34th Coldest Summer on Record

[1890MilesToNorman]

Okay, a question for you climate change believers? What do you want to do exactly, how long will it take and how much will it cost to reverse climate change world wide?

I will keep bumping this until you believers give me an answer.

[okiewaker]

After reading all that, all I got to say is don't screw with Mother Nature!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Global climate change isnt all about temperature, it is also about shifts in patterns of who gets the rain etc...Do we only have to pay Carbon Credits to our own country's govt., or is there a regional or international govt. that must be kept appeased, too? What if we prefer to stay dry?...or hot?...or cold?:confused:

[okiewaker]

Funny how it's all been all figured out, climate change, global warming, rain patterns, surface cooling and heating, etc, etc. Meanwhile earth, who has been around for billions of years (or so, whatever), keeps spinning and could care less what the data is. When she is ready she will purge herself of the gas bubble, no matter what we do. Anyway, JMO

[olevetonahill]

:D

[KABOOKIE]

So, when can we expect the 7 year forecast from our local TV Chief Climatologist?

Good morning central United States! Here's your 7 year forecast at the top of the hour.

2010: 10% chance of more rain.
2011: 30% chance of higher than normal temperatures.
2012: 20% chance flash flooding and "freak" storms.
2013: 5% chance of colder than normal temperatures.
2014: 40% chance the state of Kansas will become a desert but, only a 1% chance it will become dessert. Hahahaha! Just kidding there folks. No need to be alarmed..
2015: 50% chance that record highs will be set everyday.
2016: 70% chance a Category 9 hurricane will make landfall on the shores of Durant, OK.

[StoopTroup]

Al Gore has STOPPED GLOBAL WARMING!

Thank God for Al!

WTG dude!

[mdklatt]

So, when can we expect the 7 year forecast from our local TV Chief Climatologist?


Keep on showing that blatant ignorance of statistics.

[KABOOKIE]

Keep on showing that blatant ignorance of statistics.

Keep on showing that balatant ignorance of data collection.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I will keep bumping this until you believers give me an answer.I thought they preferred to be called "Warmers", or "Global Warmers"?

BOOOOMERRRR!

[mdklatt]

Keep on showing that balatant ignorance of data collection.

Well why don't you explain it to me, then. I mean, I only deal meteorological data every day so I would welcome some helpful tips. I'd really like to hear how you would use 3rd order PDEs to calculate linear trends in time series data, because to me that just sounds like gibberish. Did you read that Hansen article yet? I'm sure with your vast knowledge of areas outside your field you could find plenty of things they did wrong. (Does the "Dunning-Krueger effect" mean anything to you?)

[StoopTroup]

Two Weatherdudes dukin' it out on the interwebs. I thought today was gonna be boring...boy was I wrong.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Two Weatherdudes dukin' it out on the interwebs. I thought today was gonna be boring...boy was I wrong.Gary England pwnt's Mike Morgan

[Frozen Sooner]

Simmer down.

[KABOOKIE]

Well why don't you explain it to me, then. I mean, I only deal meteorological data every day so I would welcome some helpful tips. I'd really like to hear how you would use 3rd order PDEs to calculate linear trends in time series data, because to me that just sounds like gibberish. Did you read that Hansen article yet? I'm sure with your vast knowledge of areas outside your field you could find plenty of things they did wrong. (Does the "Dunning-Krueger effect" mean anything to you?)

So, tell me weatherman. You use linear extrapolations with all of that "data" to forecast what's going to happen with the climate? I'm not the one saying data collection errors a hundred years ago can be easily fixed by applying the simple correction of De + 2 = Dt. Down to the tenths of a degree! Ha. Whatever.

[PDXsooner]

dunning-krueger = kabookie

[Steve Lurkle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm


Four degrees of warming 'likely'

By David Shukman
Environment correspondent, BBC News

In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.
The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.
Their computer models also factored in new findings on how carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans and forests.
The finding was presented at an Oxford University conference exploring the implications of a 4C rise.
The results show a "best estimate" that 4C (measured from pre-industrial times) will be reached by 2070, with a possibility that it will come as early as 2060.

Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre described himself as "shocked" that so much warming could occur within the lifetimes of people alive today.
"If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon then we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes," he said.
"Four degrees of warming averaged over the globe translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall."
Big burn
The model finds wide variations, with the Arctic possibly seeing a rise of up to 15C (27F) by the end of the century.
Western and southern parts of Africa could warm by up to 10C, with other land areas seeing a rise of 7C or more.
In its 2007 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the average warming by the end of the century would probably lie between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F), though it did not rule out the possibility of larger rises.
Key to the Met Office calculations was the use of projections showing fossil fuel use continuing to increase as it has done for the last couple of decades.
"Previously we haven't looked at the impact of burning fossil fuels so intensely," said Dr Betts.
"But it's quite plausible we could get a rise of 4C by 2070 or even 2060."
Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.
But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.
The presentation at Oxford's Environmental Change Institute came as negotiators from 192 countries were gathering in Bangkok for the latest set of prepatory talks in the run-up to December's UN climate summit.
Major governments of developing and industrialised nations are committed to a deal that would keep the global temperature rise to 2C, which many regard as a threshold for "dangerous" climate change.

[I Am Right]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm

Lets see, hummm, oh I know "34TH COLDEST SUMMER ON RECORD"

[KABOOKIE]

dunning-krueger = warmers

Totally.


Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.
But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.

Yep.

[I Am Right]

I have one word for you Warmers,-------- Wait for it-----Rain!

[I Am Right]

For those of you who don't understand rain, look up Dr Roy Spencers study on rain. I would show the link, but some need to, oh never mind.

[I Am Right]

"Its cold outside"

[Curly Bill]

"Its cold outside"

...but...but...but...imagine how much colder it would be if we didn't have global warming! ;) ;) :rolleyes: :D

[I Am Right]

...but...but...but...imagine how much colder it would be if we didn't have global warming! ;) ;) :rolleyes: :D

Curly, what can I say.

[LosAngelesSooner]

People who doubt Global Climate change will be relegated to the same pages as those who doubted that the world was round.

I'd recommend that nobody waste their time trying to "change their minds" because at this point their doubt merely is an indicator of a greater inner flaw and they are hardly worth your time.

Unless you wanna mock them. That's totally fine. :D

[KABOOKIE]

You mean the Earf isn't flat?

Sheesh. I bought into the whole "Next Ice Age" thing 30 years ago. I'm still waiting for it.

[LosAngelesSooner]

^^^ THIS...illustrates my point PERFECTLY.

[KABOOKIE]

^^^ THIS...illustrates my point PERFECTLY.

No one knows what your point is. Other than being a totally obnoxious attention whore.

[LosAngelesSooner]

:rolleyes:

[Fraggle145]

Global climate change isn't about belief. Just wanted to throw that out there. Again.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Yep. No more than people "believe" in gravity.

[Harry Beanbag]

Really? Man made global warming is as accepted as Gravity? Really?


http://smiliesftw.com/x/huge_bs_flag.gif

[hellogoodbye]

People who doubt Global Climate change will be relegated to the same pages as those who doubted that the world was round.

I'd recommend that nobody waste their time trying to "change their minds" because at this point their doubt merely is an indicator of a greater inner flaw and they are hardly worth your time.

Unless you wanna mock them. That's totally fine. :D

Eh, first and third paragraph is exactly the reason minds arent being changed. Second paragraph is .,,, oh well flip the script and you get that same attitude coming from the other side (religious whatever fervor).

It all seems a power grab kind of waste of resources to me. When I think of pollution and environmental problems, I can think of more than a dozen issues that have a more significant and real impact on our lives than what amounts to a medium sized wet fart from a medium sized volcano. Chasing carbon dioxide isnt the way (for any significant impact, although its a great burgeoning industry\career path for pols\sci majors and whatnot).

Put it this way (and yes I lived there for 6-7 years in the early 90's), when you look up at the sickly brown sky in SoCal, the first thing you worry about is CO2? really? Is that what's making kids growing up there have 8%-12% less lung capacity?

[Howzit]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/05/himalayas.glacier.conflict/index.html

Apparently, the 34th coldest summer ever didn't make it everywhere.


http://www.soonerfans.com//secure-uk.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/m?ci=cnn-ecosolutions&cg=article The high stakes of melting Himalayan glaciers



(CNN) -- The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/TECH/science/10/05/himalayas.glacier.conflict/art.hima.jpgIn retreat: the roof of the world is experiencing rapid summer melting.


http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


The result of this deglaciation could be conflict as Himalayan glacial runoff has an essential role in the economies, agriculture and even religions of the regions countries.
The Himalayan glaciers (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/himalayas) form the world's largest ice body outside of the polar caps.



Popularly known as the "Water Tower of Asia," they are the source of water for rivers that flow across the continent: the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the Irrawaddy in Myanmar, the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China and a multitude of smaller rivers that flow through the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India.


Satellite data from the Indian Space Applications Center, in Ahmedabad, India, indicates that from 1962 to 2004, more than 1,000 Himalayan glaciers have retreated by around 16 percent. According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China's glaciers have shrunk by 5 percent since 1950s.


Dr. Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, physicist and leader in the International

Forum on Globalization, has just returned from a "Climate Yatra," a research journey to the Himalayas to study the impact of climate change and the glacial melt upon communities in Asia.


"Himalayan rivers support nearly half of humanity," Dr. Shiva told CNN. "Everyone who depends on water from the Himalayas will be affected."


One area of increasing concern for Shiva is flooding. "In Ladakh villages have already been washed away due to flash floods," she said.


The situation has exacerbated the occurrence of Glacier Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs).



Impacts include loss of lives, domestic property, cultivable land, mountain infrastructure downstream, forced migration and long-term secondary environmental degradation.
In the short term, the glacial retreat could cause not just an overflow of rivers within countries, but more significantly, a cross border overflow into countries that already have a history of tension.


Rivers such as the Indus, Jhelum, Ravi, Bias and Sutlej rivers, are shared between India and Pakistan (that have fought five wars since 1947) while melt-water from the Tibetan glaciers supply both India and China (that fought a war over disputed Himalayan border territory in 1962).


Both India and China are exploring opportunities to harness Himalayan waters for hydroelectric power projects, and while the initial melt promises to provide plenty of water for both sides, the loss of glaciers could lead to water shortages further in the future.


Underground aquifers in Asia depend heavily on snow melt during the dry summer season, and long-term implications of the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers mean that access to water could become a serious political problem.


According to Wendy Barnaby, editor of People and Science magazine, the United Nations issued a warning in February this year that climate change (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/global_climate_change) harbors the potential for serious conflicts over water.


Water-related conflicts have already been witnessed in other parts of the globe such as in the West Bank and in Darfur.


According to Himanshu Thakkar of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, almost 70 percent of the non-monsoon flows in almost all the Himalayan rivers come from glacier melt.


International water security issues within Asia could be likely since the waters of the Indus, Ganges and the Brahmaptura basins flow into China in the upstream, and are shared across South Asia in the downstream.


Dr. Shiva believes the situation will render major security issues, between India and China particularly, as flows reduce and demands intensify.


In India, deglaciation poses the question of political and social upheaval within the country itself. According to Thakkar, the rate of retreat for the Gangotri glacier over the last three decades was more than three times the rate during the preceding 200 years.


The Gangotri feeds the River Ganges, India's holiest river which has historically been a focal point for Hinduism. That the Ganges could become a seasonal river in the near future will throw a spanner in the works of Hindu religious customs, woven into the socio-economic life and culture of Northern India.
Moreover, future water allocation that favors economics over religion could spark conflict in a society that already experiences religious and inter-communal strife.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/content/ads/advertisement.gif




Even though some authorities in India do not consider the phenomenon to be particularly alarming, there is an increased understanding that the melting of Himalayan snows is real and needs to be taken seriously.



China and India are expected to sign an agreement this month that will enable scientists to cooperate on cross border research with regard to the Himalayan glacial melt.

[I Am Right]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/05/himalayas.glacier.conflict/index.html

Apparently, the 34th coldest summer ever didn't make it everywhere.

I guess there are not enough cars in India or china

[LosAngelesSooner]

Eh, first and third paragraph is exactly the reason minds arent being changed. Second paragraph is .,,, oh well flip the script and you get that same attitude coming from the other side (religious whatever fervor).

It all seems a power grab kind of waste of resources to me. When I think of pollution and environmental problems, I can think of more than a dozen issues that have a more significant and real impact on our lives than what amounts to a medium sized wet fart from a medium sized volcano. Chasing carbon dioxide isnt the way (for any significant impact, although its a great burgeoning industry\career path for pols\sci majors and whatnot).

Put it this way (and yes I lived there for 6-7 years in the early 90's), when you look up at the sickly brown sky in SoCal, the first thing you worry about is CO2? really? Is that what's making kids growing up there have 8%-12% less lung capacity?"Sickly brown sky?"

:rolleyes:

Ain't there anymore, Chief. Just like your ability to see the real world around ya.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I guess there are not enough cars in India or chinaSeriously...this is one of the more overly simplistic and moronic posts I've seen on SF.com since I started posting here in 99.

AND THAT IS SAYING SOMETHING.

[KABOOKIE]

Seriously...this is one of the more overly simplistic and moronic posts I've seen on SF.com since I started posting here in 99.

AND THAT IS SAYING SOMETHING.


Oh the irony!

[I Am Right]

Seriously...this is one of the more overly simplistic and moronic posts I've seen on SF.com since I started posting here in 99.

AND THAT IS SAYING SOMETHING.

I think you meant to use the word "sophomoric", maybe not, but you could look up the word "sarcastic" and understand the intent.

[I Am Right]

Oh the irony!

Ha, Ha!

[Turd_Ferguson]

"Sickly brown sky?"

:rolleyes:

Ain't there anymore, Chief. Just like your ability to see the real world around ya.Go to Big Bear and look down into the Valley...tell me what ya see.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I think you meant to use the word "sophomoric", maybe not, but you could look up the word "sarcastic" and understand the intent.
I used the words I wanted to use, though Sophomoric would also apply to your post.

As for Sarcastic...I realize you were trying to be sarcastic. What YOU don't realize was that your sarcasm was what made your post absolutely moronic.

I could get out the crayons and diagram it for you, but you probably still wouldn't understand.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Go to Big Bear and look down into the Valley...tell me what ya see.I would see Riverside.

Not L.A. ;)

And most people don't realize that 85% of the particulates in the air above Riverside is dust because it lies in a desert and is constantly undergoing massive construction due to the population explosion that is still going on there...NOT exhaust.

[I Am Right]

I used the words I wanted to use, though Sophomoric would also apply to your post.

As for Sarcastic...I realize you were trying to be sarcastic. What YOU don't realize was that your sarcasm was what made your post absolutely moronic.

I could get out the crayons and diagram it for you, but you probably still wouldn't understand.

Oh man, you really got me. I would put you on ignore but I enjoy reading your post.

[I Am Right]

I used the words I wanted to use, though Sophomoric would also apply to your post.

As for Sarcastic...I realize you were trying to be sarcastic. What YOU don't realize was that your sarcasm was what made your post absolutely moronic.

I could get out the crayons and diagram it for you, but you probably still wouldn't understand.

Why use one word, when 4 or 5 will do.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Plus you're somebody's Troll handle that they keep propping up...so there's that...

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why use one word, when 4 or 5 will do.Perhaps YOU should invest in a dictionary. Then you'll discover that "overly simplistic and moronic" <> "sophomoric". :rolleyes:

[I Am Right]

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell
Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (”IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipition systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

[LosAngelesSooner]

CUT AND PASTE!!!!!

YAYYY!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

[I Am Right]

CUT AND PASTE!!!!!

YAYYY!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Thanks, I can use a mouse also.

[I Am Right]

Perhaps YOU should invest in a dictionary. Then you'll discover that "overly simplistic and moronic" <> "sophomoric". :rolleyes:

read previous post please!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Comprehend any post in this thread, please. :rolleyes:

[Harry Beanbag]

Plus you're somebody's Troll handle that they keep propping up...so there's that...


Sam Spade says there's nothing wrong with that.