Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate change - not good news from NAS.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Climate change - not good news from NAS.

    Earth's Temperature Is Hottest in Centuries
    Scientists Blame 'Human Activities' for Warming Trend
    By JOHN HEILPRIN, AP
    WASHINGTON (June 22) -- The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400
    years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that
    conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress,
    reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last
    400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
    A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating
    up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."
    Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the
    Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
    This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in
    nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University
    who chaired the academy's panel.
    The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science
    Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question
    whether global warming is a major threat.
    Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe
    Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists,
    Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
    Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists
    advise Congress.
    "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the
    broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.
    Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half
    of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and
    natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of
    the Commerce Department's National Center for Atmospheric Research. Their
    study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.
    The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough
    to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5
    million Americans their jobs.
    Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had
    concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years.
    Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the
    sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the
    stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
    The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes
    research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an
    atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel
    member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right"
    and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
    The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's
    temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern
    scientific instruments.
    For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on
    "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits,
    ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined
    indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.
    Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that
    the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable
    period in the last 400 years," the academy said.
    Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the
    20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively
    warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age"
    from about 1500 to 1850.
    The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures
    before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were
    sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases
    blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century,
    after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.
    Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the
    main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature
    changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels
    by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.
    The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by
    Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.
    06/22/06 12:40 EDT
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

  • #2
    They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.
    Oh...that really sounds like reliable scientific data and methodology

    Including that kind of "data" means to me one thing: they're reaching for a preconceived conclusion.

    Even after all the "likely's", "are very close's" and other conditional sentences in that article the one thing they are most certain of is that the Earth is warmer now than any time in the last 400 years. WELL DUH!!

    400 years ago we were in the terminal stages of the Little Ice Age!! Thank God we're warmer than then!! I for one hope it stays that way.

    As for it being warmer in 1000 AD than during the Little Ice Age, WELL DUH #2!!

    That that took a lot of brainpower to figure out didn't it? "HOLY OSCILLATING THERMOMETER BATMAN, you mean it was warm before it got cold?"

    These guys are still using computer models to do their predictions. As in digital. Modeling analog systems in a digital computer is fraught with risk, especially since they don't know so many things like the total energy input, energy output, effect of of the surface features and clouds or even how many greenhouse (and anti-greenhouse) gases there are or aren't.

    Absent these pieces of knowledge they make assumptions, many of which will be incorrect, which in turn makes climate models an unreliable means for making decisions.

    That's why none of them can predict anything; forewards or backwards. IF they can't do that, then suppositions based on them are worth next to nothing. In the end all they're left with is groupthink, conventional wisdom and supposition.

    In short: Concensus Science, which is the thread this belonged in to begin with.

    As Tesla said....

    Hell....just this week they discovered huge space "bubbles" around the Earch that open and close arranged as a kind of bow shock. These things are thousands of miles in diameter and you can bet they'll have an effect on climate when all is said and done.

    I can just see the "people cause warming" crowd trying to figure a way to co-opt them now. That or dismiss them if their properties go the other way.

    Dr. Mordrid
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 23 June 2006, 00:44.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dr Mordrid

      Hell....just this week they discovered huge space "bubbles" around the Earch that open and close arranged as a kind of bow shock. These things are thousands of miles in diameter and you can bet they'll have an effect on climate when all is said and done.

      I can just see the "people cause warming" crowd trying to figure a way to co-opt them now. That or dismiss them if their properties go the other way.

      Dr. Mordrid

      Link?
      If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

      Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

      Comment


      • #4
        The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science
        Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question
        whether global warming is a major threat.
        As a naysayer par excellence, you should be addressed

        You really don't have a clue what the researchers in this field do nor the data they use. Atmospheric and terrestial albedo DO enter into their equations and have done for over 5 years.

        It amuses me that you should keep quoting Tesla, the guy who claimed that infinite free energy was available from the aether. He didn't even have a pile of rocks to build his house, he did it out of nothing at all! Oh, yes, I know cranks, crackpots and fruitcakes still believe in perpetual motion and free energy. I just don't happen to believe in magic.
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          Technoid:

          Science news and long reads from expert journalists, covering developments in science, technology, health and the environment on the website and the magazine.


          Brian:

          You really don't have a clue what the researchers in this field do nor the data they use. Atmospheric and terrestial albedo DO enter into their equations and have done for over 5 years.
          Yes they have, but their data is still quite incomplete and the non-evangelistic climatologists will admit to that. Those that do IMO are just chasing research grants since more of them are around to "prove" human involvement in warming than the other way around. Economics has had stranger effects on "science".

          It amuses me that you should keep quoting Tesla, the guy who claimed that infinite free energy was available from the aether
          Yup, and he was ahead of his time. Right along with that other proponent of "free energy....available from the aether"; Albert Einstein.

          It's called dark energy and it was first "born" in Einsteins general theory of relativity. It's had various names over the years. One you might be familiar with is Edwin Hubble's "cosmological constant". Another is "quintessence". Dark energy is so powerful that it's believed to be driving the expansion of the universe.

          As far as extracting energy from the aether, that's already been done...but it only works for the small quantities of vacuum energy available in a very small space between two objects. It's called the "Casimir Force";



          I do hope Physics Web is a good enough source for you UN types

          The Casimir Force is considered a manifestation of the zero point field....the "ground state" in a quantum system. Also part of the mix is the zero point energy contained in the field. Yes....considerable energy is contained in a quantum ground state. Put two metal plates close enough together in a vacuum and you can measure the electromagnetic energy imparted by the Casimir Force. It's very small in this experiment, but present and just the tip of the iceberg.

          When making nano-technologies the Casimir Force is very important as the closer two small circuit elements get the stronger the CF becomes. It can get so large as to actually break them, so it's not a trivial subject.

          This Denver University article is a good primer on the Casimir Force;



          Will we ever be able to extract usable energy from the zero point field? Maybe, maybe not. But stating there is nothing there at all is, well, fill in the blank.

          Almost forgot another energy from "nothing": Hawking radiation. Gravity can extract one member of a virtual particle pair popping out of the quantum foam, dragging it into the "real world" as new "real" matter....which is just condensed energy.

          Dr. Mordrid
          Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 23 June 2006, 01:57.
          Dr. Mordrid
          ----------------------------
          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
            Yes they have, but their data is still quite incomplete and the non-evangelistic climatologists will admit to that. To bad you can't....
            I have never said that their data are complete, nor has anybody else, AFAIK. If the data were complete, it would be possible to use it for both weather and climate forecasting for many years to come, not just weather with a 5-day 0.5 fractile certainty!

            What I really don't understand is your absolute dig-in-your-heels denial that man has changed the composition of the earth's atmosphere (which is scientifically proven by analyses) and that those changes are having effects (which is observed), with a correlation which would hang a man twice over on a murder trial. Certainly, the Rio Precautionary Principle (signed by Pres. George Bush Sr) is applicable in this case, even if the data are complete to only 95, 98 or 99% complete. The margin of error in the correlation is now infinitismally tiny, as the forthcoming IPCC report will demonstrate.

            You do not have an inkling as to what makes me tick on environmental matters. What you say makes me believe you look on me as a rabid ecopolitician. This is not the case. I can be as rabidly "evangelical" against causes as much for them. Take the EU RoHS Directive, for example, which I have been fighting against for years, even though it is purportedly environmental in nature - simply because the premisses are founded on bad science.

            I suggest you may care to read the 20-odd essays I have written at http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/ to get a better understanding of why I'm not an ecologist, but only a mere environmentalist.
            Brian (the devil incarnate)

            Comment


            • #7
              I'll pass. I've read your opinions here and elsewhere.

              I agree there is some warming and that we have changed the atmosphere to some degree. I differ as to if our activities are the major cause of this warming and if we puny humans can change things in a major way.

              I also wonder if that would necessarily be a smart thing to do given that we are nearing the end of this interglacial period. Have you ever considered this warming could stave off another ice age, be it a mini or full, in the case of a terminating interglacial?

              Dr. Mordrid
              Dr. Mordrid
              ----------------------------
              An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

              I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Dr Mordrid

                Oh...that really sounds like reliable scientific data and methodology
                You want a proof? Here is a proof for you, argue this one!


                Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

                Comment


                • #9
                  You missed one;



                  Cause: the sexual revolution, God bless it

                  Dr. Mordrid
                  Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 23 June 2006, 07:51.
                  Dr. Mordrid
                  ----------------------------
                  An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                  I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
                    I agree there is some warming and that we have changed the atmosphere to some degree.
                    To some degree?

                    Let's take the more important "greenhouse gases"

                    1. water vapour: it would be quasi-impossible for man to change this, averaged globally and annually, over each hemisphere, because of an extremely strong negative feedback influence and because of the vast quantity of natural water vapour (12 x 10^12 tonnes) in the air.

                    2. Carbon dioxide: man has increased the atmospheric content from 280 ppm to nearly 400 ppm over the last 150 years, an increase of about 42%, hardly "some degree" but a helluva lot and hardly a puny human effort. The 280 ppm figure was constant to within ±20 ppm over many previous millennia.

                    3. Methane: 20-40 times worse than CO2 in its effect. Man has increased the CH4 content from a natural background 800 ppb to 1,750 ppb over the last 150 years, an increase of 119%. Puny?

                    4. Carbon tetrafluoride: >10,000 times worse than CO2, along with sulfur hexafluoride and other PFCs. Purely man-made components of the atmosphere, undetectable before ~1900.

                    5. HFCs and CFCs: 200 - 5000 times worse than CO2. Again, purely man-made components of the atmosphere, undetectable before ~1950. CFCs are stabilising (Montreal Protocol) but HFCs have increased rapidly over the last 2 decades as they have taken over many of the CFC applications.

                    6. NOx: these are more difficult to quantify in terms of their effect, because of their shorter atmospheric residence times, their reactivity with hydroxyl radicals and weather. For example, one of the major natural causes is chemical reactions during lightning strikes. Man-made NOxs vary from 20-75% of natural levels but are constantly changing. Notwithstanding, average levels are increasing.

                    I'm >100% convinced that man HAS very significantly changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere with his profligate greed, hedonism and egoism. I'm 99.99% convinced that these changes have caused and will continue to cause changes in the physics of the atmosphere and its effects on thermal forcing. I'm 99% certain that concomitant changes have caused and will continue to cause damage to human health and are a major factor in the increased health-care costs as well as millions of deaths/year, globally.
                    Brian (the devil incarnate)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Massachusetts used tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by proxies from recent centuries (paintings of glaciers? ).

                      Basically he turned the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a convenient 1984'ish 'memory hole' and creating the 'hockey stick' diagram used to panic people ever since;



                      Scary in the absense of other data, so here is that other data;

                      This is the 1990 IPCC graph showing temperature change since 900 AD and it shows both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age nicely;



                      Seems we're still on 'the cool side' compared to the Medieval Warm Period. What did they do to cause the MWP? Nothing....it was part of a climate cycle that appears to repeating now. This cycle has been ongoing for thousands of years.

                      Historical records from all over Europe and Greenland attest to the reality of both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age events while Manns tree rings etc. flatten the graph to near obliteration.

                      Speaking as someone whom has farmed and helped run an orchard I have trouble placing so much faith in tree ring data. Many more things than temperature affect tree ring growth to trust it that much. Rainfall is one and it isn't that tied to absolute temperature. It can rain like hell over a wide temp. range, and the same can be said for droughts. Then comes the effects of insect infestation and all the other growing season maladys.

                      Guess which graph I trust?
                      Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 23 June 2006, 09:39.
                      Dr. Mordrid
                      ----------------------------
                      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ah, who cares if we drive ourselves to extinction... the planet will recover in time without us, anyway

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The medieval warm period allowed for trips to the new world by the Norsemen and the colonization of Greenland. The colder climate cut this off by the 1300s.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yup, and by the time we do screw it up some supervolcanoe (Yellowstone?), asteroid or ?? will do us all in.
                            Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 23 June 2006, 09:52.
                            Dr. Mordrid
                            ----------------------------
                            An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                            I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
                              Guess which graph I trust?
                              I don't trust either graph without qualification.

                              The first one shows anomalous differences, taking into account natural cycles (as known at that time: it has been refined since). It is NOT and has never pretended to be an absolute average temperature graph.

                              The second graph is so useful that it does not even have a scale on the Y-axis, a typical way of distorting fact to suit an argument.

                              No one has ever denied that there are many natural phenomena that affect climate. Some are cyclic and some are acyclic. Obviously, only the former are predictable (assuming one knows the precise maths of all the cycles), but both are measurable after the event. The point is that NEITHER the natural phenomena of both types NOR the man-made changes in the atmospheric composition can be correlated into observations made over the past century, even allowing for empirical errors. What is astounding is that if you take into account BOTH the natural and man-made phenomena, then the correlation is good, again within empirical errors. I simply cannot understand why you stick your head in the sand and refuse to see this.
                              Brian (the devil incarnate)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X