunlun Mountains to the south, and the desert Pamir Mountains and Tian Shan to the west and north. The oases of the Taklamakan react very sensitively to climate fluctuations and draw their water from the surrounding mountains regions via groundwater and surface water feed-in. Fluctuation in the amount of meltwater being fed in are made apparent through the ever thirsty oasis vegetation. The scientists studied the pollen.

Zhao and his colleagues extracted an 8.5 meter long sediment core from an oasis. The sediment came from melt water sands as well as wind deposits. The scientists analyzed the pollen composition from a total of 105 samplings which they extracted along the sediment profile every 5-10 cm. Using pollen data, they reconstructed the moisture and vegetation density in the oasis over the last 4000 years.

The researchers found three time periods where the oases grew and expanded in wetter climate conditions: These time periods were 4000-2620 before today, 1750–1260 years before today and 550-390 years before today (See Figure 2). Interestingly these intervals coincide precisely with the cold phases of the North Atlantic as distinctly described by Bond et al. (2001), the so-called Bond Cycles. Gerard Bond was able to show that the North Atlantic cold phases occurred during times of low solar activity, i.e. caused by fluctuations in activity. In the Chinese region of investigation, these solar periods of weak activity led to wet periods. The last wet period coincided with the Little Ice Age. However, during the Medeival Warm Period, warm and dry conditions prevailed.


From Wiki;" Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events,[1] with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change."

From the Chiefio; Bond Event Zero

Quote:
So what is a Bond Event? They are abnormally cold periods that happen about every 1470 years. We are likely headed into one now, IMHO. While the world panics over heating, it ought ot be planning how to grow more wheat without northern fields like Canada or northern Eurasia.

I’d hoped to not last long enough to reach the next Bond Event, however, we have 3 nagging little points:

1) It’s a 1470 year or so cycle and the last one started about 1470 years ago… take a look at what was happening in about 530 to 540 A.D. It was cold, and dark, and the sun wasn’t very bright… In fact, they called it The Dark Ages.

2) The sun has gone very very quiet. Not pleasing in the context of #1.

3) We’ve had a sudden onset of more cold and more snow at the poles with the oceans cooling starting in 2003 (it takes a while to cool a few gigatons of water…)

Now to me it’s pretty clear that we have a very warm ocean (and will for a few more years) especially in the tropics, putting lots of water into the air – being by definition hot and humid, not snowy… That air then hits a very very cold polar region and dumps boat loads of snow. That than accelerates the run to the cold side…

So we will be in this ‘battle ground’ state for a few more years, but only as long as it takes to cool the ocean enough to make us really wish for the good old days of a warm climate with plenty of food to eat.

Please note: Computer climate models don’t mean a darned thing if they can not explain Bond Events:;

Top
#1104111 - 14/05/2012 13:19 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
I am posting the Google translation News URL of Vahrenholt & Lunings web site for the article above plus another couple of articles out of their book, "The Cold Sun".
Just remember these very high status German guys both scientifically and in Vahrenholt's case, politically as well, use to be full on global warmers.

Oases of China's Taklamakan desert bloomed in time with the solar cycles Millennium

New work in PNAS demonstrated the climatic impact of the sun during the last 9000 years

Solar Millennium controlled cycles of wet and drought in Mediterranean Romans

Top
#1104113 - 14/05/2012 13:26 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 7166
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: ROM
I am posting the Google translation News URL of Vahrenholt & Lunings web site for the article above plus another couple of articles out of their book, "The Cold Sun".
Just remember these very high status German guys both scientifically and in Vahrenholt's case, politically as well, use to be full on global warmers.

Why did you add the bit I have bolded? What is your reason for adding it?

Top
#1104114 - 14/05/2012 13:50 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
In this paper 9400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings, they are able to derive total solar irradiance, which is then used as a proxy of solar activity to identify the solar imprint in an Asian climate record.

They say that though the agreement between gene rally solar forcing and Asian climate is good, there are also periods without any coherence, pointing to other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks.

Which is exactly what we are seeing now - greenhouse gases (CO2) and their corresponding feedbacks, which is the cause of the modern warming trend.

_________________________

Top
#1104120 - 14/05/2012 14:38 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
OK! you have once again claimed the connection again between increasing ÇO2 and modern global warming.
Now once again and all over again, provide the fully observed and completely verified proof of that connection.

Top
#1104130 - 14/05/2012 15:44 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637

But I did already provide you with the evidence of CO2 being responsible for the modern warming remember?

It wasn't good enough for you though.

I then asked you in what form would the evidence need to be in in order for you to accept it.
_________________________

Top
#1104135 - 14/05/2012 16:11 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
No observed and verified proof at all has been provided by you that CO2 is responsible for the recent rise in global temperatures.
Any claims for CO2 increases being the cause of global warming are based on unverified and unvalidated climate models and the correlation over a period of some two decades with the increases in global temperatures.
The rise in global temperatures has now almost ceased for some 12 to 15 years even though CO2 levels have continued to increase
And you have no explanation why CO2 levels have increased but global temperature rises have almost come to a standstill for over a decade.

You are just spouting hot air because you cannot provide an unambiguous, proven, observed, verified and validated connection between increasing CO2 and the previously increasing global temperatures.

Top
#1104142 - 14/05/2012 16:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637

You still wont say in what form the evidence needs to be in. Why is that?
_________________________

Top
#1104176 - 14/05/2012 21:49 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Still another paper surfaces that points to the Sun being the prime driver of the global climate.

And with a possibility that we have already entered or are about to enter a new decades long solar minimum with it's cold and drought in many regions of the world, the stupidity of the global warming ideology and the grossly wasteful and unnecessary costs and trauma it and it's adherents has imposed on our society will become apparent to all.

Again from Pierre Gosselin's NoTricksZone

Yet Another Paper Shows “The Enormous Importance Of Solar Activity Fluctuations On Climate”

Prof's Vahrenholt and Luning also comment on this paper.

Yet another study has appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, this one looks at the precipitation history on the Tibet Plateau of the last 1000 years.



Quote:
New Study of the Tibet Plateau: Whenever Solar Activity is Weak, the Rains Disappear
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt

The Tibet Plateau is at 3000 to 5000 meters elevation and is the highest and expansive high plateau on Earth. Therefore it reacts sensitively to climate changes. Junyan Sun and Yu Liu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences studied tree rings in the northwest plateau edge from two living 1000 year old trees. Tree growth in the area of study is particularly sensitive to the amount of precipitation.

Both scientists were able to reconstruct the distinct precipitation fluctuations occurring over the last 1000 years. The corresponding wet and dry periods each lasted some decades. A comparison to the other climate reconstructions coming from the same region shows great similarities in moisture development and that we are dealing with a representative regional climate signal. There were pronounced periods of droughts from 1092-1172, 1441-1517 and 1564–1730. Especially the Great Drought of 1441-1517 is mentioned in numerous historical documents and catastrophe reports. The Great Drought occurred during a weak period of solar activity, the so-called Spörer Minimum, which occurred from 1420 to 1570.

Interestingly, almost all other periods of drought occurred during times of solar minima, among them the Oort Minimum, Wolf Minimum, Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum (see Figure 1 above). Every time the sun goes into a slumber for a few decades, the rains on the Tibet Plateau stay away. A frequency analysis of precipitation curves also delivers evidence on solar cycles. Here the Gleissberg Cycle (60-120 year period) and the Suess/de Vries Cycle (180-220 years) are seen in the datasets.

The study once again documents the enormous importance of solar activity fluctuations on the development of climate. Why the IPCC degrades this important natural climate driver to a secondary small player in theoretical climate models (See our article: “What is the coming solar activity slumber bringing? The Hadley Centre Leaves Its Back Door Open“) simply boggles the mind.


And P. Gosselin has the final word
"Indeed. With every passing study, it is becoming increasingly clear that the CO2 warmists are either in deep denial or complete intellectual oblivion".
=====================================================

Top
#1104184 - 14/05/2012 22:54 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

You still wont say in what form the evidence needs to be in. Why is that?


I want to see to some measurements that CO2 is increasingly inhibiting long-wave radiation's escape from the Earth. That it used to take 44.0 hours for the average solar photon's energy to be emitted from the Earth and now it is 44.3 hours.

I want to see some feedback evidence that water vapour is increasing and low clouds are thinning out(close to two-thirds of the warming is due to these feedbacks).

Top
#1104228 - 15/05/2012 10:33 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Bill Illis]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2323
Loc: Soon to be Mt Barker - SA
Good luck with that Bill, because no observed correlation exists.

That is why there are so many sceptics in the world, and we continue this debate.

The only people spruiking AGW are either paid or corrupt individuals and corporations with something to gain.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1104239 - 15/05/2012 12:38 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Anthony Violi]
crikey Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/02/2011
Posts: 2586
Loc: Tweed Heads
temps go up and down annually , decadal oscillations and other natural forcings cause temps to rise and fall
however
the trend is clearly there
as co2 rises so does temp
the fact is scientific and proven with basic science

I have just drawn my own lines on this graph to show the clear positive correlation regardless of the fluctuating annual an decadal temps


Recent Lower Global Temperatures
Do Not Undercut CO2/Warming Relationship


Zeke Hausfather April 6, 2009

Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the primary factor contributing to the warming of the Earth’s surface over the past half-century.

However, for the past few years global temperatures have been stagnant or slightly decreasing even as atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing faster than ever. This situation has led some voices in the media and blogging world to challenge the relationship between the CO2 concentrations and warming. These critiques are flawed, however, as short-term changes in global temperature are driven by numerous factors going beyond CO2, and the recent disconnect between the two is not particularly unusual in light of their past relationship.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/04/recent-lower-global-temperatures/


--------
radiation balance for doubled CO2. That’s only about a percent of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth, but it’s a highly important percent to us! After all, a mere one percent change in the 280 Kelvin surface temperature of the Earth is 2.8 Kelvin (which is also 2.8 Celsius). And that’s without even taking into account the radiative forcing from all those amplifying feedbacks, like those due to water vapor and ice-albedo.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


Edited by crikey (15/05/2012 12:44)
_________________________
http://weathercycles.wordpress.com/

Top
Page 84 of 115 < 1 2 ... 82 83 84 85 86 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 304 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
avalon, philiphart, Ravenous2411, Sasho
Forum Stats
29421 Members
32 Forums
23733 Topics
1469420 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image