Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part II
Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part II
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 28 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 
 |
That's the crux of the debate. It's hard to believe that CO-2 which comprises less than .0004 of our atmosphere influences water vapor content to any significant degree whatsoever. ... Can you believe this demonstration? Video: Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2 It's a short few minutes video but it does very nicely show what CO2 does. Can you believe that? It's still the only world we have, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1132182 ·  |
William Rothamel  Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 
|
yes, Many compounds absorb radiation. I did my master's degree in the X-band range of microwaves--X-band equipment was avaiable because the Air Force found out that water vapor absorbed the energy and had to find different frequencies. Your microwave oven uses a klystron or Backward Wave Oscillator to heat your food at X-band frequencies which of couse re radiate in the infra red. What you would have to show to make your argument stick is that a compond such as CO-2 in .0004 concentration absorbs outgoing radiation as opposed to deflecting or shading the Earth from incoming radiation and re-radiates at such strength to cause "Global Warming". I could believe a tiny bit of cooling effect due to infra red absorption preventing the heat from reaching the earth and the lower atmosphere. Every night I can see the difference in the cooling of the air and the water in my swimming pool based primarily on the amount of cloud cover in the immediate area that night. last year we had 14 inches of rain here from a single storm . That's a lot of water vapor. When the clouds come over during the day it immediatly gets cooler not hotter. So we need to model the energy coming in and that portion reflected versus the energy that hits the earth and is re-radiated and reflected back into the ground as the dark sky acts as a black body absorber if it is visible due to the absence of cloud cover. When CO-2 gets anywhere near those concentrations then I will join the cry that we are affecting the world's weather adversely; probably cooling it too much and heading into another ice age. A sort of Nuclear Winter as predicted if we were to have a doomsday confrontation on an atomic scale. You would think that with today's advanced knowledge of world-wide weather and some good,honest,hard headed climate Physicists we could put the question to rest about the effect of CO-2. Until then we laymen can argue as we do about the existence of an afterlife. ID: 1132504 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
... You would think that with today's advanced knowledge of world-wide weather and some good,honest,hard headed climate Physicists we could put the question to rest about the effect of CO-2. Until then we laymen can argue as we do about the existence of an afterlife. The effects of CO2 and climate have been in the scientific literature for about 200 years. You might say that it is very well known. The existing concentration of CO2 is what keeps our planet comfortably liveable. That is also why increasing the concentration, and rapidly, is so very disconcerting... An important aspect to get your mind around is that water vapour in the atmosphere is very short lived. It rains out again. Hence changes and feedback effects to the water vapour concentration and movement spans just a few days. In stark contrast, CO2 lingers in our atmosphere for a few hundred years before getting broken down or recycled elsewhere. Hence, the heat absorbing effect of CO2 continues to accumulate as the CO2 concentration accumulates... A brief answer is given in: How is Carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Or is that answer wrong? It's the only planet we have, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1133460 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
Meanwhile, we determinedly pollute our planet on an ever increasingly vast industrial scale... Yet more nastiness: Suspension of leading Arctic scientist raises suspicions IT WAS seen as one of the most distressing effects of climate change ever recorded: a polar bear dying of exhaustion after being stranded between melting patches of Arctic sea ice. But now the government scientist who first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming Arctic has been suspended and his work put under official investigation for possible scientific misconduct. Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, oversaw much of the scientific work for the US government agency that has been examining drilling in the Arctic and managed about $US50 million in research projects. He was suspended on July 18. Some question why Dr Monnett, employed by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, has been suspended. The Obama administration has been accused of hounding the scientist so it can open up the fragile region to drilling by Shell and other big oil companies. ... ... "This is a cautionary tale … for any federal scientist who dares to publish groundbreaking research on conditions in the Arctic." ... ... But oil firms, which want to drill in the pristine Chukchi and Beaufort seas, have been complaining... It's still our only world, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1133465 · |
Gary Charpentier     Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 31625 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
|
ID: 1133648 · |
Michael John Hind  Send message Joined: 6 Feb 07 Posts: 1330 Credit: 3,632,028 RAC: 0
|
Yet more nastiness: Do believe that the polar bear incident was a spoof!! Plus now no one has yet to calculate the current warming effect coming from the several hundreds, of the many thousands, of active under ocean volcanoes currently heating up these oceans. As I have indicated in past messages "Man made global warming" is of yet just pie in the sky meanderings generated by many-many scientists who are actually not qualified in this particular facet/faculty of science. I first came across global warming back when I was at school in the late 1960's. I read books on archaeology where here the archaeologists had already mapped a regular 300 year cycle of global warming then followed by global cooling. It was here where I could read that the next global warming cycle was already upon us. It was here that I could read that this cycle had started in the late 1700's and that it's effects would not be readily obvious for all to see until the nearing of it's peak somewhere in the mid 2000's. I suggest that those who worry so much about global warming turn their attentions to the next coming global cooling cycle. For it's effects are likely to be far worse than any of the effects coming from that from global warming. When this next cooling phase comes it most probably will result in huge swaths of the Northern Hemisphere being unable to grow enough crops to sustain the high levels of it's populations. The last cooling phase, starting back in the 1400's, bought a mini-ice age with it. If this were to occur to this degree again we, in 200+ years time, are going to have some very serious problems...unless new technology comes to the rescue. For now, global warming will start to wane shortly for this current cycle has been far less warming in it's effects than that coming from the previous warming phase back in the 1100's. ID: 1133667 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
Very Interesting Interesting indeed. That is a rather worrying example of how discredited oil-money-sponsored non-research can grab misleading headlines to then confuse anyone who can't read beyond the headline. Blatant and what I would call fraudulent. Also, has not the "Heartland Institute" long ago been exposed and discredited as a paid mouthpiece of Big Oil?... It's the only planet we have, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1133748 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
Yet more nastiness: And your evidence is? Were you there? Do you have the pictures? Note for that article: "... But oil firms, which want to drill in the pristine Chukchi and Beaufort seas, have been complaining..." Mmmmm... It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1133751 · |
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 31625 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
|
Very Interesting I see Roy W. Spencer & William D. Braswell, University of Alabama as the names on the research. Tell me how they and the University of Alabama are connected to big oil? http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf Good reason to actually read the article and not scan for a "dirty" item and latch onto it. Their study from NASA data says that something is going on that the models do not take into account. The earth is much colder than it should be if the models are correct. That is the news item. If the models are wrong, then what ... We all want the right models run. 
ID: 1133784 · |
|
Michael John Hind Send message Joined: 6 Feb 07 Posts: 1330 Credit: 3,632,028 RAC: 0
|
And your evidence is? No one disputes, nor do I, that global warming exists, but man-made global warming is pure fantasy. Man-made global warming is pure conjecture has become an outlet for scientists to practice their trade within that without this field of work most would be unemployed. To take on the study of global warming and follow the line that it is man-made guarantees these scientists a job (government backed). If the scientist chooses to follow the line that this global warming is a natural re-occurring phenomena he's then cast out on his own. I gave up listening to the man-made global warming scientist some time back along with their unsupported predictions on how, for instance, the UK will be effected by this warming sometime during the turn of this new century. We will have continental summers, still waiting, after the heatwave of 2006 they said that if we had another summer like this, within the next two years, where over a "freek" one week period the temperature was too again reach 100 degs F, and only occured on one day though, this was proof of man made global warming. Again I'm still waiting for this event five years down the line. Strange that "most" meteorologists do not follow the line that global warming is man-made - no quite the opposite in fact. Now we come to a most interesting fact that some three years ago I happened to be sent a copy of an e-mail sent to a friend of mine that was written to him by a professor emeritus who's field of work was in climatology. His words on man-made global warming were, "It's all a load of old phooey"...and I for one shall never forget reading that e-mail. whether, under this current global warming period, man is compounding upon it's effects still has to be proved/disproved. But by the time a generally acceptable consensus has been formed, and agreed upon by all sides, we will have stopped burning fossil fuels. By then man will look back upon these current years and remark, "Those were them olden days when they thought that the world was about to come to an end because they set fire to things to enable them to generate power". Well, here we are and the world did not come to an end because "they" eventually discovered a new form of power that was not derived from having to burn nor heat something. Worry about man-made global pollution by all means for I'm on your side regarding this. But don't worry about man-made global warming for it's just a fad it's the hip thing at the moment it's also a relatively new science much mis-understood by most scientist trying to dip their toes into it. A science where too many theories on it are being expounded yet with so little sound evidence to support them. I stick with the un-disputable facts of it all and so far those facts (1.) tell us that this global warming phase was predicted way back before that time (late 1960's) when I first read about it in a book on archaeology. Fact (2.) We still have got some way to go before we reach the global rise in temperatures experienced during that last global warming phase. Fact (3.) a lot of tectonic action going on at the moment with a lot of under-sea volcanic activity going on along with it. Fact (4.) global cooling will be far more devastating than global warming, especially for the northern hemisphere. Fact (5.) World governments will not be prepared for this cooling phase but I bet yur' bottom dollar someone will blame it on "man" especially if they can tax it. (Fact 6.) I don't use the TV as a source for my information and I would strongly advise you to follow suit. Fact (7.) time some of these scientist learnt to use their instruments correctly, regular calibration for a start would help too? ID: 1133813 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
Very Interesting Reading elsewhere, there are many climate models that each model in different ways. That is all part of the science of gaining a thorough understanding. The author reported in the media article is known for chasing a largely discredited hypothesis... Now... I bet if you look at the original report, you'll find that the Heartland interpretation and publicity stunt will be somewhat different and selective with their emphasis as compared to any article in any reputable scientific journal. Meanwhile, you get a very good media splash to make people feel good and to sell more oil. Afterwards, when a clearer truth may or not get reported, the Big Oil splash has done it's dirty media stunt. Note that honest university research is easily misrepresented. The reckless use of the word "alarmist" in gay abandon should raise high suspicions. That is language that simply is not used in reputable science. Can you really believe that we can pollute the atmosphere on an industrial scale, on a vast scale greater than nature has ever done, and all with no consequences? It's still our only one planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1134071 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
Very Interesting Oooeer... It gets even better. He's sneaked what looks to be a biased comparison into a non-mainstream journal. That just must have been rushed in without proper peer review! See: “Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback†The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. ... ... The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance†is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. ... ... To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple... OK, I call that simple deliberate fraud. Can you really believe that we can pollute the atmosphere on an industrial scale, on a vast scale grater than nature has ever done, and all with no consequences? It's still our only one planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1134077 · |
|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 31625 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
|
Real hoot there. The self labeled opinion piece you quote comes from guys who gets their paycheck partially from the University of Alabama where the other guys work. Sounds like we are seeing dirty laundry. The only thing they can say is it is too simple. Well, a knife edge test was to simple for the Hubbell mirror and we all know what the result was. It, Hubbell mirror, passed all the other tests but none of them checked for the thing the simple knife edge test did and the whole thing was crap. Garbage in, Garbage out. That is a very painful thing to have someone say about your life's work so the diatribe from the two guys doesn't surprise me. I mean really, going so petty as suggesting the editors goofed and didn't peer review the article? That is something I'd expect to hear from Faux news.
ID: 1134166 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
Real hoot there. The self labeled opinion piece you quote comes from guys who gets their paycheck partially from the University of Alabama where the other guys work. Sounds like we are seeing dirty laundry. The only thing they can say is it is too simple. ... You are very right in that all this is a "real hoot". Your response is also a good example of the silliness surrounding a single shallow news splash about just one obscure article out of the very many (much more reputable) articles published on the subject. Note that the "too simple" is a very kindly way to describe how the 'model' used completely ignores all known and measured reality. As in, the model contrived for that article is already known not to work. Meanwhile, other models that are used are known to give reliable results. Is that all a very clever ploy to try to discredit both the use of climate models and to discredit the science showing global warming? I consider the article to be fraudulent. It certainly isn't the science advocated by any reputable university. It looks like a sham article written in a semi-obfuscated way to deliberately mislead. I think those terms describe fraud. For those too lazy to click the link to read: "... Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple... The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round ... ... Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results. The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance†(leaving out the “Onâ€)." I like the 'clever trick' in the discussed sham paper of trying to claim a reversal of cause and effect! So really, you get clouds creating the temperature and pressure that allows them to exist?! It's like trying to claim that the steam from your boiling kettle causes the water to boil!! That is all a kindly way to describe 'cooking the books' by the deniers. Note that there appears to be a strong connection with oil money and attempts to open up more oil exploration/exploitation in the pristine Arctic. Is this the first shots of political lobbying, dirty tricks, and propaganda? It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1134755 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
A briefer summary of my previous rather long post: Real hoot there. ... The only thing they can say is it is too simple. ... It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1134976 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
... That is all a kindly way to describe 'cooking the books' by the deniers. Note that there appears to be a strong connection with oil money and attempts to open up more oil exploration/exploitation in the pristine Arctic. Is this the first shots of political lobbying, dirty tricks, and propaganda? More on the latest round of nastiness against the scientists unfavoured by the fossil fuels industries: Suspended Arctic scientist to be questioned over research contracts ... A government investigation of a leading Arctic scientist has moved on from his five-year-old paper on drowning polar bears to a current study on how the animals are coping with changing ice conditions. Charles Monnett, ... was suspended on 18 July from his job as a government wildlife biologist... US authorities have denied that Charles Monnett's suspension is linked to his work on polar bears. ... "Every aspect of this study was approved by his chain of command, with a fairly transparent paper trail," Ruch said in a statement. Ruch noted that the justice department had turned down the investigators' request to file criminal charges against Monnett. The government ordered scientists to halt work on the study on 13 July. According to documents obtained by the Guardian, the study, conducted by scientists from the University of Alberta, was using satellite collars to track polar bears and their response to changing ice conditions. About 20 bears are still wearing the collars. ... ... "You have to wonder: this is the guy in charge of all the science in the Arctic and he is being suspended just now as an arm of the interior department is getting ready to make its decision on offshore drilling in the Arctic seas," Ruch said. Two interviews conducted by the investigators, with Monnett and a colleague, Jeff Gleason, focused heavily on that 2006 research paper, which exposed the threat of drowning to polar bears. Monnett's observations, which were published in 2006, marked the first time scientists had drawn a connection between melting sea ice produced by climate change and the increased risk of drowning to polar bears. Other studies have confirmed Monnett's findings. A study last month from the World Wildlife Fund found that polar bear cubs forced to make long-distance swims with their mothers had a much poorer rate of survival than bears that didn't have to swim as far. ... ... The controversy over Monnett has been an embarrassment for the agency, which was renamed after last year's BP oil spill disaster exposed the overly close relationship between government regulators and the industry they were meant to be regulating. In particular, the agency's Alaska office was criticised for failing to offer rigorous environmental assessments of the potential impact of offshore drilling in a report by the Government Accountability Office last year. To me, that all looks to be very suspicious and corrupt... And it certainly ain't the scientists with the money... It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1135888 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
... The controversy over Monnett has been an embarrassment for the agency, which was renamed after last year's BP oil spill disaster exposed the overly close relationship between government regulators and the industry they were meant to be regulating. And we want this sort of story for Alaska? Nigeria Ogoniland oil clean-up 'could take 30 years' ... Nigeria is one of the world's major oil producers. '900 times recommended levels' The assessment of Ogoniland, which lies in the Niger delta, said 50 years of oil operations in the region had "penetrated further and deeper than many had supposed". ... ... The report says that restoring the region could cost $1bn (£613bn) and take 25-30 years to complete. "The environmental restoration of Ogoniland could prove to be the world's most wide-ranging and long term oil clean-up exercise ever undertaken if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and important ecosystems such as mangroves are to be brought back to full, productive health," Unep said. ... ... "This report proves Shell has had a terrible impact in Nigeria, but has got away with denying it for decades, falsely claiming they work to best international standards," said Audrey Gaughran, Amnesty's global issues director, said. ... ... Ogoni communities have long complained about the damage to their communities, but they say they have mostly been ignored. The issue was highlighted by the writer Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was executed in 1995 by Nigeria's military government, sparking international condemnation. The campaign forced Shell to stop pumping oil out of Ogoniland but it continues to operate pipelines in the region and spillages have continued. It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1135956 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
I like the 'clever trick' in the discussed sham paper of trying to claim a reversal of cause and effect! So really, you get clouds creating the temperature and pressure that allows them to exist?! It's like trying to claim that the steam from your boiling kettle causes the water to boil!! And now there's another real hoot. Except this all rather worrying for the almost deliberate misreporting. So there's an innocuous scientific paper published about ancient ice extents, similar to previous work done reported in 1997, and carrying a very deliberate disclaimer to head off the climate deniers: "Global warming will probably cause the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during this century..." And yet, that is not reported! What is reported is the message that 'there is nothing to worry about': Arctic 'tipping point' may not be reached Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced. The "Watts Up!" man has his hysterical take on things as usual: New study suggests Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached This is interesting. While there’s much noise from alarmists that we are on an “Arctic death spiral†the team for this paper’s press release today found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago. The paper references changes to wind systems which can slow down the rate of melting ... They also suggest that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely... There's also now an interesting twist to at least one pro-oil site: Catastrophic Climate Change Theory takes another blow Danish researchers, publishing in the journal Science, conclude that a “tipping point†for Arctic ice melt is unlikely. ... They add the note: As always, a repeat of our own stand on climate change: We have no doubt that climate change is occurring, and that there is a important anthropogenic component to it – our own research into the shrinking summer Arctic ice cap confirms this. However, we also believe that the claims of impending doom and catastrophe are unsupported by data and analysis. Finally, EGP holds that climate change is a problem of technological origin and that the solution will also be technological – not socio-political. Finally, we are technological positivists and believe that a solution to that component of climate change that is human caused can be mitigated by human technology. WOW! So the message there is to pollute now with gay (profitable) abandon to generate an expensive mess for others to clean up sometime later! Note also their use of the "mitigated" term there to avoid being sued... They also follow up with the article: New process for developing Canadian tar sands MIT’s Technology Review reports on a new process for extracting deep tar sand oil by using a solvent rather than through the typical two step heating process. The latter uses additional energy to release the oil, raising the price, and also releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The solvent based process would make the tar sands both cheaper and cleaner to process, and would also make millions of barrels of currently uneconomic oil suddenly viable. ... So... The Climate Deniers message seems to have shifted to the message "It's warming but don't worry"... Reminds me of an old song about "Don't worry, be happy"... Note how the emphasis on all of the above is to deflect away from the full truth and consequences, despite the best efforts of the scientists in their report to try to avoid getting mis-represented. They've been quoted out-of-context regardless. The source report is: Science: A 10,000-Year Record of Arctic Ocean Sea-Ice Variability—View from the Beach We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. ... A summary is given on: Large variations in Arctic sea ice For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. ... ... "Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. ..." To put the tipping-point scenario into context, you're back to the old confusion between what is weather and what is climate. The no-ice tipping point for an area is very real: ice reflects most of the sun's heat and stays cold whereas the dark ocean (when ice melts) absorbs most of the suns heat to then more quickly melt more ice. That is true for the local area. If expanded over large enough extents of the Arctic, then that will change our weather, as for example is noted in the change in the prevailing winds noted in the paper. As for changing the climate, the no-sea-ice acts more as a non-linear feedback mechanism for influencing the climate: Realclimate: Comment 64 The quote ... seems vague. Is there anything at all in the paper or elsewhere to support it? [Response: Actually, I think the 'runaway affect with dire consequences' is a strawman. There have been lots of papers showing that there isn't any such thing - and indeed, you wouldn't expect it based on the ~5 yr timescales in the sea ice pack - there isn't enough memory in the ice to kick you into a new state. There is lots of interesting non-linearity, and nothing related to this means that sea ice is going to recover any time soon (it certainly won't). The status of the summer sea ice in the Early Holocene is very interesting though, since there are indications that it was less than today (raised beaches in N. Greenland that are still frozen solid). But that occurred with substantially more insolation than we have today too. So... There was more solar energy reaching the ground which melted the ice. Since then, it's been cooler and so we've gained the ice back. I can just hear the climate deniers gleefully getting ready to pounce to say that they've got me on that one!... Sorry, deniers, read on... Meanwhile: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster, Lowest Dips Recorded in July ... The image by satellite shows that Arctic ice cover has reached at its lowest level in the last 32 years, from July 1979 to 2011. ... ... Scientists said that except East Greenland Sea, the ice coverage remained below normal everywhere. Throughout July, Arctic sea ice declined at an average speed of 90,200 square km/day. Due to the weather change in the last two weeks of July, the ice loss has slowed "substantially," the NSIDC said. ... And a more balanced summary is given on: Arctic Ocean: Ice melt ... So, it’s looking pretty grim. The ice is retreating, perhaps more rapidly than previously thought. Sections of the Arctic have had some low-ice times before, but these driftwood data don’t mean that climate change isn’t happening or that we can ignore it. ... So... The message from all that lot?... There is some very sensationalist mis-reporting of even the most carefully written scientific reports, to even completely ignore what is written in the report! I suspect that "Climate Denial" is seen to be to be newsworthy to stir heated "debate" and so boost publication ratings, and the full truth be damned. There's continued (deliberate?) confusion pushed about cause and effect and climate and weather. In complete disregard to reality and consequences, a new message is now being offered that all the melting ice is of no worry! And a new twist from the (oil funded?) deniers appears to be their message that we can recklessly pollute on an every more vast industrial scale and the consequences be damned because someone else will clean up the mess... Is that any way to run a planet? It's our only planet, Martin ps: And just to head off the Deniers about the comment about solar insolation being greater for a period in the past... Indeed, solar insolation has varied to a small degree in the past. However, that was all in the past before humans. That ain't now. See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1137598 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
... So... The message from all that lot?... The mis-reporting seems to be endemic to those promoting anything 'petrol' or fossil fuelled... Now, electric cars have certainly got their limitations but also they can work very well and be ideal when used well. So, why all this silliness? Top Gear's electric car shows pour petrol over the BBC's standards Why is Top Gear apparently exempt from the BBC's editorial guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts? • Tesla sues Top Gear over 'faked' electric car race • The Nissan Leaf electric car – review ... Take, for example, Top Gear's line on electric cars. Casting aside any pretence of impartiality or rigour, it has set out to show that electric cars are useless. If the facts don't fit, it bends them until they do. It's currently being sued by electric car maker Tesla after claiming, among other allegations, that the Roadster's true range is only 55 miles per charge (rather than 211), and that it unexpectedly ran out of charge. Tesla says "the breakdowns were staged and the statements are untrue". ... ... Now it's been caught red-handed faking another trial, in this case of the Nissan LEAF. Last Sunday, an episode of Top Gear showed Jeremy Clarkson and James May setting off for Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, 60 miles away. The car unexpectedly ran out of charge when they got to Lincoln, and had to be pushed. They concluded that "electric cars are not the future". But it wasn't unexpected: ... the programme-makers ran the battery down before Clarkson and May set off, until only 40% of the charge was left. ... "at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip." It gets worse. As Webster points out, in order to stage a breakdown in Lincoln, "it appeared that the Leaf was driven in loops for more than 10 miles in Lincoln until the battery was flat." ... ... Yes, this is an entertainment programme, yes it's larking about, and sometimes it's very funny. But none of this exempts it from the BBC's guidelines and the duty not to fake the facts. The issue is made all the more potent by the fact that Top Gear has a political agenda. It's a mouthpiece for an extreme form of libertarianism and individualism. It derides attempts to protect the environment, and promotes the kind of driving that threatens ... ... So how does it get away with it? It's simple. It makes the BBC a fortune. ... So... Is "larking about" for a bit of TV sensationalism any excuse for lies and deceit and promoting trashing the planet? How many take the sensationalism 'for real' to be lost in the concocted media stereotype?... Is that any way to run a planet? It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1137824 · |
|
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21976 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20
|
... So... The message from all that lot?... And there is yet more 'mis-reporting' for what was originally glossed over as supposedly a non-event... How big does an oil spill and slick have to be for the Oil PR-machine to admit that perhaps 'small' is not an appropriate description? See the latest for a UK oil spill over on the BP oil spill thread... Is that any way to run a planet? It's our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) ID: 1142265 · |
©2026 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.