Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[Highlander40]

Speaking from a US perspective. The government, regardless of who is in power, has not been able to create a program that works. EVER. Cash for clunkers anyone? These are the guys you want to trust?

Without any taxes or mandates or protocols, the economy of living in America has caused me to.

Change to efficient lighting, efficient AC unit, then they doubled the rates.

Insulate my home walls ,ceilling, new windows. Replaced my boiler. Use programable thermostats, Now I use about 25% of the fuel oil compared to 5 years ago. They raised the price of fuel at least 4X.

So now I pollute less, big whoop. I'm going boating.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Highlander40

Speaking from a US perspective. The government, regardless of who is in power, has not been able to create a program that works. EVER. Cash for clunkers anyone? These are the guys you want to trust?

Without any taxes or mandates or protocols, the economy of living in America has caused me to.

Change to efficient lighting, efficient AC unit, then they doubled the rates.

Insulate my home walls ,ceilling, new windows. Replaced my boiler. Use programable thermostats, Now I use about 25% of the fuel oil compared to 5 years ago. They raised the price of fuel at least 4X.

So now I pollute less, big whoop. I'm going boating.

Of course you're right. We only need to think of the transcontinental railroad, the national highway system, the Manhattan project or the effort to go to the moon.

[sailorboy1]

the last ice age ended because cave men discovered fire and started burning fuel (wood). Now we need to become more focused on ways to make more efficient ice cubes for our drinks; then we can cool things back off.

Just to lighten it up.

[Highlander40]

That really puts it into perspective.
What have they done lately?

[hpeer]

For those interested here is a link to a James Hansen presentation PDF.

AGU2008.Bjerknes_Lecture.pdf

In short what Hansen is saying is that there are warming effects and cooling effects. While we understand the warming contribution pretty well, we don't understand the cooling contribution (global dimming) nearly as well. Also the sun has been relatively quite, thus reducing forcing and we should be in a cooling period.

Now, if you remove the cooling (reduced particulate matter) the the Earth's temperature will jump, but we don't know how much.

It is a fairly pessimistic analysis. It shows how we may be getting ourselves into deep trouble without even knowing it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by hpeer

For those interested here is a link to a James Hansen presentation PDF.

AGU2008.Bjerknes_Lecture.pdf

Updating the Climate Science ~ Makiko Sato & James Hansen
➥ Makiko's Page

More from Dr. Hansen ➥ Dr. James E. Hansen

[bobsadler]

"Science isn't like politics or art, where everyone's opinion is arguably equal. If you seek to refute a theory, you need a scientific theory of your own that better explains the data."

Wrong.

All you need is a single observation that doesn't match the theory's prediction and the theory is consigned to the dustbin of history.

It's called "falsification"

In the last 10 years there has been no net global warming (even the uber-AGW BBC reported this) and yet CO2 atmospheric content has risen inexorably.

That observation would be enough for most rational people to go back to a bit of head scratching before they trashed their economy and blew away trillions of dollars trying emulate King Canute.

Even today such rationalists do exist:

http://www.copenhagenclimatechalleng...tpage&Itemid=1

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

....In the last 10 years there has been no net global ... warming

Haven’t you been reading?
The past 10 years have been the warmest in recorded history.

See: Climate Change: Evidence

And: Climate Change: Key Indicators

The time series below shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. (A more detailed presentation of this dataset, including error bars and uncertainty ranges, is available from the Met Office Hadley Centre.)

Here: Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

[bobsadler]

how much more of this to come in the wake of the "climategate" emails as the butt covering starts:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

[gosstyla]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Haven’t you been reading?
The past 10 years have been the warmest in recorded history. ...

The time series below shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. ...

Interesting, however even if that data is valid I personally do not place a lot of significance in a 0.000004% sample size ( 158 years out of 4,500,000,000).

[sabray]

well being a conservationist is cool. Its about being efficient with what you have and the way you use it. Making some changes doesn't have to be because you agree with global warming scares.
Natural or not we have some challenges. One of those tipping points occurs as siberia thaws and the peat bogs begin releasing the largest methane reserve huge numbers. This is the kind of event that could disrupt or change weather patterens. Siberia s peat bogs | India Environment Portal

[hpeer]

Along the lines of methane release

Warming ocean contributes to global warming

Methane release, if it occurred, would be the nail in the coffin.

[hpeer]

2008 had the highest recorded concentration of icebergs off of Newfoundland. They were there because of the Greenland glaciers around Disko Bay breaking down and dumping at a higher rate.

2009 had a year of very high ice off the coast of Newfoundland for a long time. I'm less sure of this but I think the explanation is that the multi-year ice fields had broken up and were being flushed south.

So, yeah, it is affecting me.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by gosstyla

Interesting, however even if that data is valid I personally do not place a lot of significance in a 0.000004% sample size (158 years out of 4,500,000,000).

It does directly refute Bob’s erroneous statement (post #67), as intended.
Which evidence you personally find/don't find significant, isn't very strong evidence of anything (except perhaps you knowledge and or ideology).

[meyermm]

Originally Posted by sneuman

As a climate scientist yourself, we'd all be interested in your competing theory to explain the extraordinarily close correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and average global temperatures.

Other people are entitled to their opinion, its seems on this subject the rules are different. If your argument is so conclusive why was it necessary to adjust the data to suite the argument?