Global Warming

[npts2020]

Jackson33; I am likely to be one of those people you refer to wanting to change society because of my advocacy for bringing our transportation system into the 21st century by automating it and using wind and solar energy to power the whole thing. In addition, I advocate stringing a new power grid and other utilities in the same system. Global climate change is only one of the many good reasons to do this and is only briefly mentioned and never given serious discussion in the tens of thousands of words I have written when presenting arguments in favor of my projects. I have never been shy about admitting that all of this requires a "political agenda" but saying things like that gets us no closer to the right or wrong way of thinking about any given topic. My biggest questions to those who think that spending any money to try preventing climate change is a waste are; What is the worst thing that can happen if they are right and it just ends up being an expensive insurance policy? and What is the worst thing that can happen if they are wrong and the worst climate change scenarios end up actually playing out? and Which one is worse?

[jackson33]

I am likely to be one of those people you refer to wanting to change society because of my advocacy for bringing our transportation system into the 21st century by automating it and using wind and solar energy to power the whole thing.[/Quote]

 

npts; Really I'm not a "you people" type person, at least I hope not. Since you have been around awhile (retired), I assume you have seen many of the changes that I have, both good and bad.

 

The transportation of the 40's-50's and on through the 20th Century evolved and didn't stop when it turned the 21st Century. The means, may have, depending where you live, but it's likely to be as economical and efficient as possible for that area. What works in Pennsylvania however may not work in California, Texas, Alaska or for this discussion be affordable in China, India or Kenya. I have no idea what "automating it" means, but people prefer Independence, when choosing the need. In my little western town, we have -0- public transportation.

 

I'm not sure how your going to used wind and solar for transportation, but I'm all for these and other alternatives for electrical energy needs, frankly like the potential for geo-thermal. However you look at this, no one source will ever be enough to handle this country, much less the needs around the world.

 

I advocate stringing a new power grid and other utilities in the same system.[/Quote]

 

We certainly should have a smart grid, or where power is automatically transfered to where needed without human decision, but I'm not sure about a National Grid. Here in small town NM, every summer we get part of town (apartments/motels/small business) shut down, when Industry laden Texas runs low. It would seem to me, less grids with more power sources where needed, would work better, than robbing peter to pay Paul. Think about it, California where it's impossible to build a new power plant, already gets most from out of State, could be drawing from the NY area.

 

Global climate change is only one of the many good reasons to do this and is only briefly mentioned and never given serious discussion in the tens of thousands of words I have written when presenting arguments in favor of my projects. [/Quote]

 

I'm getting the impression, you think I oppose alternatives to fuel oil, for transportation or electrical energy. I not only don't oppose, but feel when it's completed, on a timely basis, the transition cost will not be noticed. The shorter time period you try to accomplish this the higher that cost. Frankly in most urban areas, you could buy any number of hybrid cars today and never burn a gallon of gasoline/diesel. Three hundred miles should handle the daily activity, for probably 75% of people, plug it in at night and your ready to go the next day. It's that extra 10k$+ cost, that holds many back. Anyway, dependency on unfriendly countries, the trade deficit, along with the American attitudes for NOT using their own oil (political agenda), that worries me.

 

What is the worst thing that can happen if they are right and it just ends up being an expensive insurance policy? and What is the worst thing that can happen if they are wrong and the worst climate change scenarios end up actually playing out? and Which one is worse? [/Quote]

 

In a TIMELY MANNER, nothing is wrong. You should already know what all has been done in the US to clean up the environment. Sequestering contaminants from your car to most every factory to drainage or run off from a corn field. This took 40-60 years with no noticeable cost. If we're not careful, currently looking at a 20+T$ deficit by 2019, not including 'Cap and Trade', any form of Keoto, the retooling of industry and all the other cost involved for anything short of a realistic changeover and in the private sector (consumer participation) there may not be a reason to reduce CO2, there won't be much. This not including the fact, China and India are NOT going to comply with anything, far off setting anything we could do and those cost.

 

Here is a list State by State of cost for Residential/Commercial.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

 

 

 

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. [/Quote]

 

bascule, maybe I'm not making myself very clear. On the above statement, taking out the word "significant", probably all climatologist/scientist and laymen, with any education would likely agree, I certainly would have up to two years ago (believe we're into a 20-30 year cooling pattern today). Humans and human activity are part of the give and takes of the environmental system, whether 1% or more is relatively unimportant and there could be no doubt in anyones mind, that with the increases in population and that activity, it's going to increase. I wonder what percentage of SCIENTIST, think man has the potential to alter or change a natural trend, the means and will to do it, or even considered the possible problems if too little CO2 could be detrimental to the ever increasing human species???

 

What I'm contending is that mans existence and activities actually fits into the cycle that nature is currently protecting, which has changed over the 4.3 billion years of evolving. Adding to this, I feel we're talking about an extremely complex set of conditions, most of which are unrelated to mans existence, in the first place. That is we are here only because, those conditions nature has been protecting (cycling) for the past 40-60 million years have been conducive to our life forms.

[npts2020]

Jackson33; I fully understand the reasons of most nonbelievers of the "global warming is an urgent problem" doctrine for doing so and it seems sometimes like the only way we ever know for sure is when has happened. The problem is that when you oppose "spending gadzillions of dollars" on that account, you pretty much rule out doing basically the same things for probably much more quantifiable reasons, like; our trade deficit which will make it increasingly untenable to do any real modernization, coal is dirty despite the notion of "clean coal", nearly the whole national road system is in need of repairs or expansion (not to mention 40,000 deaths, millions of injuries and hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage on them), tens of millions of unemployed people who could be employed doing modernizing work, our electric production and distribution systems are little better than they were when Thomas Edison first fired up his power plant on Pearl street in 1882, we need to manage water better, the petrodollar is what has kept our economy afloat (what happens when oil traders switch to another currency because of a weak dollar?), we are supposedly the only superpower in the world and ought to lead by example, and I am sure I could come up with more. I could also expand on any of these reasons as well but am not trying to write a book with this post. Suffice it to say that we are not going to change each other's minds soon about global warming but I am curious as to what kind of numbers you think it would be worth spending on any or all of the above, most of which would be addressed by a massive changeover of infrastructure, some now in private hands?

[jackson33]

I fully understand the reasons of most nonbelievers of the "global warming is an urgent problem" doctrine for doing so and it seems sometimes like the only way we ever know for sure is when has happened. [/Quote]

 

npts; You would need to explain, just what it is YOU think, will happen. As I've said during previous and pending 'Ice Age' of the 60-80's, estimates ranged from 1990 to 2100, then when changed to 'Warming', Albert Gore suggested 2010 (pass the point of no return or fixing), while others are all over the board. While your at it. let me know what could happen and if it's something that has never happened before. "nonbelievers"; We are still talking Climate Change, right?

 

nearly the whole national road system is in need of repairs or expansion (not to mention 40,000 deaths, millions of injuries and hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage on them).[/Quote]

 

I don't travel that much any longer, but the Interstate System, the only road system the 'Highway Appropriation Bill' requires States to add funds and spent, then often ignored by the States, are in pretty good shape. In your area, the Penn Turn Pike, along with the NJ Turnpike and each joining Int. Highway have been under continuous upgrading.

 

As for 40k deaths, injuries and property damage: Road deaths per million miles, are well down from 1995 and 1950 where they peaked, per miles driven.

 

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008621

 

 

tens of millions of unemployed people who could be employed doing modernizing work, [/Quote]

 

We have been in economical downturns, this country a number of times. I'll leave 'why for's' for another thread, but in short people are just not going to flock to construction jobs, from some office job. Here, we just went through a major 2 year road construction program and I'd guess 75% of the labor force were illegal aliens or had been been road construction to begin with, begged for help, while unemployment went from 1.8 to 8.5%.

 

 

our electric production and distribution systems are little better than they were when Thomas Edison first fired up his power plant on Pearl street in 1882, [/Quote]

 

Appears you are in Philly; I really don't think you mean this. We have come a long way and in a reasonable short period of time. This too, would make a good thread, but environmental groups have long slowed and stopped production of power plants (especially Nuclear Power) in places where it was most needed. I've already stated my opinions on the power grid.

 

we need to manage water better

 

Two major stories in 2009, were the water shortage in North Georgia and water for a good share of California's agriculture. Both involved 'Environmental Extremist' groups and some fish. One had to keep draining there reserves for a down stream fish, the other couldn't drain a supply to save another fish.

 

On the dollar; International rankings are based in part on stability, which in part is based on GDP v National Debt and inflation. We will probably lose our ranking, probably 2010 and possibly the Commodity Trading Markets, will go with the Euro. I rather doubt it, at least before the 2010 US Elections. This said and short of inflationary problems caused from internal monetary policy, the average person would never feel anything. You would still pay for gas in dollars and our trade deficits would show in dollars, no less than goes on daily in every Country using the Euro today....

 

 

I am curious as to what kind of numbers you think it would be worth spending on any or all of the above, most of which would be addressed by a massive changeover of infrastructure, some now in private hands?[/Quote]

 

According to all predictions, anything spent on anything by the Federal Government, thats not already budgeted, will be borrowed money up to and including 2019, where 1.1T$ is already expected to be deficit. If you have kids, they are going to be responsible for any action taken AT ALL.

 

As explained before; All change in the US, HAS been primarily from the private sector and the acceptance of the general public. If a car is produced, allowing some degree of safety (no cracker boxes), fits the average person needs (kids/family/jobs requirement), allowing the same or better distances with convenience (gas station today) and at the same or preferable less cost, that vehicle would be sold out for 30-40 years or as fast as retooling of factories could happen. There is no amount of money, that could speed this process up, mandates from government or regulation that could possibly work, IMO. You and I have just again bailed out GMAC, which is GM and I think now well over 60B$ in total and far more than the entire company has ever been worth. On any subject you wish to discuss, there is always the probability, the eventual source, be it cars, trucks, solar panels or wind mill parts, these products can and will continue to be available world wide, no less than oil is today, cheaper with the same quality.

 

npts; Most folks past a certain age going to be firmly set with their opinions, to whatever degree their personal interest in the issue, may be. I suppose you could blame this on personal experiences over many years and where success and/or failure has come from. Many Union affiliated folks, have your opinions and many that were involved in politics starting around JFK's time. No, we're not going to change each others minds, neither is expecting or trying to do that, but there are many younger folks that are questioning all that's currently going on, deciding where they might fit into the big picture, over the next 50 years or so. On GW, I was there 50+ years ago plus and my mind set as every few years, one after another empirical theory was reversed. I would hope, each of these people, who will be left with results of todays generation (no longer mine) will keep an open mind, question authority and above all practice the policies they believe in most.

[iNow]

4- Most importantly, I HAD been involved, with the Global Cooling debates or other environmental discussions dating back to the 1940's, which had even then worked there way into education. For instance, we were taught, in the early 50's, the human species was doomed to extinction (before 2000) for more than one reason, mostly for over population and limitations of the soil to produce food, think the big pitch being 4 inch of fertile soil had been reduced to 2 and would eventually be unable to produce anything. Later the pending Ice Age became the issue and the next ice age was inevitable as Ice was moving south of the Arctic at an alarming rate, where in fact in the mid 30's, it was less than claimed several time in recent years.

FYI, Jackson - You may not know it, but you've just repeated an often parroted assertion by climate change denialists, an assertion which is is not valid.

 

Those claims of "global cooling" were not based on science, but instead on an article in Newsweek and another in Times magazine. These are media sources, not scientific. The scientific papers from the 1970s projected the earth would warm in response to CO2, precisely as the science says now. Nothing has changed in that regard, so using the "global cooling scare" to try tainting the climate science of today fails on many fronts.

 

Click here for more: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

[swansont]

What I'm contending is that mans existence and activities actually fits into the cycle that nature is currently protecting, which has changed over the 4.3 billion years of evolving. Adding to this, I feel we're talking about an extremely complex set of conditions, most of which are unrelated to mans existence, in the first place. That is we are here only because, those conditions nature has been protecting (cycling) for the past 40-60 million years have been conducive to our life forms.

 

Do you have an evidence to back up this contention?

 

Why do 40-60 million year old cycles matter to a species that is much younger than that?

[jackson33]

Actually, GC came later in that scenario and yes the issue did stem from media, however the CO2 thing was more a rebuttal or that they were for these reasons, my guess....taking on new life when temperature cycle AGAIN began to climb. Think you'll find some today are now predicting global cooling based in part on the article listed toward the end of rational report...

 

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

 

In fact, for all I know the over population scare, food scare, sacarin scare, salt scare, apple scare, ozone scare, peak oil scare, natural gas scare or the many others, were all media driven, but I'd bet they all had some scientific backing. To me based on this, the Global Warming Scare, is simply part of new age technology (movies/documentaries/internet), where people like Al Gore (politics & in the late 1980's) and the many 'Environmental Groups Groups' (predating science and the UN entering the issue) have created a monster problem, out of a relatively minor issue.

 

One old article from the 60's hitting the internet in 2003, that may interest a few;

 

Received 25 August 1969.

Available online 14 April 2003.

Abstract

Similarities of setting between the Arctic Ocean today and the former sea now occupied by the West Antarctic ice sheet and its associated ice shelves suggest that, under prolonged full-Glacial conditions, a cold ice cover of West Antarctic type could have developed in the Arctic Ocean, consisting of a complex of ice shelves and ice grounded far below sea level. During the Last Glacial the ice cover probably consisted of ice shelves only except for a grounded ice sheet in the epicontinental Barents Sea, but during an earlier Glacial, an ice sheet centered in the American sector of the Arctic Ocean may have extended onto the adjacent land, carrying shelly drift far above the marine limit in the Canadian arctic islands, and inundating northwest Alaska.[/Quote]

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-48C7H75-141&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b7b6ee535d07d6c397ac35febe57594d

 

Setting up this;

About 200 million years ago Antarctica was joined to South America, Africa, India, Australia, and New Zealand in a single large continent called Gondwana. There was no ice sheet, the climate was warm, and trees and large animals flourished. Today only geological formations, coal beds, and fossils remain as clues to Antarctica's temperate past.

 

According to the plate tectonics theory, after splitting from Gondwana, Antarctica drifted slowly to its present position over the South Pole. Its climate was much warmer before it was finally separated from South America. Around 30 million years ago, the Drake Passage opened. Persistent westerly winds began to circle Antarctica, creating the immense Antarctic Circumpolar Current that flows through the southern parts of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. This encircling system blocked heat transport, causing the Antarctic to cool. It has been covered with ice since approximately the beginning of the Pliocene, about 5 million years ago.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica

 

Point; Many believe earths weather patterns today (past 30M years) stem from "Antarctica Circumpolar Current" and winds. I just don't see the evidence CO2, has the force to establish weather patterns, over what probably does, or that man can somehow alter these patterns by driving electric cars, retaining solar heat (actually heating salt) for electrical energy or if you want to play with the 'Butterfly Effect' sticking up a few million wind mills to generate power. I know you know about this, but for those that may not;

 

The butterfly effect refers to how small things can have big consequences. [/Quote]

 

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/physical_science/physics/thermal/Butterfly.html&portal=vocals

 

 

Do you have an evidence to back up this contention?

 

Why do 40-60 million year old cycles matter to a species that is much younger than that?

 

swansont; If sentence number one, does not relate to number two, please advise;

 

Our species evolved from others, am sure you agree. Other mammals and vertebrates began evolving, for the most part around 55 million years ago, leading to us humans. On topic; CO2 levels are estimated to have been at least 1000ppm, near that time....

[bascule]

bascule, maybe I'm not making myself very clear. On the above statement, taking out the word "significant", probably all climatologist/scientist and laymen, with any education would likely agree

 

Yes, altering the original question alters the outcome of the poll. Changing the word "temperatures" to the word "cheese preferences" would also alter the outcome of the poll.

 

I certainly would have up to two years ago (believe we're into a 20-30 year cooling pattern today)

 

And your evidence is...?

 

Humans and human activity are part of the give and takes of the environmental system, whether 1% or more is relatively unimportant and there could be no doubt in anyones mind, that with the increases in population and that activity, it's going to increase. I wonder what percentage of SCIENTIST, think man has the potential to alter or change a natural trend, the means and will to do it, or even considered the possible problems if too little CO2 could be detrimental to the ever increasing human species???

 

Well, according to my as-yet-unchallenged assertion regarding all scientific organizations of national or international standing, 97% agree and 3% have no opinion.

 

What I'm contending is that mans existence and activities actually fits into the cycle that nature is currently protecting

 

And your explanation as to the sudden change in the relatively steady preindustrial levels of CO₂ is...? For tens of thousands of years they remained unchanged, then the industrial revolution began. General Circulation Models which use the anthropogenic CO₂ hypothesis are able to accurately reconstruct the historical record. What is your basis for asserting otherwise? Let me note now that models which make contrary assumptions are, for whatever reason, not able to accurately reconstruct the historical record. For this reason the majority of climate scientists support the "consensus", because the alternative is a non-answer. Were some climate scientist able to make an accurate historical reconstruction using a different set of model inputs it would likely be given more credence, but based on the best evidence-to-date there is little more reason to consider those sorts of explanations than there is to consider light traveling through the luminiferous ether, because models of the behavior of light based around luminiferous ether do not give realistic results.

 

which has changed over the 4.3 billion years of evolving.

 

Lots of things have gone on in the past 4.3 billion years, including many mass extinction events. You may not care about those. I care greatly about the possibility of hundreds of thousands if not millions of humans dying. This would not wipe out the human race but I still feel it's something that should be prevented. If we can prevent hundreds of thousands of people dying because they do not have access to safe water sources than it's something I think we, as a species, should undertake.

 

Adding to this, I feel we're talking about an extremely complex set of conditions, most of which are unrelated to mans existence

 

And how many of those conditions actually affect Earth's global mean surface temperature? Climate models are capable of attributing climate change to the various component radiative forcings. Everything else is extraneous factors.

 

It's possible climate scientists are wrong about everything, but to date the evidence and explanations are entirely on their side. Until their explanations are falsified we should trust them.

Edited January 5, 2010 by bascule

[swansont]

Do you have an evidence to back up this contention?

 

Why do 40-60 million year old cycles matter to a species that is much younger than that? [/Quote]

 

swansont; If sentence number one, does not relate to number two, please advise;

 

Our species evolved from others, am sure you agree. Other mammals and vertebrates began evolving, for the most part around 55 million years ago, leading to us humans. On topic; CO2 levels are estimated to have been at least 1000ppm, near that time....

 

Somewhat related. I'd like to know what evidence you have to back up your contention.

 

Evolution can certainly happen on million-year scales, so why would humans have an adaptation to conditions present 55 million years ago? Isn't it much more reasonable to think that the species that evolved over time would be better adapted to the different CO2 levels?

[insane_alien]

our species has only been around for 200000 years. and vertebrates are much much older than 55million. all the dinosaurs had spines and they died millions of years before 55million years ago.

[jackson33]

bascule; We could go on for months, playing meanings of word games, or providing other opinions agreeing with ours. You have made a couple comments, I feel are discussable;

 

Lots of things have gone on in the past 4.3 billion years, including many mass extinction events. You may not care about those. I care greatly about the possibility of hundreds of thousands if not millions of humans dying. This would not wipe out the human race but I still feel it's something that should be prevented. If we can prevent hundreds of thousands of people dying because they do not have access to safe water sources than it's something I think we, as a species, should undertake. [/Quote]

 

What makes you think any person who opposes AGW, does NOT care about what may happen to humanity at some point in the future. Haven't any of my arguments, to the importance of CO2 to plant life, which is more than vital to humans and poor little puppy dogs, meant anything. I don't care what major change you support, from nuclear power down to the 10 or more alternatives already available, there are consequences. All in and done, humanity is going to become extinct on this planet at some point in the future. IMO, it could just as easily come from too little CO2 or oxygen, as too much and as for tolerance, we're a whole lot closer to too little, than too much.

 

I, 100% agree on 'Clean Water' for drinkable/agriculture or maybe 50 other projects that could be addressed for the good of some humanity today and the increases estimated in the future. Desalination of seawater, is already a reality and there is no reason, with todays technology, in this or with waste water treatment any person should die from lack of fresh water or disease from contaminated water. This and several other issues are PROBLEMS today, not imaginary (IMO) and things could be done.

 

What seems to endlessly get lost, to any argument to this desire for massive and immediate change in human activity, to prevent a claimed/imagined inevitable event, is that there are consequences, just as destructive to those proposed requested changes. Society, especially in the US, has been leading change for 60-80 years, long before EPA or all these scare tactics and will continue to, for a number of reasons...

 

It's possible climate scientists are wrong about everything, but to date the evidence and explanations are entirely on their side. Until their explanations are falsified we should trust them.[/Quote]

 

Now, this is what scares me the most; Scientist have been saying since the 1950's, probably before, that the Earth Faults in Southern California (mainly the San Andreas) are long over due for shifting, causing a massive earth quakes, while the area around LA has grown from around 1.5M people then to over 8M today. That inevitable is still there and one scare I happen to agree with...If the same level of attention, had been paid to this, in those early days, though actually was locally, as to AGW today around the world, what do you think California would look like today.

 

Much to the same, I have said 3,261 times, I agree the Planets Average temperature will increase at some point in the future, and decrease through other periods, with a current long term trend upward. What if we are in a cooling period and this time goes below the averages of recent lows (record lows being set every day over past two months, around the world). 2008 was the coldest since 2000, the short term trend being lower since 1998 and anecdotal evidence indicates many places suffered the coldest year on record in many places or in a good many years in 2009.

 

insane_alien;

our species has only been around for 200000 years. and vertebrates are much much older than 55million. all the dinosaurs had spines and they died millions of years before 55million years ago.[/Quote]

 

My explanation was to show the changes in the evolutionary process, that began after the Dino period (220-65MYA), that led to primates and humans, "for the most part around 55 million years ago", I really don't feel Homo Sapians, were going to evolve from what was before or from dinosaurs, with out the events after that period. (Since I'm being questioned on every tiny detail; I'm not saying there is not a link, even if you wish to back to the micro organisms that began at least 3.4BYA, rather the stage was set around 40-50MYA.)

 

An early mammal fossil discovered in Mongolia led to researchers asserting that the origins of placental mammals, which include humans, can be dated to approximately 65 million years ago in the Northern Hemisphere. These findings will be published in the June 21 issue of Nature.[/Quote]

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070621135213.htm

 

I happen to believe, underground rooting of plant life, leading to grasslands, played an important roll in mammals evolution;

 

The most dramatic changes were brought about by the emergence of large grazing and browsing mammals with tough hoofs, grinding teeth, and digestive tracts specialized for the processing of grass, leaves, and other fibrous plant materials. [/Quote]

 

Good article on mammals/primates, as well...

http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm

 

swansont; Think my comments to insane, covered your comment....

[bascule]

Much to the same, I have said 3,261 times, I agree the Planets Average temperature will increase at some point in the future, and decrease through other periods, with a current long term trend upward. What if we are in a cooling period

 

Solar and ENSO are about to kick up again. If things continue to cool then yes, that would be an indication there's a significant problem with GCMs. However, statements like "what if we're in a cooling period" presuppose GCMs are wrong. Are you saying GCMs are wrong?

 

2008 was the coldest since 2000

 

That's one way of describing it. 2008 was also the ninth warmest year since continuous instrumental records were started in 1880.

 

the short term trend being lower since 1998

 

1998 being the year of an unusually strong El Nino. ENSO will be kicking up here again.

 

and anecdotal evidence indicates many places suffered the coldest year on record in many places or in a good many years in 2009.

 

Does the concept of a "global mean surface temperature" escape you?

 

First, unusual extremes, both warm and cold, are an expected outcome of injecting more energy into the climate system and thus making it more turbulent. As a result of "global warming" some areas are going to get colder or have greater fluctuation in their weather patterns. That's why generally climate scientists prefer to call it "climate change", to dispell these sorts of arguments. "Global warming? It's unusually cold here!"

 

Second, the majority of the Earth's surface is not covered with humans. So even if there are "anecdotal reports" of it being cold, that says nothing about what the GMST was this year. Not to mention the basic problems with "anecdotal evidence" versus hard data.

 

Let's wait for the GISTEMP analysis before jumping to any conclusions.

Edited January 6, 2010 by bascule

[coreview2]

FYI, Jackson - You may not know it, but you've just repeated an often parroted assertion by climate change denialists, an assertion which is is not valid.

 

Those claims of "global cooling" were not based on science, but instead on an article in Newsweek and another in Times magazine. These are media sources, not scientific. The scientific papers from the 1970s projected the earth would warm in response to CO2, precisely as the science says now. Nothing has changed in that regard, so using the "global cooling scare" to try tainting the climate science of today fails on many fronts.

 

Click here for more: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

 

Lol. I guess you were too young to actually be there and know the context and actual sources.

 

In reality, the paleoclimate history of recurring ice ages revealed in ice cores and other proxies inspired the fears, not some article in Newsweek. The die-off of half of Europe's population in the Little Ice Age played its role in underscoring the reality of the threat an ice age poses.

 

The skepticalscience.com and the UK Guardian's RealClimate.org are being disingenuous, shallow or more than a bit silly in dismissing fears of a potential new ice age as the result of an article in Newsweek.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I was looking around to see what might explain the fact that CO2 concentration lags temperature in climate history. However, I couldn't find anything that even approached credible information as to why CO2 is not primarily driven by temperature and why it should not be considered a bit player based on real world paleoclimate data.

 

Seems there is a lot of cork-screw logic mixed with very thin speculation to explain it, but most of it just looks like arm waving and smoke blowing.

[swansont]

Lol. I guess you were too young to actually be there and know the context and actual sources.

 

In reality, the paleoclimate history of recurring ice ages revealed in ice cores and other proxies inspired the fears, not some article in Newsweek. The die-off of half of Europe's population in the Little Ice Age played its role in underscoring the reality of the threat an ice age poses.

 

The skepticalscience.com and the UK Guardian's RealClimate.org are being disingenuous, shallow or more than a bit silly in dismissing fears of a potential new ice age as the result of an article in Newsweek.

 

I can't help but note that you haven't provided any sources to support your assertion.

[coreview2]

I can't help but note that you haven't provided any sources to support your assertion.

 

It's not so much an "assertion" as a matter of personal experience since I wasn't born yesterday and am not dependent on second hand reports like the absurd contention that the fear of a new ice age was derived from an article in Newsweek. The paleoclimate cycle of ice ages was well know and the modern art of dating proxies and ice cores was developing rapidly feeding a lot of speculation as to when the next ice age would come.

 

It doesn't take Newsweek to help one notice that the cycle of ice ages and interglacial warmings is rather repetitive. Of course in the 1960's and '70's there weren't a 1000 TV stations and many thousands of Internet sites devoted to the topic since there were few stations and no World Wide Web as we know it today so attention was more limited to the scientifically curious, scifi and of course the crisis junkies every generation produces.

 

 

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling

could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." US National Academy of Sciences (1970)

 

Stephen H. Schneider (born c. 1945) is Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change (Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

He studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 1971 Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. I. Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a 1-d radiative climate model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded:

 

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

 

 

`Ice Age' book of the time - (Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976) (with rave testimonial by Schneider)

 

 

Schneider published a book titled "The Genesis Strategy" in 1976, warning of the coming glaciation. You can still get it on Amazon for $0.75 (used).

 

It was quite the vogue if you were there to see it though it is a bit of an embarrassment to some former advocates.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

1) Why would we burn hydrogen when we can use it in far more efficient fuel cells?

2) Unlike CO₂, water vapor exits the atmosphere: it's called rain.

 

Hydrogen is certainly not a choice fuel for combustion, but it certainly is efficient in fuel cells.

 

Water vapor does often become rain, but likewise, surface water evaporates and become vapor just as quickly. Anyone who has lived in the semi-tropics or tropics gets to see a lot of this process in the real world.

 

I'm rather fond of then new generation of pebble-bed reactors using ceramic coated pebbles. They are meltdown proof, are much higher efficiency, produce very little waste and have none of the other risks of light water reactors.

 

http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

[swansont]

"There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling

could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." US National Academy of Sciences (1970)

 

…

 

The paper concluded:

 

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.

 

"Finite possibility" and "if pollution increases 6 to 8-fold, temperatures will go down" is not the same as predicting another ice age is imminent.

 

To be fair, Rasool and Schneider did actually predict another ice age — in 20,000 years.

[jackson33]

The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. [/Quote]

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Earths-Fever-Breaks-Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth

 

Roy notes: June 2009 saw another - albeit small drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Southern Hemisphere. The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 is now at +0.12 deg. C per decade.[/Quote]

 

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/june_global_temperatures_drop_to_1979_1998_average/

 

Backing off to post by Caleb;

 

For an objective 4500 year analysis of periods of warming/cooling, including a forecast, you would Enjoy (I guess), even though it still doesn't rise to the level of 1100BC or anything close to an extreme to 1300AD temperatures. Note volcano activity and the lack of an industrial revolution;

 

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

 

Let's wait for the GISTEMP analysis before jumping to any conclusions.[/Quote]

 

bascule; I'm not an enthusiastic fan of James Hanson GISS system developer/modifications, especially his interpretations, but anecdotal or not, evidence already indicates a lowering of Global Temperatures, SHORT TERM. I'll add Roy Spencer is also with NASA and his personal opinions are AGW is not valid as presented and concentrates on moisture distribution for fluctuations.

 

GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

 

First, unusual extremes, both warm and cold, are an expected outcome of injecting more energy into the climate system and thus making it more turbulent. [/Quote]

 

I suppose, but there might be, say a hundred other reasons. For instance "High and Low" pressures (atmospheric pressure), upper winds and temperature differentials, none of which are concerned with what the CO2 levels might be. Global Warming was changed to Climate Change, because GW was no longer apparent and you know this.

 

Second, the majority of the Earth's surface is not covered with humans. [/Quote]

 

Oh!, I was under the impression those little spots of humanity (1.5% of earths surface) were causing worldwide weather warming/changes.... Actually, even nature (for the most part) is limited to less than 30% of the earths surface (Land), which is where 95% of all contaminants (CO2/Methane) are produced. Moisture, not a contaminate, but effecting weather patterns, involves the entire planet.

[bascule]

bascule; I'm not an enthusiastic fan of James Hanson GISS system developer/modifications, especially his interpretations

 

Why? What do you think is wrong with GISTEMP? Which analysis do you prefer? You do realize how close they all are to each other, right?

 

[jackson33]

The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Prior temperature analysis, most notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our rationale was that the number of Southern Hemisphere stations was sufficient for a meaningful estimate of global temperature change, because temperature anomalies and trends are highly correlated over substantial geographical distances. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.

 

The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations. The basic analysis method is described by Hansen et al. (1999), with several modifications described by Hansen et al. (2001) also included. [/Quote]

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA. [/Quote]

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

 

My opinion; The original plan and the revisions over the years, especially in 2001, do not reflect other analysis that were and have been going on. One such chart offered in my last post. I am aware of many recording sites, not conducive to Hanson's pre-concluded results, being dropped and while others agreeable were retained.

 

Then as with any science, I worry more than most, where Government is in any way an influence. Dr. John S. Theon (supervisor or not), makes a far better case than I could, to nothing of qualifications, not to mention a rather impressive list of skeptics to Hanson's opinions, including the former top administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin. I understand you feel I'm well out of line, linking politics/science/government and all I can offer is the evidence, as I see it....

 

[Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and is formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility] [/Quote]

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm

 

FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1A5E6E32-802A-23AD-40ED-ECD53CD3D320

 

A similar viewpoint, from Walter Cunningham, this site;

 

“NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote. [/Quote]

[coreview2]

"Finite possibility" and "if pollution increases 6 to 8-fold, temperatures will go down" is not the same as predicting another ice age is imminent.

 

To be fair, Rasool and Schneider did actually predict another ice age — in 20,000 years.

 

They also said the perceived cooling was man made a long with a great deal more.

 

However, the point is, of which those examples were but a couple of the crisis junkie set, that there was in deed quite a lot of concern for a new ice age among those cognizant of such things and it wasn't centered on an article in Newsweek. The growing field of paleoclimatology was the main contributor, but the usual suspects had their fun too.

[swansont]

I understand you feel I'm well out of line, linking politics/science/government and all I can offer is the evidence, as I see it....

 

Yes, well we are in a science thread, so I'm sure all would appreciate if the discussion could stick to the science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

They also said the perceived cooling was man made a long with a great deal more.

 

However, the point is, of which those examples were but a couple of the crisis junkie set, that there was in deed quite a lot of concern for a new ice age among those cognizant of such things and it wasn't centered on an article in Newsweek. The growing field of paleoclimatology was the main contributor, but the usual suspects had their fun too.

 

There was cooling, and it probably was manmade.

 

And I'm sure that there are many fans who read reports made by the National Academy of Sciences, I suspect that Newsweek and Time had a larger circulation. Are you really asserting that the majority of the people got their info directly from the NAS report?

[bascule]

My opinion; The original plan and the revisions over the years, especially in 2001, do not reflect other analysis that were and have been going on.

 

Like the two others in this plot?

 

 

One such chart offered in my last post.

 

I see no plots of GMST analysis of the instrumental record in your previous post. Perhaps you could link the relevant plot directly in the forum.

 

I am aware of many recording sites, not conducive to Hanson's pre-concluded results, being dropped and while others agreeable were retained.

 

Can you like... back this stuff up with evidence, and perhaps omit accusations of malice and retain an objective point of view?

 

Then as with any science, I worry more than most, where Government is in any way an influence. Dr. John S. Theon (supervisor or not), makes a far better case than I could, to nothing of qualifications, not to mention a rather impressive list of skeptics to Hanson's opinions, including the former top administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin. I understand you feel I'm well out of line, linking politics/science/government and all I can offer is the evidence, as I see it....

 

And now, we've wandered completely into the deep end.

 

jackson33, this is a thread in the sciences forum. This is not the politics forum. Clearly you have an opinion on the matter, have found some blogs that agree with your opinion, and copied and pasted their diatribe into here, which is little more than ad hominems and poisoning the well.

 

If you have a problem with the science James Hansen is doing, please state the problems with the science. The majority of your post is little more than a personal attack on the man, not the science. The only parts of your post bordering on the science are completely unsubstantiated accusations of him maliciously tampering with the data.

 

I'm not sure what to think when you make statements like "The original plan and the revisions over the years, especially in 2001, do not reflect other analysis that were and have been going on." when a graph directly to the contrary is staring you in the face in the previous post.

 

I've seen many unfounded accusations of malice by climate change denialists directed at GISTEMP. The reality seems to be quite to the contrary to these accusations:

 

• GISTEMP's analysis strongly correlates with other, independently conducted analyses (see the graph at the top of this post).
  
• When errors were found in GISTEMP's input data, the errors were corrected, the analysis was performed again, and the results on their web site were updated, along with an explanation of the error and the effect on the original analysis.
  
• When bugs were found in the GISTEMP code, GISS fixed them
  

 

And finally, Clear Climate Code, an independent group reimplementing GISTEMP in Python in order to improve its clarity and correctness, had this to say about it:

 

http://clearclimatecode.org/gistemp/

 

We have now converted all of the GISS code to Python. Naturally we have found (minor) bugs while doing this, but nothing else. We are currently “catching up” so that the code in ccc-gistemp reflects the changes that GISS have made to GISTEMP (such as using the USHCN version 2 dataset; see issue 7).

 

It is our opinion that the GISTEMP code performs substantially as documented in Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372., the GISTEMP documentation, and other papers describing updates to the procedure.

 

I find your allegations that GISTEMP is inaccurate to be thoroughly unfounded.

[jackson33]

ansont/bascule;

 

Yes, well we are in a science thread, so I'm sure all would appreciate if the discussion could stick to the science.[/Quote]

 

jackson33, this is a thread in the sciences forum. This is not the politics forum. Clearly you have an opinion on the matter, have found some blogs that agree with your opinion, and copied and pasted their diatribe into here, which is little more than ad hominems and poisoning the well. [/Quote]

 

What you are both telling me, is that the word of those in science (NASA people, others), claim that science is/has been corrupted by political influence (GW, the THREAD TOPIC), I have no right to argue THEIR points ON your forum.....This doesn't make any sense, what so ever and a poor way to manage your arguments, possibly even the forum.

 

I am constantly being told to REPORT moderators/posters rather than arguing my points. I ask you to report my post (this one), since that's not my style, possibly bringing to light once again, the power used by some to moderate and argue at the same time.

 

If reviewed by anyone; Where ever GW or AGW is the issue, in Science or under Environment, the UN and Governments have been influential for 60+ years. People in Government have virtually no science background and I doubt any member State of the UN has, yet both do the selecting of where aid goes or who is granted funding or who are in charge of any government agency (NASA and affiliated agencies). I also direct you to the opening post....this thread.

[mooeypoo]

jackson33, this thread is in the "Ecology and the Environment" forum, a subforum that deals with the science behind phenomena, and not about politics.

 

If you want to discuss politicization of this subject, do so in the Politics forum.

 

Please stay on topic. That is, on the science topic, and not political topics.

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I am constantly being told to REPORT moderators/posters rather than arguing my points. I ask you to report my post (this one), since that's not my style, possibly bringing to light once again, the power used by some to moderate and argue at the same time.

 

We try very hard not to moderate and argue at the same time. If you see evidence that someone is abusing their mod powers to win an argument, you should always contact an administrator such as myself.

 

You should always argue points, of course, but when it comes to matters of moderator misconduct it's best to let us deal with it.