Climate change another name for Weather

[spooly74]

Weather is immediately predictable: Look out the window.
Seasonal climate is predictable: I forecast average temperatures this winter in Sydney will be significantly cooler than for any of the summer months.
Please return to this post in October and prove me wrong.
Increase the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb moisture, as is now happening, and you can expect rainfall averages to also increase.
Conversely, where wind patterns are not favourable to rainfall events, radiative forcings will increase average (minimum and maximum) temperatures.
As there are more sources to what I have written than you could poke a stick at, it is amusing that you would even ask.

I think you know I wasn't referring to the seasons or some dark clouds on the horizon with my reply. Are these swings and forcings a direct result of CO2 or other patterns like ENSO?

And as for your amusement, why don't you just humour us from now on. A link or reference will be fine. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it.
It would help the smallminded folk.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

If you don't read the scientific literature, and prefer to believe those that want to interpret information as they see fit, then I can understand why you are baffled.

The facts are out red and you choose to ignore the debate, again. Perhaps we can talk about the world of politics and global warming religions and the many who derive incomes from the propaganda. You mention scientific literature, is that anthropogenic only? Anyway, here is a lengthy and objective article that you may not bother to read but it does raise some serious facts and concerns that many of us have, references and all.

Nine facts about climate change:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php

On one side of that debate we have those prominent scientists who preach the gospel of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide-generated global warming. Without exception, their careers have been made in the shadowy world where science and politics intersect;

The most recent example of devastating critique of the anthropogenist carbon dioxide school comes from William Gray, the doyen of American hurricane scientists. [2] Commenting on the apparent one-sidedness of the debate Gray said:
Most of the strong advocates of human-induced global warming appear to be too personally invested in global warming both from a scientific and a career perspective. They cannot (and will not) back away from their unrealistic warming ideas. It appears that only a new set of climate researchers who are not already committed to the warming straight-jacket will be able to render an objective assessment of human influence on climate.

 

[rederob]

I think you know I wasn't referring to the seasons or some dark clouds on the horizon with my reply. Are these swings and forcings a direct result of CO2 or other patterns like ENSO?

And as for your amusement, why don't you just humour us from now on. A link or reference will be fine. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it.
It would help the smallminded folk.

Your charge related to a doubt about climate predictabilty.
If seasons can be predicted, as you seem to agree, is it not possible that other aspects can also be predicted?
If you have not read the last IPCC report, you might have missed refences to probable impacts.
If you are into mainstream media, here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123521/

 

[rederob]

The facts are out red and you choose to ignore the debate, again. Perhaps we can talk about the world of politics and global warming religions and the many who derive incomes from the propaganda. You mention scientific literature, is that anthropogenic only? Anyway, here is a lengthy and objective article that you may not bother to read but it does raise some serious facts and concerns that many of us have, references and all.

Nine facts about climate change:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php

Ray Evans is an office-holder - and apparent creator - of a string of Australian front groups. He is President of the HR Nicholls Society, Secretary of the Bennelong Society, Treasurer of the Samuel Griffith Society and Secretary of, and main contact for, the Lavoisier Group.

Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan. "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan.

Together with Morgan, he helped found the HR Nicholls Society in 1985.
His climate science credentials are not immediately obvious.

How about you choose one of the points Ray has raised, and I will show you his folly.

 

[Smurf1976]

Second…is the fact that we have only one planet to observe … With only one Earth

I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. Assuming that we actually can measure their temperature (?), that would discredit the notion that we can only look at what's happening on Earth.

There is, of course, a very obvious reason why they'd like people to belive that we can only consider what's happening on Earth and ignore what's happening elsewhere if the other planets are indeed warming. That would discredit the everything surrounding AGW, unless someone can show that the Martians have been burning a lot of coal and oil lately or have for some other reason experienced a significant rise in CO2 concentration.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. Assuming that we actually can measure their temperature (?), that would discredit the notion that we can only look at what's happening on Earth.

There is, of course, a very obvious reason why they'd like people to belive that we can only consider what's happening on Earth and ignore what's happening elsewhere if the other planets are indeed warming. That would discredit the everything surrounding AGW, unless someone can show that the Martians have been burning a lot of coal and oil lately or have for some other reason experienced a significant rise in CO2 concentration.

lol

Does Kev07 know?

jayzoo, how much is this going to cost Australia.

gg

 

[explod]

I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. .

Where did you hear that? from another planet I suppose.


I know that the weather conditions in southern Australia are exceedingly bad and dry. Native plants and wildlife are dying from the drought. I live amongst bush and see it with my own eyes. Grew up down south but worked as a youth in Queensland west of Longreach. I know what dry is and it is that dry now in southern Victoria beyond what could ever have been imagined a few years back.
It looks like west Queensland in thier first bad dry in 1969, I was there. I also HEARD (HEARD) THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN AS BAD AS THIS IN MILLIONS OF YEARS.

The twisting of facts by the oil, coal and motor vehicle lobbyists crack me up and are being seen through by the wider community. They are even talking carbon credits in the US now that the ice sheets are sliding off the Antarctic land mass and it is probably too late.

I suppose we could say, just party, or we could conceed that we may have a problem, admit to it and work together peacefully to resolve it.

 

[explod]

lol

Does Kev07 know?

jayzoo, how much is this going to cost Australia.

gg

The way things are heading of late in the financials, money wont be a consideration of any sort soon.

Just getting a feed and protecting yourself from the marauding packs of the deperate and starving unemployed will be the game.

 

[Smurf1976]

Where did you hear that? from another planet I suppose.

The twisting of facts by the oil, coal and motor vehicle lobbyists crack me up and are being seen through by the wider community.

I belive it is credible NASA research. I'm no expert on it, but to my understanding it's possible to measure the temperature on other planets via some means (no idea how) and it's been warming. That's the claim I've seen in various places - no idea if it's true I'm just posting it as a possibility that it may be true.

As for the drought, yes I'm VERY well aware of that and have been for years. See all my hydro and water posts and you'll get the idea that I do know a bit about water. I sure wasn't expecting to see the day when we had dust storms in Tassie that's for sure, but it's a fact now that it happened. It's dry, very dry, compared to recent decades in SE Australia that is something nobody could dispute. Whether it's man-made or natural, and whether it has ever been this dry before, is something we can't prove either way.

As for the politics of that, I could point out that a very high profile Australian Green politician sure wasn't predicting a drought back when it started in the 1990's, indeed the "dams will be flowing over by the year 2000". Liberal much the same thinking by the way, there's plenty of water, just a couple of years later so I'm not being one-sided there. Labor I don't recall predicting an imminent drought, but they did acknowledge that droughts happen and we'd get a serious one at some point in the future - little did they know it was starting just as those comments were made.

As for the coal, oil etc lobbyists, indeed there certainly are. Just as there are lobbyists on every subject that is in any way political. Usually, if you take two opposing groups of lobbyists then do some proper independent research, you'll find that the facts are somewhere between the two extremes.

Most people, when making any sort of claim (about anything) do tend to go a bit beyond a neutral position since doing so suits their objectives. That is the nature of being a lobbyist. On the subject of climate change, there are clearly two opposing sides and both have an interest in the outcome so they are unlikely to be totally objective in their arguments.

Personally, I do think the climate is changing and I'm very much in favour of non-carbon energy sources (for both CO2 and other reasons) which just happen to be the solution to the problem if it exists. But that obvious bias on my part is no reason to not be looking at ALL the available information whether it supports the man-made climate change argument or not.

If other planets are warming then that does raise the question as to why and whether or not the cause of that warming would also be influencing temperatures on Earth. It's a very relevant point no matter what the outcome.

 

[rederob]

On the subject of climate change, there are clearly two opposing sides and both have an interest in the outcome so they are unlikely to be totally objective in their arguments.

The outcome won't be affected by our discussion.
I'm more interested in the beliefs of many, and why they hold them.
A majority of climate scientists understand "forcings", and are aware that CO2 levels have never been higher. Man's influence in this latter regard are undeniable.
The probable consequence of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels were postulated over a century ago.
Yet an overriding theme of climate change deniers is that the IPCC cohort has turned climate change into a sinecure over recent years.
The logical failings of the climate change deniers are manifold. However it is their regular regurgitation of discredited claims that is most problematic.
Various mantras have attract a tribe of rote believers: Science is secondary to populist sensibilities... "it's just weather".
So it is.
And with probable dire consequences in the longer term.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Ray Evans is an office-holder - and apparent creator - of a string of Australian front groups. He is President of the HR Nicholls Society, Secretary of the Bennelong Society, Treasurer of the Samuel Griffith Society and Secretary of, and main contact for, the Lavoisier Group.

Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan. "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan.

Together with Morgan, he helped found the HR Nicholls Society in 1985.
His climate science credentials are not immediately obvious.

How about you choose one of the points Ray has raised, and I will show you his folly.

I'll start with reference no 1. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php#anchor1259055

Paul Collins quoting Cardinal Pell in The Australian 10 May 2006:

'pagan emptiness and fears about nature have led to hysteric and extreme claims about global warming. In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.'

 

[rederob]

I'll start with reference no 1. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php#anchor1259055

pagan emptiness and fears about nature have led to hysteric and extreme claims about global warming. In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.'

First, equating scientists to pagans who made human sacrifices is far fetched.
Climate scientists have presented evidence that the earth is warming, and their claims are not extreme: Most claims are well within the bounds of past known events.
The IPCC has documented the likely effects of less than extreme global warming. The social and economic consequences of a rapidly changing globe are not pretty.
Not surprisingly, climate scientists are trying to send a message to the public that, because we have already gone past the highest previously calculated CO2 levels, the earth is likely to experience rapid climate change (geologically speaking). Indeed, the probability is that the present generation will need to adapt to a markedly different world in their lifetime.
This link maps why there is a global push to limit CO2 emissions: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/co2-acceleration/#more-1405

 

[basilio]

Thanks Red rob for the link to the Tamino blog. Really excellent set of resources on the figures and reality behind Global Warming.

Hope they are appreciated by other readers of this forum.

 

[basilio]

Polar research reveals new evidence of global environmental change
Press release, International Council for Science

Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level. These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.

The wide-ranging IPY findings result from more than 160 endorsed science projects assembled from researchers in more than 60 countries. Launched in March 2007, the IPY covers a two-year period to March 2009 to allow for observations during the alternate seasons in both polar regions. A joint project of WMO and ICSU, IPY spearheaded efforts to better monitor and understand the Arctic and Antarctic regions, with international funding support of about US$ 1.2 billion over the two-year period.

“The International Polar Year 2007 – 2008 came at a crossroads for the planet’s future” said Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of WMO. “The new evidence resulting from polar research will strengthen the scientific basis on which we build future actions.”

http://www.icsu.org/3_mediacentre/RELEASES/IPY_PR_839_en.pdf

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Evans was Executive Officer at Western Mining Corporation (WMC) from 1982 until 2001, during which time he was a close associate of WMC CEO Hugh Morgan. "My role was to engage in the culture wars and provide him with feedback," Evans says of his work for Morgan.

Source please.

First, equating scientists to pagans who made human sacrifices is far fetched.
Climate scientists have presented evidence that the earth is warming, and their claims are not extreme: Most claims are well within the bounds of past known events.
The IPCC has documented the likely effects of less than extreme global warming. The social and economic consequences of a rapidly changing globe are not pretty.
Not surprisingly, climate scientists are trying to send a message to the public that, because we have already gone past the highest previously calculated CO2 levels, the earth is likely to experience rapid climate change (geologically speaking). Indeed, the probability is that the present generation will need to adapt to a markedly different world in their lifetime.
This link maps why there is a global push to limit CO2 emissions

Red are you saying humans have warmed the earth?

 

[spooly74]

Your charge related to a doubt about climate predictabilty.
If seasons can be predicted, as you seem to agree, is it not possible that other aspects can also be predicted?
If you have not read the last IPCC report, you might have missed refences to probable impacts.
If you are into mainstream media, here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123521/

We are not trying to predict seasons, they are fully understood.
ENSO cycles, PDO etc, have effects on floods and drought in areas around the globe, but even predicting these events is tough.

As far as the IPCC is concerned, based on current emissions scenarios we should see a minimum increase of 0.2C decade, specifically for the first 2 to 3 decades this century.
We have been flat for the last 10 years.

Here is a link to some more mainstream media: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/wid/18298287/

 

[rederob]

As far as the IPCC is concerned, based on current emissions scenarios we should see a minimum increase of 0.2C decade, specifically for the first 2 to 3 decades this century.
We have been flat for the last 10 years.[/url]

This is how the WMO summarised last year:

2008 AMONG THE TEN WARMEST YEARS; MARKED BY WEATHER EXTREMES AND SECOND-LOWEST LEVEL OF ARCTIC ICE COVER

Geneva, 16 December 2008 (WMO) – The year 2008 is likely to rank as the 10th warmest year on record since the beginning of the instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea-surface and land-surface air temperature for 2008 is currently estimated at 0.31 °C/0.56 °F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00 °C/57.2 °F. The global average temperature in 2008 was slightly lower than that for the previous years of the 21st century due in particular, to the moderate to strong La Niña that developed in the latter half of 2007.

Given that most of the hottest years recored since 1850 occurred in the last 20 years, it comes as no surprise that the chart might level off or even decline for a period.
The IPCC never claimed temperature increases would be linear.

 

[spooly74]

This is how the WMO summarised last year:
Given that most of the hottest years recored since 1850 occurred in the last 20 years, it comes as no surprise that the chart might level off or even decline for a period.
The IPCC never claimed temperature increases would be linear.

Nobody should be in denial about the fact that the Earth has warmed, but the stats from the WMO are irrelevant with respect to the IPCC's projections.

The IPCC's last report based their projections on current emissions. Earlier reports predicted much higher trends, but it has been flat or slightly negative so far this decade.

About twice as much warming (0.2C per decade) would be expected if emissions were to fall within the range of the SRES marker scenarios. This result is insensitive to the choice among SRES initiatives.

 

[quinny]

A majority of climate scientists understand "forcings", and are aware that CO2 levels have never been higher. Man's influence in this latter regard are undeniable.

I found some links that state that CO2 levels were a lot higher in prehistoric times than they are now. That's not to say whether it effects the temperature or not, just that it was higher.

http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/greening_earth.html

"Due probably to volcanic and oceanic releases, CO2 concentrations in distant prehistoric eras were vastly higher than today's levels. These include the great carboniferous periods -- some 250 million to 365 million years ago -- when lush forests absorbed the CO2 from the air, and fixed the carbon in their biomass, later to be recycled in our era as coal and petroleum."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060928-hot-earth.html
(quote from page 2)

"They report that the Eocene's atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration was greater than 1,125 parts per million (ppm) by volume. Today's levels are only about 380 ppm, but that number is up from an estimated 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5795/1928

"Coprecipitation of nahcolite (NaHCO3) and halite (NaCl) from surface waters in contact with the atmosphere indicates [CO2]atm > 1125 ppm (four times preindustrial concentrations), which confirms that high [CO2]atm coincided with Eocene warmth."

 

[rederob]

I found some links that state that CO2 levels were a lot higher in prehistoric times than they are now. That's not to say whether it effects the temperature or not, just that it was higher.

Very true. Estimates of up to 7000 ppm atmospheric CO2 are made for the early paleozoic period.
I was intending my sense to relate to man's period on earth, which is significantly less than 5 million years ago. Clearly we were never going to have anthropogenic global warming influences without man in attendance.