Slashdot Mirror

You didn't read far enough in your own references. You took a paragraph, essentially, and didn't question its conclusions based on its own references. In other words, just like Weart.

Dig deeper. Weart is lying to you.

It looks like there is still plenty to come.

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/weather/satellite/ind ex.html

More storms flowing off the Sahara.

----
Everyone shoots the messenger..

Further, doing research into Global Cooling tells you some

interesting data. Such as the drop of global temperature from the 30's through
the 70's amounted to a drop that is strikingly similar to the amount we are
told the Earth will supposedly warm (or has depending in which peer rviwed
article) as a result of "man"; or according to the link you gave, is exactly
the same.

Reference please.

See your own references, it's in there. As is much of the rest of what I
posted. For example:

Ask yourself this: If over the course of 70 years (1930s to 1970s) we saw a .6o C drop w/o disastrous effect, why should a .6o C increase cause it?

Global average temperatures _increased_ during the last century. What's
the source of your data? Ask _yourself_ this: what benefit do the people
who feed you these lies gain from you (a) accepting it, and (b) convincing
you to humiliate yourself in public like this?

Again, this is shown in the data provided by your links and the
references from them. So if that was a lie, and you "fed" it to me,
what did you gain by it?

The latest report by the Hadley Center (name ring any bells?) Shows the
decrease in average global temperature from the late 1930's to the
early-mid 1970's very clearly. How is it you missed that bit of data? Did
you not read the links and references you yourself put out in support of
your arguments? Read the freaking graphs, man. Even better, read the data.

Much of your post is trollish cursing and ranting, not to mention being
littered with ad hominems. But for the sake of others, I'll bypass that
and settle in on a few of your outlandish claims to demonstrate the points
you sought to avoid.

I find it very interesting that the very links you provide provided me
with the data you now call bogus (to put it nicely). A prime example.
People like you unfairly give global warming a bad name.

Personally, a portion of my work is in researching ways to
induce global warming intentionally. That's how I know that models are not
the holy grails you hold them to be. For example, some models (indeed
many) have taken the assumption (models are all about assumptions whether
it be conomic, climate, etc.) of an annual 1% increase in atmospheric CO2.
These models will perform exactly as expected and output correct data. And
yet be dead wrong. These models in particular failed to predict the CO2
increase correctly, even if mathematically correct. Real world data shows
an annual increase of about half the amount used in the models. All
predictions and conclusions drawn from them are thus fully invalid when
applied to real world climates.

Further, most models also have been shown to be extremely sensitive to the
initial conditions (as is to be expected), given them a range differential
of between 2 and 18 degrees depending on the particular models used. IMO,
only a fool would use such widely varying ranges and predict a 2-3 or 2-5
degree increase in temperatues.

It would be like predicting someone will win an election by 2 points given
a poll with a margin of error of say 9 points and a statistical dead heat.

Further, you write as if a model simulates the whole world over a time
period. Most do not. Indeed, the Hadley
Center Explanation of Modelling, the global model is a model running
models, and at very coarse resolution. Given the sensitivity to initial
conditions and variances, you enter a potential positive feedback of
extremes.

Newsweek is hardly an academic journal, and as I send in response to another post, it is disingenuous at the very least to suggest that the consensus now compares to the scaremongering of Erlich (who _clearly_ had his own axe to grind) then.

As I've said elsewhere, the 'history of global warming' link I've posted several times on this story has a good description of the 'global cooling' mini-scare of the 70s.

"Peer reviewed" journals also had calls to herald the global drops in temperatures. Presidents and leaders were warned to start stockpiling food for the comming shortages. Check Wikipedia for a starting point. Science, Nature, National Academy of Science, are all examples. And even then, we were told to stockpile food and that aerosols and pollution were to blame.

Again, I refute your assertion that today's consensus compares to the 70s. Was there an equivalent of the IPCC then? Of Kyoto? I've got the Wikipdeia article open in another tab, before reading it I have to register my scepticism given your hand waving language about 'pollution and aerosols'. Sounds like you're conflating CFCs, more generic concern about other man-made pollutants such as Sulphur Dioxide, heavy metals, photochemical smog etc etc with the curren concern over CO2. Science has, in fact, progressed in the last thirty years...

But that didn't pan out. So they got a new gig. Now it is warming (that in 99 they said would cause an ice age). Has science gotten better in the last 30 years in this field? Hardly. Now they just make up computer models...

OK let's break this down. 'They got a new gig'. Sounds to me like yuo suspect some sort of "research funds generation conspiracy theory"? Forgive me if I'm reading more into that phrase than you intended. OTOH if that _is_ your argument then I'm afraid that falls into the category of 'invisible snorg monster arguments' - I leave the search for that parallel to you.

'now it is warming (that in 99 they said would cause an ice age)' - I guess you're referring to the well-establised fact that the North Atlantic Drift (part of which you'd call the Gulf Stream) has, in the past, shut down, causing a significant local cooling effect across the north atlantic and western europe. SInce 1999, this idea has strengthened considerably. (a) there is more solid evidence that this has happened before, from ocean floor sediment cores and other proxy climate measurements; (b) computer models of ocean currents show that this is indeed one of the global climate's steady states; (c) considerable research into the thermo-haline pump that drives ocean currents backs up the idea; (d) measurement of salinity, water run off into the Barents Sea, density of the deep currents and the various gyres (where cold water sinks before heading back south) provide strong suggestions that this process is well under way.

I live in north west Europe; I have glaciated valleys a few miles from my present location, erratics (boulders dropped from retreating glaciers) around my home. I take a pretty close interest in this subject.

Has science gotten better in the last 30 years in this field? Hardly.

May I ask what qualifications you have to be able to dismiss so much work in so sweeping a way? Put it this way. Has computer technology gotten better in the last 30 years? What about molecular biology? astrophysics? Cosmology? materials science? particle physics? astronomy? astronmetry? planetary science? Geology?

You have no idea, do you?

Now they just make up computer models..

Oh, dear oh dear oh dear... I would like to see you say that to my old colleague who worked on the Hadley Centre's climate models. This is a factually incorrect statement with absolutely no relation to reality. If you really think computer models are just 'made up', why not make one up yourself and go win

I've got a friend who used to do weather pattern modelling at the Met office. Apparently they've got statistical modelling predictions for at least 6 months. The problem is, after a week or so, the probabilities of getting a type of weather on a certain day drops too low to have any kind of certainty about it.

Somehow, I can't see swamping their sensing wavelengths with noise is going to improve that.

The most useful (?) piece of info he came out with is that there's one prediction that is consistently 75% accurate.

Tomorrow's weather? Same as today.

There is no national or continental weather service in Europe;

First, the IPCC itself acknowledged in 2001 that "some" (page 9) recent climate models provide "satisfactory" models without flux adjustments. The implication there being that most don't... The same document (page 13) suggests global warming of 1.4 to 5.8C from 1990 to 2000, so we're talking about 1.3-5.2C per century.

Refer you to the last 20 years of "JGR (Oceans)" and "JGR (Atmospheres)"?

If those models are applied to climate conditions from, say, 500 to 1000 years ago and are let run free, will they reproduce the current climate accurately?

How about the NCAR Climate System Model, which gives good results over 300 years without flux adjustment

Let's see. The NCAR Model projected that "surface temperature is expected to rise nearly 0.2 Kelvin (one-third degree Fahrenheit) per decade over the next four decades". So that's 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade or a projected 2 degrees Celsius change over a century. That's certainly on the low side of the IPCC alarmist figures. It has also been about 5-1/2 years since that model was announced so I would expect to see about 0.1C of warming since then. I am unaware of that having happened...? If it has, can you point to some data?

the Hadley Centre's HCM5, which generates a realistic for 1000 years stable climate (with non-greenhouse CO2) without flux adjustment?

I couldn't find information on HCM5, although I do see HCM2 and HCM3 on the Hadley website and I didn't see any claims to "1000 years stable climate" projections although I did find this page which says: "It is important to be aware that predictions from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different predictions."

I keep wondering... if some climate models are supposedly so accurate, why do we have so many different models that contradict each other? Further, it seems that at least one of the examples you provided reinforces my point that as the models get supposedly more accurate that the temperature increase they project becomes less--hence the 2C per century prediction of NCAR being on the LOW side of the IPCC estimates from just 3 years ago. I wonder how much lower the estimates will be in 3 years? Of course, in 3 years we'll probably no longer be talking about global warming and instead talking exclusively about salinity in the North Atlantic.

The English Wine Industry being non-existent? Hmmm... that's news to these folks then.

Certainly I got a nice little crop of grapes off the vine growing up my wall last year, but then it was the fifth warmest year in the Central England Temperature series.

Regards Luke

Both 24-hour and 50-year weather 'reports' use the same basic models and concepts

The effect that cities have (i.e. Microclimates) on the local tempatures in relation to the area around them has been known for some time and this seems to be a logical extention of the microclimate. As such it seems logical that the exaust from cars would tend to be greater on weekdays when people are going to and from work, and would decline on the weekends.

It's already been proven that there is NO global warming,

In what universe? Seriously, you may have issues with the political implications of global warming, you may have issues with the implementation of damage-control policies before a true consensus of the scientific community has been reached, but that statement is just plain wrong.

I don't have any doubt that it is repeated ad nauseum in hysterical screeds by the likes of Rush et al, but you would do yourself some good by attempting to understand the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Here are some starters:

The US Global Change Research Information Office

The American Geophysical Union

The Union of Concerned Scientsts

The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research

UCS Debunking of the 'Skeptical Environmentalist'

globalwarming.org's constantly updated list of scientific references

I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.

From the site:

Climate change is an irreversible, global and long-term environmental issue. Each molecule of greenhouse gas emitted locally will have an effect at the global scale which will mainly affect the children of your children. The importance of the climate change issue is often not well percieved by the public because of (i) its inherent intangible nature (global scale, long-term effect) and (ii) its strong scientific uncertainties which are often used to justify inaction (since public expects science to be exact). One of the ways to raise awareness in the public is therefore to use climate simulation.

...

Climate change is high in the political agenda. During the Earth summit in Rio (1992), 192 countries have signed a UN convention to protect our climate from human-induced activities (UNFCCC). In 1997, the parties to this convention met in Kyoto and drafted a protocol which legally binds developed countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Today, several countries such as USA, Japan, Australia refuse to ratify the protocol because they do not believe climate change is such a critical issue. Your result will help to make reliable predictions of climate change and to quantify uncertainties. This could help policy makers to assess the real risk of the effects of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and to guide their decision. Imagine for example, that your simulation shows that with a doubling of CO2, a possible state of climate is a shut-down of the oceanic circulation in the Atlantic associated with strong climate change in the USA. This might act as a wake-up call on decision-makers ....

I have heavy doubts that these people are motivated purely by science. Did you see the opening animation? It does sound more like they want to demonstrate what they already believe is happening and what will happen, as opposed to coming into this with a clear mind. Personally, I like the idea of distributed computing solving problems like this. They say they're using a climate model developed by the Hadley Centre, which looks legitimate enough. But I remain skeptical, as you do.

The specific aims of the research conducted by the centre are to:
[...]
understand physical, chemical and biological processes within the climate system and develop state-of-the-art climate models which represent them;[...](Emphasis mine)

I've quoted some problematic statements:

"Those scientists who spread anxiety in the eighties.." [ad hominem],
"Precise forecasts that prove correct are a sharp criterion for efficient science. The protagonists of global warming remain empty-handed in this respect in spite of great material and personal expense." [false and unscientific]
"All these predictions have turned out to be untenable. It is accepted that global temperature has risen by 0.5 C in the last hundred years. Yet during the last fifty years the temperature has remained approximately at the same level, even though 70% of the anthropgenic carbon dioxide contribution was injected into the atmosphere during this time. From 1940 to 1970 the temperature fell, and according to satellitite data available since 1979, which are in good accord with balloon data [27], the trend in the lower troposphere has remained at -0.06 C per decade." [misrepresentation of the data, see here]

And it's conclusion is almost gibberish:
"If we bear in mind that the correct forecasts based on the semiquantitative model of solar-terrestrial relations presented here are thinkable only if the sun's varying activity is a dominant factor in climate change, it seems difficult to resist the insight that once again an artificially constructed homocentric position is beginning to rock. A general survey of the given results indicates that climate variations are governed by the sun, not mankind." [artificially constructed homocentric position? solar-terrestrial relations?]

Plus, the graph you cite has been deprecated; the authors of the 1991 study state in a new, revised 1999 report (see below) that solar variation cannot account for the warming trend observed during the 1990s. Solar variation accounts for 50% of the warming, at best, and there is clear evidence of an anthropogenic component.

From the relevant section of one Global Warming FAQ:

Is the recent warming caused by changes in solar activity?

There is no doubt that solar variability plays an important role in global climate change. Interest in the relationship between solar activity and the current global warming was sparked by a paper from the Danish Meteorological Institute, published in 1991. This found that there was a close correlation between a particular parameter of solar activity and surface temperatures, and it is discussed on this page from Stanford. More recently, however, the DMI has published an update of their work, in which they reveal that the increase in temperatures since 1990 no longer correlates with solar activity. They call it 'The fingerprint of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect'. Dr Keller of the Los Alamos National Laboratory has also researched this phenomenon, and he describes the relationship in this lecture he gave in 1998.

The detailed causes of the recent warming trend have been investigated by the UK Meteorological Office using climate models, and are presented here. They found that about half of the warming is caused by solar variability but that, in the second half of the century, these effects have been countered by sulphate emissions from volcanoes (which act to cool the earth). The overall effect of all these natural causes (sun and volcanoes combined) has been quite small. Similarly, two recent studies of ocean temperatures have found that the observed increase is best explained by the effect of greenhouse gases.

The current science seems to support the hypothesis that man-made emmissions of greenhouse gases pose a threat to the stability of the climate.

The question is "What can we do about it?" Clearly, dramatic reduction in fossil fuel usage is in order. The move to renewable solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power, must be accelerated. Cleaner forms of transportation, such as hybrid-electric and fully-electric cars, must be promoted. Energy efficienct homes and appliances can be implemented. The list goes on.

Let's act now, while there is still time to affect the future.