No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Even when faced with facts , the ecologists claim to be right. You can't argue with such people.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Right... so you're saying that your 1 researcher's INTERPRETATION of the facts and prediction of the future is absolutely correct, and we should therefore throw away all plans to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases. Was that your point ???
I'd like to point out to you that your article mentions one bit of fact. The article even points out that that piece of fact is not disputed. All the other scientists that are mentioned in the article warn against "your guy's" interpretation.
I don't think you're the right person to talk about people failing to listen to facts. So far in this thread, you seem to have produced very few relevant facts and sources for your arguments.
I refer you to the last 10 or 20 posts by e.g. vuzman and norlander.
It's also interesting, to see the spin you put on that article.
My introduction would have been something like:
"Here's another scientist who stares himself blind at one piece of fact and ignores all other evidence just to affirm his silly conviction that humans are not affecting the world climate (or looking to get money from Republicans)."
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
- H.P. Lovecraft
I'm a bit miffed that you didn't scream for raw datasets from this guy. As Laluu pointed out, you didn't question him at all, even if the other scientists in the very same article did!
You'll be happy (?) to know that I'll throw them at you anyway.
HadCRUT3 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The dataset is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Brief description of the data
The gridded data are a blend of the CRUTEM3 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST2 sea-surface temperature dataset. As well as a best-estimate valuue for the surface temperature, a comprehensive set of uncertainty estimates are available.
The dataset is indexed according to the mean temperature from 1961-1990; meaning that mean temperature is set to 0, and positive values mean temperatures higher than that mean and vice versa.
The complete HadCRUT3 dataset has some more data, but for our purposes I'll use the best estimate anomaly from the annual series of global mean as the mean of the northern and southern hemisphere averages.
Ok, that's not all that telling. I fired up Excel to get a graphical representation. I like it better that way:
The biggest spike is 1998; the warmest year ever, globally. In the northern hemisphere, later years have been warmer, but we're talking global warming, so we'll have to take the southern hemisphere into account as well.
It seems that the last 10 years have been up and down, but apart from the big up in 1998 and the big down in 1999-2000, the temperature has been somewhat unchanged. Humlum sure is right about that. But looking at the chart it should be pretty obvious to everyone that the temperature goes up and down all the time, and that the yearly variations isn't the best indicator for the tendency. So let's try to smooth the variations out by putting in a trendline. The chart below is the same as the previous one, with the addition of a 5-year running average trendline (i.e. every point on the red line is the mean of the previous 5 years).
This shows a much clearer picture of the tendency of the global average temperature, and it's plainly getting warmer. True, it seems to be dipping and going the "wrong" way in 2007, but you can also see that the trendline hasn't flattened out all the variations, and this is quite in keeping with the rest of the graph (Had I made the running average window bigger, this and the other minor dips, would have been flattened out as well).
This simple chart might be the reason why the other scientists doubt Ole Humlum's 10-year-tunnel vision.
I've made 1997 green, just to show more clearly which years are the last 10.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Ole Humlum is one of the most respected scientists within the field of glaciology and I know for a fact that he has looked at that graph you just made hundreds of times - since it's in his texts that we used in Physical Geography classes.
Now, with that graph in mid, how come he comes with this claim? I'm guessing because the models he, and other scientists, made in '98-'00 showed that '08 would be slugging it out in the 0,6-0,8 range.
»I 10 år har vi ikke set nogen stigning i den globale temperatur, selv om vi i samme periode har set en kraftig stigning i mængden af CO2 i atmosfæren. Med den stigning, vi har haft, skulle vi samtidig have haft en stigning i temperaturen på 0,2-0,3 grader, hvis klimamodellerne var rigtige. Det har vi ikke. Derfor må der være noget galt med modellerne,« mener Ole Humlum, der stiller sig tvivlende overfor, om de stadigt kraftigere advarsler fra klimaeksperter – herunder FN's Klimapanel – nu også er rigtige.
»Det tyder på, at effekten af CO2 i atmosfæren er overvurderet. Dette er et vink med en vognstang til os alle om at være lidt mere ydmyge i klimadebatten. Jeg vil ikke blive overrasket, hvis vi om 10-20 år oplever noget lavere temperaturer end i dag,« siger den danske professor.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
As it is stated in the article, then the other scientists asked to comment on this, do NOT dispute, that there has been NO increase in overall surface temperature in the last decade. They only say, that 10 years is too short a time to say anything definate, thus not denying the stated fact, but argue the relevance of it, trying to negate it, due to the fact that it is "only a decade".
I have been trying to get access to temperature recordings from FO from the 80's trough the 90's, that I know for a fact exist, although it seems very difficult to get hold of these specific figures (kepp getting the run-around). As far as I remember them, then there was no relevant increase in surface water temperature around the Faroes for this time.
Let me, however, once again state my claim. No one has, as yet, disproven my claim, which is, that we are looking at this wrong.
I'm not claiming, or arguing, that global warming is not occuring!
I'm not claiming that human-caused emissions are not affecting the global temperature!
I'm not claiming that we as a whole are unable to affect the global climate!
I AM however claiming, that the main reason for global warming is not man-made, but a natural occuring device, for which we do not (as far as presented to me) have sufficient data to prove othervise. I'm talking millenia here - not decades. I'm saying, that these alarmist views (Come on! 1 degree in 150+ years!!!!!!!) are more for the "alarm" and attention reason, than for anything else.
I'm not saying that we shall all cease to implement 'green' energy sources and such. This shall ofcourse be done, to the extent that these prove economically viable. We can not insist on making the world clean and green overnight. It's simply not possible.
No time to write more, shall continue later!
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Humlum might have been trying to suggest that we review the climate models, and had his words slightly slanted by the media's sensationalist bias. But everyone already agrees that our current models are flawed and/or incomplete.
I won't be more than mildly surprised if the temperature 10-20 years from now are lower than today; the global climate is an extraordinarily complex system, and trying to model it is a Sisyphean undertaking.
I don't think, however, that the last 10 years isolated can be used to predict the future, and seen in context with the previous decades, the last 10 years are not particularly special. Taken in isolation, the decade from 1986-1996 also had no change in mean temperature.
For good measure, I would like to further point out that the rise in atmospheric CO2 the past decade has not been atypical; it has risen annually with about the same degree since the 1960s. The article is a bit ambiguous about that.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
jogvanth wrote:
As far as I remember them, then there was no relevant increase in surface water temperature around the Faroes for this time.
So? We're talking global warming, not local Faroese surface water warming.
jogvanth wrote:
I AM however claiming, that the main reason for global warming is not man-made, but a natural occuring device, for which we do not (as far as presented to me) have sufficient data to prove othervise. I'm talking millenia here - not decades.
As shown in my first post in this thread, there are very, very good reasons to believe that man has an impact on global temperatures. Please read it again, or just look at the pictures. There is a very strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and mean global temperature, and in the past century the atmospheric CO2 has climbed way past levels not seen in hundreds of millenia.
Now, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Even if we know for a fact that atmospheric CO2 causes warming, the temperature/CO2 correlation could be affected by other factors as well. However, there definitely is cause for alarm.
jogvanth wrote:
Come on! 1 degree in 150+ years!!!!!!!
1 degree is actually quite a lot. Consider that for the past two millenia, including the Medieval Warm Period, the mean temperature has fluctuated just under 1 degree (by the most generous estimates). The distance between warmest and coldest years was 600 years. To see the same fluctuation, nay, rise, in 150 years seems quite alarming in comparison; especially since most of that rise happened in the past 4 decades.
1 degree is also the difference between ice and water... Think about it.
jogvanth wrote:
We can not insist on making the world clean and green overnight.
No one is, this would not be possible. What people are insisting, is that since it takes so long to do this, we should start now.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
This is more like it!! Now we're starting to agree (if not fully, then a bit).
While we agree, that decades can not be used to argue pro or con on global warming and that correlation and causation are not identical (as you put it), then we disagree on the alarm issue.
If you read the alarmist articles on global warming, then our children (e.g. within the next 50 years max) WILL be living in swamps, deserts or flooded areas due to global warming. Holland and Denmark will be gone etc.
I'm not at all convinced of this. Say, in the next 500-1000 years, then OK, yes it's a strong posibility.
I have simply been stating, since this argument began, that I don't believe that global warming is mainly caused by human actions (not to say that human influence has not had any effect on global warming, cause I agree that it has, just not to the degree that the alarmist environmental orgs want us to believe), but that is is more a natural phenomena. You all can spew as many scientific articles and data at me as you want, they do not disagree with my thesis, and I have, as of yet, not found any scientific articles or thesis distinctly proving me wrong, mainly because I don't disagree that CO2 levels are high and that it's getting warmer.
Before you respond to this:
I do NOT disagree that the Earth is getting slowly warmer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do NOT disagree that humans have not atributed to global warming!!!!
I'm simply stating, insufficient data!
I would like the scientific environment on ecological studies to look beyond man-made contributions and CO2 levels. It almost seems like they are wearing blinders. They seem oblivious to anything that can prove them wrong, and are extremely quick to knock down anyone or anything that might dent their labour.
Sofar, none have studied universal, solar, radiative or similar theories, without being made pariah in the scientific community.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
Humlum got me wondering. Why is the temperature of the northern hemisphere is increasing (record years 2005 and 2007), but the global temperature is not. This is even more odd considering that the Antarctic is apparently heating up.
Maybe the flaw in the model has to do with oceans of the southern hemisphere.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
One possible cause could be the supposed weakening of the (I don't remember the name just now) of the cyclus of water currents where water rises in the Indian Ocean and sinks in the Arctic Ocean via the Gulf of Mexico.
Trying to apply logic here... the immediate result should be that there should be less cold water in the southern hemisphere, but then again, since the whole pumping system has weakened, there would be less cold water flowing in the deep ocean from the Arctic. The weakening of the currents could also mean warmer water - not sure of the physics there and I'm not feeling well.
Would appreciate it if someone posted a link or a summary of the effects of the weakening of the system of currents.
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Sorry Norlander, I should have been clearer. I was referring to the ocean conveyor belt or THC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
...and that should have been Pacific Ocean in stead of Indian Ocean (via Indian Ocean and Gulf of Mexico)
In other news... If you look at www.agu.org (The American Geophysical Union), they have made a statement on how they believe that the current temperature rises are largely man-made and what they believe the effects to be.
A summary is available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7207335.stm
Incidentally, about the North/South split on climate change...
Most CO2 as well as other pollution is emitted in the northern hemisphere. New research mentioned on the AGU-website shows that there are certain tendencies in terms of how pollution affects the weather system in the southern hemisphere.
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown."
- H.P. Lovecraft
The Sahara, the Gobi, the Chihuahuan--all are great deserts. But what about the South Pacific's subtropical gyre? This "biological desert" within a swirling expanse of nutrient-starved saltwater is the largest, and least productive, ecosystem of the South Pacific. Together with the subtropical gyres in other oceans, biological deserts cover 40% of Earth's surface. But their relative obscurity may be about to change. Researchers are reporting that the ocean's biological deserts have been expanding, and they are growing much faster than global warming models predict.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Global warming is an urgent, but solvable problem. That’s why I’ve joined the We Campaign, a powerful nonpartisan movement of concerned citizens that was founded by Nobel Prize Laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. We're already a million strong -- and growing each day.
The We Campaign is working to ensure that elected leaders make the climate crisis a priority. Visit: http://www.wecansolveit.org/. Here, you can learn about solutions to global warming, take action steps and even find events happening in your community. Although it’s not too late, global warming is very serious and there is no time to lose. So please don’t any longer wait to get involved – sign up today: http://www.wecansolveit.org/
Together, we can solve the climate crisis.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
