Re: Good news on the weather front
Chris L Peterson
>Of course, some may think this is bad news.
>
>- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
>
>- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
>remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
>now of considerably below-average activity globally.
>
>http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
>
>But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
>else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
>infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
>there is to know about planet wide climate.
If you actually followed the scientific papers, you would know two
things: hurricane activity _does_ correlate with the El Nino
oscillation, and climate researchers are very uncertain as to whether
global warming will increase or decrease the North Atlantic hurricane
pattern. There is a complex interaction between sea surface temperatures
in different parts of the world, and subtle changes in models produce a
wide range of outputs: more strong hurricanes, more weak hurricanes,
fewer hurricanes but stronger, and fewer hurricanes but weaker. You
won't find climate _scientists_ making unequivocal statements about
global warming and hurricane patterns. (What all agree on is that even
small increases in sea level will result in greater economic harm from
hurricanes, however.)
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Uber Buble'
HURRICANES) already that pounded the phillipines and vietnam. Global
warmong and it's effects apply to the whole earth, not just the US !!
"S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote in message
news:YeWdnb8qYfQkLnDX...@supernews.com...
yourmommycalled
> Of course, some may think this is bad news.
>
> - North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
>
> - Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
> remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
> now of considerably below-average activity globally.
>
> http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
>
> But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
> else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
> infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
> there is to know about planet wide climate.
Rather than reading the ramblings of a disgraced TV news reader, I
suggest the following papers which document what scientists have said
about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power
Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate
DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-
century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
Sam Wormley
> Of course, some may think this is bad news.
>
> - North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
>
> - Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
> remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
> now of considerably below-average activity globally.
>
> http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
>
> But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
> else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
> infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
> there is to know about planet wide climate.
>
>
<laughing>
Here's 5 cents -- Get an education, kid.
Peter Webb
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:vqdre51t3a74j2dll...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:50 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course, some may think this is bad news.
>>
>>- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
>>
>>- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity
>>remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row
>>now of considerably below-average activity globally.
>>
>>http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
>>
>>But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING
>>else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely
>>infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything
>>there is to know about planet wide climate.
>
> If you actually followed the scientific papers, you would know two
> things: hurricane activity _does_ correlate with the El Nino
> oscillation, and climate researchers are very uncertain as to whether
> global warming will increase or decrease the North Atlantic hurricane
> pattern. There is a complex interaction between sea surface temperatures
> in different parts of the world, and subtle changes in models produce a
> wide range of outputs: more strong hurricanes, more weak hurricanes,
> fewer hurricanes but stronger, and fewer hurricanes but weaker. You
> won't find climate _scientists_ making unequivocal statements about
> global warming and hurricane patterns.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to be
incorrect.
I note that: "In related news, Al Gore has dropped the [hurricane frequency]
related slide in his traveling PowerPoint show."
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/22/global-warming-more-hurricanes-still-not-happening/).
Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to be
true, and that we can use as a test of the theory? Or do the predictions of
"climate science" change so quickly that there are no specific predictions
that believers in AGW have that can be used to test the theory?
Sam Wormley
>
>
> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
>
> "It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
> coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall
> rates than present-day hurricanes."
>
> That's NOAA, folks.
>
> Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved
> to be incorrect.
Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
Peter Webb
<SNIP>
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________
No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you posted
which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Sam Wormley
Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
>
>"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
>century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
>present-day hurricanes."
>
>That's NOAA, folks.
>
>Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to be
>incorrect.
If you would actually read the paper you quote (from which you have
provided a single, out-of-context snippet), you'd see that it is
considering considerably higher warming levels than we have seen so far.
It is a prediction based on good work, but which remains speculative- a
point that the author is careful to emphasize in his conclusions.
Climate research papers generally provide level of confidence values for
their predictions, which range from very high (for example, the
predictions for actual temperature increases), to much lower (as in this
case).
Peter Webb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:J%pHm.111332$5n1.60474@attbi_s21...
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct.
2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct
2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
Any of you other AGW believers out there?
If so, do you believe that:
1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
2. These have increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct
*** OR ****
1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
3. Therefore AGW is correct.
C'mon, speak up!
Sam Wormley
>
> Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
>
> 1. That AGW is correct.
> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>
> You seem to believe:
>
> 1. That AGW is correct
> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>
> Is that the situation?
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
that came with the industrial revolution.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie,
Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander
P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains
largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we
present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the
past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on
recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest
stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early
Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e)
were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or
exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature,
lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In
recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern
and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the
climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to
do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem
has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different
from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Any of you other AGW believers out there?
I wouldn't use the word "believer". Everybody who understands the
science knows that AGW is occurring. Calling somebody an "AGW believer"
is like calling somebody an "evolution believer" or a "heliocentricism
believer". It's a misuse of the word.
>If so, do you believe that:
>
>1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
>2. These have increased.
>3. Therefore AGW is correct
>
>*** OR ****
>
>1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
>2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
>3. Therefore AGW is correct.
Neither. Different climate models currently produce different
predictions about how global warming will impact the intensity and
frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes. There is good work supporting
the prediction that intensity will increase with an increase in sea
surface temperatures, but it remains uncertain whether sea surface
temperatures will increase, because global warming also impacts ocean
currents. Thus, the model predictions are not considered very reliable
yet. This remains one of the most active areas of study.
Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation. The
point of the models is to ascertain what effects we can expect from it
in the future, given a range of responses (from none to aggressive).
Peter Webb
I made no comment upon whether I support it.
I just pointed out that (contrary to what was stated) the report
specifically predicts an increase in the intensity of cyclones.
This completely undermines the argument that cyclones have not increased in
intensity, and AGW predicts they would not, so therefore this is supporting
evidence for AGW. Its not.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:42:13 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
>>
>>"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
>>century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
>>present-day hurricanes."
>>
>>That's NOAA, folks.
>>
>>Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to
>>be
>>incorrect.
>
> If you would actually read the paper you quote (from which you have
> provided a single, out-of-context snippet), you'd see that it is
> considering considerably higher warming levels than we have seen so far.
Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because it
is wrong about how much warming we would see?
Lets add this one to the list of failed predictions of climate "science".
> It is a prediction based on good work, but which remains speculative- a
> point that the author is careful to emphasize in his conclusions.
>
No he doesn't.
> Climate research papers generally provide level of confidence values for
> their predictions, which range from very high (for example, the
> predictions for actual temperature increases), to much lower (as in this
> case).
Where is the level of confidence stated for the IPCC's predictions for
hurricane intensity?
Sam Wormley
>>
>> Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
>>
>
> I made no comment upon whether I support it.
>
> I just pointed out that (contrary to what was stated) the report
> specifically predicts an increase in the intensity of cyclones.
>
> This completely undermines the argument that cyclones have not increased
> in intensity, and AGW predicts they would not, so therefore this is
> supporting evidence for AGW. Its not.
>
>
NEW CYCLONE PREDICTOR
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45259/title/New_cyclone_predictor
Occasional sea-surface warming in central Pacific linked with more, stronger hurricanes in
North Atlantic
By Sid Perkins
Web edition
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009
Warmer-than-normal sea-surface temperatures in the central Pacific lead to stronger, more
frequent tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic, a new analysis suggests.
Unlike the more familiar El Niño, or warming in the equatorial region of the eastern and
central Pacific, trends in central Pacific warming alone are more predictable and may
offer forecasters a more accurate method of anticipating hurricane activity during the
upcoming year, scientists say.
The sea-surface warming characteristic of El Niño typically stretches along the equator
from the coast of South America to the international date line, with the largest
temperature anomalies in the eastern Pacific. During El Niño episodes, the number of
tropical storms and hurricanes — both called cyclones — is lower than average across the
North Atlantic, says Peter J. Webster, an atmospheric scientist at Georgia Tech in
Atlanta. But when the equatorial sea-surface warming is concentrated only around the
international date line, hurricane activity is much higher than normal, Webster and his
colleagues report in the July 3 Science.
“This is a pattern that we [scientists] hadn’t really recognized before,” comments Chris
Landsea, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA’s hurricane research division in Miami. He says
the finding is “an advance in the field.”
Webster and his colleagues analyzed patterns in North Atlantic cyclone activity from 1950
through 2006 during August, September and October, the height of hurricane season. As many
previous studies had noted, the number and strength of tropical cyclones were markedly
lower in El Niño years than during La Niña episodes, when sea-surface temperatures in the
eastern and central Pacific are substantially cooler than normal. Unlike previous
research, says Webster, the new study reveals that when sea-surface warming is confined to
the central Pacific, hurricane activity is higher, particularly in the Caribbean, the Gulf
of Mexico and along the eastern coast of the United States.
Global weather models suggest how El Niño and other phenomena affect hurricanes thousands
of kilometers away, Webster explains. During El Niño events, high-altitude wind shear over
the North Atlantic is stronger than normal, which tends to disrupt the formation and
strengthening of tropical storms there — and this explains the lower-than-average cyclone
activity then, he notes. During La Niña years, wind shear is low, and storms more readily
form and gain strength. When sea-surface warming is confined to the central Pacific, wind
shear in the North Atlantic region where cyclones form is about average but is not large
enough to totally disrupt cyclone formation.
Identifying the new central Pacific warming trend is important because the transition
between El Niño warming and La Niña cooling isn’t always predictable, says Webster.
Sometimes, just when it looks like a shift will occur from warm to cool, for example,
temperatures will swing back to warm again, thwarting forecasters’ attempts to predict
cyclone activity for the upcoming season. But shifts in central Pacific warming seem to
follow a more predictable path, the new analysis suggests.
The new research “is a well-done analysis of the impact of sea-surface temperatures on
Atlantic hurricanes,” Landsea says. Also, he notes, the new findings may help explain the
2004 hurricane season. That year, the Pacific experienced a weak El Niño, but sea-surface
temperatures in the central Pacific were warmer than normal and cyclone activity in the
North Atlantic was unexpectedly strong.
Data suggest that episodes of central Pacific warming have occurred more frequently since
the 1960s, Webster notes. Because relatively few sea-surface temperature data were
collected in that region before the 1950s, scientists can’t yet discern whether this
increased frequency is a symptom of long-term global climate change or is merely part of a
long-term climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which typically lasts
around two to three decades.
Peter Webb
> Peter Webb wrote:
>
>>
>> Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
>>
>> 1. That AGW is correct.
>> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
>> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>>
>> You seem to believe:
>>
>> 1. That AGW is correct
>> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
>> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>>
>> Is that the situation?
>
> What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the
> current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning
> that came with the industrial revolution.
>
"Correlates".
There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption and
car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this doesn't prove
that buying a car increases your electricity consumption, or even vica
versa.
> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
> global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
> intensity.
>
So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the
intensity of cyclones is wrong?
So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style just
decided to change the topic?
Sam Wormley
We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent
changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2
from fossil fuel burning.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:18:42 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Any of you other AGW believers out there?
>
> I wouldn't use the word "believer". Everybody who understands the
> science knows that AGW is occurring.
I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really
understands astrology believes it is correct.
> Calling somebody an "AGW believer"
> is like calling somebody an "evolution believer" or a "heliocentricism
> believer". It's a misuse of the word.
>
You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
>>If so, do you believe that:
>>
>>1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
>>2. These have increased.
>>3. Therefore AGW is correct
>>
>>*** OR ****
>>
>>1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
>>2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
>>3. Therefore AGW is correct.
>
> Neither. Different climate models currently produce different
> predictions about how global warming will impact the intensity and
> frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes.
Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and AGW
also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
> There is good work supporting
> the prediction that intensity will increase with an increase in sea
> surface temperatures, but it remains uncertain whether sea surface
> temperatures will increase, because global warming also impacts ocean
> currents. Thus, the model predictions are not considered very reliable
> yet. This remains one of the most active areas of study.
>
So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the bit
about hurricanes?
> Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
> correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the
report was published?
So far we have one wrong prediction, and zero correct ones. perhaps you
would like to tell us which of the IPCC predictions have come true, which
makes you certain the IPCC report is correct (except of course for what it
says about hurricanes, which are obviously wrong)?
>The
> point of the models is to ascertain what effects we can expect from it
> in the future, given a range of responses (from none to aggressive).
The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's
climate.
How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of
the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
Sam Wormley
>
> Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and
> AGW also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
>
No--The science indicates that the current global warming correlates with
the fossil fuel burning that came with the industrial revolution.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
intensity.
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
Peter Webb
No, *you* decided to talk about what was happening in a remote arctic lake.
Nobody else was. We were all talking about hurricanes.
Cranks and changing the subject ...
Peter Webb
> Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>> Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and
>> AGW also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
>>
>
> No--The science indicates that the current global warming correlates
> with
> the fossil fuel burning that came with the industrial revolution.
>
> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher
> global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and
> intensity.
>
So according to AGW, an increase in hurricane intensity is evidence that the
earth is getting warmer? So a decrease (say a 30 year low, as we are
experiencing at the moment) is therefore evidence the earth is cooler?
And what about the claim that AGW will cause an increase in freak weather
events, and cause more extreme events? Aren't cyclones and hurricanes
extreme events?
> Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000
> years
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
>
>
I snipped it. It didn't mention hurricanes or anything vaguely similar.
Cranks are always trying to change the subject ...
Sam Wormley
>
> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to
> be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global
surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research
that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really
>understands astrology believes it is correct.
Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making
unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the
weight of evidence and theory behind them.
>You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific
truth.
>Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and AGW
>also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
AGW predicts nothing. AGW is an observation. There are theories of
climate behavior that explain AGW, and make a variety of predictions. No
current climate theory makes any predictions about future hurricane
activity in the North Atlantic with a high degree of confidence. People
who call AGW a belief or theory are the same as those who call evolution
a belief or theory. That would be people who don't even understand the
basics of science.
>So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
Wrong about the effects of global warming on hurricane activity? Of
course- the very papers they publish or reprint admit this. Wrong that
AGW is a real thing? Highly unlikely.
>What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the bit
>about hurricanes?
Read the report. Confidence levels are given for all the predictions.
>> Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
>> correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
>
>Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
Because theory isn't yet advanced enough to reliably predict hurricane
accuracy, a point that isn't hidden by the modelers. So any failure of
the models in this area isn't seen as a serious problem with respect to
other parts that are much more solid.
>The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
>
>Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the
>report was published?
The warming trend continues. It's pretty hard to match predictions that
are largely reflecting 10-year and 30-year averages in the few years
since the latest IPCC report was published.
>The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's
>climate.
>
>How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of
>the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
They are predicting climate over decades- a point that seems to be
overlooked by people who don't understand the reports, don't understand
statistics, and don't understand the underlying science. In fact, as the
models improve the evidence continues to mount that the IPCC predictions
were far too conservative.
Peter Webb
> Peter Webb wrote:
>
>>
>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to
>> be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
>
> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global
> surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research
> that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
>
>
Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
But I note that the abstract says:
"Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories
> in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked
> orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study
> site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an
> environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some
previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which followed
a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and lakewater pH".
Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this
prediction made?
Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted by AGW
theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after predictions made
by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that *weren't* predicted by
AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is how I understand science is
supposed to work ...
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because it
>is wrong about how much warming we would see?
First of all, the IPCC report is not wrong about cyclones. Perhaps you
are referring to North Atlantic hurricanes? However, they aren't really
wrong about that, either, since there hasn't been enough time since the
report to tell. In spite of a number of factors that ought to have
resulted in a cooling trend over the last decade, we've seen nothing
more than a leveling of the long term rise in global temperature. Given
that, it isn't surprising that we've not seen a major change is
hurricane activity. Give the report time for decadal averages to make
sense. Watch what happens when the temperatures really start shooting up
again in the next few years- as they are almost certain to do. Then
judge the IPCC predictions.
Sam Wormley
<smiling>
Did you read the paper?
Peter Webb
I read the abstract you posted.
If this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some
previous AGW prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which
followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and
lakewater pH".
Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this
prediction made?
Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something that
happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are tendering it
as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the lake was not in fact
predicted by AGW)?
oriel36
The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months
will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to
global warming.None of you can explain using planetary dynamics why
that temperature drop occurs or you rely on inclination to solar
radiation based on 'tilt' to the Sun or orbital plane.How,for goodness
sake,can an entire group of people miss out on the orbital dynamic
behind seasonal changes yet influence human behavior so much by
creating a fuss over pollution and labeling 'climate change' ?.This
beats me,the climate has always changed on the planet due to some
causes that are known and some that are not and here we have a society
'combating' something that occurs anyway and is vital to explain
astronomical and geological features and factors.
Somewhere in the back of their heads a few scientists must know this
carbon dioxide temperature dial is intellectual suicide for excluding
all else for the sake of raising taxes or some other social
concern,all avenues relating to rapid or long term temperature spikes
and dips are shut down.Of course it is all due to love of predictions
rather than interpretation of celestial and terrestrial phenomena and
that all goes back to the original error of the Ra/Dec convenience
which tries to explain planetary dynamics using the rotation of the
constellations around Polaris.
I have never seen in any human endeavor a level of complicity
remotely close to this truly desperate situation centering around
planetary dynamics and basic planetary facts,almost an enjoyment of
doing something spectacularly wrong just because nobody is around to
object but this diminishes our race and rots our civilisation from
within.I do not know how any of you do it,even allowing for the
original error and silly conclusion by Flamsteed in attempting to turn
Ra/Dec into a predictive tool for planetary dynamics but 'climate
change' exposes something far more insidious and dangerous than global
warming,it exposes the human condition is a pretty bad state.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:00:58 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because
>>it
>>is wrong about how much warming we would see?
>
> First of all, the IPCC report is not wrong about cyclones. Perhaps you
> are referring to North Atlantic hurricanes? However, they aren't really
> wrong about that, either, since there hasn't been enough time since the
> report to tell.
Ohh, so they are not right, and they are not wrong, nobody knows.
> In spite of a number of factors that ought to have
> resulted in a cooling trend over the last decade, we've seen nothing
> more than a leveling of the long term rise in global temperature.
Was that predicted by AGW?
> Given
> that, it isn't surprising that we've not seen a major change is
> hurricane activity.
Well, if the AGW people are wrong about the earth warming, then I guess they
are wrong about hurricanes as well, and a million other things based upon
climate "science".
> Give the report time for decadal averages to make
> sense. Watch what happens when the temperatures really start shooting up
> again in the next few years- as they are almost certain to do.
Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
As it is, AGW's record of correct predictions seems to be somewhat less than
those of astrology.
> Then
> judge the IPCC predictions.
> _________________________________________________
Sure. I just wish everybody else would wait for evidence before deciding if
a particular theory is correct. I use the same rules for Special Relativity,
the photo-electric effect, Maxwell's equations, astrology and climate
"science".
Its called the "scientific method". If AGW weants to be considered a
science, it has to demonstrate predictive ability. Where has it done this?
Sam Wormley
Peter, you are confused. AGW is an observation, not a theory. AGW
does NOT make predictions.
>
> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this
> prediction made?
>
> Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something that
> happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are tendering
> it as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the lake was not
> in fact predicted by AGW)?
>
Peter--More information other than the original paper
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fa189a8186a324d8f62b5d55ba4b8969.html
http://www.physorg.com/news175188684.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm
NOT predictions of AGW!
Sam Wormley
>
> The temperature drop in places like New York over the next few months
> will be many magnitudes greater than any temperature spike due to
> global warming.
That's right Gerald--Too many people confuse weather and seasonal
changes with global climate change. The typical benchmark for global
climate change is what happens globally over a thirty year interval.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:28:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really
>>understands astrology believes it is correct.
>
> Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making
> unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the
> weight of evidence and theory behind them.
>
Great. What is the weight of evidence that AGW is correct? What specific
predictions has it made that turned out to be correct?
>>You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
>
> I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific
> truth.
So who exactly is offended?
And how did you decide AGW is the scientific truth? By using the scientific
method? This would involve you examining a list of the specific predictions
of AGW and verifying that these were correctly predicted by AGW.
Can you tell me what they were?
>
>>Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and
>>AGW
>>also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
>
> AGW predicts nothing.
Then its not a scientific theory.
> AGW is an observation. There are theories of
> climate behavior that explain AGW, and make a variety of predictions. No
> current climate theory makes any predictions about future hurricane
> activity in the North Atlantic with a high degree of confidence.
"With a high degree of confidence" !!!
I thought you said AGW doesn't predict anything, now you are saying it
predicts future hurricane activity, but not with a high degree of
confidence!
What specific predictions (if any) of AGW have a "high degree of confidence"
and have subsequently be shown to have been correct?
> People
> who call AGW a belief or theory are the same as those who call evolution
> a belief or theory. That would be people who don't even understand the
> basics of science.
Well, evolution is a theory, its just that it has so much supporting
evidence that I believe it to be true.
So are Maxwell's equations, Special Relativity, Plate techtonics, and a
million other theories I believe to be true.
Astrology and climate "science" are theories which seem to have no
predictive power, and hence which I don't believe.
>
>>So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
>
> Wrong about the effects of global warming on hurricane activity? Of
> course- the very papers they publish or reprint admit this.
The IPCC summary I read and quoted did not say this or anything like it.
> Wrong that
> AGW is a real thing? Highly unlikely.
>
So which of the predictions of the IPCC are correct and which are wrong?
>>What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the
>>bit
>>about hurricanes?
>
> Read the report. Confidence levels are given for all the predictions.
No they aren't. There is no confidence level given for the thing we are in
fact discussing, increased severity of hurricanes.
What is the confidence level given that the earth's temperature would
increase at all?
>
>>> Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is
>>> correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
>>
>>Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
>
> Because theory isn't yet advanced enough to reliably predict hurricane
> accuracy, a point that isn't hidden by the modelers. So any failure of
> the models in this area isn't seen as a serious problem with respect to
> other parts that are much more solid.
>
>>The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
>>
>>Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the
>>report was published?
>
> The warming trend continues.
Didn't you just say the earth hasn't increased in average temperatures over
the last 10 years, or was that some other AGW believer?
> It's pretty hard to match predictions that
> are largely reflecting 10-year and 30-year averages in the few years
> since the latest IPCC report was published.
>
The first IPCC report was 1992. That was 17 years ago. AGW theories existed
long before then.
>>The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's
>>climate.
>>
>>How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of
>>the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
>
> They are predicting climate over decades- a point that seems to be
> overlooked by people who don't understand the reports, don't understand
> statistics, and don't understand the underlying science.
There have been "decades" since the theory was first advanced, and 20 years
since the models used for the IPCC were created.
If you are arguing that "the theories have not been experimentally verified
because not enough time has elapsed, I am happy to put AGW into the category
of "untested scientific theories", but really after 20 years this excuse is
wearing more than a little thin.
> In fact, as the
> models improve the evidence continues to mount that the IPCC predictions
> were far too conservative.
>
So they were in fact wrong?
oriel36
Unreal !.
Global climate is the effect of two major causes - distance from the
Sun and planetary dynamics,weather patterns are a secondary effect of
global climate due to multiple factors such as proximity to
oceans ,landmass and events which arise from both such as volcanic
activity or cyclical ocean warming.
The one fact you can all be certain of is that the study and
appreciation of planetary dynamics for any purposes,global climate
especially, is non existent and this is why there is no clear
distinction between global climate and weather patterns for the latter
is a secondary effect of the former whereas you numbskulls have
weather running into climate.Of course you want to use the same
procedure as predicting short range weather patterns by extending it
to climate but that is both silly and irresponsible.
Continue on with this 'climate change' question begging exercise but
it would be nice to meet somebody for a change who is actually
interested in climate minus human pollution with particular interest
in what actually causes seasonal temperature drops and rises with
greater variations away from the Equator.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
>turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject
and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly.
And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the
pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't
respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions)
over and over.
You should be posting on one of the forums for ideologues; you are badly
out of your depth in a SCI forum.
_________________________________________________
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that
>>have
>>turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
>
> As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject
> and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly.
> And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the
> pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't
> respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions)
> over and over.
>
No, you keep refusing to answer the same questions. Then you use the lame
excuse that you have already answered them.
No, you haven't.
You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the likely
truth of scientific theories.
The pretty obvious reason is that there are none with a pinch of shit.
Which does raise the question of why you believe in it if its predictions
have not been successfully tested. Obviously not for scientific reasons, as
these require theories to make novel testable predictions and for these to
be born out by experiment. This clearly hasn't happened for AGW, unless of
course you can supply these novel predictions that AGW correctly predicted.
> You should be posting on one of the forums for ideologues; you are badly
> out of your depth in a SCI forum.
>
"Out of my depth"? Discussing the scientific method? Very funny.
Got anything other than ad-hominem attacks?
Or is AGW more of a faith based thing than a science thing, so evidence
doesn't matter?
Peter Webb
Then by definition its not a science.
>
>>
>> Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this
>> prediction made?
>>
>> Or is this a completely random and off-topic example of something that
>> happened which wasn't predicted by AGW, in which case you are tendering
>> it as evidence that AGW is wrong (as what happened in the lake was not in
>> fact predicted by AGW)?
>>
>
> Peter--More information other than the original paper
> http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/fa189a8186a324d8f62b5d55ba4b8969.html
> http://www.physorg.com/news175188684.html
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162929.htm
>
> NOT predictions of AGW!
>
I have got a million things that weren't predicted by AGW but have
subsequently shown to be true.
So what?
Or is your argument that these are all things which should have been
predicted by AGW, but weren't, and so AGW is wrong?
Sam Wormley
I think I made my point!
Chris.B
>
> Or is your argument that these are all things which should have been
> predicted by AGW, but weren't, and so AGW is wrong?
It is no shame to be educationally challenged but which part of "AGW
predicts nothing" do you not understand?
Stay behind after class and write 100 times: "AGW predicts nothing."
Perhaps it will finally sink in. Like walking on yesterday's
permafrost.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
>turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the likely
>truth of scientific theories.
I'll say it one last time, although the concept appears beyond your
ability to understand, so I'm not optimistic.
AGW makes no predictions. AGW is an observation. It is what most people
would call a simple fact. AGW is not a "theory" in the scientific sense
of the word.
The theory behind it is increasingly well developed, and that is what
makes predictions. Those predictions, applied to actual climate, have
proven exceptionally successful when applied to real climate over the
last 150 years. If you don't understand what "prediction" means when
applied to historical data, you should not be discussing this at all.
Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer. It is
obvious why this is when you look a the historical record: there is a
significant warming trend over the last 150 years, but it is invisible
over any selected period of a few years, and usually difficult to detect
even over 10 years. That's simply not long enough to see the signal
against the noise. Good quality models have not been in place long
enough for most future trends to show up. Sensible people look at the
success of these models in explaining the past, and recognize that there
is a high probability they will come close with their future
projections. Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead just keep
asking "what predictions have come true", while the climate crashes
around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything about it.
yourmommycalled
>
> > Peter Webb wrote:
>
> >>http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
>
> >> "It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming
> >> century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than
> >> present-day hurricanes."
>
> >> That's NOAA, folks.
>
> >> Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to
> >> be incorrect.
>
> > Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
>
> Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
>
> 1. That AGW is correct.
> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes.
> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low)
> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>
> You seem to believe:
>
> 1. That AGW is correct
> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes
> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity
> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>
> Is that the situation?
>
>
>
> 1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
> 2. These have increased.
> 3. Therefore AGW is correct
>
> *** OR ****
>
> 1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes
> 2. Their intensity has *not* increased.
> 3. Therefore AGW is correct.
>
Try rading all the posts before you shoot your mouth off and prove you
haven't a clue.
Try the following for science rather than your own ill-informed
opinion
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power
Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate
DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-
first-
century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPPC makes no definitive statement about the relationship between
hurricanes and global warming. It suggests that a link is tenuous at
best and needs more work to filter the naturally occurring cycles in
hurricanes from that of global warming. Quoting from a recent
conference summary
i) It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly
greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic
hurricane activity.
ii) It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall
rates than present-day hurricanes.
Once again rather than believing a disgraced television news reader
try the reading the science.
So regardless what the observed data shows you going to still claim no
global warming!
Steve Paul
> future projections. Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead
> just keep asking "what predictions have come true", while the climate
> crashes around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything
> about it. _________________________________________________
Sounds a lot like prophecy <snerk>, which raises the question of whether the
prophets of antiquity were actually scientists in the midst of a
supersitious people.
Noah comes to mind when one thinks of climate related events. He took a lot
of years to build that boat. (If there's _any_ truth in the telling.) He may
have simply been a keen observer of weather trends.
It would be fun twist of fate, if we could prove to modern man that God
(being the human ideal and all) is not only established in love, but in
science. Sacrificing your precious time on this earth to find a cure for a
disease, or to awaken a people to danger on the horizon, qualifies as laying
down your life for a friend, of which it has been said that man has no
greater love.
There's a lot of good people doing a lot of good science, because they care
about others. My personal opinion on the value of AGW research and
technology development is that it can't hurt the atmosphere, and it can only
help us ecomonically by providing employment through future tech.
Can't understand why anyone would be against it, except to perserve their
own personal wealth. Selfishness is the root of all evil. If I have to live
with less, in order to fund new technologies that will help preserve or
improve the natural environment, and provide a future of economic health for
generations to come, then I do so willingly. I don't see any other new tech
on the horizon that will employ my kids. Information technology is now
operating in maintenance mode, and financial markets have proven to be a
scam.
Just don't take away my guns or my religion. I may appear a liberal, but I'm
no socialist. ;-)
Just saying...
-SteveP.
oriel36
> Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer.
Unintelligent junk that is unfortunately all too prevalent !.
The normal temperature spikes and dips over the daily cycle is due to
the rotation of the Earth in and out of solar radiation with seasonal
variations,to a large extent,due to prolonged exposure of any given
latitude to solar radiation or the length of time it spends in the
orbital shadow.
A person who gets hold of a normal globe and spins it 15 degrees will
see that it covers 1669.8 km at the Equator and spin it once covers an
entire 40,075 km equatorial circumference -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/World_globe.jpg
As the hours,and minutes are organised around the Earth's rotational
characteristics,it should be no problem to state that the Earth's
Equatorial circumference rotates at 1669.8 miles per hour as 15
degrees of geographical separation equates to 1 hour difference and
then take this information into daily temperature dips/spikes.In
short,people who can't understand the most basic planetary dynamic of
daily rotation properly belong nowhere near climate or global
temperature variations.
Unlike the recent financial crisis based on so-called foolproof
mathematical modelling,the much more serious issue of speculating on
climate with a pollution input is an incredibly dumb thing to do and
it exposes the lack of astronomers capable of halting a rapid
disintegration of Western sciences for a type of social tyranny that
the world does not need.
Is there a single sane person here who knows enough that a crisis
situation has developed very quickly despite having its roots in the
late 17th century ?.
Global climate is fundamentally a consequence of distance from the Sun
and planetary dynamics and without an understanding how daily and
orbital cycles combine to give distinctive latitudinal weather
patterns,none of the other inputs from terrestrial and even
speculative pollution factors will make sense.
David Staup
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:28:47 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really
>>understands astrology believes it is correct.
>
> Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making
> unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the
> weight of evidence and theory behind them.
>
>>You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
>
> I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific
> truth.
I'm just curious, what is scientific truth? for the most part true
scientists talk about theories and try their best to falsify them. only
those that don't really understand the history of science would talk about
truths. even the word consensus is questionable.
at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material
was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that
consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with
considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that
much credence...
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I'm just curious, what is scientific truth?
I'd say it is knowledge arrived at by a scientific process: observation,
theorizing, testing, correction. It isn't usually an absolute, but an
endpoint that we are converging on- sometimes asymptotically.
>at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material
>was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that
>consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with
>considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that
>much credence...
I'd argue that this doesn't represent the beginning of "the era of
science". I'd put that much later- just a few hundred years ago. Prior
to that, the methods of seeking knowledge of nature were very different,
and very inefficient and error prone compared to science.
However, as I noted, scientific knowledge converges on truth. I think
that in most areas we are quite close. It's hardly surprising that if
you go back to early beliefs, they were substantially in error. The
corrections we make to our understanding these days tends to be much
smaller- just little fixes here and there.
yourmommycalled
wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global
> warming is tenuous, but possible.
>
> _____________________________________
> No it doesn't. This is what it states:
>
> "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future
> tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will
> become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds
> and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing
> increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
>
> Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
>
> I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC
> report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you posted
> which said there was no connection.
>
> What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Exactly where does it say they will be more frequent, which is what
the original poster questioned? The link between frequency and global
warming is again tenuous at best. The paragraph from the IPPC report
that states A hurricane will be more intense and have more rainfall
when sea-surface temperatures are higher is merely a statement of
observed fact. The relationship between hurricane intensity/rain and
sea-surface temperatures is well-established theory and one of the
tools HRD uses to predict hurricane strength. One of the reason
Katrina strengthened after passing over Florida was that the sea
surface temperatures in the Gulf were warmer than usual (Read NCDC
tech-report 2005-01 for the details). All you have shown is that you
can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits your
preconceived notion, unfortunately you don't understand what you are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion. You shown you're right up there
with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:01:41 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
>>turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the
>>likely
>>truth of scientific theories.
>
> I'll say it one last time, although the concept appears beyond your
> ability to understand, so I'm not optimistic.
>
> AGW makes no predictions. AGW is an observation. It is what most people
> would call a simple fact. AGW is not a "theory" in the scientific sense
> of the word.
>
OK, AGW is not a scientific theory.
> The theory behind it is increasingly well developed, and that is what
> makes predictions.
OK, the theory behind AGW is a theory.
Seems like you are splitting hairs, but if that is what you want ...
> Those predictions, applied to actual climate, have
> proven exceptionally successful when applied to real climate over the
> last 150 years. If you don't understand what "prediction" means when
> applied to historical data, you should not be discussing this at all.
>
Anybody can fit a curve to existing data. The test of a scientific theory is
its predictive ability, ie its ability to successfuly predict outcomes where
the results of the experiemnts are not known in advance.
If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be more
accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
Is it? Are the models developed in 1999 any better at predicting what
happened in 1999 to 2009 than the 1989 models were at predicting what
happened in 1989 to 1999?
> Climate only makes sense when analyzed over decades or longer. It is
> obvious why this is when you look a the historical record: there is a
> significant warming trend over the last 150 years, but it is invisible
> over any selected period of a few years, and usually difficult to detect
> even over 10 years. That's simply not long enough to see the signal
> against the noise. Good quality models have not been in place long
> enough for most future trends to show up.
So you are saying that the models have not been tested successfully with
novel data?
> Sensible people look at the
> success of these models in explaining the past,
No, sensible people look at the success of the models in predicting the
future.
If all you want is agreement with the past, I can easily produce a perfect
model which exactly reproduces the past.
> and recognize that there
> is a high probability they will come close with their future
> projections.
Why do you think that is the case?
If I used polynomial interpolation to exactly model historical data, would
you then assume on the basis of the perfect fit with experimental data that
my model will also predict the future with some accuracy?
> Fools refuse to accept the science, and instead just keep
> asking "what predictions have come true",
That is what science is. Theories are formed, the predictions are compared
to novel experimental data, and the agreement between theory and experiment
is used to determine the likely truth of the theory.
You may think it is foolish to use the scientific method to determine the
truth or otherwise of scientific theories, but many fools have used this
approach over the last 500 years with spectacular results.
> while the climate crashes
So you say, even in the absense of any evidence of apparent ill effects
whatsoever over the 100 years we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Whoops, sorry, you don't think that evidence matters; only a fool would ask
for it.
> around them and it finally becomes too late to do anything about it.
Yeah, yeah, the sky is falling in.
Or so you keep telling us.
I have a friend (an acquaintance) who believes that WW3 will shortly start,
because it is predicted in Nostradamus.
Nostradamus and AGW have about equal confirmation through experimental
evidence. Both appear great at predicting the past but hopeless at
predicting the future.
My bet is that neither the predictions of AGW or those of Nostradamus will
eventually come true.
We shall see.
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Anybody can fit a curve to existing data.
Climate models do not use curve fitting. They are nothing more than
collections of standard physics equations. Simulations are used because
the system is too complex for any single equation to describe it, and
because you can't experiment with the real climate.
>If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be more
>accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
I'm done. You're clearly too stupid to understand this. You may be a
simple computer program that produces standard responses, but most of
the programs I've seen along these lines do a better job.
Peter Webb
"yourmommycalled" <mommy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abf9def5-cb4e-4d6e...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
________________________________________
complete bollocks. The 1992 IPCC report nowhere states that the link is
"tenuous at best", and in fact states quite clearly:
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the
coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall
rates than present-day hurricanes."
However, the links you have provided state the exact opposite.
So its your position that the IPCC was wrong about tropical cyclones, and
they will decrease in intensity?
So regardless what the observed data shows you going to still claim no
global warming!
___________________________________________
Places warm, places cool, has been happening for 4.7 billion years. From
about 1850 to 1998 the earth was generally warming; I don't know if it is
currently warming or cooling.
Peter Webb
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:18:36 -0600, "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm just curious, what is scientific truth?
>
> I'd say it is knowledge arrived at by a scientific process: observation,
> theorizing, testing, correction. It isn't usually an absolute, but an
> endpoint that we are converging on- sometimes asymptotically.
>
Testing!
>>at the beginning of the era of science the consensus was that all material
>>was made up of four types of atoms (earth, wind, fire, and water), that
>>consensus was 2000 years old and continued to hold for decades with
>>considerable attempts to modify.. seems current theories don't give that
>>much credence...
>
> I'd argue that this doesn't represent the beginning of "the era of
> science". I'd put that much later- just a few hundred years ago. Prior
> to that, the methods of seeking knowledge of nature were very different,
> and very inefficient and error prone compared to science.
There are many, many examples which aren't 2,000 years old. Up until 50
years ago nobody believed in plate techtonics. We had the scientific method
in the 1950s. Go back 100 years and people (scientists) believed in
Newtonian gravity and that particles had defined position and momentum. Now
its dark matter.
The fact is that scientific theories are just that - theories. Their
longevity and support is based upon how well they adhere to observation (ie
their predictive ability).
>
> However, as I noted, scientific knowledge converges on truth. I think
> that in most areas we are quite close. It's hardly surprising that if
> you go back to early beliefs, they were substantially in error. The
> corrections we make to our understanding these days tends to be much
> smaller- just little fixes here and there.
> _________________________________________________
Interesting argument:
1. All our scientific theories are correct excepting for little fixes here
and there.
2. AGW is a scientific theory
3. Therefore AGW is correct except for little fixes here and there.
Complete crap, of course.
Peter Webb
_______________________________
So you disagree with the recent papers (posted here) that AGW will *not*
increase the frequency or severity of tropical cyclones? I guess the authors
of these papers "can hunt down a phrase or word that looks like it fits
[their] preconceived notion, unfortunately [they] don't understand what
[they] are
reading and drew the wrong conclusion.".
Peter Webb
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:020eab52-a804-4099...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
_____________________________________
So AGW does not predict the earth will continue to warm if we increase our
CO2 emissions?
This is news to me, and presumably also news to the authors of the 124,000
web pages which contain the words "AGW predicts".
oriel36
You shown you're right up there
> with Gerald and Ajay with your understanding of science.
With all the modern imaging power at your disposal and the subsequent
ability to make planetary comparisons and you still can't explain the
Earth's seasons properly which requires one,count it,one additional
orbital component to shift the dynamic away from 'tilt' and place it
in the specifics of orbital motions.Both guys who believe carbon
dioxide governs global temperature and their opponents are weak
because they travel in the same 'scientific method' circles which
amounts to a question begging scheme and experiment/predictions
mantra.
The Earth has an equatorial climate due to its 'tilt' whereas Uranus
has a polar climate,this is an actual fact and something that is new
whereas the old explanation and hypothesis of no tilt/no seasons does
not stand.I strongly suggest people come to terms with the actual role
of rotational orientation,the dynamic behind it and the actual cause
of seasonal effects based on the specific way the Earth orbits the
Sun.
Sam Wormley
> The Earth has an equatorial climate due to its 'tilt'
Nope, the earth has equatorial as well as polar climates.
Peter Webb
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:13:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Anybody can fit a curve to existing data.
>
> Climate models do not use curve fitting. They are nothing more than
> collections of standard physics equations. Simulations are used because
> the system is too complex for any single equation to describe it, and
> because you can't experiment with the real climate.
>
ROFL!
You have obviously never looked at a climate model.
Let me explain how they work.
There are typically some hundreds or thousands of "constants" that are
actually treated as variables, and their values are reverse-engineered to
align with historical data.
For example, the heat transfer rate between different ocean layers is not
known with any accuracy by anybody. So the model will assign this some
nominal value, which is believed to be more or less accurate. Nobody knows
exactly how fast glaciers move as a function of temperature, physical
dimensions etc, so some first order approximation is used, such
v=k+h*f(T,V), etc. Nobody really knows the full range of effects of
different vegetation types, so functions are estimated which link things
like albedo, growth rate, CO2 concentration. These all have "constants"
which will be ultimately "refined".
There are, as I said, typically hundreds or thousands of these estimates
made, none of them known by virtue of the underlying physics, and none of
them experimentally verified or even verifiable to any accuracy. Not just
constants, whole equations are estimated - heat transfer functions, mixing
between hemispheres, etc. Again, these involve unknown constants.
There is then a process undertaken which is generally called "refining the
model". Actual historical data is fed into the program, and the numerous
"constants" that exist in the model are "tweaked" until the model agrees
with the historical data.
I guess they call it "refining the model" because it sounds better than
"curve fitting".
BTW, this provides a very easy explanation of why AGW models are becoming
increasingly accurate in predicting the past. Basically, as you make the
models more complex - as inevitably occurs - then you introduce more unknown
constants that need to be (or can be) refined. With a larger pool of
"constants" that can be tweaked, you can match the observed data more
accurately. For example, my own AGW model has 200 such constants which I
have refined, and fits the last 200 years of observed data perfectly. Had I
only 100 such constants to refine, the match would not have been nearly as
good.
>>If the scientific theory behind AGW is getting better, then it must be
>>more
>>accurate at predicting the results of novel experiments.
>
> I'm done. You're clearly too stupid to understand this. You may be a
> simple computer program that produces standard responses, but most of
> the programs I've seen along these lines do a better job.
>
Actually, I don't think you want to pull out of this conversation because
you think I am an automated computer program, or even because you think I am
stupid. Quite the contrary.
I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know with
an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
Chris.B
wrote:
>
> I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know with
> an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
>
> They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
>
The only constants around here are the trolls. Never a pinch of
humour, a teaspoonful of warmth or a knob of wit. All they do is
endlessly stir their grey tripe and offal porridge. Forgetting that we
are neither starved of stimulation nor lacking in choice regarding our
mental nutrition. Their predictability is matched only by the
conversations of train spotters, the occupants of betting shops, bingo
hall queens and football fans. Do we actively seek out their company?
Then why do they need us so badly? There is no finer sight than a
troll post lying unanswered until it gathers dust and finally falls
off the bottom of Google Groups thread list. To join the worn out
detritus of Chinese Paypal Spam and fossilised, religious, mumbo
jumbo. Do we not deserve infinitely better trolls? Trolls with mirth
and girth and imagination? Who come charging out from their lairs
emitting loud farts, pulling at their red nose hair and flashing a
wicked twinkle from their one good eye? Bring the noise! Clash your
cymbals and bang your drums! Then be off stage again before we have
time to draw breath. Do not tarry beyond all reason or politeness. So
that only a broad shovel and a hose may do your stinking corpse final
justice. You are not kings to overstay your welcome. Nor clown nor
jester enough to warrant our royal pardon.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> Anybody can fit a curve to existing data. The test of a scientific theory is
> its predictive ability, ie its ability to successfuly predict outcomes where
> the results of the experiemnts are not known in advance.
This is true.
If anthropogenic global warming were a theory that someone came up
with yesterday, so that the only "evidence" we had of it was that some
people had climate models which predicted global warming, and the only
validation of those climate models was that, gosh, before the
scientists made them public, they were tweaked to match climate in the
past, then you would be right to point out there is a problem.
But that isn't really an accurate picture of the situation.
The blackbody radiation curve has been established for quite some
time. So we know that our Sun, at a temperature of 6,000 degrees
Celsius, emits radiation which peaks in visible light, and the Earth's
surface, on the other hand, radiates heat in the form of very long-
wave infrared radiation.
We know that "greenhouse gases" let the warming rays of the Sun in,
but are warmed by the long-wave infrared radiation which normally
escapes into space, thus cooling places on the Earth at night.
We know that since the Industrial Revolution, we have been burning a
lot of fossil fuels; this is something humans have chosen to do, thus
it is in addition to any natural cycles. And we know that the level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased over the last several
decades.
Climate models represent an attempt to study the details of the
outcome of this. And modelling climate is perhaps a science in its
infancy.
Right now, due to the el Nino/la Nina oscillation, the next few years
are not going to be unusually warm in certain highly-populated areas.
But that shouldn't obscure some very significant observations that
have been made:
Various areas of the Earth, such as Russian peat bogs, and the ocean
floor, that have the potential to release greenhouse gases under
unusually warm conditions, are starting to do so.
The concentration of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean, something
that compensates for other factors that put more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, has increased to the point where some major coral reefs
are threatened. Coral reefs are valuable to many important forms of
marine life.
The arctic polar ice cap has retreated so much that it is now felt
that very little of the Arctic will remain covered by ice all summer,
which is very much unlike the situation familiar over the past hundred
years.
If your house was on fire, would you demand scientific studies to
prove you should consider getting out of there?
It's true that environmentalists have, in the past, made exaggerated
claims, and do seem to have a political agenda.
It's also true that going back to the days of horse-and-buggy, or
riding bicycles to work, would seem to be too much of a sacrifice to
many simply to keep a few bugs out of Florida and Texas, to prevent a
crop failure in Borneo, and the loss of perhaps one or two coral reefs
in the middle of the Pacific.
Do we really know the consequences of global warming will be bigger
than that; like a sustained failure of the monsoons in India, the
death of the Great Barrier Reef, unprecedented mega-hurricanes
battering the Eastern Seaboard, a new Ice Age triggered by the
collapse of the Gulf Stream, and so on?
And in any event, China seems to be intending to go away from the days
of everyone riding bicycles to work, and they look like they have no
intent to go back.
Given all this, it's not surprising that people have questions about
global warming. However, while before a few isolated environmentalists
were making sensational claims that were widely reported in the news
media, but which were not accepted by others, the seriousness of the
global warming threat is generally accepted by the world scientific
community. There are people with scientific credentials who argue
otherwise, but they're very few in number - even before you subtract
those in the pay of vested interests such as the oil industry.
The world scientific community is not some kind of vast left-wing
conspiracy to hoodwink the rest of the world. No, you didn't say that,
but that IS what someone would have to believe to claim that global
warming is nothing to worry about. It doesn't surprise me that the
same radical-right climate in which global warming skepticism is taken
seriously is that in which Creationism is treated with respect. That,
too, requires a belief that those "scientists" are up to no good.
If our only choices were:
- accept whatever consequences there are from global warming, and hope
for the best (since we don't have hard proof of how bad it will be) or
- drastically cut down our own industrial production, leading not only
to a worsening of poverty in our own country, but even worse, a loss
of our own ability to defend ourselves, so that Russia or China ends
up taking over the world...
putting up with the bad consequences of global warming might indeed be
the least bad choice.
But we don't have only those two choices.
We don't need to accept on faith claims that we could get along just
fine with a little energy conservation, with long-distance power
lines, and wind and solar farms - such as were prominently featured in
the latest Scientific American.
We have another choice. We can produce as much reliable electrical
energy as we need, for existing electrical uses, for home heating, and
for producing hydrogen to fuel cars - and in any location, not just
those suited to hydroelectric dams, or to wind, solar, or geothermal
power.
As much as we need understates it. While claiming "as much as we want"
would not be accurate either, because we might desire more energy than
the Sun's total output, we can produce just as much energy as we're
using now, and significantly more as well, without significant carbon
dioxide emissions.
Because there's such a thing as nuclear power. And if we use our
natural resources of nuclear fuel efficiently, without waste, by
ensuring that we convert the U-238 to nuclear fuel as well instead of
letting it go to waste, we have enough resources to last for several
decades.
We do not have to play games with world climate to keep our way of
life, to remain able to defend our freedom. We have a course open to
us that avoids the catastrophic possibilities of *both* of the courses
that usually get offered in the public debate.
Of course, even with the Thorium breeder brought into the mix, it is
true that fuel for fission power won't last forever. But a century of
technical progress will give us the time to build solar power
satellites, to unlock the mysteries of fusion power, and therefore
build a sustainable energy future of abundance instead of scarcity.
John Savard
Peter Webb
Of course, even with the Thorium breeder brought into the mix, it is
true that fuel for fission power won't last forever. But a century of
technical progress will give us the time to build solar power
satellites, to unlock the mysteries of fusion power, and therefore
build a sustainable energy future of abundance instead of scarcity.
John Savard
_______________________________________
A reasonable and thoughtful post, with a positive ending. Hallelujah to
that. The only thing I found completely unreasonable was your attempt
earlier to link creationism and AGW skepticism. That is completely
unjustified by anything I have said; I have no doubts whatsoever in the
correctness of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
What you have provided in defense of AGW are plausibility arguments. I am
very, very aware that complex systems do not necessarily behave in the most
plausible manner, so these plausibility arguments are speculations at best.
The next "layer" in the AGW case is trying and prove that these plausible
arguments are true arguments by the use of computer models. These I do not
accept, for several reasons:
1. The obvious use of curve fitting; the whole mechanism of these models is
to refine the earth's temperature model over the last 50 or 100 years by
plugging in historical data and adjusting the model until it correctly fits
known data, and then it is judged a success if the model then fits the data
that was used in its design. As I have previously pointed out, this is plain
and simple curve fitting. It says exactly zero about the validity of the
underlying physical model, because you get exactly the same sorts of
characteristics (and far better predictions) from a least squares polynomial
fit to past data, and whatever the temperature equations of state the earth
may be I doubt they are a simple polynomial. So there is absolutely no
feedback loop which indicates if the physical models are even vaguely
correct. The more complex the model, the more degrees of freedom in the
curve fitting; the match to past data will get better even if the model is
completely wrong.
2. Having written computer/mathematical models for quite a number of much
simpler physical systems (eg 3 and 4 body systems in dynamics), it is very
difficult to know that the models will work when presented with novel data.
Even in a 500 or 1000 line program errors accumulate over successive
iterations, there are logic errors, certain data sets can cause
instabilities manifested as infinite loops or cycles, blah blah ... these
aren't 500 or 1000 lines written by one guy who thinks he knows the relevant
physics, they are a million lines of code, hacked together by 20 different
people guessing at major chunks of the physics, and completely untested on
the data sets they purport to model (ie those with higher temperatures than
today). And they all work right first time? Gimme a break!
I see no evidence - none at all - of any bad climactic changes over the last
100 years that we have had coal fired electricity and motor cars. Or over
the last 30 years, or last 10 years for that matter. None. We constantly
hear about the many, very terrible things that will shortly happen, but you
have to admit, as far as all the historical evidence goes, earth is doing
just fine climactically.
What I find repugnant in all of this is that many AGW believers seem to take
the attitude that AGW is above being examined on its scientific credentials,
its obviously correct and all the rest is details. This is somehow morally
justified in their minds because they are helping "save the planet", and I
am not. This completely misses the point. If this subject is so important,
then it should be thoroughly tested on its scientific credentials, to make
sure we are making the correct decisions. And in my mind, obviously, it
fails to meet certain mandatory requirements of a scientific theory. But
somehow that makes me a believer in creationism, and a disbeliever in
science! What gives here?
Quadibloc
wrote:
> The only thing I found completely unreasonable was your attempt
> earlier to link creationism and AGW skepticism. That is completely
> unjustified by anything I have said; I have no doubts whatsoever in the
> correctness of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
How about this:
>>> I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know with
>>> an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
>>> They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
> But
> somehow that makes me a believer in creationism, and a disbeliever in
> science! What gives here?
I'm not claiming that *you* believe in Creationism, any more than you
were claiming that other fellow believed in astrology.
Creationists, though, can vote. And they might well find global
warming skepticism easy to accept. After all, they already believe
that the scientific community can be wrong. And the idea that human
beings could bring about the end of the world before it comes up on
God's timetable is repugnant to them as well; they believe that all
will be well if individuals simply obey God in their daily lives,
remembering that they are in charge of their own behavior, and God is
in charge of the "big picture".
So it would be highly irresponsible to present arguments against
global warming that are not really sound from a scientific standpoint
to the public, because there are people out there who would believe
those arguments, and be influenced in their voting behavior because of
them.
> I see no evidence - none at all - of any bad climactic changes over the last
> 100 years that we have had coal fired electricity and motor cars.
50 years ago, not many people in China had automobiles. 50 years ago,
the world's population wasn't, what, six billion? The rate at which we
are pumping extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is increasing.
For the world to get a little warmer doesn't have to be a "bad"
climate change. We live in a time not far removed from an ice age.
In any case, there is abundant evidence that things are now happening
that hadn't happened in the last 50 to 100 years which are bad. You
might be able to view the death of the Great Barrier Reef with
equanimity.
John Savard
Jax
>
> In any case, there is abundant evidence that things are now happening
> that hadn't happened in the last 50 to 100 years which are bad. You
> might be able to view the death of the Great Barrier Reef with
> equanimity.
>
> John Savard
The reef, which stretches for 1,200 miles off the northeast coast of
Australia, has "poor" prospects of survival as a result of over-
development and a failure by the relevant authorities to protect it
from illegal fishing and chemical run-off, the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority said its first report on the state of the reef's
health.
I would hate to see the GBR go, andt there are immediate measurable
problems to be fixed first. Martin Rees says we need to cut CO2
emissions by 50% in 40 yrs to protect the oceans. How much do you
think we need to reduce to save the reef?
yourmommycalled
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "yourmommycalled" <mommycal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Strange the only paper posted here that suggests an increase in
frequency is:
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power
Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate
DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
The other papers posted suggest a decrease in the frequency
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-
first-century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/
ngeo202
As I keep saying there is little debate as to whether hurricane
intensity and rainfall amounts will increase with global warming. An
increase in frequency is at best tenuous and certainly still being
researched.
oriel36
With an inclination of 0 deg to 45 deg,a planet experiences equatorial
conditions with total equatorial conditions prevailing at 0 degrees
rotational orientation, with a inclination of 45 degrees to 90
degrees,a planet experiences polar conditions with total polar
conditions existing at 90 degrees rotational inclination,that is why
the Earth's climate is predominantly equatorial while Uranus is almost
totally polar.
'Tilt' is an effect of a rotating sphere and in itself 'tilt' does not
cause anything,the seasons are due to the specifics of daily rotation
and orbital motion,an intelligent person should know this even before
considering the difference between weather and climate.I care enough
about the original explanation of Copernicus which raised the
hypothesis of no tilt/no seasons to allow people to become familiar
with the modification which takes a modern approach using planetary
comparisons -
"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus
A person who recognises the actual role of 'tilt',goes on to consider
orbital characteristics as the dynamic behind the seasons will have an
entirely different perspective on climate and weather than the 5th
grade understanding you and your colleagues stick with.I would truly
believe that the physical considerations inherent in the time lapse
footage of Uranus would have sparked interest in making planetary
comparisons and coming to a better understanding of climate
climate,the astronomical seasons and what have you but I am
exasperated that nothing has happened -
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/
This beats me !,the first time an orbital signature can be seen
directly due to the distance between Uranus from the Earth and from
the central Sun which eventually leads to an explanation for the
seasons and it is as if no astronomers existed to take advantage of
the power of modern imaging.
palsing
I see you are still completely unteachable...
Peter Webb
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:97ee5db7-bb9b-410f...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 5:43 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> The only thing I found completely unreasonable was your attempt
> earlier to link creationism and AGW skepticism. That is completely
> unjustified by anything I have said; I have no doubts whatsoever in the
> correctness of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
How about this:
>>> I think you want to pull out for the same reasons the few people I know
>>> with
>>> an interest in astrology will not discuss astrology with me.
>>> They tend to not believe in the scientific method, either.
> But
> somehow that makes me a believer in creationism, and a disbeliever in
> science! What gives here?
I'm not claiming that *you* believe in Creationism, any more than you
were claiming that other fellow believed in astrology.
____________________________
I didn't claim he believed in astrology, I compared the underlying
scientific evidence.
Creationists, though, can vote. And they might well find global
warming skepticism easy to accept. After all, they already believe
that the scientific community can be wrong. And the idea that human
beings could bring about the end of the world before it comes up on
God's timetable is repugnant to them as well; they believe that all
will be well if individuals simply obey God in their daily lives,
remembering that they are in charge of their own behavior, and God is
in charge of the "big picture".
__________________________________
Just to get this completely straight. This litle rant about creationists,
and about how some creationists are AGW skeptics. This has nothing directly
to do with what we are discussing, does it? You know that I am not a
creationist, and you are not a creationist, and nobody else in this thread
is a creationist, right? So an extensive discussion of the beliefs of
creationists is off-topic, given none of us in fact are creationists, and
nobody else mentioned creationism? Its like saying that many devout Hindus
are AGW skeptics; it may or may not be true, but as this thread is
completely befeft of devout Hundus and nobody has mentioned Hindu beliefs,
completely irrelevant.
For about the 500th time, I am a firm believer in evolution through natural
selection.
I don't care what creationists think about the age of the earth, the fossil
record, epidemiology or AGW, any more than I care about what Hindus think
about the age of the earth, the fossil record, epidemiology or AGW. I am not
a creationist or a Hindu; my arguments in no way involve religion, they
involve the scientific method. Discussing what creationists believe is as
relevant to a discussion of the validity of AGW science as a discussion of
what Zoroastrian's believe about Special Relativity.
Indeed, if you were trying to provide evidence that SR was a valid
scientific theory, would you feel it was reasonable to launch into a
discussion about how many Fundamentalist Zoroastrians disbelieve SR, because
the infinite descent of turtles on which we live provides a priveleged
intertial reference frame?
Argue with me, if you like, but if you want to use creationism as an
argument, at least one of us better believe in it or it is completely
irrelevant. As far as I can tell, neither of us do.
So it would be highly irresponsible to present arguments against
global warming that are not really sound from a scientific standpoint
to the public, because there are people out there who would believe
those arguments, and be influenced in their voting behavior because of
them.
__________________________
Of course, I haven't done that, and nor has anybody else in this thread,
have they?
> I see no evidence - none at all - of any bad climactic changes over the
> last
> 100 years that we have had coal fired electricity and motor cars.
50 years ago, not many people in China had automobiles. 50 years ago,
the world's population wasn't, what, six billion? The rate at which we
are pumping extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is increasing.
For the world to get a little warmer doesn't have to be a "bad"
climate change. We live in a time not far removed from an ice age.
In any case, there is abundant evidence that things are now happening
that hadn't happened in the last 50 to 100 years which are bad. You
might be able to view the death of the Great Barrier Reef with
equanimity.
John Savard
____________________________
Yeah, right, the death of the GBR.
Typical pro-AGW extremist beat-up. I have dived the length and breadth of
the GBR for over 30 years. Here are some facts:
1. The primary anthropogenic threat to the GBR by a long way is fertiliser
(more generally nutrient) run-off from the QLD coast. This is quite real.
2. The physical extent of the GBR is not constrained by ocean temperatures.
In the south, its extent is limited by sand, which is why it starts just
north of the world's largest sand island (Fraser Island). Off the coast,
where there is no sand, coral reefs survive a long way further south (eg
Lord Howe Island). To the north, it would go to the equator, if not for the
nutrient flow from Papuan rivers (the Fly River in particular). The GBR's
extent is not defined by temperature, but by geography. Global warming won't
change that.
3. Contrary to popular belief, corals grow quite quickly, as there is
competition pressure to colonise new areas. Reefs completely destroyed 20
years ago by cyclones often have 50 cms hard corals. They grow far, far
faster than projected rates of sea level increase.
4. Coral reefs survived and flourished when the world's CO2 concentration
was many times higher than today.
Of course, the administrators of the reef stick their hands out for money
because of global warming, but so does everybody else.
But the scientific basis for this claim is almost non-existent.
Unless you can explain why global warming is expected to destroy the GBR? It
is your example of a calamity that will happen unless we do something, I am
wondering where your scientific basis for this claim is? Or do you believe
its true just because you want to believe its true?
Peter Webb
"Jax" <ex...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd8cc658-0f7a-45d8...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:36 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> In any case, there is abundant evidence that things are now happening
> that hadn't happened in the last 50 to 100 years which are bad. You
> might be able to view the death of the Great Barrier Reef with
> equanimity.
>
> John Savard
The reef, which stretches for 1,200 miles off the northeast coast of
Australia, has "poor" prospects of survival as a result of over-
development and a failure by the relevant authorities to protect it
from illegal fishing and chemical run-off, the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority said its first report on the state of the reef's
health.
__________________________________
They are overstating their case; they want more money. There is bugger-all
illegal fishing on the reef. Chemical run-offs are a problem, as long as you
define fertilisers (particularly phosphates) as "chemicals". The GBR is in
very good health, because the GBR MPA manages it very aggressively -
including pressuring the government to give it more money, partially
accomplished through continually saying what terrible condition the reef is
in and how it needs more money. Its actually in very good condition; it is
easily the best managed coral reef system in the world.
I would hate to see the GBR go, andt there are immediate measurable
problems to be fixed first. Martin Rees says we need to cut CO2
emissions by 50% in 40 yrs to protect the oceans. How much do you
think we need to reduce to save the reef?
___________________________
None. That's not the threat. The proximate threat is the increased level of
phosphates and nitrates in the water, which derives from agricultural
ferliliser runoff and the output of human sewerage plants. Increased
nutrients promote the growth of free algae's, which successfully compete
with corals and eventually kill them. This problem - water nutrient levels -
is what constrains the northern extent of the GBR already. This is a
demographic threat, not a climactic threat. And its also typical of the
"non-facts" used continually by AGW believers, something which sounds
plausible, but is almost certainly untrue.
Peter Webb
__________________________
Not the IPCC 1992 report, or NOAA's web site. So they are both wrong?
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic
Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI:
10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-
first-century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/
ngeo202
As I keep saying there is little debate as to whether hurricane
intensity and rainfall amounts will increase with global warming. An
increase in frequency is at best tenuous and certainly still being
researched.
__________________________________
So your position is that AGW believers don't know whether hurricane
intensity will increase or not, its an area of active research, but there is
"little debate as to whether hurricane intensity and rainfall amounts will
increase with global warming". If it is an area of importance, with
conflicting opinions, and active research, why is there "little debate" on
the topic?
yourmommycalled
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:imrse5dbfmur16n7p...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that
> >>have
> >>turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
>
> > As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject
> > and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly.
> > And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the
> > pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't
> > respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions)
> > over and over.
>
> No, you keep refusing to answer the same questions. Then you use the lame
> excuse that you have already answered them.
>
> No, you haven't.
>
> You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
> turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the likely
> truth of scientific theories.
>
Just as Gerald has been provided over and over again with examples of
why his ramblings on how to "untangle the Newtonian mutations from the
original heliocentric blueprints" are nonsense, just as Ajay has been
shown over and over again that he has never had a peer-reviewed paper
and is unable to do 8th grade math, You been provided many times
before with specific instances of specific predictions that have
verified in the form of published research, but you refuse to
acknowledge their existence or their validity. You have no concept of
science/math, how to evaluate the validity of the truth of scientific
theory or very much of anything else. You are not much different than
Gerald or Brad who thinks there is life on Venus or Danny who thinks
the moon landings were impossible.
Chris L Peterson
<vonk...@comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>1) How one takes the temperature of the entire planet?
Lots of measurements.
>2) Just what IS the ideal temperature of the planet?
There probably isn't one. But there is certainly a rate of change of
temperature that is too high for our society to adapt to comfortably, or
at all. Looks like we may have exceeded that rate.
>3) Exactly what CO2 concentration yields that ideal temperature?
We are overdriving the natural CO2 cycle by human emissions. That is
resulting in a rapid increase of temperature. It is that rapid increase
that is the problem, not the temperature itself. We need to
significantly reduce our own CO2 input into the system so the natural
cycle isn't overwhelmed.
>4) Exactly how temperature & CO2 level correlate to one another?
CO2 is a sensitive greenhouse gas (one of many). In the absence of other
factors to offset its impact, increasing CO2 levels results in more heat
from the Sun being trapped, and a net increase in global temperature.
>5) How it is possible that this planet was significantly warmer
>1000-1200 years ago while at the time having an obviously lower
>atrmospheric CO2 level?
Because CO2 isn't the only thing affecting global temperatures. There is
also a good deal of evidence to suggest that the warming in the period
you refer to was local, not global, pointing to something other than an
atmospheric cause.
oriel36
> On Nov 2, 12:01 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in messagenews:imrse5dbfmur16n7p...@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:56:50 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> > > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >>Perhaps if you supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that
> > >>have
> > >>turned out to be true, I would have a little more confidence.
>
> > > As always, you betray an appalling lack of understanding of this subject
> > > and of science in general. You can't even use the term "AGW" correctly.
> > > And you can't carry on a reasoned discussion, because you use the
> > > pseudoscientist's approach of simply ignoring everything that you can't
> > > respond to and asking the same useless (and already answered questions)
> > > over and over.
>
> > No, you keep refusing to answer the same questions. Then you use the lame
> > excuse that you have already answered them.
>
> > No, you haven't.
>
> > You have not supplied a list of the specific predictions of AGW that have
> > turned out to be true, which is my starting point for evaluating the likely
> > truth of scientific theories.
>
> Just as Gerald has been provided over and over again with examples of
> why his ramblings on how to "untangle the Newtonian mutations from the
> original heliocentric blueprints" are nonsense,
There are no heliocentric 'blueprints' although this is exactly what
Newton and those who follow him do,they erroneously assume that there
are geocentric observations translated directly into heliocentric
modelling,specifically a misinterpretation of Kepler's tracking of
Mars against the constellations -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
The 17th century 'modelling' of Newton is based on trying to exploit
the calendar based Ra/Dec conventions, such as those which 'predict'
eclipses, and pass it off as a basis for planetary dynamics ,an
elaborate scheme that would be childish in the extreme if it were now
so dominant and damaging.The idea is that Kepler's tracking of Mars is
geocentric while heliocentric modelling is sticking the Sun at the
center and the retrogrades disappear -
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/history_2.jpg
Hence -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton
This framehopping observer is a figment of the imagination,it doesn't
exist and is creating havoc between planetary dynamics and their
terrestrial effects,one of which is global climate and the seasons.I
do not appeal to those who will follow Newton's distortions but to
those who can escape them and enjoy matching Kepler's tracking of a
planet against the stellar background in our common orbits around the
Sun by time lapse footage and direct observation rather than a
'framehopping' observer -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
I could understand it if I was downplaying the usefulness of Ra/Dec
but I am not,it is a wonderful calendar based convenience that stops
short of planetary dynamics and solar system structure for no
astronomer wworthy of the name would try to explain planetary dynamics
using the rotation of the constellations around Polaris for that is
just too agonising to bear.The primary inputs for global climate are
distance from the Sun and planetary dynamics and the latter input is
in a desperate state due to the lack of effort to comprehend the
original arguments for those dynamics even with modern imaging power
and time lapse footage which make it an absolute cinch.
Peter Webb
_________________________
Huh? I don't think the moon landings were a hoax, I don't know anybody
called "Gerald" or "Ajay", and I'm not really interested in why you think
they are wrong. I was discussing a scientific theory generally known as
"AGW", which you don't mention at all, and I have no knowledge or interest
in "Newtonian mutations from the original heliocentric blueprints", which
you do seem to want to talk about. Are you sure you are responding to the
correct post?
Peter Webb
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:41:12 -0500, vonKevin
> <vonk...@comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>
>>1) How one takes the temperature of the entire planet?
>
> Lots of measurements.
>
>>2) Just what IS the ideal temperature of the planet?
>
> There probably isn't one. But there is certainly a rate of change of
> temperature that is too high for our society to adapt to comfortably, or
> at all. Looks like we may have exceeded that rate.
>
>>3) Exactly what CO2 concentration yields that ideal temperature?
>
> We are overdriving the natural CO2 cycle by human emissions. That is
> resulting in a rapid increase of temperature. It is that rapid increase
> that is the problem, not the temperature itself. We need to
> significantly reduce our own CO2 input into the system so the natural
> cycle isn't overwhelmed.
>
>>4) Exactly how temperature & CO2 level correlate to one another?
>
> CO2 is a sensitive greenhouse gas (one of many). In the absence of other
> factors to offset its impact, increasing CO2 levels results in more heat
> from the Sun being trapped, and a net increase in global temperature.
>
>>5) How it is possible that this planet was significantly warmer
>>1000-1200 years ago while at the time having an obviously lower
>>atrmospheric CO2 level?
>
Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at their
lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
levels for a billion years.
How do the AGW models explain this huge discrepancy between theory and
observation?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at their
>lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
>levels for a billion years.
Because climate is a SYSTEM. CO2 is only one part of the system. You
could double the CO2 and be colder by reducing water vapor, for
instance. Or by reducing solar output. Or by moving the landmasses so
that ocean and air currents were different. You could half the CO2 and
it could be warmer, by increasing water vapor, or increasing methane, or
decreasing albedo. All these things happen naturally, over time.
Right now, most of the system is fixed (or only changing very slowly),
and the one variable that is being tweaked hard is CO2 concentration. So
the temperature is rising.
It's really very simple.
yourmommycalled
wrote:
> "yourmommycalled" <mommycal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Please learn to read. I pointed out your postings have the same
character, tenor, tone and more importantly information content, that
these well known, multiple internet kook award winners have.
yourmommycalled
wrote:
> Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at their
> lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
> levels for a billion years.
>
> How do the AGW models explain this huge discrepancy between theory and
> observation?
>
You might try reading something other than "The Australian" (which is
right up there with the National Inquirer in terms of accuracy) and
Ian Pilmer.
Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures
were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
and Greenland,"
But that is only the most recent work.Try a google search to see just
how stupid your comment is.
"
Ken S. Tucker
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:18:02 +1100, "Peter Webb"
>
> >Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at their
> >lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
> >levels for a billion years.
>
> Because climate is a SYSTEM. CO2 is only one part of the system. You
> could double the CO2 and be colder by reducing water vapor, for
> instance. Or by reducing solar output. Or by moving the landmasses so
> that ocean and air currents were different. You could half the CO2 and
> it could be warmer, by increasing water vapor, or increasing methane, or
> decreasing albedo. All these things happen naturally, over time.
>
> Right now, most of the system is fixed (or only changing very slowly),
> and the one variable that is being tweaked hard is CO2 concentration. So
> the temperature is rising.
>
> It's really very simple.
"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
total derivative?
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Cheers
Ken
Chris L Peterson
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
>to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
>simple.
Yes, because that effectively describes the actual climate system over
the time scale of concern.
> Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
>total derivative?
I do. And the question seems completely unrelated to the discussion.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:20:02 -0800 (PST), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >"really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
> >to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
> >simple.
>
> Yes, because that effectively describes the actual climate system over
> the time scale of concern.
But you've jumped to a conclusion, using a narrow assumption
of your subjective choosing.
> > Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
> >total derivative?
>
> I do. And the question seems completely unrelated to the discussion.
Well take a so-called total derivative of GW such as
d(GW)/dt = &A/&t + &B/&t + &C/&t ...
(with '&' being a partial), and A, B, C ... being the factors GW is
a function of, that's why it's related, that is how science done.
Example H2O is a greenhouse gas, therefore irrigation and lawn
sprinklers - via evaporation - contribute to GW, Chris if you use a
water sprinkler on your lawn, calculate the amount of H2O you're
putting into the atmosphere.
Regards
Ken
Quadibloc
> "really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
> to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
> simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
> total derivative?
Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
*way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
important.
If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
John Savard
Ken S. Tucker
Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
for too.
Ken
oriel36
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
Planetary dynamics govern global climate and Newton's empirical agenda
of experiment/predictions rely on an Ra/Dec system that cannot
represent daily rotation or orbital motion -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton
You and your opponents are intellectual lightweights who travel in the
same empirical circles,can't figure out what Newton was on about and
do not know the 'predictive' mess he introduced to astronomy and
specifically planetary dynamics and the effects of these dynamics.
oriel36
That's right,I am the madman who believes the Earth turns through 360
degrees in 24 hours or at a rate of 15 degrees per hour in a forum
that believes otherwise !.
'Global warming' by turning carbon dioxide into a global temperature
dial is nothing compared to the reasoning which give it legs and that
means people who can't reason out basic astronomical principles such
as how the 24 hour value contains all the information of planetary
dimensions and shape organised around the Earth's daily rotation.
Martin Brown
> On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
>>> to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
>>> simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
>>> total derivative?
Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
>> Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
>> activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
>> because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
>> the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
>> *way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
>> carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
>> important.
>>
>> If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
>> know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
>> John Savard
>
> Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
> as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
> for too.
You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
Ya-ya, you're jumping to conclusions, the albedo has been varied.
Cities, de-forestration, our company even figures in oil slicks.
Ken
Peter Webb
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:18:02 +1100, "Peter Webb"
> <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at
>>their
>>lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
>>levels for a billion years.
>
> Because climate is a SYSTEM. CO2 is only one part of the system. You
> could double the CO2 and be colder by reducing water vapor, for
> instance. Or by reducing solar output. Or by moving the landmasses so
> that ocean and air currents were different. You could half the CO2 and
> it could be warmer, by increasing water vapor, or increasing methane, or
> decreasing albedo. All these things happen naturally, over time.
>
The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations are
historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high levels.
As I understand it, you are saying their is something very unusual or unique
about the current period, quite independent of CO2 levels.
This additional factor(s) are so strong they completely dominate and reverse
the expected positive correlation of temperature and CO2 levels - extremely
low CO2 levels but high temperatures.
Whatever this thing is, it isn't anthropogenic, it isn't CO2, it is an
extremely important determinant of temperature (warming the earth when CO2
levels are at their lowest), and its comparatively recent - its only been
evident for the last 10,000 years.
So, according to AGW, what is it? Why is it only now that low CO2 levels are
associated with high temperatures?
> Right now, most of the system is fixed (or only changing very slowly),
Really. Which of the things you listed (eg changes to landmass positions)
are changing more slowly than in the past, and why do you think this is the
case?
Why does a low rate of change of these variables (eg landmass position)
imply higher temperatures rather than lower temperatures? What is the causal
mechanism between the *rate* of change of environmental variables such as
albedo and the absolute temperature (I can see a rate of change of external
variables affecting the rate of change of temperature, but not the absolute
temperature directly).
> and the one variable that is being tweaked hard is CO2 concentration. So
> the temperature is rising.
Well, no, the temperature has been rising since well before CO2
concentrations started to recently rise. Furthermore, we are experiencing
the exact opposite of what AGW would seem to imply - low CO2 but high
tempertures. You can't simply say no other variables matter, they obviously
do. And its very difficult for me to believe that increasing CO2 leads to
increased temperatures when, as I say, we have the lowest CO2 levels in a
billion years but the highest temperatures. This is a massive
counter-example to the AGW hypothesis and it will take more than some hand
waving and reassurance that the model is right if it is to be taken
seriously.
The simple fact is that AGW predicts that as we have extremely low CO2
levels we should have low temperatures. But we have the lowest CO2 levels in
history but the highest temperatures, the exact opposite of AGW predictions.
AGW must have an explanantion, surely?
What is it, exactly?
>
> It's really very simple.
> _________________________________________________
Great. I am looking forward to some simple answers.
Peter Webb
> Might I also ask why it is that CO2 concentrations are very nearly at
> their
> lowest levels in a billion years, yet temperatures are near their highest
> levels for a billion years.
>
> How do the AGW models explain this huge discrepancy between theory and
> observation?
>
You might try reading something other than "The Australian" (which is
right up there with the National Inquirer in terms of accuracy) and
Ian Pilmer.
Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
are today � and were sustained at those levels � global temperatures
were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
and Greenland,"
_______________________________
So obviously CO2 is not the principle driver of earth's temperature. How
does AGW explain that the temperature is 10 degrees lower today than the
last time CO2 levels were this high? And how does it explain that we had ice
ages during periods when CO2 levels were 3 or 4 times current concentration?
Simply pointing out that temperature does not appear correlated with CO2
levels - as you have done - is hardly evidence AGW is a valid theory!
But that is only the most recent work.Try a google search to see just
how stupid your comment is.
____________________________________
What did I say, exactly, that you think is "stupid", and why?
Chris L Peterson
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations are
>historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high levels.
CO2 levels are at historically high levels. For as far back as we can
make direct measurements (primarily using ice cores, a few hundred
thousand years) the CO2 levels have been much lower than today. It is
believed they were much higher if you go back 50 million or more years,
but the entire atmospheric system was different then, and the estimates
are based on models derived from secondary measurements. The climate
models being used today to study short term change (not more than a few
hundred years) don't even attempt to describe what was going on in the
distant past. There are too many variables for which no estimates at all
are available.
_________________________________________________
Sam Wormley
>
>
> The question was what is the AGW explanation for why CO2 concentrations
> are historically low levels, but temperatures are at historically high
> levels.
>
> As I understand it, you are saying their is something very unusual or
> unique about the current period, quite independent of CO2 levels.
>
> This additional factor(s) are so strong they completely dominate and
> reverse the expected positive correlation of temperature and CO2 levels
> - extremely low CO2 levels but high temperatures.
>
Peter, you have no scientific evidence for your assertion. You are
simply wrong!
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
> The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
> were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
> level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
> permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
> and Greenland,"
You didn't expect that all to happen overnight did you, Peter?
Sam Wormley
>
> Planetary dynamics govern global climate and Newton's empirical agenda
> of experiment/predictions rely on an Ra/Dec system that cannot
> represent daily rotation or orbital motion -
>
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates.
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
Peter Webb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tIsIm.121752$la3.113328@attbi_s22...
Peter Webb wrote:
>
>
> Quoting from Science (Oct 8, 2009)
> The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they
> were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea
> level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no
> permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica
> and Greenland,"
You didn't expect that all to happen overnight did you, Peter?
_________________________________
According to the IPCC, if we stabilise at 1990 levels, we can expect a +2
degree warming and less than 1% of the sea rise of (the unspecified period
in the past in the Science article).
Now, this means that the same amount of CO2 today has only one fifth of the
impact it had back then on temperature (2 degrees vs 10 degrees) and much
smaller again on sea level.
So, at least 80% of the reason it was so much warmer back then had nothing
to do with CO2, because the CO2 was the same but the impact far higher.
The question in my mind is whether these other factors were 80% - as the
Science article snippet implies - or 100% of the reason it was warmer back
then.
Given that we also had massive ice ages with 1500 ppm CO2, its really,
really hard for me to extract any meaningful data from the historical
record, other than there is no clear, obvious and compelling connection
between CO2 and temperature.
wsne...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> "really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
> >>> to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
> >>> simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
> >>> total derivative?
>
> Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
> change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
> to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can
be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW-
believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using
more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and
more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
> >> Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
> >> activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
> >> because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
> >> the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
> >> *way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
> >> carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
> >> important.
>
> >> If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
> >> know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
> >> John Savard
>
> > Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
> > as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
> > for too.
>
> You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
> four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
> Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
> Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
>
> Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
> of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
You need more data.
> You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
> excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
> smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
> from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
> system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
The average American certainly understands the economic implications
of cutting fuel use in the short term, so he must be learning
something.
> Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
> of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
> the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
> Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
Good.
Martin Brown
> On Nov 4, 3:48 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 10:59 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 4, 9:20 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>>>>> "really very simple" Chris, what you've done is fixed all variables
>>>>> to constants, then changed one and announced 'presto' it's all
>>>>> simple. Do you understand partial differentiation, compared to a
>>>>> total derivative?
>> Only one of the variables is changing very rapidly indeed. The rate of
>> change of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is high and increasing. We need
>> to buy time by becoming more energy efficient.
>
> We appear to be running out of fossil fuel anyway. All of it that can
> be burned will be burned sooner or later. Meanwhile, the AGW-
Keeping some of it as feedstock for the petrochemicals industry would be
wise. But we have sufficient oil and coal reserves to cause serious
levels of CO2 if burned - in excess of 4x present day values.
And as fossil fuel gets scarcer we will find more that becomes
economically extractable from more difficult reserves.
> believing, limousine liberal types should be doing their part by using
> more fuel efficient limousines, more fuel efficient private jets and
> more energy efficient mansions and heated pools.
More straw men from fat ugly Americans for a dead planet.
Do you not believe in good stewardship of our planet?
>>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is changing very rapidly, because human
>>>> activity is changing it. The other items are changing very slowly,
>>>> because that's the rate at which things change in nature. So, unless
>>>> the partial derivative with respect to one of those other factors is
>>>> *way* larger than the one with respect to carbon dioxide, since it's
>>>> carbon dioxide that's doing the changing, it is its effect that is
>>>> important.
>>>> If you understood these matters, you would know that, and you would
>>>> know that this provided no basis to object to his statements.
>>>> John Savard
>>> Perhaps John you are unaware of the quantification of other factors,
>>> as I suspect. Albiebo, solar radiance, H2O need to be accounted
>>> for too.
>> You mean albedo. Solar radiance is satellite monitored over the past
>> four decades so you cannot claim that the sun magically got brighter.
>> Even sceptical scientists concede that it is impossible to balance the
>> Earth's energy budget after the 1970's without including GHG forcing.
>>
>> Atmospheric H2O responds to changes in temperature caused by the input
>> of additional CO2, CH4 and other GHGs.
>
> You need more data.
There is enough scientific evidence already that the situation is clear.
Only the professional deniers for hire pretend otherwise.
>
>> You can still find professional deniers for hire. Some of them have an
>> excellent track record working for tobacco companies to keep people
>> smoking. The tricks of their trade are plausible lies to keep the public
>> from ever understanding the scientific evidence. Sadly the US education
>> system it so horribly broken that it works all too well.
>
> The average American certainly understands the economic implications
> of cutting fuel use in the short term, so he must be learning
> something.
Until the price gets to $6/gallon or higher I somehow doubt it.
Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
>> Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
>> of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
>> the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
>
> The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
>
>> Copenhagen will be all words and no action.
>
> Good.
But bad for the planet.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jax
wrote:
> Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
>
> >> Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
> >> of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
> >> the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
>
> > The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
>
> Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
>
>
Martin Brown
EU15 overall about -2% but promised -8%. UK is on target to exceed cuts
in CO2 promised at Kyoto. France, Germany and Sweden have also cut CO2
beyond what they promised. Small countries have not done so well. The
last set of figures I could find free access online are in this news article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3297515/Europe-is-missing-carbon-cut-targets.html
Over the same timescale US emissions went up by 15%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jax
wrote:
> Jax wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 6:14 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Profligate waste of energy is the American way.
>
> >>>> Until AGW really starts to hurt American interests I don't see much hope
> >>>> of anything being done about it. And without America and China on board
> >>>> the ROW cannot sensibly do anything that will make a difference.
> >>> The ROW isn't particularly interested in doing anything either.
> >> Europe is and even the Chinese view the AGW problems with some alarm.
>
> > And what has Europe accomplished in their effort to reduce CO2?
>
> EU15 overall about -2% but promised -8%. UK is on target to exceed cuts
> in CO2 promised at Kyoto. France, Germany and Sweden have also cut CO2
> beyond what they promised. Small countries have not done so well. The
> last set of figures I could find free access online are in this news article
>
>
> Over the same timescale US emissions went up by 15%
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
Now explain how and when EU managed a 2% reduction after 12 yrs. Was
it by improved technology, sacrifice, or innovation? Or was it a
fortunate windfall and accounting adjustments?
How has EU been doing since 2000? The Profligate Wasters of Energy
have increased their emissions by 2% with a growing population and
economy (well not this yr so expect emissions to drop as well)
oriel36
Why should you care,look at the intellectual lightweights contending
with the reckless conclusion based on assuming carbon dioxide is a
global temperature dial and the recent global temperature spike is
due exclusively to that source,these empirical lightweights are every
bit part of the charade as you crowd are,there is no goodness to it
and it diminishes Western civilisation to the point that all the
exists are people exposed to fear mongering by filtering terrestrial
and celestial phenomena through pollution- you literally have a
society with its head in the gutter/pollution.
A planet ,due to its rotational inclination,experiences conditions
between equatorial and polar extremes with the Earth's inclination of
23 1/2 degrees highly towards the equatorial end of the spectrum but
'tilt' in itself causes nothing,the seasons will exist regardless of
inclination as the dynamic behind seasonal changes strictly emerge
from the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun and should a planet
exist with 0 degrees inclination it will still have the seasons
expressed as total equatorial conditions,if 90 degrees then total
polar conditions.
The carbon dioxide bandwagon is just that,it fits too neatly with
lucrative agendas or one based on social tyranny where nobody has a
real interest in the link between planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects such as global climate which in turn creates the seasonal
hemispherical weather patterns.
Sam Wormley
> On Nov 5, 5:47 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates.
>> Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
>
> Why should you care...
I suspect you have no answer as to why Venus, Earth and Mars have
such different climates. Given that distance from the Sun is not
sufficient to account for those differences, Gerald, have you a
hypothesis?
oriel36
Making planetary comparisons based on daily rotational and orbital
characteristics allows common traits to emerge,one of which is
dispensing with the hypothesis which Copernicus originally introduced
in order to explain the seasons -
"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
Revolutionibus
It is quite an experience to live among people who consider themselves
astronomers yet cannot apply the power of modern imaging to alleviate
the present hyperfuss centered around pollution and look at global
climate from a fresh perspective and specifically planetary
dynamics.Describing the Earth's climate as mainly Equatorial should
just be a normal working principle by now along with the climate and
meteorological consequences ,the fact that nobody will acknowledge
planetary characteristics between equatorial and polar rather than no
tilt/no seasons hypothesis is a painful reminder that as long as
astronomy remains in a deep empirical freeze,the consequences for
everyone are far more terrible than any temperature spike.
Sam Wormley
>
> Making planetary comparisons based on daily rotational and orbital
> characteristics allows common traits to emerge,one of which is
> dispensing with the hypothesis which Copernicus originally introduced
> in order to explain the seasons -
>
> "..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
> variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
> affected exclusively by the motion of the center, no inequality of
> days and nights would be observed." Copernicus Chapter 11 De
> Revolutionibus
>
> It is quite an experience to live among people who consider themselves
> astronomers yet cannot apply the power of modern imaging to alleviate
> the present hyperfuss centered around pollution and look at global
> climate from a fresh perspective and specifically planetary
> dynamics.Describing the Earth's climate as mainly Equatorial should
> just be a normal working principle by now along with the climate and
> meteorological consequences ,the fact that nobody will acknowledge
> planetary characteristics between equatorial and polar rather than no
> tilt/no seasons hypothesis is a painful reminder that as long as
> astronomy remains in a deep empirical freeze,the consequences for
> everyone are far more terrible than any temperature spike.
>
>
So, Gerald, why do Venus, Earth and Mars have such different climates?
Distance from the Sun is not sufficient to account for those differences.
Cat got your tongue?