E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration issued a warning that previously unusual weather is now becoming more and more common, in part due to the changes occurring at the two poles of the Earth. NBC's Anne Thompson reports.
Trying to get beyond the standard scientific disclaimer that no single weather event can be pinned on global warming, government scientists on Tuesday unveiled a new framework: what are the odds of a specific event being impacted by warming?
They tested it on several extreme events in 2011 -- a strong La Nina year -- and, in the case of the record Texas drought, concluded that such severe dry spells are 20 more times likely during a La Nina year today than a La Nina in the 1960s, before greenhouse gas emissions jumped.
"Conditions leading to droughts such as the one that occurred in Texas in 2011 are, at least in the case of temperature, distinctly more probable than they were 40-50 years ago," researchers concluded in a new study.
"It's quite striking," Peter Stott told reporters Tuesday at a briefing organized by his employer, Britain's weather service, and the U.S. National Climatic Data Center.
"We can now quantify the changed odds" due to climate change and thus start to assess risk levels, added Stott, who edited the study along with peers from the U.S. data center.
The study focused on La Nina conditions, Stott noted, but future research will look at non-La Nina years as well.
La Nina, which cools Pacific waters, alternates with El Nino, which warms Pacific waters. Both can impact weather worldwide and in La Nina's case it typically warms up the southern U.S.
As the science behind the framework improves, Stott said, "we'll be able to address more difficult questions" about the relationship between severe weather and climate change.
The 2011 Texas drought revealed the remains of a town long covered by Lake Buchanan. KCEN's Joshua Skurnik reports.
The Texas component of the study compared rainfall and temperature data from La Nina years in the 1960s (1964, 1967, 1968) to present day (2011 data was not yet available so the scientists used 2008, another strong La Nina year.)
The amount of computer processing time needed was enormous, so the scientists reached out to an existing network of "citizen scientists" who allow their networked computers to be used at off-hours, Tom Peterson of the U.S. climate data center told msnbc.com.
The study reached conclusions about other extreme events last year as well, but only provided odds for the cold/warm extremes seen in Britain.
U.S.: First half of 2012 warmest on record
December 2010 was extremely cold in Britain, but the odds of that happening have been halved due to climate change, the study concluded. November 2011 was extremely warm, an event that's now 60 times more likely than in the 1960s, the data show.
Several other extreme weather events were studied using different methodologies, which did not calculate the odds that warming had an impact.
Still, a climate role was ruled out in Thailand's worst flooding in 70 years. That flooding was not accompanied by higher than normal rainfall, the experts noted. They instead cited flood-control decisions on the ground as key factors.
Two other events -- East Africa's drought and Western Europe's heat wave -- appear to have been influenced by warming in addition to La Nina, the study stated, but the extent was not quantified.
The study, the first of what is expected to be an annual look back at extremes and climate, was published in the July issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
It was announced in conjunction with the 22nd annual global State of the Climate report released by the U.S. and the American Meteorological Society.
The 43 indicators tracked in 2011 -- ranging from thinning Arctic sea ice to more acidic oceans -- continued to show a warming trend, according to the State of the Climate report.
"Those indicators," said Thomas Karl, head of the National Climatic Data Center, "show what we expect to see in a warmer world."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Episcopal Church becomes biggest US church to bless gay unions
- From Russia with love? Siberian wildfire smoke means rosy sunsets in Seattle
- Farmer says Arkansas drought turns cattle ranch into 'desert'
- Video: Alligator bites off Florida teen's arm
- Hiker awaiting help for broken leg ends up rescuing his rescuer
Leave a Comment:
Didn't Al gore tell us this a few years ago?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce
Well if there was any doubt left in my mind...it is gone now...The US Government has pronounced it to be true...
.
I sense a dab of sarcasm in your remarks, actually quite subtly done by newvine standards.
But I do not agree with you skepticism ...about the climate, that is. Regarding Government pronouncement, well let the buyer be ware.
As to Frank's less subtle, ironic allusions to Al Gore, as I've said before the validity of the theory that human activity is deeply involved in the warming of the world's climate does not stand or fall on the merits of any political gas bag, especially Al Gore.
So think it through for yourself, over the last 50 years the global climate has grown measurably warmer. It has not been a straight-line progression with each year warmer than the preceding one. But the average global temperature is indisputably warmer now, than it was in 1960 or 1950.
What has changed in that time period?
Has the sun become brighter, its rays more intense? No, there has actually been a slight diminishment of the sun's brightness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png)
Have the ocean's currents changed radically? No. There are cyclical variations such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and more discussed El Nino/La Nina, but these turn vary back and forth. The Gulf Stream and other major currents have not ceased to flow, or radically changed in direction.
Has some non-human agency suddenly begun pumping more CO2 into our atmosphere. Again no. Volcanoes, often mentioned as such a source, emit approximately 1/100th of the CO2 produced by human activity.
The only known factor which has changed, is the levels of CO2 present in the atmosphere, and the only known source for this increase, is human activity.
Go ahead and talk about Al Gore, and the manifold flaws and deficiencies of his person. But aside from the quantity of hot air emanating from his mouth, he his not truly a factor in global warming, or an important voice in the debate.
Please, you tell me, what is causing the climate to warm, and surprise me, don't just say, "Well, it's happened before, back in the Carboniferous Era", an argument equivalent to pointing at a bullet riddled corpse on the street and saying, "Well, my Aunt Sally died of diphtheria.".
Sure, the climate has warmed [and cooled] in past geological eras. But there has always been a reason. What is the reason it is happening today?
you mean when he was flying his private jet around to showboat the fallacy of global warming?
hmmm
govt scientists...
Me...Sarcastic...How dare you accuse me of such a transgression of integrity...(wink,wink...is that better)
I'm a little curios of the Author, I watched several "televised" reports of this study...why did you leave out the "MAN MADE"? is it because of personal reasonble doubt?...or is it to keep it out of the written record?
There is no global warming repeat after me.... I am a conservative who denies science and reason and besides a three timed divorced drug addict by the name of RUSH has said there is no global warming. The Koch Brothers one of the biggest polluters in the world has said there is no global warming and their Flip Flopping Puppet Mittens has said there is no global warming even though he said there was global warming before Etch a Sketch starting running for the POTUS. Repeat after me facts don't matter science does not matter there is no global warming, there is no global warming...
In short, Global Warming Climate Science is just that....good Science.
But, if we have to reduce everything to an algorithm of credit default swaps and the cash nexus...in order to substantiate Truth, let's do so.
If gambling is what it takes for the Party of No to accept Science and Truth, let Machialli be damned.
@dman....
Actually, there has not always been a reason. Natural variations can and do occur due to random chance alone with no apparent cause or cause required. The problem is separating random chance from anything creating a bias in the system, as if making a coin unfair. Here is where the mathematics is unclear and also partly why accurate weather predictions are inadequate beyond a week. Temperature is technically a measure of kinetic energy...and all this article really means is that a hotter climate, no matter the cause, means more kinetic energy in the atmosphere to drive weather systems. This fact is well established and you really only have to understand how hurricanes work, drawing energy from latent heat within the atmosphere, to know that a warmer climate is more volatile.
To many scientists, the results of a study like this are hardly surprising as scientists have had articles dating back to the late 80s and 90s that one can expect more extreme weather events with any increase, natural or otherwise, in temperature due to the latent heat (hidden energy) in the atmosphere.
The constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trapping emissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours twenty percent of the global warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!
The Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudo scientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying
elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anticlimate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon Report was not real at all. The Sham went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by tobacco than U.S.
soldiers killed in all of World War II. This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists
throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal." ART OF THE SCRIPT FOR THIS SHOW WAS LEAKED to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason.
BUT WHAT DO EXPECT FROM A CONSERVATIVE
A Country Joe and the Fish song is running through my mind just now.... but they were talking about the Bomb I think!
I wonder why these stories never come out after Al Gore gets snowed on during one of his conferences?
Witchking,
Don't forget the ugly hag from Alaska loves to show her scientific knowledge by pronouncing that "Now that global warming has been proven to be a hoax." People who would gamble the verey future of the planet on retards like her and Limbaugh maybe should go to Venus where the climate would be more suitable.
Yes, guess he made fools out of the likes of Limbaugh and Palin, didn't he. OOps, they were already big-time fools. My bad.
I am growing tired of NBC Nightly News and their blatant liberal agenda. "The New Normal?" wtf does that mean? We reached record temps in Phoenix in the 1930's and also just after the turn of the century. So back then was that the new normal? There were far fewer people on this planet, let alone less cars, industries and green house gases. Que Rachel Maddow's interview on the Letterman show...Maddow: "Global warming means extreme weather of any kind" Letterman: "yes". Pretty convenient huh? Tornadoes? Global warming. Hurricanes? Global warming. Extreme heat? Global warming. Extreme cold? Global warming. Floods anywhere in the world? Global warming. I CALL BS!
Its science right! It cant be denied, deniers!
It means its summer, when the sheep are most vulnerable... They will go away again this winter, especially if it gets cold.
*ponders* I always wonder about the people that see Gore's arguably less than Earth friendly lifestyle as apparently distinctive proof that his position on global warming is wrong. I mean you can mock the irony of his position vs. his lifestyle, but what does that have to do with the validity of the message? I wonder if we are sitting here in 20 years with inarguably higher global temperatures and the associated climatological consequences if the irony surrounding Gore would matter to them then?
I think people sometimes get caught so much in the rut of politics for the sake of politics that they forget that when it comes to climate science the risks of global warming being false is hits to personal pride and the wasting of any money spent implementing "fixes." The counter point of that is the risks that we face if the arguably scientific concensus is proven true. This isn't about who will be in office for the next four years, what stupid tax rate plan will be inacted, arguments on who knows how to get consumers to spend money. This is about fundamental change to the environment we inhabbit. If we have to grow corn and wheat in Canada to feed ourselves... If we have mass famines, wars, and/or deaths due to dehydration / lack of water... etc. etc. etc. Will all those concerns about the higher cost of doing business in an environmentally responsible way have any merrit? The discussions on this topic almost always devolve into the same kinds of argument you see for any silly Dem vs. Rep political argument, but the stakes are so much greater and life impacting for humanity.
Don't Be A Moron
The problem is, if it is true, what can be done about it? Advocates wont even stop driving, and they are the passionate ones about this issue. You cant force other countries to adhere to our advice even if the country were to rally around the idea of man made global warming. The only way something will be done about it is if it is undeniably true, and in my opinion, it will have to get to that point before a world wide effort could ever be launched. I myself am not convinced. There is way too much propaganda involved for me to buy into it. I would rather not risk sending the world economy into a bigger tail spin based upon a theory that may or may not be true.
I'm proposing what I call the "C. Montgomery Burns Plan to Mitigate Human Impacts on Climate Change". Under this plan, we place large, expandable mirrors in space that orbit the earth and reflect the sun's light back into space. That way we can cut down on the amount of solar radiation before it reaches the daggone stratosphere! It would of course be just a small amount, but that's all it should take, and if we powered it with some photovoltaic cells, the mirrors could rotate to let the radiation through when it's blocking the direct radiation that reaches land and my all-important garden plants. Maybe we could make a couple of them that only blocked the radiation when over the open ocean.
Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and consumption. Obviously we need to do that as well, but we can't just shut off the world tomorrow, because that wouldn't cut it either. Even if we quit emitting greenhouse gases today, we'd still need to reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. You heard it here first folks, and I'm rather serious about this, because it sure beats fertilizing the oceans or the stratosphere as some have proposed. Please pass this idea on to the powers in charge. I'm just an insignificant person with good ideas.
Follow me on MyFace. Friend me on Twatter.
Of course global climate change is real, it's physics not a matter of opinion.
I think the talking point uses "it's science" rather than physics.
Kornfed - Maybe you are talking about carbon offsets or something along those lines - which to my mind are a complete farce - it is just playing games with accounting. However, if that isn't what you are referenceing... Well, I'm always curious by the argument that implementing responsible environmentalism will kill the economy. That's actually nonsensical to me - our economy is based on a consumption model. If our solutions are based on that same model then we actually contribute to the economy. I can guarantee that all of the particulate polution control equipment in a typical coal fired plant paid a number of people's salaries (who in turn contributed to the economy via consumption). I can guarantee that all of the boiler control optimization software to optimize efficiency and reduce noxious emissions produced similarly paid a number of people's salaries. Every solar installation we put in place, every wind turbine we put in place, every dollar we spend in fusion research, etc. contributes to the economy. The argument that we shouldn't consider combatting climate change because it might cost money and that would hurt the economy is nonsensical - the push actually would contribute economically.
Funny when the temperatures are down, the deniers slammed for not understanding the difference between weather and climate.
Here we have an article that is linking weather to climate change.
What an invalidation of the science by using this practice.
Wouldnt one have to ban gasoline, the burning of coal ect, to effect a change? I think that would harm the economy. Using fuel efficient cars wont do it, and it needs to be worldwide. Countries like China want their fun as well, and wont be willing to adhere to our desires.
Not if they are public dollars being put into something that is not viable. I have heard it argued that unemployment payments contribute to the economy as well, which can be said about any money that exchanges hands, but it doesnt make it a healthy economic expenditure.
Here we go again.... this is a repost so don't accuse me of Trollalaling.
The earth does a good job without oppressive legislation and job killing programs:
//www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm
//www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/uk-usa-weather-snow-idUSLNE83800H20120409
Akron - I'm guessing you didn't actually understand the article then. The article isn't saying any event is definitively, causally linked to climate change, but rather that the odds of those events being linked is higher than it was for a similar even 30 years ago. That isn't the same thing as saying x drought was caused by global warming - I suspect the author was struggling with the topic by the way certian things are written here.
Over time, the climate has changed several times. The midwest is no longer covered by a glacier a mile deep. it was 10 degrees colder in the 14th century than it was in the 10th century. Now it is warmer again. So what? Did someone think we live in utopia and there would never be change? This is not something new. I still don't get the hype. Liberals think they can control everything and everybody.
Kornfed - No you don't have to stop burning fossil fuels - you have to reduce consumption and that is very different. Efficiency reduces consumption, alternate fuel sources can reduce consumption, carbon sequestration can offset consumption. Those last two involve investment that likely produces economic contribution. Your argument about China hardly holds water if climate change is anthropogenic - the if someone jumped off the building beside you, would you jump too adage would apply here. Someone has to lead...
I hope you aren't actually trying to equate unemployment benefits and money spent on infrastructure as equivalent? That is laughable... Of course if we are going to go down the road of Government spending doesn't produce net economic growth, I'll also point out the entire concept of capitalist economics is based on continued growth of population, resources, etc. So where does economic growth actually come from? Here is a hint - the economy is a communally accepted Ponzi scheme - it always has been - and it always will be. What is GDP really? Why does a loaf of bread cost what it does? What is a reasonably price? Value is "perceived." If that wasn't true, the economy would never "grow." Or to put it another way, humans have been "printing" money for a lot longer than the US or any other modern country has been around - we can print money to spend on environmentalism and it really will create GDP - we've been doing it for a very long time.
Now wait a minute. Our population is exploding. More countries are driving. And then there is this...
It cannot be denied, for it is science. Given these "facts" gasoline must be banned outright.
I sure hope you arnt referring to outfits like Solindra as infrastructure.
I take it that rich people spending and investing their money does not constitute an economic contribution based on what you have written hehe.
Wow, if this were the case, our worries are over. Lets just print enough to buy every citizen an electric car. Sure we would have to generate the electricity somehow, but im sure we could print some money to solve that as well!
On population exploding - well, I'm one of those crazy people that believe the Earth has a finite set of resources and we are probably at the point where the freedom to have as many babies as we want should probably be considered short-sighted and stupid. I'm also just crazy enough to believe that anybody taking government assistance should be on mandatory birth control - call me crazy. So basically, I'm saying that we could control our population problem, but we choose not to because we refuse to accept the simple mathematics of population growth. I'd also observe that a breakthrough in portable energy storage could toss our need for the internal combustion engine tomorrow. So extra people driving doesn't have to come from gasoline.
I'm going to read "it cannot be denied, for it is science" as sarcasm - if it isn't - well text is a horrible media for inferred meaning. Assuming sarcasm, I'm not sure what the point of responding to the statement is - I disagree with your conjecture about gasoline because you are making a logical progression that is not absolutely mandated by the stated "facts" if alternate means of CO2 consumption / removal were identified.
Re: Solindra / infrastructure - I can see that we are now swaying into the political arena and I'm not going to be baited - one specific failed example does not prove all cases and no I don't find Solindra a good example of infrastructure spending - I'll also observe that you are being glib/snarky rather than contributing to an intentionally sincere discussion on my part.
Your comment about rich spending/investing, etc. is also again a foray into the political arena and completely unrelated to what I am talking about. However, I'll observer that there are a number of "rich people" that exist today because they made their money from the environmental movement associated with the clean air and clean water acts. Arguments to the contrary are pointless - we both know that smart people will find a way to make a profit from regulation - thus most anti-economic arguments are fallacies.
Finally, I note you didn't comment on my "the economy is a ponzi scheme" observation. It really is and just about every single individual contributes to it - we can't have it any other way in a consumer driven system. What else is consumption after all?
Why is this still a debate? Mother Nature is beating us over the head with a club and people still ignore it.
You know I heard a similar argument about why the Ozone layer was being eroded away back in the 70's and 80's. It came to the conclusion that it was man kinds chemicals being thrown up in the air that was causing the ozone to dimish after all the skepticism ended. But in the end, it was still human involvement that caused it.
Why is it so hard now to believe that human beings are the main contributors to global warming? Is it ignorance or arrogance? Maybe its just both. But it is here now. Global warming is here and all the CO2 gases have been building up in the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution started. It's just that it hasnt only been in the last decade that it has manifested into the monster that it is today.
So what are going to do about it? Are we as human beings just going to brush all this to the side and make believe that its just going to go away? Well sorry thats not going to happen. It is human abuse of the global environment that is the root cause for all this and the human race is going to have to do something about global warming otherwise this planet is just going to turn into a wasteland and there wont be anything that we can do about it then because it will be too late.
I actually agree with you here. But in a free society, we face a problem here.
Fair enough, how about some examples that have been successful regarding alternative energy.
I can see what you are saying here, and didnt find myself in enough disagreement with it to comment.
Hasn't Global Warming been happening since the end of the ice age?
1. National Geographic News February 28, 2007 - "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory... see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
2. October 7, 2006 - Cliff Harris, who has spent countless hours studying short and long-term climatological cycles. In 1975, he obtained copies of a broad study from an organization that had studied worldwide temperature and precipitation patterns since 600 B.C. They used information from ice cores, tree rings, lake beds and other types of data to determine long-term climate and how it affected human migrations and behaviors.
After the data were compiled, there were clear indications of short- and long-term climatological cycles of global warming, cooling, wet and dry periods. There was also another kind of pattern that was discovered, one that occurs approximately every 500 years. It's a cycle of wide weather extremes, and we seem to be in the middle of one that is the worst in more than 1,000 years.
We believe this current extreme cycle began around mid-1967. Since that time, over 50,000 worldwide temperature and precipitation records have fallen that once stood for nearly 200 years. Based on the long-term weather charts that date back to 600 B.C., we may be only halfway through this long-term 70-year global cycle of wide weather extremes that probably won't end until at least the late 2030s...
reference - http://www.spokesmanreview.com/weather/columns.asp?ID=153402
3. If you want to discuss the cooling trend of the earth look at the currently INCREASING ice levels in; Antarctica, Greenland and the stable ice levels in the Himalayas. Unlike the predictions of the IPCC, which many have been proven to be FALSE or out-right LIES...
I'll keep this simple. Global warming is caused by the sun. And has been ever since the last ice age.
Soooo...let's all talk about the weather.
1. Abdussamatov is not a climatologist and frankly not even a scientist.
2. Cliff Harris is not a climatologist and does not hold a higher degree.
3. The IPCC is wrong because YOU say so?
Not buying it.
dman,
Scientists are using data that is 2 to 3 million years old to create a model to map this current warming trend. Why you may ask? Because during that period of time, the earth was even warmer than it is today and the warming trends track closely with what is going on now. You can ask your "what is different" question now after taking into account that 2 to 3 million years ago, man was in no way shape or form able to manipulate the weather! They are creating this model to forecast the rise in sea levels from melting ice caps. Evidence that man plays a significant role in climate change is still sketchy at best. While I think it is a worth while endeavor to reduce pollutants and green house gasses, simply because many are harmful to us, I don't subscribe to the sky is falling rhetoric that many global warming and severe climate change theorists profess. Science is only working with about 150 years of recorded temperatures whose accuracy varies.
Next thing you know people will be saying the BP oil spill wasn't really that bad.
Denial too, is bigger in Texas. The one thing that really strikes me about denial is all of the talk about hundreds of years supply of coal or oil... I mean really, gas has only been around for 160+ years. Do you really believe that we will be able to breath the air on planet earth in another 100 years if something drastic doesn't change with our burning of fossil fuels? Do you?
The warming about 3 million years ago (accompanied by high sea levels) was likely caused by a natural increase in atmospheric CO2, to about 400 ppm. Why would a man-made release of CO2 not have a similar effect?
Invest in...marshmellows, Hershey chocolate bars, and graham crackers......
Gunner-2232714:
Which Ice Age?
In the early 1970s, Time and Newsweek magazines had stories about the approaching Ice Age.
Monkey@keyboard,
A few things the IPCC has gotten WRONG:
1. The Himalaya Mountains would be 'snow free' by 2035. Opps that was a type-error in their report, it should have been 2350...
a. But even this was WRONG, current data reflects ZERO decline and the IPCC researcher QUIT when it was disclosed that his reference was a Media reporter...
2. The IPCC Chairman is a Engineer, NO Climate degree, and that is a TRAIN ENGINEER, NO Science degree...
3. Michel Mann's Hockey Stick temperature graph, that left out the 'Little Ice Age,' is nowhere near the actual temperature, two decades later...
a. His graph was based on a study of 'English Oaks' and their tree rings, by another researcher. This researcher had stated that temperature data could not be inferred from his study. That water and food sources also dictated tree ring growth...
4. You want to discuss 'Ice Core' and their accuracy, which the AGW base their beliefs???
a. First study ice contamination during the drilling & retrieval process, the CO2 migration during storage/pressure equalization, micro-growth in the ice cores, etc, etc...
5. The 75+ cubic miles of reported ice melting in the Antarctic (GRACE), out of 2.8+MILLION cubic miles...
a. Would require an accuracy of OVER 0.0003%, a little hard when your data base for 'Continental Rebound Compensation' has a 20% accepted/admitted ERROR rate...
6. The IPCC 'Sea Level' rise was based on data from a Pacific Island study that started years earlier. But they chose the data start point after a abnormal Cyclonic event, producing low water levels. And stopped after the gauges were calibrated using space based instruments and the expected sea level rise STOPPED...
7. The sinking villages in India & Pakistan, due to sea level increases...
a. ALL built on river deltas which erode and sink due to the disintegrating vegetable matter in the river sediment. This is a NATURAL occurance...
8. Etc, etc...
ht tp://ww w.spaceweather.com/ Remove extra spaces in http and www.
Most all of you, in my opinion, are right, to some degree. Solar activity, like sunspots and coronal holes, create a Solar Wind which eats away the earths Magnetosphere, like a sandblaster. We've been getting raging solar activity. The thinner magnetosphere allows more heat from the Sun to reach the Earth. 2012 will prove to have been hotter than 2011.
Natural greenhouse gasses, like water vapor keep heat from radiating back into space. The combination of these and other such natural factors, is no doubt responsible for previous periods of global Warming, like The Bronze Age, and The Middle ages. So far, so good.
Now add 170 years of industrial humanity's contribution to the volume of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The planet was warming in a manner that could be ascribed to us for decades, before we got the last couple of years of raging sunspots. Less of the Earth's heat is being allowed to dissipate than is natural. It's going to get warmer, faster, than most expect, because they don't consider the effects of man made and natural warming being combined. They think it has to be just one, or the other.
Well, I sure see a lot of articles lately about glaciers disappearing and the artic shelf breaking up.
Anyone who wants to see my Texas-specific comments as i am from there can go to
I wonder what the real agenda is for running these articles, what is it that is a much bigger story? Humans are impacting the Earth , deny that are you will go down in history as one of those footnotes *yet there were still some that clung to...
The media, the Federal Reserve Bank, the military - they all speak for these unknown groups who no one seems to know who they are, yet they run everything including all Presidents. So are articles on climate just a bone they throw us, are we getting to close to figuring out who runs the planet? This daily dog biscuit on climate is getting old - give us some real meat & spuds.
Anybody have any good web sites that can actually inform us of who is leading us down this dead end road, I'm getting very bored with the same old crap here.
"Mick-553976
So what does the scientific community do with 1936 when there were more triple digit temperatures and less rain than now when there was such a drought that Texas was called a "Dust Bowl?" Here in Indianapolis we beat some of those temps, but to date we have not beaten as many of them. We have not had rain for over 30 days and we are short by about 14 inches, but during 1936 it was worse. Was 1936 due to global warming or was it part of our cyclic climate changes. The earth has been warming for over 10000 years when the ice age ended, so is that global warming due to greenhouse gases caused by humans, or is that just the cycle that we're going through. There are many other times in our country and others that this has happened otherwise we wouldn't have deserts. I think the scientific community needs to get together and try to understand our world a little better and quit trying to make political statements."
Mick, you do understand the "Global" reference when discussing temperature averages don't you? What was the average global temperature in 1936?
The model T, or was it the model A, was spewing out unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Without proper regulations, look what happened! Its science!
Anybody wonder where all the hurricanes have gone? Could the experts have been wrong in their alarmist predictions after Katrina? Naaa, they couldnt possibly be wrong when they are so good at predicting our long term weather future now could they?
Scientists didn't predict more hurricanes, KF. In fact, increased high-altitude wind shear caused by global warming inhibits hurricane formation.
But scientists did predict that those hurricanes which could form were more likely to be stronger. From ScienceDaily:
Global Warming Equals Stronger Hurricanes
More at the link.
Fun thread
Lots of strawmen like (durrr where are da hurricanes?) and (durrr ice age cycles and stuff) from people who are either:
a) playing dumb to make an argument, which makes no sense, but hey people think it works
OR
b) Literally do not know what the actual science is saying.
Even more of the repeatedly debunked junk science from none other than the same people who brought you the ''the evil gov't scientists who say smoking is bad for you are dumb and wrong and hate freedom'' campaigns of the 80's... and people are falling for it.... again.
Oop, Physicist-retired is in here. Time to sit back and watch the denialists get their worn-out arguments routinely demolitioned. I personally don't have the conviction to debunk the same low-information arguments over and over and over again. Especially when they come from the same people. There is a point where I just throw up my hands and accept the fact that some people are just plain ol' stupid.
JRS - There is always a reason, even if the observer cannot perceive it. If you believe otherwise, place your tea kettle on the unlit burner of your stove. Keep the room at a steady temperature. See how long it takes "random chance" to raise the temperature of the water within it.
Will it ever boil?
So once again, I'll ask, besides human activity, what other factor has been at work warming our climate?
Random chance? ....hmmmm. I doubt it.
Kornfed - the first step in solving any problem, whatever its magnitude, is to admit that there is a problem and define its impact.
To say "nothing can be done, so let's pretend it does not exist", is the solution of a 5-year-old.
So essentially they predict LESS hurricanes? Ahhh I see. Thanks for the clarification hahah
Its science, you cant argue with science durrr ...
Physicist cannot be incorrect, for its science! durrrr . Sheep
Define the problem dman
Yeah, you can argue with science. In fact, science invites it.
But acting like a 4-year old who thinks he's so very clever with glib remarks about 'it's science' does not really constitute an argument based on facts, evidence, and logic.
So please Kornfed, ARGUE WITH SCIENCE, I implore you.
You might want to inform the talking point community about that one...I agree, at least, it should invite it
I was demonstrating your behavior by reciprocating. Irritating isnt it?
Nah, you weren't. Because you did the same thing in above posts before I even came into the thread.
Strawman - I've never come across a Viner who claims you are not allowed to argue with science using evidence, logic, and critical thinking (or, in other words, more science). That's how the scientific method works.
But, if your arguments against science (or anything for that matter) are not based in evidence, logic, or critical thinking --- then it's not really an argument worth a damn, now is it? If your arguments are based on ad hominems, incredulity, willful ignorance, semantics, or other logical fallacies - they will be dismissed as such.
I even used your same durrr,,,it lured you right in haha.
Apparently you are not able to distinguish what I am demonstrating. Read my last post again. I like to demonstrate the absurd with the absurd
I am all about logic. Evidence of every kind is welcome to me. Whether it be a demonstration of propaganda, or actual scientific fact, I like to interpret them logically from all angles, not just the mainstream of acceptance. Belittling ones intelligence happens to be the main weapon I encounter here on these boards that is used against me, in which I find to be petty and without merit. Dare I say, perhaps even childish.
That tends to happen when your posts consist almost exclusively of sarcastic but not so witty quips, with the rare exception of a debunked talking point or strawman argument.
What do you think people would gather from such displays of general ignorance and oversimplification?
Would you like evidence to the contrary? Am I not speaking civily to you? And yet,
This is what you resort to.
Why does it take you so long to respond to me btw. Does it take that long to gather your thoughts?
Ahhh well, I have to go. Insult me one more time without counter, it is best that way. Good luck!
No mention in the article of the Texas drought that lasted from 1949 - 1957. I'm a believer that the sun controls the warmth of the earth and not man. Carbon dioxide in the air is not a danger, without it trees would not be able to manufacture oxygen. Banish CO2 and we can kiss life good-bye. Everytime there's a hot spell or drought the media goes on a fear mongering rampage. It's all about natural cycles, people, so calm down.
We baked last year, dried up and almost blew away. Now, outside, where I live in Texas, it is pouring rain, it poured rain last night and the day before. We are almost back to normal vis a vis rainfall. So, what say the government scientists to that? One year of drought and the next year, rain. Hmmm, could it be that the sillies are attempting to predict Texas weather? They must never have lived in Texas. The old saying here is that in Texas, when it's dry, it's a drought, when it's wet, it's a flood.
Extremes in weather are the norm here. Problem with the global warming, climate change crowd is that there are too many agendas, hidden and overt. Carbon tax? Carbon exchanges? It would seem that the end objective is to finally be able to tax the air we breathe.
Not that I doubt for a second that overpopulation, deforestation, pollution and a host of other manmade items aren't deleterous to the planet, because they most assuredly are. Rather than addressing those issues and correcting them via scrubbing chimneys, conservation, regulations to prohibit toxins entering the water and air, we get this specious climate change scenario, which only excites controversy and ultimately benefits taxing entities.
Prove there is climate change, carbon based and voila, we have now created the ultimate tax on the very air we breathe. Were it not for that tiny little item, I would jump on the ecological bandwagon. Until they assure me that no one is going to make massive profits and huge tax increases off of the 'science' I will withold my approval.
Joan: I recently read an article about increased solar activity and huge solar flares, massive flares. Seems the sun is in a cycle, happens every eleven years or so and increased solar activity does indeed impact the planet and...wait to see if the solar activity affects a few other things like radio and electronic frequencies. Something the article also mentioned.
@dman...
I do not have time to get into a lengthy discussion here but there is not always a reason. To understand this, you really need to understand the mathematics, especially concepts related to Fractional Gaussian noises and Fractional Brownian motions that regularly occur in nature. Einstein was recognized for his work and paper explaining Brownian motion. Attached to these ideas, that random interactions of molecules generate irregular and unpredictable patterns, one must also delve into Chaos theory and the work of Edward Lorenz with weather.
Chaos theory attempts to identify, describe, and quantify order in apparently unpredictable and/or highly complex systems (i.e., atmospheric dynamics, weather systems, etc.) in which, out of seemingly random, disordered (e.g., aperiodic) processes there arise processes that are deterministic and predictable. Today's ensemble forecasting systems therefore require knowledge of the underlying stochastic structure of the deterministic equations. By definition, the word stochastic means random. Given the variety of inputs into the atmospheric system, by the Central Limit Theorem, even non-random inputs collectively become one large stochastic input which acts as a random input (which is a random cause).
Of course, in your example, a pot of water on the stove will heat up. That's not the point. Because there is not just the stove involved (which in the case of climate would be the sun). There are also a variety of factors such as the distance from the "stove" that constantly changes (both in daily periodic rotations of the planet) and in yearly rotations of the planet around the sun. Along with variations in the ocean temperatures that cycle and a number of other factors that do make meteorology chaotic. By incorporating basic physical concepts of nonlinear dynamics and chaos into classical meteorological theory, a more realistic simulation and prediction of weather and climate is obtainable. However, randomness (i.e., chaos) must be included in the equations.
Lastly, do not argue science if you do not know what you are talking about. If you are going to make a statement that there is always a cause, prove it or at least reference it. The mathematics is well established for nearly 30 years that chaos plays a role in the atmosphere. Put it this way...flip a coin 100 times and note the pattern of heads and tails (+1 for heads, -1 for tails). This is a well established statistics problem called a Random Walk (or Brownian Walk or Motion). Note that at times, you will see your series of coin flips having a "trend" as if the pattern is walking up (in the case of many flips of heads). However, the odds of a fair coin are 50/50 and that trend is due entirely to random chance alone...there is nothing pushing the coin upwards on the trend, there is no "cause", just a process of integration of random flips.
To read more about the mathematics of a random walk (coin flip): http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/RandomWalk.htm
To read more about randomness in weather systems and how there is not always a cause attributed to one process: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm
Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: Applications in Atmospheric Sciences: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.4554.pdf
JRS,
Have you even read those links?
Yes I have read those links. The original context of the initial argument is that everything has to have a cause and nothing is left to chance, randomness, or disorder. This is the classic deterministic/nondeterministic argument. The explanation I provide, and the links, argue that in order to get better models of the atmosphere and prediction and simulation of weather and climate, that randomness or chaos must be included within the models. Saying that causes can be random for an observed effect does not support nor refute the concepts of Global Warming but rather implies that with an understanding of the mathematics, that some causes are due to random behavior within the system while other causes are due to natural oscillations. Any warming that occurs from a systems perspective is not a cause, but an enhanced response. In terms of the mathematics, it is like weighting a fair coin to make the coin unfair. Thus, if you are referring to warming caused by more greenhouse gases, the inputs into the system remained the same but since the system absorbs more heat, the effect is enhanced. The point is that this makes the gases part of the equations for the system and not just some input. Maybe too detailed for this comment section but it does make a different when writing the equations that will model climate on whether you include the gases as a cause and part of the input or as an enhancement of the system which leads to the effect of warmer temperatures.
The statistics then speak in terms of probabilities, not absolutes, especially because data sets like temperature of weather and climate are defined as stochastic data sets. In a way, since your moniker is that of a retired physicist, the mathematics speaks of climate in terms similar to quantum physics.
I really do not understand how asking if I read those link implies that what I wrote is incorrect. If you do read the links, they also support what I wrote. On the other side of the coin, I do not believe you will find references to say what I said is incorrect and if you did, I would be happy to review and discuss them.
Here is another link for a Random Number generator. Interestingly enough, also on this website near the bottom of the page is a discussion of quantum physics compared to chaos in weather systems.
http://www.random.org/randomness/
Sighhh!! This should not need to be re-explained JRS, especially to somebody with a self-proclaimed understanding of science, but no, without the explicit introduction of energy in the form of heat, either from a lit burner, or through changes in the surrounding, ambient temperature, no change in the temperature of the water in your kettle is possible.
If the burner is not lit, or otherwise heated, and the temperature of the room remains constant, the water in your tea kettle will not change temperature. No random event, born of chaos theory, will cause the molecules in that water to vibrate any faster or slower.
That is precisely the point.
At least that is how it works in my kitchen. If you are observing different behavior by unheated water in your house, you have just disproved the first law of thermodynamics, and will probably win a Nobel Prize.
I'll await the media announcement, but I will not hold my breath while doing so.
I read the first link you provided, although I suspect that you have not. It does not attribute global warming to chaos theory. In fact, in the opening paragraph [surely not to far for you to read], it says "By the mid 1970s, most experts found it plausible that at some indeterminate point a small push (such as adding pollution to the atmosphere) could trigger severe climate change. While the largest effects could be predicted, important details might lie forever beyond calculation."
...hhmmmm. That sounds like cause and effect to me.
...well, my future Nobel Laureate, it is true that for any given flip of a fair coin, the chance it will fall heads up or down is 50/50. It is also true that in the short run either result may predominate, but over time, the laws of probability dictate that each result will occur with equal frequency.
Also, the Earth is not a "fair coin", and the results of each flip is not conforming to the laws of probability. Certain factors are being introduced, such as the addition of more CO2, which are undeniably weighing one side of the "coin". This would be the "small push" referenced by your link.
Ahhh!! Over the last 100 years a demonstrable and human-linked rise in in the atmospheric levels of green house gases, such as CO2 has occurred. Over the same time period, no comparable rise in solar radiance or deep, permanent change in the ocean currents has occurred. Yet, you seem all too willing to argue that some sequence of random events, too subtle to be measured by modern science, is at work in the warming of our global climate.
Yes, I can see your deep mastery of the scientific method, and the truly incredible precision of your logic, not unlike that of worm tracks in the mud.
Let me know when your kettle starts to boil.
Ummmm... we are collectively at work changing the environment in which we all exist, with unknown consequences, in effect, conducting an experiment with ourselves in the test tube.
Did you really need help with that one, Kornfed, or were you just being intentionally obtuse?
Actually, it is not. While if you flip a coin 100 or 1000 times, on average, you can expect about 50% H and 50% tails, that does not mean that each path to get there is equally likely. Not at all.
Regarding the coin flip...the laws of probability actually state that each result (if you are speaking of one flip has a 50/50 chance. However, if you are talking about the actual pathway, you must taking into account individual probabilities and how many possible paths there are. The result is actually a Pascal triangle of probabilities. For example, if I flip a coin, I have 50/50 of heads and tails. If I flip a coin three times, the pathway of HHH which has a total displacement of +3 is not equally likely as the path HTH, THT, HHT, or TTH. In a series of 3 flips, you have 2^3 combinations. However, only 2 out of the 8 combinations will have a total displacement of +/-3 while 6/8 combinations have a total displacement of +/-1. The pattern continues according to the binomial distribution (or the Pascal triangle) and the values in the middle are much more likely trajectories than the extreme values of several H or T in a row.
Anyways, like I said, before entering into a scientific debate, research it and understand the science because it does not help anyone when statements like the one you made above about all paths or each result having an equal probability. And no, if you read through the links...they are not saying everything is due to random chance...you are missing the point but that random elements (such as chaos) must be interjected into the models in order to obtain an accurate model. You boiling pot of water example fails to be true to scale...that random interactions of events ultimately are chaotic whether or not a small isolated example of a tea pot can be predicted with perfect accuracy. That is the whole point of the Butterfly Effect. At the size and scale of the atmosphere, all the small tea pots heating water do contribute a small amount of heat to the total which also is energy and that does scale up eventually. And, I do not know why you are so opposed to it because it is talking about random inputs...where greenhouse gases are not inputs but would be reflected in equations that process those inputs as rates and flux. That said, you can accept randomness in systems and be perfectly fine with also talking about climate change.
Lastly, if you understand how weather is predicted now, you would understand that one of the reasons that we cannot predict weather far out into the future is because of chaos in the system in that there is a sensitivity to initial conditions and we cannot ever collect enough data to put into the models to accurately predict the weather beyond a week. And, if in your part of the country, you have weather forecasts that are always right, then that is news to science.
Out of curiosity, what would you say is the most abundant Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Hint, it is not CO2 but a large source of latent heat holding tons of energy.
Which, is exactly what I said. In the short run, one result may predominate, but over time the incidence of each outcome will tend toward equality. By that analogy, if the earth were a "fair coin", as you put it, then the incidence of especially cold seasons would tend to be equal to those of especially warm seasons, if not in a given decade, certainly over periods of several decades
They are not. There is a clear trend towards warmer seasons, year in year out. If you were flipping a coin 1000 times, and the coin were to land heads up 900 times, would your first assumption be that random chance was at work? No, you would examine the coin and determine if one side was weighted in a manner to skew the outcome.
Similarly, if, over a period of 50 or 100 years you were to see a strong, and strengthening trend towards a warmer climate, manifested in warmer seasons and more intense weather events, why would you first assume that random chance was at work, especially when there is hard evidence that the "coin" is weighted, and that there are changing factors, influencing the outcome?
Sorry, such an approach is not logically supportable.
We are talking about climate change, not weather prediction here. Climate deals with weather patterns over time. I may not be able to predict where in this world it will rain in the next 24 hours, seven days, or 12 months, but it is possible to look at the weather patterns globally and predict trends moving forward into the future, especially when one can cite a strong causal link in the form of increased levels of green house gases in the atmosphere. Also, our inability to gather data regarding the cause, does not mean there is not a cause, only that we cannot perceive it. Cavemen had similar issues with phenomenon like lightning and disease.
Thanks for the hint, Einstein. That would be water vapor. But unlike CO2, or methane, or freon, water vapor levels are limited by temperature. The warmer the air, the more water vapor it will hold. The colder the air, the less it will hold. That is why weatherman speak of the dew point, the temperature at which moisture will start to condense into water in the form of water mist, clouds, rain and surface condensation. That is also why we speak of dry air in winter.
Water vapor can never be the primary cause of a warming climate, only a positive reinforcement of an existing trend. At any average global temperature, the earth's atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor. If more is introduced, through evaporation, volcanic eruptions, any other source, it will condense and precipitate out.
So, once again, to what cause does your scientific mind attribute our rising global temperatures, still random chance?
And... has the water in your kettle started to boil yet?
Continuation of this argument seems moot. Obviously, there is a miscommunication and from the last response, a severe misunderstanding of statistics and some of the mathematics on your part. The logical fallacies used to underscore your argument fail on multiple levels and you seem to want to try to have me say that random chance is responsible for warming when, if you examine the basis of my argument, is not what I have been saying. I am saying that random chance must be included in models of weather and climate and this is well accepted in the scientific community.
I also am saying that from a mathematics point of view, that any greenhouse gas increase is not a cause (from a systems perspective). I think you are hung up on your definition of the word "cause" where it does not mean the same thing from a mathematical point of view in systems theory as it means to you in a general sense of the word. The cause is specific to inputs into the system. If you do not understand this perspective, please do not argue about something until you have researched it. Any good scientist would understand that if there is an increase in Greenhouse gases, then there is an expected increase in the rate of temperature as the output of the system even when the input stays the same. The cause, as input, is random and remains the same (here, cause is being used according to the mathematical definition as strictly an input into the system, or in this case collective inputs). The rate, or flux, as a transfer function equation does not stay the same. The increase in Greenhouse gases might be expected to change the transfer function equation as an increase in rate.
An analogy would be a car...before and after a tune-up, put in the same gas and because the engine is more efficient in the tuned-up car, even though they burn through the same amount of fuel, the tune-up gives better acceleration in the same engine. An equation could be written for the engine both before and after the tune-up where the tune-up is equivalent to an increase in Greenhouse gas making the atmosphere more efficient at retaining heat. As such, the equations for the atmosphere change, not the cause, as inputs, which is collectively, random behavior due to the Central Limit Theorem. (I hope you would not argue the Central Limit Theorem that given multiple inputs that are not random, that when added together, collectively become a Gaussian white noise which is the whole point in calling the cause, random.) Now, if you want to say, in generic terms, that the cause of the problem is a change in process, then that means that there is a change to the equations or rate in the system but does not imply any change to the inputs into that system.
The logical conclusions drawn about the coin flip example are incorrect and seems to originate from confusion between the probabilities of a fair coin, and the projected pathway of the fair coin. If you are talking about number, we can expect an even number of heads and tails. However, your example about expecting even numbers of heads and tails leading to a conclusion about expecting even numbers of warm and cold seasons is false. I suspect you are thinking of a Bernoulli distribution of Heads and Tails (which is a random) when in fact, the process of integration has been ommited from your arguement but which does occur in both the coin flip and temperature. The assumption you make is that if I flip a coin and add each flip to the last, that somehow I will come down, crossing the average sooner than later because of the 50/50 odds. This is the classic Gambler's Ruin problem. I am more likely to wander off and not return to the origin once I have lost Each next location of the flip of a coin is dependent (due to the cumulative summation) on the current position of the coin since each coin toss has only a value of +/-1. There is no way that if the coin is at +10, that the coin can travel back to 0 in less than 10 flips and then, getting ten flips in a row of tails is going to be a 1 out of 2^10 chance making it very unlikely. Page 15-16 of this chapter explains the difference of equally likely walks versus not equally likely pathways relative to the origin. Figure 3 on page 22 of this chapter also shows several random walks of coin flips which appear to have significant trends that have arisen entirely from random behavior. The mathematics is well established. http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/papers/home/text/class/harvard/154/course/course.pdf
Anyways, I think this discussion is too scientific for a comment section. If I had the ability to show graphs, examples, run some MATLAB code, I could show you. If you have access to a university library, you can look up another reference...Random walk lengths of about 30 years in global climate. This is a peer reviewed journal of the American Geophysical Union of which I also am a member. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046333.shtml
Given that water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases and CO2 only 3.62%, water vapor can be the primary "cause" (or a better word, "reason" to avoid confusion with the mathematical use of the word as an input) of a warming climate. In fact, without water vapor, the world would be on average, 30 degrees celsius cooler than it is today. We are alive because of the Greenhouse effect. As you state, positive reinforcement or what usually is referred to as a positive feedback mechanism would mean that warmer air can hold more water vapor which is a form of latent heat. This means that warmer air hold more energy to drive climate. While you mention that an average global temperature can only hold so much water which will condense and precipitate out, what you fail to address is the second part of that statement as to why water vapor then becomes the primary reason for warming...that upon condensation and precipitation at any temperature, the energy of the Heat of Vaporization is released. This means that the energy that was put into the water vapor to turn the water from liquid to a gas is released into the atmosphere as latent heat which in turn, warms the atmosphere more. Then, the warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. This is what creates the positive feedback you are referring to. CO2 plays a minor role in that once it gets started but CO2 might be the kick to get it started. However, one cannot have a legitimate scientific discussion without including water vapor in the discussion on climate change. (More on water vapor and the percentage of CO2 http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
At least, when you argue, keep your discourse respectful. I am a scientist and I have a well established career in science. I do not enjoy sarcastic comments or you to infer that the science is wrong when there is really no easy way to tell you that you are wrong in thinking on some of these scientific arguments. I will discuss valid scientific points but I will not discuss conjecture or opinions that are not supported by mathematical arguments. My point in interjecting randomness into the conversation has to do with some of the mathematics and how people want to just say temperature is increasing with a trend without recognizing the randomness in the signal (that you yourself mentioned when you said that weather cannot be predicted 24 hours, seven days, or 12 months from now. That randomness does scale up...there is no logical or mathematical reason for after 12 months, for randomness to go away and everything to become perfectly predictable because we do not live in a purely deterministic environment. I will not argue the cause because the mathematics does not imply causes. But I can argue the fact that mathematically, it is totally inappropriate to draw a trend line through a stochastic data set because any trend is subjective to the truncation of the data set. (would you draw a trend line through a coin flip show in Figure 3 on page 22 of the link I mentioned earlier? From a mathematics point of view, that is not appropriate given the nature of the data set.) The problem really arises when people try to politicize science and treat opinion as fact rather than just relying on only what the science and mathematics tells them. There is enough to discuss if we focus on the real science.
JRS, I do not want you to do anything except to acknowledge your own words, and, if possible, support them with logical arguments.
Above, your original response to my post, including the words you chose to quote from it.
If you were not trying say that climate, as opposed to weather, may change, due to random chance, with no attributable cause, then you need to take a remedial course in expository writing, or in reading comprehension.
Nobody with a brain denies the impact of random chance in determining weather events, or in modeling any theory about complex natural phenomenon. But to avow, as your words above plainly do, that the Earth's climate might be warming [your exact words] "due to random chance alone with no apparent cause or cause required.", is beyond unsupportable. It is fall down laughing ludicrous.
A scientist, or an English teacher would both find fault with the above statement.
This really is not as hard a concept as you make it seem. Water vapor, be it 95%, or .095% of the greenhouse gases present in out atmosphere cannot be the primary cause of climate change because absent any other change temperature, the air will only hold a certain maximum amount of water vapor. So if the average global temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit, the average amount of water vapor present will remain constant until some other factor causes the temperature to rise or to fall.
If that were true, then water vapor, by itself, would have created a runaway greenhouse effect millions of years ago, turning our world into a searing, lifeless ball like Venus. But, luckily, the mechanism you envision, whereby condensing water additionally warms the air, does not exist. If the heat energy released by the condensation of water vapor is equal to the energy expended to turn it to vapor, then the net effect can be no greater than zero. Such a mechanism cannot warm "the atmosphere more".
A greenhouse gas is not a substance which produces energy by transforming from one state into another. It is called a "greenhouse" gas because, like the panes in the roof of a horticulturist's greenhouse, they allow solar radiation to penetrate, but help retain the resulting heat.
BTW: As I am tired of your airy distinctions, here are the definitions of cause:
Here are the common synonyms for "cause":
Here are the definitions of "reason":
Please note the definition of "cause" as a noun, and definition #1 of "reason": What difference are you seeing that is apparently unknown to the rest of the English-speaking world?
Sorry, I do not believe you.
Nobody could be so ignorant of the laws of thermodynamics, or the concepts of cause and effect and be established in some scientific field. Moreover, nobody is just a generic scientist. A true scientist speaking of his background and work, would speak of the field in which he or she specializes. As to sarcasm, I have been exactly as respectful of you as your words have been to me, with your haughty, unjustified arrogance.
hmm.... still waiting to hear about that kettle.
This debate has been entertaining.
To clarify what I was saying, Climate Change may occur due to random chance alone is true. Again, in order to digest this statement, a Control Theory Systems approach is necessary. This statement is not saying that any current change being observed now is due to random chance. The statement merely states a fact from the mathematics, that random chance is capable of producing a change in climate. If temperature were described as the coin flip, you can see that you can have large excursions in the time series with no apparent "cause" other than the integration of random inputs. This "classic" paper explains this concept in great detail and it is from 1990. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281991%29004%3C0589%3AGWAAMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Some other examples (and interesting comments) are here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=257
Also, the word change is implied when using the word rate. I had missed adding the word change to after temperature but when writing something of a response, sometimes things are missed. If the only arguments are attacking English and the lack of a word, when the word change is always implied with rate, then we are no longer discussing the science and have reverted to just semantics.
In order to understand how an input, unchanged, can have a larger effect on the output without changing the input, one must revisit concepts of Control and Feedback systems. "A control system is an interconnection of components forming a system configuration that will provide a desired system response. The basis for analysis of a system is the foundation provided by linear system theory, which assumes a cause-effect relationship for the components of the system. The input-system-output relationship represents the cause and effect relationship of the process (of the system), which in turn represents a processing of the input signal to provide an output signal variable, often with power amplification." (Note: This is what I am talking about when I say cause is input. The dictionary definition is not sufficient in science. The definition in the field of Control theory is that "cause" refers to inputs. That is not in any dictionary...that is specific to the field of research and means specifically input. Perhaps, if you like dictionary definitions, then under the Open-and Closed Loop control section, it states "Each block possesses an input (cause) and output (effect). The input-output relation represents the cause-and-effect relationship of the process, which in turn represents a processing of the input signal to provide an output signal variable, often with power amplification.". From: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Control+systems)
An increase in output, without an increase in input, does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. Why believe me though, you can read about it in a peer reviewed article...This can be done in Control systems by increasing the gain, providing feedback, or changing the transfer function of the system. The transfer function is basicly a linear differential equation. So, in the case of a coin flip, we integrate (cumulative summation) once to get a random walk. The equation is just the summation symbol of X where X represents the input time series (Flips of a coin). If instead, we integrate the coin flip twice, changing the equation, we find that we get a much greater output (higher amplitude changes) than the previous output with only one integration without changing the inputs. Therefore, when referring to temperature increases in the output without changing the inputs, I am referring to a change in the context of control theory where there is an input which is processed through the atmosphere to yield temperature as an output. When we look at temperature, we are looking at the final result (the output or effect) of how and what generated that particular temperature.
Even if the inputs stay the same, I can change the system and generate more output. The reason this is true is because if you think about it, in the example above, an integration process is like a capacitor. It stores energy in the system, by having two capacitors, I can double my stored potential energy which can later be released with much more power than an initial small input. This is Control Theory. Often, in experiments, we use a generic step response as input. The step response is the same, but based on the system, can and will generate outputs that are greater than or less than the input. This does not mean energy was created, but that the system is storing more energy which can be released with more power later. Such as in the case of an feedback amplifier where the output of the integration is looped back through the system to be integrated again...this allows for small perturbations in as input to result is big changes in the output.
One other point, in referring to temperature as output, this does not mean that the input is also temperature...but are things that are involved in generating temperature (which can collectively, be random). This could be insolation, radiated infrared heat from an object that is now losing heat, and things like that. Temperature in not input into a system to get temperature out. That makes no sense. Energy is input into a system (as heat) and temperature is the result or output.
Greenhouse gases, cannot be classified as inputs. A greenhouse gas, as you correctly state, does helps to retain heat. However, if Greenhouse gases are retaining more heat, then they would increase temperature output because the Greenhouse gases are storing more energy...like the capacitor analogy. Otherwise, the energy is lost, reflected back into space. Thus, this does not violate thermodynamics at all. What it does is make the atmosphere more efficient at storing and capturing heat (energy) which otherwise would have been lost. Any classic textbook on the Greenhouse effect will be able to relate this concept. For lack of a better source, here is a nice wiki picture that summarizes it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_green_house_effect.svg
What should be obvious here is that there is a certain amount of infrared radiation (heat or energy) that is radiated out into space and a certain amount that is re-emitted back towards Earth. Increasing greenhouse gases allows more infrared radiation to be re-emitted back towards Earth thus increasing the efficiency of the atmosphere to store heat and thereby increase temperature. However, the gases themselves are not part of the inputs...since the Sun's energy is not influenced by greenhouse gases. Instead, the greenhouse gases are part of the system and are incorporated into the equations of how a system handles inputs. Thus, even with random inputs, and the same random input, there can be an increase in temperature through the modification of how the atmosphere retains heat. However, it is also true that due to randomness, and as suggested in that paper I linked to earlier, that natural variations within random behavior can have very diverse paths which are substantial fractions of the temperature signal.
The key to the mathematics is trying to determine if any change to temperature in the output is due to the randomness of the inputs or the change in the efficiency of the atmosphere to retain heat. In both cases, an increase in temperature may be experienced. The key is determining if the variability due to greenhouse gases in the equations exceeds the natural variability of the random inputs. However, even though temperature may go up with random inputs, whether or not the system is enhanced through more greenhouse gases, the law of thermodynamics remains intact due to the storage capacity (or inertia) within the atmosphere and the ability to store energy as in both cases, there is much more energy being lost to space then is ever re-emitted back to earth so no energy is being created...just stored as potential energy (latent heat) or captured more efficiently.
Lastly, I cannot let the statement that no such mechanism exists for water vapor go unnoticed. The condensation process of water vapor will warm the surrounding air 7.5 times. In fact, "condensation releases latent heat. This causes the temperature of a cloud to be warmer than it otherwise would have been if it did not release latent heat. Anytime a cloud is warmer than the surrounding environmental air, it will continue to rise and develop. The more moisture a cloud contains, the more potential it has to release latent heat." (that's from: http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/19/) To understand the concept of latent heat is to understand why the statement you made that water vapor cannot possibly warm the surrounding air more is false.
I offer this reference "As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop." from: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
So, while the science is uncertain, because of the complexity of feedback loops of Control theory, the mechanism for water vapor to warm the atmosphere does exist and is the subject of ongoing research. The point is that through this mechanism, because there is more water vapor when it is warmer, that can hold more heat. The amount of water vapor must increase to achieve equilibrium with a warmer temperature. This does not always mean a runaway effect because water vapor also has a negative feedback mechanism of increasing cloud cover (which blocks insolation) preventing energy build up. However, because these mechanisms are not understood, the role and extent of the positive and negative feedback loops of water vapor in the atmosphere are still uncertain, but you cannot deny that such a mechanism does exist and is currently responsible for winds, thunderstorm, and hurricane formation.
Furthermore, if you look to NASAs websites, " ...most of the atmosphere has maintained a near constant balance between temperature and water vapor concentration as temperatures have gone up in recent decades. If this trend continues, and many models say that it will, water vapor has the capacity to double the warming caused by carbon dioxide alone." (From: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php) So, water vapor has the capacity to double the warming caused by CO2. And still, you would believe that I made up this latent heat mechanism of water vapor for convenience of the argument rather than doing the research as well established scientific fact.
The reason I do include so many references is because obviously, you do not believe me so I am encouraging getting the information from multiple lines of evidence. Also, when arguing a point, such as the water vapor, background research on latent heat would help so that statements like "the mechanism [of water vapor] I envision... does not exist" are not made which does not do anybody any good when bad information is put out there. Furthermore, claiming that the mathematics I present somehow violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and saying that it is nonsense fails to realize that most of the energy is lost out into space and what Greenhouse gases do is trap more of the energy that otherwise would have been lost. So, even with the same inputs, there can be an increase in temperature because more energy is trapped prior to leaving the atmosphere which would not have been otherwise...no energy is created...just more is retained. This is not logical fallacy but logical fact. What you are arguing with me is basic elements of a college course in Control Theory and Systems Engineering. It appears that I have gone through a short course here so you are welcome. I wish you luck in your continued education.
Where to begin...
But average global temperature is not a matter of pure chance, like a coin flip. It is the result on specific inputs, most notably the sun's radiance, but also including the changing composition of the atmosphere, temporary or permanent shifts in ocean currents, and the configuration and elevation of the planet's land masses. None of these is subject change without some cause or causes, even if not fully understood by modern science.
Yes, it is quite possible, although highly unlikely, that one might flip a "fair coin" 1000, or even 1 million times and have it land heads up every time. But to assert, as you seem to be, that through the mechanism of blind chance, and without any attendant change in the sun's warmth, the content of the atmosphere, etc, the Earth might might experience a prolonged series of climatically warmer years, wherein most years are warmer than the preceding one, is not only highly improbable, it is impossible. The Earth's climate is not a "fair coin", and is not prone to warming or cooling without reason.
First off, water vapor will warm the surrounding air 7.5 times WHAT?. Are you allergic to finishing a thought? If so your research papers [in generic science] must be an adventure to read, and near impossible to understand, even when read by other generic scientists. From reading your link I see that the full statement, which you so incompletely quote, reads:
Please, please note that it reads "the processes of evaporation AND condensation"; it does not just reference condensation. I did not say that the condensation of water could not warm the surrounding air, only that the net impact to the atmosphere must be zero. If the process of evaporation uses exactly the same amount of energy as does condensation, and by your link, it does, then the latent heat released into the surrounding air during condensation must be exactly equal to the amount of latent heat absorbed during evaporation. The net impact to the earth's atmosphere is thus, just as I said, zero. So, happily, the laws of thermodynamics remain intact, and, just as watch spring can release no more energy than was expended in winding it, water condensing from vapor remains incapable of transmitting more energy to the atmosphere than was expended to evaporate it.
I've no idea why you are parroting back at me what I said in prior posts. Nowhere in the links you've provided is it claimed that water vapor could serve as the primary cause, or a primary cause of global warming, only that it would provide positive, reinforcing impact to a climate which already warming. This, once more, is exactly what is said in post #1.77, above:
Finally, even on the quagmire of misinformation which is the Internet, I have seldom come across anybody who can argue so vociferously about subjects he plainly does not understand. You read passages on a website, and absorb only half the information being communicated.
For example, you link (not mine), http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/19/, clearly says regarding the effect of that the energy cost of evaporation and condensation are equal:
From this you derive the somewhat ambiguous belief that "The condensation process of water vapor will warm the surrounding air 7.5 times."
I have no idea in what field of science such vague, inaccurate and misleading statements are acceptable.
You make claims such as:
...and then offer in support the following link (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php), which says the following...
To understand "college course in Control Theory" is it not necessary to understand the meaning of the words "primary" and "secondary"? I guess not.
Thanks for the uhhh, "college" education.
Please let me know when the water in your tea kettle, sitting on an unheated stove boils. There is as much chance of that happening as there is of the earth heating without cause.
There you go again, trying to insult me rather than focus on science.
Nothing I posted in wrong. The way you have misconstrued the science is interesting and I will sort out the facts. I will first address water vapor, using your own words.
There, is the answer...right in front of you.
Let me draw your attention to this section (here, you highlighted the sentence with the word secondary in it.):
"These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle."
Particularly, the last sentence that you yourself chose to quote but failed to highlight....
"The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle."
The whole distinction between primary and secondary...They are secondary changes but primary feedbacks...meaning that a secondary change is something that reacts to temperature...but the word secondary here does not somehow negate the primary role that water vapor plays in the atmosphere and temperature. The words secondary change does not somehow put CO2 in the primary position as the source of most of the heat energy in the atmosphere either. Water vapor is the primary feedback in the reaction to increasing temperatures. More on this in a bit...first...
The whole thing about the water vapor warming 7.5 times more energy than the heat of fusion/freezing...that is true. Focusing that I did not say 7.5 times "what" is inconsequential since the point was to say that condensation warms the surrounding air figuring that if you wanted, you would go look up the quote since I did provide the link. The energy released by water during condensation is ~600 cal per gram (so, since this is released to the environment, let's refer to it as a negative since it is lost to the water...so -600 cal/g. As you correctly state, the energy of condensation and vaporization is going to be the same, as I said and "my links" said. So, to go from liquid to water vapor, you need to add ~ +600 cal/g from the environment. Going in one direction, energy is positive when added, in the other negative as it is released. Yes, there is equilibrium...no disagreement because there is nothing to disagree with.
Now, compare this to the heat of fusion and heat of freezing...to go from liquid to solid (ice), the heat of freezing, the energy released (or lost to the water) is -80 cal per gram. To go from ice to liquid when ice melts in the heat of fusion, you need to add energy so +80 cal/g. You can find these figures here:http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/lat_heat2.html
Last time I checked, 600/80=7.5 times. So, no problem with that. You ask me to note that this does not just reference condensation but also evaporation. Ok, so what is your point in not separating them? That changes nothing. The only difference is the sign and where the energy goes, either into the environment or into the water. You trying to make a point saying:
But this fails to make the point that by referring just to condensation, I am referring directly to the -600 cal/g lost to each gram of water when water vapor condenses into liquid and it rains. It is not like by referencing only condensation, that somehow that figure should be split in half...it is still -600 cal/g is lost from the water perspective and this has to go somewhere. That means that the 600 calories of energy is now in the atmosphere as a positive gain...so the atmosphere gets +600cal/g of water that condenses. This is the latent heat of the water vapor as when water condenses, the surrounding air gets a 600 cal/g input of energy as heat so the air warms.
Now, you seem to be stuck on me saying water vapor can then be the primary reason of warming...and somehow that violates Thermodynamics. Your point of view is that there is equilibrium so it cannot influence warming since there is no new energy from the inputs. However, since water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas, as I stated before, there is less energy lost to space over time as more is stored as potential energy in water vapor. (See other links in last post but you have to understand that the "new energy" that you think is violating thermodynamics is not created...but retained, stored over time, that would have passed through the system and out into space.)
So, with warming air, as you said and I said, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. Then, with more water vapor, more energy can be trapped (as heat) that otherwise, would have escaped into space. Therefore, again, no energy is being created and the concept of water vapor does not violate thermodynamics...but there is more heat that can be retained by water vapor warming the temperature. I think one other distinction that would help is the fact that when you say that
That statement does not account for the increased energy that is retained because of more water vapor due to increased temperatures.
So, to use your analogy...it is not that more energy was put into the watch spring...but that there are more watches...and more watches mean more springs taking in more energy, storing that energy as potential energy, and then releasing that energy later as kinetic energy which results in an increase in temperature. So, if the watch was a water vapor molecule for arguments sake weighing 1 gram, then winding the watch (the temperature vaporizing the water) puts in 600 cal/g. When the temperature increases, there are more watches created since there is more kinetic energy available to create a water molecule. The energy used to wind the watches is heat (from insolation and infrared radiation). Normally, with just one watch, there is more energy than ever used...600 cal winds the watch, the rest is lost to space (for simplicity, I am not going to address how much was absorbed by other Greenhouse gases here). Now, as the temperature increases, more watches are created (from the sun energy and the extra energy given back as the watch unwinds). With more watches, as the sun's energy passes through, it winds more watches. Then, as the watches unwind, they release energy that they had retained back into the atmosphere alongside the sun energy that is passing through again increasing the kinetic energy of the atmosphere which is temperature. So with the extra energy, more watches can then be made...which stores more of the sun's energy passing through. So, it is not that there is just 1 watch...but each watch is a water vapor molecule that is wound by the sun, stores the energy as potential energy, and then when water vapor condenses, the stored energy is released, vibrating the air molecules faster...increasing the temperature, which is just a measure of kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
Maybe an simple example would help: let's say we have a very simple system with a controlled heat source and a large tub of water and that is perfectly closed system so no energy is lost/gained from any sources other than from the light, no air is lost, but that the system only absorbs light energy in two ways, in the formation of the water vapor, and the absorption related to the general planetary albedo of ~33% which is slowly lost again each cycle. Let's say that the heat source cycles on and off just enough to evaporate 1 gram of water but gives off 3,000 calories of heat each time it turns on and off. Let's also say that in this experiment, at 6 grams of water forms a small cloud causing rain.
In the first cycle, the 3000 cal passes through the system and evaporates 1 gram of water. That wound up the watch putting 600 calories into the watch. There is now 1 water vapor molecule in the air. 1000 calories was also absorbed to maintain the temperature due to the albedo coefficient (33% of 3000). No increase in temperature yet, just maintenance. The other 1400 cal passed through the system.
When the cycle is off, the 1000 calories is slowly lost from the system due to cooling but never decays to 0 between cycles as the temperature is maintained.
The light cycles a second time, 3000 cal pass through the system, another water vapor molecule is formed taking 600 of the calories. 1000 cal again was absorbed as temperature. Now, there are two molecules. 1400 calories again was lost out in space passing through the system. The same thing happens for 4 more cycles...each time creating another watch adding to the others (winding it up by putting 600 cal into the new watch or water vapor molecule).
On the sixth cycle, something interesting happens. The light turns on, 3000 calories passes through the system, 1000 cal. is absorbed to warm the air. 600 cal winds another watch up (creating a 6th water vapor). Suddenly a cloud forms, water vapor condenses, and 6, 1 gram raindrops fall out of the sky, each releasing 600 calories of stored potential energy to the surround air. Now, all of a sudden, even though the sunlight energy is no longer a factor and already passed through, you have the 1000 calories that was just absorbed by the air plus 3000 "new" calories released by the rain drops. They are not really "new", just were stored in water vapor as potential energy.
Then, with 4000 calories added to the system on the sixth cycle, the air warms more than usual...and when the cycle comes back on, since the 4000 calories has not decayed to zero (or even to 1000) since the decay rate is the same, there is more kinetic energy (temperature) in the system to create more water vapor. So, of the 4000 calories, 3000 of it was from 6 watch/water vapor cycles...while 1000 was from the current cycle gained from albedo. So, the overall effect is that there is more energy in the system...that was stored potential energy...nothing was created...no violation of thermodynamics took place.
Therefore, and as you correctly quoted...the primary feedbacks are due to water vapor, snow and ice, and clouds...(the carbon cycle too but the carbon cycle is mainly referring to CO2 from geological sources (terrestrial and oceanic) of which anthropogenic causes are a small amount). That said, the whole point is that because there is more water vapor, that does become the primary reason for increased temperatures. Again, from that same website...and I am again quoting from website so you can see information from other sources...
"most of the atmosphere has maintained a near constant balance between temperature and water vapor concentration as temperatures have gone up in recent decades. If this trend continues, and many models say that it will, water vapor has the capacity to double the warming caused by carbon dioxide alone."
Here are more references since you still do not believe me...
----------------------------------------------------
"water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this will cause additional warming. "http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219152132.htm
----------------------------------------------------
According to a team of Swiss scientists, heat from other greenhouse gases is causing more water to evaporate, releasing the vapor into the atmosphere above Europe. That vapor in turn, adds to the greenhouse effect, further warming the region. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
----------------------------------------------------
Experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, but call for 'closer examination' of the way computer models consider water vapour http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change
----------------------------------------------------
The heat-amplifying effect of water vapor in the atmosphere could more than double the climate warming caused by increased carbon dioxide levels, report researchers using NASA data. ...
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. ...
Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
"We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1117-water_vapor.html
Water vapor is the most prevalent and most powerful greenhouse gas on the planet, but its increasing presence is the result of warming caused by carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. (See NOAA's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) FAQ page) Water vapor holds onto two-thirds of the heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases. http://www.ecobridge.org/causes_of_global_warming.html
----------------------------------------------------
The point here is that while CO2 may be the catalyst in any initial temperature change, water vapor, because it accounts for more of the Greenhouse gas, will be what holds more heat, not CO2 and affects temperature more. If you do an energy budget of the atmosphere, the amount of heat energy stored in CO2 is much less than the amount of heat energy stored in water vapor. If you are talking about primary warming, water vapor holding 2/3 (66.67%) of all heat compared to other greenhouse gases is the primary cause because it holds the most heat. How can 66.7% of all heat which becomes a change in temperature to the surrounding atmosphere be secondary?
So, while water vapor might be formed from warmer temperatures, the increase in water vapor is a direct feedback effect of warmer temperatures and ultimately will increase more in a positive feedback loop causing warmer temperatures. Likewise, warmer temperatures mean the oceans can hold less CO2 so CO2 is also increased. However, comparatively speaking, since water vapor is more abundant, being the most prevalent and most powerful greenhouse gas, the primary source of heat is water vapor (which would also mean that the primary source of heat for warming is water vapor). How can CO2 be the primary source of heat when it holds less heat? In the Control Systems perspective...CO2 might be a forcing mechanism, but water vapor is a feedback mechanism that feeds back into the system causing a larger effect.
In this discussion, it is important to separate driving forces from feedback effects. What I did state was that
So, here, I make a claim that water vapor is the primary reason for a warmer climate but I clearly make a distinction that is is not a cause because I am referring to the feedback effect of water vapor. Since the amount of water vapor is dependent on temperature, it is not a cause. However, since water vapor is the largest source of heat energy (and warmer air means more water vapor to trap more energy that would have been lost to space), that would mean that the primary reason for warmer temperatures is the heat that is trapped, and then released upon condensation, by the water vapor relative to CO2 (the largest primary source of heat is still sunlight but if we are just comparing greenhouse gases, then the primary source of energy is water vapor over CO2).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, in describing temperature as a coin flip, that is not saying that temperature is due to pure chance but saying that the data set is stochastic. Yes, it is true that the word stochastic does mean random in a broad sense, but there is a whole class of stochastic data sets and temperature is one of them...stochastic temperature data, which I have mentioned in past posts, does contain random elements. There is a difference between chance and what the system does to random inputs. A perfectly normal weather system can contain random elements as inputs.
Even incoming solar radiation (insolation) is random. It has some average value of solar radiation but varies day to day...so the signal is random. We do not have sunlight that has steadily been increasing. But an average value that varies about the mean...so it has "noise" or randomness and is called a stochastic input or a random input. (These articles talk about stochastic solar radiation if you do not believe it:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X10003683 and this reference http://agsys.cra-cin.it/tools/solarradiation/help/Stochastic_generation_of_global_solar_radiation.html and this: http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/dspace/bitstream/10182/880/1/ac_rr_1996_06.pdf )
For example, daily minimum and maximum temperatures are considered as stochastic processes. This does not mean that they are no predictable because if I know the range of the random inputs, I can predict what they temperature could be...in fact, there are computer programs that are stochastic weather generators that are used in climate studies. They do no predict climate but are used to tell possible outcomes of climate. Such as this one: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/mas-models/download/LARS-WG-Manual.pdf or this one: http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/5/653/2001/hess-5-653-2001.pdf
The IPCC uses Stochastic Weather Generators to simulate weather for an area so that climate change can be studied. (http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_weather_generators.html) If there was no randomness in weather, then these generators would not work in developing climate change scenarios. Often, the slight variations occurs in the stochastic random inputs (from sunlight)
Thus, randomness or stochastic behavior (i.e., making temperature similar to a coin flip which is also a stochastic process http://www.chem.utoronto.ca/~jmschofi/Liquids/stochnotes1.pdf) is built in to all climate models.
I hope that this clarifies the discussion on water vapor and where random behavior is in the climate models and how by referring to a coin flip, I am just alluding to the fact that climate contains stochastic elements and just like the water vapor/watch example, a coin flip can be used to discuss simplified concepts of climate and temperature since both are stochastic processes.
You meant, I suspect, "Nothing I posted IS wrong", but, of course, nearly everything you wrote is incorrect, grammatically, logically, and, scientifically.
From the amount of verbiage you generate, I can infer that you at least type very quickly. Your thought process, however, lags a step or two behind. I lack the time to go through all that you posted in detail, so I'll just hit the high points of your latest treatise.
You know, jrs, when I wrote my last response, I knew instinctively that you would seize upon the phrase "primary feedbacks" as being synonymous with the words, "primary cause".
They are not..
The primary cause is the event or factor which initiated a particular event or chain of events. A primary feedback. is the most important secondary factor which feeds on the primary cause. It's impact may exceed that of the primary cause, but like gravity causing a stone rolling down hill to accelerate, the secondary cause did not, and could not initiate the event. A stone sitting at rest will not, of itself, transition into a state of motion, and the water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere will not increase unless some other input or factor first causes the air to warm, enabling it to hold more evaporated water.
It is strange because, by your own words, you almost seem to understand...
But your comprehension is but fleeting...
So close, but yet so far. What you fail to grasp is that absent the increased levels of CO2, the earth's atmosphere would not have warmed, enabling it to hold greater quantities of water vapor. That is why CO2 is suspected of being the primary cause of global warming, but not the primary feedback.
First, and most annoyingly, to what are you referring to with the phrase the phrase "the heat of fusion/freezing". Although not a generic scientist, I am fairly certain that fusion is not involved in the process of freezing. If water behaves differently on your world, please contact Dr. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann, as they have been waiting for over 20 years for somebody to in some way validate their cold fusion experiments.
But more seriously, your link states that BOTH condensation AND evaporation take up 7.5 times as much energy as EITHER freezing OR melting. It should be obvious that when water vapor condenses into liquid, the energy released is equal to the energy absorbed during the process of evaporation. The air in the immediate location where condensation takes place may be warmed by this process, but at some time in the past it was also cooled by the opposite process when the water evaporated. If one adds 7.5 X to zero and then subtracts 7.5 X, the final answer will be zero, ant the net effect on the earth's atmosphere of evaporation and condensation can also only be zero.
It is random only in the sense that we lack the knowledge and understanding to predict or understand its variations. That does not mean that such variations are without cause. When attributing changes to our climate, variations of solar irradiation are one of the factors taken into account.
As to the rest of your post, I really do not have the time, patience or energy to go through it in detail. Suffice it to say, it contains nothing which would suggest that climate, as opposed to weather, may change for reasons of blind chance. Whether it be a warming [or cooling] sun, increases in the levels of greenhouse gases, or something more subtle, such changes do not occur without a reason, and the question was and remains, what has changed during the last 50 to 100 years which would explain our warming climate.
That is it. I am done.
All I can say is that again, your arguments do not address science. You continue to focus on English usage (as I left in the word in instead of is) which is easy to do when one does type really fast and tries to proofread but sometimes misses something like that. That does not make the entire scientific argument incorrect. Since you have lost the scientific argument, all you can do is focus on slanderous sarcasm instead of really addressing (or even including links or references to ever support your claims) of why you disagree with the science.
You always fail to address any significant links I include which contradict your own thoughts and do not really read my responses or think about them before responding. As a victim of disorganized thinking, you are the ultimate case of invincible ignorance and nothing I can say will change you predetermined views. In fact, you fully admit that you do not have the patience or energy to read opposing arguments, understand the logic, and you come to conclusions with no proof. What I provided you is mathematically sound proof, there are no conclusions drawn that are not fully supported by the evidence. However, you seem to feel that your opinions are fact and you place your unsubstantiated opinions above scientific reason.
For example, pick up any basic physics book and look up Heat of Fusion/Freezing.
You spend a paragraph attempting to put me down that I link them together but FAIL to understand exactly what you are talking about. You say...
And what you do not understand is that the Heat of Fusion is the reverse process of Heat of Freezing. They can and are regularly referred to together because the difference is only from one's perspective, which I clearly pointed out if you did take the time to read it, in that there are opposite signed processes or opposite state process (state referring to state of matter like solid, liquid, gas).
As I stated:
If you read this, I make perfectly clear that the difference between the two is a sign change. So, your arguments somehow want to take this out of context and create an argument that does not exist. You are arguing against yourself because you are arguing based on the fact that you did not take the time to read. Thus, all of your argumentation on this subject (Fusion/Freezing) is invalid because the more you argue it, the more you are just arguing with yourself and the fact that this shows that you either a) did not read and just want to argue, b) do not comprehend what you supposedly read before posting or c) are ignorant of the facts in front of you if you did read further and do not care enough to actually make sure what you are writing is correct or can be backed up.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to state that 80 cal / g = Latent heat of fusion of ice is also the Latent heat of freezing of water. The two terms are interchangeable depending on perspective...if you are talking about two states of matter (water and ice). Likewise, from the water (liquid) perspective, if I was referring to the heat of fusion of ice I can say 80 cal/g but if I change the sign and say -80 cal/g, I am now referring to the opposite effect, that of the heat of freezing because if I take away energy from the water, I am freezing it.
I also can see that you failed to fully comprehend the example given regarding evaporation/condensation. At no time did I ever say that going in one direction over the other (water to vapor, vapor to water) gave off more energy. I stated that they are the same but opposite sign. +/+ 600 cal/g depending on whether it is evaporation or condensation or the perspective (from the water vapor point of view versus the water point of view). The extra energy comes from more energy absorbed and not lost to space (the more watches example). All you really have to do to understand this is read up on the water vapor feedback.
The whole thing between primary cause versus primary feedback was explained in detail in my last post. How about we talk about sources of heat. My point was that (and I did state) that while CO2 may be the catalyst (in your view, cause) that the primary source of heat (in my view, cause as feedback) was water vapor because that is where most of the heat is stored as energy. If most of the energy is in water vapor, then it stands to reason that the cause for the increase in temperature is the amount of energy stored in water vapor (the links I provided state that 2/3 of the energy is in water vapor relative to other greenhouse gases (which also includes CH4, Co2, etc.). Therefore, from a mathematical perspective, if you want to ask where did most of the increase in temperature come from (i.e., the cause of the increase in temperature), then you must state the source with the most energy. CO2 does not hold energy like water vapor and cannot be the source of most of the energy that caused temperature to change. It is simple mathematics...66.67% of energy is in water vapor which accounts for 66.67% of the temperature changes due to greenhouse gases...that is primary (because 2/3 is more than 1/3) and is a cause and the direct result of the increase in energy is a change in temperature. Put it this way, if water vapor did not exist, there would not be such an increase in temperature. The energy that caused the temperature to increase came from the water vapor, not CO2. All CO2 did was cause a minor variation allowing more water vapor to be made initially but then the positive water vapor feedback cycle is taking over from there. This is the climate inertia that is talked about...that if you cut all CO2 emissions today, that the atmosphere would still continue to warm for about 30 years due to climate inertia (caused by water vapor).
From your stone example, you seem to think that CO2 is the cause of the stone rolling downhill but that water vapor is gravity keeping the stone rolling after the initial cause. However, it is also perfectly reasonable to say that gravity is constant, and while the ground giving way causing rocks to fall is a cause, that the ultimate cause is the constant gravity causing strain on the ground eventually causing the ground to give way. In that sense, a stone can fall from what you refer to as a secondary feedback alone because that force is constantly there. This happens all the time. Are you trying to say that a stone can never fall on it's own from gravity? That someone or something must have pushed it rather than gravity acting as a constant strain that eventually, through decay of the foundation caused by the gravitational strain, overides the forces holding it in place, causes the stone to start to move? While I understand what you are trying to say, because gravity is constant, it cannot be considered a primary feedback because gravity does not change in response to a rolling stone (the position changed from a stone on a slope to a flat area but the gravity is the same). Thus, the application of this example to temperature and water vapor which responds directly to temperature is tenuous at best.
And, if you think that the word random means that it is only random because of our limited knowledge, the sun is a good example as the output is stochastic. (See the previous links and then tell me why you disagree with peer reviewed scientific literature.) There does not need to be a "cause" as you say because of the Central Limit Theorem...that says that the sum of a number of nonrandom distributions will interact and become a random Gaussian distribution. Hence, the end result is something that is random and does occur naturally in Nature.
Yes, I read your posts and I attempt to construct understandable scientific arguments that are supported by evidence. While I did slam you in the first few paragraphs, that is for wasting my time and not reading because you cannot possibly have a legitimate scientific discussion when you fully admit that you have no patience to go through it in detail, to look up references I provided, and to counter to factual based science with references of your own that contradict what I am saying.
The pattern seems to be attack the messenger (even with shoddy facts like your opinion that the Heat of Fusion/Freezing cannot be put in the same sentence) rather than confront the science. If you provide scientifically valid, peer reviewed evidence, that contradicts anything I said, I will be more than happy to review it and change my viewpoint in light of new evidence (that is what scientists do). However, the failure to provide any links, references, or any logical facts that support your arguments and just consistently attack my scientific abilities warrants a response.
If you want to talk science, and support your claims as I have done, with references (which you never refute nor tell me that my references are wrong), then I will talk science.
However, if you want to just consistently badger me as a person, my thought process, without discussing relevant science, or making up erroneous arguments based on your lack of reading instead of what was actually written, then the evidence is that you are a Charlatan, someone who cannot be reasoned with, and who has already come to a conclusion without any further need for scientific discussion. If you really had science on your side, you could turn around my thinking or anyone's thinking on this matter. However, your only recourse was to attack the person writing and never ACCURATELY address the science, only attack through deception of taking things out of context or being dishonest and ignoring all scientific fact that was supported with references that contradicted your narrow minded world view.
So what does the scientific community do with 1936 when there were more triple digit temperatures and less rain than now when there was such a drought that Texas was called a "Dust Bowl?" Here in Indianapolis we beat some of those temps, but to date we have not beaten as many of them. We have not had rain for over 30 days and we are short by about 14 inches, but during 1936 it was worse. Was 1936 due to global warming or was it part of our cyclic climate changes. The earth has been warming for over 10000 years when the ice age ended, so is that global warming due to greenhouse gases caused by humans, or is that just the cycle that we're going through. There are many other times in our country and others that this has happened otherwise we wouldn't have deserts. I think the scientific community needs to get together and try to understand our world a little better and quit trying to make political statements.
Actually, those making political statements are the ones making cursory comclusory statements as to whether climate change exists or not -- for political ends. There is no evidence that these scientists are doing so. If there is a political statement here, it is the spin the media places on the research, because they also make the conclusory statements while not pointing out the limitations and assumptions that went into the study in the first place. Did they consider the 1936 data to which you speak? I have no idea, from reading this article.
The same thing that the Scientific Community does with all the evidence that doesn't fit their Theory... They Ignore It...NOAA is a part of the Department of Commerce of the US Government...If this isn't a politically created statement...There has never been one
one year is an aberration, 30 is a trend. You don't have to be too clever to suss that one out.
Or perhaps you do since it seems to be eluding more than one micro-brain on this board.
another great line
Phia-Niques, why the cycinism on scientists and why assume that they are lying on this issue? Certainly their ranks are a cross-section of society with a similar portion of inflated egos and downright crooks but I think the majority are pretty dedicated individuals who's job it is to look at available data and formulate a theory to make sense of it ... then test that theory with experimentation ... then publish results which are picked apart by other scientists and will either stand or fall on it's merits.
Personally, I will believe the majority of Climate Scientists over the majority of Right Wing Political Pundits any day. (And to be fair, I take what the Left Wing Political Pundits say with a large grain of salt as well.)
So Mr.PheaNiques ... since you're so knowledgeable about the scientific community...can you elaborate more on how they ignore what doesn't fit their theories?? It would definitely be worth clarifying for you because what you just said sounds like the epitome of ad hominem.
@Brad & Jason
"Let Me Be Clear"...as long as the Scientific Community is Funded by Government and Orginization with political agendas...I will always be skeptical of the scientific "conclusions"...It is no different than a Tabacco company funding Cancer research...These Scientists are "NOT" stupid people, they are literally some of the smartest among us, they are also smart enought to understand what the "funders" are expecting in return...and they have all the evidence the will ever need of examples of what happens to the Careers of Scientists that stray even slightly from the "Party Line"
There way more than ample evidence, for anyone willing to see it, of colusion...in the AGW Scientific Community from "tweaked models" and "willful exagerration for effect"
Perhaps you need to understand exactly what caused the "Dust Bowl". It wasn't merely high temps.
And you need to learn a little bit about statistics. As global warming occurs, there is still some natural variation, but the odds of higher temperatures goes up. If you look over a long period of years it is likely that you will find one or two high numbers somewhere randomly over the years, in your example 1936. But 9 out of the top 10 hottest years in the last century are within the last 15 years. Just because you don't understand statistics or climate science do not make your opinion a valid one. The science says you are wrong, no politics about it.
Mr. Phea, Climatologists all over the world agree that climate change is real, extreme weather events will increase, and man is contributing to this. These Climatologists are funded by Governments, Universities, Foundations, and even, yes, Corporations. Even freaking Exon agrees with this. Insurance companies are already adapting by steadily moving away from insuring high risk areas. No conspiracy going on, it is happening.
one year is an aberration, 30 is a trend. You don't have to be too clever to suss that one out.
The earth is somewhere around four billion years old. Plants and animals have been present for hundreds of millions of years. The accusation of micro brain must be self-referential as one year, thirty years, three hundred years; these are are all aberrations.
And you need to learn a little bit about statistics.
Another self-referential comment. There is always night school.
@Bluecat
"Let me be clear" ... I have no problem with "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" ... absolutely reasonable, if not provable, then at least proof available... My issue is with "AGW" as "settled science"...and with the assertion that "Science" is not being swayed to this conclusion by Funding from Groups with Agendas...I would ask anyone to ask themselves, Do You Believe the Oil Companies, Insurance Companies, Big Pharma, International Mega Companies of every stripe, Unions, and Environmental Groups are stuffing Politicians Pockets without the expectation of something in return
Phea ... I suppose if you are one of those who feels that "Government", regardless of which side of center, is evil then you certainly will never believe anything the about any subject remotely connected with government and there isn't much point in trying to change your mind. If you are just worried about the current political enviornment however then please remember that Climate Change did not spring forth from the Obama years. It has been around through several administrations on both sides of the political spectrum. The theory certainly did not get much support from Bush but somehow the results still came out the same.
It's funny to me that all of these deniers are typing away on laptops, computers, or smart phones (which were developed by scientists), using electricity (again scientists), and when they get sick, they'll run to modern medicine (scientists) in automobiles and airplanes (again, developed by scientists). But as soon as some scientists begin to say that they may need to make sacrifices for the greater good, well, those scientists must be liars, idiots, or pursuing a political end. I guess this science stuff is only good when it makes my life easier. Hmmmm....
Yes natural heating and cooling of the earth,cycles. Not made by man.GW is a scam to tax and control people.Mabe a volcano well erupt and help cool things down a bit.
In the period of around 1,000 AD the temperatures were much higher than they are now and by around 1,500 AD we were in a mini iceage that lasted into the early parts of the 20th century. Last I heard there has been no temperature change over the past three years. Are humans responsible for rising temperatures? There is only anicdotal evidence of that and no real scientific evidence to support that theory at this time. People believe what they want to believe. As for me, I really don't worry about it because there is nothing that I can do about it. Don't give me that crap about driving a Prius or Volt because no matter what I drive China, India and a whole bunch of 3rd world countries are going to continue with their polution. Anyone that really wants to make a change can get off the planet any time they wish. Oh, I forgot. Dr. Kavorkian is dead.
@ Brad
It isn't about good or evil, it isn't about Bush or Obama, it isn't about left or right, it isn't even about correct or incorrect...It is about "agenda money" affecting "Scientific Integrity"...Science has always been about skepticism of "accepted" facts...when skepticism dies (or is murdered), relaible Science dies with it
If You give me a Hundred Billion Dollars to prove that "Pluto" is made of Limburger Cheese, I will do it, and I will have my conclusions confirmed by 98% of all astrophysicists
Hammers, we can all assume you strugle with charts.
@ Mr. PheaNiques
Did you know that the big bad evil government funds studies & research on just about everything? Including many things that you may use every day? Many independent studies are done too. In the case of global warming here is an example of just one:
www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/24/independent-study-confirms-that-global-warming-exists/
does this work? Thanks MSN...
...
flocker,
According to the numerous Ice Core studies preformed in Antarctica and Greenland. These cover almost 800+thousand years and their findings are consistent with each other, even the ones from the opposite side of the Earth...
Most of the 'Ice Ages' are about 120+thousand years apart and their high temperature averages have been consistent, at least for the last 5+cycles. This may be related to changes in sea level, which obtained current levels, during these 5+cycles...
The current warming trend average is about 2+degrees BELOW the last temperature peaks. The difference is, this temperature rise has been SLOWER... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
If you want to see higher temperatures you need to go back 3+million years, by looking at the sediment data. But then the continents were positioned differently, lack of ice caps, and plant & animal life were different...
Google the Ice core data and look at the graphs, yourself...
BTY - Mars has about 95% CO2 in its atmosphere and its ice (frozen CO2) coverage is DECREASING. Either it is the Mars Rovers adding CO2 to the atmosphere or the only COMMON element, the SUN's radiance...
@flocker
Your link sent me to an article by a staffer at forbes, who referenced a study at berkley that was conducted independent of the Funders of the group that was funding them...The Author of the article claimed it proved "AGW" while the study didn't adress it...the group at Berkley's own founding mission was to silence critics of "global warming"..not "AGW"
As I have said repeatedly, I've got no issue with "Global warming / Climate Change", infact I would say if the Earth wasn't contiuing to warm after emerging from the last Iceage, I would be more worried...
That warm period was likely caused by CO2, for whatever reason it may have been naturally emitted at the time. The same is true for warm periods 15 million years ago, 55 million years ago (PETM event), etc. Starting from a degree or two below previous interglacial temperature peaks won't stop sea level rise or the other consequences of warming in today's world.
Yeah actually from wikipedia on the dust bowl:
The Dust Bowl affected 100,000,000 acres (400,000 km2), centered on the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma, and adjacent parts of New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas.
Not just Texas, and it's effects reached all the way to Canada.
What's befuddling to me is that the evidence that Global Climate Change, or Warming, is possibly being influenced by human activity, has NOT influenced monetary, intellectual, and societal investment in conservation, alternate energy, and environmental protection. Instead we have fossil fuel corporations investing billions of dollars into denial science and propanganda. What statistical percentage of possibility that humans are affecting global climate changes are needed for the average person to decide that maybe we should try to reduce our CO2 emmissions? If I were to arbitrarily state that it's a 50% probability that humans' burning of fossil fuel will increase global temps by two degrees, increase ocean levels, cause extreme weather events worldwide, and bring about mass extinctions of animal species, would you look for a change in energy policy?
Seriously, why do people think climate scientists simply forget about natural cycles? Climate scientists are the SAME PEOPLE WHO RESEARCH NATURAL CYCLES.
Do you think you have some sort of secret bit of info on natural climate cycles than the scientists WHO WROTE THE BOOK ON NATURAL CLIMATE CYCLES don't have or ignore? Lol, the notion is just ludicrous.
Do you think that climate scientists don't take into account such factors as 'natural cycles' ? Really? How do you think they came to their conclusions on climate-change to begin with? Let me tell you how: By studying natural cycles and noticing that such natural cycles (and a myriad of other natural factors) do not fully explain or account for what the climate looks like today... and then discovering that increased CO2 levels fit perfectly into the equation to explain what is being seen on the ground (you know, in reality)
Jesus people, it's not something they just pull out of a hat. Do some damn research. Hell read ONE peer-reviewed scientific study on the subject and you will immediately realize that half of your stupid-ass arguments have been fully and thoroughly addressed.
The point that Mr. Pheniques is making is that much of the research is agenda driven. What is the scientific model? Create hypotheses and attempt to prove them. Where do scientists get their money to perform their research?
Most trials have these persons referred to as expert witnesses. Scientists, psychologists, doctors, forensic pathologists, etc. The prosecution presents experts to bolster their arguments, said experts either working for or paid for by the State. The defense then turns around and presents their experts to debunk the prosecution experts. Now, how unbiased can a person be if what they are stating is paid for by people with a decided agenda? My expert can out-expert your expert?
Mr.Phea, you can't just insinuate that all climate scientists around the world are lying for dollars without some sort of evidence. You assume that ONLy because they are sayong what you don;t want to hear. I'm sure you believe the ones who say what you DO want to hear.
You can always find ways to question any findings. To some extent that is good, but it can be overdone. When there is as much evidence as there now is supporting AGW, attempts to dismiss it all based on character assassination of scientists are entirely agenda-driven. That's right, Mr.Phea, YOU have an agenda too.
How much is Mr. P being paid for his agenda? His opinion? His research?
It's actually rather simple. Science is based on data and testing. If test results are not reproducible, the research is rejected (remember Schon's high-temperature superconductor fraud?).
All any scientist has to do is to show that something (anything!) other than human-caused CO2 emissions is driving this current climate change.
Done.
But after decades of trying, no one has been able to show it. In the meantime, the evidence for AGW continues to pile up. We have a mountain of it now, and still no one has been able to point out where the flaw in AGW is.
Not really. If all you look for is one thing and one thing only then the odds of finding it are pretty good. What else are they looking at would be a better question. Now, unquestionably humans are indeed affecting things negatively, however, when the opportunity to create huge new monetary gains by making climate change the sine qua non of said research, when governments and huge corporations stand to make obscene amounts of money from said science, who wouldn't question some of the science involved. Perhaps the better question would be, how can said climate change be reversed without creating carbon taxes and carbon exchanges.
Hell, if I had the money I'd go buy me some forest and make a killing selling carbon exchanges. Won't stop anything per se since the polluters will just pay me to trade some carbon so that they can keep on polluting.
Politicians, Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Used Car Salesmen, New Cars Salesmen, Mechanics, Plumbers, Bankers, CEOs, Check out clerks, Insurance agents, Corporations...
Of those listed above, which are NOT tempted or swayed to deceive for personal gain...for someone to imply that a "Climate Scientist" somehow is not susceptible, it to claim that they are not HUMAN
There are literally 10's of billions of dollars at stake in "Research Funding" and 10s of tillions at stake in profits resulting from policies set by the finding of that research...??What would you (or me) lie or fudge about for your (my) portion of that pie??
here is how I'd breakdown the insinuation...10% are being intentionally and knowingly dishonest in pursuit of money and fame...20% are true believers, who are unwittingly overlooking exculpatory evidence because of personal bias toward one theory...30% are basing honest opinions on the data being collected by the first two catagories...30% have legitimate questions that what they are claiming to be true, is likely to be less than that, but are being intimidated into line by the "consensus" and threat of "career ending" criticism...and some where between 0% and 10% are the open skeptics...of those open skeptics, somewhere between 0% and 10% are being paid to be skeptics by special interests who stand to loose if the thoery influences policy
Fortunately, according to Gov. Goodhair and those moderates from Oklahoma, Global Warming is just a myth.
It is promulgated by scientists who are jealous of the money the Oil Industry gives to the intellectual heirs of the "scientists" who told us that the connection between smoking and cancer & heart disease was "not proven". (For some reason, few of these Big Tobacco scientists seem to be around. Probably used the product.)
Just think of all the great things New Mexico does with desert.
PS, the Dust Bowl was caused by straight-line plowing, over-planting areas that have little rain, with water-thirsty crops, and a general disregard for the land, and its rainfall cycles. Only Big Government imposing conservation, was able to change things.
That's Crap.
You are wasting your time trying to use facts on Republicans, they only believe what the GOP tells them to believe.
Screw it. Let the Red states go up in flames, especially Texas.
@Hank, You are such a kind, tolerant liberal! Could you please tell us here and to all those ignorant meanies out there publicly, why "Progressives" are so loving, compassionate, and care so much for their fellow man? I'm sure that the words that will flow from your next post will be dripping with the milk of human kindness, especially for our brothers in Texas since we are our brother's keeper. Yes, Comrade Hawk, let the love flow!
It's hard to care for your fellow man when they want to kill you and the earth you live on.
Where are all these deniers coming from? They must have seen the nightly news and had their panty's all in a twist.
If you think NBC is "liberal media" you can change the channel back to fox. Where they are very "honest" and "non-biased", they say so themselves so it must be true.
Anyway, I'm an engineer, I come from a family of science majors, we all agree global warming is real. The facts don't lie and nobody paid us to believe in this stuff.
You can do two things about it;
1. Deny it and hope it's not real and maybe your right or maybe your wrong. If your wrong we all will suffer.
2. Make small changes in you lifestyle that will have big impacts on the environment and will hopefully set an example big enough to change the current path we are on and possibly save the human species from extinction.
I know it is so alarmist of me to suggest such things. But the facts are clear and denying the obvious is a recipe for disaster.
Larue!, Hank! Dudes! Your ignorance is showing!
This year's weather certainly constitutes a data point supporting the global climate change hypothesis. However, it takes several data points to prove this hypothesis correct , especially since there are other hypotheses out there. Also, there is the problem of whether or not political activities will ameliorate anthropogenic climate change or exacerbate it with political repression.
Right. So we should do nothing for 13 years and will worry about it on the 14th anniversary of this article. What will happen if 7 years from now we find out that this is related to global warming and it's too late. How many data points is that?
In 7 years the Earth will be a portion of a degree F warmer. But each 7 yr portion of heat increase is accelerating. When 2100 rolls around, 7 years might be a whole degree difference or at least a much larger portion. It is never too late to fight warming; it depends on how many humans and other animals we will allow to perish.
"Several other hypotheses out there??" Give me a break. Which "Hypotheses," Mr. Science, are you referring to? The Rush Limbaugh Hypothesis that the earth is warming because of an excess of methane from him, or maybe it was from Palin or the CEO of Exxon.? Koch Brothers?
Ronald Reagan said it came from cows.
Wow computers can do anything now a day's, they once did a study on cow farts and concluded the methane from them was overwhelming and was the number one cause of CO2 in the atmosphere..
I will still believe till the end of our time that God can point his finger anywhere and stir up the weather,
tell me where the next earthquake will come or tsunami, or tornado, rainstorm, flooding ? Thought so.
To answer the question asked: D'UH!!!!
You've missed a point here. 1936 was a year when man made global warming had been occuring for 56 years already. You are comparing an old globally warmed time with today. Now... if conditions were exactly the same now as in 1936, this heat wave would have surpassed the 1936 wave by approx. a degree F. Warming isnt happening overnight; records will fall a little at a time. Remember too that for every record cold day today there are 3 record warm days. Yes, the globe warms all by itself w/o the help of humans but...97% of climate scientists agree that humans are adding warming to what is natural.
It is nowhere near 97% Dan. Another bit of misinformation.
Sorry Wally, Dan's right if you consider true Climatologists who are actively doing research.
I have always thought of it as if you sit in a garage with a car running you don't have much time. Basically we are doing this to the entire planet every day except the air/sky is the garage. People have had this notion for years that the planet would simply wash all pollution out of our effects easily, but in for example the effects of radioactivity is has become clear that manmade processes can quickly contaminate and ruin regions overnight.
Nice analogy, Daniel. Kudos.
What is this MSNBC? You stated over a year ago the climate change is due to drastic SUN SPOTS! You have shown news items about same! Now you are back to global warming? Ok quik lesson--the Sun is putting out horrendous amounts of energy as huge explosive Sun Spots! It or the radiation is disrupting communications as well as the weather by severe upper atmosphere heating! Global Warming is a factor but this past few years of heat waves are due to SUN SPOTS! As per your news flashes! How about an article on the MINI ICE AGE--about 1100 to 1889! Caused by no sun spots! Now there are Massive spots!
keith,
Lose your tin hat, did you? The evidence for man-made Global Warming is overwhelming, yet you tell us it is the transitory Sun Spots. And your consensus of Scientific corroboration is where?
Dont get upset over these journalists. They make mistakes. Listen to the scientists instead.
But listen to the right scientists. And certainly don't trust anything you hear from the Mass Hysteria Media, and that includes our host. Some dopey lady on the NBC News tonight said that climate change/global warming CAUSES the large scale oscillations and circulations better known La Nina and El Nino.
No, I don't think so. These patterns have been around for centuries.
Actually there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up the sunspot theory as well as other natural non-human factors. The scientists and objective thinkers who agree with these theories are not "tin foil hat" wearing conspiracy theorists. They're rational people who refuse to blindly submit to the agenda of tree hugging libtards.
That's right Wally, listen to Climatologists doing research. Read their findings and measurements. As Dan said earlier over 97% are in agreement on this. Only the timeline is up for debate because of the difficulty predicting feedback loops.
Sorry Noscope, there is NO, Zero, Nada scientific evidence to back you up, just FoxNoise denier nonsense.
High sunspot activity only adds about 0.1% to the Sun's total energy output ... look up the NASA satellite data. And this solar cycle is (at least so far) no worse than the previous three cycles since the satellite measurements began in 1978.
I know the giant plastic vortex(es) aren't helping either. They are largely promoted by Texas petrochem, which is all in on plastics production.
Are these the same gov. scientists that counts the unemployed and have to add hundreds a few days later...if so I
I dont believe a word they say.
No it's different scientists, these guys are the real deal, they got thermometers and everything
Really, the government is using the very same scientists? And teabaggers complain the government doesn't know how to economize.
When was the first accurate thermometer & scale developed??? 1724 - Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit
Prior to this temperatures were SWAGS...
When was the first Climatologist Degree issued??? 2002
I always hear that AGW advocates only take the word of climatologists-- weather forecasters, geologists, etc etc opinions don't count.
Here are the resumes-- and educational background for several "climatologists".
http://www.sercc.com/personnel
Until VERY recently universities did not teach "climate" as a stand-alone degree-------- so basically right now most folks claiming to be climatologists actually have degrees in other types of Earth sciences...
So, how does some climatologists having other degrees affect the accuracy of the NOAA and NODC data showing that the atmosphere and oceans are warming?
EricH-3359508,
Research the NOAA-16 satellite which was processing temperatures as high as 200+degrees in Lake Michigan. Spherical particle shapes leads to substantial errors .....
Research the ARGOS data and compare it to the Sea Surface temperature data anomalies for over 40+years. But remember that prior to ARGOS the measurements were by satellite for 3+decades and by ship engine water temperatures for about 5+decades, and prior to this by hand with a bucket and thermometer being drug behind a vessel. Not a very reliable or wide spread data base...
The troposphere is DECREASING in temperature, but according to the AGW people this is NORMAL for a warming World. Just like increasing snow fall...
The Republican party (My party) has been on the wrong side of this argument for decades because they get special interest money from the biggest polluters.
I've always said that even if global warming is not caused by our polution, why support polution? It would take far less money to operate cleanly than it does to buy off congress and wage a propaganda war against science.
Ron Paul 2012
They have been well paid to be on that side. Who in their right mind can believe that this is not man-made? Republicans are not stupid. They just like money more than logic.
Uh, the money pushing the climate change context measures in the trillions of dollars, Larue. The vested financial interests are unprecedented, and they come from all walks of corporatist/socialist life. You are correct to assume there are people who love money and power more than their fellow humans, but you're an absolute dolt to point the accusing finger at only Republicans.
Remember what I said the next time you hear about Albert Gore buying beachfront property. Remember what I said the next time Prince Charles brags about his green operations (made from money skimmed from the blood, sweat and tears of his subjects). Remember what I said when General Electric's profit margins rise because the cost of power to your home gets jacked through the roof. You're a fool to point fingers at one party -- you should be pointing nine around the room and one at yourself!
Who in their right mind can believe that this is not man-made?
Probably intelligent trained scientists who are willing to look at ALL the evidence instead of cherry picking it for any tidbits that might agree with their agenda driven world view like the warmist crowd does.
Me:),
I agree Republicans love money, greed,a nd abjure anything that smacks of logic, but really, they are stupid. (If for no other reason, they would let greed destroy the planet. That is quintessentially stupid.) That They would run a Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Palin, Santorum, etc. for office is classic stupidity.
How can there be climate change? The Koch Brothers have spent millions buying politicians and media propaganda to say there is no such thing. Vote party of NO and stick your head in the sand and pray to jebus.
I am not sure whether or not global warming is enhanced by human activity or not. That being said, I am sure that we have a limited supply of oil and other fossil fuels. I am also sure that burning coal is not good for our environment, not too mention the ill effects it has on the miners who mine the product. I wonder what harm would come to this country, and to the world, if we were to develop renewable energy technology. Of course, renewable energy technology would potentially hurt oil companies and oil producing countries. However, oil companies could lead the charge and develop the technology for renewable energy and shift their efforts from fossil fuel extraction to production of renewable energy technology and equipment needed to produce the energy.
The failure to consider how human activity is contributing to global warming seems to me to foolhardy and potentially leaving our future generations with a world that will be more challenging to survive in. I would hope that a few generations from now, the people of earth will not look back on the late 20th century and early 21st century and wonder why we failed to act when the warning signs were here. People who do not accept that global warming seem to consistently point to the costs that making a change will have on economies and to people. I wonder what costs would not changing our ways have on our future? I look at this problem much like a dam that has a small leak. We could ignore the leak and hope that it will self seal or stay the same. However, failing to fix the dam most likely will lead to a major failure and the cost to repair the damage caused by the failure is either much higher than fixing the leak or simply not achievable.
I am not an alarmist. I believe that there are valid reasons to not make knee jerk reactions to what we observe in our environment. I am however, a parent and I want my children and my grandchildren to inherit a world where they have an expectation that their planet is one that will continue to sustain life for many generations to come.
I agree that 1936 was a very bad year for the environment. However, I also cannot fail to take notice that the trend over the last two decades is disturbing. Much like a battleship, we cannot turn this around with a quick turn of the wheel. We should not think of this issue as a conservative versus a liberal issue, rather this is a human issue. I am only one person and I do not wield much, if any power. Our President and our Congress however wield significant power. Yet, I am afraid that they are institutions that are paralyzed. One only needs to look at our debates about the state of our economy and healthcare to realize this. I only hope that our world can come together to solve this problem. The problem of energy is a worldwide one and there will be countries that lose as a result, but countries like Saudi Arabia will eventually run out of oil. We should not have to come close to exhausting this energy supply in order to develop renewable energy technology.
You can't turn something around that isn't happening!!!!!
Sure, just ignore all the data that says the atmosphere and oceans are warming!! This shouldn't be a liberal or conservative issue; it should be about doing what's necessary to reduce the risk of climate change to future generations.
Global warming is a religion, no basis in any scientific fact what so ever.
that's a great line.
Just like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Minus the extended summer.
Lol... Hank!
it's just being caring about the planet. some people care, some like and make money off of dirt. three's no small wonder that petrochem, for example, and waste management all have headquarters in houston. they are intricately tied.
A religion...except global temperature averages have been increasing like clockwork every year...
But, I will say that the issue is so politcally charged with so many interest groups involved that just about any study on one side of the arguement is going to be labeled as garbage.
The "news" above was brought to you by a corporation that profits from crisis construction. Their methodology in five simple steps is as follows;
1. Create the perception of crisis.
2. Offer your own convenient pre-determined solution(s).
3. Lobby your convenient solution(s) into law.
4. Profit by force at the expense of the masses.
5. Share your scammed gains with the aligned and friends, then repeat.
The owner of NBC isn't any different of other crisis constructors who seek to make rules by which they will profit. From the War on Drugs, to the War on Terror, to Obamacare and the Green Industrial Complex and Military Industrial Complex, this company helps foment the crises and the solutions so it may grow more powerful and wealthy. This company's CEO has suffered a large vote of no confidence because of the compelling conflicts of interest he share with the current President.
Everybody who's schooled in climate science, and discliplined enough to avoid hyping their causes, understands solar activity, and Earth's proximity, is the major influence on drought patterns. The sun agitates the atmosphere to a predominant level. Don't believe it? Watch the big thunderheads on an otherwise balmy afternoon collapse as the sun sets.
This fraud pushed in the name of global warming/climate change/climate disruption needs investigation, and its pushers prosecuted. Especially the owner of NBC. Jeffrey Immelt should be in a prison jumpsuit.
Right, because without climate change MSNBC would have nothing to report on and would soon go out of business.
Right, because all those climatologists are going to reap billions from........... Never-mind.
anybody who can compare msnbc to us military effects is out of they damn mind.
you know what they saw about meteorologists?
they are great a predicting past results
Kinda like republicans governing.
Great! Another flunky from the Republican University of Clowns.
Oh no. There isn't any global warming going on said the Corporate Pig to the Government Official. If it was it would cost us billions and billions of dollars to try and fix now. Yes said Government Official to the Corporate Pig. If only we had started back in the 60s and 70s this mess more than likely would not be happening now.
So typical of bureaucratic bulls()t and Corporate Pigs turning their backs on some thing until people start to die from it. If they do not die then nothing is wrong.
I totally disagree.....the reason I grew up in a lake state is because my grandparents who lived in S. Dakota and left, was because of the drought.....that was 75 to 80 years ago.....so I think it is a cycle.... thanks Dad,,,,I love where I live.
lets not forget that the government can control the weather with HAARP and chemtrails, so global warming? id say they are just using this an excuse for their world conquering agenda
These are the same folks who intend to "terra-form" Mars.. If they can do that....I'd say use the tech to fix the home planet we're f'ng up
Prior to Australia's, China's, and Thailand's massive flooding events of 2010 & 2011...
They had been experiencing a decades long drought, sense their last major flooding events in 1995...
What the Western Media is not reporting - ALL of these countries were conducting massive cloud seeding campaigns, that summer... BTY - I live in Asia...
Also BOTH Australia and Thailand have admitted they may have increased they flood DAMAGE by 80%. Due to they mis-managing the flooding and lack of building regulations in KNOWN flood areas...
WOW! Lots more fossil fuel burning vehicles on the road, lots more people trying to stay cool running fans and A/C units, lots more hot air from our politicians - this has nothing to do with global warming, but sure is heating up the air!
Actually we should find out within the next decade what is happening, climatelogically-wise. I'm in my 60's and thought that I would be dead before "The Change" happened, but now looks like I'm going to witness it, first hand. Please pass the Soylent Green!
It's too late anyway. The world would have to stop using fossil fuels immediately for any real effect on climate.
And we all know it won't
Not really. Ramping down fossil fuel use over say 30 years would still make a huge difference compared to no reduction at all. With "business as usual," it's likely that global temperatures will continue to rise at least 1 deg F every 30 years or so.
wouldn't it just make sense though to make a national push for conservation of energy also? why don't we ever ever hear about it? last person i ever heard it from was Carter. instead of pushing for increased unlimited use of devices devices devices. too much pro consumerist mind control.
Guy McPherson, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
"Warming is affecting the weather" is a stupid statement. Warming is not affecting the weather, warming is the weather; it's just changing for the umpteenth time since the begining of time.
Wish I was a scientist, so's I'd know how many umpteen is
A yankee a bit too old to understand the science.
Republicans are not stupid but they are certainly stubborn when their only goal is to deny President Obama a second term regardless of the consequences for the citizens as a whole. Their angst regarding this president can only be considered as not rational.
now how did the great socialist get to be part of this conversation?
i know he's the jobs president but did i miss where he became the global warming president?
What does this have to do with the weather?
No, we want to be rid of him because is a clear and present danger to the security of America and our way of life.
"Shame On You, Barack Obama!!!"
Even Hillary knows how bad he is.
Yeah, the "Halliburton Corridor" ie the eight year plunging of the nation's rectum, this added to the 12 year GOP run in the 80s, were the best thing to ever happen for the country. What would Tom Delay do?
Do you realize that GOP has been president for two thirds of time since when reagan was elected?
50 years of meteorological data is such a small subset as to be virtually meaningless. this study is based almost solely on "what ifs". As far as past warming and cooling goes, dman, most of them didn't have any discernable cause so your argument is specious at best.
"Specious?" You ain't a-goin to start in on that there Evolution hoax now ?
So history and Wally, where did you get your PhD's in Climatology? Please send me a link to your doctoral thesis, I could use a good laugh.
OH FFS. Get a grip you nuts. this is normal.
Wouldn't it be great if all the right wingers in Texas died from lack of water?!
Yup, we can only hope.
phuck you Rob
@ rob and hank: perfect examples of the kind of hatred coming from the left. you people are really mentally ill.
No doubt the warmth in Texas made the drought more likely and more severe. It does nothing to establish global warming. It is a localized event. There is virtual agreement that the Earth temperature has not increased for the last ten years. It may have been very hot in Texas, but it was bitterly cold in Eastern Europe.
Of course, there has been a trend in the past thousand years of upward temperatures, including those times of the dark ages with man obviiously contributed nothing to the rise. Also, prior to 1000 it was much warmer in parts of the world who kept up with such things.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Fact, warmest first six months ever.
No, that is a stupid statement Rob. Can you do any better, or is that all you've got?
Too small a time period to be of any significance Hank
Hank Missenpoint Jr---what you stated is NOT FACT--actually its the hottest ever since record keeping started.
and your comment were complete opinion without a bit of fact.
Got more news too. The sun's output has increased and even Mars has a higher temperature as a result.
Everything has cycles in nature - even the sun. It is the derivative of the natural perturbations and how nature regulates itself. Nothing in nature is static.
The splash title basically asks if Global Warming Affects weather.. with a question mark. We mostly had this figured out in the late 90's.. as a mass majority... as a very real fact. Why is this a news article? Why is this news article not pointing out offenders of Global Warming and chasing them down with reckless abandon? Journalism is also Activism... and that lost art of Activism is completely lost and complacent.. at least on this website.. and at least in this article... No matter how hard whoever wrote it tried... They need to wake up and dig in.. and not wake up,, eat breakfast .. and figure out how to write some fodder for MSNBC so they can collect a paycheck for filling space on a website for a day.
Justice does not work that way NoBigFed. Nor does legitimate science. Misguided activists mindsets like yours make the rest of us uneasy. Can you say Occupiers, their ilk, and their enablers?
NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom
Analyses of a set of NASA data shows that water vapor greatly amplifies global warming, and carbon dioxide doesn’t mix in the atmosphere as quickly as assumed.
SAN FRANCISCO -- NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002. Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere (see multimedia presentations). The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth's surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe. Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
"Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere," Chahine said. "You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump."
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said. The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth's natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn't have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
"The data we have now will help researchers improve their models' vertical transport," Chahine said.
Data from AIRS also has yielded another key finding: the southern Hemisphere is actually home to a large concentration of carbon dioxide, a phenomenon that some researchers had speculated about but never had the data to prove it.
Most of the man-made carbon dioxide tends to come from the northern hemisphere, where key polluters such as the United States, China and India are located. In fact, the north produces about three to four times more carbon dioxide than the south, Chahine said.
Although scientists knew that carbon dioxide doesn't stay in one location – winds blow pollution from Asia across the Pacific to reach the United States – their models largely showed a smaller amount of the emission move from the north to the south than what data from AIRS have demonstrated.
"The southern hemisphere is a net sink. Some people say it's the garbage dump for the northern hemisphere," Chahine said, adding that carbon dioxide has the lifespan of 100 years.
Information gathered by AIRS also has pointed to the important role water vapor plays in global warming.
Water vapor is the evaporation of water from the ocean, thunderstorms or other sources. Its presence is closely tied to the temperature of the Earth's surface. As humans emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the world gets warmer and more humid. That boosts the amount of water vapor, which, because it's a greenhouse gas itself, would in turn amplify the warming trend.
"AIRS has provided an unprecedented view of water vapor distribution," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at the Texas A&M University, at the AGU meeting. "Warming over the next century is essentially guaranteed to happen few degrees Celsius unless" other, previously undiscovered factors show up.
In fact, water vapor can more than double the warming effect of carbon dioxide, Dessler said. He said the data from AIRS corroborated predictions by climate models on the impact of water vapor on global warming.
@nobigfed: i got news for you: journalism DOES NOT equal activism. in fact, they are polar opposites. a journalist is supposed to be totally objective, reporting only the facts. once that journalist crosses that line, he becomes a propagandist - and that is the problem today with (almost) all media. "just the facts, mam"!
NO!!!!
Just like the people saying the Kyoto Treaty worked!!!
CFC's have a half life of 90+years, and most of the Asian countries are still producing R-12 & the Halons. Any changes on the effects of decreased CFCs, would take almost a CENTURY to be evident..
The O-zone hole size is more dependent on Antarctic's surface temperatures (FALLING) and cosmic ray intensity (INCREASING)) sense records were started during the 1970s...
In the mean time keeping using those new chemicals that use MORE ENERGY to produce the same effect and corrode the equipment from the inside-out. Which INCREASES the chance of more releases into the atmosphere...
Are we safe from the sun? Solar flares keep on getting stronger - with latest hotspot the size of 15 Earths strung together
The sun is a tempestuous mistress - and her outbursts are becoming more and more violent as the weeks go on.
NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory spotted the summer's first 'X' solar flare on Friday - a huge outburst from the sun right at the top of the scale.
This came on the back of 12 'M' flares in just six days, with a M6.1 flare knocking out radio signals across the planet on Thursday - hinting at the destruction the sun could reign on our technology if Earth takes a full blast across its blow.
The sunspot group behind the flares - named as AR1515 - stretches across 118,681 miles (191,000km) of the sun's surface.
This makes it's width more than 15 Earths set end to end, said NASA solar astrophysicist C. Alex Young.
The biggest flares are known as 'X-class flares' based on a classification system that divides solar flares according to their strength.
The smallest ones are A-class, which are similar to normal background levels, followed by B, C, M and X.
Similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes, each letter represents a 10-fold increase in energy output, meaning an X is ten times an M and 100 times a C.
The sun is now heading into the peak of its 11-year solar flare cycle, with 2013 expected to the tumultuous year.
With the increased spread in communications in the last 11 years, a sever solar storm could cause huge issues for the planet.
Radio blackouts occur when the X-rays or extreme UV light from a flare disturb the layer of Earth's atmosphere known as the ionosphere, through which radio waves travel.
The constant changes in the ionosphere change the paths of the radio waves as they move, thus degrading the information they carry.
This affects both high and low frequency radio waves alike.
The same region has also produced numerous coronal mass ejections or CMEs. They have been observed and modeled by NASA's Space Weather Center (SWC) and are thought to be moving relatively slowly, traveling between 300 and 600 miles per second.
Since the active region itself is so southerly in the sun, CMEs from this region are generally unlikely
to impact Earth.
Nasa's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured an M5.6-class solar flare erupting from the sun's surface starting on July 2, from a huge sunspot called AR1515 in the sun's southern hemisphere.
The blast of particles - a 'coronal mass ejection' - was not directed towards Earth, but the charged particles caused brief radio interference across Europe.
From a different spot, but on that same day, the sun unleashed a coronal mass ejection (CME) that began at 4:36 AM on Tuesday.
Models from the NASA's Space Weather Center at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md, described the CME at traveling at nearly 700 miles per second, but do not show it heading toward Earth.
Sunspots are darker than the surrounding area because they are slightly cooler, which makes them less luminous.
They are caused by the sun’s magnetic field becoming twisted – and it’s this twisting dynamic that can produce coronal mass ejections.
These contain billions of tons of gases bursting with X-rays and ultraviolet radiation.
They are mind-bogglingly hot – around 100,000,000C and the result of ionised solar particles becoming imprisoned by Earth’s magnetic field, exciting the gases in the atmosphere and emitting bursts of energy in the form of light.
However, these particles can also cause magnetic storms, which in extreme cases have been known to disrupt satellites and electricity grids.
In 1989, a CME was held responsible for leaving six million people in Quebec, Canada, without power.
Solar activity runs in 11-year cycles, with the current one peaking in 2013, so more violent space weather is on the horizon.
Dr Matthew Penn, of the National Solar Observatory in Arizona, said recently: 'Because the sun is becoming more active, it will have an impact on millions of people. Sunspots can cause the biggest and most damaging space storms that occur.
'During the next two years, we are expecting the number of sunspots visible on the sun to reach a maximum. We know that sunspots are the source of a lot of space weather and solar storms, so we expect a larger number of solar storms here at the Earth.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2170985/The-suns-solar-flares-getting-stronger--latest-hot-spot-size-15-Earths-strung-together.html#ixzz20Kagm6mq