Global Warming UNDENIABLE SOLID PROOF

Weather events from around the world plus Astronomy and Geology and other Natural events.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Forum rules

The posts in this forum are NOT official forecast and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Global Warming UNDENIABLE SOLID PROOF

#1 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:32 pm

UNDENIABLE!!!

Alright folks, extra heat energy :rarrow: jet stream energy :rarrow: extreme cold winter/extreme hot
summer.

Glaciers melting worldwide. Don't believe me?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers ... apter2.pdf


And:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... r4_syr.pdf

1.1 Observations of climate change
Since the TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changing
in space and time has been gained through improvements and
extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical
coverage, better understanding of uncertainties and a wider
variety of measurements. {WGI SPM}
Definitions of climate change
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state
of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests)
by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties,
and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or
longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether
due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This
usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change
refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly
to human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability
observed over comparable time periods.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average
air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI
3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM}
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the
twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005)
of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of
0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The
linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13
[0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years
from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}
The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is
greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures
have increased at almost twice the global average rate in
the past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans
(Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average
temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at
least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the
heat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborne
and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric
temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface
temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM}
Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1).
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm
per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4
to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans
has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual
contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and
ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets
contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these
climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total
sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table
SPM.1}
Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent
with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual
average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]%
per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]%
per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent of seasonally
frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern
Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%.
Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased
since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3°C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,
4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM}
At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm
changes in other aspects of climate have also been observed.
Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation
amount in many large regions. Over this period, precipitation increased
significantly in eastern parts of North and South America,
northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitation
declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has
likely2 increased since the 1970s. {WGI 3.3, 3.9, SPM}
Some extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/
or intensity over the last 50 years:
 It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become
less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and
hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
 It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent over
most land areas. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
 It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (or
proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over
most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}
 It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has
increased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI
5.5, SPM}
There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical
cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestions
of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions
where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability
and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine
satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longterm
trends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second
half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other
50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least
the past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}
2 Likelihood and confidence statements in italics represent calibrated expressions of uncertainty and confidence. See Box ‘Treatment of uncertainty’ in the
Introduction for an explanation of these terms.
3 Excluding tsunamis, which are not due to climate change. Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is
defined here as the highest 1% of hourly values of observed sea level at a station for a given reference period.


Also: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... r4_syr.pdf
Causes of change
This Topic considers both natural and anthropogenic drivers of
climate change, including the chain from greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to atmospheric concentrations to radiative forcing4 to
climate responses and effects.
2.1 Emissions of long-lived GHGs
The radiative forcing of the climate system is dominated by the
long-lived GHGs, and this section considers those whose emissions
are covered by the UNFCCC.
Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown
since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between
1970 and 2004 (Figure 2.1).5 {WGIII 1.3, SPM}
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.
Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about
80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total
anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 (Figure 2.1). The rate of
growth of CO2-eq emissions was much higher during the recent
10-year period of 1995-2004 (0.92 GtCO2-eq per year) than during
the previous period of 1970-1994 (0.43 GtCO2-eq per year). {WGIII
1.3, TS.1, SPM}
4 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and
is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial
conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2).
5 Includes only carbon dioxide (CO2 ), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphurhexafluoride
(SF6), whose emissions are covered by the UNFCCC. These GHGs are weighted by their 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), using values
consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
6 This report uses 100-year GWPs and numerical values consistent with reporting under the UNFCCC.
7 Such values may consider only GHGs, or a combination of GHGs and aerosols.
Carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-eq) emissions and
concentrations
GHGs differ in their warming influence (radiative forcing) on
the global climate system due to their different radiative properties
and lifetimes in the atmosphere. These warming influences
may be expressed through a common metric based on
the radiative forcing of CO2.
• CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of CO2 emission
that would cause the same time-integrated radiative forcing,
over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a longlived
GHG or a mixture of GHGs. The equivalent CO2 emission
is obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by its
Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon.6
For a mix of GHGs it is obtained by summing the equivalent
CO2 emissions of each gas. Equivalent CO2 emission is a
standard and useful metric for comparing emissions of different
GHGs but does not imply the same climate change
responses (see WGI 2.10).
• CO2-equivalent concentration is the concentration of CO2
that would cause the same amount of radiative forcing as a
given mixture of CO2 and other forcing components.7
Figure 2.1. (a) Global annual emissions of anthropogenic GHGs from 1970 to 2004.5 (b) Share of different anthropogenic GHGs in total emissions in 2004
in terms of CO2-eq. (c) Share of different sectors in total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004 in terms of CO2-eq. (Forestry includes deforestation.) {WGIII

How can an entire group of international, unbiased scientists be totally wrong
on global warming?


Go visit the Alaska cities where people
living there have noticed the unprecedented changes, or visit people by the
glaciers.

http://www.climatehotmap.org/
Look at the map.

FINGERPRINTS: Direct manifestations of a widespread and long-term trend toward warmer global temperatures
Heat waves and periods of unusually warm weather
Ocean warming, sea-level rise and coastal flooding
Glaciers melting
Arctic and Antarctic warming

HARBINGERS: Events that foreshadow the types of impacts likely to become more frequent and widespread with continued warming.
Spreading disease
Earlier spring arrival
Plant and animal range shifts and population changes
Coral reef bleaching
Downpours, heavy snowfalls, and flooding
Droughts and fires
The map of early warning signs clearly illustrates the global nature of climate changes. In its 2001 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that, �an increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."

While North America and Europe—where the science is strongest—exhibit the highest density of indicators, scientists have made a great effort in recent years to document the early impacts of global warming on other continents. Our map update reflects this emerging knowledge from all parts of the world.

Although factors other than climate may have intensified the severity of some of the events on the map, scientists predict such problems will increase if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not brought under control.



Also: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.


Image
Last edited by Tampa Bay Hurricane on Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:46 pm, edited 6 times in total.
0 likes   

Sanibel
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10375
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Offshore SW Florida

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#2 Postby Sanibel » Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:58 am

The long boring science says more than anti-GW headlines.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#3 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:18 am

How can an entire group of international, unbiased scientists be totally wrong
on global warming?


Its a United Nations group of people whose livelihood depends on global warming being accepted as fact.

Unfortunately, the only groups that tend to point this out tend to be political themselves.

Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings
The paper by Australian researcher, John McLean, found that “more than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.”

"This is scientific cronyism at an alarming level. Instead of having a diversity of views from a wide range of scientists, the chapter is written almost exclusively by climate modelers speaking with one voice. The world is being driven by a group with strong vested interests and despite the highly questionable capabilities of their models," said McLean.


McLean may work for Exxon for all I know, but I have seen this criticism of the UN/IPCC in other places.

Within less biased groups, there is a wide range of opinion both supporting and doubting AGW.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#4 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:27 am

Why on Earth would there be anything wrong with people who work in the same field on the same topics authoring papers together? How else is science supposed to be done?

If one insists on people working in isolation without input and feedback from the other experts in the field, one is only going to make the product far more prone to error.

And I take exception to the claim that their livelihood depends upon global warming is a fact. The fields of atmospheric science, physical oceanography, etc. existed before it emerged that human activity is significantly altering climate and they would continue to exist if the problem magically went away. And individual scientists and teams would receive tremendous publicity and reward if they could definitively falsify the theory.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re:

#5 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:59 am

x-y-no wrote:Why on Earth would there be anything wrong with people who work in the same field on the same topics authoring papers together? How else is science supposed to be done?

If one insists on people working in isolation without input and feedback from the other experts in the field, one is only going to make the product far more prone to error.

And I take exception to the claim that their livelihood depends upon global warming is a fact. The fields of atmospheric science, physical oceanography, etc. existed before it emerged that human activity is significantly altering climate and they would continue to exist if the problem magically went away. And individual scientists and teams would receive tremendous publicity and reward if they could definitively falsify the theory.


Almost unrelated to climate change, but there are few things associated with the UN that I trust.


Anyway, from a 'skeptic' site, Icecap.us, but Global Warming Climate Model Scorecard.
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: Re:

#6 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:15 pm

Ed Mahmoud wrote:Almost unrelated to climate change, but there are few things associated with the UN that I trust.


So if one is to assemble a synthesis of the climate research of many nations, under what organizations auspices is that to be done? And would you trust whatever organization that is any more?



Anyway, from a 'skeptic' site, Icecap.us, but Global Warming Climate Model Scorecard.


Looks like a rehashing of a lot of old stuff. I literally jumped to a random point in the middle and the first claim of a "prediction" I read (that the GFDL says the Medieval Warm Period is an impossibility) is just plain false. I have neither the time not the patience to go through this whole list to figure out which, if any, of the claims have any validity. If you want to discuss any specific examples I'd be happy to.
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#7 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:31 pm

I really can't get into this debate, where any claim that scientists who are skeptics are tools of big oil are acceptable, but any criticism of motivations of AGW proponents is off limits.


And as winter storm season is rapidly approaching Texas, a state blessed with a generally mild climate but four complete different seasons, and college and pro football are getting exciting, I shall tread lightly.

I just wanted to express that the opinion of the IPCC doesn't constitute solid proof of anything.

I have read that the warming associated with the end of the 'Little Ice Age' seems to have started before the increase in CO2 associated with the Industrial Age, and I do know the climate seems to have changed before without anthropogenic influence.

Image
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#8 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:45 pm



Monkton makes some truly egregious error in that article. For a good discussion of what they are, see this:

http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2008/ ... -they.html
0 likes   

User avatar
x-y-no
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 8359
Age: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL

#9 Postby x-y-no » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:54 pm

I really can't get into this debate, where any claim that scientists who are skeptics are tools of big oil are acceptable, but any criticism of motivations of AGW proponents is off limits.


When did I say skeptics are tools of big oil? I'm sure I said stuff like that long ago, but I believe I have refrained from claiming such motivations since I became a moderator. At least I make a conscious effort to do so.


I have read that the warming associated with the end of the 'Little Ice Age' seems to have started before the increase in CO2 associated with the Industrial Age, and I do know the climate seems to have changed before without anthropogenic influence.


Well of course. Nobody disputes that. The IPCC report which you so greatly distrust only attributes on the order of 50% of observed warming in the last century to anthropogenic cause.

And of course climate has varied greatly in the past due to non-anthropogenic forcing. Indeed, it it hadn't there would be nothing to worry about since that would indicate an extremely low climate sensitivity.

I'll trot out my old tried and true analogy: does the fact that some forest fires happen naturally indicate in any way that humans do not cause forest fires? Isn't the opposite true - that the possibility of naturally caused forest fires indicate that we should be cautious of doing things similar to the natural causes?
0 likes   

Sanibel
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10375
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Offshore SW Florida

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#10 Postby Sanibel » Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:22 am

I think what looking at long term charts misses is how today's margins are tighter with a high human population and degraded natural mechanisms for absorbing those shifts. Temperature swings exacerbated by human input have much more short term consequences than those charts might suggest. If a glacier watershed dries up and millions of people can't irrigate crops they won't really care about natural shifts in the past.
0 likes   

User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

#11 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:18 pm

Also when you have all the combustible fuels, pollution, and industrial
activity happening that is human induced warming of the atmosphere,
the heat goes to the atmosphere

There are natural cycles, but human heat adds heat to that.
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 71
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

#12 Postby gigabite » Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:58 pm

The bias that non anthropogenic
warming is insignificant makes
as much sense as sending a
rover to Mars before we send
one to the back side of the Sun.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#13 Postby MGC » Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:10 pm

The tidewater glaciers in Alaska have been melting since the late 1700's, before the dawn of the industrial revelution. It is a natural cycle. Many have seen a big payday in GW research and have made the most of it. They must keep ringing the GW bell to continue recieving monies. Follow the money! Al Gore has made millions spreading the GW hoax yet continues to fly around in private jets and has an annual electricity bill greater than many in America make a year......MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

Re: SOLID PROOF Global Warming Is Happening

#14 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:50 pm

MGC wrote:The tidewater glaciers in Alaska have been melting since the late 1700's, before the dawn of the industrial revelution. It is a natural cycle. Many have seen a big payday in GW research and have made the most of it. They must keep ringing the GW bell to continue recieving monies. Follow the money! Al Gore has made millions spreading the GW hoax yet continues to fly around in private jets and has an annual electricity bill greater than many in America make a year......MGC



Yes there is definitely a natural cycle of hot and cold periods in earth's history, but wouldn't industrial pollutants
add to it, in other words add to the cycle and create a warm anomaly? Imagine a curve representing
earth's cycles, add slightly to that curve, a sine curve, and you get a higher curve of warmth.
Picture the earth's cycle as a curve that goes up and down, but shift that temperature curve
up slightly with human influence:

Image

I don't really care about Al Gore or Funding and all that political stuff, but it just seems to
me that when a lot of heat is added it adds to the natural cycle.
0 likes   

User avatar
MGC
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.

Re: Concerns that Global Warming Is Happening

#15 Postby MGC » Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:03 pm

Yes, heat is being added by the sun and being trapped by the excessive CO2 that is in the atmosphere so say the GW advocates. Others say the amount of CO2 that has been introduced by human activity has had little effect. I don't believe in the GW hype because the Earth has been warmer in the past. Trees grew on Antartica, the Vikings were able to cultivate crops on Greenland, ect. Even during the past century there were several small cycles of warming and cooling observed. I don't think it is as simple as the amplitude of a sine wave. No doubt the Earth has been in a warming cycle the past 25+ years, but considering that warming has occured in the past, I must conclude that the warming is a natural cycle....MGC
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29096
Age: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

Re: Concerns that Global Warming Is Happening

#16 Postby vbhoutex » Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:05 pm

MGC wrote:Yes, heat is being added by the sun and being trapped by the excessive CO2 that is in the atmosphere so say the GW advocates. Others say the amount of CO2 that has been introduced by human activity has had little effect. I don't believe in the GW hype because the Earth has been warmer in the past. Trees grew on Antartica, the Vikings were able to cultivate crops on Greenland, ect. Even during the past century there were several small cycles of warming and cooling observed. I don't think it is as simple as the amplitude of a sine wave. No doubt the Earth has been in a warming cycle the past 25+ years, but considering that warming has occured in the past, I must conclude that the warming is a natural cycle....MGC


I am in no way someone whom I can say is highly educated about GW, but I have to both agree and disagree with this, mostly agree. It has, even in my meager viewing of different articles and own weather knowledge from many years of watching the weather, been obvious to me that most of what we are seeing is cyclical. I am not however, willing to stand back and say that at least some of the warming can not be attributed to mankind and industrialization over the years. That is an obvious fact also imo. How much actual effect it actually has in the overall scheme of GW remains, at least imo, open to much more debate and scientific verification.
0 likes   

User avatar
Jason Foster
Tropical Low
Tropical Low
Posts: 44
Age: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Contact:

Re: Concerns that Global Warming Is Happening

#17 Postby Jason Foster » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:38 am

My amazement is how much people are still arguing back and forth about if it is or isn't happening. My question has always been....if it is happening, what is a 'realistic' view of the future. At a talk by Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis Section - National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at a local DC AMS meeting gave me some interesting insight into the Global warming debate. While I don't buy into the Global Warming totally, I acknowledge there are changes happening. My question to him was what is the next step for Scientists in regards to Global Warming studies. He pointed out that there is no forecast model for Global Warming, only projections. That was any extremely important fact to me. Unlike a forecast model, projections only take raw data, and make a linear projection. Forecast models are more elaborate, taking out factors and sources to analyze and predict a real world scenario.

One other aspect to the talk I found interesting is the question of amplitude, not frequency. We know from research that global warming happens, no debate there. However, the question with the recent observations is how rapid, how much, how significant is the warming we are seeing at the moment? What will the trend be?

And even if we don't know these factors to a degree that is going to be considered fact, what is the acceptable level to which we have to understand before making critical social and government decisions that will alter us for the foreseeable future. I think the real focus now is on how do we as citizens respond to the issue (with the current information we do know), and what responses to be need to be prepared for in the future if Global Warming is going to affect our lives significantly.

edit: lots of spelling and grammar errors fixed.
Last edited by Jason Foster on Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 likes   

User avatar
vbhoutex
Storm2k Executive
Storm2k Executive
Posts: 29096
Age: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:31 pm
Location: Cypress, TX
Contact:

Re: Concerns that Global Warming Is Happening

#18 Postby vbhoutex » Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:20 pm

Good post Jason!!!

I see one of the biggest problems faced by the scientists who are trying to predict and analyze GW as the lack of confirmable weather data at all levels over the last 10's of thousands of years, much less a shorter time frame. IMO, in order to get a good handle on all aspects of GW(yes it definitely does occur) that is the type and amount of data needed for any real break throughs in this portion of weather science. We know we aren't going to get the data, so what is the alternative except to use what we have?
0 likes   

User avatar
gigabite
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 916
Age: 71
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Naples, Florida

#19 Postby gigabite » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:29 pm

GW’s equation should be no big thing to crack with today’s technology if the right variables are used. The difference between space temperature as a measure of absorbed infrared radiation at a geocentric point between the Moon and the Sun, and the daily surface high temperature along the 180 degree meridian should provide a solid number over the existing data base.

That would be subtract the front lens temperature of soho from a tao bouy. The Graph will go up or down.
0 likes   

User avatar
Tampa Bay Hurricane
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5597
Age: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

#20 Postby Tampa Bay Hurricane » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:31 pm

Interesting perspectives...also interesting how there are extremes- like baghad getting snow for the first time in 100 years. Earth is a wild place. From ice
ages to warm periods, there have been so many factors.
0 likes   


Return to “Global Weather”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests