I remember how it was 15-20 years ago. It's clearly different. Now, if so much change has happen is such small time, I don't know in what kind of climate my son's children will live.
Ocean cycles, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, have wavelengths of 30-60 years. They'll like live in the same kind of climate as you.
'It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.'
- President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
You _still_ haven't understood the post I made. Let's try it again.
Intelligent Design, and a world like the one the Matrix, are scientifically the same.
Many scientists speculate whether the world is best described as a simulation (remember I gave you a link?) - they're not less scientists or no less able to apply the scientific method in their work because of that.
Now, why is it important for you to attack the messenger instead of the message? That IS what you are doing, if you haven't realised it yet.
Feel free to refute his science, if you can, instead:)
No, you haven't understood my post - which is obvious since you still seem to believe his comments on Intelligent Design invalidates anything.
This is where I remind you of a famous astronomer who also dabbled in astrology btw.... and commenting on ID is no less scentific than commenting on claytronic universes, simulation arguments or cellular automata possibilites.
Oh, and there's no "consensus" on climate change - and a possible consensus would have nothing to do with science and the scientific process anyway.
The climate change debate has never been over according to scientists;) Now, if you'd rather listen to politicians (Gore) and activists (Hansen) then they might claim otherwise.
Feel free to reply with actual facts supporting your claim though.
You've presented zero evidence to support any competing theory
Why would you post lies?
Go through my posts and you'll find plenty of links, including your beloved peer reviewed studies.
Solar -> oceans/winds -> climate
The current AGW models _do not_ include anything but TSI - since we don't know how to model it. Indications are (and yes, those reports are peer reviewed) that cloud cover and the following ocean heat content is where we should concentrate our efforts.
Only days after clashing with Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, over carbon emissions curbs, India's environment minister has accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.
Jairam Ramesh has disputed the science behind claims that climate change is rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers, saying there is no evidence to support what he claimed were misleading scenarios painted by the west.
[---]
Mr Ramesh said that the rate of retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas varied from a "couple of centimetres a year to a couple of metres", but that this was a natural process. Some were, in fact, growing, he said.
There are theories on increased volcanic activity correlating with drastic temperature changes around solar minimas.
We're currently in the deepest solar minima since a century back, and temperatures have indeed dropped over the last few years. I know of no conclusive data with regards to increased rate of eruptions and earthquakes though, but see below.
(Yes, this is a link to a blog with various non peer-reviewed posts and links. Some are more interesting than others)
Feel free to address the science, not the messenger, whenever you want to.
There are quite a few scientists with hypothesises on what the universe really is - a stray claytronics experiment? a really small cellular automata? a simulation?
All of those hypothesises are as scientific as "Intelligent Design" (and the simulation argument - you know, Matrix and the like, are actually exactly that)
Anyway, that's for a completely other discussion. My guess is that you hadn't thought about it - you can study all those hypothesises in a scientific way.
Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, the actual content of your post is factually incorrect. Being a swede, I know of Arrhenius quite well.
Hansen is still the one who launched the global warming _scare_ - exactly what I wrote in the post above. Feel free to research the topic if you want to know more.
Then there must've been something more than just critique in that video.
I don't care to discuss my reasons here as they are private and unrelated to this discussion. Google agreed that complaint was valid and removed the video. - Anthony
The most supported model is clearly manmade global warming via CO2
No. The correlation is actually quite low. All the existing models have also failed completely with any sort of prediction over the last decade, and they all readily admit to not knowing how to model several of the factors we know are important.
Why do you trust them?
The fact that you make claims about what is "true" in science shows you're either ignorant or dishonest
Please notice I put "true" in citation in my reply. I'm eagerly awaiting the CERN study with regards to Svensmark's hypothesis - as well as the paper on the quality of surface stations soon to be published. Those two will make incredibly strong arguments against the current AGW hypothesis - or not:)
Why is that reasonable? I know using "tonnage" makes it sound like a lot, but in reality what we're doing is nothing compared to what the earth's atmosphere is going through with some regularity - and it hasn't caused any runaway scenarios before as far as we can find.
(The sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic, and we're already on the top of that curve. I.e, without so-called positive feedbacks, so far only modelled and not yet supported by observation, we'll not even notice the difference)
... and we're basing that claim on... deviations from what we call the "normal" global temperature. That "normal" temperature is selected as the average of a specific period in time.
That period in time (usually 196x to 199x/2000) is the "stable weather-utopia" referenced to as 1988 in my post. 1988 being the year James Hansen invented the global warming scare as a career move.
There are scientists who amongst other things make predictions of possible human extinction events. Yet I don't see the causes at the top of that list being talked about as much as global warming.
And I'd have to side with Bjorn Lomborg any way. Even assuming global warming is real - we basically can't do anything about CO2, not somethin that would have any effect anyway. We can however do lots, already today, about the things we think global warming might cause. For a fraction of the cost. I strongly recommend reading "Cool It":
(PS: The models you talk about, how well-studied they are, have so far not been able to predict anything at all. On the contrary, all of them have completely failed to predict the climate of the last decade)
What effect does diffusion in ice cores cause? It flattens the data-- it causes it to move to average. This means that the real signal would be stronger then that recorded if this is a problem. Which actually just makes the ice core conclusions stronger
(I'm assuming you've got some sort of higher education including statistics)
It causes the effect of flattening natural variation. I.e, it means that we have no idea whether 380ppm is unusually high, or if the current rate of CO2-increase is unusually high.
(We already know from geological records that 270ppm is unusually low - at those time scales)
Why are you under the impression that Dr Roy Spencer is not a scientist... ?
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAâ(TM)s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAâ(TM)s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencerâ(TM)s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAâ(TM)s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
reduced ice coverage in the Antarctic
[---]
observed now and happening
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
I remember how it was 15-20 years ago. It's clearly different. Now, if so much change has happen is such small time, I don't know in what kind of climate my son's children will live.
Ocean cycles, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, have wavelengths of 30-60 years. They'll like live in the same kind of climate as you.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
'It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.'
- President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
You _still_ haven't understood the post I made. Let's try it again.
Intelligent Design, and a world like the one the Matrix, are scientifically the same.
Many scientists speculate whether the world is best described as a simulation (remember I gave you a link?) - they're not less scientists or no less able to apply the scientific method in their work because of that.
Now, why is it important for you to attack the messenger instead of the message? That IS what you are doing, if you haven't realised it yet.
Feel free to refute his science, if you can, instead :)
:)
No, you haven't understood my post - which is obvious since you still seem to believe his comments on Intelligent Design invalidates anything.
This is where I remind you of a famous astronomer who also dabbled in astrology btw. ... and commenting on ID is no less scentific than commenting on claytronic universes, simulation arguments or cellular automata possibilites.
Oh, and there's no "consensus" on climate change - and a possible consensus would have nothing to do with science and the scientific process anyway.
The climate change debate has never been over according to scientists ;) Now, if you'd rather listen to politicians (Gore) and activists (Hansen) then they might claim otherwise.
Feel free to reply with actual facts supporting your claim though.
You've presented zero evidence to support any competing theory
Why would you post lies?
Go through my posts and you'll find plenty of links, including your beloved peer reviewed studies.
Solar -> oceans/winds -> climate
The current AGW models _do not_ include anything but TSI - since we don't know how to model it. Indications are (and yes, those reports are peer reviewed) that cloud cover and the following ocean heat content is where we should concentrate our efforts.
Like CERN's study of Svensmark's hypothesis.
You seemingly did not understand my post. Try reading it again. (And it seems you might want to read what Spencer _actually_ has said as well)
PS: The current "climate change is anything we say it to be" is also unfalsifiable.
Isn't WiFi broadcast at several watts of power?
No, and why would you write that when it takes a second or so to find out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Limitations
Yeah .. about that;
Only days after clashing with Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, over carbon emissions curbs, India's environment minister has accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.
Jairam Ramesh has disputed the science behind claims that climate change is rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers, saying there is no evidence to support what he claimed were misleading scenarios painted by the west.
[---]
Mr Ramesh said that the rate of retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas varied from a "couple of centimetres a year to a couple of metres", but that this was a natural process. Some were, in fact, growing, he said.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/43702396-77ea-11de-9713-00144feabdc0.html
But hey - what do they know, right?
There are theories on increased volcanic activity correlating with drastic temperature changes around solar minimas.
We're currently in the deepest solar minima since a century back, and temperatures have indeed dropped over the last few years. I know of no conclusive data with regards to increased rate of eruptions and earthquakes though, but see below.
(Yes, this is a link to a blog with various non peer-reviewed posts and links. Some are more interesting than others)
http://agaudi.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/mapa-clima.png
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=608
Feel free to address the science, not the messenger, whenever you want to.
There are quite a few scientists with hypothesises on what the universe really is - a stray claytronics experiment? a really small cellular automata? a simulation?
All of those hypothesises are as scientific as "Intelligent Design" (and the simulation argument - you know, Matrix and the like, are actually exactly that)
Anyway, that's for a completely other discussion. My guess is that you hadn't thought about it - you can study all those hypothesises in a scientific way.
Stephen Wolfram, a new kind of science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Nick Bostrom, simulation argument:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
(sorry no good link on a speculative claytronics universe - you'll have to extrapolate catoms -> atoms yourself .. )
sow doubt on the climate change scientific consensus
1) There's no consensus on climate change
2) A consensus in science is not scientific
Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, the actual content of your post is factually incorrect. Being a swede, I know of Arrhenius quite well.
Hansen is still the one who launched the global warming _scare_ - exactly what I wrote in the post above. Feel free to research the topic if you want to know more.
Then there must've been something more than just critique in that video.
I don't care to discuss my reasons here as they are private and unrelated to this discussion. Google agreed that complaint was valid and removed the video. - Anthony
(from a comment on his blog)
I'm awaiting your fantastic paper on the subject :)
(No, you still cannot. Not even "obviously". Spikes and rates-of-change are still lost)
:)
Take a photo. Diffuse it. Re-create the original.
You can't. Details were lost, and no, Fick's law cannot recreate them either.
The most supported model is clearly manmade global warming via CO2
No. The correlation is actually quite low. All the existing models have also failed completely with any sort of prediction over the last decade, and they all readily admit to not knowing how to model several of the factors we know are important.
Why do you trust them?
The fact that you make claims about what is "true" in science shows you're either ignorant or dishonest
Please notice I put "true" in citation in my reply. I'm eagerly awaiting the CERN study with regards to Svensmark's hypothesis - as well as the paper on the quality of surface stations soon to be published. Those two will make incredibly strong arguments against the current AGW hypothesis - or not :)
Why is that reasonable? I know using "tonnage" makes it sound like a lot, but in reality what we're doing is nothing compared to what the earth's atmosphere is going through with some regularity - and it hasn't caused any runaway scenarios before as far as we can find.
(The sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic, and we're already on the top of that curve. I.e, without so-called positive feedbacks, so far only modelled and not yet supported by observation, we'll not even notice the difference)
No, feel free to explain how you can add data where a lossy process has removed it. Maybe you meant to use another word instead of "calibrate"?
... and we're basing that claim on ... deviations from what we call the "normal" global temperature. That "normal" temperature is selected as the average of a specific period in time.
That period in time (usually 196x to 199x/2000) is the "stable weather-utopia" referenced to as 1988 in my post. 1988 being the year James Hansen invented the global warming scare as a career move.
There are scientists who amongst other things make predictions of possible human extinction events. Yet I don't see the causes at the top of that list being talked about as much as global warming.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13613339/Global-Catastrophic-Risks-Nick-Bostrom-Milan-M-Cirkovic
Why not?
And I'd have to side with Bjorn Lomborg any way. Even assuming global warming is real - we basically can't do anything about CO2, not somethin that would have any effect anyway. We can however do lots, already today, about the things we think global warming might cause. For a fraction of the cost. I strongly recommend reading "Cool It":
http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923
(PS: The models you talk about, how well-studied they are, have so far not been able to predict anything at all. On the contrary, all of them have completely failed to predict the climate of the last decade)
Except there are other ways to proxy atmospheric CO2 that we can use to calibrate that data.
Umm what? If there's diffusion you cannot "calibrate it". It's a lossy process.
Your point is wrong :) It's however quite popular amongst two groups of people; the uninformed, and the elite academia who don't want things to change.
(yes, I do research in the private sector)
What effect does diffusion in ice cores cause? It flattens the data-- it causes it to move to average. This means that the real signal would be stronger then that recorded if this is a problem. Which actually just makes the ice core conclusions stronger
(I'm assuming you've got some sort of higher education including statistics)
It causes the effect of flattening natural variation. I.e, it means that we have no idea whether 380ppm is unusually high, or if the current rate of CO2-increase is unusually high.
(We already know from geological records that 270ppm is unusually low - at those time scales)
Why are you under the impression that Dr Roy Spencer is not a scientist ... ?
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAâ(TM)s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAâ(TM)s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencerâ(TM)s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAâ(TM)s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.