climate news
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/inco…
Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence, according to an inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
Meanwhile, Al Gore said today in Norway, “We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency, a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here.”
and
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment…
The record melting of Arctic sea ice observed this summer and fall led to record-low levels of ice in both September and October, but a record-setting pace of re-freezing in November, according to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record.
The record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely viewed as a harbinger of global warming, though unusual wind patterns played a role and many factors affecting fluctuations in Arctic ice are poorly understood by scientists. Still, so much ice melted that the fabled Northwest passage opened for the first time in history, and the melting broke a record, set just two years ago and by a country mile, that at the time was seen as unprecedented and worrying.
Here’s how NASA explains the record re-growth of ice over that 10-day period in October and November:
Record sea ice growth rates after a record low may sound surprising at first, but it is not completely unexpected. The more ice that survives the summer melt, the less open water there is for new ice to grow. When summertime ice extent hits a record low, on the other hand, large areas of open water provide room for the ice to grow once temperatures cool off enough. While summer warming of the upper ocean surface can cause wintertime sea ice regrowth to lag initially, as the fall season progresses and sunlight weakens, the rate of energy loss from the ocean increases. That heat loss coupled with a large area of open water creates ideal conditions for sea ice to form rapidly over large areas.
Wow, it’s almost as if there are negative feedback loops that keep the system centered, despite occasional perturbations.
Which is odd, because to listen to the global warming alarmists, one concludes that:
(a) the environment is a delicately balanced system that can be pushed, by the least little perturbation, into a runaway positive feedback loop, turning the Earth into another Venus.
(b) over the last 200 million years there have been asteroid impacts, brightenings and darkenings of the sun, and massive volcano eruptions, but the Earth’s environment has always returned to a slow oscillation around a moderate middle point.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:18 am
“(b) over the last 200 million years there have been asteroid impacts, brightenings and darkenings of the sun, and massive volcano eruptions, but the Earth’s environment has always returned to a slow oscillation around a moderate middle point.”
True, and for much longer than 200 Myrs. The output of the Sun has increased almost 25% over the last 1Gyr, and the temperature has remained relatively stable.
However, while the biosphere is pretty robust, the planet’s climate is not in anyway guarenteed to be compatible with civilization or even habitiable to humans at any given point. The place was also pretty stable when oxygen was less than 10% of the atmosphere, and when hydrogen sulfide was the primary atmosphereic gas, or even when the whole thing was frozen solid. Truthfully, if we have done some accidental terraforming it’s kind of a moot point. The odds of us purposely changing the climate to a habitable range from a margnal one are so close to zero one is not advised to divide by it. If it goes bad, for whatever reason, earth-based civilization is screwed.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:02 am
[quote comment="108536"] the planet’s climate is not in anyway guarenteed to be compatible with civilization or even habitiable to humans at any given point. [/quote]
Oh, Pshaw. Humans have remained alive, and operating computers, on the surface of the moon. Throwing a dome over NYC is child’s play.
…but if we’re going to become experts on that sort of thing, I’d suggest that we do it at L-5 instead…
December 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
[quote comment="108536"]The odds of us purposely changing the climate to a habitable range from a margnal one are so close to zero [/quote]
Based on what evidence?
I’d suggest that we’ve already been changing the biosphere in huge and important ways, and the net result – over the last 100k years – has been that the biosphere and climate are MORE habitable than before.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
For the study I think it’s important to note that individual studies can be wrong,
As for
“(a) the environment is a delicately balanced system that can be pushed, by the least little perturbation, into a runaway positive feedback loop, turning the Earth into another Venus.”
I think most of the Venus doomsday scenarios are the result of the media hype much more than the beliefs of climatologists.
“(b) over the last 200 million years there have been asteroid impacts, brightenings and darkenings of the sun, and massive volcano eruptions, but the Earth’s environment has always returned to a slow oscillation around a moderate middle point.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean an altered climate is good for us. One of the bigger consequences I’ve seen is a rise in temperature will turn a lot of the worlds best farmland into desert. One estimate I saw for India was that a rise of 2C would reduce their food production by 25%. There’s an article here that talks about it a bit (though it doesn’t mention the India thing).
December 13th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Based on what evidence?
After looking at his blog, it appears that he’s obtained rationality offsets and is relieved of providing evidence.
That’s the best explanation I can find for why the “reality-based community” isn’t very evidence based.
December 14th, 2007 at 3:16 am
[quote comment="108621"]rationality offsets[/quote]
That’s a thing of beauty, and I am taking it.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:18 am
“Based on what evidence?
I’d suggest that we’ve already been changing the biosphere in huge and important ways, and the net result – over the last 100k years – has been that the biosphere and climate are MORE habitable than before.”
As you’ve pointed out in the past, we don’t really understand how climate works, especially in the long term. Our current understanding about the climate isn’t even as good as that the late 19th century had of medicine. We know a few things, we have some relatively simple models, but we’re a long way from really understanding it, and side effects are completely unpredictable.
I am interested in why you think we’ve changed the climate in the last 100K years. I’m not sure what “more habitable” means in this context. Did we have an effect on the last ice age?