|
||
Yahoo! News:
Leaders of the world's biggest and dirtiest economies have agreed for the first time to limit the warming of the earth to a relatively safe 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) an important target in fighting climate change.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Are the folks at Rice bought and paid for by Exxon?
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=12794&SnID=2075327496
No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.
The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.
"We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account."
The actual scientific letter:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo578.html
You can't fool Nooooorm with simple facts! He knows warming is a conspiracy because Glenn Beck told him so!
Nooorm, when they say "the best ancient climate analogue for present day Earth," they mean an earlier era when the Co2 was the direct driver of the rising temperatures and did not slightly lag following a change in the Milankovic cycle.
The difference today is that they know how the carbon is being released. It is our burning of fossil fuels. You may know, we weren't around back then, a few hundred million years ago!
Try to keep up!
"The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year. In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year."
http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/sea_level.html
"Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year. Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s, provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 millimeters per year. "
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
From RP's own link:
The Third Assessment Report (TAR) from the IPCC does not consider this a significant acceleration, stating, "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
The IPCC TAR predicts that total global-average sea level rise from 1990 - 2100 will be 110 to 770 millimeters (.77m).
Hurry! Run for you lives! Sea levels are PREDICTED to maybe, perhaps, hopefully, rise a massive 2' if the very high-end of our predictions are correct!
Sea level rising three millimeters per year, up from two is very sigificant.
"If sea level rises at a rate of seven millimeters a year or about two feet per century, “it is likely that some barrier islands in this region will cross a threshold,” and begin to break up, the report said. The islands forming the Outer Banks of North Carolina are particularly threatened."
"Even a modest acceleration of sea level rise will have a negative effect on the region’s coastal wetlands, the report says, adding, “It is likely that most wetlands will not survive” a two-foot rise."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/science/earth/17sea.html?_r=3&ref=science
Scientists think sea levels may rise by about three feet by 2100. The 150 million people in the nation of Bangladesh will be under water.
"More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely" starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics."
http://science-mag.aaas.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5894/1340
Did you not read your own link RP?
The evidence is in, sea levels have been rising at the same level since 1900. By the year 2100, if current, predicted trends continue (and there is ample evidence that sea level rise has decreased over the last couple of years) we will see a massive, overwhelming rise of about 2 feet (which is the HIGHEST guestimate).
We've pumped tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yet another fear-mongering scenario of cities being flooded by rising sea waters has been proven to be completely false.
"(and there is ample evidence that sea level rise has decreased over the last couple of years)' Yes, only in your mind, Nooooorm, and maybe Glenn Beck, your guru!
As of June 2009, the global temperature is .7 degrees C lower than the global temperature during the warmest month in 1998. So with China building more and more coal plants, and energy consumption growing throughout the word, the earth's temperature has not increased one/one hundredth of a degree since 1998.
So what is the meaning of nations agreeing to hold down the temperature increase to 2.0 degrees C?
Such comparisons are only for the statistically ignorant. The 1998 saw record warmth due to the strongest el Nino of the century occuring during that year, so to use it for comparison purposes is idiotic and nothing a scientist would consider, only a denier making propaganda points. According to NASA,
"In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
With regard to satellites, "The lower troposphere trend derived from UAH satellites (+0.128 °C/decade) is currently lower than both the GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends (+0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively), while the RSS trend (+0.158 °C/decade) is similar. However, the expected trend in the lower troposphere, given the surface data, would be around 0.194 °C/decade, making the UAH and RSS trends 66% and 81% of the expected value respectively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Once again, we find RP posting phoney, discredited data.
Richard, when will you cease the lies about sea levels not increasing. Since you will now repeat the lie, please post a cite to back your information.
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125
I know this will only confuse you RP, but here is analysis of REAL DATA, not the computer models which you so love.
http://climatesci.org/2009/07/05/real-climate-permits-the-continued-presentation-of-misinformation/
Thus even the group that Gavin Schmidt works for (GISS) presents data with no sharp spike that is at all consistent with the Levitus et al analysis and, moreover, the GISS analysis shows that the global average sea surface temperature has been essentially flat since 2002!
All of these analyses are consistent with no significant heating in the upper ocean and a flattening of sea level rise, and even more clearly, that these climate metrics are not “progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”.
As usual, nooorm gets all his information from right-wing bloggers. different instruments differ in their assessment of ocean heat content. The buoys that measure the heat in the upper oceans say heat increase has stalled. Most scientists say the heat is just going deeper into the ocean where there are no buoys. The satellites still say ocean heat content is increasing. Also, here is a graph showing ocean heat content by the National Oceanic data center. although you hate objective sources.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Regarding sea level rise though there is no disagreement. It is rising!
"The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year. In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year." The IPCC TAR predicts that total global-average sea level rise from 1990 - 2100 will be 110 to 770 millimeters (.77m).
This graph shows sea level rise.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
By the way Nooorm when satellites measure something that is empirical evidence and is different from forecasting by models. Have someone explain it to you!
Richard, 1998 was an outlier year in terms of record warmth to that date caused by the el Nino of the century. Only the statistically ignorant or propagandists use it as a basis for comparisons. One could just as well use a verry cold year from several years ago, and point to a large increase. Besides, the year 2005 eclipsed 1998 as the warmest year on record.
This accord will have all the effectiveness of a UN resolution. LOL!
Hey Will Wilson why have Mars polar caps been melting more each year if CO2 is supposed to be the problem?
Don't we have enough to worry about here without trying to solve Mars' problems? Let the Martians solve their own problems or send Glenn Beck to do it!
So, RP, if you can't answer the question, why waste scarce bytes on a non-response?
What we need is coal tax collected by the states.
Coal causes mercury and lead polution even when scrubbed.
We are in the end of 1,400 year warming cycle caused by the sun.
Mars polar caps have melted more each year astronomers have noted.
As long as denials keep getting posted, I've posted some background science on the web, including our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review):
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116
I've also posted information showing the reality of global warming, and some consequences measured in other organisms:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95
Plots showing increasing sea levels, too:
http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125
We need to separate the fact of human-caused climate change from the compromises needed to ameliorate it's future problems. What shall we do to ameliorate future problems? Some people say we should do nothing, others urge a complete ban on fossil fuels today. Our large-scale food production depends on the climate staying constant where our food is grown today. As the climate changes, insect pests and plant pathogens find new habitable areas of the globe, perhaps in these agricultural areas. Humans have experienced potato famines and droughts. Climate change brings on new risks. If you argue for minimal responses to address climate change, how confident are you that no problems will arise? What is an acceptable risk?
Will Wilson
When will Congress start making "lifestyle changes"?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124650399438184235.html
Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.
Paris Air Show
In mid-June, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night.
Noooorm, and what is the point?
On the "reality" of gloal warming:
1 - Correlation does not prove causation.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
2 - The data (Petit et al 1999) showing the historical relationship between CO2 and Temperature clearly shows that CO2 concentration lags behind temperature changes - this implies that the CO2 concentration is an EFFECT of temperature not a CAUSE.
3 - The chart showing radiative forcing, leaves out the effect of natural water vapor, and cloud albedo. At 77 W/m^2, small changes in the cloud albedo would have a huge impact. If you check out temperature trends you will see warming in the N. Hemisphere (contrary to models) and the Earth's albedo is also lower in the N. Hemisphere. Coincidence?
4 - Solar wind changes can have an impact on cloud formation and cloud albedo. The effects of the Sun on climate can be more than just from irradiance.
5 - All the results (rising sea levels, melting glaciers, sweaty polar bears...) of warming do not support the assertion that CO2 is the cause! Predictions of the future based on models that ASSUME CO2 is the cause do not prove that CO2 is the cause (this 'begs the question').
PROVE CO2 is the CAUSE. The debate is NOT over.
Yours is the standard argument that co2 has historically lagged temperature changes. The fact is most of the increase in temperatures happened after the co2 was released.
"When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first."
"Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them."
"The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface -- led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism."
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
!
you forgot soot there w2..
soot traps more heat than CO2 and does it right in the ice!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=soot+melting+ice&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
say w2..
do you think water needs CO2 to evaporate?
No, but additional co2 in the air causes additional heat which causes more water to evaporate.
|
||
Loading comments…
First Posted: 07- 9-09 08:52 AM | Updated: 07- 9-09 09:13 AM