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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
I've heard it stated that other planets have also been warming. .
lol
Does Kev07 know?
jayzoo, how much is this going to cost Australia.
gg
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.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.
The outcome won't be affected by our discussion.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.
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.
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.'
I'll start with reference no 1. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans2007-4.php#anchor1259055
First, equating scientists to pagans who made human sacrifices is far fetched.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.'
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.”
Source please.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.
Red are you saying humans have warmed the earth?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
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/
This is how the WMO summarised last year: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]
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Very true. Estimates of up to 7000 ppm atmospheric CO2 are made for the early paleozoic period.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?