Recent Comments

Prev  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  Next

Comments 99301 to 99350:

99301. gallopingcamel at 08:12 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Daniel Bailey, Thanks for that link in your response to my #132. That plot for high latitudes in Canada looks remarkably similar to my Greenland plot with a long decline starting in 1934. The problem with Ned's plot is that it uses GHCN data which includes a declining number of stations after 1975. There are several years with only two stations (Alert and Resolute). I am working with Enviro Canada data which has at least 15 stations to WMO standards in most of the relevant years. Will it make a difference to include more stations? Ned says "NO" but I need to check that claim for myself.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] In all honesty, that was muoncounter's doing.
99302. Alec Cowan at 08:06 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       @gallopingcamel #133 Your assertion of dishonesty ("Your chart showing the CO2 concentration with the suppressed zero is dishonest to say the least.") is the evidence of your lack of instruction in science and ill faith. At least make yourself sure that there's a complete lack of values on an axis next time you try to label as dishonest someone that uses fair graphics but doesn't play along with your prose. You simply are showing here that you understand little science (even little high-school math) and you only have your abilities as polemicist, as you "forgot" to check that the axis had clear values (to say in a civil way that you didn't care or know, and seeing the opportunity of aiming the jugular you took your chance).
99303. Bibliovermis at 07:57 AM on 8 January 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       Yes, to posit otherwise requires explaining why the current understanding coincidently adds up. Please read argument #2.
99304. gallopingcamel at 07:53 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Alec Cowan (@119), The correlations I was talking about are really striking. You seem to doubt me so take a look at this: http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/Bender.html I hope you will agree that a correlation between high latitudes in both hemispheres goes a long way to counter the argument that what goes on in Greenland can be dismissed as a local phenomenon.
99305. les at 07:40 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       oh! #125 apiratelooksat50 seemed about to back up his monkying about with this 15% as I asked him to do some posts back... ... imagine my disappointment ;(
99306. les at 07:37 AM on 8 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       24 snowhare Volcanic triggering of glaciation says "AN instantaneous glaciation model for the formation of the large Pleistocene ice sheets..." so maybe the poodle has a case? The abstract then says... "I suggest here that such a survival could have resulted from one or several closely spaced massive volcanic ash eruptions." or maybe the poodle is being highly selective in his interpretation of the relevance of this. People really shouldn't go round destroying their own credibility that way, especially when they've spent that much time building it up.
99307. cruzn246 at 07:29 AM on 8 January 2011
       It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
       PDO as an oscillation between positive and negative values shows no long term trend, while temperature shows a long term warming trend. When the PDO last switched to a cool phase, global temperatures were about 0.4C cooler than currently. The long term warming trend indicates the total energy in the Earth's climate system is increasing due to an energy imbalance. OK, so the global temp has been flopping around in a 2-3 C range for the last 10K years. Do we have all the reasons for these "energy imbalances"?
99308. gallopingcamel at 07:26 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Anne-Marie Blackburn (@113), It is a valid argument to point out that a particular region such as Greenland can be affected by ocean current oscillations, for example. Such factors could indeed explain the declining temperatures in Greenland over the sixty years following 1934. As mentioned in a response to Daniel Bailey earlier, I plan to continue looking at weather stations in high latitudes (e.g. Canada and Russia) in the belief that warming or cooling is magnified in the polar regions.
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] See Twice as much Canada, especially the recent warming rates approaching 0.5deg C/decade.
99309. Rob Painting at 07:18 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Pirate @ 125 & 130 - And, Albatross, the question was innocent and in the interest of learning. I find it hard to accept that you teach environmental science. You should at least have basic understanding of the geological and biological carbon cycles.
99310. apiratelooksat50 at 07:07 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       KR, Thanks and I am reviewing the links you sent. My question started in response to sphaerica @118 (i.e. connecting the CO2 levels and the orbital forcing). I first saw the orbital forcings years ago on anti-AGW sites and was surprised to see it here. Very interesting are the different viewpoints on something we all agree is happening. And, Albatross, the question was innocent and in the interest of learning. KR's explanations and links are making me think.
99311. KR at 06:36 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Albatross - A reasonable idea. apiratelooksat50 - please post further items on CO2 attribution on the How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions page; I will not reply further on this thread, as it's rather off-topic to the lead/lag discussion.
       Moderator Response: Concur.
99312. Albatross at 06:33 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       I strongly suspected that apiratelooksat50's question was a set up, made under the guise of curiosity and innocence of course. And subsequent dialogue has shown that to be the case. KR, you have the patience of a saint. Maybe it is time to take this (distracting) discussion to the appropriate thread? Maybe this one, or this one?
99313. KR at 06:31 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       apiratelooksat50 - There's additional information on our responsibility for CO2 levels in Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels.
99314. KR at 06:21 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       apiratelooksat50 - We put out 29-30B tons of CO2 per year. That would (if not absorbed elsewhere) cause a 4ppm/year increase. We're seeing 2ppm/year rates. And isotopic analysis indicates that it's coming from us. Now, if we weren't putting sufficient CO2 for 4ppm into the atmosphere, would CO2 concentration be increasing by 2ppm? No. It would instead be decreasing as the abnormally high (390 instead of 285) CO2 got absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. As I said before, basic math - we are 100% responsible for the 2ppm/year increase. We're putting up an excess that cannot be fully reabsorbed in the normal carbon cycle or carbon sinks, and we are responsible for that excess. In fact we are responsible for both the atmospheric increase and the changes in ocean acidification - we pump out twice as much as stays up in increased atmospheric CO2.
99315. apiratelooksat50 at 06:10 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       KR@123 But, we are not 100% responsible for the 2ppm rise per year. So, the calculations need to be adjusted. According to US DOE approximately 15% of annual emissions are anthropogenic. Regardless of how we monkey around with the numbers of what is staying in the atmosphere and not being sequestered in carbon sinks, we are not responsible for the full amount of the increase. Peace!
99316. KR at 06:03 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       apiratelooksat50 - In regards to the 285ppm value Sphaerica mentioned, that's the CO2 value reached in the normal (and uninfluenced by industrial emissions) climate cycle, the slow glacial cycle of the last half million years. By all indications we should be on a slow decline in temperatures, with slowly decreasing CO2 values, heading into an ice age about 10,000 years from now. Of course, that's unlikely to happen now...
99317. KR at 05:55 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       apiratelooksat50 - How did we pump it up? By burning lots of carbon based fuels, currently increasing atmospheric carbon by 2ppm/year, as shown by isotope analysis and basic math. The 2ppm represent 15B tons of emissions - we pump out 30B tons, so roughly half of what we put out is currently being sequestered (see Ocean acidification for where some of it is going). How do you arrive at the 285ppm figure? That's the pre-industrial value for CO2, roughly the peak value seen in the last 400K years (Figure 1). We're currently at 35% higher CO2 levels than seen in hundreds of thousands of years, while other forcings (orbital inclinations, solar levels) have not changed. It's getting warming, we did it, no great surprises here.
99318. apiratelooksat50 at 05:41 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Dhogaza@121 People like you are why it is difficult to have any civil discourse. Of course we burn fossil fuels that put CO2 into the atmosphere. Did I even imply otherwise? I'm intellectually interested in how sphaerica derived those numbers.
99319. dhogaza at 05:35 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       "Respectfully, how did we artificially "crank up" the CO2 level to 390 ppm from a 285 ppm normal?" You don't believe that burning carbon-based fuels results in CO2 being poured into the atmosphere? Or do you think some sort of magic wand is sweeping all of that CO2 out of the atmosphere?
99320. Ned at 05:26 AM on 8 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       My favorite early paper on climate change is Wally Broecker's 1975 paper in the journal Science: Broecker, W. 1975. Climatic change: are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming? Science, 189-460-463. It's discussed in some detail at RealClimate ("Happy 35th birthday, global warming!"). Kind of neat that even back in 1975, Wally B. was using both "climat[ic] change" and "global warming" more or less interchangeably ... even in the very title of this paper. Also, amazingly prescient of Wally, considering that 1975 is more or less when global temperatures came out of a lull and began rising steadily.
99321. apiratelooksat50 at 05:21 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       118 Sphaerica, "In today's case, the temperature-stable CO2 level is still 285 ppm, even though we've cranked it up to 390 ppm. 285 ppm is the level that the planet wants to hold CO2 to right now, based on the current mean global temp. We have artificially pumped that up to 390 ppm, not by changing the planet's temperature (the "natural" way) but rather by injecting the CO2 into the atmosphere." Respectfully, how did we artificially "crank up" the CO2 level to 390 ppm from a 285 ppm normal? And, how do you arrive at the 285 ppm figure?
99322. muoncounter at 04:58 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       #15: "it lined up with the NAO/PDO cycles" Every time we go off topic on one of these NAO/PDO tangents, I have to wonder how an oscillation can give rise to a long period increasing trend. But that topic belongs to this thread.
99323. Mila at 04:35 AM on 8 January 2011
       Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
       Thanks :) #1 my work includes a lot of ad hoc programming and manual work (my background in organic chemistry helps, if for almost 10 years you spend a few hours a day washing glassware you are prepared for some tedious work :) ) I am not aware of any software which would fulfill your needs, but I would expect that some exist. But be cautious before purchase, it means to correctly read in PDF files and identify important bits (and this is far from trivial - you may see at Google Scholar that even for them it is not always easy), then to assign dois, as soon as you have PDF - dois mapping the rest is not so difficult
99324. Yvan Dutil at 04:32 AM on 8 January 2011
       Graphs from the Zombie Wars
       #54 @caerbannog For those who think that the CO2-lags-temperature argument is a valid argument against global-warming theory, here's a question: Why was the Earth so warm then? (Now remember that solar + land-albedo forcing was the same or a bit less then than it is now). Well, it comes that CO2 concentration was much higher then than now. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6005/819.abstract This as been discussed here before: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-change-from-40-million-years-ago-shows-climate-sensitivity-to-CO2.html
99325. mmiller at 04:24 AM on 8 January 2011
       The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
       As evangelical Christian, I would like to thank you for this site and this guide. I have too many friends who are anti science and think global warming is a left wing conspiracy.
99326. Anne-Marie Blackburn at 03:27 AM on 8 January 2011
       Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
       Another phenomenal resource, so again thank you for this, Mila.
99327. Albatross at 03:21 AM on 8 January 2011
       Zvon.org guide to RealClimate.org
       Wow Mila, you continue to impress. If one is willing to create the database of PDFs of journal papers, could one use your code to create a searchable database? I think researchers would clammer to purchase a software package that would help generate such a database (by ripping though folder containing hundreds of PDFs) and then creating an interactive search engine. I have thousands of papers in my PDF library, but finding the right paper can be tedious and time consuming. Maybe something like that already exists, in which case I'd be delighted if someone could point me in the right direction. Thanks.
99328. cruzn246 at 03:09 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       There are all kinds of cycles Bib. We have been in some multi decadal cycles over the past 30/60 years that we still do not fully understand. It seems the PDO NAO tandem may be driving this shorter term cycle we are in. There are more than a few scientists who see this multi decadel cycle as real. I know I saw some kind of 30/60 year cycle in my tornado data for Alabama. It sure looked like it lined up with the NAO/PDO cycles to me. Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then prove it: do the analysis, write it up, publish it. I plan to as a grad student.
99329. cruzn246 at 02:54 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       Are you studying it Bib?
99330. cruzn246 at 02:53 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       There are all kinds of cycles Bib. We have been in some multi decadal cycles over the past 30/60 years that we still do not fully understand. It seems the PDO NAO tandem may be driving this shorter term cycle we are in. There are more than a few scientists who see this multi decadel cycle as real. I know I saw some kind of 30/60 year cycle in my tornado data for Alabama. It sure looked like it lined up with the NAO/PDO cycles to me.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Then prove it: do the analysis, write it up, publish it.
99331. Bibliovermis at 02:53 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       When discussing the global climate, it helps to study the "whole world".
99332. Alec Cowan at 02:46 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       @gallopingcamel #116 There's a buzzword "correlation" and there's a statistical concept. For instance, you have to calculate a correlation for two variables and you get a number that has usually attached adjectives -like 'good'- in intervals set by uniform criteria. In your sentence "While this is a relatively small region, there is a good correlation between the GISP/GRIP results and Vostok in Antarctica" declares an adjectival correlation for two names, something that doesn't exist. Could you state your variables and the value of such correlation? Either you did the calculations yourself or you get the values elsewhere, so you should have no problem in answering that. Other choices are you got it as a verbal chain elsewhere and are repeating it without really knowing -the bad use of concepts may be a hint- or you might be making that up. I don't think the last choices are possible, but in the lack of a precise answer, what one should think?
99333. Bibliovermis at 02:45 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       Cool weather in your area does not cancel out global warming. I suspect in 10 years you'll still be saying "global cooling is going to start now" because it snowed somewhere during winter. There is no 60 year temperature cycle. This persistent "skeptic argument" needs its own article.
99334. cruzn246 at 02:45 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       Murph, I am studying climatology. I just finished a paper on the climatology of Tornadoes in Alabama over the past 60 years. I am not a graduate student so it was not up for peer review. It was my senior project though, and no scientific error was found by my professors. I have to admit that I do not seriously study the "whole world" thing yet, because quite frankly it's about way too complicated, but I know that many of the "it's never been" stuff we are seeing now is pure baloney. BTW, my study showed that we have been in a down period for tornadoes over Alabama. Activity peaked in that area in the mid 70s and declined from that point on till the mid 90s. It is now on the upswing and is back to where it was in the early 50s. Using ten year averaging I made a graph that almost looks like a sine wave that shows the trend. A colleague did Georgia and found the same thing.
       Moderator Response:

       [Daniel Bailey]

       "I have to admit that I do not seriously study the "whole world" thing yet, because quite frankly it's about way too complicated, but I know that many of the "it's never been" stuff we are seeing now is pure baloney."

       Welcome to the field. If you want to get a degree in climatology you should spend more time learning the hard stuff and less time hand-waving.

99335. kdfv at 02:37 AM on 8 January 2011
       It's freaking cold!
       #68 jmurphy the second map is http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/state-map-display.pl
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Your URL link is broken.
99336. cruzn246 at 02:32 AM on 8 January 2011
       We're heading into cooling
       Well, we are going through our coldest winter in a heck of a long time in the Midwest. Why not pop up? Sorry about the EPO typo, you all knew I meant the PDO. Don't know what I was thinking. 2010 was one of the warmest? Big deal. 1977 was one of the coldest and it was during the beginning of last warm-up period. You get some contradictory times on the edge of periods. We are in a cooling period. you'll all admit it on about ten years.
       Moderator Response:

       [Daniel Bailey] Wrong:

       

99337. keithpickering at 02:24 AM on 8 January 2011
       Graphs from the Zombie Wars
       #63 MarkR: You're right, no physical reason, and the polynomial fit isn't enough better than linear to be worth talking about at all -- except that it shows that the apparent flatness is illusory. #64 Ken Lambert: "However assuming that you CO2 component only curves are worth talking about, the temperature anomaly is tracking somewhere between 1.2 and 1.8degC for a doubling of CO2." That number is derived from radiative physics only, so it excludes all feedbacks. The rough estimate from linear regression above includes short-term feedbacks (at least), e.g., water vapor. Which accounts for the difference.
99338. Bob Lacatena at 02:05 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       108, lurgee, 109, Albatross, 110, Daniel Bailey I believe the main reason that CO₂ levels stay high for thousands of years is that the two scenarios are very different. In today's case, the temperature-stable CO₂ level is still 285 ppm, even though we've cranked it up to 390 ppm. 285 ppm is the level that the planet wants to hold CO₂ to right now, based on the current mean global temp. We have artificially pumped that up to 390 ppm, not by changing the planet's temperature (the "natural" way) but rather by injecting the CO₂ into the atmosphere. But if we abruptly stopped, it would start to fall immediately because the temperature of the planet hasn't caught up. It might take a few hundred years to get down, partly because in the interim the planet would warm, raising that "natural level" above 285 ppm, but it would still fall a lot faster. In the interglacial period case, where levels start at 285 ppm and fall to 190 ppm over thousands of years, it is a very slow cooling/feedback response where the temperature-stable level is slowly reduced. That is, the temperature of the planet is slowly reduced, which reduces the equilibrium CO₂ level, which further reduces the temperature. The change in orbital forcing allows winter snow/ice in the northern hemisphere to expand (or, rather, fail to melt all the way back in summer, increasing the extent bit by bit each year). The resulting change in albedo reflects more sunlight, cooling the planet very slightly. As the oceans cool, they absorb more CO₂, which cools the planet further, while atmospheric H₂O content also drops, cooling things even more. This whole process is very, very slow, taking thousands of years. So in our case, you have a system that has been thrown out of balance/equilibrium, and so will fall back into balance/equilibrium relatively quickly. In the interglacial-to-glacial case (or the opposite, the exiting of a glacial period), you have a very slow acting forcing/feedback response which is changing the equilibrium level itself, bit by bit, and the planet slowly adjusts. They are two completely different cases, and diametrically opposed mechanisms (changing temperatures by abruptly changing CO₂ levels, versus changing CO₂ levels and temperatures by slowly changing temperatures). And it's all related to the whole CO₂-lags-temperature argument. It's in understanding the system as a whole that it makes sense, and moving beyond the overly simplistic CO₂-is-a-magic-wand-that-does-this-one-exact-thing approach.
99339. Daniel Bailey at 02:04 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Re: gallopingcamel (116) In order to drive acceptance, your Greenland CO2/temperature research will also have to explain the mass loss we can measure, as shown here: Then you will have to show why this global relationship is no longer valid: In addition to that, your proposed understanding will also have to explain the recent melt described here. In addition, you may want to take a stab at filtering out various cycles, like ENSO, solar and volcanic, as described here and here. I fear you tilt at windmills. But go for it. Often the only way to truly learn a subject is to roll the sleeves up and get under its hood. The Yooper
99340. Ken Lambert at 01:37 AM on 8 January 2011
       Graphs from the Zombie Wars
       Muoncounter #48 Nice job. Humbled that a distinguished contributor such as yourself is naming a law after me. Not bad for a 'zombie'. Of course you are considering only one component of the forcing ie CO2GHG via the log function. I have not found any equations for the WV + Ice Albedo feedback climate response or cloud cooling forcings - and we know that S-B cooling is proportional to T^4. However assuming that you CO2 component only curves are worth talking about, the temperature anomaly is tracking somewhere between 1.2 and 1.8degC for a doubling of CO2. Oft quoted and AGW consensus number is more like 3.0degC for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels. Since we have already had 0.75-0.8 degC warming since AD1750, this suggests we have 0.4 - 1.0 degC to go at doubling. Not so scary after all.
99341. Mila at 01:31 AM on 8 January 2011
       An online resource for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report
       #11 1) I plan to work on meaningful citation statistics when 99%+ articles a resolved, there is still a significant work ahead 2) technical problems - as soon as you get to programming web browsers you will always find problems, at least thanks to JQuery it works reasonably on major ones; unfortunately I do not own iPad so I cannot investigate #12 1) to uniquely identify authors would be enormous task, see http://www.orcid.org/ for some fresh development in this area 2) I was thinking of backlinking but as the citation formats vary a lot in texts it would be very time consuming task. I would have to be the author of the IPCC html document to make it easy :)
99342. gallopingcamel at 01:29 AM on 8 January 2011
       Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
       Daniel Bailey, As you point out in your response to my last comment (#100) my data only applies to Greenland. While this is a relatively small region, there is a good correlation between the GISP/GRIP results and Vostok in Antarctica. Also, the GISP2 data clearly shows historic events (Minoan Warm Period etc.) that occurred in lower northern latitudes. I am working on the high latitudes in Russia and Canada. Give me a little time as I do have a day job.
99343. Alec Cowan at 01:20 AM on 8 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       Maybe first we could wait until thepoodlebites #21 provides more information. By the way, thepoodlebites, were your colleague taught in the same institution? the same grade? can you ask him/her? Not that I think that muoncounter's and snowhare's comments are nothing but excellent, but I think that the first comment would be better once thepoodlebites provide basic information, and the second one is excellent once no information is provided. We have to consider that the success of skepticalscience.com -10% more visitors each month- is going to drive more people of every kind and with that in mind it would be not advisable to engage in debates when incomplete information is provided without first ask the commenter to provide whatever in good faith he or she may have considered unnecessary.
99344. KR at 01:17 AM on 8 January 2011
       What's in a Name?
       Ville - I believe sout's posting reads much better as a satire: "OTOH if humans were natural, then they would be part of nature and would contribute to forcing along with all the other forces of nature. What a crazy idea!"
99345. snowhare at 00:59 AM on 8 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       @21 thepoolbites: You've introduced a term I had never heard of before, "instantaneous glaciation", which seemed odd. If you search Google for it there are only 179 matches - two of which are actually links to your usage here. If you search Google Scholar you find only 15 matches, if you search Google Ngrams, it doesn't appear at all. The term is, for all practical intents and purposes, not used. I suspect you are mis-remembering a 30 year old class. Next, the assertion made in this article is that the majority of predictions in the 1970s were for warming, not cooling. That is not a question that an anecdote can answer. The writer demonstrated his thesis - the vast majority of papers in the field from the mid-1960s through the 1970s predicted that warming, not cooling, was in our future. Three to four decades later, it is clear they were absolutely correct.
99346. muoncounter at 00:49 AM on 8 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       #21: "Nothing about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) being a threat, sorry, I wasn't taught that." Perhaps your university, like many, suffered from a conservative bias among faculty. Some university geology departments taught 'continental foundering' for years as evidence for plate tectonics piled up. That doesn't prove anything about the current state of the science. But the signs were there: Hansen published a paper on warming in 1981; the predictions reflected the early nature of the science, but they were substantially correct. See also this article with links to earlier publications and a link to a video from 1989.
99347. Alec Cowan at 00:36 AM on 8 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       @thepoodlebites #21 In order it to be complete anecdotal evidence, could you tell the name of the institution you did study at? name of some professors and/or heads of department? name of a couple of books you may have used in the subjects you named, and still keep in your bookshelves? and succinctly what did you do with your degree in meteorology (professionally speaking)? If you want, I can explain why is this very important. Thanks in advance.
99348. Byron Smith at 00:27 AM on 8 January 2011
       They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
       Excellent piece. Thanks once again to Dana for sterling work.
99349. Byron Smith at 00:10 AM on 8 January 2011
       A Positive Outlook For Clouds
       Thanks Dana - very effective use of diagram.
99350. thepoodlebites at 23:44 PM on 7 January 2011
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       I guess this is the correct thread to post my anecdotal evidence. I am really shocked by the display of revisionist history in the "What the science says" section. I have a BS in meteorology, 1979-1982. Some of the classes included physical meteorology, planetary atmospheres, air pollution, taught by both American (one at NASA) and European professors. We were taught that the Earth was in the last phase of an inter-glacial period and through a process called instantaneous glaciation, we could plunge into another ice-age within a few hundred years. We were taught that the runaway greenhouse effect occurred on Venus because the atmosphere never reached saturation vapor pressure and eventually all of the water boiled off into space. Here on Earth we were lucky, water condensed out to form the oceans, stabilizing the climate. Nothing about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) being a threat, sorry, I wasn't taught that. I asked a colleague this morning what he was taught in the 70's and he said the same thing, global cooling. In 1981 I had chance to take a summer class with Dr. James Hansen in planetary atmospheres but didn’t get in, made first alternate. Maybe Dr. Hansen would have introduced me to the concept of AGW but since I could not attend I can’t tell you what he taught in that summer class.

Prev  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  Next