New proof of Global warming!

[lhopp77]

Speaking of global warming--I think this is one of those years that won't count. China has the most snowfall and coldest winter they have had in 100 years. Many states and cities in the US have had record low temps and snowfall. Most states have had large amounts of snow and its still coming.

Of course, Ally Gorey will say that the COLD is because of global warming.

As to the pic above----I don't think you people see as well as I do---don't you see the goose bumps and rigid--you know whats on the bikini girl.

Lee

[ensteele]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

As to the pic above----I don't think you people see as well as I do---don't you see the goose bumps and rigid--you know whats on the bikini girl.

Lee

I tried enlarging the pic, but still can't see the bikini as well as I should.

[shotgunslade]

The global climate does vary from year to year, but what matters are the long term trends. This graph from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Sciences shows the global mean surface temperatures for each of the past 27 years. These mean temperatures are caculated based upon data from surface weather stations, measuring both the surface air temperature and the ocean surface temperature at the station, as applicable. The red line connects the annual averages and shows the typical annual variation. Major events such as volcano eruptions which temporarily increase atmospheric aerosols that increase atmospheric reflectivity and the El Nino, a temporary global warming phenomenon are shown. This data is not shown before 1980 because the quality of the available data set is not deemed accurate and complete enough (too few Southern hemisphere stations, for example)

The blue lines are important because they show the continuing eight year trends for each year (the trend calculated for that year and the 7 previous years). Looks like something is really happening in the 8 year trends. You can see how the several year effects of vulcanism (El Chichon and Pinatubo) can locally influence the trends, but there is a very clear upward trend.




By the way, that rumor that in the 70's scientists were predicting a new ice age is just that, a rumor. A literature search of refereed publications between 1965 and 1979 on the topic of climate temperature trends shows the following results:

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

A couple of the publications predicting cooling received a lot of publicity because of their dramatic implications, but these predictions were not accepted by most climate scientists.

This is not a political matter, although many people make it so. It is a matter of science. It is an ongoing effort to gather data, understand the data, to observe trends in the data, to understand the mechanisms that cause the trends, and then try to make predictions based on those mechanisms.

One of the most useful exercises currently being pursued is the post-prediction of historical data. In other words, using recordings of historically monitored data such as atmospheric CO2, solar radiation intensity, atmospheric aerosols, etc, and using the models to simulate and "predict" temperature data that can be compared with actual historical recorded tempature data. Interestingly, the models are becoming more and more capable of matching that recorded temperature data.

This method is, of course the classic exercise of the scientific method, to create hpotheses (in the form of climate models) and to test them. As the hypotheses prove to be correct or somewhat accurate in predicting information in the laboratory (or in this case, in the historical record), they become more useful in the "real world."

Applied to the "real world", almost all, if not all, of the legitimate climate modelling efforts predict significant global warming over the next 100 years, varying significantly with human production of carbon dioxide.

It is very easy to be swayed by anecdotal data, snowfall in China, the cold midwestern US winter, or conversely the rapid rate of glacier melt in Greenland and Antarctica, or the decreasing area of Arctic ice fields, but the more important information is what is happening with respect to global averages.

The science seems to indicate that there is a global warming trend. There are a few naysayers, but they represent a distinct minority of the scientific community. Some of the critics are very vocal, and a little research shows that their vocalization capabilities have been significantly enhanced by generous contributions from fossil fuel interests. A similar economic link has not yet been found among those active and accredited scientists who believe that anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide is raising the mean surface temperatures of the earth.

What the political discussion ought to be about is not whether the phenomenon exists (that discussion should be pursued by those who are technically qualified), but what, if anything to do about it.

[It's Just Eric]

I stumbled across this arcticle...its lenghthy and technical, but it explains every point made very well, with cited scientific evidence as well as simple explanations for complicated equasions and processes.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

It is very easy to be swayed by anecdotal data, snowfall in China, the cold midwestern US winter, or conversely the rapid rate of glacier melt in Greenland and Antarctica, or the decreasing area of Arctic ice fields, but the more important information is what is happening with respect to global averages.

The science seems to indicate that there is a global warming trend. There are a few naysayers, but they represent a distinct minority of the scientific community. Some of the critics are very vocal, and a little research shows that their vocalization capabilities have been significantly enhanced by generous contributions from fossil fuel interests. A similar economic link has not yet been found among those active and accredited scientists who believe that anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide is raising the mean surface temperatures of the earth.

What the political discussion ought to be about is not whether the phenomenon exists (that discussion should be pursued by those who are technically qualified), but what, if anything to do about it.

Thank you for this very interesting and logically put article Shotgunslade. It contrasts pretty strongly with the tone of quite a few respondents here who probably would not concede there is a problem unless seawater was flowing out their upstairs windows. In Colorado.

Your last paragraph says it all. The majority of scientists agree we have a problem. What do we do to address the problem?

And, BTW, it is totally disingenuous to diss hybrid vehicles because they do not do enough to cure the problem. Any move in the right direction is better than sitting on your butt in denial and criticising those who are at least trying to do something.

Joe

[shotgunslade]

Eric:

I'm afraid that the piece you cited was just another disinformation piece that ultimately receives backing from the fossil fuel companies. Here is the real scoop of on the conference that is cited. By the way, this post came from a website called realcimate.org, which bills itself as "real climate science by real climate scientists." Almost all of the posts in this website are by scientists currently working on issues such as climate modelling, the effect of atmospheric aerosols, and paleoclimatology.

By the way, the most legitimate scientific evidence casting doubt on global warming were estimations of global average air temperatures in the troposphere based upon satellite observations. Unfortunately, satellites don't measure temperature directly, they measure long wave radiation and this data must be translated to temperature. Earlier translations of this data by Spencer and Christy at the university of Alabama showed a rate of increase of only 0.05 DEgC per decade between 1978 and present, sufficiently lower than model predictions to cast doubt on the models. Later, errors were found in the translation of this data, involving inclusion of the effect of satellite orbital decay, etc, and the trend has been found to be between 0.15 and 0.20 DegC per decade, much more consistent with model predictions. Unfortunately, a number of global warming naysayers, including Spencer and Christy, still cite the earlier temperature rise rate, even though the errors have been acknowledged (even by Spencer and Christy).

So here is the post from realclimate.org on the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:

What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?
Filed under: Climate Science— group @ 5:37 PM
Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap.

A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)

At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)
Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.
This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by It's Just Eric

I stumbled across this arcticle...its lenghthy and technical, but it explains every point made very well, with cited scientific evidence as well as simple explanations for complicated equasions and processes.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

If you actually look at the real sources of "greenhouse gases" it supports this totally. Manmade emissions are a very small percentage of natural emissions.

Having said that I do agree that we should do everything reasonably possible to limit the manmade emissions.

It is actually the far left proponents of the current hysteria for "global warming" that have made this a political issue. Just like the liberal press, the liberal controlled scientific media will not publish evidence that does not support their theories. Mankind is ill served when the full truth is NOT printed as in our liberal press.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

Non-political info from Wikipedia

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[3][4]

Gas__Preindustrial Level__Current Level___Increase since 1750___Radiative forcing (Wm2)
Carbon dioxide__280 ppm____________384ppm_______87 ppm___________1.46
Methane_______700 ppb___________1,745 ppb____1,045 ppb___________0.48
Nitrous oxide ___270 ppb____________314 ppb______44 ppb____________0.15
CFC-12__________0________________533ppt______533 ppt____________0.17

Radiative forcing is a measure of the net change in heat transfer (balance of radiant gain from short wave radiation to radiant loss by long-wave radiation) across the surface of the earth caused by the change in concentration of the particular gas. Positive means a net gain in heat to the earth.

There is reason to believe that both the carbon dioxide increase (industrialization) and methane increases are the result of human changes to the terrestrial environment. Interestingly enough, the primary driver to moisture content of the atmosphere is temperature. So, there is a bit of a positive feedback mechanism. Other changes which increase the average temperature of the air also increase the moisture content which increases the greenhouse function of the moisture vapor, which further increases the temperature.

[shotgunslade]

Lee:

I don't think the liberal media controls the scientific press. The scientific press is primarily controlled by the peer review process which primarily review technical quality rather than political intent. You created a verbal qualitive climate model in your post in the form of a logical syllogism: "A small percentage of the greenhouse emissions are the result of human activity, therefore, increasing amounts of human emissions will not cause a potentially catastrophic increase in global temperature."

Much more detailed quantitative climate models which attempt to incorporate as many physical phenomena as can be accomodated in current computers come to a different conclusion. Here are the results of 19 different climate models from a a diverse group of researchers all over the world, using the same assumptions for driving forces, natural and man-made emissions show the following predictions:



Perhaps all of these folks are part of the same liberal conspiracy, however, I can't find a whole bunch of climate model predictions from right-thinking Republican scientists that show flat line predictions for temperature change over the next 100 years.

By the way, these predictions are based on emissions projections that are several years old. Actual carbon and methane emissions over the intervening several years have been substantially higher than the assumptions in these models.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

Perhaps all of these folks are part of the same liberal conspiracy, however, I can't find a whole bunch of climate model predictions from right-thinking Republican scientists that show flat line predictions for temperature change over the next 100 years.

Don't you find it a little strange when the publications will not publish alternative views that are equally well documented?? I do. And, this is only one of many examples of not wanting to hear diverse views.

Lee

[shotgunslade]

Actually the publications do publish papers with opposing views. Douglass, Pearson, Christy and Singer recentlly published a paper in the Inernational Journal of Climatology concerning detailed climate model predictions compared with recent data from satellites. In subsequent postings, numerous factual and procedural errors were demonstrated that put its conclusions in doubt. The point is that it was peer reviewed and published because of interest and importance, even if it contained much that was demonstrably in error. The important thing was that the paper was evaluated on validity and correctness of process, factuality and relevance of assumptions, without going straight to lampooning the conclusions and engaging in ad hominem attacks. Nobody remarked on the politics of the authors or critics

[LarryIII]

If the earth keeps getting warmer, why were those B-17s and P-38s which landed on the ice in Greenland during WW II under 250 ft. of ice. Let's see the planes sat there for about 60 yrs. and according to "Whose Ox is Gored" the avg. temp. rose 1/10 of 1 degree duing that span. So if we did not have earth warming during that time, the planes would have been under 267 ft ice.
Based on that alone, I'd have to conclude that earth warming is a good thing.

Let's see if earth warming continues in ten years my house could be beachfront property. I'd better start covering my back lawn with beach sand.
I could even come up with some new slogans for the state's visitors bureau.
Let's see..................."Delaware, the new Florida."
or............................."Delaware, look east from our beaches and see where New Jersey used to be."

[It's Just Eric]

As much science as you could possibly put into an argument, two basic views of mine will remain:

The earth's climate is changing. It always has, and always will, and if this time around its our fault, so be it. there's entire continents moving about. Islands growing, shorelines dissapeing elsewhere, and huge lakes turning to deserts.Hell, the better half of new jersey wouldnt be around if it werent for the mountians to the west eroding.

Does that mean we should shrug our shoulders and throw uncut 6 pack can holders into the ocean? No. this leads into my other view....dont be a damn slob. Go ahead and get yourself some recycalable cans or put some solar panels on your roof. Hell, you dont have to do anything to contribute towards saving certian recources...just dont USE those so much. Simple thing...cut back on your gas bill. you never haul anything around...dont have any trailer, and your kids have more than enough energy to shimmy into the back seat of a god sized coupe....do you REALLY need a chevy suburban?
How about if you go grocery shopping, and you only get like, 3 things..dont ask to have it tripple bagged for the 2 block drive to your house when you can easilly make one of the formentioned energetic kids walk over and carry it home. Its reeally simple common sence things people DONT do that, society as a whole, end up creating alot of waste

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by It's Just Eric

As much science as you could possibly put into an argument, two basic views of mine will remain:

The earth's climate is changing. It always has, and always will, and if this time around its our fault, so be it. there's entire continents moving about. Islands growing, shorelines dissapeing elsewhere, and huge lakes turning to deserts.Hell, the better half of new jersey wouldnt be around if it werent for the mountians to the west eroding.

Does that mean we should shrug our shoulders and throw uncut 6 pack can holders into the ocean? No. this leads into my other view....dont be a damn slob. Go ahead and get yourself some recycalable cans or put some solar panels on your roof. Hell, you dont have to do anything to contribute towards saving certian recources...just dont USE those so much. Simple thing...cut back on your gas bill. you never haul anything around...dont have any trailer, and your kids have more than enough energy to shimmy into the back seat of a god sized coupe....do you REALLY need a chevy suburban?
How about if you go grocery shopping, and you only get like, 3 things..dont ask to have it tripple bagged for the 2 block drive to your house when you can easilly make one of the formentioned energetic kids walk over and carry it home. Its reeally simple common sence things people DONT do that, society as a whole, end up creating alot of waste

x2

I keep a bag of used grocery bags in the trunk, and take them in with me so I don't need more...when I don't have a bag and only get one or two items I tell them "I don't need a bag, I have plenty at home!" the truck sits in the drive whenever I don't need it, my peugeot diesel gets 30mpg and the motorcycle is nearly at 50 without piles of batteries.

Fact...the earth's climate is changing as always, right now more places are warming than cooling, the area I am in is predicted to cool on average due to greater marine layer so stuff happens, we'll see how it goes when it gets here. when it reaches a breaking point the atmosphere will cloud up, reflect the heat, and we'll have the next ice age, so get your snow boards ready!

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

x2

I keep a bag of used grocery bags in the trunk, and take them in with me so I don't need more...when I don't have a bag and only get one or two items I tell them "I don't need a bag, I have plenty at home!"

My local grocery store has a spot to return bags after use, for recycling... its right outside the door.