Climate scientists link global warming to extreme weather There has been a healthy debate in the scientific community about the linkage, if any, between the recent spate of extreme weather events and the ongoing increase in global temperatures. Now a group of researchers reports they've uncovered an atmospheric mechanism that lends credence to the argument that, yes, global warming is …
There's a very strong link between Mozilla Crash Reporter and Mozilla software crashing. As such I've decided I need to uninstall the Crash Reporter to see if it makes Mozilla software more stable :P
Oh I'm sorry was I confusing correlation and causation?
The sad thing is that this is common sense. A change in the world's climate will cause a shift in the weather patterns. (No duh!) Sorry you don't need an army of butterflies to get a change in the weather pattern.
All scientists have to do is to pull enough core and tree ring samples to see the temperature change also impacted the amount of rainfall and or lack of it in the area.
The key thing is that many involved in the climate gate fiasco is blaming this on man kind. It isn't.
Having said that, if all nations followed the Kyoto Treaty, having cleaner air wouldn't be a bad thing. Unfortunately that won't happen any time soon.
Along with the lack of clean power from nuclear energy and research in to fusion reactors.... we're doomed to keep polluting our planet.
It seems that you are not aware of how these silly "97%" came to see the light of climatology-publicity-world. Nevertheless, I'm nearly dying to get to know who qualifies as a "Top Climate Scientist", and why, and who does the qualifiying, and when the world will end.
"In addition, global land mass is concentrated in that hemisphere, and land masses warm and cool more quickly than do oceans. "These two factors are crucial for the mechanism we detected,"..."
That's a good explanation for this effect. What's interesting is that if these two factors are the main drivers of this mechanism, then it cannot be anthropogenic, since you can hardly blame humans for the fact of landmasses being concentrated in the northern hemisphere, nor the fact that land gains and loses heat more quickly than ocean.
No, the original poster is right. The article talks about the 'land mass' heating and cooling more rapidly than the ocean. Not that people living on that land mass may cause it to heat up. So, the poster is correct in his comment on what the article says. However, I do agree that those people living on the land masses could be emitting pollution etc. that might affect the speed and amount of the heating and cooling of that land mass, but that's not what the article says.
The article is saying when the world warms due to some cause X, the land warms faster than the ocean. The X can be man.
Don't be a bell-end. The land warms faster - and retains heat longer - than the ocean because it is land and not water.
This is the basis of onshore breezes in the afternoon of hot days. The sea has cooled slightly, whilst the land is still warm. The warmth of the land causes air to rise, reducing air pressure, which induces a cooling onshore breeze.
" The land warms faster - and retains heat longer - than the ocean "
Land warms faster, it also cools faster. It's the ocean that retains heat for longer. Onshore breezes during the afternoon aren't because "The sea has cooled slightly", they're because the land has heated up quicker then the sea. During the evening the land cools quicker and the sea retains heat longer so at night the breeze switches to offshore
Blargh, so I get the mechanism wrong. It's irrelevant to the point at hand.
One of the two entities in question warms and cools at a different rate to the other. This is because of it's physical properties. It is not because one is inhabited by Man, and the other is not - you get an onshore breeze, even if there is no-one on shore.
He's not a bell-end, he's got it absolutely spot on, try reading what he said again. If not I'll simplify and break the article down into short sentences.
The WORLD is getting warmer on average for reason "X"
The land gets warmer faster than the ocean due to basic physics
The land retains heat longer than the ocean due to basic physics
The distribution of land/ocean therefore concentrates the warming in certain areas
That uneven distribution of warming causes marked changes in climate
Your point of view may be that "X" is man or not man but saying "Well, bell-end, land staying warm has got nothing to do with man" shows you've missed the point by a country mile.
If you read that through again and still can't grasp the basic concept then stop calling people bell-ends.
The government can't change the weather, but it can help us prepare for bad weather when it comes. And that's the point. Climate change deniers would rather leave us at risk than lift a finger towards caution -- less it be deemed an admission that in fact a climate change is occurring.
We may never all agree on what causes climate change, but we should all agree that we need to prepare for it.
> Climate change deniers would rather leave us at risk than lift a finger towards caution -- less it be deemed an admission that in fact a climate change is occurring.
Unfortunately, all that the government are offering to mitigate the affects of global warming is the opportunity to pay more tax. It's hardly a solution to anything to be honest, except perhaps to offset their budget deficit.
That is what the global cooling>warming>climate change nonsense is all about. Control and taxes. What melted the previous ice age? There were hardly any humans and zero technology. But let's ignore that fact for a moment to ignore more facts about core samples that show that the earth has cooled and warmed many times over the past millions of years. Let's see how we can make Al Gore rich and famous. Let's see how we can tax people more. Let's ignore how the earth spins on its axis, orbits around the sun, which is millions of miles away and the thermostat wire from the sun to the earth doesn't really reach, that the solar system is orbiting and all these moving parts change the temp by one degree and we have to impose carbon tax. Something has to be so absurd to make it believable and hence the global cooling>warming>climate change nonsense.
"What melted the previous ice age?"
Changes in Earth's orbit altering the distribution of sunlight which triggered melting of ice sheets and emission of greenhouse gases which acted as a positive feedback on the warming.
...what you thought there was no answer to your question?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"Changes in Earth's orbit altering the distribution of sunlight which triggered melting of ice sheets and emission of greenhouse gases which acted as a positive feedback on the warming."
Now and then the planet wobbles a bit and it messes up what's on the surface.
It's not exactly a stable system as it is, a geological roller-coaster ride.
> What melted the previous ice age?
Please clarify which Ice Age you are talking about . We are currently in an interglacial period of the *current* ice age, i.e. an age during which part of the planet is covered in ice. When the planet emerges from it, there will be no permanent polar icecaps and sea levels will be many tens of metres higher than they are currently. Since we are adapted to the current climate and sea levels, in terms of agriculture and settlement patterns, this will mean considerable disruption for any Earth-based human civilizations which might have made it that far.
We are currently in an interglacial period of the *current* ice age, i.e. an age during which part of the planet is covered in ice. When the planet emerges from it, there will be no permanent polar icecaps and sea levels will be many tens of metres higher than they are currently. Since we are adapted to the current climate and sea levels, in terms of agriculture and settlement patterns, this will mean considerable disruption for any Earth-based human civilizations which might have made it that far.
Erm, interglacial means the period between two glacial events. When it is warmer. Inter meaning between, Glacial meaning ... cold. So when we emerge from the interglacial period, we will by definition be in a *glacial* period. Which is highly unlikely to involve higher sea levels and a lack of permanent ice caps.
You are dead right on the whole disruption to civilization though, as the equatorial regions will get hotter, the poles colder, and the temperate belts will narrow reducing the amount of prime arable land.
Umm, we are in an interglacial period. For a layman's definition, listen to the aforementioned In Our Time podcast. If there's ice at the poles, we are in an ice age. An Interglacial period is one where there is less ice (i.e. not covering all of northern Europe).
We may be heading out of our current ice age and industrial era CO2 generation may be assisting that, who knows. But we are still in one.
"... imate change deniers would rather leave us at risk than lift a finger towards caution"
That is completely wrong.
The great bulk of thought from the so called "deniers" is that it is unlikely that any realistic change in human CO2 emissions will have any effect on the climate, that the idea that "now" is a somehow optimum temperature in any way is logically broken, and that humans should understand that the climate changes and adapt their civilisations to live with it.
The precautionary principle is just another way of justifying taxation. Weasel words.
" the idea that "now" is a somehow optimum temperature in any way is logically broken"
This is true. There is no inherent problem with climate change happening the way it has always happened, over the course of millennia. The current climate change problem is that it is happening in centuries or decades rather than millennia, and therefore will incur huge costs both in terms of ecology (species not being able to adapt fast enough) and economy (agri-business not adapting fast enough to changing climate, food shortages, flooding of low-lying areas all combine to cause tens/hunderds of millions of starving refugees.)
Actually I'd say its quite the opposite. Given the certainty that the climate changes naturally, sometimes radically and rapidly, those of us who are unconvinced by the MMGW hypothesis think its pretty damn stupid to waste billions on measures that might or might not help if the MM hypothesis is correct, but are completely worthless in coping with climate change from any other cause.
Am I dreaming? Am I falling down, down, down somebody's rabbit hole. The author of almost every story I read about climate change -- and almost every reader who comments --- makes no mention of the confirmed fact that global warming stopped in 1997. Even IPCC Chairman Pachauri confirms it. Warming may start up again in 20 or 30 years, but for now it is clear that there has been no global warming for almost two decades. Meanwhile, man-made CO2 emissions have increased 8%, which pretty much trashes the whole CO2 driven AGW hypothesis.
So why do I keep seeing stories like this? Why are we pretending that we are still experiencing a relentless global warming? Mr. Myslewski, please help me understand what is going on here. Am I crazy? It's hard for me to believe that you are intentionally writing make-believe articles that delude your audience. What am I missing?
Most people aren't bright enough to question the official line. Most people are frightened intellectual dwarfs who would rather appear absurd and parrotlike than have to stand against a false but popular belief.
I note you've been down voted twice already - such is the ferocity of climate madness. Even on a site that tends towards techy stuff and science, still people are frightened little rabbits who cannot think outside of the box.
The climate is principally solar driven. To claim that the sun is not the main driver of earth's climate is an act of gross stupidity, but MMGW is grossly stupid and its adherents are likewise, grossly stupid.
So brainwashed are they, that even when the same scientists say "actually, we have got it wrong, there hasn't been any warming for 15 or so years", people cannot let go of their belief that we're cooking Mother Earth.
And yes, such is the level of madness that now pervades the media and it's so called "journalists" that they're starting to question whether or not extra-terrestrial events are CO2 driven.
So, what are you missing? Nothing. It's everyone else who is missing their brain.
It isnt the first time this has happened either. How many cults and religions have set an absolute date for something to happen? When it didnt happen the believers didnt just break up, they accepted the next prediction willingly.
How many end of the world predictions have we had? How many odd and interesting ways have we had for the end of the world? Each of them undetectable until it actually happens. Compare that to a rainy day or a sunny day being called proof of this doomsday climate change and we have just another cult with another prediction.
And when the deadline passes the leaders make a new prediction and the followers continue in their absolutely certain belief. How many people are absolutely certain there is a god? How many people are absolutely certain of the MMCC we all gonna die theory? And both use the natural world as proof to their theories while holding no real evidence.
Maybe some people need a god. Maybe belief is necessary for some people to function in this world. Maybe its too scary to look for truth.
goats in pajamas typed for posterity:
<snippage>
"So brainwashed are they, that even when the same scientists say "actually, we have got it wrong, there hasn't been any warming for 15 or so years", people cannot let go of their belief that we're cooking Mother Earth.
And yes, such is the level of madness that now pervades the media and it's so called "journalists" that they're starting to question whether or not extra-terrestrial events are CO2 driven."
This is what happens when Reason is abandoned for political expediency. People down voting a post that cites the IPCC's recent acknowledgement of the halt in the rise of global temperature demonstrate this "Reason Denial."
"People down voting a post that cites the IPCC's recent acknowledgement of the halt in the rise of global temperature demonstrate this "Reason Denial.""
The IPCC hasn't acknowledged any such thing. Maybe that's why you see the down votes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
