FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The Rabbit on Global Climate Change (warming, cooling, hockey stick, little ice age) (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: The Rabbit on Global Climate Change (warming, cooling, hockey stick, little ice age)
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
What I am justifying, is scientists becoming more actively involved politically and learning to play by the rules of politics rather than the rules of science. Because at some point, none of us are just scientists, we are human beings with political and social interests. Scientific ethics don't over ride all other ethical considerations ...

Indeed.
It is a good explanation of why scientists like Richard Dawkins should (and have) become more actively involved in promoting atheism rather than sticking just to science as well.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The subject definitely deserves more study, the problem is so often the proponents of man-made global warming behave like early Flat-Earth Catholics when challenged or questioned. It's too early, despite the religious fervor of the true believers, to make any drastic economic changes.

I'm sure I could go through Hatrack and find plenty of old comments about the war being for Bush's oil buddies and a giveaway to Vice president Cheney's prior employer, Halliburton. But no one even questions the worlds first green billionaire is also the number one proponent of the green agenda (I'd call it marketing). No questioning the fact that government grants pay for research to bolster global warming evidence while at the same time pushing for the biggest tax increase ever, based upon that purchased evidence. I doubt if there is real, objective science....the ones paying for and doing the research are already fervently convinced. Are we objectively testing hypothesis' or attempting to bolster a "debate is over" theory. In science, the debate should never be over - especially a debate as young and disputed as this one.

[ December 02, 2009, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's too early, despite the religious fervor of the true believers, to make any drastic economic changes.
Well, here's the problem: if the "true believers" are right, it's actually too late now to make any changes.
Posts: 37414 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The subject definitely deserves more study, the problem is so often the proponents of man-made global warming behave like early Flat-Earth Catholics when challenged or questioned.
That is simply not true. If you look at this thread and all the links cited in this thread you will see that I and other "true believers" as you call us, have given detailed substantive answers over and over again. For example, just a few posts back I answered your question, directed you to source for my answer. You have ignored my response.

So let me give you a more detailed answer. First, we know very accurately from detailed satellite measurements how the solar irradiance has been changing and it hasn't been increasing. In fact, during the time period in which Abdussamatov did his study, the solar irradiance was unequivocally decreasing. Over the past 30 years, their has been no measured change in the average solar see data. There is a natural solar cycle, but no overall trend either upward or downward. Since 2001 we have been on the downward part of that natural cycle. Hence, even suggesting that the melting of the martian polar ice between 2000 and 2005 was the result of increases in solar irradiance is nonsense because we measured the solar irradiance during this time period and it decreased.

Additionally, melting of the polar ice caps is a local phenomenon not a global phenomenon. Measures of the global average temperature on mars over the same time period show a slight decrease in the global average temperature so this warming seems to be limited to the polar regions and not a global phenomenon. There have been a number of studies of the martian climate, if you are interested I can find you links although most of them will require a subscription.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No questioning the fact that government grants pay for research to bolster global warming evidence while at the same time pushing for the biggest tax increase ever, based upon that purchased evidence.
There most certainly is a question about it. Please provide data to support the claim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny. You would think that, with Bush in control lo these eight years, the 'conservative' side would have been able to buy some evidence too. If scientists are so easily bought, where are yours?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Funny. You would think that, with Bush in control lo these eight years, the 'conservative' side would have been able to buy some evidence too. If scientists are so easily bought, where are yours?

I could point to a few who are on the payroll of places like Western Fuels Association if you'd like.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BryanP
Member
Member # 7772

 - posted      Profile for BryanP           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
I was referring to the "hide the decline" comment; pressure brought to bear on journal editors; some examples of 'correction factors' in code which look rather bad; and refusal to publish models
Like I keep saying, these snipets are not sufficient to make a judgement on what was actually done. I need more data. What exactly did they do to "hide the decline"? I can think of many ways of presenting data that are intended to emphasize a particular feature and deemphasize other features. Most of those are completely ethical. In order to judge whether or not something unethical was done I need more details. Otherwise, you are making unfair judgments based on heavily biased media reports of data released by criminals with clearly biased objectives.
My understanding with respect to "hide the decline" is that one of the methods that has been used to determined temperatures for the last several thousand years has been to look at tree ring data. And while most tree ring data makes a nice story in conjunction with whatever other methods have been used to determine past temperatures, tree ring data from the last 30 years or more does not correspond to temperatures measured using thermometers, and in fact the decline that was hidden was that the tree data shows a cooling in recent years. If I haven't confused this in some way I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Anyways, rather than tossing out all the tree data for their (IPCC?) graph, they merely tossed out the last 30 years or so of data and grafted on thermometer temperatures, which of course show the increase.

I have to figure out again where I read this, hopefully it's somewhat familiar to you. If they did indeed throw out a selection of tree data and graft on the thermometer data, it's pretty dubious. If recent tree ring data does not correspond to thermometer temperatures, then surely the whole of the tree ring data is suspect.

Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On an intriguing note, the Economist finished their roughly one and a half week debate on whether China or the US are showing more leadership on climate change.

The debate is supposedly an adaptation of the Oxford debating style and has pretty good and hefty writing by both the proposer and the opposition (and many guests).

Of special interest to Americans may be the statement by Gary Locke which starts with a remarkable concession given his position (but does highlight many positive things):
quote:
If it was November 2008 instead of November 2009, it would be difficult to disagree with this motion, but no one has done more in the last year to take action on climate change than President Obama and his administration.
The end statement is here with links to all the various stages of the debate.
quote:
We've had a debate unusually rich in different ways to answer the question, or even to challenge its premises. Peggy Liu, writing for the motion, has noted the tremendous efforts China has made to green its energy and its transportation. Max Schulz, opposing the motion, has based much of his criticism of China on the statist, top-down approach that China has taken, and has said that China is only doing as it does to become rich. Ms Liu, and some of our guest experts, see no contradiction in that whatsoever; China is, in this view, doing well by doing good, and America would be wise to do the same. Better still, offer several of our participants, are efforts undertaken by America and China together; research breakthroughs, or even just the creation of bigger markets for green energy, will benefit both through technology transfer, best-practice sharing and economies of scale. In his close, Mr Schulz says that in any case, he is not fully convinced that manmade warming is certain, severe and near enough to warrant huge sums spent on mitigating it. By resisting legally binding regimes, America is doing the world the most good in this arena, he says.
...
In the end, our voters thought China was leading more, by a tally of 70% to 30%. This is striking not only on its face, but also given that The Economist, and probably this debate, has far more readers in America than in China. Whether this result speaks more positively of China's efforts (on which the debaters and most guests focused), or badly of American foot-dragging, we leave to the readers as an exercise.

And with that, both countries and others around the world go to Copenhagen. During the course of this very debate, big announcements—including numerical targets from both China and America—have made talks of the eventual result in Copenhagen a little less gloomy than they had been just a few weeks ago. Good news for everyone. A bust-up in Copenhagen would cause political damage that would take years to recover, while the world goes on emitting those greenhouse gases.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/426
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Long-term seasonal hemispheric forcing of Titan's lakes

Saturn's year is 29.4571years long; and it's equivalent "seasons" are 7.37years long.
Using maximum solar insolation as its planetary "summer solstice" equivalent, Saturn's orbital "summer" began 9July2003 when it reached perihelion -- closest point approaching the Sun -- and ends near 1January2011.
Saturn receives 25% more sunlight at perihelion that at aphelion -- farthest point receding from the Sun -- so it is unsurprising that Titan has been warming through Saturn's "spring" and "summer" equivalents.

[ December 05, 2009, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clive Candy
Member
Member # 11977

 - posted      Profile for Clive Candy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haha.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eaquae Legit
Member
Member # 3063

 - posted      Profile for Eaquae Legit   Email Eaquae Legit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
The subject definitely deserves more study, the problem is so often the proponents of man-made global warming behave like early Flat-Earth Catholics when challenged or questioned.

It's a small thing, perhaps, compared to global chaos due to climate change, but can we lay the "flat earth Catholics" thing to its long overdue rest? Dang Washington Irving. P.S. He was not Catholic.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
China's coal country under pressure - 10 Dec 09 - AlJazeeraEnglish
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world’s peace-keeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed?...
...So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petrostate...slipping down...towards dependence on...the dirtiest commodity known to man."

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Want to save the environment? Kill your dog now...
quote:
Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
quote:
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.


Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Rabbit: Or anyone with further information on this really. How valid is this reasoning?
quote:
So what's compostable plastic good for? It's made from a renewable resource, namely corn, but that doesn't necessarily make it environmentally friendly. Writing in Scientific American in 2000, Tillman Gerngross and Steven Slater pointed out that manufacturing PLA required more fossil fuels than it takes to make most plastics, canceling out the environmental benefit.

They weren't completely down on the stuff, though, and pointed out two benefits you might not suspect. First, much of the energy needed to turn corn into plastic could be obtained by burning the stalks and leaves, known as stover, which are normally discarded. Second, they argue, we don't really want PLA to biodegrade — just the opposite. The big push these days is on figuring out ways to sequester carbon so it doesn't enter the atmosphere as CO2, one of the major greenhouse gases. What better way to do that than grow corn, which sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere, then use the corn to make plastic, which can be buried underground after use?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying this is accepted scientific advice. But it's not out of the question that years from now the environmentally responsible thing may be to use all the plant-derived plastic packaging you can and then throw the stuff away.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2915/whats-up-with-compostable-plastics

So how valid is that reasoning?

We have an increasing number of stores that give out these biodegradable plastic bags and packaging, is the low-carbon ideal to go compost them or to throw them out into a landfill as a sort of distributed carbon sequestering technique?

And what about the cob that remains when I've eaten corn on the cob? Should I compost it or sequester it?

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The best thing to do with regards to plastic bags from stores, is to avoid them completely. Bring your own cloth, reusable bags, whenever possible.

I actually reuse the plastic bags I receive from stores as trash sacks. Sometimes I just forget to bring my own bags to the grocery store, so having a few of these doesn't hurt me. Since I only have one small wastebasket full of trash every week (or slightly more), these work fine for trash sacks.

From what I've read, practically none of the plastics labeled as 'biodegradable' ever degrade, especially when they are buried.

Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Want to save the environment? Kill your dog now...
quote:
Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
quote:
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.

Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.


What this has gotten me wondering is what the carbon footprint of a human is, all by themselves. I mean, I'm pretty sure I eat and poop more than my dog does, and I have to imagine that the giant infrastructure required to deal with human waste is dramatically more than the damage dogs do by doing what all the animals in the natural world are doing already.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keep in mind that not all carbon is damage (and really, the interpretation of any of it as damage is mostly because it will damage humans).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
malanthrop
Member
Member # 11992

 - posted      Profile for malanthrop           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.accuweather.com/news-weather-features.asp?partner=&traveler=0&date=2010-01-04_1701&month=1&year=2010
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-cold-deaths,0,5066667.story
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/149760
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth
http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2010/01/03/Alltime-record-snowfall-in/1262573458.html
/nuclear.power.plant.2.1404207.html
http://cbs2chicago.com/national/midwest.cold.snow.2.1405658.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ddf1d3c1eb6d81b959257820155d3d51.1b1&show_article=1

....Pelosi and Obama push global warming legeslation. [Smile]

I live in Tampa and saw a snow flake....first time since 1977. Perhaps it has something to do with the sun. The caps melted on Mars and 2009 had the least solar activity on record. Maybe the 30 year cycle has come about, I remember being afraid of the impending ice age in the 1970's.

Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, you show a profound misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting of facts and theories. Probably both.
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I roll back and forth between face-palming and laughter when it comes to people who provide anecdotal quips about the weather as proof that global warming is true or false.

But I'm always up for discussing the weather! We're going to see negative double digits for the first time in a while, here in northern Kansas. I can't wait. I think I'll experiment with freezing bubbles and photography...

Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if the article about dogs takes into account that dog food is made primarily out of lungs and other animal by-products, which, since it isn't eaten by humans would otherwise go to waste.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the premise in the dog article is that they are carnivores needing x amount of calories on average to survive which requires y amount of other animals to be eaten...or something like that.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tstorm:

From what I've read, practically none of the plastics labeled as 'biodegradable' ever degrade, especially when they are buried.

My understanding is that that "buried" part prevents even decay-able things from decaying as they should in landfills.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Want to save the environment? Kill your dog now...
quote:
Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
quote:
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.


Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.

"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.

"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"

Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.

"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.

"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.


What this has gotten me wondering is what the carbon footprint of a human is, all by themselves. I mean, I'm pretty sure I eat and poop more than my dog does, and I have to imagine that the giant infrastructure required to deal with human waste is dramatically more than the damage dogs do by doing what all the animals in the natural world are doing already.
Maybe we should start feeding dogs horse meat again? There are some spares in Nevada...
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Tstorm:

From what I've read, practically none of the plastics labeled as 'biodegradable' ever degrade, especially when they are buried.

My understanding is that that "buried" part prevents even decay-able things from decaying as they should in landfills.
Yep.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which may be a good thing
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bill Gates in this TED talk said exactly what I think about climate change and what we need to do about it. Posting this here and in several other appropriate threads to catch all the people who might be interested. I apologize for the redundancy.
Posts: 6245 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss, study finds
quote:
Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.

Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.

The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate "tipping point" that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.


Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.
While 1/3 is of the effect is nothing to sneeze at, it still doesn't account for the majority of ice loss.

I also haven't seen any discussion of why winds were higher during this period and I'm curious about whether global warming might be a factor there was well.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey Rabbit, I was wondering if you could explain this graph to me.

Someone posted it on Facebook as proof that climate change was happening. As you well know, I'm a believer in climate change, but it seems odd to look at just a 30 year period, and at that, less than 20 years of sustained above average warming and call that proof. So can you explain it to me? Is this graph statistically significant?

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as I can tell, the graph is of difference from average temperature. That roughly half of the graph is above the average for the total time period will almost always be true, absent very dramatic changes, for any period you choose, whether that be warming, cooling, or staying about the same... That the half among the warmest is almost all in the latter time period is evidence of a remarkable upward trend.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyrhawn, fugu is right. The graph shows the Temperature anomaly, which is the deviation from the mean value over some time period. In this case, the time period is 1979 - present (last 33 years). If there was no warming or cooling trend over this time period, the red (positive) values would be randomly distributed through the time period. They aren't. Nearly all the red lines have been in the last 15 years which indicates a strong warming trend.

All I can really add to what fugu said is that this data (v5.4) comes the University of Alabama Huntsville and was calculated from microwave satellite measurements which only go back to 1979. Satellites don't measure temperature directly, they measure irradiance. That has to be deconvoluted to get near surface temperatures. They also have to adjust for differences between satellites and drift in the satellites with time. v5.4 refers for one algorithm for calculating the mean temperatures in different parts of the atmosphere from the satellite data. Different algorithms that are being used currently give slightly different answers even when they use the exact same satellite measurements, but the underlying trends are the same.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The graph shows the Temperature anomaly, which is the deviation from the mean value over some time period. In this case, the time period is 1979 - present (last 33 years). If there was no warming or cooling trend over this time period, the red (positive) values would be randomly distributed through the time period. They aren't. Nearly all the red lines have been in the last 15 years which indicates a strong warming trend.
I guess my question is, is that historically abnormal? We might only have been keeping track of temperatures for the last century and change, but we have ice core data and other ways of testing what the temperature was like for thousands of years. Is a 15 year warming trend statistically significant?
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do the abnormal temperatures start so dramatically near the end of 1997? It looks like someone flipped a switch.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Why do the abnormal temperatures start so dramatically near the end of 1997? It looks like someone flipped a switch.

There is no "normal". The zero line is the average temperature from 1979 and the present. Half the values are above the average and half are below because it's an average. The fact that temperatures after 1997 are nearly all above the average while those before 1997 are nearly all below the average shows that that temperatures have been rising for the past 30 years. There is no sudden switch, I you look at data for the past
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tstorm:
The best thing to do with regards to plastic bags from stores, is to avoid them completely. Bring your own cloth, reusable bags, whenever possible.

I actually reuse the plastic bags I receive from stores as trash sacks. Sometimes I just forget to bring my own bags to the grocery store, so having a few of these doesn't hurt me. Since I only have one small wastebasket full of trash every week (or slightly more), these work fine for trash sacks.

From what I've read, practically none of the plastics labeled as 'biodegradable' ever degrade, especially when they are buried.

I have a vermicomposter, and I threw one of those green plastic compost bags in it about six months ago. It's still around, but even the corn cobs that took forever (compared to fruits) are gone. It's probably not going to go until the time-bomb goes off and it shatters into a million pieces (great idea, but such a mess, because I hoard bags).
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2