Climate article

[PRB]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/...lobal-warming/

[Tree Potato]

A few of us atmospheric scientists haven't caved to peer pressure. Not being dependent on government grants doled out for capitalism bashing has its advantages. My guess is when we pass 2 decades of lack of continued warming the theory will finally be set aside as the bunk it is (another 5+ years or so).

However, climate change is a real phenomena. The warmists have grabbed onto it as a way to save face and continue their attacks on a prosperous society by erroneously claiming climate change is primarily induced by humans. Fortunately people are seeing through the charade. The solar driven ebb and flow of energy (heat and stored potential energy) and moisture around the planet is important; these things will impact agriculture, trade, and living conditions that can add pressure to already unstable regions of the world.

If the current decrease in solar energy output continues for a few decades (seems likely), climate patterns will continue to adjust, changing growing seasons and precipitation patterns. As a result, production of staple crops may decrease globally with consequences we should plan for, especially since the impacts won't be spread equally. When governments fail to adequately respond to food crises you know who they turn to.

[Tango three]

The solar driven ebb and flow of energy (heat and stored potential energy) and moisture around the planet is important; these things will impact agriculture, trade, and living conditions that can add pressure to already unstable regions of the world.

I'm unconvinced either way, maybe cynicism; maybe all the noise. Anyway still trying to make up my mind.
Your statement raises a question that has lurked in my mind. If, as you say this is an issue of solar energy ebb and flow and if oil and petroleum are stored solar energy and as you say agriculture, trade and living conditions can add pressure

Then isn't it reasonable to believe that the burning of stored solar energy and human input to agriculture, trade and living conditions must have some effect on the climate fluctuations we are experiencing?
If not, then why doesn't this human activity factor into the equation?

[Tree Potato]

Originally Posted by Tango three

The solar driven ebb and flow of energy (heat and stored potential energy) and moisture around the planet is important; these things will impact agriculture, trade, and living conditions that can add pressure to already unstable regions of the world.

I'm unconvinced either way, maybe cynicism; maybe all the noise. Anyway still trying to make up my mind.
Your statement raises a question that has lurked in my mind. If, as you say this is an issue of solar energy ebb and flow and if oil and petroleum are stored solar energy and as you say agriculture, trade and living conditions can add pressure

Then isn't it reasonable to believe that the burning of stored solar energy and human input to agriculture, trade and living conditions must have some effect on the climate fluctuations we are experiencing?
If not, then why doesn't this human activity factor into the equation?

The issue warmists have with petroleum is not heat storage, it's the theory that CO2 released into the atmosphere causes global warming as a "global warming gas." As far as energy storage and release goes, burning petroleum or wood is many orders of magnitude less significant than the heat stored, transported, released elsewhere by the oceans and the movement of energy stored by water vapor in the atmosphere.

Consider how much energy it takes to boil off a cup of water on the stove and turn it into steam. The equatorial oceans do the same thing on an immense scale, and that water vapor moves north; when it condenses (phase change from gas back to liquid) it releases stored energy in the form of heat, in a place distant from where the heat was put in; this causes more atmospheric motion, more wind, and more water vapor to move poleward, and so on. Consider how much energy is released by lightning; this energy originates from the sun, enters our system mostly in the tropics, and is released elsewhere by the movement of water vapor condensing into water droplets causing violent storms, and frictional lightning releases are just a tiny fraction of the energy being moved poleward.

Think of weather like a person's mood, and climate like a person's personality. Alter how much energy enters the system over a long period of time and the planet's climate/personality will change. Precipitation patterns will change, and this can affect farming.

Human activity can change precipitation patterns, but more from a land use aspect than from burning of fossil fuels. Look at Haiti, the African Sahel, or the retreating ice of Kilimanjaro for the effects of deforestation and human land use on local climate patterns. These effects are often incorrectly attributed to global warming or climate change, but are local problems caused by how people change vegetation cover, which in turn changes local and sometimes regional weather patterns by changing how water is stored and cycled back into the atmosphere.

[JJ_BPK]

And the winner is???
the cause: us humans multiplying like rabbits.
the effect: blame the cars, decaying plants, and cow farts
the fix: make Al Gore a bizzillon-air-head..

[mark46th]

Weather is dynamic. It is going to change. It always has, it always will. Change is the definition of weather. To think that humans can change 4 billion years of environmental conditions in 20 years is utter nonsense.

[Tree Potato]

Originally Posted by mark46th

Weather is dynamic. It is going to change. It always has, it always will. Change is the definition of weather. To think that humans can change 4 billion years of environmental conditions in 20 years is utter nonsense.

Shack.

We can, however, look back at the Dalton, Sporer, and Maunder Minimums of solar activity where there was a pronounced climate shift (for example, Europe was much colder) and anticipate what may happen over the next ~50 years if sunspot activity remains low and repeats those previous solar activity minimums.

History is probably more valuable now than the current science/windbaggery. The sky is not falling, but we also should not be surprised by what may come.

[Pete]

It's interesting when people (scientists) begin talking about the "last ice age".

Are we in an interglacial period - out of a glacial period - still in the million year glaciation period?

But scientists do agree that the last period of glaciation peeked around 22,000 years ago and "ended" around 10,500 BCE.

The earth has generally warmed since then with alternating warm and cool periods.

So 150 years of recorded data for 12,500 years equals 1.2% of the time period????

Does our climate change? Yes. Is it man's fault? Most likely not.

[Tango three]

Originally Posted by Tree Potato

The issue warmists have with petroleum is not heat storage, it's the theory that CO2 released into the atmosphere causes global warming as a "global warming gas." As far as energy storage and release goes, burning petroleum or wood is many orders of magnitude less significant than the heat stored, transported, released elsewhere by the oceans and the movement of energy stored by water vapor in the atmosphere.

The Earth has been seriously de-forested, the large forests (example the vast costal Redwood forests that dominated the western United States) acted as CO2 dumps, filtering huge quantities of the "greenhouse gas" and exchanging it for O2.
How then has man's extensive logging not significantly contributed to warming but from the other direction?

[Tree Potato]

Originally Posted by Tango three

The Earth has been seriously de-forested, the large forests (example the vast costal Redwood forests that dominated the western United States) acted as CO2 dumps, filtering huge quantities of the "greenhouse gas" and exchanging it for O2.
How then has man's extensive logging not significantly contributed to warming but from the other direction?

The contribution to warming by CO2 itself is pretty negligible; the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Those who advocate antropogenic global warming theorize a small increase in CO2 causes a larger increase in water vapor, and in turn, warms the atmosphere through second and third order effects. The problem for AGW advocates is that planetary temperatures have plateaued for 15+ years now (depending on how you time average the series) despite the continued pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere. That CO2 in the atmosphere has increased isn't really being questioned by the AGW skeptics; what's open to debate is what the consequences will be.

AGW advocates have made claims wildly out of proportion to what has actually occurred. Some of them, like Lovelock in the referenced article, are admitting they were wrong or at least dramatically overpredicted the risks. Others (like IPCC) seem to want to go down with the ship.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Tango three

.....How then has man's extensive logging not significantly contributed to warming but from the other direction?

Have the Vikings moved back to Greenland and started farming again?

I do believe they were froze out before we cut down the Redwoods.

Is northen Germany warmer or colder now than it was in 100 BCE? How much?

[PokemonMaster]

Neat

[PRB]

How can you argue with this......

Concerns have previously been raised about the effect of methane emissions from cows on global warming.

But in the House of Lords today a Labour peer raised questions about the impact of human diet on emmisions.

Viscount Simon, 73, a Labour peer who has been a member of the House of Lords for more than 20 years, voiced his fears about the ‘smelly emissions’.


Lord Simon said: ‘In a programme some months ago on the BBC it was stated that this country has the largest production of baked beans and the largest consumption of baked beans in the world.’

He asked Lady Verma: ‘Could you say whether this affects the calculation of global warming by the Government as a result of the smelly emission resulting therefrom?’

Lady Verma described his question as ‘so different’ but she appeared to suggest that people should think twice about over-indulging in baked beans or any food which causes flatulence.

She added: ‘You do actually raise a very important point, which is we do need to moderate our behaviour.'


A study last December suggested the total value of baked beans sold in the previous year had fallen by £20.8 million to £339.3 million in the UK.

Lord Simon's grandfather Sir John Simon, a Liberal, was given a peerage in 1940 after serving as Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor.

A study this week recommended eating baked beans every day, to help significantly reduce cholesterol and lower the risk of heart diseases.

Wind and bloating were among the side effects of those eating the daily portion, although this subsided after a while, said lead researcher Dr John Sievenpiper from St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto.

Last month a survey found that tins of baked beans were the most popular item that Brits took with them when going on foreign holidays.


Baked beans was the most popular item at 37 per cent, followed by chocolate (35 per cent), Bacon (32 per cent), sweets (24 per cent), and condiments (20 per cent).

The exchange over the impact of beans on global warming came as a senior Tory peer called on the government to stop trying to prevent climate change altogether.

George Osborne’s father-in-law Lord Howell of Guildford, a former Foreign Office minister, said a change in direction of energy policy was ‘overdue’.

The Tory peer said in the House of Lords: ‘Now may be time to consider switching our colossal expenditure in attempting mitigation to adaptation to what is widely believed by many of us to come in the way of more extreme weather.

‘It seems that our current mitigation efforts seem to be producing no vast improvement in carbon emissions - in fact an increase in our carbon footprint - burning more coal, increased fuel poverty, driving investment away from this country to elsewhere where power is cheaper, raising the prospect of blackouts and general environmental damage.’


At question time in the Lords he asked energy minister Baroness Verma: ‘Isn't it becoming very obvious that some change of direction in our climate and energy policy is overdue if we are to achieve our green goals?’

Lady Verma said the Government's policy was about ‘both adaptation and mitigation’.

Labour peer Baroness Worthington said: ‘On discovering a flood in a bathroom you would not make your priority turning your house into a swimming pool, you would turn the tap off.

‘That is precisely what we need to do and I think it is regrettable that we have some prominent members of the other side (Conservatives) who do not seem to accept it.’

[Tango three]

Originally Posted by Pete

Have the Vikings moved back to Greenland and started farming again?

I do believe they were froze out before we cut down the Redwoods.

Is northen Germany warmer or colder now than it was in 100 BCE? How much?

I have no idea (about Vikings) in Greenland. I did read Jared Diamonds books Guns, Germs and Steeland Collapse. And I think the challenges of farming in Greenland have more to do with the ice covering most of the island than global warming/climate change. As for Northern Germany, I don't know.

[Tango three]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

....I had read that actually we have more trees per capita today than back in the 1800s, because modern farming allows us to grow far more food using far less land, so land that formerly was farmland has been able to grow back into forest.

Before the mid 19th century the coast Redwoods covered some 2 million acres of the American Pacific coast line. In the 1830's American loggers discovered them and began harvesting; by the 1850's logging Redwoods was going strong. The end of the Second World War, power tools, and the postwar housing boom resulted in the harvesting of about 95% of the existing forests (approximately an area the size of three Rhode Island). --A Man Among Giants Readers Digest April 2014 p116--

Per capita is an interesting concept. But it is hardly fair to compare exchanging a 2,000 year old 140 foot tall Red Wood with the 10 year old 10 foot tall Japanese Maple I planted in my yard last year.
The article cited is really more about efforts to clone significant examples of major tree species then about global climate change.