Valor a que a banca avalia as casas sobe mais 20 euros para novo recorde

[Ulrich]

Para quê estes embustes?! Não percebo...

Já reparaste na quantidade, em termos globais,de pessoal que gravita em torno desta temática, é muito emprego, conferências, ONG, donativos e tudo Tax free, como é por uma causa nobre, so they say...

Tanta gente a tentar justificar os seus postos de trabalho, escandalosamente dispensáveis, depois , claro, falta dinheiro para a verdadeira ciência...e isso é que é o mais grave

Abraços

[Quimporta]

Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now

IPCC has got it all wrong, say boffins

According to the scientists' new paper, published in hefty climate journal Nature Climate Change, the cooling effect of orbital shifting on the climate has been up to four times as powerful as anthropogenic (human-caused) warming pressures.

Dei-me ao trabalho de ler uma parte do artigo original da NATURE que citado no artigo.

O gráfico original é mais completo e interessante que a "versão" do theregister.co.uk, que tem a legenda completamente grosseira "Let's get in the frigidarium" .
Ilustra, por exemplo, que a correlação entre "tree rings" e os registos de temperatura, só possível após 1880, se mantém até hoje (interrompe em 2006).

Curiosamente o autor do artigo no theregister.co.uk dá-se ao trabalho de ocultar elementos que os autores do artigo da Nature fizeram questão que constasse:

>>> O erro do método experimental ("combined error" - mancha a cinza), dado relevante para medir a significância de um arrefecimento de ~0,5º em ~2000 anos
>>> A comparação com os dados instrumentais correspondentes à era pós-revolução industrial, ou seja, posterires ao final (~1876) da linha de regressão a tracejado e que marca uma nítida alteração na tendência ligeira verificada até então.

A conclusão que tiro é a que se trata apenas de mais um artigo pseudo-jornalístisco sobre as alterações climáticas...

Então, não era bem melhor chegarmos todos um dia à conclusão que o IPCC se enganou mesmo relativamente às consequências do aquecimento global antropogénico?! (reafirmado aliás pelos autores do artigo da Nature)

Para quê estes embustes?! Não percebo...

[Quimporta]

Este mapa está muito interessante.

Obrigado!

Ora essa "mestre Elias".

[Elias]

Este mapa está muito interessante.

Obrigado!

[Quimporta]

Desde que um ex-futuro presidente dos EUA resolveu envolver-se na "grande porra em que o clima está transformado", que o tema se tornou um mero peão no tabuleiro da política.

Com as eleições marcadas para Novembro, o S. Pedro também se resolveu envolver e trouxe aos senhores cowboys do petróleo, entretanto a jorrarem alcatifas de notas para a campanha, uma amostra do que poderá vir a ser aquele país daqui a umas poucas de décadas.

Claro que não se espera que o tema se torne central na campanha, porque há muitas crises juntas a aquecerem aquelas cabecinhas, e da crise climática não se esperam efeitos de curto prazo.

O que se espera é que as secas e os tornados grau 4/5 tipo Katrina (nota: cujas causas são múltiplas) cheguem a tempo de agitar as vontades necessárias para evitar algo muito pior para as gerações futuras, com quem andamos a jogar à roleta russa.

Atomez, os registos das leituras directas da temperatura só começaram em 1880. O que está para trás resulta de medidas indirectas (no caso, os "tree ring data") que são muito menos rigorosos. Há estudos desses para todos os gostos. Além disso, se tivessem colocado a linha vermelha, não há tendência rigorosamente nenhuma que se identifique.

June 2012 global temperatures were fourth highest on record * Arctic sea ice sees record June loss

The globally-averaged temperature for June 2012 marked the fourth warmest June since record keeping began in 1880. June 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive June and 328th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.


June 2012 Selected Climate Anomalies and Events
Most areas of the world experienced much higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including most of North America and Eurasia, and northern Africa. Only Australia, northern and western Europe, and the northwestern United States were notably cooler than average. In the Arctic, record June sea ice loss occurred, resulting in the second lowest June sea ice extent on record.

The equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to reflect neutral El Niño-Southern Ocean (ENSO) conditions in June. However, according to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, there is an elevated chance (55 percent) for the El Niño warm ocean phase to appear between now and September. In addition to influencing seasonal climate outcomes in the United States, El Niño is often, but not always, associated with global temperatures that are higher than normal.

Fonte: NOAA Monthly State of the Climate Report

[atomez]

Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now

IPCC has got it all wrong, say boffins




A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history.

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."

They certainly are, as it is a central plank of climate policy worldwide that the current temperatures are the highest ever seen for many millennia, and that this results from rising levels of atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities such as industry, transport etc.

If it is the case that actually the climate has often been warmer without any significant CO2 emissions having taken place - suggesting that CO2 emissions simply aren't that important - the case for huge efforts to cut those emissions largely disappears.

Needless to say, prominent alarmist scientists and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not taken this view, arguing instead that the well-documented Roman and medieval warm periods may have taken place but either weren't very warm or only happened in limited regions (though this latter idea has lately been seriously undermined by research in Antarctica).

In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph.

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it.

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."

According to the scientists' new paper, published in hefty climate journal Nature Climate Change, the cooling effect of orbital shifting on the climate has been up to four times as powerful as anthropogenic (human-caused) warming pressures.

[Quimporta]

Financiar divulgação de anti-ciência tem sido uma estratégia muito comum a alguns grupos ultra-conservadores nos EUA.
Sabia-se da patetice que se anda a espalhar sobre a teoria da evolução das espécies nas escolas americanas, aberrantemente apoiada pelo inenarrável "W" Bush.

Que essa estratégia também se estendia ao cepticismo climático era evidente, mas não passava de uma suspeita que agora se confirma.

Claro que não quero chegar ao ponto de montar uma teoria da conspiração, porque pressões económicas deste género as haverá de todos os lados, infelizmente.
Apenas acho fundamental para o observador interessado (como eu...) ter a consciência de que não é indiferente a fonte da informação que se consulta.
Sempre se encontrarão milhares de fontes de notícias e opiniões de todo o tipo, mas são realmente poucos os que fazem geo-ciência a este nível.

Num tema com a mega-relevância política e económica como este haverá sempre nuvens de manipulação.
Até ver, as instituições que considero credíveis como fontes de dados (ainda que sempre sujeitas a erros, naturalmente) são: os institutos de climatologia Americano (NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), e Britânico (Met Office), e a NASA.

Daqui para baixo, ainda considero razoável confiar nos "resumos" feitos por sites como a a Wikipedia e os maiores institutos e academias de ciências nacionais (Francês, Australiano, Dinamarquês etc... e haverá outros, como o Japonês e o Russo mas a que, por razões óbvias mais dificilmente se acede).

Tudo o resto, seja que orientação tiver, é mera opinião, eventualmente a ter em conta para se formar uma posição.

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.

The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science", the documents said.

It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents, although Heartland issued a statement on Wednesday claiming at least one document was fake, and that it was the victim of theft and forgery. However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind."

(...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... te-climate

[Quimporta]

please del...

[Quimporta]

O importante é que de acordo com os modelos de previsão climática do IPCC e outros isto não devia estar a acontecer apesar do CO2 na atmosfera ter vindo a aumentar progressivamente!

Qual previsão Atomez?!
O Relatório AR4 do IPCC contempla dúzias de “cenários”, de acordo com variáveis como a população, o crescimento, as políticas ambientais, etc..
Dentro de cada cenário aparecem pipas de previsões, conforme o modelo utilizado, com uma banda de variação razoável.

A que previsão te referes, se as há em todas as direcções?!



Na mmo “isto” acontece sem surpresa após qualquer máximo ou mínimo relativo.

se reparares bem na ponta à direita vês que a linha mais cheia estabilizou nos últimos 5 anos.

Na ponta? Ou na pontinha, da ponta?!

São resmas os sites e bloguezinhos na net que exultam de cada vez que um registo médio de temperatura fica acima ou abaixo da média móvel… É pura masturbação intelectual, que só gasta dedos e teclados.

Olha bem para o gráfico de longo prazo Atomez… A tendência mudou?!

o fenómeno do aquecimento global está a ser grandemente exagerado e tornou-se uma discussão política que saiu há muito da esfera científica.

“Exagerado” gostaria mesmo que estivesse. A minha maior motivação neste assunto é a de encontrar informação sólida que me permita acreditar nisso, para lá de algumas excitações que são muito óbvias.

Quanto ao papel da política… Há que separar bem dois planos.

O primeiro plano, quanto a mim natural, é a preocupação dos governos em descer à ciência para ter informação sólida sobre um problema potencialmente grave, e tomar as consequentes decisões políticas. Se não é para isso que serve a política para quê então?!

Outra história é a das “correntes” partidárias que se mobilizam para influenciar a opinião pública em temas fundamentalmente científicos, e completamente neutros do ponto de vista ideológico.

Deixo esta pergunta: o que justifica uma posição solidária do Partido Republicano contra as posições comuns da NASA, da EPA, do painel da ONU sobre o clima?!

Faz algum sentido?!

É nessa linha de poluição política em que não me revejo. Chamem-me esquisito...

[atomez]

A teoria do aquecimento global antropogénico até tem alguns pontos débeis, mas não há qualquer espaço para negar que o planeta está numa tendência clara de aquecimento.

É certíssimo que "o planeta está numa tendência clara de aquecimento." Isto pelo menos de há uns 20.000 anos para cá quando terminou o mais recente periodo glaciar. E ainda bem, se não a Serra da Estrela ainda tinha glaciares (basta ir lá acima e olhar para o vale do Mondego que se vê logo que foi obra de um glaciar), Londres estava debaixo de km de neve, mas por outro lado podia-se ir a pé do continente até lá porque o canal da Mancha era firme...

A questão é mesmo essa do "aquecimento global antropogénico". E como se vê cada vez há mais evidências que o teor de CO2 na atmosfera não tem impacto significativo no clima, os ciclos naturais e outras variáveis não controláveis pela humanidade têm muito mais peso.

O que se fala nestas notícias recentes é que nos últimos 10 a 12 anos não se verificou aquecimento global. O aquecimento estagnou ou até teve uma ligeira tendência de descida. O importante é que de acordo com os modelos de previsão climática do IPCC e outros isto não devia estar a acontecer apesar do CO2 na atmosfera ter vindo a aumentar progressivamente!

Portanto, esses modelos estão no mínimo mal feitos, ou estão mesmo errados. Mas é neles que se baseiam todas as previsões catastrofistas que por aí pululam e os políticos aproveitam para lançar impostos e taxas!

Quanto ao gráfico que apresentas, abrange mais de 1 século quando estamos a falar de observações na última década. Mas ainda assim, se reparares bem na ponta à direita vês que a linha mais cheia estabilizou nos últimos 5 anos. Ora essa linha é uma média móvel a 5 anos, portanto uma mudança de tendência aparece sempre com um atraso de uns... 5 anos.

Pata:

Isto dos gráficos de temperaturas tem sempre muito por onde se lhe pegue porque, como se vê, as variações são muito pequenas, na ordem da décima de grau. São variações que podem estar muito bem dentro da margem de erro das observações, em especial as mais antigas, portanto conforme as fontes e as metodologias usadas há sempre discrepâncias.

Atualmente com as observações por satélite, nos últimos 30 anos, são muito mais precisas. Mas mesmo aí há várias medidas possíveis. Até há relativamente pouco tempo, uns 50 anos, só havia medidas fiáveis à superfície, agora já é possível ter medidas da temperatura em altitude e áreas antes inacessíveis ou mal cobertas, como os oceanos, e os resultados apresentam variações e têm que ser corrigidos e adaptados para serem comparados com os do passado. E só isso já seria mais um motivo de discussão...

Mas a conclusão é -- o fenómeno do aquecimento global está a ser grandemente exagerado e tornou-se uma discussão política que saiu há muito da esfera científica.

[Quimporta]

Talvez até nem sejam assim tão diferentes, Pata.

Os gráficos do Atomez parecem-me um super zoom, no meu entender totalmente ilegítimo para alegar tendências de uma grandeza climática.

O gráfico 1 acaba por ficar totalmente dominado pelo ano de 1998, que foi o mais quente até à altura, e cujas razões da insignificância estatística estão aliás comentadas no vídeo do post anterior (ano "el niño). Esse ponto de 1998 está também bem visível no gráfico da NASA.

Ainda faltam os dados de 2008 em diante, em que de novo se bateram recordes pelas más razões. ,

Há inúmeras discussões pela net que são alimentadas por manipulações dos dados destas, para defender qualquer uma das causas pró ou anti-aquecimento.

Nos EUA este debate (como até o da evolução das espécies) está estranhamente politizado. Quem conheça a filiação das fontes com a correspondente corrente partidária não se surpreende nadinha com estas abordagens sectárias.

Atomez: até está lá o "Ron Paul 2008"...

A teoria do aquecimento global antropogénico até tem alguns pontos débeis, mas não há qualquer espaço para negar que o planeta está numa tendência clara de aquecimento.

[Pata-Hari]

Porquê que os números são tão discrepantes com os do gráfico em cima?

[atomez]

O pessoal aqui gosta é de gráficos, né?

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off

[Quimporta]

Pelo menos desde o ano 2000 não tem havido aquecimento global...

Atomez, 2000 não diria, mas desde 2010 que saiam de baixo!

Fonte: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/i ... globalTemp

[atomez]

Pelo menos desde o ano 2000 não tem havido aquecimento global...


<object id="wsj_fp" width="512" height="363"><param name="movie" value="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/VideoPlayerMain.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="videoGUID={B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419}&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/"name="flashPlayer"></param><embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/VideoPlayerMain.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"flashVars="videoGUID={B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419}&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/" name="flashPlayer" width="512" height="363" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

[atomez]

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

[Elias]

A propósito de aquecimento global...



New Zealand becomes a winter wonderland after being hit by heaviest snowfall in 30 years
By SARA NELSON
Last updated at 7:22 AM on 16th August 2011

Snow and gale force winds close airports, roads and schools and cause blackouts

Queenstown experiences lowest temperature of -4C with cold spell due to last until Wednesday


Flights have been grounded, roads closed and power cuts have plunged vast areas of New Zealand into darkness following the country's heaviest snowfall in decades.

Snow and gale force winds have brought the country to a standstill during what forecasters are describing as a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Blizzards lashed the South Island before moving onto the more densely populated North Island, with the cold snap predicted to continue until Wednesday


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1VC96xyhr

[atomez]

Pois é, com um verão assim onde anda o aquecimento global quando precisamos dele?

Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) -- Data from NASA's Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth's atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to "believe."

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing,” Spencer and UAHuntsville's Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
"At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

For this experiment, the UAHuntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA's Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UAHuntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

For more information:
Dr. Roy Spencer, (256) 961-7960
roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu
Phillip Gentry, (256) 961-7618
gentry@nsstc.uah.edu
www.nsstc.uah.edu/essc/

[Elias]

Viva o show-off!


Monumentos desligam as luzes na Hora do Planeta
sexta-feira, 11 de Março de 2011 | 13:31

Monumentos e símbolos arquitectónicos de diversos países, como Alhambra, Torre de Tóquio ou Cristo Rei juntam-se à iniciativa Hora do Planeta e desligam as luzes às 20:30 de 26 de Março para alertar contra o aquecimento global.

O objectivo da Hora do Planeta, que será entre as 20:30 e as 21:30, é levar os cidadãos a desligarem as luzes, assinalando o seu compromisso com o planeta, partilharem histórias e acções que beneficiem a Terra, através da internet, e adoptarem comportamentos diários sustentáveis, como explica a WWF, a associação ambientalista promotora da iniciativa.

Gateway of India ou o Cristo Redentor, no Brasil, Torre Eiffel, em França, Ponte da Liberdade, na Hungria, a Sinfonia de Luzes de Hong Kong (maior luz permanente do mundo) são exemplos de pontos de referência mundiais que se associam à defesa do planeta, enquanto em Portugal a WWF refere centenas de monumentos de 40 cidades.

Em Lisboa, a Ponte 25 de Abril, as estações do Rossio e de Santa Apolónia, o Aqueduto das Águas Livres, o Teatro D. Maria II, a Torre de Belém e o Mosteiro dos Jerónimos estarão às escuras.

Àqueles «pontos de referência irão juntar-se a centenas de milhões de pessoas, de empresas, comunidades e governos, em todo o mundo, que desligarão as luzes durante a Hora do Planeta, transcendendo as barreiras de raça, religião, cultura, sociais, geracionais e da geografia, numa celebração global do compromisso com a protecção da única coisa que nos une a todos - o planeta», salienta um comunicado da WWF.

Nepal, Emirados Árabes Unidos, Espanha, Vietname, Finlândia, África do Sul, Japão, China, Turquia, Hungria são outros países onde será visível a participação na iniciativa.

A rede da WWF/Hora do Planeta incentiva, desta forma simbólica, cidadãos e comunidades a «tomarem as rédeas» do seu destino e da protecção da terra, transmitindo aos responsáveis locais a necessidade de alterar comportamentos com vista a proteger a natureza.

A WWF é uma organização independente de conservação da natureza, com quase cinco milhões de membros e uma rede global activa em mais de 100 países.

Diário Digital / Lusa

[Quimporta]

Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change?
Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus among research organizations that humans are warming the globe

By Robin Lloyd | February 23, 2011 | 155


As glaciers melt and island populations retreat from their coastlines to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the global research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S.

The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, coming to a peak during a Friday session, "Science without Borders and Media Unbounded".

Near the forum’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.

"You haven't persuaded the public," replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, "No, you haven't." Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, "That's right. Kerry said it."

Such a tone of searching bewilderment typified a handful of sessions that dealt with the struggle to motivate Americans on the topic of climate change. Only 35 percent of Americans see climate change as a serious problem, according to a 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

It's a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate change.

And in the absence of such a campaign, as in South Korea, there is no doubt about the findings of climate science, said Sun-Jin Yun of Seoul National University. All three of the nation's major newspapers—representing conservative, progressive and business perspectives—accept climate change with little unjustified skepticism.

Still, it is hard to explain the intransigence of the U.S. public and policy-makers on the issue.

Explanations abound: Is it the media? Under-education? Denialism?
Tom Rosenstiel of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism pointed at the media, focusing on its overall contraction in the past two decades. Shrinking budgets have led to a proliferation of quick, cheap reporting, as well as discussion and commentary formats that rarely provide informative discussions of actual science results.

"What is shrinking is the reportorial component of our culture in which people go out and find things and verify things," he said. Truth has little chance to make itself known in the new narrow and shallow public square.

Poll after poll, and even late night TV talk shows, seem to revel in Americans’ ignorance of basic scientific facts, including the fundamentals of physics and biology.

Is this "science information deficit model" then the reason for our failure to accept climate change? Naomi Oreskes, a University of California, San Diego, science historian rejected that hypothesis during one of the sessions on denialism. "It's quite clear there are many highly educated people who do not accept global warming," she said. Still, scientists "must communicate climate science as clearly and effectively and robustly as we can," she added.

The current political and cultural context drive the nation's denialism around climate change, evolution and vaccines, said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, during a session. Education and scientific literacy and general intelligence levels are not causing the problem.

Meanwhile, most Americans in fact are ignorant of the facts of climate science and even "confuse climate change with the ozone hole," Schmidt remarked. The processes around the latter's disappearance are related to global warming but "how is that a basis for having any sensible conversation?" he asked.

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery
Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question-and-answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

Scientists must engage with the public and be vigilant against projecting stereotypes of their profession—such as the elitist, arrogant scientist, Schmidt said.

Rosenstiel echoed this advice and further urged scientists to bypass the media, who are no longer critical intermediaries for reaching the public given the growth of the blogosphere and the general fragmentation of the industry.

He advised scientists similarly to make sure their points are very clear and to avoid giving climate deniers an opportunity to extract a phrase from ones communications or answers to questions that fits an anti-science theme.

In fact, Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia called science communications "naive" and said the entire enterprise of communicating science about climate change needed to be reformed. More information will not help. "Personal knowledge always trumps technical knowledge in public communication," he said.

Some of Rosenstiel's advice recalled Lessl's observation when he reminded the audience that interviews are entirely on the record and that they are not conversations. "One way of doing that is to be like a politician and answer what you want to answer and not answer fully what they have asked," he advised. Also, "if you feel the question is loaded, give them the answer that you would have given if the question were not loaded."

NASA's Schmidt suggested that further public engagement to fill the gaps in understanding between soundbites and scientific literature would be useful, but that there are no guarantees.

M.I.T.'s Emanuel offered a familiar explanation for why some scientists are allergic to public forums: "There's an attitude in our culture that if we're doing outreach...we may be engaging in a kind of advocacy that is poisonous to science."

Despite the concerns, optimism prevailed regarding the role of journalists and scientists in better communicating climate change in the future. There will be more reporting and it will be more accurate in the future, but the current media landscape may be the ultimate decider, Emanuel noted.

"Fourth estate reporting will get better," he added. "The fact that we're here today is an indicator of that. At the same time, the availability of the Internet soapbox will ensure that the amount of background noise will go up. I don't see any way of preventing that."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... S_20110224

[Quimporta]

Ola Atomez. Qual é a fonte deste artigo ? Abraço

Edit: esquece... Já descobri o link no cabeçalho

[atomez]

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.
...

[Quimporta]

Com as cheias todas do hemisfério sul, o "Global Warming" ainda se rebaptiza em "Global Boiling"

NASA research finds 2010 tied for warmest year on record

01.12.11

WASHINGTON — Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007, which are statistically tied for third warmest year. The GISS records begin in 1880.

The analysis found 2010 approximately 1.34 F warmer than the average global surface temperature from 1951 to 1980. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data from 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.36 F per decade since the late 1970s.

"If the warming trend continues, as is expected, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the 2010 record will not stand for long," said James Hansen, the director of GISS.

The analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A computer program uses the data to calculate temperature anomalies — the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same period during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period acts as a baseline for the analysis.

The resulting temperature record closely matches others independently produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The record temperature in 2010 is particularly noteworthy, because the last half of the year was marked by a transition to strong La Niña conditions, which bring cool sea surface temperatures to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
(...)
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm? ... NewsID=467

[Quimporta]

Essa mini conferência fez-me pensar um bocado no que se diz quase diariamente na comunicação social... é preciso ver os 2 lados da moeda para termos uma ideia mais clara e correcta das coisas...

Se formos pelo que se diz nos media, então parece que a culpa do aumento das temperaturas é só do CO2...

De acordo. Vejo os media como fontes mais importantes para perceber os interesses em causa do que para formar opinião.
Sempre que possível, prefiro claramente consultar as fontes originais.

Então e a actividade solar? (segundo esse climatólogo estamos no fim de 1 ciclo de grande actividade solar)

O sol é o principal influenciador da temperatura terrestre. Separar essa influencia parece que não é nada simples, mas tem sido estudada pela NASA.

Aparentemente, desde os anos 70 que estamos nessa fase, em que actividade solar já não tem variado significativamente (como no gráfico que anexo) não impedindo assim que a se tenham continuado a bater recordes anuais de temperaturas medias.

O aspecto que mais evidencia que não é o sol que determina a tendência de aquecimento do planeta é que a camada exterior da atmosfera (estratosfera) está a esfriar, ao contrário da Troposfera, onde vivemos.

E a actividade vulcânica?

A actividade vulcânica raramente pesa. Desde que há registos é apenas pontual. Curiosamente afecta o clima no sentido de esfriar, devido à poluição das cinzas reflectirem o sol, e não de aquecer À escala global. Mas há excepções. Os mínimos relativos de temperatura desde que há registos foram obtidos após as mais fortes erupções: Krakatoa, 1883; Agung, 1963; Pinatubo, 1991. (fonte: http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/globalTemp.cfm).

Ainda não vi referências a algum impacte importante da erupção do Eyja"nãoseiquêallallalla" deste ano. Estou curioso.

E os outros compostos que são libertados diariamente para a atmosfera que fazem tão mal ou pior à camada de ozono que o CO2?

Essa questão já foi discutida num destes tópicos. O que é correcto é referir "CO2eq", isto é, o efeito conjugado de todos os gases que contribuem para o efeito de estufa referenciado ao gás que pesa mais. É uma simplificação legítima.

Abraço,

PS - o CO2 e o buraco da camada de ozono são como os alhos que não têm nada que ver com as calças...

[Luis19]

Estive muito recentemente numa mini-conferência sobre alterações climáticas e 1 climatologista brasileiro apresentou dados e gráficos que provam que o aumento de CO2 na atmosfera segue com um ligeiro atraso o aumento da temperatura (ou seja primeiro aumenta a temperatura e só depois aumenta o CO2) ao contrário do que aquilo que se diz a todo o momento na comunicação social

O climatologista brasileiro não deve ter dito nenhum disparate.

Tens o gráfico? Deve ser parecido a este que anexo, certo?

A escala dos yy acaba nos 290 ppm de CO2 porque se tratam dos dados paleoclimatológicos, mas efectivamente já vamos 390 ppm (http://climate.nasa.gov/). Chegaríamos aos 450 ppm , ao ritmo que levamos (chamado cenário "bussiness as usual" - BAU) em menos de 50 anos. Daí este jazz todo de conferências do clima, protocolos de Kyoto, etc..

Atendendo a que era uma conferência em alterações climáticas, isso deve ter sido explicado, não?

Não é esse mas é bastante parecido

Essa mini conferência fez-me pensar um bocado no que se diz quase diariamente na comunicação social... é preciso ver os 2 lados da moeda para termos uma ideia mais clara e correcta das coisas...

Se formos pelo que se diz nos media, então parece que a culpa do aumento das temperaturas é só do CO2...

Então e a actividade solar? (segundo esse climatólogo estamos no fim de 1 ciclo de grande actividade solar)

E a actividade vulcânica?

E os outros compostos que são libertados diariamente para a atmosfera que fazem tão mal ou pior à camada de ozono que o CO2?