[brillser]

Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...nge-science-mo

[valis]

nice link, brillser. I've been saying that for some time now.

from the link:

Simple observation confirms the basic science of climate change. "All six years since the last report (2001 to 2006) are among the seven warmest years on record," notes Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and another lead author. "Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased and Arctic Sea ice has been at record low levels in the past three years."

In addition to such ice changes--accelerated melting in Greenland, western Antarctica and from mountain glaciers throughout the world--scientists have improved their understanding of the atmosphere's workings. For example, the tiny particles known as aerosols are far better understood, says atmospheric scientist Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England andalso a lead author. "We estimate that their total radiative forcing is around -1.3 [watts/meter2]," which is a cooling effect, he says. "Because of this and a better understanding of how forcing terms add up, we are able to sum the radiative forcings and, for the first time, come up with the statement that we have very high confidence that humans have had a warming influence since preindustrial times." That influence continues via greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and other sources; the temperature forcing from carbon dioxide levels has jumped 20 percent in just the last 10 years.

simple observation, lan. Simple, simple, observation.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by valis

simple observation, lan. Simple, simple, observation.

but hey v.
really now...i can't see it from my window

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I have documented this well-known fact throughout this thread.

Not all of them, but a large number. My trolly is secure.



Natural emissions account for 96-97% of all greenhouse gasses. Humanity is only a 3-4% contributor. That's a fact. Just ask Jack.

As far as climate change being used as a springboard for Socialist activism, here are some links that may help you discover that is precisely what is happening.

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link


Jim .... I ABSOLUTELY believe that Socialists and Marxists are CLEARLY using a platform of global warming to further their agenda. They clearly admit it themselves!!!

Many so-called climatologists, including Dr. James Hansen, subscribe to this ideology, and are gladly playing the useful idiot role for the Marxist left.

Wow! You really are into the rightwing-nut conspiracy scene, aren't you? Clicking just a few of those links is pretty convincing of that. Is is possible for you to discuss any topic without fearmongering about some plot to destroy everything America stands for? I bet you can wrap a simple hockey game in the stars and stripes.

[brillser]

I only clicked the first link and my computer threw a hissy fit, it wouldn't come back on until I promised never to do any such thing again. So I'm taking a chance just talking about that rubbish

[brillser]

I too, valis, have waited a long time to see such a title as:

Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention

And, now we can all get down to business.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by brillser

I too, valis, have waited a long time to see such a title as:

Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention

And, now we can all get down to business.

We can divide all people into two main groups according to their beliefs about global warming and climate change:

Those who believe human activities can and are affecting our climate.

Those who do not believe that human activities are having any significant affect.

I propose that a thread be started that targets the first group in that the thread accepts the belief that humans are affecting the world's climate and sets out to discuss the pros and cons of proposals that set out to either lessen, negate or reverse damage we have done to our planet.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

....................

I propose that a thread be started that targets the first group in that the thread accepts the belief that humans are affecting the world's climate and sets out to discuss the pros and cons of proposals that set out to either lessen, negate or reverse damage we have done to our planet.

That would be an interesting thread, Jim.

Your idea to start, but I'd definitely participate.

[brillser]

by pyrite,

We can divide all people into two main groups according to their beliefs about global warming and climate change:

Those who believe human activities can and are affecting our climate.

Those who do not believe that human activities are having any significant affect.

I propose that a thread be started that targets the first group in that the thread accepts the belief that humans are affecting the world's climate and sets out to discuss the pros and cons of proposals that set out to either lessen, negate or reverse damage we have done to our planet.

Yes.

Because, isn't prevention better than cure???

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by brillser

by pyrite,




Yes.

Because, isn't prevention better than cure???

Yes, and it's a whole Hell of a lot better than denial!

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

That would be an interesting thread, Jim.

Your idea to start, but I'd definitely participate.

seconded and carried.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Stoner

That would be an interesting thread, Jim.

Your idea to start, but I'd definitely participate.

Originally Posted by brillser

by pyrite,




Yes.

Because, isn't prevention better than cure???

Originally Posted by valis

seconded and carried.

Well! I tossed that out as a rhetorical retort to the deniers but if you think it will fly...

...see you in the new thread!

[LANMaster]

Arctic sea ice now 28.7% higher than this date last year - still rallying

10/14/2008 7,064,219 square kilometers

10/14/2007 5,487,656 square kilometers

A difference of: 1,576,563 square kilometers, now in fairness, 2008 was a leap year, so to avoid that criticism, the value of 6,857,188 square kilometers can be used which is the 10/13/08 value, for a difference of 1,369,532 sq km. Still not too shabby at 24.9 %. The one day gain between 10/13/08 and 10/14/08 of 3.8% is also quite impressive.

You can download the source data in an Excel file at the IARC-JAXA website, which plots satellite derived sea-ice extent:



Watch the red line as it progresses. So far we are above 2005 levels, and 28.7% (or 24.9% depending on how you want to look at it) ahead of last year at this time. That’s quite a jump, basically a 3x gain, since the minimum of 9% over 2007 set on September 16th. Read about that here.

Go nature!

There is no mention of this on the National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice news webpage, which has been trumpeting every loss and low for the past two years…not a peep. You’d think this would be big news. Perhaps the embarrassment of not having an ice free north pole in 2008, which was sparked by press comments made by Dr. Mark Serreze there and speculation on their own website, has made them unresponsive in this case.

Link

[Stoner]

Posting more guano from your favorite blogger, I see.
Watts' graph only proves that yearly stats are variable and, LAN, if you bothered to actually look at that graph, you'll see the same situation existed for 2005 and 2006.
It's trends that are of importance.......not your consistent simplicity of year to year or even day to day differences.........but then I think you know that and don't have anything of value to post but the same or similar comments from the same blogger. This is about the 3rd time you've posted the same or similar from Watts.

Arctic sea ice now 28.7% higher than this date last year - still rallying

This is interesting.
Look at the graph closer.
More ice melted in 2008 than in 2007.

[valis]

dude, I don't know where that guy gets his figures, but they are WAY off.....

link

The 2008 season strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent. The 2008 September low was 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9% greater than the 2007 record (Figure 2). Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in September extent has been pulled downward, from –10.7 % per decade to –11.7 % per decade (Figure 3).