It's all over but for the sweating?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

More madness. A few years ago in Australia they had a drought. Their "climate commissioner" (on a modest $180K a year and owns seafront property) said that these droughts would become more and more the norm.

So they built a desalination plant to provide drinking water, just in case - that precautionary principle again.

Last year there were severe floods in Australia, and even now the dams are full of water.

Perhaps you have never lived in an arid climate, and so don't realize that it's perfectly possible - indeed, one could almost say it's the norm - to have floods and drought at the same time.

Dams full of water really don't do a damn bit of good (if you'll excuse the pun) for anything except the few things connected to the dam. To be of use to the general environment, rain (or snow) has to fall gradually enough that it soaks into the ground and so replenishes groundwater. If it falls too quickly, as with the many inches of rain of an Australian typhoon, it merely runs off into those dams, often over-topping them and flowing down the rivers.

[redneck]

.

According to CAGW theory, CO2 is the cause of global warming...

Well, according to NASA, it's not. In fact, it has just the opposite effect.

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

March 22, 2012: A recent flurry of eruptions on the sun did more than spark pretty auroras around the poles. NASA-funded researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough energy in Earth’s upper atmosphere to power every residence in New York City for two years.

“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFQHDSYP1I

The effects of space weather on our planet's climate are just now starting to be understood.

At the very least, information like this should give pause to the CAGW theory.

Pointing a finger at any one cause of climate change is not only irresponsible,
it could be downright dangerous.

>

[NeilBlanchard]

These are not mutually exclusive things - visible light passes through the atmosphere, and after it strikes the earth, it changes to heat aka infrared, and that is the heat that is increasingly trapped by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. What NASA is talking about is the infrared that comes from the sun directly - which is not the same. These are two sides of the same coin, and are not contradictory.

Here's an interesting article on the effects of differential heating of the northern and southern hemispheres:

Rising temperature difference between hemispheres could dramatically shift rainfall patterns in tropics

[freebeard]

redneck -- Your post reminded me I hadn't checked suspicious0bservers yet today. I watch the daily space weather updates, even thought I don't understand much of it, to get a sense of it.

Here he is on

Energy from Space

.

Edit: I'm liking the ScienceCasts videos. For instance:

ScienceCasts: Hidden Magnetic Portals Around Earth

[NeilBlanchard]

The upper atmosphere is cooler because less heat is "escaping" because of the increase in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, etc.

Global warming predictions prove accurate | Environment | guardian.co.uk

No apologies needed for source the source...

What does Brian Cox say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does David Attenborough say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Neil DeGrasse Tyson say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Bill Nye say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Jane Goodall say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Michio Kaku say about anthropogenic climate change?

What did Carl Sagan say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Richard Dawkins say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Vandana Shiva say about anthropogenic climate change?

What Steven Hawking say about anthropogenic climate change?

What does Craig Venter say about anthropogenic climate change?

They all accept the we are facing human-caused climate change.

[Arragonis]

"Global warming predictions prove accurate" - Guardian | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Conclusion

Contrary to the Guardian’s claims, Myles Allen’s work does not vindicate climate modelling in general, nor does it inspire confidence in current predictions.

Furthermore, Allen’s work fails to explain why temperatures have flatlined in the last ten years, and why his original model did not predict it. More importantly, it has nothing to say about what this pause means for temperatures during the next decade.

But you would not expect to hear any of this from the Guardian.

EDIT - A blog worth reading if you are into the modelling side - by a scientist, who makes models and blogs about it.

http://allmodelsarewrong.com/

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

They all accept the we are facing human-caused climate change.

That isn't the issue.

[NeilBlanchard]

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Why are we on this crap idea again? Temperatures haven't "flatlined", they just show normal shorter-term variations (from any number of causes) superimposed on a underlying long-term rise. Ought to be obvious to anyone who's not deliberately trying to mislead.

[Arragonis]

Go argue with the scientists who are busily replacing their "validated" models with new ones.

BBC News - Climate model forecast is revised

The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years.

It says the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017, as opposed to an earlier forecast suggesting a difference of 0.54C.

The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used.

The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental.

It says it still stands by its longer-term projections that forecast significant warming over the course of this century.

The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000.

The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average - within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C.

By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C - within a range of 0.28-0.59.

This would be only slightly higher that the record year of 1998 - in which the Pacific Ocean's El Nino effect was thought to have added more warming.

If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decades

Or go and argue with NOAA which described the "pause" and set the parameters of how long before it became an issue.