Is the Jet Stream broken?

[ovyyus]

Vic, I don't think the graph provides enough resolution to show atmospheric CO2 levels lagging behind temperature rise, or visa-versa. It does seem to show the two pretty much in sync though.

Given current atmospheric CO2 levels (literally off the chart) it seems likely that temperature rise (obviously lagging) is inevitable based upon the apparent CO2/temperature correlation over the last 400 000 years.

I think one of the major reasons this issue is so political is obviously that our economic growth models are based upon relatively unrestrained consumerism, which inevitably leads to increased CO2 output. Unfortunately, that model does not seem to be a viable choice given the nasty side effects we and our children seem about to encounter. Whether or not we can effectively restrain consumer habit (I'm sure the other 90% of the worlds population also wants a refrigerator, a car and the internet), remains to be seen. It will be a gigantic challenge.

[winkle]

this may be a lot worse than i first thought
there is a really big problem in Texas tonight
i've been setting here trying to spread peanut butter on my ritz crackers and they keep breaking in half
that part that's breaking off is just turning into crumbs
i'm starting to worry i may get smothered in the cracker dust
if it gets any worse i could lose the whole cracker and just wind up with a hand full of peanut butter
i have never had this problem before
could this be connected to global worming
this global worming could effect us in ways not even yet suspected
so i am advising everyone to be very careful until this worming situation is brought under control

[ovyyus]

Winkle, an important ingredient in your Ritz Crackers is baking powder (bicarbonate of soda). The CO2 released from this component of the cracker mix plays a very important role in the final quality of the product. It sounds to me that maybe not enough care or respect for the recipe was taken with this particular batch, which has obviously resulted in an inferior, dare I say useless, cracker. I think your unfortunate Texan cracker dust experience hides a valuable clue to the subject of this general discussion. Well done.

[Vic Hays]

Vic, I don't think the graph provides enough resolution to show atmospheric CO2 levels lagging behind temperature rise, or visa-versa. It does seem to show the two pretty much in sync though.

Yes, CO2 and temp are related on the chart. We have been conditioned to think that CO2 is driving the temperature.

What if,assuming the chart is correct, that temperature drives the CO2 in a natural environment?

Right now the CO2 is higher than it has ever been. Why isn't the temperature much higher than it has ever been? The chart shows the CO2 concentration as it is now and the temp has not followed.

At my house the days are warmer than the nights so I would say, based on the environment at my house, that the atmosphere warms up and cools relatively quickly. Why should it take decades to warm up?

This is all very political and I can see that US intellectual property rights and the US stock market are playing a big part in this. Hmmm? How are these related to global warming?

[winkle]

ovyyus wrote

The CO2 released from this component of the cracker mix plays a very important role in the final quality of the product.

Bill i sure am glad you responded
i never realised crackers were that dangerous
mabe they should be banned

Vic Hays wrote

Why should it take decades to warm up?

the air worms and cools a lot quicker than the ocean and the earth
this worming has to heat the entire ocean not just surface
when you heat water in a pan you got to heat the whole thing not just the surface
in the ocean that takes decades
some say what we have now was started from co2 added in the 80s and even if there was no more co2 added it will still worm for another 20 to 30 years
and i expect it's quicker to heat from the bottom than the surface
with surface heating there is quite a bit of evapartion witch is good for causeing storms but makes heating all that water very slow

[Wheeler]

If you can go see or rent the movie An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, you may have some more ideas on the facts as they are facts.

Also Al Gore notes in his movie that the majority of the CO2 comes from the burning of forests.

I think the US and Australia are the only two who did not join The Kyoto Protocol.
See a good trailer and some details at

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[ovyyus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/sto ... 99,00.html

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

[Vic Hays]

the air worms and cools a lot quicker than the ocean and the earth
this worming has to heat the entire ocean not just surface
when you heat water in a pan you got to heat the whole thing not just the surface
in the ocean that takes decades
some say what we have now was started from co2 added in the 80s and even if there was no more co2 added it will still worm for another 20 to 30 years
and i expect it's quicker to heat from the bottom than the surface
with surface heating there is quite a bit of evapartion witch is good for causeing storms but makes heating all that water very slow

We have La Nina and El Nino cycles every few years. I am not saying that we are not having an effect. What I am saying is that man is probably not having the greatest effect on global warming.

The CO2 that man is producing is only about 8% of the CO2 produced by natural processes. Polluting the oceans probably has more effect on CO2 than burning fossil fuels.

[Wheeler]

Polluting the oceans probably has more effect on CO2 than burning fossil fuels.

Most of the science is more than probably.

[racer270]

it is 81 degrees here today ,

.......the summers are cooler then they were 40 years ago...

and the winters are wormer then they were 40 years ago...

the weather here is now almost ,always the same now.....
......... day after day , after day.

http://weather.yahoo.com/climo/USCA0604_f.html

i think i am just stuck with it........:)

[jim_mich]

Racer, send some of that warm air up my way! It's -2°F (-19°C) outside and my wood bin is almost empty. Right now I could use a little global warming!

[Vic Hays]

Most of the science is more than probably.

There has been a decline of plankton in the Pacific off of California of up to 80% since the 1940's. This may be due to warming which may be due to the burning of fossil fuels, but it is too late to stop it.

Since the plankton are the basis of life in the ocean and the largest recycler of CO2 on earth, it is obvious that we are already in deep trouble. Ceasing the burning of fossil fuels may slow the inevitable, but unless we can do something for the oceans it will be to no avail. The lack of carbon cycling of the ocean is already greater than the amount of CO2 being produced by man.

The Kyoto treaty or any other treaty for the reduction of the production of greenhouse gases is a moot point. Unless the health of the ocean can be improved it is all over but the shouting.

[Wheeler]

I wish I was where Racer is.
We got two wood stoves going one in the living room, and one in the basement.
The one in the basement sits under a 350lb boiler.
I cut the top off the wood stove and turned the old boiler on it's side to let the wood stove exhaust run through the water port exhaust system.

It then is hooked directly into my Hydronic boiler where it circulates the hot water through the baseboard heating system.
We are nice and warm, but like Jim the wood pile is going down fast.

I could go for some of that Global heat now.

Thanks Vic
That puts some punch to your posts.
I agree it is not one thing.

[DrWhat]

Hey its 26 degrees Celcius here in Sydney. A stunning sunny day. The only problem is that our water dams are under 35% capacity, and we are about to build a desalination plant. We have strong water restrictions in place. We need rain...

[scott]

So far I have mostly stood on the sidelines of the global warming debate. On one hand it seems quite logical that if we keep spewing CO2 into the air there will be consequences sooner or later. On the other hand, I can't be sure we are really that important in the big picture anyway.

In some sense global warming might be the liberal answer to intelligent design.

What does it all mean? Well, I'd guess the most likely outcome is that nearly everyone is probably wrong.

-Scott