pasotex
2500+ posts
03/12/11 06:27 AM
|
|
Yep
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
03/12/11 08:25 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: VYFan] |
| |
In reply to:
Do you think 90% of the observed rise in temperatures is man-made?
As you say, that is impossible to specify. I do believe that 100% of the effect that we can do something about is man-made.
In reply to:
Won't food production be better?
In certain areas? Certainly. In other areas - no. For instance, in my part of the world - the Texas Panhandle - summers are expected to be hotter and drier. When you couple this trend with the on-going depletion of the Ogalala Aquifer the future of agriculture in this part of Texas appears to be bleak. It's important to remember that climate change is not just global warming - experts expect dramatic changes in precipitation patterns as well, and that may have more profound effects on agriculture than temperature change. Overall, it is expected that climate - temperature, precipitation, et al. - is going to undergo dramatic changes. Agricultural production will increase in some areas and decrease in others. Adjusting to these changes will be a challenge.
In reply to:
Our approach should be to make a reasonable policy with the actual likely range of effect in mind, not a false impression of what is likely to happen.
We agree that our response should be reasonable. Where we disagree is that I trust science to provide us with the best prediction of what is likely and to provide the best recommendations for dealing with those changes.
In reply to:
P.S. I know that technically, data is a plural.
I apologize. I tend to get a bit anal. It comes from grading responses to essay questions.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
Texoz
5000+ posts
03/12/11 09:49 AM
|
|
In reply to:
In reply to:
Maybe. Or maybe the bloom will come at a time that migrating fish will miss. Remember, those species have been timing their migrationsfor millenia based on many factors. When the fish arrive now, the bloom may be past its peak. That could be devastating for the fish and the things above them on the food chain - including man.
So, the short answer is that we don't know...is that correct?
Your short answer is long on problems. The flora and fauna on this planet can adapt to change, but minor change that occurs over hundreds or thousands of years. What's happening now is a much shorter timetable. To simplify this discussion, more heat = more chaos. If you think it's not a concern, then you don't respect or understand chaos theory and domino effect.
The accumulation of new "we don't know" scenarios are piling up each year as the temps rise. What is known is that the probability of change increases with the temperature. If your approach to this discussion is to roll the dice and hope you don't get snake eyes, then that's not a prudent approach.
Post Extras:
|
Ag with kids
5000+ posts
03/12/11 10:33 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Your short answer is long on problems. The flora and fauna on this planet can adapt to change, but minor change that occurs over hundreds or thousands of years. What's happening now is a much shorter timetable. To simplify this discussion, more heat = more chaos. If you think it's not a concern, then you don't respect or understand chaos theory and domino effect.
If we implement every single change that you're recommending, what will the results be?
In reply to:
The accumulation of new "we don't know" scenarios are piling up each year as the temps rise.
So…we now know we don't know a lot more things…and yet, that means your solutions are the correct ones?
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
Monahorns
500+ posts
03/12/11 02:19 PM
|
|
Tex,
In reply to:
The flora and fauna on this planet can adapt to change, but minor change that occurs over hundreds or thousands of years. What's happening now is a much shorter timetable.
You might be surprised to know that quick adaptions are observed around the world. I am not saying they will in this case, but life on earth is very good at finding a way to survive. I would expect the overall population to adjust to this specific change. As with anything behavior is statistical, now the statistical outliers will show up just in time.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
03/12/11 02:47 PM
|
|
In reply to:
I would expect the overall population to adjust to this specific change.
Well, each species will either adapt or go extinct. According to the article I linked to the second scenario is likely to be terribly frequent.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
03/16/11 12:18 AM
|
|
In reply to:
Interesting like Paso. I know some posters on here would like to tell you that Anarctic ice is on the rise and basically counterbalancing if you will the ice lost in the arctic region. But the data and this new study just does not show this to be true. It is melting and apparently the melting is accelerating rapidly.
Hornpharmd....the theory I adhere to is based upon multi-decadal oscillations...i DO believe that the Antarctic growth was the counterbalance to what we saw lost in the Arctic...but with the PDO shifting and the NAO and the AO moving towards a shift (from what I understand) we can expect the Arctic to start growing again and the Antarctic to start shrinking...in fact, some say that the PDO shifted negative in 2007 so in one sense we would expect that year to be the low year for the Arctic and the high year for the Antarctic and now both should generally be reversing course. in fact, that is what we have seen....2 out of the past 3 years have meant a rise for the Arctic and a drop for the Antarctic (3 out of 3 years for the Antarctic).
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
03/16/11 12:25 AM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: GT WT] |
| |
GT said:
In reply to:
MOP, I have trouble keeping track of your position regarding climate change is it:
1. Climate change ain't happening.
2. Climate change is happening but it ain't anthropogenic.
3. Climate change is happening and man's at leat partially to blame but the changes are actually good.
actually...i am not at all sure why you have a hard time keeping track of it as i answer this about 4 times per year as people on here suddenly pretend to be confused.....but let me answer it again.
i believe that the earth has indeed experienced warming for the past 150 years or so...before that it was experiencing endless cycles of cooling and warming. in fact, even within that 150 years we have seen decades of cooling followed by decades of warming. nonetheless, the net has been warming since at least 1850. i think if it is anthropogenic at all, it is a modest contribution. actually...i am far more convinced that soot is causing climate change than i am CO2...it seems that much of glacier melt is being recognized as due to soot and that seems incredibly noncontroversial.
but i do adhere to number 3...or rather, i would say that every form of climate change in the larger sense has some good aspects and some bad aspects. for instance...i am sure that your average Canadian or Russian is not too upset about having a couple of degrees shed from their winter months......and i am sure that farmers in certain regions are actually quite happy about warmer temperatures. on the other hands....no doubt some areas have the exact opposite sentiments. don't you agree?
so in one sense...i hold to a nuanced adherence to both 2 and 3.....but i don't at all hold to number 1 and by now you really should know that as many times as i have repeated the above.....
how is the semester wrapping up? students getting dumber or smarter? hope all is well GT.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
03/22/11 08:20 AM
|
|
Interesting article on the effects of climate change on the extent and prevalence of malaria -
The Link
In reply to:
Pascual wondered whether long-term shifts in temperature had
already changed the incidence of malaria in this fringe region. Her
team isolated the effect of temperature—as opposed to drug resistance
and land-use changes, among other factors—and revealed that
warmer temperatures explain a significant fraction of the increase in
malaria cases from the 1970s through the 1990s. The work appeared
online in Proceedings of the Royal Society B on November 10, 2010.
To read the entire article download the .pdf file at the link.
To ignore climate change is tantamount to failing to prepare for its consequences. You can pretend it isn't real or that its effects will be benign but that's irresponsible. Climate change is happening, it's due in large part to human activities, and it will have dire effects for man and his environment. Yes, it will be costly to respond to climate change. It will be more costly to ignore it.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Edited by GT WT (03/22/11 03:31 PM)
Post Extras:
|
Ag with kids
5000+ posts
03/22/11 12:48 PM
|
|
This is good for biodiversity, though...man won't kill off malaria via AGW or other means...
Biodiversity is good, right?  
Eric '90
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
03/22/11 03:36 PM
|
|
In reply to:
This is good for biodiversity, though...man won't kill off malaria via AGW or other means...
The organisms that will benefit from anthropogeic climate change are the habitat generalists - the cockroaches, the Norway rats, and the house flies. The rest will face massive extinctions - or so the scientists say. Let's listen to the mining engineers and the meteorologists - they paint a brighter picture.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
hornpharmd
10,000+ posts
03/24/11 07:17 AM
|
|
www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
"On March 7, 2011, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. "
Post Extras:
|
pasotex
2500+ posts
03/24/11 04:38 PM
|
|
maybe it's thicker though
Hook 'em!
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
03/28/11 10:59 AM
|
|
funny you should mention it Paso....it is indeed thicker...in fact, it is substantially thicker than 3 years ago and looks to be comparable to 2006 in thickness. i just read a good blog posting on just that question by a guy using PIPS.....
you can read it here:
hide the decline ice report
it's funny....when ice extent was up, you guys talked about volume and said extent didn't mean anything (and i agreed but said that i didn't know of great sites to explore thickness)....suddenly, now that the ice extent is low, you guys are all excited to report it and your protestations from the past have gone silent. why is that?
at any rate....we currently have much more thickness than we have had for about 5 to 6 years. i think an interesting check will be the September extent minimum though because that does tell us something about how much ice we have.
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
04/02/11 10:51 PM
|
|
interesting time of year in arctic ice. on the one hand, the sea-ice extent is about the middle of the pack for this time of year....but never really got to an impressive level. on the other hand, PIPS is showing a much thicker sea-ice than just a couple of years ago......so this may bode well for sea ice extent come the minimum in September. but that is so richly dependent upon the Arctic Oscillation and summer cloud cover....i will be intrigued to see and will of course keep us all posted....at least those who read this thread!
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
04/02/11 11:06 PM
|
|
just read the following on Climate Realists...and think it is worth posting here because it is easily testable and falsifiable. we will know within 9 months about the veracity of the claims made herein. however, i want to say even here in April of 2011....that if this year does show a massive dip in global temperatures when compared with the past 20 years, i will still think this prediction fairly prescient even if the specific year of 1956 isn't actually eclipsed:
In reply to:
MEDIA STATEMENT
For Immediate release
COOL YEAR PREDICTED
It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier, says the lead author of a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009:
Our ENSO - temperature paper of 2009 and the aftermath by John McLean
The paper, by John McLean, Professor Chris de Freitas and Professor Bob Carter, showed that the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions, is a very good indicator of average global atmospheric temperatures approximately seven months ahead, except when volcanic eruptions cause short-term cooling.
The lead author, McLean, points to a fall in temperatures that began in October last year, seven months after the abrupt shift to La Nina conditions, and according to last month's data is still continuing.
"The delayed response is important for two reasons." McLean says, "Firstly the high annual average temperature in 2010 was due to the El Nino that ended around March but whose delayed effect on temperature continued until late in the year. Secondly it means that the ENSO conditions can be used to predict with reasonable confidence the average global temperatures up to seven months ahead."
Several previous scientific papers have discussed the delayed response, including two by critics of McLean's paper. Although the other papers used different data sources they came to similar conclusions about the delay.
The key question is how much influence the ENSO has on average global temperature. McLean says that this is difficult to determine, because both can be affected by short-term events such as wind, clouds and tropical storms, but the sustained close relationship in the data of the last 50 years shows the influence is significant.
"The historical data also casts serious doubt on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming," says McLean. "Since 1958 there's been a 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and if this had a major influence on temperature we'd expect to see clear evidence of the temperature continually rising above what the SOI suggests it should be, but this is not happening".
The Bureau of Meteorology reports that ENSO models currently indicate that the La Nina will be with us well into autumn and fade slowly to neutral conditions by June. Taking into account the seven-month time lag it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier, McLean says.
He also says that records show the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide during a La Nina event than during an El Nino, which means that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2011 is likely to be less than in recent years.
ENDS
link here:
climate realists
Post Extras:
|
mop
5000+ posts
04/03/11 11:18 PM
|
|
of the 7 years on the record of IJIS....2011 is still below the middle of the 9 with the following years having had more ice at this point:
1. 2003
2. 2010
3. 2008
4. 2009
5. 2004
and these having had less ice at this point in the year:
1. 2005
2. 2007
3. 2006
interestingly enough...it is those that had more ice extent which actually ended up with less ice (in the cases of 2008, 2009, and 2010 at least) than those with less ice (in the cases of 2005 and 2006). but no doubt that has to do with ice thickness and as i have recently reported, ice thickness has improved considerably according to PIPS.
Post Extras:
|
hornpharmd
10,000+ posts
04/04/11 06:53 AM
|
|
In reply to:
it is indeed thicker
B/c you say so doesn't make it true. There are just thrown out statements by anonymous internet posters and then there is science.
What we know is that the measurable arctic sea ice extent tied 2006 for the lowest maximum extent since 1979.
Post Extras:
|
GT WT
1000+ posts
04/05/11 10:57 AM
|
|
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
The Link
In reply to:
Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther
Post Extras:
|
MojoMan
1000+ posts
04/05/11 12:47 PM
|
|
Re: North pole to melt this year?
[re: GT WT] |
| |
In reply to:
Genuine science means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘science’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t science. It is ignoring facts and the science.
Fixed it for you.
Post Extras:
|
Shop the Co-op |
Email A Friend |
Contact Us
Become a HornFans Sponsor
Pages in this thread: 
Rate thread
Print Thread
