3384LikesThere are many excellent sites for self education on the topic. Here is another that seems not to be mentioned very much. Exploring the many subs here is worthwhile.
Exploring the Future — OSS Foundation
There are many excellent sites for self education on the topic. Here is another that seems not to be mentioned very much. Exploring the many subs here is worthwhile.
Exploring the Future — OSS Foundation
The Way Things Break is an excellent site for commentary, but is also has a first-class page with educational links.
You can actually download material from MIT courses FREE, including course-ware on climate and atmospheric science. Some of the links do not work, but persistence will pay off.
Open Source Climate Science Education | The Way Things Break
Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, has an interesting post up on 2011 Arctic Ice.
He thinks the year is heading into record territory to rival 2007. The conditions are not as favourable for melt as was 2007, but there is just less ice to melt.
He notes the NW and NE passages are open simultaneously for the 4th year consecutively.
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Four invests in the Atlantic; fair weather in Arctic to drive rapid sea ice loss : Weather Underground
Over 217 thousand people have donated to this site. I repeat 217+ thousand people!!
"OH NO! Global warming is melting Santa's Runway! If it melts he can't take off and deliver all his presents. He needs your help to save the runway in time for Christmas!"
Mission Green Santa
Scientists must have created another model that shows a 90% possibility that santa will be affected by global warming. Santa? The world has gone mad!
Originally Posted by realist
I see you edited your post and and replaced "denier" with "contrarian". I don't know who I am now! Is that a veiled compliment? Should I check out "How to talk to a a climate sceptic" for an answer?
And, by the way, if you actually read my post I responded to your post in which you said that people were not posting on this thread because of the insulting behaviour of some posters. I agreed and said that you should maybe lead by example and stop using ad hominem attacks. Nowhere did I say that others were not doing so.
Why not call them "Alarmists"?
Whoops you're calling me a "denier" again and there was me thinking you had learnt something. Should I call you a "collaborator" just because you believe in a so called climate consensus?
Last edited by realist; 13th August 2011 at 04:45 AM.
You appear to have some problems with climate science. If you have a rational, scientific reason for that, then you cannot be legitimately called a "denier". But your post just seems to be about semantics, and not make any substantive points at all about the basis for your beliefs.
That's what deniers call those who accept the evidence for anthropogenic global warming.Why not call them "Alarmists"?
Semantics again. Saying "I will gladly stop calling you a denier" is not calling you a denier! You seem to be caught in the "Don't think of an elephant" paradox. The mention of the word raises your hackles.Whoops you're calling me a "denier" again and there was me thinking you had learnt something. Should I call you a "collaborator" just because you believe in a so called climate consensus?
Why not explain why you (or anyone else) should not be called a d****r i.e. you have examined ALL the evidence and still reject it. Like I said, if you have a rational basis for that, or if you only reject SOME of the evidence, then calling you a d****r would not be legitimate.
There are people out there who accept the facts of global warming, but think that its effects are exaggerated. These are often called "lukewarmers" - by both accepters of global warming, and by d*****rs! It is a legitimate position held by those like Richard Tol, Roger Pielke Jnr and probably Judith Curry, even though it is looking increasingly threadbare. But if you examine the evidence for anthropogenic climate change wit an open mind, then perhaps it is a position you might find suits where you are at right now.
Last edited by owedtojoy; 13th August 2011 at 07:28 AM.
Stress on the world' coral reefs from 1 to 10 (indicated by green for a low score and red for a high score).
I am glad to see the Indian Ocean reefs of Mauritius and Reunion (French) get a green score. I did some voluntary teaching in Mauritius many years ago & still have many friends there. A return visit is due soon.
The reds appearing to the North of the Great Barrier Reef are worrying. In general, the closer to the equator, the worse things are. I do not know if that indicates anything of significance. The Persian Gulf seems exceptionally bad.
Yale Environment 360: Map Documents Stresses Facing the World
Meeting report available on ocean acidification and its impacts. | Climate Shifts
A good post by Chris Colose on a simple explanation of the greenhouse effect.
The planetary insulation is a good analogy. When you get under the blankets at night, you create a nice warm envelope around yourself without adding an energy source. The blankets reduces your body's ability to cool itself efficiently so you warm up (pleasantly). The thermal processes are different, so it is just an analogy, but the effect is the same.In contrast, a very small amount of our atmosphere is composed of water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, (CH4), ozone (O3), and some other more complex molecules. These gases have the chemical properties allowing them to interact strongly with Earth´s infrared radiation, absorbing it and delaying its exit to outer space. As trivia, see if you can spot what might be different about these molecules, as compared to oxygen and nitrogen (O2 and N2). We can talk about this in the comments.
The greenhouse effect works when these gases reduce how efficiently the Earth loses its flow of energy. That increases the temperature of the surface. The way that works is similar to the way adding fiberglass insulation windows to your home increases its temperature, even though you do not need additional energy coming from the furnace. Some people do not like this analogy because houses and greenhouses lose a lot of energy by warm air moving away- that is, by turbulent ¨convection¨- meanwhile the Earth loses energy by infrared radiation. In the end, however, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are just planetary insulation.
Chris Colose - Weather and Climate - timesunion.com - Albany NY
Colose contrast Earth with Venus. Note that climate scientists are NOT saying that Earth will end up like Venus, though that often comes up as a "straw man". The Carbon Cycle on Earth moves slowly but it does remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - slowly, but eventually. Venus seems to have just too much carbno dioxide and is exceptional in the solar system.
This is from Real Climate and is a simple comparison of observed temperature (x-axis, in degrees Kelvin) and predicted surface temperature using a simple model (without the Greenhouse Effect). RealClimate: A simple recipe for GHE
The greenhouse effect only adds about 30 degrees to earth's temperature, so it lies close to the predicted line without the effect. But the Venus greenhouse effect pushes it way, way above the prediction.
Unless something really terrible happens, scientists are not predicting that earth will end up like Venus.
I wonder whether there should be a revision to the Bible to state that Peter "scepticed" Christ twice instead of the insulting "deny."
And that was just "scepticing" a myth unlike the "scepticing" of scientific facts.
New predictions for the 2011 Ice minimum with about a month to go!
Current extent figure is 5.84m km^2 on the IARC/ JAXA site.
Median prediction is 4.5m km^2 , not a record but second lowest of all time. This year is lower than 2004, 2002, 2003 & 2006 making it already the 6th lowest of all time.
2005 5.57
2006 5.92
2007 4.30
2008 4.68
2009 5.36
2010 4.90
2011 4.50??
Always looking for a recovery, the Whats up with That site have predicted 5.0 m
Last edited by owedtojoy; 13th August 2011 at 09:59 PM.
