The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends

  • besty
    besty

    hey DanTheMan

    I think half the battle here is to make it simple for people to understand the issues. Which is why the IPCC were able to get 113 governments to agree to the following statements:

    Some of the key findings of the IPCC AR4 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers were as follows:
    • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
    • Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (at least 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
    • The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
    • Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

    It is more in the interests of deniers and delayers to over-complicate what should be a simple problem to grasp.

  • Gill
    Gill

    But are you sure that warming of the climate system is unequivocal?

    How did a 0.72 degree drop happen last year and why does it seem that it will be even colder this coming winter?

    Should global temperature fall again for 2008 and then again for 2009, and then again perhaps for 2010 etc when will it become 'unequivocal' that global temperature has not occurred inevitably and irreversably?

    At what point will you say, perhaps something else is happening, after all, we haven't stopped producing CO2, so what is making the world temperature fall?

    What is interesting is that there is not LESS ice as we have been told, but MORE and also it was reported by scientists in the Independent Newspaper, ( I can't find it but will continue to search) that the melting of the ice in the Arctic is due to underground volcanic activity.

    At what point will you turn round and say 'Has someone been yanking my chain? Is someone trying to make a monkey out of me? To what purpose has that been happening?'

    And when you do, will you be a little 'cross' that you have been being robbed and lied to or will you just shrug and say, 'It was all for the greater good!' ?

    When you realise that biofuel is starving your fellow humans, but you don't care because it's not affecting you, what will your feelings be then?

    Bearing in mind that dropping an ice cube into a already full glass of waster will make the water OVERFLOW, will you realise then that water EXPANDS when it is frozen?

    Could other scenarios be the answer to the climate change we face such as greater extremes in temperature ie even hotter where it's hot and even colder where it's cold, or less sun spot activity as mentioned to start with?

    Or like someone who likes to be punished, do you prefer to be taxed heavily, just to make you 'feel better' about something that is probably out of your control anyway.

    There is no doubt that humans are responsible for much pollution, but can we change the planet on our own.....I doubt it very much....but some people would like you to think YOU are to blame and so YOU must pay.

    The next few years will prove, one way or another if global warming was a big con and lie. I think we will see that climatic change is normal for this planet. That in the grand scheme of things, 'we are but dust' and perhaps this will bring us down to size.

    This Earth is not human centric even if we want to believe it is.

  • besty
    besty
    But are you sure that warming of the climate system is unequivocal?

    Whether I'm sure or not is not relevant - the United Nations, WMO, IPCC, NASA, NAS, The Royal Society, at least 113 governments, 40 contributing authors to the IPCC report referenced earlier and 620 reviewers to same are sure. In direct answer - yes I'm as sure as a layperson can reasonably be expected to be.

    How did a 0.72 degree drop happen last year

    I have already said I would be happy to look at evidence for any of the statements you make Gill. I'm calling you for evidence here please. Notwithstanding, I have tried to find evidence for you and <no surprise> it seems that NASA disagree with you.

    alt

    The top right black dot represents 2007 and shows a small rise in temperature from 2006. The red line shows a smoothed 5 year average. Come on - even FreeWilly conceds 'unequivocal' is the right word to use for global warming :-) Incidentally a .72 degree rise or drop from one year to the next would be the biggest fluctuation in recorded history - note the scale to the left.

    why does it seem that it will be even colder this coming winter?

    Sorry can't help with localised speculation - like I said before it may just be North Yorkshire :-) NASA are somewhat more forthcoming here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

    At what point will you say, perhaps something else is happening, after all, we haven't stopped producing CO2, so what is making the world temperature fall?

    Simple - when the scientific consensus is 'unequivocal'. Note that you haven't demonstrated any evidence for this cooling as yet on this thread.

    What is interesting is that there is not LESS ice as we have been told, but MORE and also it was reported by scientists in the Independent Newspaper, ( I can't find it but will continue to search) that the melting of the ice in the Arctic is due to underground volcanic activity.

    Sorry Gill - this is why I need links from you - is it MORE ice or are volcanoes melting it making it LESS ice? Incidentally I haven't come across any climate scientists attributing 100% of climate change to manmade causes. Things like volcanic activity melting polar ice would unfortunately amplify other causes of climate change.

    At what point will you turn round and say 'Has someone been yanking my chain? Is someone trying to make a monkey out of me? To what purpose has that been happening? And when you do, will you be a little 'cross' that you have been being robbed and lied to or will you just shrug and say, 'It was all for the greater good!' ?

    Never - I'm happy to look in the mirror any time I need to see who's to blame for my thought process and decisions. Personal responsibility. I may not agree with all tax allocation decisions eg obscene levels of military spending but the current system is what live with.

    When you realise that biofuel is starving your fellow humans, but you don't care because it's not affecting you, what will your feelings be then?

    I strongly agree with Oxfam and the World Bank that corn based ethanol heavily subsidised due to 'sum of all lobbyist' lawmaking is completely the wrong thing to do. The Brazilian ethanol industry provides 1 million jobs, reduces their import of oil and doesn't affect their food production. It is also energy efficient and is getting increasingly environmentally friendly. But America learn from Brazil - not likely.

    See my earlier post on this here: (in fact the 51c subsidy figure I noted is only one component - see here for more details that show a figure of $1.05 - $1.38 is more likely).......

    Cane based ethanol returns 8.2 times the energy required for its production. Corn based ethanol returns 1.5 times.

    The Brazilian ethanol industry is mature and is working on new types of cane that produce up to 80% more sucrose or another varietal that can survice 45 days without water. New cane processing techniques can actually return a surplus of water for further irrigation.

    The US import tariff on Brazilian ethanol is 45c/gallon and the subsidy for US corn ethanol is 51c/gallon.

    Down with the lobbyistas I say.

    Go Brazil.

    Bearing in mind that dropping an ice cube into a already full glass of waster will make the water OVERFLOW, will you realise then that water EXPANDS when it is frozen?

    You'll need to expand a little on the point you are trying to make please.

    Could other scenarios be the answer to the climate change we face such as greater extremes in temperature ie even hotter where it's hot and even colder where it's cold, or less sun spot activity as mentioned to start with?

    The NASA link referenced above also addresses solar variance and explains that even should the solar activity remain low in this cycle the rising amount of GHG's will offset any 'gains'. It also suggests that solar activity is on the rise again from January 2008 with a link to NOAA. NASA reference an Independent article - perhaps the one you were trying to find in your original post...

    Or like someone who likes to be punished, do you prefer to be taxed heavily, just to make you 'feel better' about something that is probably out of your control anyway.

    Erm - no. (I do look at other websites where 'punishment' is a theme, but lets not go there.)

    There is no doubt that humans are responsible for much pollution, but can we change the planet on our own.....I doubt it very much....but some people would like you to think YOU are to blame and so YOU must pay.

    Again I'd like to see evidence of a tax raising authority blaming individuals for climate change and taxing them accordingly. I don't doubt that in time the true total cost of abusing the planets resources will be levied, either in our lifetime or on subsequent generations. Children have been asking us for almost 20 years to stop breaking and destroying things we can't restore. When will we listen?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZsDliXzyAY

    The next few years will prove, one way or another if global warming was a big con and lie.

    Interesting that the timescale you refer to is years, not decades, centuries or millenia. Perhaps you have some repressed denial in there?:-)

    This Earth is not human centric even if we want to believe it is.

    I agree the earth should not be human-centric - but it is. That's the hand natural selection has dealt us. We should be more appreciative of our place in the order of things, but we wouldn't be the first species to cause our own demise. Unfortunately in the meantime we are wreaking havoc on biodiversity and now the supporting climate we all depend on.

    So, apart from the evidence you are going to provide for your claims, I will also ask for your considered response to my other questions:

    Of course this requires investment. Do you equate investment with cost? Do you equate costs with downside? Example - the most recent review on the potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems suggests that $1B would be required to develop a commerical model over the next 10 years. Is there a downside to doing this? Is the $1B a cost or an investment? What are the potential upsides of widely available sustainable clean energy from EGS? Is that worth $1B to verify?

    The global energy system is struggling to cope with the 1 billion people that designed it - America + the westernized nations.

    What future for the 2 billion people that are striving to achieve this living standard today? India + China. Malaysia etc

    What future for the other 3 billion in absolute poverty? How can we deliver reliable sustainable grid energy to the 1.6 billion people who have a blackout every night?

    What future for the 3 billion people as yet unborn who will be on this planet by 2050, mainly in countries who can least cope with them?

    Even if you are not yet believers in climate change, have a think about global energy poverty.

    So far the silence has been deafening.

  • FreeWilly
    FreeWilly

    OK, lets start at the top.

    The IPCC Charter

    The IPCC is not in itself a scientific body. It is primarily a inter-governmental body whose purpose is to affect political policy. Its stated purpose is:

    “The role of the IPCC is to assess ... information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. ... Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

    Its existence is predicated upon the assessment of “human induced climate change”. In other words its ongoing funding relies on the continued study of “r isk of human-induced climate change”. Would it surprise anyone here that a inter-government agency confirms an ongoing issue that requires their continued funding? I'm sorry, but call me skeptical whenever politics are involved.
    Internal and external doubts have been raise regarding the independence, objectivity and political adgenda of the IPCC review process.

    An examination of the review process revealed a “buddy network” of reviewers reviewing each others work to the same end.

    I mention these discrepancies not to completely discredit the massive efforts that the involved contributors have done. But the potential for a continued agenda and possible conflicts of interest exists with objectivity as a casualty.

    Besty: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (at least 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS?

    Absolutely, I disagree. This 90% probability relies on computer modeling? IPCC's modeling is spectacular disgrace with real word failure rate of 96%.

    Former and current IPCC contributors have spoken out against the inability of these computer models to accurately predict climate change:

    "The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, noted, "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." The following is the text of the letter and the list of signatories." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
    Are these all Exxon funded Holocaust AGW deniers too?

    IPCC models used to forecast warming have both failed to predict the past when presented with the data, as well as the present cooling trend we're experiencing since 2003.

    What is your basis for contending this modeling is reliable ?

    CO2

    Serious doubts remain about CO2 as a climate driver - it never has before.

    The Sun is that most energetic it has been in the last 1100 years and until recently has platued at “an unusually high activity”. A large body of research clearly shows the Sun as a primary climate driver, unlike CO2.

    Figure 3: (a) The northern hemisphere land temperatures are plotted with the solar cycle length (Friss-Christensen and Lassen; 1991).

    (b) The globally averaged sea surface temperatures are plotted with the sunspot numbers (Reid; 1999). Both sunspot number and solar cycle length are proxies for the amount of solar energy that Earth receives. The similarity of these curves is evidence that the sun has influenced the climate of the last 150 years.

    Earth is recently cooling not warming and the trend is predicted to continue. The Sun's intensity has recently begun to wane along with temperature trends which are expected to continue their retreat.

    At 380 ppm Earth's atmosphere is near its all time low.

    Earth has been warmer than it is now, sea level tens of feet higher than they are now, and glaciers totally melted all by natural drivers .

    Here's the rub. Indications are that our sun has entered a period of diminished activity. If CO2, for the first time in Earths history, is driving the climate despite the Sun, then this fact will be demonstrated for all. Developed countries have made efforts to meet emmissions rductions and are failing miserably. When the time comes to review these efforts (2012) harder choices will have to be considered and recent trends will no doubt factor. If global warming re-emerges as a dominant trend in spite of reduced solar activity then the voices of alarm will carry the weight they deserve. If however, trends continue to follow the Sun's lead then Global Warming will likely be the next chapter in this classic (which, BTW is an excellent read).

  • FreeWilly
    FreeWilly

    And now a quick stab at your questions:

    What future for the 2 billion people that are striving to achieve this living standard today? India + China. Malaysia etc, etc

    If history is a guide, the competition for finite resources will intensify, largely played out in market forces, social and military tension and likely war. Are you veiwing climate change as the largest problem facing Society? The issues you mention indicate resource and population struggles not climate suffering. Energy diversification is a treatment but not a cure for an overpopulated resource constrained world.

    Do you equate investment with cost?

    No. Cost is an expenditure. Investment is an expenditure sprinkled with hope...for a return in terms of money, understanding or some other measure of satisfaction.

    Do you equate costs with downside?

    Yes, economics and common sense always treats cost as a downside. Cost takes resources from other activities.

    Example - the most recent review on the potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems suggests that $1B would be required to develop a commerical model over the next 10 years. Is there a downside to doing this? Is the $1B a cost or an investment? What are the potential upsides of widely available sustainable clean energy from EGS? Is that worth $1B to verify?

    There is literally trillions of dollars looking for opportunities such as the one you mention. If investment dollars are not currently funding such ventures then you can be sure that very smart people have weighed the costs and determined that the benefit is not yet worth the risk. Although give it time, energy is one of many large problems facing humanity. As such it possesses boundless opportunities.

  • zagor
    zagor

    This is already well-developed discussion that I didn’t follow from the beginning so I hope I’m forgiven if I repeat some points already raised. That said I will first focus on some of very interesting questions raised by Gill.

    Should global temperature fall again for 2008 and then again for 2009, and then again perhaps for 2010 etc when will it become 'unequivocal' that global temperature has not occurred inevitably and irreversably?

    At what point will you say, perhaps something else is happening, after all, we haven't stopped producing CO2, so what is making the world temperature fall?

    Indeed you are correct; something else is also going on, but instead of going into excreting details perhaps it would be easier at this junction to point you to this documentary.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382&hl=en

    What is interesting is that there is not LESS ice as we have been told, but MORE and also it was reported by scientists in the Independent Newspaper, ( I can't find it but will continue to search) that the melting of the ice in the Arctic is due to underground volcanic activity.

    I would be extremely careful to quote any “scientist” no matter who they are if they haven’t posted their opinion in peer-reviewed journal. If their opinion cannot stand the scientific scrutiny then it is pointless to even give it a second glance, otherwise we might find ourselves quoting things such as National Enquirer. Science does not operate on cute ideas but on hard data. The question is then do hard data show shrinkage of ice all over the world and not only in one spot. So lets focus on glaciers. What do data show?

    I guess you might like to consult at least this to see the answer:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

    Speaking of Arctic underwater volcanic activities, indeed recently it has been reported in Nature magazine that at the depth of 4000 meters there were evidences of eruptions. But if you read that article again you will see it doesn't claim it is something that was only happening in recent times, it is just that we have only discovered it recently. And another very important conclusion was this volcanic activity was NOT contributing to melting of Arctic ice. It probably did contribute to release of CO2, however the extent of which seem very uncertain at this point.
    But, underwater eruptions are nothing unusual, they have been happening right around the planet Earth probably for millions of years. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2394

    Or you can watch a short video here to see one first hand.

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/12/underwater-volcano.html

  • Gill
    Gill

    http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

    Decrease in Arctic ice per decade of about 3 %.

    Increase in Antarctic ice per decade of about 0.8 % or 100 000 Km 2.

    Don't have too much time today, but anyone who is interested in the sunspot activity 'problem' might like to look at : www.spaceweather.com each day.

    There has been a recent meeting of space scientist looking at what this lack of sunspot activity means for us but I think that we could argue continually, but time itself will tell.

    Will look up more links as time allows.

    But, in a few years we get to look back and in hindsight will see whether we were conned or if our great and fearless leaders were themselves misled.

    There is the possibility that multiple causes are responsible or that in the end, these things do happen regularlay anyway.

    An interesting quick thought, is that Charles Hapgood, along with support from Albert Einstein, believed it possible that the altering of the weight of ice at both poles might well bring about a catastrophic pole shift for the planet with enormous tidal waves and earth quakes. Afterall, imagine a ball spinning with different sized weights at its poles, it is more than feesible that if this ball had an outer skin, this outer skin might slip,

    The poles are NOT evenly weighted. Global Warming mythology may well be the least of our worries.

  • Gill
    Gill
  • Gill
    Gill

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

    The Ice in the Arctic refuses to melt!

    In some areas there is more ice than in the summer of 1980.

  • besty
    besty

    Unfortunately for the deniers Mr Steve Goddard has retracted his claims ALREADY.

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/25/a-new-olympic-record-for-retraction-of-a-denier-talking-point/

    With at least 70 different websites or blogs carrying his story (but presumably not bothering to update with the retraction) the denier community have done their misinformation work yet again.

    A new Olympic record for retraction of a denier talking point

    The gold medal goes to Steven Goddard of The Register. On Friday August 15, he published a scathing article, “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There’s something rotten north of Denmark” attacking the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of Arctic Sea Ice Extent (below) that I and pretty much everyone else on the planet use.

    Based on some (mis)analysis too obscure for mortal men and women to follow, he concluded “The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct”:

    The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss….

    Unless you are a denier, you may not be surprised to learn the amateur denier was wrong and the country’s leading cryosphere scientists were right. But you might be surprised that Goddard issued an unequivocal retraction within days at the site of the original article:

    Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid…. It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated.”

    In the words of Rosanne Rosanna Danna, “Never Mind.”

    Kudos to Walt Meier of NSIDC for the rapidity with which NSIDC handled this. As he posted on Real Climate last Friday

    NSIDC has worked with Mr. Goddard to get to the bottom of the issue … and as has been mentioned in the comments above, he has posted a correction. I thank Mr. Goddard for his cooperation in this matter.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit