[ExI] The Climate Science Isn't Settled [was: Re: climategate again]

Mirco Romanato painlord2k at libero.it
Thu Dec 3 01:43:10 UTC 2009


Il 01/12/2009 23.16, Alfio Puglisi ha scritto:

>     My understanding is that all, or almost all, the observed warming is
>     due to less extreme cold and not to higher temperatures in the
>     warmer places.
> You are correct. And that's exactly what climate models predict for
> greenhouse-caused warming. Cold places warm up more than hot places.
> Night temperatures go up more than day temperatures. If, for example,
> the warming was caused by increased solar output, we would see the opposite.








>     Anyway, your first point supports only the point that some warming
>     has occurred, which I'm not disputing. (Even so, why do we see even
>     more reports of melting ice when there has been no significant
>     warming for 12 years? That suggests that either the cause is other
>     than warming, or that reports of ice melting etc. are highly
>     selective... and selected. That certainly seems to be the case with
>     regard to polar bears.)
> Glaciers are great integrators of climate.

The local, for sure. The global not so much.

> If temperature goes up, a
> glacier will go out of equilibrium and start to melt, but the response
> will not be instantaneus.

The same is true for reduced moisture in the air, less snow or less rain.

> Reaching a new equilibrium takes years. The
> current decade has been the warmest on record, and ice melts in
> response. If the last few decades had been colder than before, you would
> see glaciers growing even if the cooling trend stabilized for some years.

The current decade, as we know from actual temperature readings and the 
words written in the infamous emails, had no warming whatsoever over the 
measurement error.

> About your suggestion that reports of ice mass balance are selected for
> the most melting ones... that's a very serious accusation. Have you got
> any proof of that kind of selection? Anything?

The newspapers' reports for sure. As it confirm the narrative they 
choose. They are in the infotainment business not the fact reporting 
business.

But, indeed, there are glaciers that grow and glaciers that shrink.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/

> Go to the world glacier monitoring service: http://www.wgms.ch   See for
> example: http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html
> And you can't select in Arctic sea ice loss, or Greenland mass balance.
> There's only one of each.

The data, I see end in the 2007.
This is the "hide the decline" trick, again?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

People can note that the 2009 line is over the 2008 line and the 208 
line is over the 2007 line (higher = more ice).

But the CO2 emission don't went down.

CRU models didn't predict this nor explain this.

> "approximately constant" will do for any period less than many millions
> of years. The Sun output is still going up, and it's likely to turn the
> planet into a desert in a billion of years or so (and a badly burnt
> piece of rock at the end) but I'm not blaming it for the current global
> warming  :-)

The Sun energy emission is variable with the time aka Solar Cycle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/

[]cit.]Tree rings from the Urals have more uses than just making hockey 
sticks.  Due to the paucity of sunspots in the Maunder Minimum (1645 – 
1710), C14 data provides the evidence for the presence of solar cycles 
and their length.  According to Makarov and Tlatov, solar cycles 
averaged 20 years long in the Maunder.  In Figure 2 above, solar minima 
are associated with higher C14 content and are on the top side of the 
graphic.  I have marked the solar minima with vertical blue lines.  The 
blue figures along the x axis are the length of the solar cycles from 
minimum to minimum in years.[cit]

Mirco
-------------- next part --------------

Nessun virus nel messaggio in uscita.
Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com 
Versione: 9.0.709 / Database dei virus: 270.14.90/2540 -  Data di rilascio: 12/02/09 08:33:00


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list