Originally Posted by TimWalker

I suspect that, as well intentioned as the geoengineering schemes may be, they won't be able to restore climate to what we have been used to. Perhaps, when climate is on the verge of flipping, these techniques may promote a quasi-stability.

However, with many complex interactions, I suspect these schemes will have wierd side effects.

I worry about that, too.

Climate Crash Abrupt Climate Change and What it Means for Our Future by John D. Cox

The Nonlinearities chapter - there are uncertainties, such as unknown thresh holds. Regarding the flipping of climate between different modes:

"...The big climate swings have come not when conditions such as temperatures and ice extent were high, and forces such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or radiation from the Sun were extreme, but rather when conditions were relatively moderate and CO2 and solar forces were changing rapidly. Maybe the swings came when forces would push the climate system 'in the gap between two modes...an alternative explanation-that 'the stability of the the system may be sensitive to the rate of change of forcing variables, such that climate response is analogous to that of a drunken human: when left alone, it sits; when forced to move, it staggers with abrupt changes in direction.' "

How To Cool The Planet Geoengineering And The Audacious Quest To Fix Earth's Climate by Jeff Goodell


"...Then there are the psychological consequences. What happens when the color of the sky on a particular day is the result not of Mother Nature's mood but of the mood of geoengineers who are spreading dust in the stratosphere? (Because of their light-scattering effects, high-altitude particles are likely to cause paler skies but more brightly colored sunsets.) What happens to our romance with Nature-sentimental as it may be at times-when we become hyperconscious that we are all living in a terrarium?

"...Putting particles in the atmosphere is likely to cause sunlight to become more diffuse, blurring the sharp lines of shadows and turning the sky whiter during the day, while making sunsets redder in the evening...."

How To Cool The Planet....

"It may not be technologically complex to loft particles into the stratosphere, but there is no system in place to do it. ...the quickest and least expensive way to do it would be with high-altitude aircraft. The trick is finding planes that can carry enough payload and still reach the altitude necessary (30,000 to 40,000 feet) for the most effective particle dispersal. One of the best planes for the job, the study found, might be an experimental aircraft called the White Knight Two...that is designed to fly as high as 60,000 feet...study found that a fleet of 150 planes, making two flights aday, would be required to lift the necessary mass of particles up to the stratosphere. The total cost to cool the planet, including planes, materials, and fuel, would be $8 billion a year...."

Majority of Americans Still 'Believe' in Global Warming

A few months ago, the European papers were on a denialist kick, publishing a bunch of articles intended to discredit global warming. It seems the retractions are starting, but will get a lot less press space than the original garbage.

The "Hockey Stick Chart" Denialists love to hate has been VINDICATED!

The anti-climate-science crowd are apparently incapable of using the internet for anything other than surfing from one echo-chamber to the next and threatening people they disagree with. The so called “climategate” scandal has long since been debunked, and was in fact not a scandal at all – unless you think they shouldn’t have stolen people’s personal e-mails. Michael Mann’s much maligned hockey-stick graph has been exonerated and while there were some MSM retractions there were no apologies. In fact two stalwart members of the MSM, the New York Times and The Washington Post, actually refused to print an op-ed that was signed by 255 National Academy of Science members defending -climate science integrity.

Small wonder then there’s so much confusion. The media are only too happy to run with any story that assaults global warming science. Sure they’ll retract it later but by then the damage is already done. The narrative has been created and a lot of people are not around when the story is debunked – that’s how zombie lies are created.

Those threats I mentioned in the first sentence? A story over at the Guardian chronicles what life has been like for the scientists whose names were mentioned in the stolen emails from the University of East Anglia. They have subsequently faced …a torrent of death threats and hate mail, leaving them fearing for their lives and one to contemplate arming himself with a handgun. Professor Phil Jones, the UEA scientist at the centre of the hacked email controversy, revealed in February he had been receiving two death threats a week. As scientist Stephen Schneider notes, this is obviously the work of cowards. Go read some of the mails (Warning- offensive language) for yourself and see if you don’t come to the same conclusion.

World Simmers in Hottest Year So Far

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The world is enduring the hottest year on record, according to a U.S. national weather analysis, causing droughts worldwide and a concern for U.S. farmers counting on another bumper year.

For the first six months of the year, 2010 has been warmer than the first half of 1998, the previous record holder, by 0.03 degree Fahrenheit...

***HEAVY SARCASM***

But we had the SNOWPOCALYPSE last Winter! that proves there is no Global Warming!

***HEAVY SARCASM***

I like this interview with Austarilian Global Warming Nut Tim Flannery:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/20/how_to_expose_a_warmist_andrew_bolt_interviews_aus tralias_al_gore_106015.html


...Bolt: No, no, no, you said Brisbane would run out of water possibly by as early as 2009. There's no desalination plant, there's no dam.

Flannery: What I have said is that there is a water problem. They may run out of water. And ...

Bolt: 100 per cent full, nearly! 100 percent full.

Flannery: That's a lie, Andrew. I didn't say it would run out of water. I don't have a crystal ball in front of me. I said Brisbane has a water problem.

Bolt: I'll quote your own words: "Water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months." That was, on the timeline you gave, by the beginning of 2009. Their reservoirs are now 97 per cent full...

...Bolt: Should we also have nuclear power plants?

Flannery: In Australia I don't think so. We've got such a great load of assets in the renewable area that I don't think there's an argument here that they are ever going to be economic.

Bolt: Four years ago you did. What changed your mind?

Flannery: No, I never did. I've always had the same argument.

Bolt: No, no, no. Here's your quote: "Over the next two decades Australians could use nuclear power to replace all our coal-fired power plants. We would then have a power infrastructure like France and in doing so we would have done something great for the world." That was your quote...

Double-Thinking, Double-Talking...

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

...So cry many Boomers like Haymarket whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows!

So now the Denialists have been reduced tom playing "gotcha" with a changed opinion and a bit of forgetfulness? I guess it's because they know they are are a bunch of liars and have no facts to back up their lies.

Originally Posted by Odin

Same in Minnesota. It was in the 60s all April

Here in the PNW, we had the coolest and wettest spring in years.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Here in the PNW, we had the coolest and wettest spring in years.

And not much of a summer to speak of so far, either...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And not much of a summer to speak of so far, either...

It's had its moments. Don't know about the Coast, but we've had quite a few days in the 80s, and even two or three in the 90s, so far.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

It's had its moments. Don't know about the Coast, but we've had quite a few days in the 80s, and even two or three in the 90s, so far.

We had 89 once. And only for the one day.

But then again, people who have lived on the peninsula their whole lives say that years with no winter don't have a summer either. And we sure as hell had nothing resembling a winter out here.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

We had 89 once. And only for the one day.

But then again, people who have lived on the peninsula their whole lives say that years with no winter don't have a summer either. And we sure as hell had nothing resembling a winter out here.

Well, here in DC, we've had both in spades! I'm just glad I was out of the country when the thermometer hit triple digits!

Based on my own reading, I'm convinced that global warming is underway.

However, "weather" by definition is highly variable. While "climate" by definition is stable. Using weather to demonstrate changes in climate is probably not the best argument available.

Originally Posted by Odin

So now the Denialists have been reduced tom playing "gotcha" with a changed opinion and a bit of forgetfulness...

-No spin there.

TF didn't "change his opinion" (he tried to conceal it) or "forget", he was caught back-tracking because his predictions were proven to be what The Self-procalimed God of Wisdom would call "LIES":

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/20/how_to_expose_a_warmist_andrew_bolt_interviews_aus tralias_al_gore_106015.html

Originally Posted by TnT

...However, "weather" by definition is highly variable. While "climate" by definition is stable. Using weather to demonstrate changes in climate is probably not the best argument available.

-But it takes years (or decades) of "weather" to get an indication of what the "climate" is doing.

Originally Posted by TnT

Based on my own reading, I'm convinced that global warming is underway...

-The real questions are:

1) Is the climate getting warmer (if at all, or by how much)?

2) If so, how much is human activity responsible for that?

3) If so, is that a bad thing, a good thing, neither, or a combination therof?

4) If a GOVERNENT takes action, who much (or little) will that modify any increase (or decrease, or whatever), and a what cost, and with what unintended consequences?

A large percentage of Global Warming Nuts don't care about the answer, because their real concern is government control- GW is just an excuse.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

...So cry many Boomers like Haymarket whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows!

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

...So cry many Boomers like Haymarket whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows!

-The real questions are:

1) Is the climate getting warmer (if at all, or by how much)?

2) If so, how much is human activity responsible for that?

3) If so, is that a bad thing, a good thing, neither, or a combination therof?

4) If a GOVERNENT takes action, who much (or little) will that modify any increase (or decrease, or whatever), and a what cost, and with what unintended consequences?

A large percentage of Global Warming Nuts don't care about the answer, because their real concern is government control- GW is just an excuse.


The answers to these are all pretty straightforward:
1) Yes, the climate (not just the weather) is warming up on a global scale. This does not preclude regional and temporal fluctuations (we're talking about complex phenomena that we're still learning lots about). How much? Here are some clues:
-total global rainfall is now increasing 1.5% a decade due to the fact that warmer air holds more water vapor.
-1 degree celsius warming means a 6% increase in lightning, and this is being corroborated by data showing increased lightning and lightning triggered fires.
-The arctic ice coverage is shrinking at rates much faster than the predictions. This has a double whammy effect in terms of the earth's albedo from snow cover being replace by the darker, energy absorbing color of the ocean water that replaces the snow.
-The tropics have moved poleward an average of 2 degrees since 1980, which pushes the dry subtropics poleward as well.
-global oceanic pH has slipped from 8.2 to 8.1 and is predicted to slip to 7.8 by 2100. This acidification is enough to wipe out most coral reefs and make it difficult for shellfish to make thick enough shells to survive.
-All of these things are occurring at CO2 atmospheric concentrations of over 390 ppm, but our models predicted that these were things we wouldn't see until CO2 concentrations reached 450 or 550 ppm. The scientific evidence seems to point out that we have been way too conservative in predicting the negative consequences. This is a sobering thought considering there is clear evidence that CO2 concentrations could reach 6 or 700 ppm, which leads us to your next question:
2) How much is this human induced?
Computer modeling concerning climate dynamics is quite dynamic, involves multiple runs with different assumptions, and is revised using empirical data from the real world. One very convincing way to decide the impact of human CO2 emissions is to try to exclude its impact from the models and see what happens. Runs where solar activity, volcanism, cloud cover and the other gamut of "natural" inputs are left in conclude that we should currently be in a cooling phase, which is the opposite of what we're observing. The only way to make it "work" is to include the CO2 emitted by human activities: driving, making electricity, burning, etc., etc.
Unfortunately that is not the entire picture. There are a number of natural phenomena that are catalyzed by increasing global temps, namely methane beds located on continental shelves and in the polar regions become active players and millions of tons of methane are released, which has a much larger effect than our CO2 emissions. This is a real concern, since if these massive releases are triggered (and they have already begun), the warming cycle will be much, much larger and with much more devastating results to our economies, ecosystems, and even survival.

Therefore the answer to number 3 is that it is potentially quite bad for humans and for already stressed ecosystems on land and sea. Of course some things will not be affected much and might be pretty beneficial. But count humanity out of those parts of the equation.

4) You might be surprised about what I think about the government: the best thing for it to do is best summed up in Bill McKibben's book Eaarth: forget about the grandiose, massive solutions--it's already too late for most if not all of them. The best thing it can do is to facilitate the transition back to local control in terms of food production, energy production, building sustainable communities, etc. That's going to create a much more flexible and responsive culture that can make rapid adaptations to worsening conditions, when compared to the top-down, globalist economies of today which are surprisingly vulnerable to breakdowns in infrastructure that would occur with, say, sea rises, increasingly severe weather (droughts AND floods), etc. that are predicted to become more and more pervasive in our lifetimes.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

-The real questions are:

<snip>

The answers to these are all pretty straightforward:

<snipped again>

Welcome to the forum. You'll find several other AGW-knowledgeable people here, especially Bob Butler and Mikebert.

You'll also find their dopplegangers.

Realclimate just posted a short article, Happy 35th birthday, global warming! It turns out that 35 years ago, the first paper that used the phrase 'global warming' was published.

The body of the article reviews the original paper, including a review of the mistakes made by the author. Most of them canceled out. We've learned a lot in 35 years, but for every mistake Wally Broecker made in the direction of warming, he made another in the direction of cooling. His basic methodology is still usable today, his results were pretty accurate, though a lot of his guesstimates have become measurements.

Worth a read if you want a review of the basics.

I've just attended a fairly detailed review of the Fourth Turning book and poked around the related websites, so can't say that I've read the books and know a lot of detail, but my impression is that the Howe and Strauss hypothesis is a bit thin on incorporating ecological contexts for human historical cycles.

Jared Diamond's book, Collapse, provides a much more cogent analysis of the ups and downs of any given culture simply because it provides a framework that is much more testable and anchored in the real world. I am drawn to the whole concept of zeitgeist, which seems very important to the Fourth Turning framework, but it really helps to ground such formulations in the empirical world. Otherwise, such concepts, while capable of being very rich and deep, are no more testable or predictive than your horoscope, which you might resonate deeply with, but is based on the resonant characteristics of language itself, and as such has no grounding in reality. I mean, the houses of the zodiac are based on where they were thousands of years ago, not where they are today, due to precession of the equinoxes.

Does this make any sense to others? The reason I bring this critique up is that I see very little attention being paid to the reality of global climate change in the Fourth Turning description of reality. The changes that have started and will continue will not go end at the end of the generational cycle, and yet it will heavily influence any future cyclical processes that you might be trying to identify with the Fourth Turning.

Just wondering out loud....

A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change

Life can be hard in Moscow. The Russian capital is sweltering in temperatures that reached a record 37.7C last week. Vast stretches of peat bog surrounding the city have dried out and caught fire covering Moscow with choking smog. The changing of the horse guard in Cathedral Square was cancelled as sentries wilted in traditional woollen uniforms. Elsewhere, more than 2,000 Russians – many drunk – drowned trying to cool off in lakes and rivers and at least 10 million hectares of crops have been ruined. States of emergency have been declared in 23 regions.

Nor is Russia alone. New York has baked in a thick tropical heat and humidity that is gripping eastern America. Public cooling centres have been set up while black-outs are common. In the Arctic, sea ice coverage continues to dwindle while a report last week revealed that levels of phytoplankton – tiny marine plants that are the foundation of the oceans' food chain – are plummeting, victims of global warming.

Our world is starting to sizzle as rising levels of greenhouse gases trap more and more of the sun's heat in the lower atmosphere – a point that was confirmed on Wednesday when the Met Office reported that sensors from around the world were showing that 2010 would be the hottest, or just possibly the second hottest year on record.

Either way, the news surprised many people, despite those tales emanating from New York and Moscow. A freezing UK winter and the collapse of the Copenhagen climate talks – along with the damaging leak of "climategate" emails from the University of East Anglia – had persuaded many that global warming was a dead issue. If only.

In fact, that record rise in global temperatures, far from appearing unexpectedly had been predicted. Last January, the Met Office announced that it believed this year would, indeed, be a record scorcher. Given that Britain was then coated in thick snow, the prediction was brave.

It was accurate nevertheless. Western Europe and eastern America may then have been going through a grim, cold winter but other areas – including Asia and western America – were experiencing unexpectedly hot weather. The overall trend was a warming one. Few took notice, however, and the Little Englander's myopic view of the world – that only local events matter – continued to dominate newspaper columns and blogs. Global warming was nonsense, they insisted.

Thus the deniers got it wrong while climate scientists got it spectacularly right. Indeed, we should note just how prescient the latter have been. In 1999, the Met Office's head of climate modelling Peter Stott – working with Oxford University's Myles Allen and other meteorologists – published a paper in Nature on the likely impact of greenhouse gas emissions. Using temperature data from 1946 to 1996, the paper estimated future global temperatures and included a graph of a range of predicted outcomes for 2000 to 2040 with a dotted line indicating the most likely path. Crucially, for the year 2010, that dotted line showed there would be a rise of 0.8C since the Second World War– which is exactly what we are experiencing today.

So scientists not only predicted how hot this year was likely to be six months ago, they forecast a decade ago just how much the world would heat up 10 years later. Bear this in mind when deniers tell you climate science is a conspiracy or the work of charlatans. They are talking rubbish.

Such precision is encouraging for it indicates climate scientists know what they are talking about, though at a deeper level, the news is disturbing – for it is clear that few people are actually listening to this message. Why? What lies behind scientists' failure to get their warning over? Most answers have concentrated on the difficulty of explaining science – riddled as it is with uncertainties and qualifications. And to some extent, these explanations are correct. Atmospheric physics and meteorology are complex. However, there is a second, more sinister explanation, one that forms the focus of Merchants of Doubt, by US academics Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, which is to be published this month by Bloomsbury. This analysis of right-wing politics and its impact on science shows how a handful of individuals have managed to obscure the truth on issues that range from the dangers of smoking to global warming. These right-wing libertarians include such scientists as Fred Seitz and Fred Singer – who both worked on the Cold War projects such as the US hydrogen bomb project and who helped set up institutions like the US's Heritage Foundation and Marshall Institute.

Funded by corporations and conservative foundations, these outfits exist to fight any form of state intervention or regulation of US citizens. Thus they fought, and delayed, smoking curbs in the '70s even though medical science had made it clear the habit was a major cancer risk. And they have been battling ever since, blocking or holding back laws aimed at curbing acid rain, ozone-layer depletion, and – mostly recently – global warming.

In each case the tactics are identical: discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt. As the authors state: "Small numbers of people can have large, negative impacts, especially if they are organised, determined and have access to power."

In Britain, links between deniers and big business are less obvious. Yet it is clear lessons have been learned and tactics copied. Consider these examples: the leaking of the "climategate" emails and the wild over-reaction to the mistaken insertion of a paragraph in the IPCC's last climate assessment, that suggested wrongly that Himalayan glaciers are melting rapidly. Both created a furore with the former revealing "a massive fraud" that represented "the final nail in the coffin" for the theory of global warming, deniers argued.

This claim was later shown to be nonsense, though it took three inquiries to establish the point. The overall effect, however, was the spread of confusion among the public and an increase in doubt about climate change. And given that the email leak involved a specific act of computer hacking, one must conclude this was the specific goal of that electronic "break-in".

In this way, scientists' warnings – that without action the world will get at least two degrees hotter this century – have been obscured by a small group of ideologues who believe individual liberties are more important than any other cause. Our planet may burn, millions may die, and cities such as Moscow and New York may smoulder, but at least we will be free of petty regulation and bureaucracy. It seems a stiff price to pay.

Got that, Justin?

Originally Posted by Odin

Got that, Justin?

I was wondering when someone would decide to toss this one up and see if it sticks.

Here's a little graphic for you, in response.




You'll note, perhaps, that both in number (число) and area (площадь), 2010 is hardly a stand-out year for forest fires in Russia's 11 timezones. They make a big deal this year primarily because of the proximity this time to the capitol.

And here's another fun picture for you:

Moscow and eastern Russia are warm; Central Asia, on the other hand, is having a hell of a cold summer. Then again, so are we out here in the Pac NW.

But yeah; whatever. Weather is not climate, except when AGW-fanatics want to prove a point, right?

And as for the now-falling-off global temp finally crossing an upward-trending 'dotted line' some people drew on a graph years ago... the fact that a stopped clock is right periodically has little bearing at all on it's utility as a timepiece.

Nice sets of graphics of the DAILY global temps. That's interesting weather, but has nothing to do with climate. Why not step back a little further and look at the latest MONTHLY global temps?



A little different perspective, no? Here's the text summary:
Global Highlights

• <LI class=main>The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.1°F), which is 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). The previous record for June was set in 2005. <LI class=main>June 2010 was the fourth consecutive warmest month on record (March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record). This was the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985. <LI class=main>The June worldwide averaged land surface temperature was 1.07°C (1.93°F) above the 20th century average of 13.3°C (55.9°F)—the warmest on record. <LI class=main>It was the warmest April–June (three-month period) on record for the global land and ocean temperature and the land-only temperature. The three-month period was the second warmest for the world's oceans, behind 1998. <LI class=main>It was the warmest June and April–June on record for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and all land areas of the Northern Hemisphere. <LI class=main>It was the warmest January–June on record for the global land and ocean temperature. The worldwide land on average had its second warmest January–June, behind 2007. The worldwide averaged ocean temperature was the second warmest January–June, behind 1998.
• Sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to decrease during June 2010. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, La Niña conditions are likely to develop during the Northern Hemisphere summer 2010.

Climate is based on large scale trends over time, and even a month doesn't show the climatic shifts. But poke around this website and you'll get the sense that June is the rule any more, not the exception. This trend ain't going away.