[njp]

It seems that CO2 released from deep water is now affecting the ability of the Antarctic Southern Ocean to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

This was expected to occur, but not for several decades. The climate models may indeed have been too conservative in their predictions.

[Fusewire]

The climate models may indeed have been too conservative in their predictions.

Some of us have known the true value of such models for some time..

They are practically useless unless all the variables and thier relationships are known. When these models are used to model climate change so many assumsions have to be made (with variables and the relationships between them) so as to make the model useless.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

Some of us have known the true value of such models for some time..

I see. Which models have you studied? Perhaps you could post a detailed critique here, so that the rest of us can benefit from your technical insights into their manifold deficiencies.

But while you are preparing that (I'm sure you will want to take your time over it), can you just tell us if you are agreeing that the models were indeed too conservative, and that the global warming prognosis is worse than predicted?

[TheMuffDoctor]

You guys can argue about Global warming until you are blue in the face but it won’t make any difference. Whatever will be will be, not a lot we can do about it.

I am sort of stuck on the fence and don’t know which way to go. I did for a long time worry about global warming and the effect man is having on the planet but as of the last 6 months or so I am not so sure. It does appear to be a government run thing to make money. I find it very hard to believe that we are having any impact on a massive body of water like the Antarctic Ocean.

Now I am not saying we are not having any effect on the planet, I am sure we are to some extent but is it really going to make any difference in the big picture.

[Fusewire]

I see. Which models have you studied? Perhaps you could post a detailed critique here, so that the rest of us can benefit from your technical insights into their manifold deficiencies.

On a commercial basis I have created many. Although I won't bore everyone with tedious model details, my models are used in engineering applications where the variables and thier interactions are a lot simpler and understood to a far greater extent than anything involved in climate change.

can you just tell us if you are agreeing that the models were indeed too conservative, and that the global warming prognosis is worse than predicted?

I have no doubt that due to the human input and assumsions about unknowns that are used when constucting these models that they will under estimate some results, while for others they will over estimate the results..... as I said earlier - models are useless for modeling climate change, we simply do not know enough about the different elements/variables and thier relationships and interactions with each other that are used to construct such models so as to constuct an accurate model which can be relied upon.

[Steve.J.Davies]

It is quite jump of logic to assume all models are under-predicting based of this one news story - or should that be a 'leap of faith'. Is there some logical reasoning behind your assertion that you care to share with us ?

We need to see the detail behind the way it was done viz:-

"The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world, and combining this information with oceanic observations and high precision modelling."

Lots of scope in that approach for all kinds of weirdness, especially as the hyped up difference is from 1.5 ppm to 2 ppm....
Lets see what happens when the data and methods are revealed - IF they are revealed. It could just be another tree-ring circus...
I am sure many will look to see of they have done a clean job with the data and accounted for all they should e.g. accounted for the cooling that is happening in the southern hemisphere. Interesting one that when you consider heat transfer to the northern hemisphere from the southern...

[JagoPlasma]

but this is good news no? it means the plant and oceanic life will have more to feed on

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by njp

I see. Which models have you studied? Perhaps you could post a detailed critique here, so that the rest of us can benefit from your technical insights into their manifold deficiencies.

But while you are preparing that (I'm sure you will want to take your time over it), can you just tell us if you are agreeing that the models were indeed too conservative, and that the global warming prognosis is worse than predicted?

Given that ALL the models have so far failed to correlate to the present climatic conditions, then this surely proves that none of them work because there are many variables that either have been omitted, misunderstood or fudged. The real climate is not reacting as the models predict. This should be enough for any reasonable person to say "whoa, we might have it wrong!" But no, just keep tweeking. The only scientific prediction made in recent years that has been quite accurate is the ravages of HIV/ AIDS virus - all others are pants!

[toycollector]

While some of you doom and gloom merchants are wringing your hands, the rest of us are getting on with our lives. You only have one and its very, very short.
Enjoy it. You can bet the politicians are!Just look at the way they have voted to stop us knowing what expenses they are getting.They don't give a damn about GW. I read today Tony Blair has just ordered a bullit proof 4x4.
So much for protecting the environment.

[Zack Attack]

Originally Posted by toycollector

While some of you doom and gloom merchants are wringing your hands, the rest of us are getting on with our lives. You only have one and its very, very short.
Enjoy it. You can bet the politicians are!Just look at the way they have voted to stop us knowing what expenses they are getting.They don't give a damn about GW. I read today Tony Blair has just ordered a bullit proof 4x4.
So much for protecting the environment.

so if he's giving up, you're giving up?

What if I was to say he wasn't giving up, he was still going to pursue combating global warming after his leaving office? Would you still give up?

What if, I propose to you, Blair was still wanting to combat global warming, and the new bulletproof 4x4 would help him achieve this by protecting him from bullets fired by morons. I'll explain this a little clearer if it's not clear enough, he doesn't want to gamble global warming going out of control, for the sake of one car which protects a very large figure on the global warming stage from losing his prominent position (by dying).

But the problem with me explaining this to you, is that you haven't already thought of it. Which suggests you're not particularly clever, and arguing with you is a complete waste of time, I think I'll go argue with my dog now.

[Black 5]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

On a commercial basis I have created many. Although I won't bore everyone with tedious model details, my models are used in engineering applications where the variables and thier interactions are a lot simpler and understood to a far greater extent than anything involved in climate change.



I have no doubt that due to the human input and assumsions about unknowns that are used when constucting these models that they will under estimate some results, while for others they will over estimate the results..... as I said earlier - models are useless for modeling climate change, we simply do not know enough about the different elements/variables and thier relationships and interactions with each other that are used to construct such models so as to constuct an accurate model which can be relied upon.

I hope your spelling was better in those - can't take you seriously when you don't know how to spell "assumptions"!

[njp]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Given that ALL the models have so far failed to correlate to the present climatic conditions

Since you know this, you won't mind me asking for a link where it is demonstrated to be the case. And I'm afraid just linking to another denialist saying exactly the same thing doesn't count, even though that is what usually passes for research in denialist circles!

[Fusewire]

I hope your spelling was better in those critiques - can't take you seriously when you don't know how to spell "assumptions"!

Sorry about that..... sometimes my spelling suffers for the sake of speed typing.

Do you have a Fred Elliot type condition that requires you to say everthing twice or do you suffer with a stutter ??

how do we know these polar ice caps are not melting because we forgot to replenish the ozone layer 15 years ago by launching those rockets up to the south pole with fresh ozone...or has everyone forgot. It may not be co2 induced global warming that will flood the world, but forgetfulness…

[Corey USA]

In regards to the southern ocean Co2 not absorbing as predicted is based on observation of test equipment scattered around the south sea compared against models that had key things left out because of POLITCAL and Big Business Influence (contradictory information, threats , intimidation, blackmail, pay offs, murder etc.)

An example of information being left out of the models is the fact of the frozen methane that is trapped in the frozen soils in Siberia, Canada and other cold climate areas are reaching its melting point which releases into the atmosphere(which its doing right now) causing a feedback loop effect. (Warm thaw warm thaw) (methane traps heat 20 times more effective than co2 {I was reading that when methane releases into the atmosphere and or ocean it mixes with oxygen to become co2 not sure if this is a fact since I am not a chemist}). Before you go off the deep-end and say its naturally occurring take this into account. Its at the rate of the temperature increase (by burning of fossil fuels, oil, natural gas and such that puts locked away co2 into the air disrupting the balance nature has made to support life this is raising the temp faster than natural as a result of upsetting the balance) that is the problem. Life needs time to adapt if it happens to fast it can't and extinction occurs.

Other things that were left out is Globalization and all the transportation involved in moving stuff from point a to point b. another is the increase in the rate of burning of fossil fuel, oil, natural gas and use of other natural resources by USA, CHINA, INDIA, and elsewhere.

Here is a real key component that is left out for it would severly impact big business profits. I read the licence agreement for this site which stated that its illegal to say anything that would cause profit loss of a company. I can say the following for I am not attacking anyone or company specific, which causes loss. I am educating on what we as humans are doing that is causing the accelerated global warming beyond what life on earth can adapt too.
Now here is the key that is killing our planet. Its the amount we humans consume, its increased per person and the population is increasing beyond what the ecosystem can support, especially in the industrialized nations and the developing countries that are trying to become industrialized. Here is a specific example of how per person consumption has increased. The more high tech or cheaply made and the distance it travels from raw materials to the finished products we use, the more energy and resources that goes into making it, using it, and recycling or trashing of it.
Here is a specific example of my personal consumption to try to clarify what I just said, my 25inch CRT analog TV uses 113 watts of energy to operate and has relatively few different resources to build it. My HDTV 37in uses 220watts not to mention all the exotic materials that went into the making of the HDTV takes huge amounts of energy to refine and process. actual screen size increase 4in by 12in or so. recycling the two it takes less energy to recycle the CRT than the HDTV why? CRT is modular components added together making it easy to pull apart. While the HDTV is all integrated making it extreemly difficult to separate the different materials involved in making the product. For example the actual screen is liquid crystal and other materials sandwiched together through a combining process. This is extreemly difficult and uses huge amount of energy to separate the different materials if it can be separated in the first place.

Some of the methane at the bottom of the ocean may already be melting which would explain the premature saturation of the southern ocean I suspect the problem is elsewhere as well because of the ocean currents and such along with the die off of the coral reef which is the lungs of the ocean.

We must cut consumption and reduce the man made components which are affecting our changing world and hope we have not damaged earth beyond self repair, which we may have already done. If we have we must make every effort to try to repair as much dammage as possible and adapt as best we can. When a part of the ecosystem goes extinct it can't be repaired thus collapsing everything else right along with it unless something else moves into the niche that has gone extinct. Since we poluted earth so badly and we weakened the entire ecosystem as a whole when something like the European honey bee goes extinct there is fewer other generalized species to take the bee's place collapsing a large chunk or the whole ecosystem that the honey bee is responsible for because of lack of pollination.

sorry for poor writing skill I am a bit dyslexic, my skill is seeing how things fit together and how it works

Originally Posted by TheMuffDoctor

You guys can argue about Global warming until you are blue in the face but it won’t make any difference. Whatever will be will be, not a lot we can do about it.

I am sort of stuck on the fence and don’t know which way to go. I did for a long time worry about global warming and the effect man is having on the planet but as of the last 6 months or so I am not so sure. It does appear to be a government run thing to make money. I find it very hard to believe that we are having any impact on a massive body of water like the Antarctic Ocean.

Now I am not saying we are not having any effect on the planet, I am sure we are to some extent but is it really going to make any difference in the big picture.

There are more reasons than just global warming to reduce your fuel/energy use, though. Finite oil resources. Political stability. Personal, national and global finances. Personal health. The scarcity of alternatives relative to the historical abundance of oil.

Change is coming. Whether it's because of concerns over climate change or the well simply running dry, we're going to have to change our habits.