Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[gosstyla]

Originally Posted by sneuman

The retreat of arctic ice is beyond dispute. If you need a concrete example -- small boats are routinely making the "northwest passage" now - and that has almost never happened before.

Well not "almost never" just for most of the little ice age we're just coming out of.
Northwest Passage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On point to the O.P. - your cruising opportunities are expanding, e.g. the Northwest Passage is open again!

[Lodesman]

Apology accepted Gord.

[hpeer]

Wow, so much so quickly.

My 2¢ are that it is pretty darn clear to me that GW is occurring and that it is occurring at rates that prevent most species from adapting.

The very LEAST anyone can say in good faith is that there is disagreement where well meaning and intelligent professionals, who have devoted there life to the research believe strongly that we are creating a very bad situation. If you respect their opinion, even if you disagree, then you have to ask yourself "What is the prudent course of action?"

There is a wonderful book out call "What is the worse that could happen?" While it focues on climate change it is a good read for anyone interested in risk analysis, and anyone who anchors or sails should be. It takes a methodological approach to evaluating the situation, whether you are personally convince or not. I would suggest that ALL read it.

The general point here is not who is right or wrong but what is the reasonable risk and how do we mitigate it.

Successful contribution to that discussion may require you to stow your ego for a bit.

All that being said, I don't for one heartbeat think that our political leaders are any closer to agreement than we are here thus the future is sealed. If warming is to happen it will and there is sod all we can do about it.

My wife and I feel sufficiently strong that we are making active plans to adjust, if not for ourselves then for our children.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by sneuman

But your evidence comes from a less-than-credible source.

Actually, the evidence comes from NOAA's Central Greenland temperature reconstruction data derived from ice cores and is cited as such in the blog.

Originally Posted by sneuman

In any case, no one disputes there have been rather significant fluctuations in temperature over geologic time. Neither would they dispute that for much of Earth's history, the planet has been inhospitible to human life. So, what's your point?

We are experiencing a certain phenomenon, a climate in flux. Based on that phenomenon, there are groups that have come up with a theory that man made CO2 is a "pollutant" causing that phenomenon. Based on that theory, they would like to tax us and restrict our freedom.

My point is that very "phenomenon" is nothing new and not even out of the ordinary as far as the Earth's history and inhabitants are concerned.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

This statement is an allegorical reference to the supposed "vast majority" of climate scientists (or scientists in relevant fields) you claim support MMGW theory. Since the thread is about this and not about creationism, then that is what I am challenging. I'm now asking for the third time for you to either provide peer-reviewed empirical data that defines the percentage of the total body of scientists in the relevant fields that support the MMGW-theory, or admit it's a ******** statement and refrain from stating it again.


Read again Scott - it's conditional; as a writer you should understand that tense

A poll conducted by a professor of earth and environmental sciences and published in ScienceDaily shows:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0119210532.htm

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

...

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

a poll conducted by a professor of earth and environmental sciences and published in ScienceDaily shows:

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Do you have a link? How many were surveyed? And what is an "earth scientist"?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Do you have a link? How many were surveyed? And what is an "earth scientist"?

the link is there now. you can see for yourself. It looks like a well-done and complete survey to me. you don't have to agree, but it would be good, in that case, if you can provide an equally credible survey that disputes it.

[MichaelC]

It is a mistake to look at one piece of the puzzle alone. The Earth is a giant heat pump, mostly driven by water temperature, but also by wind patterns. The thermohaline circuits are huge, planet wide, and take a century or so to move water back to the point of beginning. The planet has had a number of massive climate changes in the last billion years. There does seem to be a major difference in this one, however. We humans do seem to have contributed to it on a pretty large scale. It doesn't take a climate scientist to see it, either. Those of you who have crossed oceans know we have garbage drifting planet wide. I have been visiting wilderness areas of this country for over 50 years and the changes have been dramatic. We will see large changes in our lifetimes, rather we want to accept it or not. Look at the droughts in Australia, the decrease in fresh water supply in the SE US, the warming of the PNW which has brought conifer pests into our forests with devastating results. It is not just coming, it is here. Blame is a sily game, as we have all contributed. What to do is the more demanding problem.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by anjou

Does the Pacific coast current flow north and supply Vancouver with warmer water?
Im sure 2009 saw a record amount of Carib tornados

no.
current flows south....lol is no warm water on west coast of usa. warmest is in 60s....lol

2008-2009 was la nina....2009-2010 is el nino....will be different patterns from "normal"

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

the link is there now. you can see for yourself. It looks like a well-done and complete survey to me. you don't have to agree, but it would be good, in that case, if you can provide an equally credible survey that disputes it.

I don't need to provide another survey; yours will do nicely.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

I'm not a mathematician, but 3146 out of 10,200 does not look like a "vast majority" to me.

Interesting stats:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I don't need to provide another survey; yours will do nicely.


I'm not a mathematician, but 3146 out of 10,200 does not look like a "vast majority" to me.

Interesting stats:

You do understand the difference between a population and a sample, don't you? You've obviously confused the two:

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

... climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

[Joli]

Actually there are so many contradictions about this I don't think anyone really understands anthropogenic global warming.

Some examples:

Over the last 150 years the average temperature of New York City has shown a consistent rise in temperature while Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester have shown a consistent temperature declines over the past 150 years. If global warming is truly "global" how is the average temperature decline in all the other cities explained? Possibly the average temperature increase in NYC is the result of a temperature island? Garbage in garbage out?

Regarding the recent latest temperature rise (the last decade) which is now falling. How can it be explained that the earths temperature rise (and fall) mimics the rise and fall of the temperatures on Mars and Venus? Man made? Or sunspot activity which effects all the planets?

Regarding the loss of glaciers? It is interesting to note that ice loss is a ground based phenomena. The air temperature has little impact on the pace of glacier melting. Hmm, amazing the ground warms through 200 feet of ice?

Regarding Antarctica, there is an overall growth of ice not a loss.

And finally, if the earth is warming the number and severity of hurricanes would lessen since the energy for a hurricane come from temperature differences.

Sorry I'm too lazy to look up all the references and scientific journals right now but if I get I chance I'll post this info later.

Its seems like politicians fomenting hysteria as a way to create a BTU tax (ie cap and trade).

Joli, ever the skeptic.

[MichaelC]

It takes more than one non conforming observation to disprove a theory. A theory is a statement which best describes and explains a body of data.

BTW the methane is already coming out of Arctic tundra and shallow waters. It is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

It is the mega corporations who are sponsoring denial of climate change [I try to avoid the phrase global warming, but I screw up sometimes]. The other side is not making much money, actually. And it really doesn't matter. No political body is going to enact the draconian measures necessary to make a big difference in what is already coming down. When earth scientists predicted this, the deniers all said they were full of crap because 6 whole years went by without everybody dead. These patterns take centuries to unfold. Unfortunately, when a trigger happens it is quick - geologically speaking, not human 'wristwatch' speaking. The last time the Gulf Stream quit, however, it took about twenty years. Some arctic specialist named Kendall reported this from ice core samples almost 20 yrs ago. Nobody paid attention. The Gulf Stream has moved south a bit and has decreased intensity by 20% over the last decade. [I've been trying to find my sources for this and can't find them. When I do, I will post it here. But I won't make much money wether you believe me or not ... ]

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Scientist or not, anyone who reads the research and about the research is more than capable of forming an opinion about it and therefore able to debate its relative value.

If you really think you can "read the research" and make an opinion that is as valid as all the major scientific panels that have ever been put together to analyze this then you have a very high opinion of your capabilities. I don't have as much trust in my own omnipotence.

Jim

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Joli

Actually there are so many contradictions about this I don't think anyone really understands anthropogenic global warming.

......

Its seems like politicians fomenting hysteria as a way to create a BTU tax (ie cap and trade).

Joli, ever the skeptic.

So Joli, I take it then that YOU are CONVINCED that there is no potential threat what so ever and that we should just ignore the whole GW thing?

And you are so sure of your correctness that you will deny my right to a more conservative and cautious approach?