Page 4 of 18 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 18 >
Topic Options
#13421 - 20/09/2006 10:59 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BOM99 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2004
Posts: 4645
Loc: Australia
"April 2005 will seem like a cold month by 2100. If people find this stuff scary, they can rest assured they are not alone...."

I am also one of those who find this very scary. That is an interesting read how climate change seems to be no longer following the solar cycle and so human influence is becoming the dominant factor.

It will be only Australia's own fault if we could not survive a hotter drier climate though. Have a look at Saudi Arabia and Dubai, they have virtually zero rain and extreme heat yet they thrive. How? by creating water with desalination, Dubai has no water restrictions and almost zero rainfall. Australia also has unlimited energy from solar and nuclear and could easily do the same. I do not believe for one second that global warming or climate change can ever be stopped, mankind must be ready with technology and planning to ride out all climates on this planet whatever is dished up including changing sea levels.

This is also getting a bit of the subject of rising sea level though. I wish some of these interesting recent comments could be joined with that original "Global warming" thread that has been last updated last year I think.

Top
#13422 - 20/09/2006 12:02 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6970
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Quote:
Originally posted by Pooraka:
The consensus amongst the majority of the worlds climate experts is that the world is warming rapidly.
It depends strongly on the time scale you're talking about - 100,000 years, 10,000, 1,000, 100, 50, etc. Also, much more research is needed in order to get a better idea of just how much human input nature can absorb.

Top
#13423 - 20/09/2006 13:44 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Pooraka Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/02/2006
Posts: 117
Loc: Pooraka, Adelaide, South Austr...
Quote:
Originally posted by Rime:
Personally, I believe skepticism is a sign of a healthy debate. In most cases of life skepticism and objections are often welcome and in general the two areas that it is never welcome is in religion and in some forms of extreme politics. I find it ironic that when it comes to an issue like global warming/climate change, skepticism is frowned upon. Any form of skepticism is often undermined by some form of ad hominems argument, like 'Professor X is paid by the evil oil company so anything he says is rubbish'.

Considering the opposition to skepticism, the alarmist claims, the doomsday theories and the rebuking of evil corporations, one cannot help but compare the anthropogenic global warming issue with a religion. [/QB]
I personally dont have a problem with skepticism either, and you are right in that it is a sign of healthy debate.
What I was trying to get at is what this skepticism is based on. I'm no expert on this issue but from what I do understand and a certain leval of trust that I have for the Climate experts who I believe would know better than most about such issues, I feel inclined to believe their claims.
If most climate experts were saying that the world is not warming or that they believed it was from natural variation, then I would be inclined to believe that view. So my question is, what makes those who are skeptics feel that these experts are incorrect? Do you know something I or they dont?
Some interesting reading this anyway so keep it coming, reegardless of where you stand wink

Top
#13424 - 20/09/2006 17:27 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
David

If you don't mind me saying, in all due respect your continuing references to April 2005 do not really make good sense, and do actually what you are accussing others of doing, ie basing major decisions on a very limited data base. April 2005 was an abnormally warm month caused by a certain sea surface temperature configoration. If you don't mind me saying you are harping on one monthly obs in one particlular year, which is not good scientific logic to build your arguments around! If it had happened that all Aprils for some time were like that maybe you would have a case to stand on scientifically, but to keep quoting one stand-out month in one year is a pretty shaky base to stand on imo anyway.

Yes, I know about the pre 1910 data, but 1880 to 1900 is still a warmer period in Australia and we really don't have a correction of quality to judge it all by. Why have the Bureau left the temps in their Climatic Data Australia CD rom? I don't see any warning references in it or on the disc I purchased and any correction applied?

Top
#13425 - 20/09/2006 18:41 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
Personally I am open to both sides of any argument.
I like to hear both sides. We need a balanced debate.
Sure most believe in global warming of some sort, and most think its CO2 warming and that it will get worse. And, we can all help the planet by doing things in better ways, I am all for conservation and helping restore the balance of nature 100%. But, we can do these things and still search out further truths into the matter. I like to explore the full gambit of things myself. There has been very significant warming on the planet before. There is just as much, if not more, scientific proof of solar radiance changes and solar influences from around the Mauder Cool earth Minumum, etc. Sure the majority believe this and that, but the majority are often wrong also. Just becuase the majority believe in something does not neccessarily make it right. The majority thought the earth was flat once. The majority though everyting revolved around the earth once. The majority though asbestos was a good building material once.If the majority now think that global warming will increase dramtically and all current warm and drought events and storms are connected to global warming well they may be right...but the also may be only half right or a quarter right and other factors that they have not factored in or have discarded may come into play and become major players. If we put all our eggs into rapid global warming and discard any other outcomes and make all adjustments this way. We may be in for a rude shock in the future. Lets plan for conservation and healing the land as best we can, but lest also keep discussing other factors and alternatives. If we don't we are in just as much danger in many ways as if we did nothing! imo anyway. I like to find out all the factors by looking at all the alternatives and discussing and thinking about them. That's where I came from!

Top
#13426 - 20/09/2006 19:14 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
Source: Duke University
Date: October 2, 2005
Post to: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl,
Netscape, Newsvine,
reddit, Yahoo! MyWeb

Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report
DURHAM, N.C. -- At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measuredduring the past two decades may be due to increased solar output ratherthan factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gasreleased by various human activities, two Duke University physicistsreport.

Ads by Google Advertise on this site

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Stories
Read the latest news stories about Global Warming
Crikey.com.au/Politics
Go Carbon Neutral
Offset your CO2 pollution - home, car and flights
www.neco.com.au
Greenhouse Gases
Siemens offers corporate solutions for the challenges of the future.
www.siemens.com/megatrends
Help Your Planet Earth
Worried About Global Warming? Learn How You Can Help. Act Now!
www.EasyBeingGreen.com.au
We desperately need
independent media. NI magazine has won awards for it. Trial it today!
www.newint.com.au

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate modelsof global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes insolar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do notargue against the basic theory that significant global warming isoccurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases.

Nicola Scafetta, an associate research scientist working at Duke'sphysics department, and Bruce West, a Duke adjunct physics professor,published their findings online Sept. 28, 2005, in the research journalGeophysical Research Letters.

West is also chief scientist in the mathematical andinformation sciences directorate of the Army Research Office inResearch Triangle Park.

Scafetta's and West's study follows a Columbia Universityresearcher's report of previous errors in the interpretation of data onsolar brightness collected by sun-observing satellites.

The Duke physicists also introduce new statistical methods that theyassert more accurately describe the atmosphere's delayed response tosolar heating. In addition, these new methods filter outtemperature-changing effects not tied to global warming, they write intheir paper.

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest thatsolar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However,only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gatheredby satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientificallyreliable, he said.

But observations over those years were flawed by the spaceshuttle Challenger disaster, which prevented the launching of a newsolar output detecting satellite called ACRIM 2 to replace a previousone called ACRIM 1.

That resulted in a two-year data gap that scientists had torely on other satellites to try to bridge. "But those data were not asprecise as those from ACRIM 1 and ACRIM 2," Scafetta said in aninterview.

Nevertheless, several research groups used the combinedsatellite data to conclude that that there was no increased heatingfrom the Sun to contribute to the global surface warming observedbetween 1980 and 2002, the authors wrote in their paper.

Lacking a standardized, uninterrupted data stream measuring anyrising solar influence, those groups thus surmised that all globaltemperature increases measured during those years had to be caused bysolar heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide,introduced into Earth's atmosphere by human activities, their paperadded.

But a 2003 study by a group headed by Columbia's RichardWillson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, challengedthe previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and hiscolleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significantupward trend in average solar luminosity during the period.

Using the Columbia findings as the starting point for theirstudy, Scafetta and West then statistically analyzed how Earth'satmosphere would respond to slightly stronger solar heating.Importantly, they used an analytical method that could detect thesubtle, complex relationships between solar output and terrestrialtemperature patterns.

The Duke analyses examined solar changes over a period twice aslong -- 22 versus 11 years -- as was previously covered by anothergroup employing a different statistical approach.

"The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamicequilibrium with the sun," Scafetta said. "The longer the time periodthe stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere, because it takestime to adapt."

Using a longer 22 year interval also allowed the Dukephysicists to filter out shorter range effects that can influencesurface temperatures but are not related to global warming, their papersaid. Examples include volcanic eruptions, which can temporarily coolthe climate, and ocean current changes such as el Nino that affectglobal weather patterns.

Applying their analytical method to the solar output estimatesby the Columbia group, Scafetta's and West's paper concludes that "thesun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the1980-2002 global surface warming."

This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gasescontribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would stillgive a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said.

"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafettaadded. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important tocorrect the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity tosolar activity.

"Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years."

Top
#13427 - 20/09/2006 19:27 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
Not wishing to hog the show, byt just vto show that there is science to alternative theories, here is another viewpoint. These are all interesting and worthy of consideration.
(PS sorry about the ads in the middle of the last post!)
Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: August 30, 2000
Post to: del.icio.us, Digg, Furl,
Netscape, Newsvine,
reddit, Yahoo! MyWeb

New View On The Culprits Of Climate Change
Since climate change affects everyone on Earth, scientists have been trying to pinpoint its causes. For many years, researchers agreed that climate change was triggered by what they called "greenhouse gases," with carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, playing the biggest role. However, new research suggests fossil fuel burning may not be as important in the mechanics of climate change as previously thought.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA funded research by Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and his colleagues, suggests that climate change in recent decades has been mainly caused by air pollution containing non-CO2 greenhouse gases, particularly tropospheric ozone, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and black carbon (soot) particles.

Since 1975, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, a trend that has taken global temperatures to their highest level in the past millennium. "Our estimates of global climate forcings, or factors that promote warming, indicate that it is the processes producing non-CO2 greenhouse gases that have been more significant in climate change," Hansen said.

"The good news is that the growth rate of non-CO2 greenhouse gases has declined in the past decade, and if sources of methane and tropospheric ozone were reduced in the future, further changes in climate due to these gases in the next 50 years could be near zero," Hansen explained. "If these reductions were coupled with a reduction in both particles of black carbon and CO2 gas emissions, this could lead to a decline in the rate of climate change."

Black carbon particles are generated by burning coal and diesel fuel and cause a semi-direct reduction of cloud cover. This reduction in cloud cover is an important factor in Earth's radiation balance, because clouds reflect 40 percent to 90 percent of the Sun's radiation depending on their type and thickness. Black carbon emission is not an essential element of energy production and it can be reduced or eliminated with improved technology.

Hansen's research looked at trends in various greenhouse gases and noted that the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled between 1950 and 1970, but leveled off from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.

The other critical piece of information this research is based on, in addition to greenhouse gas levels, is observed heat storage, or warmer ocean temperatures, over the last century. Heat storage in the ocean provides a consistency check on climate change. The ocean is the only place that energy forms an imbalance. In this case a warming can accumulate, and global ocean data reveals that ocean heat content has increased between the mid-1950s and the mid-1990s.

Hansen's paper, "Global Warming in the 21st Century an Alternate Scenario," will appear in the August 29th version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

More information on the paper can be found at: http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.html

Top
#13428 - 20/09/2006 19:33 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
There is also another scientific paper showing that we are at a 1000 year high max peak in solar radiance which I have a copy somewhere, if I can find it I will post the bones later

Top
#13429 - 20/09/2006 21:24 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Pooraka Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 24/02/2006
Posts: 117
Loc: Pooraka, Adelaide, South Austr...
Quote:
Originally posted by holts:
Personally I am open to both sides of any argument.
I like to hear both sides. We need a balanced debate.
Sure most believe in global warming of some sort, and most think its CO2 warming and that it will get worse. And, we can all help the planet by doing things in better ways, I am all for conservation and helping restore the balance of nature 100%. But, we can do these things and still search out further truths into the matter. I like to explore the full gambit of things myself. There has been very significant warming on the planet before. There is just as much, if not more, scientific proof of solar radiance changes and solar influences from around the Mauder Cool earth Minumum, etc. Sure the majority believe this and that, but the majority are often wrong also. Just becuase the majority believe in something does not neccessarily make it right. The majority thought the earth was flat once. The majority though everyting revolved around the earth once. The majority though asbestos was a good building material once.If the majority now think that global warming will increase dramtically and all current warm and drought events and storms are connected to global warming well they may be right...but the also may be only half right or a quarter right and other factors that they have not factored in or have discarded may come into play and become major players. If we put all our eggs into rapid global warming and discard any other outcomes and make all adjustments this way. We may be in for a rude shock in the future. Lets plan for conservation and healing the land as best we can, but lest also keep discussing other factors and alternatives. If we don't we are in just as much danger in many ways as if we did nothing! imo anyway. I like to find out all the factors by looking at all the alternatives and discussing and thinking about them. That's where I came from!
Cheers Holts, you make some good points. We do however have to be carefull in this debate as it has massive political and economic ramifications. It is all to easy for governments and polluting industries to grab on to anything at all that even slightly discredits global warming and thus holding up any changes we can do to hold it off. Human induced global warming is something that to stop or slow, we must make big changes and change is something people tend to find scary. And advocating change of this nature is something that a government wanting to stay in power is going to be reluctant to do. Its much easier to just keep on keeping on so to speak. Sorry to get all politcal about it btw but politics plays such a huge role in this debate unfortunately.

Top
#13430 - 20/09/2006 22:15 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Rime Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/06/2001
Posts: 1444
Loc: Perth,WA
Quote:
Originally posted by Pooraka:
Sorry to get all politcal about it btw but politics plays such a huge role in this debate unfortunately.
Very true. However, be careful not to fall to much with the green anti-government propaganda over the whole issue or otherwise you may find yourself either shooting yourself in the foot or bighting the hand that is feeding you. The government(s) is the primary funder of all research into global warming, through universities and government departments.

Top
#13431 - 20/09/2006 22:34 Re: Global warming and sea levels
adon Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 19/08/2004
Posts: 5275
Loc: Not tellin!
Pooroka you are right there but other groups have also taken advantage of studies to their advantage. This is a highly political discussion and the science gets lost in the haze of claims and counter claims. This is why I think that as much information as possible has to be published so that people cannot be driven to think there is only one side to this.

I too believe that our climate is warming. But I do not think that humans have as bigger part to play than is being trumpeted I also do not believe that the doomsday claims of mega droughts and ice ages are fact either.

I tend to agree with Holts on a lot of points. We seem to have taken all external influences out of the equation. If climate has been changing to and fro for millenia why has it all of a sudden stopped and we are the only cause?

We have been, on average warming ever since the last ice age and will continue to until the start of the next ice age. Our climate has alway done it and always will. The Northern inland parts of Australia are getting wetter and rainforests are expanding in these parts. It has been proved that the expansion is not influenced by land management.

There has been comments that the monsoon will get stronger and penetrate further this only makes sence if the climate is warming and the continent is moving N by 5cm/yr. Our climate is SUPPOSE to change. By all means try and clean up our act and try to find alternate energy sources but why create widespread panick and worries if we have time to change?

A positve attitude and embracing new technology is better than scare mongering and misinformation. Why not spend the hundreds of millions of dollars going into these scare campains into investing in new, ecofriendly transport, energy sources and recycling? Surley the best way to change the world is to start yourself and show everybody that is can be done!

Top
#13432 - 21/09/2006 08:57 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
>April 2005 was an abnormally warm month caused by a certain sea surface temperature configoration.

Ian, we have broken so many records in recent years that I could have picked any one of a number of months. I could have picked 2005 (the year) if you really want (which was also probably the warmest globally since records commenced). April is just the most extreme month we have seen.

Have a look at http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi and you will see lots of national records set in recent years (the most recent being last month when the August day time temperatures were the highest on record and rainfall was the lowest on record).

The simple fact is it is impossible to explain 2005 using SSTs. Further, the SSTs are warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect anyway.

BTW, have a look at the solar site I posted previously. It is well established that solar radiation during the early 20th century was probably at the highest levels since around 1000AD and this is why the early 20th century warmed from the late 19th century. BUT over the last 50 years the sun has cooled a little and we have had rapid global warming. This is the enhanced greenhouse effect emerging.

Hill Billy

Top
#13433 - 21/09/2006 09:08 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
>A positve attitude and embracing new technology is better than scare mongering and misinformation.

adon, communicating the scientific concensus is not miss-information. It is being truthful. You can choose to ignore it or decide what strategies you require to adapt.

It is not by chance that Al Gore called his film and Inconvenient Truth. It is very inconvenient, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to deal with (through technology and the like).

I am not interested in trying to convince those who are sceptics to change their ways (in my experience adults usually only change their views when their experiences come into conflict with their beliefs - an example is the US where they are experiencing the hottest year on record and there are numerous "commentors" now saying... "well maybe those scientists are right because my experiences are now consistent with what they have been saying"). I do, however, not want to see sceptics influence the minds of others with arguments which are wrong or unsubstantiated. The wrong views include the idea that the warming can be explained by the sun (it can't).

Hill Billy

Top
#13434 - 21/09/2006 10:11 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
I found the article on solar radiation here it is

July 12, 2004 - 1:59 PM
Sunspot activity hits 1,000-year highAdd story to my swissinfo panel
Sunspots appear to be intensifying the sun’s brightness and energy output (zebulon1er)

Sunspots appear to be intensifying the sun’s brightness and energy output (zebulon1er)




The Sun is burning brighter than at any time over the past 1,150 years, according to a study by a professor at a Swiss university.

Professor Sami Solanki said this could be compounding the effects of greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming.



“We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo.

Last week Solanki, who is a professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, presented the findings at a conference of solar and stellar scientists in Hamburg, Germany.

His research team reached its conclusions after studying data from samples of ice collected by Swiss scientist Jürg Beer on an expedition to Greenland in 1991.

Most scientists acknowledge that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have warmed the planet in past decades, but they have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.


Global warming



Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius over the past 20 years, and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns across the world.

According to scientists, the Sun’s radiance has changed little during this period. But looking back over 1,150 years, Solanki found the Sun had never been as bright as in the past 60 years.

The indirect impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and of solar activity on cloud cover may be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself, he said.

“The change in solar brightness over the past 20 years is not enough to cause the observed changes in our climate. But the indirect effects may be larger, and the range of their influence is unclear, so more study is needed,” he added.


Sunspots



To see whether a brighter Sun is warming the planet, solar scientists have measured magnetic zones on the Sun’s surface, called sunspots.

Sunspots appear to intensify the Sun’s brightness and energy output, and their numbers are associated with climate, said Solanki, who is also managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany.

Looking back over several hundred years, Solanki’s team found that not only did a dearth of sunspots signal a cold period – sometimes for as long as 50 years – but they also discovered that the number of sunspots increased over the past century as the Earth’s climate grew steadily warmer.

“All in all, I think we are coming to a point where we acknowledge that both solar activity and greenhouse gases are important factors in the change in the Earth’s temperature,” he said.

swissinfo, Elizabeth Meen

Top
#13435 - 21/09/2006 10:23 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
And David. While I acknowledge that we have broken quite a few temp records to say...
Quote from you "The simple fact is it is impossible to explain 2005 using SSTs. Further, the SSTs are warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect anyway."
It may look "impossible" to you, in your opinion and your knowledge of SST for forecasting, but myself I have lived and breathed SST for forecasting for many many years now. And after intensive research and observation and computer modelling and just plain hard work & help from above, on SST's and other climatic inputs, I can say that you are wrong. Most monthly & seasonal weather variations in any Australian area can be explained very convincingly by SST measurement, changes, gradients, etc, etc, and the April 2005 warmess is no exception to the rules. remebering , of course, that the summer 2004/2005 was actaully cooler than normal in many areas prior to the April 2005 warming, which was forecast well by my computer models many months before the event.

Top
#13436 - 21/09/2006 10:43 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Ian, I look forward to your science paper. BTW, how to you plan on removing the greenhouse warming signal from the oceans?

Hill Billy

Top
#13437 - 21/09/2006 11:21 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
David, I am not planning on putting my forecasting SST models into print...though I have had quite a few science weather papers authored by me and co-authored by me published in BOM Met Mag and other publications on long range weather and crop forecasting and downslope winds in SA and Alice Springs...But I now run my own private weather forecasting service for up to 2 years ahead for farmers, vineyards, irrigators, industry, etc throughout Australia, and though I would like to tell all, I am not able at present due to obvious reasons.

I don't plan to remove anything from the oceans, they serve me well atm giving accurate forecasts when incorporated into my computer models.

And sure they have warmed up a bit, they also have cooled over the last couple of years also...
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/article_1245606.php

Top
#13438 - 21/09/2006 11:32 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6970
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Quote:
Originally posted by holts:
The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate modelsof global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes insolar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do notargue against the basic theory that significant global warming isoccurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases.
It's a bit like with the weather models available on WZ (LAPS, GFS, etc.), the theory of the atmosphere used in the models can be quite accurate at times (based on how accurate the predictions are). On the over hand, sometimes the models are way out, they can disagree with one another, and then the obvious one, the accuracy of the predictions gets poorer the further out we look. So while the theory is ok, there seems to be much to learn and discover still.

I guess though, models are, however, only a representation of the state of the atmosphere, so the focus would be on improving them through research into the theory and testing of the theory. Making sure the input data is credible and not skewed or biased would also be important.

I would say that one of biggest issues I find with global warming theory is in the use of data limited by technology and socio-economic factors such as the cost of research and the availability of human resources. Hopefully with the beginning of the satellite age some of those things are beginning to change a bit.

When it comes to global warming in the media, I also often find much of the material is lacking sober, rational analysis. Although I guess much of the media is quite capitalist in its approach :rolleyes: .

There have, however, recently (within the last few weeks) been some nice articles (both scientific and general) in The Australian newspaper outlining the key issues in the debate, on both sides. In my view these could have helped people to get a better perspective on what's really going on behind all the opinions flying around the place.

Also, after doing some research, I found that, while Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, which I have not seen and don't intend to, seems to have many "issues" when I comes agreement with the science, it does contain some facts.

For my part, while I still think humans have an influence, what I find questionable is just how sensitive to this the climate is. I agree with Richard Lindzen in that this science does seem to be at a quite early stage in its development. To use an analogy, climate science is to modern society what the 1800s was to the Industrial Revolution.

As for a consensus on global warming, I would not be surprised if it's partly media driven. If I was a professional in climatology I would not want the media hanging on my every word. The media can, after all, claim something and get away with it these days, or, alternatively, sensationalise things and weave peoples' words to suit what they want people to hear. It would be interesting to find out just what fraction of the consensus claimed by the media comes from actual climate scientists in the field.

Top
#13439 - 21/09/2006 12:23 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Carl Smith Offline
Member

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 1042
Loc: Gold Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by David:
adon, communicating the scientific concensus is not miss-information. It is being truthful...
...I do, however, not want to see sceptics influence the minds of others with arguments which are wrong or unsubstantiated...
You claim you are "being truthful", and that you do "not want to see sceptics influence the minds of others with arguments which are wrong or unsubstantiated", so perhaps you could clear up some questions (repeated below) that I raised a couple of pages back?

*****************

(Regarding Mann et el's "Hockey Stick" graph, which David claims is credible science.)

It seems to me to be combining Apples with Oranges to make Pears if one uses proxy data for much of the reconstruction and the modern instrument record for the final part of the data - I am not aware of any other branch of science that would find mixing data in this way to be acceptable.

What is the result if the reconstruction is continued up to the current time using only proxy data?"


Earlier (regarding John Daly's Tuvalu tide graph), you claimed:

Quote:
Originally posted by David:
it is nonesense to:
1) mixe up data from two gauges;
How can you stand by this statement while also standing by Mann's methodology in combining two completely different types of data (proxy and instrument) to make his 'Hockey Stick' graph?

Isn't it a far greater nonsense to mix two completely different types of data?

Top
#13440 - 21/09/2006 12:52 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Carl, what is going on here? What has Mann got to do with the fact that one should be careful in merging instruments? It sounds to me like your reading from the sceptics "cook book" rather than treating arguments on merit. The Hockey stick has been replicated by dozens of scientists using newer and better techniques and data. The detail wasn't perfect, but the study was the first of its kind (and supported for the most part by the recent National Academy of Science Review). Merging 100s of overlapping proxy data has nothing to do with merging two tide gauges.

Suggest you go away and read Mixing Politics and Science in Testing
the Hypothesis That Greenhouse
Warming Is Causing a Global
Increase in Hurricane Intensity
BY J. A. CURRY, P. J. WEBSTER, AND G. J. HOLLAND 2006 which appeared in the latest Bull of the American Meteorological Society (avaliable through realclimate). It deals with false logic.

BTW, have you actually read any of the Mann papers? If so, you would understand that the analysis methods are perfectly valid. The only question is whether the data compression tool (which is a relatively small component of the analysis methodolgy) was applied in the best way. This is being dealt with in the scientific literature as it should be.

Hill Billy

Top
Page 4 of 18 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 18 >


Who's Online
3 registered (Kino, EddyG, ozthunder), 262 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
colorado, Effrem, whitsunday
Forum Stats
29343 Members
32 Forums
23662 Topics
1458842 Posts

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