PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years'
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16181
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean you don't want to be attacked with derogatory expletives?
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JavaScriptDonkey



Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 1690
Location: SE England

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
JSD, your first pretty graph shows a 16 degree anomaly for the PETM.

Doh.


Any reason that it shouldn't?


Yes.


Puzzled.

Is it not Hansen's data?

I don't see any good news in this paper and it certainly isn't denying climate change.
It makes a solid prediction that global temperature will not increase within the next 100years without a change in cloud cover. As we'll be out of oil by then we won't have long to wait to see if it's a crock or not.


Last edited by JavaScriptDonkey on Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 6622
Location: Bristol

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period. There are other periods in the last century when CO2 and temperature have not been in phase together. No matter how annoying this may be to some, it raises doubt about the connection between the two variables.


I haven't been following this thread, but I did just spot this paragraph and felt the need to comment. That CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures don't follow each other perfectly does not "raise doubt about the connection between the two variables". To even suggest that is the simplify the situation to the absurd.

There are dozens interlinked and overlapping, related and unrelated to one another, long term and short term processes that together influence surface temperature - then there's also many depths of the ocean and heights of the atmosphere where energy can increase or decrease.

The concentration of CO2 is one factor of many, the influence of which can be totally over by others over various timescales (daily, seasonally, multi-yearly). And surface temperature only one metric.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12065
Location: York

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:
Despite your assertion otherwise, it is an accepted fact that climate has not continued to warm over the last 13 years, whilst CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise over that period.

Yes, because there are other factors influencing temperature, like solar cycles, amount of soot in the atmosphere (e.g. from China), El Nino and North Atlantic Oscillations, etc.

And in fact, the last 10 years have contained a disproprtionate number of the 10 hottest years ever, including (iirc) last year.

I personally think that even if we never manage to "prove AGW beyond reasonable doubt" (it's pretty-well there, but...) there are other problems with enhanced levels of CO_2 in the atmosphere, chief of which is its acidifying effect on the sea. And this can't be offset by geoengineering projects like increasing the earth's albedo.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l’impossible.
Space and Spaceability
The Year-Long Lunch Break
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16181
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
And surface temperature only one metric.


A pretty poor metric at that when one considers a comparison of the thermal capacity of the atmosphere with that of the deep oceans.

Of course the planet has been warming continuously for the last 13 years (and more). We've wrapped it up in a dirty great blanket and left the heating on.

It's no good pretending, just because you've stuck your thermometer in the wrong place.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3841
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clv101 wrote:
That CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures don't follow each other perfectly does not "raise doubt about the connection between the two variables". To even suggest that is the simplify the situation to the absurd.


Well according to the IPCC AR4, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

So if you will not accept the fact that global temperatures have not risen over the last 13 years, despite ever increasing CO2 rises, does not cause doubt on GHG causality, then would you accept that if global temperatures don't rise over the coming 13 years, that it may cause some doubt?

clv101 wrote:

There are dozens interlinked and overlapping, related and unrelated to one another, long term and short term processes that together influence surface temperature - then there's also many depths of the ocean and heights of the atmosphere where energy can increase or decrease.


Exactly!

clv101 wrote:

The concentration of CO2 is one factor of many, the influence of which can be totally over by others over various timescales (daily, seasonally, multi-yearly). And surface temperature only one metric.


Agreed. Which makes one question why the IPCC are said to be 95% certain that the majority of the global warming that has ocurred over the last 25 years is down to mankind. Smile
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fifthcolumn



Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 2470

PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
If this happens then it may be what stops humans from creating a Venus-style runaway warming on the Earth. Not that this will save industrialised, globalised civilisation.


No. The fact that even at 12800 ppm we get only 5C of warming due to greenhouse gases means that we will never get a Venus style runaway warming on the Earth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3841
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sun continues to go quiet, baffling solar scientists....... maybe at a rate faster than anytime in the last 10,000 years.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 5001
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too many PV modules !
Sunlight being depleted.
_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7794
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
Too many PV modules !
Sunlight being depleted.
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16181
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh Lord, the denialist have crept out again. Bonkers.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7794
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FFS Biff. Just because a person believes the sun is getting cooler for a few years doesn't mean that they don't believe in CC/GW.

Some solar scientists are saying that the drop in sunspot numbers hasn't been seen since the time of the Maunder Minimum, although Landschiedt predicted that this minimum wouldn't be as bad or as long as that, but they are also saying that CC/GW is going on underneath so the temperature drops may not be as great.

You have to go with the science on this unless you want to be seen as one of those anti science "Cooling Deniers" who have about as much credibility as an AGW denier. It is also not certain whether or not the Maunder Minimum only affected the northern hemisphere while global temperatures were, in the main, unaffected. It is developing science and comments such as "Oh Lord, the denialist have crept out again. Bonkers." do not add much to the scientific debate.
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16181
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing

I wasn't adding to the scientific debate, just making an observation.

If I had wanted to add to the scientific debate I might have said something about the relative strength of signal of solar variance, but I didn't bother, as I doubt there would have been much point.
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
snow hope



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 3841
Location: Belfast, N Ireland

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what were you trying to say Biff? Who were the denialists you were referring to?
_________________
The economic expansion was driven by financial capital as banks lent more than they had on deposit, confident that Tomorrow’s Economic Growth was collateral for To-day’s Debt. Dr. Colin Campbell.
And that was the fatal mistake. Me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 16181
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

snow hope wrote:


So if you will not accept the fact that global temperatures have not risen over the last 13 years, despite ever increasing CO2 rises, does not cause doubt on GHG causality, then would you accept that if global temperatures don't rise over the coming 13 years, that it may cause some doubt?


A lot of negatives in there but the important point is that global temperatures, i.e. the total heat of the planet, has continued to increase. If you're talking about average surface temperature measurements, well that's like diagnosing influenza by holding a thermometer between your toes. 93% of the excess heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses is in the ocean, much of it too deep to be measured.
But hey, what am I doing wasting my time on this?
_________________
http://www.transitiontownlouth.org.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group