Global Warming

Check this unusual

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp

i wonder what the amazing susuki would say about this-SNORK!

Ah, you clearly missed Don Aitken's excellent presentation on climate change last Sunday at Open Circle. Rest assured there is still a serious problem with the vast majority of the scientific community saying there is a 95-100% certainty that humans are causing the problem.

Possibly the worse consequences of global warming is sudden and dramatic weather changes. We have certainly had them over recent years.

The number of scientists who do not believe in global warming is precisely the same as the number of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_became_creationists_after_studying_the_evidence

Thank you Flamingo and Chillin for taking the bait on global warming! Please remember that the sundown "political agenda" attempts to discredit the global warming theories while marching to the music of the tea party. Face facts, none of us are qualified nor smart enough to understand this complex issue.

In 2010, Dr. Richard A. Muller was a well-respected physicist and leading skeptic of the concept of global warming. Thanks in part to a generous contribution from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, he undertook an exhaustive scientific investigation to prove that he was correct in his skepticism.

Here is what he discovered:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/dr-mullers-findings-on-global-warming.html?_r=0

And here are the details of his findings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

The last sentence in his first paragraph (2nd cite above) is a lot more definite than his 3rd sentence in his last paragraph.  In other words, he says it is for sure a human caused issue but be skeptical of that conclusion.

I am not as convinced as is the NY Times that his position has changed completely but sure seems to be leaning in that direction.  But be skeptical.  Time will tell.

Earth warmer in Medivial Times

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/

What I want to know is "What is the best tempeature?" Higher or lower?

CheenaGringo wrote: Face facts, none of us are qualified nor smart enough to understand this complex issue.

Man do I agree with that. Study predicting weather and you will begin to understand the complexity of understanding our global climate.

Z

Zedinmexico wrote:

CheenaGringo wrote: Face facts, none of us are qualified nor smart enough to understand this complex issue.

Man do I agree with that. Study predicting weather and you will begin to understand the complexity of understanding our global climate.

Z

yes - the global climate is complex - and many factors are not included in modeling future climate

Strides are being made on understanding past climates changes - thus the predictions for future changes.   Those that deny changes are escalating because of greenhouse gases just seem to be very much uninformed - with no desire to become better informed - in my opinion.

For most of us, climate and climate change was not a topic that was offered in colleges/universities in the 1960's.  That has changed and you can now take free MOOCA college level classes on line.  I just finished one on climate change literacy - and really learned alot.  A new course is coming up in january - https://www.coursera.org/course/4dimensions - and for all you skeptics, it might be nice for you to be more knowledgeable so you can be more descriptive about what you think is true or not true with the current ippc reports- which I think is the only group (UN) that strives for consensus among its worldwide scientific membership - unlike some for profit newspapers - which prints whatever they think  will sell newspapers - truth be damned.

I think if you are a climate science skeptic, it would be nice to hear your disagreement with their specific findings - versus just making random noises:)  

***IPCC Headline Statements Policymakers


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over
decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has
risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In
the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy
accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from
1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink
almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high
confidence).

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high
confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in
at least the last 800,000 years. CO2  concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel
emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total
radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2
since 1750.

Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and
trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following
large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).

Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together
provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in
reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human
influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed
warming since the mid-20th century.

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP
scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5.

Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-todecadal
variability and will not be regionally uniform.

Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in
precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional
exceptions.

The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and
affect ocean circulation.

It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover
will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.
Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very
likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and
ice sheets.

Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high
confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most
aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial
multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.

Source http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/ar5_wg1_headlines.pdf


For those interested in the subject, here is an interesting blog  http://www.realclimate.org/

oh, and let's discuss the incandescent bulb stough while we're at it. canada will effectively ban the hundred watt in jan. and the us has already done so and eu long before that. the rest[wattages] are gonna follow. an incandescent is 30 cents in canada and the equivelant super duper GREEN thang is about 30 bucks but subsidized by the gummint in the short term. the new expensive CFL wonder bulb has now been determined to be a hazard because of it's mercury component-SNORK!
last year i read the incandescent is going to be phased out in mexico too. anybody know when, so i can start stockpiling hundred watt bulbs? by the way the carbon foot print and contribution of home lighting to greenhouse gases is practically zilch. ZILCH is a highly technical and scientifical measurement term.

Aren't you just a sparkling bundle of misinformation this morning! The LED bulbs last forever (50,000 hours), and are very tolerant of voltage changes which are common in Mexico. The nice lady (Betty) at Chopstix has them for about 170 pesos each. Her husband imports them and converts entire commercial buildings (100 bulb min) Here is the math.


http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

People like sundown care little about science or whether the temperatures are rising or not.
They are sheep following the tea party propaganda funded by greedy entrepreneurs resisting any kind of government control over their activities (of production methods) in order to increase profits and their own individual/personal wealth.
Debating science with them is a waste of time.
It is amazing how the "one percent" can control the minds of all these people, and would keep their minions in their abject state while shifting the blame for their "condition", by creating a straw man in the form of the government.

Of course. the government is the "real" enemy.  ....and we should all depend on the leaders of sundown's movement to show us the way out of the wilderness. 

CHILLIN wrote:Aren't you just a sparkling bundle of misinformation this morning! The LED bulbs last forever (50,000 hours), and are very tolerant of voltage changes which are common in Mexico. The nice lady (Betty) at Chopstix has them for about 170 pesos each. Her husband imports them and converts entire commercial buildings (100 bulb min) Here is the math.


http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html

I have willed my LED bulbs to my grandchildren on the condition that they will them to their grandchildren.   

Bill Maher sets the record straight on the debate over global warming:

" The LED bulbs last forever (50,000 hours),...."

The ones used in stop lights seem to go bad pretty often.

MexicoPete wrote:Thanks for sharing that YouTube film with us. I loved it.

And all I know about this global Cooling BS is that it aint working. It's slowly getting warmer in Seattle, thank God

Hey Pete - a good meeting in Seattle this fall - Metcalf Institute, in partnership with The Seattle Times, helped journalists find the answers to questions in a free Climate Change Seminar for Journalists September 6-7 in Seattle, Washington. Supported by The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, this seminar was the first in a series of Metcalf Institute regional climate change seminars. The four-year initiative is designed to help journalists throughout the U.S. understand climate change science and report on regional impacts with more accuracy, clarity, and nuance.................In the Pacific Northwest, climate change will significantly affect water supply, wreaking havoc on the carefully negotiated water management structures now in place. Building on concepts introduced in the first session, participants learned about the science and management of water supplies under climate change scenarios and the many related and under-reported news stories.

So sounds like less wet!:)

for more info -[url= http://metcalfinstitute.org/training/ccseminarseattle/] http://metcalfinstitute.org/training/ccseminarseattle/[/url]

loved the bill maher video!!!

i merely asked when mexico is going to ban the bulbs i want.our cfe bills are well below the 500kwh. and how many mexicans of lower income are going to be able to afford the more expensive bulbs, huh gary? was i wrong about them mercury bulbs by the way-SNORK!
yer chart is bs by the way when it comes to home consumer use-i stick with zilch in macro not micro

I guess you weren't paying attention when they were banned in Mexico TWO YEARS AGO. They were giving away CFLs to lower income Mexicans. The chart gives the example of 30 light bulbs - many houses have that many.

http://www.prlog.org/11740809-how-many-mexicans-does-it-take-to-change-44-million-light-bulbs.html

really? so why can i still buy incandescent. does anyone have the real info. gary never gets things straight with his cut and paste and lack of personal experience.
interesting, in any event, that phillips is mentioned as the administrator and stands to gain the most. how many working class mexicans do you know personally that use the expensive excrement gary?

Collect all the 100 watt bulbs you want Pedro but you are wasting money. Just went on a bulb trip to Home Depot.  60watt 3000K white color LED. Uses 10 watts and makes 60 watts worth of light for 180P.    Bulb almost lasts forever.  Changes in CFB are there also. Much easier to get color of white you want. Found very compact Phillips CFB that are small and fits lamps better than big ones and makes 90w of light.  LED bulbs are dimable, They last a very long time, and they are at full brightness when you turn them on.  Two of my new Phillips LED bulbs give me 120watts of light for one fifth of the cost of running your old 100w lightbulb.  Time to move on Pedro and save some money.

Z

Smartalex wrote:Bill Maher sets the record straight on the debate over global warming:

As much as I enjoy watching Bill. He does play a little loose and fast with the facts sometimes and just because somebody is clever and
entertaining doesn't give him the right to be so pompous. Sometimes he becomes a parody of himself. Still enjoy his show just don't think
he is correct all the time like he thinks.

Z

Flamingo wrote:Ah, you clearly missed Don Aitken's excellent presentation on climate change last Sunday at Open Circle. Rest assured there is still a serious problem with the vast majority of the scientific community saying there is a 95-100% certainty that humans are causing the problem.

  The Rev Jim Jones had a solution for that....