Slashdot Mirror
Our Lazy Solar Dynamo — Hello Dalton Minimum?
tetrahedrassface writes "Solar maximum is supposed to be occurring, and everything from satellite communications to your toaster or radio could be affected. The only problem is that this just isn't happening, and NASA continues to revise downward the original prediction. In fact, the new forecast for Solar Cycle 24 is a lot smaller, and is now pegged at almost 40% of what was previously predicted. Recently, two scientists at the National Solar Observatory have followed the lead of a prominent Russian scientist, who almost five years ago forecast a dearth of sunspots and the subsequent cooling of Earth for the next several cycles. With Britain currently experiencing the coldest winter in over 300 years, and no new sunspots for the last week, are we heading for a Dalton Minimum, or worse still, yet another Maunder?"
I'll just up my CO2 emissions by a couple of tons. I haven't been using my fireplace nearly enough lately.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
QUICK! Start spilling out greenhouse gasses to save us from global cooling.
Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
Fans of data---as opposed to ideology-driven cherry-picking and quibbling---can verify (via daily satellite updates!) that far-north global warming is still accelerating. The relevant site is Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis.
Heck, Hudson Bay in Canada *still* hasn't frozen over ... that *never* happens.
How much do you enjoy having enough food to eat?
After the holidays I could stand to lose a few pounds. This Maunder diet sounds like the ticket.
With shorter growing seasons may mean lower crop yields and the world is already tight on food supplies means some ugly times ahead for those who are not getting enough food today. Maunder Minimum is when the Little Ice Age happened. Human population went down by what, 40%?
Not to worry: During the last such minimum, the population was too low to make cannibalism a viable reserve food source. In our bold and overpopulated times, we should be able to survive with minimal disruption on what will come to be called the "long pig diet" in a flurry of self-help books and obnoxious mediagenic "doctors" self-promoting Oprah appearances...
Also, if we are sufficiently lucky, the Scandanavian "Black Metal Belt" should move some degrees southward, allowing gene flows between that population and previously isolated genre-concentrations such as the UK punk pool... This should help protect them from excessive inbreeding and the production of incestuous and derivative material...
Ocean acidification. Solar cycles don't change chemical fact. CO2 + H2O H2CO3 H+(aq) + HCO3-(aq) In other words, as the ocean absorbs more CO2, it becomes more acidic. Combined with the observed isotopic shift in C13/C12 ratios caused by anthropomorphic CO2 sources and it's case closed.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
The globe is warming!
;-)
I mean cooling.
I mean "climate changing".
(clings to the Book of Al Gore and whimpers)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Britain/Northern Europe does not owe its climate status to spot heating. Britain is usually warmer than it should be given its northern position due to the gulf stream. The oceans serve as blocks to cold air from up north coming south. There are incredible global circulation systems which see warm air rise in the mid-latitudes tot he upper atmosphere then cool and return to the ground at the poles. This is the cause of the cold winds that come down from the north. These winds find it easier to come south over land, which cools more easily than water which retains heat better, has its own top/bottom circulation as well as global circulation. Normally the warm currents keep the cold air away.
Global Warming means global warming. The oceans make 3/4 of the surface area to 4' cooling of the land is easily offset by 2' warming of the ocean. 4 * 1/4 = 1 is less than 2 * 3/4 = 1.5. Do not take any specific location changes to mean global stuff.
What global warming does mean is more intense weather systems. Do not go jumping onto local cooling/warming like Europes/US east coast and claim it is getting colder. You need to look at the whole globe. Not just the areas man is in.
give up burning oil.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
no worries we're just carbs water and some vitamins and minerals, if its in soil that can be processed into supplements and we can all live like the jetsons having breakfast pills. sure the stomach would be in pain but thats what advil and tylenol and nuprin are for! and all of that stuff can be recycled again when it comes out of us. so energy to do that becomes the main problem...
so hows that for a dystopia future worth fighting against.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
And it's cold in Scandinavia. But is it colder on earth in average for this time of year?
Isn't this just about winds from the arctic blowing over us this year and warmer winds from the Atlantic blowing further south than usual? At least that's how some graphic on the telly was explaining the current harsh winter.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
When has dumping a chemical into our biosphere such that it reaches many times the natural level been a good thing?
Please give one example. I can site many, many cases where it was a bad.
Weather Underground indicates the temps are within Historical norms. Maybe something else driving the sea ice conditions? Geothermal energy?
Fans of data---as opposed to ideology-driven cherry-picking and quibbling---can verify (via daily satellite updates!) that far-north global warming is still accelerating. The relevant site is Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
Most people strongly tend to cherry-pick and then draw conclusions from it - yet when it involves an above-average hot summer almost no one concerned about global warming complains because it lines up with their ideology. Well, sauce for the goose... you better hope the Russian is wrong.
It is dumb to draw conclusions based on one winter on one relatively tiny section of the globe. Plus local influences and normal variability often drown out the longer-term signal. Up here in the Pacific Northwest, our mid-to-late winter and (especially) spring weather are strongly influenced by the ENSO ("El Niño"). So far we've been having a colder than normal couple of months, and everyone's blaming the current La Niña - but it's probably not a significant factor given the time of year. Nor is it likely the dearth of sunspots - we just happen to be having a cooler-than-normal late fall and early winter. It happens. If February onward are cooler and wetter than normal, then we can talk.
#DeleteChrome
TFS contains at least two major errors:
1) according to the linked wik entry on the Dalton Minimum, "Recent papers have suggested that a rise in volcanism was largely responsible for the cooling trend." I.e., not a decrease in solar activity.
2) Local climate != global climate. Many models expect that even as global temperatures rise, England will cool, due to shifts in the Gulf Stream.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
While you are correct about the religious-like fanaticism, the problem is that some people cite one of these facts and act as though it debunks every bit of science out there. There are occassions here on Slashdot where someone cites a 100-page page-reviewed scientific article on the effect of CO2, and someone else counters with "but the model could be wrong!" and acts like the combined work of 5000 scientists was suddenly silenced by their off-hand remark.
What I find depressing are the amount of people that dismiss the science, because they don't like Al Gore as a politician. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Religious freaks will go crazy if they interpret that the lower sun activity is there to compensate human global warming, as a sign of some god trying to fix our mistakes here. Add that to the near 2012, and be ready for massive amount of people in the streets ready for the rapture.
It is dumb to draw conclusions based on one winter on one relatively tiny section of the globe.
Note: If it's not clear, I was referring to the cold British winter mentioned in the original submission.
#DeleteChrome
1) Yeah, obviously the Sun is a big driver. And if you keep it's heat in more effectively, that would be an issue.
2) "full greenhouse effect" is obtained on Venus. With a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere. It would appear to be hotter there. Much more so than its closer distance to the Sun would suggest.
3) It's very possible the Earth has been "cooling since 2007", and it makes no difference to a larger trend than the fact that Canada has been cooling since August. The temperature would be this wiggly line on the graph, see, and though there are down-wiggles, they are fewer / smaller than the up-wiggles over the longer term. If it were warmer on Sept 23-27th that it was on September 3-9, would you conclude winter was not coming?
4) There's no chance of current computer models being "correct", the question is whether they are a close enough approximation to be useful for making social policy. The computer models of some 20 years ago were considerably more accurate about today's climate than random chance alone would suggest. That gives them scientific credibility and are the reason that climate researchers have increasingly come to believe them.
Those sunspots also charge our ionosphere. The dearth of spots means less bounce off of the F layer and less signal propagation.
(This comment only relevant to the 5 or so amateur radio ops who read /.)
2) There is already more than enough CO2 for a 'full' greenhouse effect so more will not make it 'worse.'
Please, enlighten me... If that's the case, why does Venus (with a massive atmosphere made mostly of CO2) have a far higher (~400 Celsius) surface temperature, even though it actually gets less heat from the Sun? This might sound surprising - Venus is closer to the Sun, so it'd be natural to expect it to get more heat. However, it is shrouded in a thick layer of clouds that reflect most of the light it receives back into space.
Venus's temperature is only explainable by its greenhouse effect. This can even be measured. So, my question is... if we are experiencing a "full" greenhouse effect, then what IS Venus experiencing?
We are experiencing a very warm winter without snow, when usually we have a cold winter with a significant amount of snow due to the Labrador current. Our current climate opposite of Britain and the rest of North America, where normally we have their current climates and they have ours. 6 years ago we had a very cold winter and the most snow since 1850, and each year followed suit until last year. Before that we had a short period of winters without snow, which was exactly as it is now. And before that (my childhood) we had a significant amount snow all throughout. I don't remember anything before that. My point being, to any Wikipedia scientists, there simply is a cycle of climates which is directly affected by the temperature of the earth, which cycles itself. The jet stream would be the most significant factor influencing our climates. It is of my belief that the current variances in weather are due to the reversal of polarization of our magnetic poles. In the recent years, the magnetic north pole has been moving around in much greater distances, which anyone reading /. should know.
But at least I know this is all pure speculation, unlike most other people who constantly talk in absolutes and yet have no definitive proof.
There's lots of things that must never be said.
- There is no "climate" of earth over timeframes that homo sapiens has existed.
- The current "climate" is an anomaly in the geologic record.
- We do not understand fully the systems that monitor climate and temperature on earth, Sun included.
- Much colder and much warmer temperatures are greater islands of climate stability in the geologic record.
- The earth has sustained and thrived after much worse change than we are introducing.
- The best way to regulate climate change and emissions is zero population growth. (less people)
- Nuclear power is the only sane technology we have to lower emissions.
There are lots more. Don't forget to recycle.. and keep your mouth shut.
..don't panic
Have you considered the possibility that at least some of these claims are not heretical, but simply false; and that the angry reaction from climatologists derives not from any religious fervor but from the frustration of having to refute them time and time again in the face of someone who thinks some reading online gives them expertise equal to years of academic study?
There were nearly no sunspots for 2 years, 2007-9 and that easily confirms we will have real hard couple of winters a bit later down the road. And then a remission of sunspots AGAIN just recently makes it look like we are "bouncing down" the activity curve, typical of a "cycle".
Every time (since Galileo's time 1600) when we have had a minimal or near zero sunspot activity, there have been colder winters, freezing and storms. Hence we have about 400 years of well documented sunspot activity with weather records to verify what happened.
It is amazing to me that out "news anchors", meaning writers in the "mainstream media" are so ill-educated that they can not do simple reading up on what the effects are of minimal sunspot activity.
Instead "news anchors" and writers in the media spout political lines (Al Gore and global warming crowd), instead of pointing out specific facts and what those measureable facts mean short term (cold weather a year or so later) and what it could mean longer term.
The last time I spoke with a person who ran the solar observations from the radio telescopes in the Mojave Desert, he noted they still were not able to predict longer term events as mentioned (Maunder or Dalton type events).
Why are these events hugely important? I don't hear the news researcher/writers mentioning this. Sweden, Denmark and France lost 10% of their population to starvation/freezing in the Maunder minimum and Finland lost about 30%. That is the equivalent of losses in a major world war or WORSE.
You've destroyed the sun.
1) The sun is the biggest driver of the Earth's Climate
This is like saying the Earth is the biggest driver of the Earth's climate. It's an essentially meaningless statement.
2) There is already more than enough CO2 for a 'full' greenhouse effect so more will not make it 'worse.'
You are simply lying with this one. A 'full' greenhouse effect would mean that 100% of heat is retained. That's impossible, but you can look at worlds where heat retention is in the 99% range, such as Venus.
3) The Earth has been cooling since 2007.
Bull shit. Even if it was true, climate is not weather, the same way macroeconomics is not family household planning. Climate change is measured across decades, not years.
4) Current computer models of the Earth's long-term climate are not necessarily correct.
This is irrelevant to historical analysis, which shows a clear warming trend across decades. But unlike yourself, scientists do endeavor to be honest, and refine their model as new data is available. Most excess heat is getting dumped into the oceans.
There are others, of course, but you get the idea. Never say any of the above in the presence of believers.
Because you'll get called out for being the liar that you are.
Adult Role Playing Forum
What really settles it for me is this chart here
http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/research/climatemarine/cmfclimate/cmfcc2.html
Oceans occupy most of our globe, and they are a good indication of global temperature, since they also trap a good deal of our surface heat. Ocean temperatures are rising. Why are they rising? That much is in debate.
Here are the ideas that are considered heretical by the true believers in global warming:
Why don't we just say; you'll ignore our wacko's, and we'll ignore yours.
1) The sun is the biggest driver of the Earth's Climate
And it has been declining in output since 1985, which means global temperatures should be declining... Well, dang.
2) There is already more than enough CO2 for a 'full' greenhouse effect so more will not make it 'worse.'
We're already pretty fucked, so let's make it even worse just cause we can?
3) The Earth has been cooling since 2007.
NASA has said 2010 is the warmest meterological year on record (which ends on 30. nov), which means that by 'cooling' you actually mean 'warming' which incidentally makes things so much clearer.
4) Current computer models of the Earth's long-term climate are not necessarily correct.
Neither are those used by CERN to analyze data from the LHC, yet I don't see you taking issues with their results.
Though on second thought, I bet you're also one of those who is expecting the earth to be sucked into a micro black hole.
- These characters were randomly selected.
The only reason people go hungry today is due to political strife. There is a huge surplus in food grown around the world.
When has dumping a chemical into our biosphere such that it reaches many times the natural level been a good thing?
Please give one example. I can site many, many cases where it was a bad.
Well, The Great Oxygen Catastrophe comes to mind.
It was a very good thing for all of us oxygen breathing lifeforms...
(Not such a good thing for lots of Earth's anaerobic life; It "was likely the largest extinction event in Earth's history" for them.)
Not to worry: Life as a whole is far more resilient than any one strain of life, including that of our human race.
With Britain currently experiencing the coldest winter in over 300 years, and no new sunspots for the last week, are we heading for a Dalton Minimum
Why yes, it makes perfect sense to conclude things about decadal-scale global climate trends based on a month's data from 0.05% of the Earth's surface area!
For a global view of the temperature anomaly (vs. a 1951-1980 base period), see this GISS surface temperature analysis (that's for November; December data not available yet). So yes, there's a -1 deg C anomaly in Britain, counterbalanced by huge +4 to +10 deg C anomalies across northern Asia and the Arctic.
For a look at the longer-term trends, try this map of annual average temperatures for the past ten years vs. the same base period. Guess what? It's getting warmer, despite declining solar activity.
The GISS map generator is a great tool for exploring these variations.
why does Venus (with a massive atmosphere made mostly of CO2) have a far higher (~400 Celsius) surface temperature, even though it actually gets less heat from the Sun?
Why does Mars (with an atmosphere composed of 95% CO2) have a far lower mean temperature (-85C)? The venusian climate is affected by a lot more than CO2...as is the martian climate.
What combined work of 5000 scientists?
IPCC is complied works by half a dozen people, not all of which are scientists. The works are cherry picked and later found to be full of errors.
Most studies out there arent about the effects of CO2 on global temperatures (some are) but most are about the potential effects if such warming occured. Or dirivative works on different subjects with GW splashed in for funding.
This constant claim that 5000 scientists are working in unison and all agree on the same exact data and subject is ludicrous and a lie.
I have never heard anyone say otherwise. No sun == a very stable, if cold, climate. However, changes in solar irradiation have not been sufficient to explain observed changes in the climate.
This statement is gibberish. See the explanation here: "Modern data show that even in the parts of the infrared spectrum where water vapor and CO2 are effective, only a fraction of the heat radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth is blocked before it escapes into space. And that is beside the point anyway. The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth's surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down."
Nope. In point of fact, 2010 was the warmest year on record. But such a short-term trend is irrelevant. A cooling trend over three days in May doesn't mean North American is not warming up as summer comes.
I've not heard anyone suggest that computer models of anything are 100% accurate.
Of course, these facts are inconvenient to believers of various irrational ideologies popular in the U.S. -- fundamentalist Christianity, laissez-faire capitalisms, etc. -- and so are likely to be rejected as heretical.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Hold on to your horses there buddy.
Chemicals...oOOoo scary word.
WATER is a chemical.
EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals, EVERYTHING.
Because Mars' atmosphere is around 100 times thinner than the one around Venus.
If you spent any time researching these issues, instead of preaching from your gut, you'd know the answers to your own questions.
that far-north global warming is still accelerating
Isn't it cherry-picking to point specifically to "far-north global warming", when global warming is supposed to be, er... global?
why does Venus (with a massive atmosphere made mostly of CO2) have a far higher (~400 Celsius) surface temperature, even though it actually gets less heat from the Sun?
Why does Mars (with an atmosphere composed of 95% CO2) have a far lower mean temperature (-85C)? The venusian climate is affected by a lot more than CO2...as is the martian climate.
Mars has a very thin atmosphere, about 1% of the density on Earth. By coincidence the density on Venus is roughly 100 times the density on Earth.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Higher expenses removing and disposing of frozen homeless people from the street. If the homeless get desperate enough, increased other expenses dealing with break-ins of property and turf wars for warm sleeping spaces.
Also increased liberal news reports of people who can't afford the $800 heating bills for their 800 sq ft shack with inadequate insulation and heaters. More house fires and deaths as more people use camping equipment and other not-rated-for-domestic-use equipment to heat their homes.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
When has dumping a chemical into our biosphere such that it reaches many times the natural level been a good thing?
Based on a small slice of time, say the last 1% of time since the birth of earth (40 million years), can you please define "natural levels"? What about the last 1000 years makes this slice of time so special that only it is "normal" and everything else is an anomaly?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Define "natural level" of anything. The hubris of man, to imagine that anything he does is above nature, is immense.
But I'll give you one example - at one point in time, there was very little O2 in the atmosphere. Without O2, life as we know it would not have been possible:
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/541/the-rise-of-oxygen
Thanks to the dumping of O2 into the once pristine and oxygen poor biosphere, many many times the original "natural" level, we've got life on earth as we know it.
the Scandanavian "Black Metal Belt" should move some degrees southward ....
Great. Can I have an awesome orgy with Angela Gossow AND Lotta Hoglin?
Ok, ok, can I at least get consensual sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation with Anette Olzon please?
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
The Great Oxygenation Event, circa 2.4 billion years ago.
If you _don't_ think that was a good thing, I suspect you of being a spy for our would-be methane-breathing overlords.
Because Mars' atmosphere is around 100 times thinner than the one around Venus.
Its 10000 times thinner, but otherwise I agree with you.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Learn to tell funny jokes, and it won't be a problem.
Yes, but it was absolute catastrophe for the life that was on Earth at that time. Hey, if you'd like to see most of the life on the planet wiped out so that the next wave of evolution can happen - more power to ya!
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Venus is hotter at the surface because of the atmospheric pressure, not because of CO2.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/venus-cool-greenhouse/
Fair enough. I was just going from memory from something I learned a few years ago.
Higher surface atmospheric pressure. PV = nRT.
Duh... we'll eat *each other*.
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
I suppose your attempt to paint anyone disagreeing with you as religious fanatics could be considered as violating pretty much every scientific principle and thus "heretical".
Of course it is, and currently experiencing a cyclical minimum in energy production, which refutes your own point number 3.
There is no "full" greenhouse effect. The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the stronger the effect becomes.
Which, as you noted yourself, is due to Sun.
No model is necessarily correct. Yours is a complete nonstatement.
Indeed, you will be corrected and perhaps considered slightly slow.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I tend to find people more credible when they're willing to put their own money on the line. 2010 looks like the warmest year on record.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
From TFwA:
Curiously, the duration of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) coincides very closely with the reign of King Louis XIV of France (1643-1715), known as the Sun King.
The conclusion is obvious. It's France's fault! Now, pass me a mess of those Freedom Fries.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower; excerpt from The Chance for Peace
:(){
What does Artificial Intelligence have to do with this?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Further, you haven't proven AGW at all, only extrapolated your bias to prove it. What this solar minimum is proving is that the SUN has much more effect on the temperature of the earth than any CO2 increase, man made or otherwise. Take a moment and listen to the music.
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music". - George Carlin
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Well darn. I guess I can hold off on putting up that tri-bander for another seven years.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
source of quote You can say what you want about Corbyn but his predictions have recently been way way better than the UK Met Office. In fact, the BBC is more than somewhat upset with the badness of the Met Office forecasts. BBC unhappy with Met Office
Fans of data---as opposed to ideology-driven cherry-picking and quibbling---can verify (via daily satellite updates!) that far-north global warming is still accelerating.
Fans of non-cherry picked data realize that a tiny segment of time looking at sea ice tells us nothing about what is part of a normal cycle for the climate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you look around, they're claiming it's the 'worst winter' since about 1918. An eyelash of time, a blink of the eye, a tiny diatom in the geological record.
Climate change is really about changes over thousands of years, not less than hundreds. It makes it hard to appreciate especially in our short span media. But it's no less true.
Everybody shut up and watch for a couple more decades.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"How much do you enjoy having enough food to eat?"
Hahahaha that's rich. I can grow super-nutritious crops without light at all (and some more complex crops with minimal light and still produce viable yields,) inside of a controlled environment, so as long as you don't mind being a health nut foodie for a while you'll survive.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The other day, a town in Greenland (forgot the name) was 2 degrees warmer than St Louis, MO. Clearly a case of global cooling, for some definition of "global."
thegodmovie.com - watch it
They should have a FAQ List, just like the one that exists for every proposed solution to defeating spam mail.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Pass the soylent green please.
Warmth of the sun?? Thats your scientific observations?
-1c is nothing new for the holidays in Quebec. Its actually quite in line with what we usually see.
Also there is still quite allot of snow out there. No need to fear it is still there to stay.
And 2 days of warm weather in a row... omg its a trend.
Basically your whole post is useless.
Right. Thanks for the link to the objective science site where paragraph 1 of the home page speaks of "rabid warmist claims"; I'm sure they'll be putting Nature out of the peer-reviewed paper business soon.
To you and the guy below who wrote "PV = nRT", well, yes, if you rapidly compress a gas, it will heat up. Then it will radiate that heat away until it is back to the temperature of its environment. Otherwise, diver's compressed air tanks would be permanently, naturally hot all the time,, forever.
Although crap does show up for short periods from time to time, I'm going to go with the Wikipedia article on Venus instead:
"strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System", just search down to that sentence.
Heh, recently B2 bombers were going for the paltry sum of about 2.2 billion dollars. I was thinking of picking up a couple for myself. The neighbors would show some respect then!
the part where 'super-nutritious' tends to conicide with 'made from pond scum and tastes like it' is where i get hung up on the whole thing.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Agree with Archangel Michael. Human-caused CO2 is about 0.28% of the total. Even if the oceans are getting significantly more acidic or not, it's pretty damned hard to pin that on human activity. Not only is it not "case closed", it's "what case?"
as I am not trained in the language that paper is in, can i get cliff notes somewhere in english?
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
You're completely ass-backwards. It's the isotopic ratios which prove that the increased CO2 is anthropogenic as our emissions differ from known natural sources.
Here's the music: the sun's output is weaker than expected and yet 2010 looks like one of the hottest years on record. What is this solar minimum proving again?
Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none. --Benjamin Franklin
Here you go:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/
I have read the paper itself. It is extremely well written with excellent statistical analysis and so far there has been NO answer from the so called "not another old university in cambridge" which did most of the analysis quoted and re-quoted in AGW papers.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Bringing politics into a scientific debate is very nearly a sure sign that you don't know enough about the subject at hand to have a meaningful opinion.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
If anyone knows anything about sunspots, it's Ken -- http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070032658_2007033016.pdf.
Bull [noaa.gov] shit [noaa.gov]
Yes, you Warmers do certainly like to trot out those pages! I see them every time someone questions the validity of your little cult. You were frothing so much I think you forgot you linked twice there to the same thing - or was it your first lie, pretending you had more sources than you really do. You don't mind being called a liar right? After all you brought up the notion it was proper to do so in debate. I see something you got wrong, therefore the correct term to call it out is "liar".
So since you're leaning so heavily on that one article for data, let's consider what it means.
Did you ever stop to think what those graphs are showing temperatures as being warmer than? They are showing a warming in relation from 1961-1971 on (depending on the graph). Note that's exactly the period when things were getting pretty cold and people were scared about another ice age. (that article is from 1974)
Consider this segment:
when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades
OK, so we're at some kind of local minimum there. And then from there it starts rising again, until it crests over where it was. But that means that saying the lasts years average temperatures is warming so drastically when comparing against this large period of time where we considered it to be much colder, is misleading at best because you have a large period of artificially cool temperatures added into the comparison pool.
Let's take NASA again, a different link, talking about November 2010 being the warmest on record.
Scary stuff! Except now we have veered off what you called a lie, that it has been cooling in recent years. Let's return there. Even this NASA article says:
there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005
Hey, guess what that implies. It's saying that between 2005 and now, temperatures have been cooler than in 2005.
So it really doesn't seem like he was lying at all now, does it? You just don't want to believe it, because it conflicts with your dogma of a constant and unrelenting rise in temperature that will burn us with earthly hellfire!
As for the "clear warming trend across decades", I find it hard to get excited with such a tiny little window of study, and the new understanding that C02 can only marginally raise temperatures (a revision from five degrees to two degrees). If there's no runaway greenhouse effect, there's not nearly the cause for Alarm you Warmists are trying to instil. And if they were wrong by so huge a margin about how much CO2 would cause temperatures to rise, well then you wonder about other predictions like acidity level and so forth...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wheatgrass juice tastes like nothing. Throw it into a juicer, you have your minerals and vitamins for the day. Down some beans, water, and you're set for the entire day of work.
When super-nutritious coincides with nasty taste, the people involved have no culinary skills and should perhaps obtain some.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Has anyone explored the possibility of associations between solar activity and volcanic activity? Is it possible that, say, the amount of neutrinos hitting the Earth can influence the mantle?
I hear it's endorsed by Thomas Malthus.
We worked out how to cultivate crops in the past couple of thousand years. We've gotten really good at it. If global warming happens, it would probably screw up our current agricultural methods and be really quite painful. Not overall fatal, but painful and expensive. The poor and hungry will be poorer and hungrier (and some deader).
Take the compressed air tank analogy to Venus for a sec - at the higher pressures, there is more energy to be radiated, and the lapse rate only lets so much of that out. If it wasn't for a lapse rate, every planet's atmosphere would radiate heat away until it was the temperature of outer space, right?
Glad that wikipedia thing is working out for you, though :)
Hey, if you think you can stop the universe from changing, and prevent the next wave of evolution, more power to you! :)
Wheatgrass juice tastes like nothing.
No, it tastes like grass juice.
HOTTEST years on record? Seriously? Guess it depends on what one's definition of 'on record' means.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/256079/only-9099-last-10500-years-warmer-2010-brian-bolduc?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d1e4b285524a4d4%2C0
Every single square inch of earth must increase in temperature, otherwise global warning is "denied", huh?
What's the "natural level"?
CO2 levels have been an order of magnitude higher before, albeit a few millions years ago. Most plants evolved at levels several times higher than today.
Our biosphere is currently CO2 starved. That's bad.
it's in my head
Why should we care what the BBC thinks? I want to know MTV's opinion.
4) Current computer models of the Earth's long-term climate are not necessarily correct.
I've not heard anyone suggest that computer models of anything are 100% accurate.
No you haven't. However, the uneducated public, media, government, and others are treating the data that comes out of those models as though it is 100% accurate. And there lies the problem. All sorts of hysteria and whatnot can be bought with inept use of data, which is what leads us to this entire discussion. The inaccurate portrayal of data by both sides has left everyone in the middle sick and tired of the whole thing.
if we came at the problem sideways, a lot could be accomplished. Instead of trying to convince someone AGW is a threat to there life, show them how much better there life can be if they walk to work once a week, or use cloth shopping bags, or enjoying a candle light dinner instead of wasting electricity watching TV. subtle changes add up, and when approached with the intent of improving lives, not changing minds, far more success may be had.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
for correcting themselves, is rather low, don't you think?
It's especially difficult when it becomes clear that measuring extant arctic sea ice, for example, is no longer a cut and dried calculation involving coverage, but also the density of the ice, and thickness. So in that case the error becomes neither intentional nor accidental, but rather one of interpreting the data - but the fact that arctic sea ice is rapidly vanishing has not changed.
Regarding Climate versus Weather, it's New Years Eve in Minnesota, and it's raining. It's been known for a long time that the same system that cooled Minnesota warmed Europe.
So Europe cools while the American midwest warms.
Climate is a vastly interconnected and complex system. Those who recognize the fact that global warming is occurring also recognize this fact. 'Skeptics' will happily latch on to individual errors, localized (either temporally or physically) anomalies, and so on, and ignore the greater picture as it suits them.
And of course you can't only rely on one source. The OP fell into that trap because one year in the period was in fact cooler than before. A one year anomaly does not make a trend, however, and 2010 will most likely be yet another warmest year on record.
Adult Role Playing Forum
True but then you have the flip side. When we had two years of bad bad hurricanes you had the true believers saying that it was proof of global warming.
Then we had none. Now we have some extra cold winters and I have heard people saying that is proof of global warming.
I am all for cutting CO2 because the risks of not doing it seem to out way the risks of doing it. But I believe that climate is a very complex subject and we are still learning.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Allow me to translate the above for those who are slow at math and/or unfamiliar on how to lie with statistics.
Example: if there where 15 unseasonably warm days in November, and then it was cold as all get out until March, there data would show that it was a warm winter. because there method of sampling data was retarded
a more accurate model would be to sample the warmest three days from each month and average that. this would ensure a more accurate data model, as the table could not be filled prematurely by 15 warm days in November.
of course, as this has not been done, they are now able to say that this has been the warmest winter on record. the real question is, was this done intentionally, or are they just morons? because remember, a sufficiently advanced level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
They should have a FAQ List, just like the one that exists for every proposed solution to defeating spam mail.
In case you're not being sarcastic: there are tons of them, all you/they have to do to find them is tell Google to show you a list.
My definition of "on record": http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Sorry, I can't check your link at the moment as it appears that the android browser can't copy from content. Any chance you'd run that through a url shortener so it'd be easier to transcribe?
Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none. --Benjamin Franklin
Not so simple. The ocean is a buffer system. As its pH decreases, so does the rate at which it buries calcium carbonate. This feed-back will likely increase the alkalinity of seawater once the pH drops below some threshold, causing the ocean to absorb *more* CO2 than it normally would to catch up.
In theory. But recent work suggests the rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans has declined. Remember, warmer liquids can hold less dissolved gas than cooler ones. Sea surface temps have been rising at the high-end of the "worst case" predictions. In spite of the down-turn in solar activity.
It's not the same runaway effect that alarmists have been touting in regards to the climate.
"And then you went and spoiled it all, by saying something stupid and retaaaaarded."
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Actually, thinking about it more, let's look again at the compressed air tanks.
We start adding more gas, which increases "n" in PV=nRT.
"V" stays the same, and as we pour in more gas, although we get a small kick up in "T", what really changes on the left hand side of the equation is "P". As mentioned by rbrander, "T" eventually reaches equilibrium with the outside of the tank. The difference we made was with "P" and "n".
So on Venus, although PV=nRT can apply in general, it's not like we increased "P" by increasing "n" (like the compressed air tank) - what we have is a system in some sort of equilibrium between P and T (since the volume of the Venusian atmosphere isn't changing, and the "n" amount of gas in the atmosphere isn't changing).
Now, if someone wants to make an assertion that the Venusian atmospheric volume is changing, or that somehow the amount of gas in the volume of that atmosphere is increasing, I'm more than happy to look at any appropriate references that address that.
Human-caused CO2 is about 0.28% of the total.
You are misinformed.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 38% +/- since the industrial revolution. That increase is attributable to human activity.
If positive and negative feedbacks were to balance out, this would be enough to raise the average surface temperature of the earth more than 1C.
Is this a troll? It makes no sense. I can't even tell if you are left wing or right wing.
I had a debate with a friend (a global-warming alarmist) a while back on the same issue... I couldn't make him understand the concept.
We know that Venus' surface temperature is VERY hot, and he had always been TAUGHT that it was because the Venus atmosphere is largely CO2... runaway greenhouse effect. The levels of CO2 may very well play a part in the planet's higher temperature, but it's much, much more complicated than that... and it's inappropriate to make an apples-to-apples comparison with CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.
First, Venus' atmosphere is composed of about 97% CO2 (at the surface)... as opposed to Earth's *****0.039%*****. It's going to take a LOT of convincing to talk me into believing even a 1% increase in CO2 levels are going to make a hill of beans difference to our climate... let alone a thousandth or millionth of a percent over the next few centuries! Second, Venus' atmosphere is IMMENSELY more dense that that of the Earth.
We could certainly stand to learn more from Venus... Unfortunately, it seems Mars is much more en vogue to people these days and we have limited experimental data from our sister planet. All these 'global warming' comparisons to Venus are inappropriate at least until (or especially because) we don't actually have much hard experimental data geared toward that end.
I bet you speak from first-hand experience. Or isn't your first name Valentine?
I speak England very best
For what it's worth, I've found that nearly all discussion forms have somebody who both (a) understand and accept the scientific evidence that global climate change is real and caused by humans, and (b) will refute those who believe the same thing but cite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
That is, when somebody says, "Hey, it's hot, it must be the global warming", there will always be somebody who says, "Look, I appreciate you being on the right side of the argument, but you're using the same invalid reasoning that the deniers are. Stop it because you make me look bad."
What I have yet to see is a skeptic/denier refute a different kind of skeptic/denier. That is, I have never seen any person say, "No no, the world really is getting warmer, so stop pointing out that it's cold in one place because that's irrelevant. It's just that it's not caused by humans". Skeptic/deniers come in many stripes, mutually contradictory, but they seem to keep any disagreements behind closed doors.
Like this one
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Oh no my secret is out. Looks like I am going to have to disappear you.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
That would be so true, if you know money was a use once resource, but you know it doesn't vanish into thin air once it is used.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
That is where this comes in handy, or any of the other linking long term graphs.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
Its been getting colder for a long time now!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
A real long time.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Long term perspective for those who want it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Well, according to The Day After Tomorrow it all has to do with the salinity of the ocean currents. As the poles melt, cold fresh water drives the warm salt water gulf currents downward... or something like that.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
phiffle, lets get some real results, who cares about 9000 hotter years, when you can get a good 500 million ones.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
i say a lot of these things regularly.
you need to distinguish between the "hippies" and the "educated scientific types". there's certainly crossover, but the main distinction is a hippy thinks all chemicals are bad (and hence will buy things that say "free of chemicals" on them, in spite of how ridiculous that idea is when looked at logically. also, a hippy is afraid of nuclear power, when it's actually (like you say) the only sane technology we have (at the moment) to lower carbon emissions.
i have no problem with trying to reduce my own impact, even if the difference made is vanishingly small. i don't get the head-in-the-sand attitude so many have, except where people have a lot of their wealth invested in an industry that might be threatened by a reduction in emissions.
your point? WE don't breathe CO2. consider us as part of the mass extinction event.
um, what?
How about the last hundred million years?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
Too long a trend?
how about 15 million?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
2.5 million?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
"This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
It's not just about money, but opportunity costs as well. People have to spend time designing, building, and dropping bombs that could be spent doing other things.
People also use resources to build aircraft carriers and bombs, and some of those resources are lost. And some resources are destroyed when those bombs are dropped.
:(){
The current one can be called the Colaninno Minimum. "Around 2006, solar physicist Robin Colaninno described the current minima as both extended and unusual, both similar to the Maunder Minimum (in that it's longer than usual in the Cycle) but also being quite different (in that it won't be the exact same length, nor have the same climate effect)." http://www.science20.com/daytime_astronomer/sunspots_colaninno_minimum_and_pascals_wager
A.
I think what I was trying to say (not very artfully), was that the whole "a pressurized scuba tank only gets hot for a little while" isn't a refutation of PV=nRT. The fact that a scuba tank, under pressure, cools to room temperature, does not mean that any collection of gas (say an atmosphere), will cool to the temperature of outer space.
With roughly similar masses of atmospheres, and roughly similar volumes of atmospheres, the difference between Earth and Venus is characterized by differences in pressure, which lend to differences in temperature. For a scuba tank, the reason why there is higher pressure is because we've added more mass, not because we've added more temperature.
That's not clear. The conjecture of a link between sunspots and temperature is just that, a conjecture. Currently it doesn't look likely to be true.
OTOH, rising prices of oil and irregular weather patterns are quite likely to cause the cost of food to rise. But it's hard to blame those two on the lack of sunspots.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Pardon me. I did indeed pull the wrong numbers. Still, human-caused CO2 is only a few percent of the amount released naturally. Often it is less than the seasonal variability.
Granted, a significant rise has happened since the beginning of the industrial revolution. But a flat statement such as "That increase is attributable to human activity." is disingenuous. It is a gross oversimplification.
1. That quote is just under a year old, was a random comment with no evidence that the poster was who they said they were, that they knew what they were talking about, and was talking about the winter in 2009 to boot.
2. It doesn't matter globally if it froze people's balls off in England: Local Weather STILL isn't Global Climate.
Actually, I'm glad the two of you posted. I can just add it to the list of items which seem to indicate that parts of North America are being affected differently by these weird weather patterns than is Europe.
-FL
Soylent green is not people. RTFB.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Er... huh? No, the idea of global warming is supposed to be that the average global temperature is increasing over the long term.
To rephrase my earlier post: when global warming deniers point to individual years or individual regions that are colder than they were previously, it's considered to be nonscientific cherry-picking of data. But this guy points to an individual region to support an assertion of global warming, and that's okay?
IPCC is complied works by half a dozen people, not all of which are scientists.
Yeah, everything that IPCC has ever produced or referenced has been personally created by these half a dozen people.
The works are cherry picked and later found to be full of errors.
Right, the latest report was found to contain something like three errors on relatively minor issues in the less comprehensively scientific chapters, all of which duly received a title of "-gate" from the sensationalist media and teh b(l)ogosphere.
Most studies out there arent about the effects of CO2 on global temperatures (some are) but most are about the potential effects if such warming occured. Or dirivative works on different subjects with GW splashed in for funding.
Unwillingness to learn about the subject, rather than reproduce popular rhetoric you agree with: check
Unwillingness to use proper spelling: check
This constant claim that 5000 scientists are working in unison and all agree on the same exact data and subject is ludicrous and a lie.
Nice strawman. The scientists, of course, do not "work in unison" and agree on everything exactly. Still, the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is there, whether you like it or not.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
True Hudson bay isn't frozen over, but there is ice flow downstream on lake Huron, and it's a bit early for that.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Eisenhower... a real Republican.
"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
Right, so when someone in congress says we need to pass cap and trade we should ignore them. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change issues a report and recommendations we should take them with a grain of salt. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think you misunderstood my point.
There is nothing weird about this seasons weather so far. Its pretty much par for the course in Quebec.
The temperature would be this wiggly line on the graph, see, and though there are down-wiggles, they are fewer / smaller than the up-wiggles over the longer term.
Actually, there is exactly the same amount of up-wiggles as there are down-wiggles (or maybe +/-1). You can't have 2 up-wiggles in a row, they would just make one big up-wiggle.
You should probably just say that the down-wiggles are smaller than the up-wiggles, not fewer.
The rest of the post is great, BTW, thanks!
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
So...you're saying the model *can't* be wrong?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Real life greenhouses prevent convection, which traps heat. The absorption of radiation through the glass, and the release of radiation through the glass, is not what is causing the real life greenhouse to warm up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re: your point 3: Making out three years as some kind of "trend" is simply not statistically valid, never mind significant. It's only "heretical" because it's false.
Oh? Point me to someone somewhere saying that some climate model is 100% accurate. You're a liar.
Physically a closed room with a lamp in it can be seen as an isolated system. If the lamp consumes 100W you are adding 100 joules/second of energy to the system. Conservation of energy applies. So if none of the energy is stored in form of potential energy, converted to chemical energy or brought out of the room somehow, it is converted to heat. It does not matter if it is a light bulb which becomes hotter by itself, or if it is a CFL which converts more energy to visible light. As long as both are consuming 100W, you are adding the same heat to the room.
While you are correct about the religious-like fanaticism, the problem is that some people cite one of these facts and act as though it debunks every bit of science out there.
From the skeptics point of view, the citation of one of these facts tends to result in the warmers redefining it as further proof of warming... er, climate change. Look at Mann's model. Some statisticians entered random data into Mann's model and it produced hockey sticks. Rather than admit the model was flawed, Mann seems to insist that random data should produce hockey sticks. Wow! Amazing science there.
Frankly, I don't know of a scientist that is never wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. That is the nature of science. They have a hypothesis, they test it using the scientific method, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes results are mixed. The problem skeptics have with the warmers, is that the believe they are right despite any any contradicting studies (a.k.a. Oil Shills!!). Warmers get one test or one model to show whatever reinforces their beliefs. Then they declare "consensus" and refuse to consider retesting. Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Real science must be able to stand up to the harshest criticism. The warmer's exhibit a "circle the wagons" mentality. They refuse to share data, hiding it by claiming it is some sort of intellectual property, or through outright destruction of data. Fear of scrutiny may not prove they are wrong, but it is a pretty strong indicator.
You are not comparing 1970's computers, instrumentation and models with today's technology, are you?
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
I don't know for you, but I think no one scientist is worried that the Earth would not survive through this global warming we're experiencing. The entire reason behind the worrying is that WE don't want to die. Earth will go on no matter what, and so will life.
Why should politics have anything to do with it?
Ah, I knew someone would make that mistake. What you're talking about is bringing science into political debate, which is entirely reasonable (and something we need to do a lot more of.) What I was talking about was bringing politics into scientific debate, which is what OP (and many others) were doing by making dumb jokes about Al Gore, and which is, as I said, almost invariably the refuge of people who are too ignorant to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Science should always, when possible, inform politics, but not the other way around.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I'm sure they've been called worse things by better people.
Here's the music: the sun's output is weaker than expected and yet 2010 looks like one of the hottest years on record. What is this solar minimum proving again?
That human industry is now more powerful than the sun!
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals, EVERYTHING.
Light? Space? Time? Altruism?
I'm not saying that people are CLAIMING that the models are 100%. what i am saying is that scare monger reporting on the subject neglects to mention that these models are not by 100%. Its sort of a 'Guilt By Omission' situation.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
The main fact about the far-north is that temperatures are not measured there. Not by satellites, not by regular stations.
The warming there is simply made up: "estimated" in the words of Jim Hansen.
See the point 1) in
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/03/nasa-giss-james-hansen-study-global-warming-record-hottest-year/
With such "estimates" Hansen makes every year as warm as he wants.
Satellites show clearly cooling for more than 12 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979
Even with cold this and last winter, 2010 might still have been the warmest year ever in modern history.
Apparently it takes only a few months for people to forget that the rest of the year between the winters was pretty warm.
Your response is typical...'it's all lies!!!!'
This is like saying the Earth is the biggest driver of the Earth's climate. It's an essentially meaningless statement.
No, it is not. The drivers ('forcing functions') are a matter of extensive debate. AGW true believers insist that atmospheric CO2 concentration is far more significant than changes in solar activity...and will shout down any hint that solar activity might have a serious effect on long-term climate.
A 'full' greenhouse effect would mean that 100% of heat is retained. That's impossible, but you can look at worlds where heat retention is in the 99% range, such as Venus.
Your '99% heat retention'statement is ridiculous. Atmospheric CO2 can absorb only in a very narrow wavelength related to its molecular vibrational modes. Radiation outside of those wavelengths will not be absorbed but will just pass right through a gas composed of CO2, whatever its density. Of course, the venusian atmosphere also has 'clouds' of sulfuric acid which would act to block radiation both incoming and outgoing, just as our clouds of water do on earth.
Even if it was true, climate is not weather...Climate change is measured across decades, not years
Interesting that you point to March 2010 and April 2010 temperatures to 'refute' the idea that our climate has begun cooling after decades of warming. Your period of time is even shorter than the 4-yr 2007-2010 period of time. Obviously, we will have to wait another few decades to see if the long-term cooling trend continues...but as TFA points out...the signs are beginning to be obvious.
This is irrelevant to historical analysis, which shows a clear warming trend across decades. But unlike yourself, scientists do endeavor to be honest, and refine their model as new data is available. Most excess heat is getting dumped into the oceans.
The computer models are not used to perform 'historical analysis' but to predict the effects of changes in the earth's atmosphere on our planet's climate...so the quality of the computer modeling is critical to the accuracy of the predictions. Finally, your statement about 'excess heat' (whatever that is) being 'dumped' into the oceans is more nonsense. The heresy is to suggest that the computer modeling predictions might not be right.
Once upon a time "Troll" was reserved for obnoxious people who deliberately made outlandish comments to wind up Slashdotters. Now the trolls have mod points.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Exactly. Weedcrackers, meat flakes, soyburgers, none of which were central to the plot other than to flesh out the overpopulation/food problem. The movie was a brain-dead Hollywood POS.
"Meat flakes. That sure sounds nice!"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
An update has been posted with a response from the The Met office explaining the data selection method. It is not a conspiracy/mistake. The data is a well-spaced global set, not a regional set. Analysis on a regional basis is flawed.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
I saw that movie. You never know in the movies what is based on real life vs. fiction. I didn't know the gulf stream was in Hudson Bay.
Yeah, everything that IPCC has ever produced or referenced has been personally created by these half a dozen people.
Most of the problems with IPCC reports are the summaries. The science is done by real scientists, but the summaries are done by a few dozen people, some scientists some not, none of whom were involved in the studies they summarize. For example the climate summary was performed by about 50 scientists who were largely not involved in any of the studies. About 1000 scientists have dissented and the number is growing (it was 400 in 2007)*.
The result is a summary that often misrepresents the data.
The truth is, anytime anybody tells you there is a consensus on a scientific topic it should raise a big red flag. Even among scientists who generally agree with AGW there is no consensus on how bad it is or what we should do about or even if we should do anything about it. This is true for pretty much all fields of scientific research, and it's how science works. Nothing in science should be accepted without question. That's just how science works.
* Here is a link to the report. Given the title of the website, they are clearly biased, so take it with a grain of salt. That said, it's clear the IPCC's findings are not fully accepted by everyone who is involved in that type of research.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
What lovely kumbaya-style sentiment. It sounds nice and laudible but the problem with that reasoning is that without military spending for defense, nations would be overrun by barbarians and even more people would go hungry than ever. Industrialized free-market agriculture can't work its magic at feeding more people ever-cheaper without being able to operate within the clearing of peace carved out by military defense, and defended at the front-lines against the forces of chaos perpetually.
I don't think the GP is the one who failed physics, man.
the ideal gas law doesn't apply to an entire atmosphere as a whole.
Why not? The fact is the vast majority (99%) of Venus's atmosphere resides in a single layer.
Also, even a truckfull of gas is slightly more dense on the bottom than the top, thanks to gravity. Doesn't seem to break the ideal gas law.
if they had the same mass of atmosphere, venus's atmosphere would take up more space.
Only if their composition and conditions were the same. The fact is, Venus's atmosphere is 93 times as massive as Earth's. That's the very reason for the high pressure on the surface! How the hell are you supposed to get higher pressure on a planet with less gravity without having a more massive atmosphere?!
Furthermore, Venus has no magnetic field. That means lighter gasses are blown away from the planet by the Solar Wind. This does not happen on Earth because of our magnetic field. Thus, Earth's atmosphere can expand much further into space than Venus's atmosphere can. 99% of Venus's atmosphere is in the Troposphere. It is so dense and rotates so fast that a pseudo-magnetic field is generated, protecting this layer from the Solar Wind. Lighter materials that float above the troposphere are blown off the planet.
Venus even has about twice as much Nitrogen in the air as the Earth does (If you'll remember, Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, with a large fraction of Oxygen and a small fraction of other gasses), but that is dwarfed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The pressure is so great, the CO2 at the surface of Venus is actually not technically a gas any more - it's a superfluid. That is some friggin dense air!
Some physics notes for you:
If one gas is denser than another, the same mass will occupy a smaller space. That is the definition of density (d=m/v). Less volume for the same mass equals higher density. Higher mass for the same volume equals more density.
CO2 is denser than Oxygen and Nitrogen and even water vapor. Thus, it stays relatively low to the ground.
Gas compresses easily. As the pressure rises, the volume decreases. As the atmospheric mass increases, the pressure increases. The end result is that doubling the atmospheric mass does not double the volume. The volume will increase, but it won't double.
When you combine the fact the primary constituent of Venus's atmosphere (CO2) is much denser than the primary constituents of Earth's atmosphere with the fact that all light gasses (O2, N, water vapor) are blown off the planet by the solar wind, the result is an atmosphere that is 93 times as dense as Earth's yet has 85% of the volume.
These are not guesses or postulations, these are facts based on scientist's observations of Venus.
Venus's atmosphere is dense, and it is almost pure CO2, and it keeps the surface a nice toasty 900 degrees Fahrenheit. It is the ultimate result of a runaway greenhouse effect.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
He's also never actually seen a real greenhouse, considering the fact that if there is snow outside for an extended period of time, there ain't shit growing inside. If this were actually true, people in cold climates would literally live in glass houses. But it isn't, because the GP doesn't understand how greenhouses actually work.
We've got greenhouses in Alaska. They shut down in winter, because shit don't grow.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
How is he supposed to know weather to laud or revile the guy if he doesn't even know his politics?!
Sheesh!
I suppose this would be a great time to bring up http://nolabels.org/ a movement which I wholeheartedly support.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Well said.
No. I never said anything like that.
Agreed. It works both ways. The "warmers" find any shred of evidence and declare global warming to be 100% true and entirely caused by humans. The skeptics point out one flaw in a study and pretend that the entire body of science is wrong and global cannot possibly exist.
The biggest problem I see is that we elect the kinds of people who make this mistake. People who oversimplify look decisive in a debate, and so people pick them for leaders. We will always get extremes in government.
"full greenhouse effect" is obtained on Venus. With a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere. It would appear to be hotter there. Much more so than its closer distance to the Sun would suggest.
There is certainly a 'full greenhouse effect' on Venus whose atmosphere is 96 percent CO2. The idea of a 'full greenhouse effect' is that more CO2 will not increase the effect, nor will less necessarily decrease it. For example, if the atmosphere of Venus were to suddenly change to 50 percent CO2 and 46 percent N2, the magnitude of the greenhouse effect CAUSED BY THE CO2 would stay the same. The Earth's climate is also affected by the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases, the most important of which are H2O and CO2. At the current conditions of earth's atmosphere, more H2O or more CO2 will not significantly increase the greenhouse effect attributable to them. If the atmospheric conditions were to suddenly change to a much higher density (and therefore pressure) and/or if some new gas (such as the sulfuric acid on Venus) were to be added, the dynamics of the earth's atmosphere would be in play and the amount of CO2 and/or H2O which would provide that 'full greenhouse effect' would change. At present, however, there is already more than sufficient CO2 in the earth's atmosphere to absorb ALL of the radiation at the narrow wavelengths that CO2 absorbs at...within the first 1000 meters of atmosphere above the earth's surface.
I know this is a bit late, but I want to call you out on your straw man. I never said "spend nothing on military/defense".
The US spends almost as much on "defense" as every other country on earth combined.
By your straw man logic, if doors are good, then double doors are doublegood. Does that make four doors doubleplusgood? Why, let's make sure that we have as many doors as there are in every other nation on earth combined!
:(){
A little late on the reply...but like the guy above you a few posts, you also pulled out a straw man. I never said we should spend nothing on defense.
However, the US spends almost as much on defense as every other nation on earth combined.
I know it helps you rationalize the world when you paint it in a black-and-white, good-vs-evil sort of way. But you should really look into exactly how much money we spend on "defense". Maybe then you might realize that we're making way, way more guns than butter.
:(){