Man Based Global Warming....

I have yet to see a model from the late '90s that forecast the current stall in warming let alone a decrease in temperatures. I have never heard any type of explanation either for the cooling from the 1940's through the 1970's. Until someone has a good explanation for both of these events, without an explanation isn't the modelling is worthless.

 

Agreed. Most of the models are predicting something like 2-6 degrees C in temperature rise through the year 2100 (doubling of CO2). It is hard to square such predictions against the last 100 years when the only period of rapid CO2 rise and rapid temperature rise occurred during the 1980s and '90s.

Now as a "skeptic", I will say it is possible CO2 is "damping" our present cooling and damped the cooling trend from the 1940s to 1980s. So it is possible CO2 had an effect but that natural cooling factors overrode it. But likewise, one also has to consider that of the '80s - '90s warming, much of it is likely attributable to natural factors / cycles and not just CO2.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument by the pro-AGW camp that addresses these issues and convinces me that any CO2 warming would be anything close to what the models suggest. In fact there is mounting evidence (Spencer, Palthridge) for a reduced climate sensitivity, which means temperature effects from CO2 would fall well below IPCC mid-range projections.

Certainly we see the current cooling data aligns much better with this perspective than it does with the IPCC's 3-6 degree temperature increase projections.

 

as we all know (**snicker**) the Earth is in a natural warming cycle right now and apparently, at least what i have been told in this thread, we cannot use previous climate cycling info for this present warming cycle to state that we seem to be warming somewhat faster than previous warming cycles

so, yes it will be warmer in most of the next several years. and we may or may not break records and considering the very limited temperature database we have, we most certainly will see some new highs.

so does this statement please everyone?

 

I'm not sure I understand your point Dave. Are you suggesting that the earth was not warming prior to man's adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere in the latter half of the 20th century?

 

actually we have been spewing CO2 into the air in great quantities since the 1850's and which is just after the World started to warm and long term models suggest that it would have been warming anyway.

they also suggest that we are warming at a rate much faster than has been recorded previously. what complicates things is our temp maps over time have relatively large, but long and slow changes that last several thousand years, but also short mild changes that can last anywhere from a few hundred to as much as 1000 years.

was looking at a temp map a month or so ago but now cant find it, but they had the "mini ice age period when there were actually 2 of them in the past 1500 years with mild warming trends in between, so we were due for a hotter warmer period which many attribute to variances of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

the problem with this warming trend is that its looking pretty obvious (warming trend was predicted to peak in around 2100 and fall off from there give or take a few decades) that way before we hit the peak we will have nearly no ice in areas that have not had most of their ice melt in over 50,000 years (Greenland) during which we had gone thru dozens of these short cooling and warming trends. Greenland's ice pack deterioration had accelerated to a rate that has never been seen or recorded in all the ice core samples they had taken.

my dad was stationed at Camp Century, Greenland in the early 60's on the nuclear power team there. while there, they had geologists there who sent a special sonar device into the ice. it was fed thru a hose that shot waste steam out of the reactor (closed system, so no radiation!!) it worked by melting a large hole which basically created a large room and the sonar device would kinda float around record stuff and be hauled back up every night to transfer data (no wireless technology or cabling long enough to insure signal integrity back then i guess). and the next day, they would lower it again and do it all over again with the goal of being able to hit solid ground to do some sort of survey that was supposed to be able to tell what kind of rock Greenland was really made of.

well, each day, they would go down a few hundred feet or so, keeping in mind that the deeper they went, the harder the ice, and the slower it melted. now the original project was supposed to take a few weeks since at first they were melting a good 200-300 feet a day right?? ....well, after SIX MONTHS, they packed up and left only because the weather would have forced them to stay an extra 4 months since travel in and out was only possible 8 months of the year. they never hit the ground. they had bored over 7500 feet and were still in solid ice.

its kinda funny now, because at the time, it was a project that cost more than 4 times what it was budgeted for and was labeled a complete failure. but they also took ice core samples with them... one can only speculate how much data has been gathered from that over the decades.

 

Well, man has added CO2 ever since fire was discovered. Well actually, ever since he first exhaled. But the quantities were minimal until the post WWII years and at that time - when you would expect the warming to ramp up due to the massive increases in CO2, it did not.

Anyway, interesting story about Greenland. I wonder how thick the ice in those spots is today. My understanding is that the jury is still out on Greenland, with ice thickening in some areas and melting in others. On balance, the ice mass cannot clearly be said to be growing or shrinking based on the current state of the science, as I understand it.

 

the area where Camp Century was located is no longer stable. there is ice still there and still half a mile in places, but there are also huge rivers of water carving deep canyons into the pack, and less than 100 miles from there, land is now visible.

also, on prev story, it was not climatologists at Greenland, it was geologists. the ice core samples were then used by climatologists much later on.

realize this is a 40 year old story from an 80 year old man... but i must say, i have heard the story at least a dozen times in my life

 

An interesting aside was the decision by the USAF to quickly abandon the DYE-2 and DYE-3 radar sites on the Greenland ice cap. A study by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA353518&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

concluded that differential footing settlement due to rapidly changing ice conditions made the structure completely unsafe for continued use. It was literally abandoned with food still on the table

http://www.lswilson.ca/dye2DSC_0164.jpg

http://www.lswilson.ca/dye2DSC_0178.jpg

http://www.lswilson.ca/dye2DSC_0193.jpg

http://www.lswilson.ca/dye2jul03-3.jpg

However, if the original CRREL report is to be taken seriously, the DYE radar structure composite building should have been torn apart by now. It's still in one piece

I suspect the real reason the DYE structure - indeed most of the DEW line - was abandoned was due to absolutely technical obsolescence. The radar system itself was a vacuum tube relic from 1960 when the DYE sites were built in Greenland.

I suppose the 200,000 gallons of DFA are still sitting in the POL tanks buried in the ice?

 

Meanwhile, global temperature trends continue to...go nowhere:

 

An Antarctic ice shelf has disappeared: scientists | Environment | Reuters

oh oh, global cooling is causing more accelerated melting again.....

 

indisputable evidence of GCC nearly on a daily basis and well... i guess some will not believe until they have waterfront property in Arizona

 

I lived on or near waterfront properties all my life here in FL (nearly 50 years). No changes here. Same beaches, same houses, same seawalls, same marinas. I suppose the sea level does not rise around FL...

Rick
#4 2006

 

Rick: you and i are probably similar in age. previously, all the GCC issues were so far in the future that only my kids would be impacted... not true anymore. i am more than young enough that is will greatly affect my life.

i want to lessen that impact as much as possible. i dont want to contribute to it being more severe than it already will be.

we are no longer to the point that we can stop GCC. we can only hope to lessen its degree of change... hopefully slow it down a bit. give technology enough time to make the necessary changes so that we can survive comfortably.

our previous way of life is no longer an option. changes must be made. concessions must be made. inconveniences must be endured. its too bad we have taken so long to act on the obvious.

 

Dave with regards to your statement (yes, I realize it was satirical to a point) regarding sea level changes you did seem to imply though that sea level changes are or will soon be impacting the world as a result of AGW. These in my opinion are scare tactics which simply do not hold water.

I was making the point that for the entire time I have been around her in FL ('bout 50 years) there has been no noticeable change in sea level. Marinas that have been in existence for over 50 years have not had to change or raise their docks. Houses located on the water have sea walls with the same levels that were present decades ago. Sure, you may find studies of sea levels changing slightly (perhaps a cm or so up or down) beginning from the Industrial Age to present but throughout the history of the earth sea levels have risen and fallen drastically through no impact of man (in many cases when man did not exist). Even the land itself rises and falls through time as evidenced in the Louisiana Mississippi Delta area (currently sinking creating the illusion that sea levels are rising).

Yet you will have no trouble finding 'news' articles and 'reports' bemoaning that Pacific Islanders and those in other wetland areas (mostly the 'poor' helpless folks of the world) will or already are out of a home because of so called 'sea level rises'. I just find it ironic that life goes on in a very normal fashion here in FL as it has for scores of years with no evidence of significant changing sea levels despite us too being very close to the sea on a very low lying area of the US, esp. in our coastal areas.

Rick
#4 2006

 

well i actually know someone who was born in Forks, WA. he is early 40's and he claims that the beach where he lived as a boy is now underwater.

dont know. can only go by what he said. now if you know Forks, storms could have destroyed the beach. but there is no bank. no ports, no harbors for boats to land. so the beach probably was thin sand sitting on solid rock.

 

It is impossible to use a beach as a measure of sea level rise or fall over time. Beaches are in a constant state of flux and erosion and sand deposition are constantly happening on nearly all beaches, whether oceanside, lakeside, or riverside. One hurricane or storm with the winds and current in the right direction can wipe out miles of beach here in FL or build a new beach where one previously did not exist within hours. Then if the local government approves, we simply just re-nourish the beach through the use of offshore dredges to bring the sand back to the beach.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Or pehaps a thousand years .Who knows how long a weather cycle or if there is one

 

Climate change can boost sea level suddenly, fossil record shows

 

Who doesn't remember wooly mammoths & saber tooth tiger pictures that lived thousands of years ago, being displayed in our classrooms as kids. And the ice ran well over North America "back then". All that ice would have been gone long before we were born, if it would have been melting off as fast as it is now days. My personal example of quick ice melts is near our summer home in Kalispell, which is just south of Glacier National park. I love hiking around there, but even since the days of early photography, you can see a HUGE difference between the various glaciers up there ... between now and 80 - 90 years ago:

LiveScience.com | Image Gallery: Glaciers Before and After

The link provides quite a few shots of then & now. I don't know what it means. But if it ISN'T man based, and we go to a lot of work to make a smaller carbon footprint (just in case) ... what's the harm in "over-preparing" ? We (for example) have a few months of emergency food rations. If there IS no earth quake in CA before our emergency food spoils, what ... are we going to feel silly? will we wish we'd of spent the money on a new boat cover? Ounce of prevention.

 

I'm not among the crowd you are addressing, but the first objection should be glaringly obvious. Prevention will be measured not by the ounce, but by the tens of trillions of dollars. If AGW isn't real, there are plenty of other pressing issues already crying out for these resources.

You can manage your emergency food supply so that it doesn't spoil if there is no earthquake. In fact, such management will help keep you better prepared for a wide variety of difficulties tend to strike many different areas.