Rules: Read Me!
Admin: sue943
Legal / Conditions of Use

Page 4 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 >
Topic Options
#623509 - Mon May 09 2011 11:31 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Anyone in doubt that the climate is not actually doing anything unusual needs to look at the latest figures here, not supplied by an independent scientist open to accusations of inaccuracy for whatever reasons that are given, but an official US supplier of data, the University of Colorado. sea level figures

Sea level is the simplest and easiest criterion to measure. It has risen for the last 22,000 years and the original fast pace following a small ice age has naturally reduced to almost zero, something the IPCC prefer not to draw attention to as once people see in fact the rise is grinding to a steady halt they'll naturally wonder how this is possible if the far harder to measure average world temperature has indeed increased. In fact the best stories spun by Al Gore and friends talk about the same imaginary 'climate refugees', the 10 million a year fleeing from inundated low lying land and new deserts to safer ground, which actually never happened in the allotted time to 2010. The inches a century which it has risen at since time immemorial is not just continuing but consistent with the lower diagram, is on a logarithmic curve tending to zero. The actual sea level rise has now been falling since 2007, so rather than measure the consistently rising CO2 which appears to grow independent of both all the vast taxes to charge people more to create it, and the worthless alternatives which spend most of the time gathering dust at costs of billions (I have some of the accounts in an article, a normal business would have collapsed after the first year but these are subsidised by tax revenue) the actual scary stuff they want us all to think is happening to make us vote in their taxes (as we all have across the western world) just ain't real. If the sea is slowing down the rise then both the melting land ice and thermal expansion, the equal causes of it, can't be increasing and must actually be reducing in speed.

Global temperature is not a reliable figure at all as it varies from place to place and time to time, so as much of the world is not measured they can select particular 'representative samples', but many are on airstrips and city centres which do not reflect the true temperature as heated by buildings and vehicles. Also when calculating temperature they start mixing and matching the quite different land, sea and air temperatures, and if they get the selection just right can make it show pretty much any direction they choose. Not so for sea levels. You can measure them with floats or satellites, and although they vary across the planet the time and location changes are a small fraction of temperature, and can only be measured in one place, ie the surface. As they are so much harder to select and play around with (although still possible) the actual data they produce is the most valuable of all as it is far less open to 'interpretation' (which should not be possible at all when making vitally accurate measurements) but pretty much speaks for itself.

As the website only presents data, and not any underlying explanations, unless the IPCC or similar choose to answer the question no one will ask them, why is the sea level rise still falling when you say it should be growing, we can only apply the rules of physics as we know them and try and work it out ourselves. I'd be interested to know if there are any besides the obvious 'the temperature can't be rising' one, but remain prepared to be surprised.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#623971 - Tue May 10 2011 06:11 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The commonest question I hear on this subject is 'Why would there be a conspiracy?'. In fact most people know the answer already (it's hardly exactly hidden) but don't think it's possible. I just came across this direct quote which I'd say speaks for itself:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."


- Club of Rome

More details
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#633243 - Sat Jun 11 2011 10:35 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
For the first known time this conspiracy has now gone on the national media, as I rang Talk Sport radio last night and blew the gaff on the whole thing. Good news on top is it's been podcast, I'm from 1.24.55 to 1.38 which is split onto the second half hour section.

satguru on the radio
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#633280 - Sat Jun 11 2011 04:50 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
Trigger7 Offline
Forum Adept

Registered: Sat Nov 17 2007
Posts: 109
Loc: Morden Manitoba Canada       
Enjoy chatting with yourself much? Climate Change is being experienced every day in so many parts of the World, Extreme Flooding, worst in 350 years where I come from.

Top
#633295 - Sat Jun 11 2011 05:16 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Trigger7]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
There's a small (literally) problem with that one, world average temperatures have only gone up 0.8C since 1850. The sort of consequences you're referring to would need well over 2C and even then could not be automatically assigned to mankind. And as the sea level isn't rising as much as it was before (centuries before) that also implies strongly temperatures are rising more slowly as well.

And although you seem to think I'm talking to myself this thread has already received over 10,000 views. It's more like a blog, few comment but many read.

Also, why is it you haven't explained the quotes from the Club of Rome, Gorbachev and Ottmar Edenhofer? They have openly admitted this is the case, but you are the first person here to overlook it so am interested to know why.


Edited by satguru (Sat Jun 11 2011 05:17 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#633329 - Sat Jun 11 2011 07:20 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mhenson400 Offline
Participant

Registered: Tue Jun 22 2010
Posts: 34
Loc: St Louis Missouri USA         
"Extreme Flooding, worst in 350 years where I come from."

Trigger so why was the flooding so bad 350 years ago? The global cooling/warming alarmists take every weather event and claim that is proof of man made climate change.

Here are some facts.

Al Gore claims that we are putting 70,000,000 tons of pollution per day into the atmosphere. While I am sure that figure is grossly exaggerated, let's assume that it is true.

The mass of the atmosphere is 5,512,500,000,000,000 tons.

That is a ratio of 78,750,000 to 1 per day or 0.000001269841270%.

That is the equivalent of adding one drop of water to a 1281.74 gallon pool. And like a pool the atmosphere filters out pollution; through precipitation.

Thanks Satguru for this thread I, like many others, enjoy reading your comments.

Top
#633407 - Sun Jun 12 2011 07:57 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mhenson400]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Thanks mhenson. I have to say that I wouldn't have dared to start a thread on any subject, especially such a controversial one, until I'd thoroughly done my homework. As you pointed out, whichever way you arrange the figures they don't add up. But because 'those in authority' (especially the untouchable and perfect PhD's) have told us something, god forbid one or more of us dare to question it.

In fact it isn't quite as simple as that. There are many, many PhD's who do not agree with this at all, but as the media barely mention them of course as they only persist in reporting the ones who do (and what do politicians actually know more than we do- they are advised by the same PhD's as everyone else) the overall impression is global warming is real and man made.

But they left out one major element. In 1990 when Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev made their speeches about combatting dangerous global warming, as well as the IPCC claiming a 1.5C rise by 2010 (it was 0.1C), nobody had access to the main data via the internet then but they now do.

So now we have all the shorter term predictions made in the 90s in, (not one happened) and overt admission over a 20 year period it was set up to control and collect funds, the prevailing impression has not been changed to fit. And the obsession with weather watching we never had before means although the IPCC have both warned against using examples of short term and local weather for both sides, and stated they cannot yet assign a single event to global warming, 'bad weather equals global warming' if you are looking for it, despite the official warnings, and if you try and challenge it you get cut down. The facts speak for themselves, I just wish people who don't like what I say would go out and follow up the leads themselves. It's all out there.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#638405 - Fri Jul 01 2011 07:34 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I am currently in shock, a major plank of global warming has just been instantly dismantled, an expert has just testified in a court of law, presumably under oath,

..."That means that while the bear has healthy populations now ..."

Yes, after Al Gore, Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, George Monbiot etc etc have all used the decline in polar bears as a trademark of the warming case, this has all been wiped out in seconds in an obscure US court.
Full report

To my knowledge this is the first time an official spokesperson has openly admitted a previous gospel to be wrong, and rather than come from either an independent expert or a skeptic where it would have simply been swatted away like an annoying mosquito, this was part of a case advocating man made warming, and the point was made as part of a statement trying to claim the population was heading for a decline. Now whatever the claims besides the stars and planets mankind and science within it cannot see the future. It can guess tomorrow's weather to a varying degree, next week's sometimes and the latest tests showed anything beyond that was no better than using a chimpanzee (it was on the BBC radio news and couldn't note the details). But as the foundation of AGW is computerised projections (although history explains the results of both warmer climates in Roman times and plenty of time with no sea ice at all, yet polar bears survived it) although I'm amazed they were allowed in a court as do not have the status of evidence, by attempting to present it as such they clearly and unequivocably stated that polar bear populations are indeed healthy, as skeptics and many naturalists have been trying to say for years. Had someone not drawn my attention to this in the chat boards it may well have slipped under the radar altogether and not been noticed by anyone, but I am hoping it will now spread like wildfire as it's pretty well an official confession and needs to be known about as widely as possible.


Edited by satguru (Fri Jul 01 2011 07:35 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#638575 - Sat Jul 02 2011 05:29 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
Trigger7 Offline
Forum Adept

Registered: Sat Nov 17 2007
Posts: 109
Loc: Morden Manitoba Canada       
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/wildli...CFRHGKgodqzzPZg
Here is a report on the disappearing arctic ice and how it is and will affect our Polar Bear population.
The Polar Bear does not only live at the North Pole , Satguru, you must be thinking of Santa Claus. Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, is the Polar Bear Capital of the World, and it lies 2,156 kilometres or 1,347 Miles from the North Pole.
I am not a fan of David Suzuki, or any other Scientist on either "Side" of the Global Warming debate.
I am of the opinion that the havoc that mankind has imposed on Mother Nature , especially over the past 120 years, cannot help but change our oceans, our land, and our atmosphere. I do my little part to recycle, reduce, re use and hopefully extend the life of our Earth .

Top
#638592 - Sat Jul 02 2011 07:56 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: Trigger7]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
You see there is always common ground, and looking after the environment is one, and commonsense to do so. My only issue there is that not only is CO2 not my idea of a problem, less of all the climate, it has hijacked the whole movement, and even though all you describe is what everyone should do (but doesn't, mainly in the corporate field as clean costs money) nowadays every single statement adds the climate to it. This is not just irrelevant to what used to be a wish to look after our surroundings, but plain wrong. You do not recycle, save energy or avoid pollution for the climate, but because you should do so for its own sake. If people continue to merge an unproven theory with the good stuff we are all heading down the toilet. Money for other projects is already being wasted on windfarms which barely generate a thing and need a 90% (from the latests UK figures) backup, and vast amounts spent on climate research which is shifting it from worthier projects which may have helped people right now with known problems. The money spent could already have drained all the swamps harbouring malaria mosquitos, and every single penny spent on the climate is a penny not spent on other research or projects. That is a massive cost to prevent something we'll never know about as even the worst Jonahs out there don't expect much to be noticed within our own lifetimes. That's not a business budget but an open vein.

As for your study it has skated over the hidden point in your last article, that despite Al Gore's film and every claim made generally since, it was stated, under oath I presume, in a court of law, that the polar bear population is currently healthy. That is all we know, period. No one, not even (especially) David Suzuki, Rajendra Pachauri, Al Gore or any of their friends, has a crystal ball. And polar ice can only exist at the poles so what else were you referring to? If Manitoba is ice free and therefore not polar then doesn't it show my point they can live with or without ice? And if it does (I have no idea) then anywhere covered in polar ice at any time of the year is polar. The Arctic Circle is the official line and that comes a long way south of the pole.

And finally the sort of random general (unless you are a scientist) comment that if we have imposed havoc it must change the climate is how we got in this state in the first place- Al Gore was not qualified to judge and my own diagram shows him pretty well at the source of this theory, not any official ones. He got his inspiration from his lecturer (science was a minor of his arts degree and a subject he did not excel in) Roger Revelle, who later discounted it as incorrect. If you look into the area deeply you begin to see many elements that should not be there, and if rotten in parts is not a good sign about the whole. These are either dismissed, overlooked or more generally not even known by most who believe the conventional idea, especially the poor children in the UK who had An Inconvenient Truth on the national school syllabus and we're now stuck with a whole generation of Al Gores. They aren't expected to check what their teachers tell them and none of the material I've exposed on this thread (in a legal trial would at least raise reasonable doubts) is included as balance. That is pure political indoctrination and whatever the pundits and mavens tell you and me, those are no more than guesses and are not even worth considering by anyone as proved no more accurate than random. You didn't accept the list I posted in the chat boards but as it contains hundreds you would need a lot of work to show most of them were actually correct as you tried with the first few.

So basically please try and separate the environment and the climate. Blurring the two has caused what I see as the downfall of world government (only Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic openly disagree with the theory so no means an exaggeration) as so many people can't see the difference between the two any more and everything in their lives is focussed on how much damn CO2 it emits. That is an illness and an obsession and will gain nothing in the long or short run. China however accept global warming as real, but have the sense to carry on their CO2 emissions as they have acknowledged the costs of cutting it (which the UK bear more than anywhere else as we are committed to the highest reductions I know of) are far greater than the benefits from high production and cheap power. And if only I could live another 100 years and see it did absolutely no harm to the climate at all.


Edited by satguru (Sat Jul 02 2011 08:00 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#639391 - Thu Jul 07 2011 03:59 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Very, very interesting. The few in the media who challenge man-made warming have claimed for years that the world surface temperature stopped rising in 1998. Anyone daring to quote this has been called every possible known insult and a few new ones, and now after 13 years a study from no less than the universities of Harvard, Boston and Turkuu in Finland have admitted it. By looking for a reason there has been no warming since 1998 (no more than a silly random guess torn apart by all their well-qualified peers such as Judith Curry within minutes of publication) their irrelevant conclusion Chinese power stations have emitted enough SO2 to cancel the CO2 effect (yes, for the entire planet), they simply said "The reason... there has been no warming from 1998 to 2008..."

Sulphur article

Well after being called a baby killer myself (it's amazing the levels people fall to when challenged with an intellectual argument that disputes their beliefs) having waited since this all began within a single week we've both had an official admission polar bears are still thriving, and now, amazingly, we were actually correct all along that temperatures stopped rising since 1998.

That of course also means all those 'adjusted' graphs I've shown examples of were not the good ones as they claimed, but the clear raw data which agreed whoever measured it anywhere. And the main reason I spread these stories online is you won't see them anywhere else besides a few newspapers who are already preaching to the converted. But it's ironic that these two will be interpreted as 'although nothing's happened yet' it's going to very very soon!. Yes, and the cheque's in the post... But it's on record now and official, from their side, and no one can ever call me a liar again for claiming it.

PS- all I can say is wow- 1000 scientists now question man made warming, complete with full quotes- even James Lovelock (one of the original band of leaders) turns out to have turned, and if Jesus had done the same thing then surely people would have listened, but no.

1000 scientists dissent in public



Edited by satguru (Thu Jul 07 2011 07:53 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#642133 - Wed Jul 20 2011 06:14 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Even I wasn't expecting this one- climate change is now officially a business! The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, managed by Peter Dunscombe, who not coincidentally also manages the closely connected BBC's pension fund (are you beginning to see a picture forming here?), has now raised climate change to an international management fund. So in a simple sentence, if climate change laws continue, they win, if they stop they lose the lot. Who said it isn't all about the money?

The BBC invest in climate change

The BBC have a charter for impartiality, which they broke years ago when they took on the work for Globe International to spread the word on climate change, thus blocking all the many studies which cast doubt on it. I have no idea who can report breach of charter let alone who to, but no one has despite being reported recently in the Daily Telegraph. If I could and didn't cost anything I would do it personally simply as I have enough legal experience to present a reasonable case and the time to do so. Now they are openly associating with the very business they are promoting then it is pretty much like insurance companies setting fire to their own premises to make a profit on the insurance. If you promote a cause while posing (figuratively and legally) as an independent which you also invest in there are many legal terms for that, and I'll let others suggest them for me for a change.
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#643748 - Thu Jul 28 2011 04:07 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
It now seems the NASA satellites have at last confirmed what was obvious from 100 years of temperatures, there is no measurable positive cloud feedback from rising CO2, meaning the very small rise since 1850 does indeed indicate it can't add more heat than it traps through evaporating more sea to become clouds, which do the lion's share (95%) of keeping the planet 33C higher than space. We'd all be dead without it. CO2 is responsible for 1C, doubling would have added 1C more with no feedback, and being 50% higher than 1850 already has not produced any more than 0.5C as the temperature was already rising. The IPCC predictions factored in up to 6C by 2100, putting a safe level at 2C which will itself now be hard to manage at the current rate.

I am a realist, I abhor predictions in open systems as they can't be made and never should be, whether climate, economics or crystal balls (ours excepted). Sometimes you just have to wait and see. And as claimed by many scientists including Philip Stott who is so talented the BBC use him as a resident science expert, you can't have a greenhouse effect in an open system, as only glass can trap heat and not gas. This affirms the very basic theory and means unlike the stories in the media CO2 simply lets most of the heat through. The spectral absorption spectrum is so small anyway (meaning it only responds to infra red radiation in a few frequencies, a small fraction of the total) that it could rise in far greater amounts and still reach its saturation limit soon afterwards becoming unable to affect temperatures at all beyond a certain point they don't yet know but is clearly being approached already.

NASA report
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#648517 - Fri Aug 19 2011 08:50 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
This is the first and doubtless only time the green climate movement have given me a laugh. We may be destroyed by aliens as we're emitting too much CO2. The added cream on the cake is that it's actually been reported by what's considered by themselves (not me mind you) as a serious newspaper. If people thought they were before a good many won't from now! I reckon a few fence-sitters may actually be pushed off it after this classic too, which can only help world sanity.

"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report"


Aliens will destroy the naughty human emitters!


Edited by satguru (Fri Aug 19 2011 08:52 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#650934 - Wed Aug 31 2011 05:47 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Logic is as good a tutor for any subject as long as you know enough to follow the basics. So recently it occurred to me what if the temperature had risen exactly the same amount as in the highest estimated hockey stick graph (there were two, the lower one was discarded for 'watering down the message' as I just discovered) but CO2 had not?

The other side of the same coin had just surfaced, what if CO2 increased and the temperature did not? Well that turned out to be a lot closer to reality than my ideal scenario. Mann's diagram relied heavily on tree ring data, which is probably the most marginal possible method possible and argued by some too vague to be used at all. It turns out the logic won as guess what, increased CO2 alone causes some trees to grow more (who'd have thought it?) so when you measure wider rings you are both measuring temperature plus growth solely from increased CO2 (I haven't tracked down the likely proportions, but appears to be pretty similar), so actually doubling the apparent temperature by attributing 100% of the growth to increased temperature when in fact a good deal was later shown to be due to increased CO2 alone.

This also has been borne out in standard practice of increasing CO2 in market gardening to 2000ppm to raise growth and tested in two separate university experiments in the last couple of years somewhere in rural England by memory. All they now need is a study to tease out the genuine amount of growth distributed between CO2 and temperature increases and adjust all the existing graphs accordingly. And if so, would they replace them at the IPCC?


"Experimental work has strongly demonstrated the positive response of photosynthesis and plant water use efficiency to increasing CO2 concentration [ e.g. Strain and Cure 1985; Bazzaz 1990; Mooney et al 1991; Idso 1992; Korner and Arnone 1992; Norby et al 1992; Polley et a 1993; Wullscheger et al 1995)] and the negative response of stomatal conductance of plant leaves [Woodward 1987; Beerling and Woodward 1993; van de water et al 1994]. For example, by studying a number of C3 and C4 species, Polley et al 1993 showed that both plant water use efficiency and biomass increased with increasing ambient CO2 concentration. This led to the idea that CO2 fertilization may be evaluated by measuring plant water use efficiency."

Report summary


Edited by satguru (Wed Aug 31 2011 05:51 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#651544 - Sun Sep 04 2011 06:27 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
“Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline)"

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

This is all from the UEA Climate team, mainly discussing climate reports which were submitted to and subsequently used by the IPCC to create world policy. I knew the well reported material but this goes way beyond that.
My only other question here now is as they've been caught confessing to 'tweaking' their data to fit by eavesdropping, how much more has contributed to the figures the vast majority of people worldwide accept as genuine?

Full report
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#652714 - Sat Sep 10 2011 05:08 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5126
Loc: Florida USA
Sorry, weather's got me in a brain storm/funny mood. I just thought we could get rid of a lot more CO2 if we doubled the concentration in our canned sodas and beers. It may mean more sturdy aluminum cans but we've gotten good at recycling/conserving that resource. So a little more C per can might assuage the extra Al per can.
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.

Top
#654378 - Fri Sep 16 2011 06:54 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The media have been very clever in providing balance from scientists who disagree with global warming theory by wheeling out the same handful of names every time they want to show them. This deliberately creates the impression no one else does, but although I knew of many more who do someone has just collected a page of PhDs in the area who have openly done so, and been collectively ignored for doing so.

The main question this raises is how can they all be wrong when they are at least as qualified as their opponents? And if they both claim to be right then surely the science is in so much dispute it's impossible to say it's yet known?

List of quotes
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#654742 - Sun Sep 18 2011 06:40 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
Last week the 2010-11 sea level figures were posted by NASA (ie no controversy there), and unlike any time in my limited reading of such figures, it fell twice as much as it had the previous year and every year before it for centuries. The 3mm annual rise has been a standard feature, and one which to me killed the AGW argument stone dead as that was part of a 22,000 recovery from the last small ice age.

The trend was slowing, from a little over 3mm a year to 3mm in about 2008, as consistent with the total curve to zero. As sea expands from warming and ice melts then had both been increasing then so would the sea. It's the easiest indicator as varies less than ice and many times less than temperature. NASA however had to put a spin on it due to this fact, that the heat had evaporated so much sea as rain it had removed it onto land. Now my geography lessons taught me about the water (and carbon) cycle, and it takes around a week for flooded areas to drain back to the sea through rivers, springs and evaporation. A year of sodden ground is physically impossible, it has nowhere to be stored as gravity has to return it to sea level from higher ground.

So imagine my surprise when the envisat satellite results were released a week later, and don't just show a decline for a year but the last two, a total of 10mm since 2009. As yet NASA and their friends haven't replied anywhere to this, but unlike the dodgy temperature records which I've already demonstrated can be selected and adjusted to look any way they need to, these are raw figures direct from the source before a single academic could rewrite them.

So the sole explanation is flooding, although a fall in temperatures and an overall stable ice sheet (even the arctic has suddenly started freezing at record speed, long before the normal end of summer) would be the regular reasons, meaning it must be an unprecedented amount of flooding combined with as yet unknown methods of holding that water back from returning to the sea. It is tantamount to a doctor saying the patient is getting over an infection even though their temperature is rising. There may be an extremely rare and obscure reason for it for a very short time but not over a longer period. Some phenomena are directly linked, and just as a raised temperature in an infection means the germs are still being fought, a falling sea level has to mean a falling temperature over a longer period than a week or two. This is two years.

Two year sea level fall
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#654812 - Mon Sep 19 2011 02:42 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5126
Loc: Florida USA
So, David Bowie's "Man Who Fell to Earth" is a true story? Is that where the water is going, stolen by aliens? (TeeHee)

Actually, can a more highly concentrated atmosphere of CO2 contain more dissolved H2O in it than a less densely concentrated one? That figure is relevant. A quick balance of replacing O2 with CO2 would mean less space for H2O to fill (as long as the atmosphere volume is constant) If my balance is correct, a higher Atm CO2 level would mean the oceans should rise on a decreased atmospheric ability to hold gaseous H2O. Ah, the double whammy!


Edited by mehaul (Mon Sep 19 2011 02:43 AM)
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.

Top
#654847 - Mon Sep 19 2011 08:58 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
I nearly (but not quite) get that, as the IPCC story (as it hasn't ever happened before so only clutching at straws to guess what'll happen as CO2 steadily rises) goes that rising temperatures will evaporate more sea, putting the water in the atmosphere as clouds and thus providing an effective greenhouse gas. But this has had a 50% rise to see the result and the temperature has clearly not shown any additional rise which would have been expected.

So if the sea level were to evaporate then that would surely balance a rise from added heat, and depending on the overall exchange will either see a net rise or fall in level. However despite the statement the sea is expected to create more clouds from evaporation they have never referred to the consequent effect on sea level if it does. I'm only an interested observer and I picked it up.

If I follow you correctly you're saying rising CO2 should block water vapour in the atmosphere and thus keep it in the sea, raising levels, while NASA's AQUA satellite showed CO2 did exactly that, ie replaced H20 with CO2, actually reducing the greenhouse effect, which was not what they expected.

The end result so far though is not theory but observation, and the sea level has fallen quite a lot. Is this consistent with your equations?
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#654850 - Mon Sep 19 2011 09:26 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mehaul Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Wed Feb 03 2010
Posts: 5126
Loc: Florida USA
Note the caveat I included (the volume of the atmosphere remains the same). If the volume of the atmosphere increases, it could hold more CO2 and more H2O. One way to draw data on the atmosphere volume is to determine if the low Earth Orbit ISS is experiencing more drag than was calculated to effect it twenty years ago when it was designed. A greater atmosphere volume would also indicate that the average temperature of the air is increased.

Was it the concentration of CO2 bit that you didn't follow fully? Here's perhaps a better (well, different) way of stating the issue. I do not have exact physical constants in front of me so remember what is important in this is relative concentrations. For a given volume of standard air, say one cubic foot, at STP can hold 1,000 molecules of H2O. If we remove some of the 8% component of that volume that is O2 down to 7% and replace it with enough gaseous CO2 (increasing the CO2% from 9% to 10%), what will the effect on ability to hold H2O be? I've conjectured above that 100% relative humidity would then represent a lower number of total H2O molecules in that 1 cubic foot )for arguments sake say 900 molecules of H2O). In an open system with unbounded volume we wouldn't have to remove the O2 to get room for the CO2, but its ability to hold moisture will definitely change (because humidity is a local phenomena) and standard values for those parameters should be calculated and demonstrated.


Edited by mehaul (Mon Sep 19 2011 09:46 AM)
_________________________
If you aren't seeing Heaven while you dream, you're doing something wrong.

Top
#654892 - Mon Sep 19 2011 12:03 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: mehaul]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
It seems to work, but seems to be one of the three alternatives either expected or occurred.

1) CO2 adds to the greenhouse gases with no associated changes- the atmosphere being open expands to include it.

2) CO2 replaces O2 and H20, as if in a closed system.

3) CO2 causes H2O to increase and join it, the only scenario to cause increased warming.

As the atmosphere is an open system I'd assume that CO2 adds, but your replacing theory is what the satellite found although NASA also expected an open system where the two greenhouses gases (major and minor in this case) joined forces.

So if I do follow your reasoning correctly, you are expecting the CO2 to knock out the other gases, which indeed has happened, and as a result actually reduced the greenhouse effect for each H2O molecule replaced.

I am guessing you're a scientist, my science stopped when the maths became too tough and had no choice to switch to words rather than numbers to complete my education. I cannot handle equations beyond the most basic, if presented in a diagram can do better if simple but is really like trying to read three different pages at the same time in a foreign language I know a little of. I do go looking for friendly scientists to analyse some of the raw data I read to check if it's really what it looks like, and it usually is so tend to find even without knowing the minutiae within the details such as these the big picture remains identical, in this case falling sea level must mean falling temperature.

While you're here and on the subject the CO2 rise is the real issue. That is a brand new phenomenon in modern times, and because the hockey stick was produced (along with three other universities who produced something else for the same period) to fit the rise, the genie was out of the bottle (except one which denies your wishes rather than grants them). A vandal genie so to speak. The IPCC took the reins and employed the same universities to tell them (as if they could) what would the effect on the climate be from the continued rise, at least till 2200.

This process began in around 1990, and 20 years later the fall in temperature, erratic short term but stable long term ice caps, growing polar bear population and probably most of all beyond temperature falling sea level were not part of the predictions. They all expected the arctic to be ice free in summer by now, Britain to be snow free in some, loss of Kilimanjaro and Himalayan glaciers (nothing significant there), and no drop in temperature or sea level en route. Any child would have questioned the wisdom of predicting the effect of an unprecedented change introduced into the atmosphere on the climate given it alone gave rise to chaos theory and is an open non-linear system. Previous models were for long term forecasts only, up to 6 months, and they were rarely any more reliable than tossing a coin. To expect this to be extended centuries ahead with no previous data to go on (always the best way to see the future) they were quite happy to create programs regardless, knowing by the time the results were in with enough to assess their accuracy they'd be retired. They couldn't lose, and as a result had no personal interest in the consequences either way as they couldn't be tested before they'd be long gone.

This year more and more pillars of global warming have fallen than ever before. The collective indicators imply the temperature and associated major features are doing what they always have, minor variations within major long term (22,000 year or so) cycles and PDOs and nina/nino cycles which can be seen to have caused a peak in 1998 because they always do. Al Gore's lecture last week blaming every single problem in the world (including the Arab spring, honestly!) on AGW had made the fatal error of induction (he's not the brightest) by blaming the small local events on a greater one which as already described is far from certain. The only certainty is rising CO2, but the current effects are within previously normal variations and only became analysed as the CO2 rose and assumed to be doing something to them. Unless the temperature had already risen way above the expected 0.5C at current CO2 levels then anything under 2C is fine according to the IPCC. It won't even get half way by 2100 now, the graph is half done and would need a new input to arise from nowhere to get it to ramp up more than half way through the process which no one expected or would expect.


Edited by satguru (Mon Sep 19 2011 12:05 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#659872 - Sun Oct 09 2011 04:58 PM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
satguru Offline
Forum Champion

Registered: Thu Feb 17 2000
Posts: 6384
Loc: Kingsbury London UK           
The IPCC position on solar changes are thus: "Changes in solar output over time can only be minimal and in no way affect the climate to a noticeable degree".

OK, in fact the genuine situation was that solar changes were little understood outside a small group of experts who had a purely academic interest in it before the CO2 debate, besides some making a fortune using it to predict the weather for private businesses, but as the world only listen to the IPCC that is the state of the science.

I have just heard the UK Met Office, who provide some of the data for the IPCC have veered off that path and in a paper soon to be published in the only instrument available (by serious organisations anyway), Nature Magazine, have stated:

"The warning coincides with research from the Met Office suggesting Europe could be facing a return of the “little ice age” that gripped Britain 300 years ago, causing decades of bitter winters.

The prediction, to be published in Nature, is based on observations showing a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which over a long period may trigger mini ice ages in Europe."

Here it is, enjoy!

This actually means either the IPCC or Met Office are wrong. Take your pick.



Edited by satguru (Sun Oct 09 2011 05:01 PM)
_________________________
"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

UN IPCC

Top
#661257 - Sat Oct 15 2011 12:43 AM Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming [Re: satguru]
mountaingoat Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: Fri Jun 22 2007
Posts: 384
Loc: Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Satguru,

I don't think any evidence would be enough for some to accept ACC. Your quote at the bottom from Mike Hulme needs looking at though. You impugne the honesty of tens of thousands of Scientists who got into that extremely well payed area of climate change. Most scientists get into low paid work for the betterment of mankind. Some do sell out to cigarette companies and oil and mining companies, but not the vast majority. However, you believe the Oil and mining companies who are likely to lose TRILLIONS if we convert to a green future are all pure at heart and concerned with mankind over their own wealth. That dog just don't hunt mate.

Top
Page 4 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 >

Moderator:  bloomsby