The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > So now Kyoto is a reality, will it get cooler? > Comments

So now Kyoto is a reality, will it get cooler? : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 16/2/2005

Jennifer Marohasy argues climate change is an ongoing process, regardless of carbon dioxide emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Sorry about the length of this news release February 18, 2005 but it is interesting as it is pertinent to Snowman's continual references to "no warming since 1998" on this and other forums.

...

For the first time, scientists have linked the world's warming oceans to a rise in greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other industry.

The research was conducted by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. It showed that temperature readings in the oceans during the past 40 years matched computer models simulating how higher levels of human-generated greenhouse gases were expected to heat the oceans.

"We were stunned by the degree of similarity between the observations and the models," said Tim Barnett, a marine physicist who wrote the study with fellow Scripps scientist David Pierce.

"It's really undeniable that global warming is going on, whether you see it in the ocean or in the ecosystems," he said. "There's really a gazillion places to look for it."

The rise in ocean temperatures has varied around the world, but none of the increases can be explained by fluctuations in energy output from the sun, Barnett said. Some scientists have said the sun can drive climate changes at least as much as greenhouse gases.

However, the close match between actual temperature readings and what the computer models predicted rules out any other cause for warming oceans, Barnett said. It also suggests that the models are powerful tools for predicting how increases in carbon dioxide might change the global environment, he added.

Oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of Earth's surface, are the major regulators of climate. Average global temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the past century, and scientists estimate that the oceans have absorbed about 90 percent of that heat.

Put another way, the oceans have sucked up enough heat energy during the past 40 years to power California for the next 200,000 years, Barnett said... (article continues)

--- End

Over to you Snownam et Al.
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:01:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Peter. I just knew someone would post something like this!

It seems that professor Wayne Sawyer was probably on the mark about the lack of critical thinking.

The only (probably) honest and irrefutable statement in Scripps report is that their computer model produced output that showed a reasonable match to observational data from more than 40 years ago without much(?) inclusion of human-induced warming but a greater amount of human-induced warming to produce output that approximated recent observations.

Climate models are still a long, long way from being accurate and thorough. They include lots of fudge factors for climate factors that are not well understood (particulary cloud and wind) and they have artificial contraints to stop runaway warming or cooling and the rapid oscillation between them.

Surely you are not claiming that climate science is settled by whatever a dodgy computer model tells us!

Barnett also ignored other research that says that heat from El Ninos in the Pacific takes years to reach the poles. He's also forgotten(?) that warm air is a very slow warmer of water and the heat penetrates only a short distance into water.

In short it is a beat-up crock, one that has certainly not been subjected to peer-review.

By the way, Scripps gets a lot of funding to study the impact of man-made global warming. Are they going to bite the hand that feeds them by saying that it doesn't exist? (I hope you are not someone who thinks that only sceptical scientists could ever be accused of having vested interests!)

cheers
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 1:21:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You would think so Jennifer but like stats raw data must have context and meaning and is easy to misrepresent or sincerely mistake its implications.

About your commmnet about expecting facts and figues well first when you say environmentalists who are you talking about the 'greenies' or the environmental scientists?

You see I don't bother about Green Peace or WWF press releases I go straight to science journals or reputable science
journalism/publications.

I suppose that during Victorian times and 1920's journalists just parroted the scientists of the day, that is why i cannot dismiss you out of hand.

But still can an outsider come along and so casually dismiss the work of scientists in their field of expertise? One could not dismiss that outsider out of hand but the onus would be on them to prove their case. You've heard extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, well the balls in your court for that one.

BTW do you want to debate those Murray River scientists?
Posted by Neohuman, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 2:10:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi BigMal,

I will have a go at your two questions from a slightly different perspective to Snowman.

Your Q. 1. How will the 380ppmv of CO2 ...heat the troposhere and thence the ground level?

Yes there is an argument that goes extra anthropogenic greenhouse gases intercept more of the outgoing heat escaping the earth and as a consequence the troposhere (lower atmosphere) warms with some of the extra heat redirected to the earth's surface.

I understand that the IPCC assumes its numbers which are that a doubling of CO2 levels will increase temps by 1.7 to 4.2C i.e. they are not calculating from first principles or observations.

There is also an argument that goes if we look at the observed temperatures since satellite observations began in 1979, the earth's surface appears to be warming faster than the lower atmosphere and the simplest explaination is that the observed warming is therefore not from the greenhouse effect.

Your Q. 2 If the sun is partially responsible as many now believe, how can such small variations in energy falling on the earth cause such temperature variations.

The argument goes that irradiance (solar heat output) is not the key to the Sun's variable influence, but rather changes in the sun's magnetism associated with increased eruptive activity for which sunspots are one of several indicators.

The argument seems to be based on correlations, as much as on causal mechanisms. The correlation between temperature and the sun's magnetism has been rather good for the last couple of hundred years see, figure 5 at
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm.

Hi Peter King,

It is interesting that there is a computer model that can generate past, and presumably predict, future ocean temperatures. Do you know how changes in C02 levels drive ocean temperature change in their models?

Hi Martin,

In an earlier post you suggested that natural climate change would not be dramatic and I suggested this was not necesssarily the case - there is an interesting article today at http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1308849.htm
suggesting "an abrupt rise in the sea level, 20 times faster than previously thought" at the Great Barrier Reef.

Cheers,
Posted by Jennifer, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 2:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Neohuman

In response to your most recent posting:

I've already said that I am happy to debate "those Murray River scientists" - I understand Deb Nias and Ben Gawne were part of Phillip Adams program. What venue/forum and specific title do you suggest? Some NSW farmers last year challenged me to debate Peter Cullen - I was/am still available.

When I refer to environmentalists I refer to Greenpeace and also many CSIRO scientists. CSIRO work on the Murray River has been pure advocacy in many instances, see:
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249.

When I came to the issue in 2003 public statements were being made by key institutions including CSIRO that directly contradicted the recieved evidence on major issues. On Line Opinion was the first media outlet prepared to publish my initial concerns, see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=632.

The head of CSIRO Land and Water has since resigned.

Cheers
Posted by Jennifer, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 3:47:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi,

Many thanks to those gentlemen who tried to answer my simple questions. I cannot find the answer on the net either, although some publications do come close such as the AIP tome by Spencer Weart. W.Kininmonths book is also helpful but doesnt quite get there.

I cannot accept that something as small as 0.038% of the gaseous volume can cause so much strife ( and occasional benefit).Surely there is smart one amongst you all who can calculate the energy imparted to the atmosphere by the infamous infra red when it excites the CO2 molecule, and further how an accruing 1-2% increase in this piddling 0.038% can cause the temperature to rise by such a massive amount as claimed by CSIRO/DAR, and others.

Similarly given that the temperature changes do seem to correlate well with sunspot activity and the period of the sunspot cycle how does this mechanism work.

I am just simple retired business man and technologist with rather ancient degrees in science and business. I can ask the obvious questions, but dont have the base knowledge to work it out myself.

Any more ideas.?
Posted by bigmal, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 5:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy