This makes me wanna vomit (So help me God, it turned into a climate debate)

#79
#79
I'll veer back off topic since I'm the one who mentioned Pope Climatus Hystericus (Algore) in the first place.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.
Click to expand...

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

The Little Ice Age has been a problem for global warmers because it serves as a reminder of how the earth warms and cools naturally over time. It had to be ignored in the calculations that produced the infamous and since-discredited hockey stick graph that showed a sharp rise in warming alleged to be caused by man.
Click to expand...

and Global Warming? New Year Ushers in New Snowfall Records | NewsBusters.org

record snowfall totals in Green Bay and Madison WI, Fargo and Grand Forks ND, and even Spokane WA

mankind's activities have nothing to do with this. I'm just like every other AGW denier in that I want a clean environment and I believe that industry can institute market-based measures to reduce their pollution without significant impacts to their productivity.
 
#80
#80
This is how I read this...the sun's solar activity did not pick back up as was expected ("Normally sunspots return very quickly"). Also, global climate models did not predict cooling for this year - which I would most likely say is because the models included the expected return of sunspots and higher solar activity, which didn't happen. The sun's output has slowed, we have had cooling - for a number of years now. All of those things make sense.

What I fail to see is how this somehow suggests that man does not have a warming impact. I would personally like to see the climate models re-run with the new solar activity data to see how far off they are...if they still predict warming, then they would have a lot of explaining to do I would think.

Maybe I have missed your point. Any AGW or anti-AGW person would agree that the sun is the primary driver of climate...I don't think that would be debated. The difference is that AGW folks would argue that the temperature forcing from these changes in solar output is increased by the activity of man...so that we would be warmer than we would otherwise be - but we would still see periods of cooling and warming....
 
Last edited:
#81
#81
I have yet to see a member of Al Gore's church admit that there are factors outside earth's atmosphere at work. They are, or seem to be, focused solely on what they see as man's role.
 
#82
#82
MG1968 said:
I have yet to see a member of Al Gore's church admit that there are factors outside earth's atmosphere at work. They are, or seem to be, focused solely on what they see as man's role.
Click to expand...

Do you think that all those who think that AGW exists or research it are members of Gore's church? If so, then I can assure you that those people exist. If, on the other hand, you are asserting that Gore's church are the mindless, hemp-smelling-masses who don't know anything at all about AGW except what they've been told to believe - then I would say that you are probably correct. However, I would argue that there are similar people in the "church" of anti-AGW...they just don't usually smell like hemp.
 
#83
#83
TennTradition said:
The sun's output has slowed, we have had cooling - for a number of years now. All of those things make sense.
Click to expand...

I thought someone posted on one of these forums recently that nearby planets in our solar system have been experiencing rising temperatures. That would lead me to believe the solar output hasn't slowed.
 
#84
#84
kptvol said:
I thought someone posted on one of these forums recently that nearby planets in our solar system have been experiencing rising temperatures. That would lead me to believe the solar output hasn't slowed.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know what recent trends have been on other planets. I do know that other planets showed warming at one time...but I think that was when we were warming as well - because it was used as an example that the warming we were seeing wasn't necessarily man-made (though it is not, alone, evidence of such).

I think that solar output and the sunspot activity are pretty closely tied....so if sunspot activity is slowing, it likely means that the solar output is slowing. I think that we measure this with satellites...maybe we can find the data...
 
#85
#85
Here is some data....from this, it looks like we are at a solar minimum. I was surprised to learn several years ago that it is believed that these 11-or-so year cycles do not have a huge impact on surface temperature...perhaps on the order of a tenth of a degree C or so. When I was first told this by a climatologist, I assumed he misunderstood my question - but since then I've seen it elsewhere. So, I don't know how much the climate models were off this year, but if it was by a lot, then the lack of solar activity picking up would not be the reason they were wrong. But, the article that was cited didn't give a lot of detail in how they "were wrong" (just how much and how wrong the trend was) .... I'll have to dig around and see what I can find and what that was based on.

Anyway...here is the solar output chart...

org_comp2_d41_61_0810.png


Also, it is not fully understood yet how the earth responds to these solar changes - but it is generally believed that it is not immediate and can take as long as 2 years for the temperature record to respond to these small solar fluctuations.
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
Here is the temperature record as measured/calculated via different methods...

2008_from1999.jpg


Note that the reference year is 1999. 2000 was colder than 2008...but 2008 was the second-coldest year in this decade. If this chart were to have started in 1998, it would look like we have cooled a lot (because it was a very hot year). But, if we went back to 96 or 97, it would be a pretty consistent trend with a big anomaly in 1998. That is why a 5-year average chart would be better...but I didn't find that.

The climate models predict that we will generally see about 0.2 degrees C temperature rise per decade ... we have generally been following that trend, though this year we dipped down...if that doesn't climb over the next few years, then we will not follow that trend.

Here is an average of the climate models predicted temperature rise.

runs.jpg


You can see here the predicted 0.2 degree C per decade increase, on average, in the dark solid line. Note that this does not show a decrease in 2008...which may be what the previous article was referring to. Single year anomalies will happen...such as 1998, which wasn't predicted (but this one was hotter than the model predictions where as 2008 is cooler than the model predictions). The thing to watch is whether the temperature record "catches back up" to the 0.2 degrees C per decade trend that the models predict or not. If it doesn't, then the scientists behind the models will have to answer to that....and figure out what is wrong. If it does catch up, then they know there models are catching most important physical parameters ... though they are not good enough to predict year-by-year anomalies (and likely never will be).
 
#87
#87
TreeGreen said:
Glaciers are supposed to melt, but they are not supposed to disappear. They should be in a state of equilibrium where snow fall keeps them at a constant rate. If the earth warms, then snowfall decreases and they melt considerably faster than they should. That may be the point to elaborate on is the speed with which they have been melting since about 1850.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how you decided that glaciers should be in a state of equilibrium or constant state (not shrinking or growing).

Perhaps it would be nice if they were but I'm not aware of any natural law saying the "should be".

Reminds me of people that believe some species should not become extinct.
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
I'm wondering how you decided that glaciers should be in a state of equilibrium or constant state (not shrinking or growing).

Perhaps it would be nice if they were but I'm not aware of any natural law saying the "should be".

Reminds me of people that believe some species should not become extinct.
Click to expand...

I raised the same point...it didn't make sense to me. Glaciers are dynamic creatures....I thought maybe I just misunderstood the point...
 
#89
#89
volinbham said:
I'm wondering how you decided that glaciers should be in a state of equilibrium or constant state (not shrinking or growing).

Perhaps it would be nice if they were but I'm not aware of any natural law saying the "should be".

Reminds me of people that believe some species should not become extinct.
Click to expand...

The point being that they shouldn't be disappearing so quickly. When a glacier is in melt it is considered to be under disequilibrium, meaning it cannot grow nor can maintain itself. Glaciers are split into two zones: the accumulation area where the snow retains and a melt zone. Accumulation should be balancing the ablation of melting snow, or at the very least increasing it to some extent, which is considered a healthy glacier. So when climatoligists and glacialogists look at the health of a glacier they are measuring the equilibrium line or the elevation on a glacier where annual accumulation is equal to ablation. So when I'm saying a glacier should be at an equilibrium I am referring to the fact that they are, for the most part, currently melting faster than they can accumulate. This means most are in a period of disequilibrium, which means they are likely to melt away over time. Healthy glaciers should be at equilibrium.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
TrueGreen, while this might be a sign of a problem - this could also be a completely natural phenomenon, right? How does one distinguish? What do glaciologists expect to be happening right now (in the absence of man-induced warming)? I'm not disagreeing with you - but it would seem that throughout history, glaciers have advanced and retreated...I would think they are always in some state of flux - but perhaps that is a wrong viewpoint. Regardless, glacial retreat is not alone evidence of AGW....so, my question is what must we compare to - what hard data can we use (with respect to glaciers) to make a fair assessment?
 
Last edited:
#92
#92
TennTradition said:
TrueGreen, while this might be a sign of a problem - this could also be a completely natural phenomenon, right? How does one distinguish? What do glaciologists expect to be happening right now (in the absence of man-induced warming)? I'm not disagreeing with you - but it would seem that throughout history, glaciers have advanced and retreated...I would think they are always in some state of flux - but perhaps that is a wrong viewpoint. Regardless, glacial retreat is not alone evidence of AGW....so, my question is what must we compare to - what hard data can we use (with respect to glaciers) to make a fair assessment?
Click to expand...

Glaciers melting away are certainly a natural phenomena. That being said, when the majority of glaciers have entered a state of disequilibrium it presents a problem. It is a symptom of warming, which is only one piece of a larger puzzle in understanding and identifying problems. With regards to data, glaciers are the representation of a warming issue because you can clearly see their mass retreat over a short-period of time. They are not, alone, a support of what is causing warming, only a result. My reference to them was to point out that regardless of how you think warming is occurring, that glacier melting is going to be a big issue to the population if they cannot retreat to a point of equilibrium because the fresh water source is lost or they are adding to the sea level. It isn't the fact that glaciers are melting, it's the fact that the majority of them are entering into states of disequilibrium, and many are viewed as in danger of melting away completely. So, when taken in context of already shrinking water supplies, or their addition to the sea level (which could be very significant if mountain glacier fishers cause huge chunks to fall into the ocean) it is a problem.
 
#93
#93
No arguments there.....then that means we are left with two options...either 1) we are causing it and can perhaps stop it or 2) we are not the cause so we better start building desalination plants or hope for a decent cool-off.....
 
#94
#94
TennTradition said:
No arguments there.....then that means we are left with two options...either 1) we are causing it and can perhaps stop it or 2) we are not the cause so we better start building desalination plants or hope for a decent cool-off.....
Click to expand...

At this point I think option 2 is going to be necessary regardless because we are draining our aquifers faster than they can replenish. It's just one of those really expensive technologies that at some point we'll probably have to bite the bullet on.
 
#99
#99
kev20 said:
yes, please!
Click to expand...

I don't know how you feel about your current location, but Fort Collins' economy will crumble without us liberals and our taste for your beer. Hippies keep those breweries open. :)

Except for Anheuser, although I can't figure out what the hell they are doing in the craft beer capital of the west.
 
Last edited:
#100
#100
emainvol said:
I don't know how you feel about your current location, but Fort Collins' economy will crumble without us liberals and our taste for your beer. Hippies keep those breweries open. :)
Click to expand...

true enough. I like it here very much. Thanks hippies and liberal f@#*s.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top