Working to cope with climate change

[Uncensored2008]

How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?

Maybe you can refute it by holding your breath until you turn blue?

 

[wirebender]

How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?

All you need do is look at the tide marks on the rocks.

 

[saveliberty]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

 

[flacaltenn]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

Correct -- we'd have 120 NEW nuclear plants and cut our GHGs to ZERO tomorrow. Tear down the dams, close some coal plants, and get back to economic growth.

And all this B.S. about tree rings, EF10 tornadoes, Al Gore, and other meaningless jabber would go away..

 

[Trakar]

How can we be assured that these were taken at precisely the same tide phase?

All you need do is look at the tide marks on the rocks.

That is what caused me to question the issue.

 

[Trakar]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

Correct -- we'd have 120 NEW nuclear plants and cut our GHGs to ZERO tomorrow. Tear down the dams, close some coal plants, and get back to economic growth.

And all this B.S. about tree rings, EF10 tornadoes, Al Gore, and other meaningless jabber would go away..

Actually 500 net nuclear facilities would be a starting requirement, and I'm all for a move to that. Let the Corps of Engineers build and maintain them, the DoE operate them and the DoD secure them. That is baseload power, that can be linked through a modern, national power grid. Not that this alone would address global climate change, but it would be a good first step for our nation in addressing our own current and future energy needs in a manner that is consistent with climate change issues.

 

[Intense]

Abstract

The intensive research of recent years on climate change has led to the strong conclusion that climate has always, throughout the Earth's history, changed irregularly on all time scales. Climate changes are closely related to the Hurst phenomenon, which has been detected in many long hydroclimatic time series and is stochastically equivalent to a simple scaling behaviour of climate variability over time scale. The climate variability, anthropogenic or natural, increases the uncertainty of the hydrological processes. It is shown that hydrological statistics, the branch of hydrology that deals with uncertainty, in its current state is not consistent with the varying character of climate. Typical statistics used in hydrology such as means, variances, cross- and autocorrelations and Hurst coefficients, and the variability thereof, are revisited under the hypothesis of a varying climate following a simple scaling law, and new estimators are studied which, in many cases, differ dramatically from the classical ones. The new statistical framework is applied to real-world examples for typical tasks such as estimation and hypothesis testing where, again, the results depart significantly from those of the classical statistics.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie




INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, climate change has been the subject of intensive scientific
research, focusing on the understanding of factors, mechanisms and processes related
to climate, and on modelling the climate at the global scale using the so-called
Downloaded by [74.72.255.152] at 12:22 08 June 2012
Demetris Koutsoyiannis
4
climatic, or general circulation models. Climatic models describe some of the
mechanisms of climate variability that are well understood, such as ice–albedo
feedback, CO2 cycles and greenhouse effects, ocean deep-water circulation, ocean–
atmosphere interactions, land–atmosphere interactions, etc. They are capable of
reproducing the large-scale distributions of pressure, temperature, precipitation and
ocean-surface heat flux, and resemble sea-surface temperature anomalies related to the
El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomena (e.g. Ledley et al., 1999). Another important
field of recent research is the detection and attribution of changes in the past climate.
This has also been the subject of scientific debate on whether existing climatic records
indicate a significant change of the present climate vs the past, and on whether detected
changes are attributed to natural or anthropogenic forcings.
Thus, there is a number of studies detecting global warming in the past two
decades and attributing them to anthropogenic forcings, such as the emissions of CO2.
To refer to a recent example, Stott et al. (2000), comparing observations with
simulations of a coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation model, conclude that
both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th century
temperature changes (the latter especially for the last 35 years).
On the other hand, to invoke another recent study, Przybylak (2000) studies mean
monthly temperatures of Arctic and sub-Arctic areas. The analyses show that in the
Arctic, since the mid-1970s, the annual temperature shows no clear trend and the level
of temperature in Greenland in the last 10–20 years is similar to that observed in the
19th century. This does not agree with predictions produced by some numerical
climate models.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Trakar]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

Careful, flour scents can be explosive (Twin Cities Urban Recon | Gold Medal Flour).

But when some minerals are exposed to UV light they exhibit a property known as fluorescence and emit lower wavelength visible light.

 

[bobgnote]

Abstract

The intensive research of recent years on climate change has led to the strong conclusion that climate has always, throughout the Earth's history, changed irregularly on all time scales. Climate changes are closely related to the Hurst phenomenon, which has been detected in many long hydroclimatic time series and is stochastically equivalent to a simple scaling behaviour of climate variability over time scale. The climate variability, anthropogenic or natural, increases the uncertainty of the hydrological processes. It is shown that hydrological statistics, the branch of hydrology that deals with uncertainty, in its current state is not consistent with the varying character of climate. Typical statistics used in hydrology such as means, variances, cross- and autocorrelations and Hurst coefficients, and the variability thereof, are revisited under the hypothesis of a varying climate following a simple scaling law, and new estimators are studied which, in many cases, differ dramatically from the classical ones. The new statistical framework is applied to real-world examples for typical tasks such as estimation and hypothesis testing where, again, the results depart significantly from those of the classical statistics.

Demetris Koutsoyiannis:

INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, climate change has been the subject of intensive scientific
research, focusing on the understanding of factors, mechanisms and processes related to climate, and on modelling the climate at the global scale using the so-called climatic, or general circulation models. Climatic models describe some of the mechanisms of climate variability that are well understood, such as ice–albedo feedback, CO2 cycles and greenhouse effects, ocean deep-water circulation, ocean–atmosphere interactions, land–atmosphere interactions, etc. They are capable of reproducing the large-scale distributions of pressure, temperature, precipitation and ocean-surface heat flux, and resemble sea-surface temperature anomalies related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomena (e.g. Ledley et al., 1999). Another important field of recent research is the detection and attribution of changes in the past climate. This has also been the subject of scientific debate on whether existing climatic records indicate a significant change of the present climate vs the past, and on whether detected changes are attributed to natural or anthropogenic forcings. Thus, there is a number of studies detecting global warming in the past two decades and attributing them to anthropogenic forcings, such as the emissions of CO2.

This is obsolete skeptic-shit, from 2000. Don't post it here, fucktard.

Greenland hit 75 F, this May. Warming is taking perennial ice. CO2 is at 400 ppm, when it should have started a dive, at 280 ppm, to force temperatures down. But methane is also escaping, so temperatures will certainly jump up, beyond their usual ceiling, where we currently are, dodging fucktards in traffic. We re-green, or humans go endangered.

 

[Intense]

Abstract

The intensive research of recent years on climate change has led to the strong conclusion that climate has always, throughout the Earth's history, changed irregularly on all time scales. Climate changes are closely related to the Hurst phenomenon, which has been detected in many long hydroclimatic time series and is stochastically equivalent to a simple scaling behaviour of climate variability over time scale. The climate variability, anthropogenic or natural, increases the uncertainty of the hydrological processes. It is shown that hydrological statistics, the branch of hydrology that deals with uncertainty, in its current state is not consistent with the varying character of climate. Typical statistics used in hydrology such as means, variances, cross- and autocorrelations and Hurst coefficients, and the variability thereof, are revisited under the hypothesis of a varying climate following a simple scaling law, and new estimators are studied which, in many cases, differ dramatically from the classical ones. The new statistical framework is applied to real-world examples for typical tasks such as estimation and hypothesis testing where, again, the results depart significantly from those of the classical statistics.

Demetris Koutsoyiannis:

INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades, climate change has been the subject of intensive scientific
research, focusing on the understanding of factors, mechanisms and processes related
to climate, and on modelling the climate at the global scale using the so-called climatic, or general circulation models. Climatic models describe some of the mechanisms of climate variability that are well understood, such as ice–albedo feedback, CO2 cycles and greenhouse effects, ocean deep-water circulation, ocean–atmosphere interactions, land–atmosphere interactions, etc. They are capable of reproducing the large-scale distributions of pressure, temperature, precipitation and ocean-surface heat flux, and resemble sea-surface temperature anomalies related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation phenomena (e.g. Ledley et al., 1999). Another important field of recent research is the detection and attribution of changes in the past climate. This has also been the subject of scientific debate on whether existing climatic records indicate a significant change of the present climate vs the past, and on whether detected changes are attributed to natural or anthropogenic forcings. Thus, there is a number of studies detecting global warming in the past two decades and attributing them to anthropogenic forcings, such as the emissions of CO2.

This is obsolete skeptic-shit. Don't post it here, fucktard. Put this shit at the Greenland ice thread, where you deserve to read fuckoff messages.

Greenland hit 75 F, this May. Warming is taking perennial ice. CO2 is at 400 ppm, when it should have started a dive, at 280 ppm, to force temperatures down. But methane is also escaping, so temperatures will certainly jump up, beyond their usual ceiling, where we currently are, dodging fucktards in traffic.

It is not your place to determine who can post what where. The only thing clear about your posts, is that you have no tolerance for anything that would suggest that there is more to reality than what you tell us. That and that you lack social skills. How old are you, Twelve? You are new here, and off to a bad start.

 

[bobgnote]

It is not your place to determine who can post what where. The only thing clear about your posts, is that you have no tolerance for anything that would suggest that there is more to reality than what you tell us. That and that you lack social skills. How old are you, Twelve? You are new here, and off to a bad start.

If you can't take criticism, don't post here, since you are really stupid. Your posts were off-topic, until this one, which is a rambling introduction, to some paper, which may be some undergraduate geek-rant, from an ESL speaker. ESL means "English as a Second Language," you idiot. The introduction goes nowhere, and the paste lines up wrong, taking up space, at this thread, which is your strategy.

Your source is from 2000. Since it doesn't state a hypothesis, consistent with the OP, and it rambles, what are you trying to prove, you are a ramblin' guy? Your source is 12 years old, from 2000, DD. And it was born retarded. So since you and your ramble both suck, go ahead and take criticism, like the big pussy you are, or leave the thread.

Here's an on-topic link, which isn't busted:

Strategic Planning

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is pleased to release the new National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the U. S. Global Change Research Program. The creation of this plan is mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (GCRA, P.L. 101-606); it will serve as the guiding document for USGCRP for the next decade.

The Plan is built around four strategic goals: Advance Science, Inform Decisions, Conduct Sustained Assessments, and Communicate and Educate. In addition to these four goals, the Plan emphasizes the importance of national and international partnerships that leverage Federal investments and provide for the widest use of Program results. The Plan builds on the Program’s strengths in integrated observations, modeling, and information services for science that serves societal needs.
-------------------------

This is on-topic, at this thread. Learn to read, hit search, and try to post, on-topic. Or take a lot of criticism, since you have no skills, no value, and you have a tardy-tude. Idiots who think they are smart need to take a walk. So do that, if you know how.

 

[Trakar]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

A good paper. The arctic data is in a substantially different state now as compared to what studies more than a decade ago, analyzing even older data might have conservatively deduced. In fact, many contemporay researchers were already seeing the changes that seem to have escaped these authors' attention.

"A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic"
A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 20, 1956, doi:10.1029/2002GL015650, 2002

...Discussion and Conclusions
[13] The area of the Arctic perennial sea ice cover is shown to be declining at a relatively fast rate of 8.9 ± 2.0% per decade. A decadal change of 10% is also inferred from the difference of 11-year averages of ice minima data. If such a rate of decline persists for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice cover will likely disappear within this century. The decline is unlikely linear because of positive feedback effects between ice, ocean, and the atmosphere. Furthermore, a positive trend in the ice temperature of about 1.2 K per decade is observed leading to earlier onset of melt and delayed onset of freeze up that in turn causes further thinning and retreat of the perennial ice cover.
[14] The implications of such a disappearance of the perennial ice cover are many and can be profound. It would mean a different albedo for the Arctic during the peak of solar insolation in summer and therefore a drastically different ice-ocean-atmosphere feedback. It would mean a much larger influx of solar radiation into the Arctic Ocean thereby changing the characteristics of the mixed layer and the stratification of the ocean. The seasonality and characteristics of the ice cover in the region would be very different. The climate, the productivity, and biota in the region will change tremendously while the region becomes more accessible to human activities...

The following link notes changes but find a stronger role for non-CO2 feedbacks in their assessment of causation. I tend to agree with their reasoning and findings.

"The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09051.html
Vol 464|29 April 2010| doi:10.1038/nature09051

"...Arctic amplification is a clear feature of the warming over the 1989–2008 period based on the ERA-Interim reanalysis (Fig. 1). We diverge considerably from ref. 8 in finding that the maximum Arctic warming is at the surface and that warming lessens with height in all seasons except summer. This vertical structure suggests that changes at the surface, such as decreases in sea ice and snow cover, are the primary causes of recent Arctic amplification. The trends at the near-surface (herein the atmospheric levels at 950–1,000 hPa) are 1.6, 0.9, 0.5 and 1.6 uC per decade, averaged over the Arctic (herein latitudes 70–90u N) during winter, spring, summer and autumn, respectively. The near-surface warming is modest in summer because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean3,15. The surface amplification, defined here as the ratio of the near-surface warming to that of the whole tropospheric column (below 300 hPa), averaged over the Arctic, is greatest in autumn, with a value of 2.3. The surface amplification is aided by strong low-level stability that limits vertical mixing. The corresponding values of surface amplification for winter and spring are 2.1 and 1.8, respectively. We note that amplified Arctic warming, above ,700 hPa, is confined to winter and is still consistently weaker than the nearsurface warming (Fig. 1a). However, the presence of amplified warming aloft hints that processes in addition to the increased transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting from sea ice loss have had a contributing role in winter...[/quote]

"A multi-data set comparison of the vertical structure of temperature variability and change over the Arctic during the past 100 years"
Climate Dynamics, Online First
Climate Dynamics, accepted Jan. 2012

...None of the data sets alone is sufficient for addressing long-term trends in the Arctic. However, knowing the shortcomings and differences, information can be gained even on trends from analysing all data sets individually and by combining the results (see also Thorne et al. 2010 for the value of multiple tropospheric temperature data sets). For instance, all data sets agree that the last two decades are unprecedented in the 20th century in terms of the magnitude of the warm anomaly in the lower troposphere. The rate of warming between the 1980s and present is also outstanding. The vertical structure of the trend shows a clear amplification of the recent trend at the surface in autumn to spring. During the ETCW, high temperature anomalies were also found at 700 hPa and above in winter. Although the data are more uncertain for the first half of the twentieth century, they clearly point to a smaller lapse rate compared to the recent warm period....

If you'd like to discuss in more detail an appropriate division of causative agencies, I can see merit in such discourse.

 

[Intense]

It is not your place to determine who can post what where. The only thing clear about your posts, is that you have no tolerance for anything that would suggest that there is more to reality than what you tell us. That and that you lack social skills. How old are you, Twelve? You are new here, and off to a bad start.

If you can't take criticism, don't post here, since you are really stupid. Your posts were off-topic, until this one, which is a rambling introduction, to some paper, which may be some undergraduate geek-rant, from an ESL speaker. ESL means "English as a Second Language," you idiot. The introduction goes nowhere, and the paste lines up wrong, taking up space, at this thread, which is your strategy.

Your source is from 2000. Since it doesn't state a hypothesis, consistent with the OP, and it rambles, what are you trying to prove, you are a ramblin' guy? Your source is 12 years old, from 2000, DD. And it was born retarded. So since you and your ramble both suck, go ahead and take criticism, like the big pussy you are, or leave the thread.

Here's an on-topic link, which isn't busted:

Strategic Planning

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is pleased to release the new National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the U. S. Global Change Research Program. The creation of this plan is mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (GCRA, P.L. 101-606); it will serve as the guiding document for USGCRP for the next decade.

The Plan is built around four strategic goals: Advance Science, Inform Decisions, Conduct Sustained Assessments, and Communicate and Educate. In addition to these four goals, the Plan emphasizes the importance of national and international partnerships that leverage Federal investments and provide for the widest use of Program results. The Plan builds on the Program’s strengths in integrated observations, modeling, and information services for science that serves societal needs.
-------------------------

This is on-topic, at this thread. Learn to read, hit search, and try to post, on-topic. Or take a lot of criticism, since you have no skills, no value, and you have a tardy-tude. Idiots who think they are smart need to take a walk. So do that, if you know how.

My Source is from 2003, not 2000. Hydrological Sciences Journal
Volume 48, Issue 1, 2003 I do understand that you are challenged. Who knew. The premise of posting it is to show that not all accepted science is on the same page, nor in agreement of what you proclaim as fact. There are legitimate questions and points raised. I understand how easy it is for you to swallow everything you hear or read, from the flavor of the day, to a Sailor looking for a happy ending to Fleet Week. hook, line, and sinker, when it supports your notion. Rumor has it that you are real good at swallowing. I'm not big on playing Paper Chase, Bob, so take that Socratic Method and shove it up your ass, that is if it could fit up there with your ego, boy.

 

[saveliberty]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

Careful, flour scents can be explosive (Twin Cities Urban Recon | Gold Medal Flour).

But when some minerals are exposed to UV light they exhibit a property known as fluorescence and emit lower wavelength visible light.

Like mercury, oh clueless one.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points | Climate Change, Land Use & Ocean Acidification | LiveScience

 

[Trakar]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

Careful, flour scents can be explosive (Twin Cities Urban Recon | Gold Medal Flour).

But when some minerals are exposed to UV light they exhibit a property known as fluorescence and emit lower wavelength visible light.

Like mercury, oh clueless one.

actually, it is the mercury which is stimulated to emit the UV light, it is the white powder coating on the inside surface of the tubes that fluoresce in the UV light that the ionized mercury plasma emits.

 

[Intense]

If it was about the environment, we wouldn't have compact flourscents, windmills or Al Gore in a jet.

That's right. It is about central control, one standard for us, and no standard for them.

 

[Intense]

Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points | Climate Change, Land Use & Ocean Acidification | LiveScience

Some good points. Consequence will bring change. The thing is that the formulas are maybe more complex than we give them credit for, and sometimes what seems bad from one perspective, may be good from others. We observe in part, not with full understanding. The problem there is in drawing and acting on misguided conclusions. When we get tailored information to steer us in this direction or that, or even to act impulsively, it violates the trust, and corrodes credibility. My point is tell us what you know, tell us what you theorize or presume, without confusing or misrepresenting the two. Translation, don't corrupt the science.

 

[bobgnote]

Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points | Climate Change, Land Use & Ocean Acidification | LiveScience

Translation, don't corrupt the science.

"Modern humans can't possibly claim to have control over whether carbon dioxide concentrations are 350 ppm or any other specific level in the future, Allen said. He also criticized the proposed boundary based on its high estimate of climate sensitivity, or the long-term warming response to the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But Allen admitted that the 350 ppm concentration might still serve as a useful target. That's because scientists know that 15 to 20 percent of CO2 emissions hang around in the atmosphere indefinitely. Releasing a little over 1 trillion tons during the anthropocene era (now) of human-caused global warming would lead to a long-term CO2 concentration of about 350 ppm. Limiting the excess CO2 emissions to 1 trillion tons would be just about what's needed to keep the likeliest CO2-related warming peak below 2 degrees C — and humans are already halfway to that limit."

---------------------------

Re-greening all deserts and polluted areas with smart plants and then trees is a good idea, or down goes the human population, suddenly. We face volcanic and seismic events, from heavy tides.

And anybody who won't grow switchgrass and hemp for biomass needs to be sterilized. Runaway global warming is here. The site doesn't note, CO2 is already at 400 ppm, and methane is going to force runaway warming. This is an atypical fault, but the site does note acidification, neatly. I've seen worse.

 

[jack113]

Their are no scientific organizations that support anti climate change propaganda that corporate lobbies produce like John Birch Society The John Birch Society - John Birch Society

If the politically correct people that follow these propaganda services want to live in the dark ages they should turn in their cars and every other thing that has made their modern life possible and stop being hypocrites.

Climate change will not be used much longer as a political fund raiser and will be addressed soon because the energy cons producing the propaganda cannot continue to live in the environment destruction they are supporting now.