Science: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

[Skins24]

You are right Larry, and in fact some more "moderate" scientists disagree with some of the "dooms day" scenarios based on how much water vapor will increase with increasing temperatures, and how much that will cause a feed forward affect.

.....

The hope of such machines is that they will cause clouds. Clouds are curious because the cause both cooling (during the day by reflecting energy back into space before it can reach the Earth) and warming (during the night because they reflect energy back to Earth preventing it from escaping into space).

Some believe, especially specifically over the ocean, that clouds will induce more cooling than warming as they will block energy from reaching the oceans, which releases energy more slowly than land.

What do you mean "moderate" scientists? Should be ALL scientists disagree with the doomsdayers.

The second part pretty much explains why the first part CAN'T (as in can not) create a dooms day scenario. Water vapor is a constant positive feedback, which results in a constant negative feedback. That's why we don't see runaway warming.

I can't see any scenario in which you can increase water vapor that much without increasing cloud cover and rainfall.

Ok...I take that back. I thought of a scenario. If we constantly set off nukes warming the upper levels of the troposphere and keeping water in its gaseous state, then if we evaporate the oceans, there should be enough water vapor to keep a positive feedback. And I guess...yeah, that is indeed a dooms day scenario

Water is a serious an important green house gas

Understated. It's by far the most important and abundant greenhouse gas.

[PeterMP]

What do you mean "moderate" scientists? Should be ALL scientists disagree with the doomsdayers.

The second part pretty much explains why the first part CAN'T (as in can not) create a dooms day scenario. Water vapor is a constant positive feedback, which results in a constant negative feedback. That's why we don't see runaway warming.

I can't see any scenario in which you can increase water vapor that much without increasing cloud cover and rainfall.

I believe we have discussed this general idea before. Some people believe in multi-foot increases in sea levels. That's what I mean by "dooms day".

Others believe in smaller increases in sea levels, but that will still have a significant affect and have significant costs associated with it.

There are other difference in the causes of their opinion (what you think about the amount of methane in permafrost, how fast it will be released, the total amount that will be released, and how it will react with other things in the system is also an important component), but to say it CAN NOT, you have to make assumptions about the cooling/warming properties of clouds as compared to just water vapor as well as how they interact with other things in the system, which we don't really have evidence to back up.

I'd agree the fact that it hasn't happened yet (in the history of the Earth at least) is evidence that it can't happen easily, but that's a long way from saying it CAN NOT happen (run away warming not multifoot sea levels as sea levels have been higher in the Earth's past).

[Zguy28]

I love this planet of mine: I think every government building should be solar and wind.

I believe every house built now should have solar water heater.

I believe the EC1 car was genius and got shelved...

We can only hope.

I would love to do solar for my house, but I can't.

1. Start-up cost is prohibitive for my single-income family.

2. My house only gets about 4 hours of direct sun a day because of two ginormous Poplar trees (I'm gonna have to deforestate those suckers I guess. )

[Skins24]

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

Wow. Wrong.

The top half of the Earth is warming because it's almost summer. The sun is also expanding and we're losing our magnetic field (which is why we'll all transform come 2012.)

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

1. Forests are increasing. I'm serious. Look it up!

2. Concentrations may have increased but the results have been mixed. We've gone decades with little to no warming or even cooling in the past 100 years.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

Please. Natural causes don't just play "a" role. They are "THE" role.

Even the so called "human-induced changes" are really "natural" changes in disguise. Cars have metal and metal is "natural" right? Plastic is created using things that are or were once "natural." CO2 is "natural" as well.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times

So glad they specified modern times.

In other words, if used to take 500 years for seas to raise an inch, now it takes 300 years. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! TAX EVERYTHING! SHOOT THE MOON!

Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

They say that like is a bad thing. You do NOT want basic water. Trust me.

The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities

Who cares.

our food and water supplies

Would increase

marine and freshwater ecosystems

Would also increase and benefit tremendously

forests

Are increasing

high mountain environments

No one lives there so who cares

and far more.

*yawn*

written in jest of course, though I am still waiting for someone to show how global warming at its current rate is somehow a bad thing. after this winter, we should be rooting for global warming!

[PeterMP]

written in jest of course, though I am still waiting for someone to show how global warming at its current rate is somehow a bad thing. after this winter, we should be rooting for global warming!

Don't mix snow up with a lack of warming.

This year has been extremely warm.

"Through the first 120 days of 1998 versus 2010, the average anomaly was +0.655 in 1998, and +0.602 in 2010. These values are within the margin of error in terms of their difference, so the recent global tropospheric warmth associated with the current El Nino has been about the same as that during the peak warmth of the 1997-98 El Nino. "

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"For the year-to-date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 13.0°C (55.3°F) was the fourth warmest January-March period. This value is 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=3&submitted=Get+Report

[alexey]

Don't mix snow up with a lack of warming.

Why do you respond to him? He is clearly not even trying to be reasonable.

[Skins24]

This year hasn't been "extremely" warm and I'm not.

Warmer temps = more dynamic atmosphere. More dynamic atmosphere in winter = potential for big snow events.

The places people actually care about saw a cooler than normal weather btw. Who cares if the Sahara was warmer than normal?

This El Nino (a very strong one and the [only] reason for the warmer than "average" - whatever that is - temps) is fading. If we only made it to #4 on the all time list for the first four months with that strong of an El Nino, then we must be cooling!

Thanks for your input alex!

[PeterMP]

This year hasn't been "extremely" warm and I'm not.

Warmer temps = more dynamic atmosphere. More dynamic atmosphere in winter = potential for big snow events.

The places people actually care about saw a cooler than normal weather btw. Who cares if the Sahara was warmer than normal?

This El Nino (a very strong one and the [only] reason for the warmer than "average" - whatever that is - temps) is fading. If we only made it to #4 on the all time list for the first four months with that strong of an El Nino, then we must be cooling!

Thanks for your input alex!

You know it is really funny, there appears to have been a run of "strong" El Nino's in the last 20 years. I've heard the samething about 1998 and 2005.

Where such El Nino's through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Seems a little odd that all of the serious El Nino affects have essentially been in the last 20 years.

Over all, I'm a little confused about your argument. Is that it hasn't been extremely warm or that is has been, but that it is because of the El Nino.

The Arctic, which people do care about, was significantly warmer for much of the year.

http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/looking-above-normal-temperatures-they-are-arctic

**EDIT**

In terms of fading El Nino, here's a prediction for you. With respect to the satelite data from the page I posted, which covers 30 years or so, May and June will be top two May and Junes on record (1st or 2nd) (makes them top 6 in the longer land record). July and Aug will cool down some (still be top 10 in that record in land and satellite record). Early fall though (maybe no Sept, but certainly Oct) will go back up (in terms of monthly alomally).

[PeterMP]

Why do you respond to him? He is clearly not even trying to be reasonable.

Oh come on it is fun. I've gotten pretty much so that I'll ignore NavyDave and others, unless they say something completely stupid, because it is pretty much a hit run posts, but he'll keep coming back for more.

[dfitzo53]

This informative piece written by a Thomas Jefferson High School student may help shed some light on El Nino's role in all of this:

http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g57/jeremylavine/el_nino.jpg

[alexey]

Oh come on it is fun. I've gotten pretty much so that I'll ignore NavyDave and others, unless they say something completely stupid, because it is pretty much a hit run posts, but he'll keep coming back for more.

As long as you're having fun

[Skins24]

You know it is really funny, there appears to have been a run of "strong" El Nino's in the last 20 years. I've heard the samething about 1998 and 2005.

Where such El Nino's through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s?

Not even close. We've had a couple strong ones (the years you mentioned and this year) but other than that, our El Ninos haven't been that strong compared to the ones in the decades you mentioned. I edit this later with the list (I think it's somewhere in this thread - but I don't have time to look right now: http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=13603.)

Prior to '98 the strongest was '81-'82.

Seems a little odd that all of the serious El Nino affects have essentially been in the last 20 years.

Again, not even close! Ugh, I'll be back in a little bit with more info.

Over all, I'm a little confused about your argument. Is that it hasn't been extremely warm or that is has been, but that it is because of the El Nino.

Statement was being sarcastic.

But essentially...yes. We were warmer this year because of El Nino. Who knows what we would have been had the El Nino not been so strong.

**EDIT**

In terms of fading El Nino, here's a prediction for you. With respect to the satelite data from the page I posted, which covers 30 years or so, May and June will be top two May and Junes on record (1st or 2nd) (makes them top 6 in the longer land record). July and Aug will cool down some (still be top 10 in that record in land and satellite record). Early fall though (maybe no Sept, but certainly Oct) will go back up (in terms of monthly alomally).

?

Are you talking about El Nino or temps?

This El Nino should be gone by next month or so....

Temps will depend on what follows. Neutral or La Nina or a redevelopment of El Nino....

brb

[Skins24]

Ok, back and still can't the info I was looking for which had a numerical representation of the strength of the El Ninos, not just some chart or graph.

Basically, we may have had more frequent El Ninos in the past 20 years or so, but that really doesn't say anything about their strengths or effects. What we haven't seen recently that we saw back in the '50s, '60s, and '70s is strong La Ninas. These can have just as devastating effects on areas as El Nino.

That is certainly not to say all La Ninas and all El Ninos have devastating effects. These events differ greatly. Our least snowiest winter '97-'98 came during a strong El Nino. Our snowiest winter '09-'10 came during a strong El Nino. How is that possible? It all depends on where it sets up...

[PeterMP]

Not even close. We've had a couple strong ones (the years you mentioned and this year) but other than that, our El Ninos haven't been that strong compared to the ones in the decades you mentioned. I edit this later with the list (I think it's somewhere in this thread - but I don't have time to look right now: http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?showtopic=13603.)

Prior to '98 the strongest was '81-'82.

Again, not even close! Ugh, I'll be back in a little bit with more info.

Statement was being sarcastic.

But essentially...yes. We were warmer this year because of El Nino. Who knows what we would have been had the El Nino not been so strong.

I mentioned the two warmest years on record.

Interestingly, since 1990, 1981 and 1982 are only warmer than two years.

That means, they are aren't even in the top 15 for warmest years on record.

Odd how that happened. A strong El Nino went from producing a slightly warm year to producing a top 5 year in terms of temps (even though getting into the top 5 is harder than ever because essentially all of the top 10 have happened in the last 15 years or so).

Maybe El Nino isn't a powerful driving force for GLOBAL climate.

[Skins24]

Maybe El Nino isn't a powerful driving force for GLOBAL climate.

It's not. At all.

Though they can affect global weather for few months.

And as I stated in the next post, every El Nino is different. Some El Ninos will produce significantly warmer temps in places, some may not. Same with La Nina actually.....

[PeterMP]

It's not. At all.

Though they can affect global weather for few months.

And as I stated in the next post, every El Nino is different. Some El Ninos will produce significantly warmer temps in places, some may not. Same with La Nina actually.....

Then how can you state so absolutely that this year is so warm only because of El Nino:

"This El Nino (a very strong one and the [only] reason for the warmer than "average" - whatever that is - temps) is fading."

Isn't it possible that the El Nino is having essentially no affect on global temps?

[Thiebear]

This is a logical fallacy. It's not about luck.

We are not lucky to be living in a time where we are able to survive. We can only live in a time when we are able to survive. We would not have evolved in another climate. No complex life would have evolved without some kind of stable temperate environment.

Polar bears aren't lucky to live in the snow, and fish aren't lucky to live underwater. We are all a result of our environment, and the fact that we can survive in the environment we live in is not luck; it is evolution.

We are lucky to be alive now: No falacy there. See the "taken down to 7000 humans and restarted again.

We are living during 30foot marker in a 3000 mile window in time, where climate is stable. Looking back makes our .02shift seem calm.

We are causing pollution without a doubt. And we should be better janitors of our environment.

We are supposed to be heading for an ice age from this point forward for the next 18,000 years? wouldn't our current warming increase just delay it a 1000 years or so?

[Skins24]

Then how can you state so absolutely that this year is so warm only because of El Nino:

"This El Nino (a very strong one and the [only] reason for the warmer than "average" - whatever that is - temps) is fading."

Isn't it possible that the El Nino is having essentially no affect on global temps?

No, with the way the pattern has set up for this El Nino, it IS (or was) having an effect on temps. (Still has nothing to do with climate though)

Take Canada and the arctic. Given that we're still in a solar minimum and the NAO has generally been negative, they wouldn't have seen warmer than "average" temps without El Nino....

[PeterMP]

No, with the way the pattern has set up for this El Nino, it IS (or was) having an effect on temps. (Still has nothing to do with climate though)

Take Canada and the arctic. Given that we're still in a solar minimum and the NAO has generally been negative, they wouldn't have seen warmer than "average" temps without El Nino....

So it is warm because it is a warming El Nino. Maybe it is a warming El Nino because of other things that cause warming (which would mean even w/o the El Nino it would be warm).

I do love your logic though, you can't be wrong. If it is warm, it is a warming El Nino. If not, then it isn't. Hard to be wrong with that one.

I am though surprised that you admitted that even without the El Nino it would be "average" temps considering we are sitting in essentially a multiyear solar minimum. Without some other factors causing warming based on historical means, you'd expect it to be well below "average".

[PeterMP]

We are lucky to be alive now: No falacy there. See the "taken down to 7000 humans and restarted again.

We are living during 30foot marker in a 3000 mile window in time, where climate is stable. Looking back makes our .02shift seem calm.

We are causing pollution without a doubt. And we should be better janitors of our environment.

We are supposed to be heading for an ice age from this point forward for the next 18,000 years? wouldn't our current warming increase just delay it a 1000 years or so?

I know I've posted this link for you before.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/91775366n2655827/

50,000 years at pre-industrial CO2 levels. All ice melts if we stay where we are and no ice age for AT LEAST 100,000 years.

[Thiebear]

I know I've posted this link for you before.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/91775366n2655827/

50,000 years at pre-industrial CO2 levels. All ice melts if we stay where we are and no ice age for AT LEAST 100,000 years.

That flies in the face of ALL previous history. Its like saying the last million years worth of ice ages and warming ages never happened in any cyclical fashion what so ever. and your abstract 2005 Jerry Springer doc seems to speculate quite at bit.

[PeterMP]

That flies in the face of ALL previous history. Its like saying the last million years worth of ice ages and warming ages never happened in any cyclical fashion what so ever. and your abstract 2005 Jerry Springer doc seems to speculate quite at bit.

(Well, first, depending on how you define cyclical they are at BEST weakly cyclical (there is a small, but slightly significant relationship between the occurence of ice ages and Milankovitch cycles))

Do you want something by somebody else?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5585/1287

It is now widely accepted that we are in a particularly long interglacial period.

[Skins24]

So it is warm because it is a warming El Nino. Maybe it is a warming El Nino because of other things that cause warming (which would mean even w/o the El Nino it would be warm).

That is not what I said and that makes no sense at all.

There's no such thing as a warming El Nino or cooling El Nino. El Nino is El Nino - an abnormal warming of the Pacific waters off the coast of South America. What that warming of the waters does is alter certain circulation patterns. How they are altered depends on where the El Nino sets up. This year it was more of a western El Nino, which is why we got those huge storms in Feb. In '98 it was more eastern, which is why we got no snow. Anyway, the circulation set up so that while we were cooler and snowier down here, places in Canada had their least snowiest winter in a century.

I do love your logic though, you can't be wrong. If it is warm, it is a warming El Nino. If not, then it isn't. Hard to be wrong with that one.

Again, this makes no sense and I didn't say anything close to it.

AGAIN, El Nino has NOTHING to do with climate. It changes short term weather patterns. Not long term climate.

I never once said it couldn't or isn't warming without El Nino. I said THIS YEAR has been warmer overall because of El Nino.

I am though surprised that you admitted that even without the El Nino it would be "average" temps considering we are sitting in essentially a multiyear solar minimum. Without some other factors causing warming based on historical means, you'd expect it to be well below "average".

?

I said North America wouldn't be above average. I didn't say we would be average. We WOULD likely be below "average," given the other factors, without El Nino following the trend of the past few years. There's nothing to indicate we'd be warming without El Nino this year.

[Skins24]

It is now widely accepted that we are in a particularly long interglacial period.

Widely accepted by who?

And long compared to what?

We still have at least another 7000 years before matching the last interglacial....

[PeterMP]

That is not what I said and that makes no sense at all.

There's no such thing as a warming El Nino or cooling El Nino. El Nino is El Nino - an abnormal warming of the Pacific waters off the coast of South America. What that warming of the waters does is alter certain circulation patterns. How they are altered depends on where the El Nino sets up. This year it was more of a western El Nino, which is why we got those huge storms in Feb. In '98 it was more eastern, which is why we got no snow. Anyway, the circulation set up so that while we were cooler and snowier down here, places in Canada had their least snowiest winter in a century.

Again, this makes no sense and I didn't say anything close to it.

AGAIN, El Nino has NOTHING to do with climate. It changes short term weather patterns. Not long term climate.

I never once said it couldn't or isn't warming without El Nino. I said THIS YEAR has been warmer overall because of El Nino.

?

I said North America wouldn't be above average. I didn't say we would be average. We WOULD likely be below "average," given the other factors, without El Nino following the trend of the past few years. There's nothing to indicate we'd be warming without El Nino this year.

So now I'm just confused. Is it warm (globally this year) because it is an El Nino or not?

If it is warm (globally) because of El Nino, then why wasn't 1981/1982 particularly warm (as I already stated since 1995 there are only two years that weren't warmer than 1981/9182), which you've already stated was a strong El Nino.

If it isn't warm because of El Nino, then why'd you ever bother to bring it up?