oilpan4
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:12,042
Points:306,620
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 2:48:09 PM
"Polluting the precious air we breathe, though? I fear that's within our grasp"!
I don't think so. The worst air quality I have ever had to breath was 100% all natural.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 2:13:10 PM
Terzo, since you are new here, I'd like to repeat my post of a link to Michael Crichton's lecture at Caltech on How Aliens cause Global Warming. It's an informative and entertaining read. Lot's of people here have really enjoyed it.
|
Terzo
All-Star Author
Orange County
Posts:663
Points:117,765
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 2:01:48 PM
ldheinz, Yeah, why is it the global warming alarmists are so conveniently neglecting to mention the fact that the Earth's climate is nearing the peak high in the current 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle? They keep trying to focus everyone's attention away from any possible natural factors to keep all blame on human activity. Geez, I'm beginning to wander if they're really human.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 9:23:21 AM
Fortunately, malcm, the air's getting cleaner and cleaner. Clean energy is certainly within our abilities, but so-called environmentalists keep trying to prevent nuclear reactors.
|
malcm
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:2,991
Points:1,276,140
Joined:Dec 2003
|
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 12:08:57 AM
"Destroying the planet"? No - I think that would be too big a job, even for us mighty humans. Polluting the precious air we breathe, though? I fear that's within our grasp! We need clean energy.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 10:25:39 PM
malcm, nobody said that we should pollute the Earth, just that there's no imminent danger of destroying the planet, that's all.
Terzo, I've mentioned Milankovitch cycles here before, and I agree with your evaluation.
|
malcm
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:2,991
Points:1,276,140
Joined:Dec 2003
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 7:37:35 PM
Warming or not, the fact remains that we humans are daily adding many tons of poisonous gas to the air we must breath. To me this just doesn't seem wise.
|
Terzo
All-Star Author
Orange County
Posts:663
Points:117,765
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 6:33:21 AM
It's amazing how polarized people are about this issue. I myself have read extensively from both sides of the debate and have this to say. Yes, our climate has been warming at an accelerated rate since the Industrial Revolution began around 160 years ago. No, this warming cannot be blamed totally on fossil fuel consumption by humans. I will say, however, that the small amount of additional CO2 added by humans has contributed to this rise. But you've got to look at the big picture by looking back in Earth's history. Ice core research has given accurate data showing the levels of greenhouse gases and temperature going back as far as 800,000 years and has shown a lag time of hundreds of years between temperature increases and CO2 increases, with temperatures preceding rises and drops in CO2. This would indicate that the current warming is not driven by the extra CO2 from humans, but that the rising CO2 levels are driven by rising temperatures instead. However, it has also been shown that once CO2 reaches a certain level, this delay is reduced to just a few years. What's driving the temperature up? Have you ever heard of Milankovitch cycles? These cycles occur in patterns of roughly 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years in which the Earth warms or cools based on the amount of sunlight that hits the surface as it's orbit varies around the sun. Currently we are at or near the peak of high temperature and CO2 levels in the current 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle. The 100,000 year cycles also have the highest and lowest temperatures of these cycles. Some scientists have predicted that the Earth will begin a long , slow drop in temperature and greenhouse gas levels within a thousand or so years leading to a new ice age. They also counter that this may not occur if indeed humans are causing CO2 levels to rise so high that it stops this cooling from occurring. Irregardless temperatures on Earth would have been at or near their highest levels within the last 800,000 years with or without humans burning fossil fuels.
It's funny, but most of the global warming alarmists see only danger ahead, whereas I see an opportunity for humans to stabilize our climate to reduce both an overheated or frozen Earth. We've already figured out ways to capture and store CO2 back into the Earth's interior or deep into the oceans. By capturing or releasing enough CO2 we could conceivably keep the Earth at a steady temperature and never see another ice age which by the way is a much greater threat to humans than is warming.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 11:03:55 AM
John Coleman, ex-weatherman on Good Morning America and co-founder of the Weather Channel, is an outspoken critic of the Global Warming myth.
gougedQC, here's another Co2 question: If Co2 causes global warming, why is 400 PPM of Co2 not causing the Earth to get warmer? We've been in a cooling trend for 15 years, but Co2 keeps increasing. Why is this?
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 1:35:54 PM
They predicted ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2013. It's Mother's Day and we don't even have an ice-free Minnesota.
Live images--Mille Lac lake conditions right now.
In Kentucky, this is the first time I can remember having my heat on in May. I haven't had A/C on yet, which usually runs constantly after Derby day. Grilling steaks, I had to put a sweater on.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 1:25:58 PM
gougedQC - "LD ..again you seize on individual words -some- experts... because no journalist can contact ALL experts can they? "
Sorry I missed this, but it was kind of buried in other stuff. Keep in mind that nowhere did the source you quoted claim to have done anything close to a statistically valid study. Clearly, they listened to only one side and did a meaningless puff piece. You ignored the fact that I was pointing out that all of the statements that you quoted were qualifying their statements in a way that made them pointless. "Some experts feel" one way? Then we know that OTHER experts don't. Something "might" happen? And it might not. Something "could" happen? Odds are it WON'T, then, right? All of your quotations use such scheming language, designed to mislead.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 12:21:00 PM
To replace the "text deleted" link with a live link in my last post:
Temps have risen and fallen in one-to-five century spikes and dips--with regularity--throughout the Holocene interglacial.
(gouged, you have NEVER answered the questions asked by ldheinz and others--WHO caused those warming spikes before the Industrial Revolution?)
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 12:06:02 PM
gougedQC: "mini- and yes your graph clearly indicated an average temperature increase...as was also clearly stated by the original creator of the graph.."
An average temperature increase is nothing to be alarmed about. Let's be clear--it was I who first posted them first--in answer to your claims of a precipitous spike after WWII that never occurred--both NOAA and CRU.
gougedQC: "and why on earth would i disagree with the NOAA, when i have been posting data from them which again clearly shows that the worlds average land and ocean temperatures have been increasing"
Like I said--it's not that you disagree with any NOAA author's opinions; but that you proved you hadn't been reading my links.
gougedQC: "Your quoting of NOAA and others as supporting your opinion, is ludicrous as they clearly (again) maintain that the earth is warming, climate is changing, and very often say its mankinds fault"
I posted the graphs in response to your claims (again, which you have proven you didn't read). Just because someone says it's mankind's fault, does not a proven theory make. [L=http://www.climate4you.com/images/text deleted temps have risen and fallen in one-to-five century spikes and dips--with regularity--throughout the Holocene interglacial.[/L] You have NEVER answered the questions asked by ldheinz and others--WHO caused those warming spikes before the Industrial Revolution?
(So let's be clear. To blame the modern warm period on man--which is barely above one degree C the global temperatures during the Little Ice Age--is what is ludicrous.)
gougedQC: "Actual science-- we have passed the 400 ppm rating for Co2"
LOL! It's not a "rating." It's a concentration--of 400 parts per MILLION.That's NOT a problem.
and the more CO2 continues to outgas from the oceans and earth, the more it invalidates the CO2-causes warming theory. We survived Y2K and the end of the Mayan calender, and we're going to survive this.
Actually, the paleoclimate record shows us life is going to THRIVE with greater levels of atmospheric CO2. Plants don't just survive with greater levels of CO2--they THRIVE on more CO2 -- Seeing Is Believing. It's about time we began leaving the CO2-deprived state this planet has been in since the end of the Medieval Warm Period!
Disillusionment is a good thing.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/12/2013 12:16:12 PM EST]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 11:45:24 AM
So, gougedQC, you figure that it's been long enough that I've forgotten that you never answered my last C02 question? Let me remind you:
gougedQC - "As a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, the average acidity of surface ocean waters worldwide is now about 30% higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution "
ldheinz - "How can you determine this? Less than 5% of the world's CO² comes from human sources. All the rest comes from non-human activities. That makes it more than 20x more likely that the CO² in the oceans is from non-human activities. How is the source of that CO² being determined? Is there something different about THAT CO² so that you can tell the difference? "
You never did answer that question. That's probably because CO² is GOOD for the Earth. Here is a graph of CO² levels over the last 600 million years. Note that the Earth is currently CO² impoverished. The highest CO² level of 7000 PPM coincided with the greatest explosion of life in the history of the Earth, the Cambrian Explosion.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 9:46:23 AM
mini- and yes your graph clearly indicated an average temperature increase...as was also clearly stated by the original creator of the graph..
and why on earth would i disagree with the NOAA, when i have been posting data from them which again clearly shows that the worlds average land and ocean temperatures have been increasing
Your quoting of NOAA and others as supporting your opinion, is ludicrous as they clearly (again) maintain that the earth is warming, climate is changing, and very often say its mankinds fault
eg- NOAA MAY 10, 2013
**** On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958. Independent measurements made by both NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have been approaching this level during the past week. It marks an important milestone because Mauna Loa, as the oldest continuous carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement station in the world, is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the increase of this potent heat-trapping gas.
Carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and other human activities is the most significant greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change.... “That increase is not a surprise to scientists,” said NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans, with the Global Monitoring Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. “The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global CO2 emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration.,,,,
Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.......
Moreover, similar increases of CO2 are seen all over the world by many international scientists. NOAA, for example, which runs a global, cooperative air sampling network, reported last year that all Arctic sites in its network reached 400 ppm for the first time.....
Sites in the Southern Hemisphere will follow during the next few years. The increase in the Northern Hemisphere is always a little ahead of the Southern Hemisphere because most of the emissions driving the CO2 increase take place in the north.....Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to avoid further substantial climate change. ******LD ..again you seize on individual words -some- experts... because no journalist can contact ALL experts can they?
Actual science-- we have passed the 400 ppm rating for Co2,,[L=http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text deleted ice fields going going [/L]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 6:19:06 AM
malcm, and how has any of that been linked to humans? Or is it completely natural in origin?
|
malcm
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:2,991
Points:1,276,140
Joined:Dec 2003
|
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 2:26:11 AM
Late ("panic mongering"?) news found in Discover magazine (June issue): " As temperatures rise around the globe, glaciers are shrinking at an unprecedented rate. The resulting glacier meltwater can form dangerous lakes contained only by unstable rock and debris. These can burst from their basins at any moment, flooding communities and potentially killing thousands.
Equipped with mountaineering gear and a Ph.D. in geography, Alton Byers ----- director, nonprofit Mountain Institute in Washington, D.C., has spent his career traversing treacherous high altitude ridges and navigating alpine wilderness to prepare remote Himalayan villages for climate change.
His latest project - - - to mitigate the coming challenges associated with glacial lake outbursts."
A fascinating article - get the mag, or read it at your local library.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 10, 2013 11:33:13 AM
gougedQC - "Last year's most devastating tropical system -- Hurricane Irene -- was considered by some experts to be a "100-year-event," a storm that comes around only once a century."
So "was considered by some experts", eh? So it was NOT considered to be so by OTHER experts, right? So the entire statement is meaningless. See how easy it is to see through the hype?
gougedQC - "But a study out this week in Nature Climate Change says that due to global warming, these monster storms could make landfall more frequently, causing destructive storm surges every 3 to 20 years instead of once a century."
So they COULD make landfall more often, but maybe not. It's just a guess, derived from personal prejudice, not actual science, so again this is a meaningless statement.
gougedQC - "Scientists are desperately hoping to slow down, stop and hold warming to 2 deg C.. This will already cause great change, much of it unpleasant ,including mass migration..all of which will be unwanted."
Which is, of course, pure speculation and panic mongering, based on self-serving prejudice, not science.
gougedQC - "However this may well be impossible as we keep pumping out GG ..."
Of course, it may well be POSSIBLE, too, so again the statement is meaningless prejudice, not actual science.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 8:38:45 PM
gougedQC: "mini- flase false and false"
You're awfully bold. Then you must think you know better than NOAA, the UAH and the CRU. Are you afraid to click on the links? I provided the data. It's all right there in front of you.
gougedQC: "wasnt it you (doesnt really matter though) who posted a graph claiming to illustrate your point but which in fact which clearly showed a steady averaged increase over the past twnety or thirty years"
Yes, it is me you're referring to (and yes, it does matter). But no-you're getting timelines confused. I remember it specifically (it is down there--probably on page 2 or 3 by now). It was after you said the global temperature had spiked since WWII, and I posted the HadCRUT3 graph showing global temps going back to 1850 which showed NO spike after WWII, but two (2) almost identical spikes and two (2) almost identical drops in temperatures--for the first and second halves of the 20th century. Then you incredulously made the claim that I only showed a steady warming, and that you you couldn't understand what my point was. I was stunned--because those up and down cycles (almost identical in shape) were unambiguous.
And you're all over the map with your arguments. One day you're copying and pasting information about ENSO cycles (which means there are SPIKES AND DIPS in temperature--and which are obvious in ALL the graphs--and then the next day you're trying to argue "steady averaged increase!"
The vicissitudes are there, but in the end it's down to ~one degree of warming in a century, which is not the stuff alarm is made of (and as I keep pointing out is NOT what was predicted--much greater temps were predicted).
"But a study out this week in Nature Climate Change says that due to global warming, these monster storms could make landfall more frequently, causing destructive storm surges every 3 to 20 years instead of once a century."
The problem with that is, that's NOT happening. The number of annual major hurricanes has been normal-to-lower (not greater) than the numbers of major hurricanes during the first half of last century. There has been no increase.
NOAA reported last summer had the fewest tornadoes on record--a phenomenon which is unbroken to present day.
So yes, storms happen, but they're NOT increasing, but they're NOT getting worse. Increased and greater storms is the one of the biggest lies, but the phenomenon keeps getting predicted (scaremongered)-- and the predictions continue falling apart.
gougedQC: "The lead author of the study was Ning Lin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who partnered with scientists at Princeton University to undertake the research."
And here's another MIT researcher:
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -- Richard Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/9/2013 8:46:21 PM EST]
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 7:47:18 PM
mini- flase false and false
wasnt it you (doesnt really matter though) who posted a graph claiming to illustrate your point but which in fact which clearly showed a steady averaged increase over the past twnety or thirty years
FRom UCAR
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
((The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a consortium of over 100 member universities and academic affiliates focused on research and training in the atmospheric and related Earth system sciences. Our members set directions and priorities for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which UCAR manages with sponsorship by the National Science Foundation.))
Scientists are desperately hoping to slow down, stop and hold warming to 2 deg C.. This will already cause great change, much of it unpleasant ,including mass migration..all of which will be unwanted.
However this may well be impossible as we keep pumping out GG (China especially) and with the permafrost melting in the Arctic- releasing methane, and with less reflective ice cover, meaning the darker ocean gets warmer... we may end up in a very serious situation- a 4 degree rise would be disastrous
.74C may not seem like much, but look at how this is affecting storms..When was New York and Jersy last destroyed by a storm?, How many huge tornadoes have we had in he last few years?
FROM SCIENCE FAIR 2012 FEB 17
Last year's most devastating tropical system -- Hurricane Irene -- was considered by some experts to be a "100-year-event," a storm that comes around only once a century.
Irene lashed the East Coast in August, killing at least 45 people and leading to $7.6 billion in damages.
But a study out this week in Nature Climate Change says that due to global warming, these monster storms could make landfall more frequently, causing destructive storm surges every 3 to 20 years instead of once a century.
The lead author of the study was Ning Lin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who partnered with scientists at Princeton University to undertake the research.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 9:30:26 AM
Yes, Godfrey Bloom said it well. gougedQC, you are a global warming has stopped denier. You're simply a denier.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 11:14:55 PM
gougedQC: >>"All data shows warming.. quite clearly."<<
NOT for the period you were discussing. (But sure, there has been warming, and the amounts of warming depend on how far you want to go back.
The last century:
NOAA says there was one degree of warming. (That's not hot. That's not what was predicted.)
The last three decades:
UAH says the global temp today is 1/10 degree warmer than the three-decadal average. (That's not hot. That's not what was predicted.)
gougedQC: >>"No statistical warming????"<<
For the time period you were discussing, that's right. The last 13 years (since 2000):there was no statistical warming--and that's what officials from the IPCC, the Met Office and other scientific organizations around the world have now admitted. (That's not hot. That's not what was predicted.)
gougedQC: >>"...and yet this has been the warmest decade in recorded history"<<
It hurts your argument to narrow it down to the last decade. During the last decade,
the global temperature has dropped (even *with* the El Nino spikes thrown in). (That's not hot. That's not what was predicted.)
Every scientific organization throughout the world has now admitted there has been no warming over the last 15 years. James Hansen told us the global temperature should be 3 or 4 degrees hotter by now. He was wrong. (Even Hansen has now admitted no warming over the last decade.) Again--that's not what was predicted.
The hypothesis failed. It is dead in the water. I couldn't say it any better than Godfrey Bloom.
Disillusionment is a good thing.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/8/2013 11:24:47 PM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,950
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 10:38:54 PM
gougedQC - "All data shows warming.. quite clearly. No statistical warming???? and yet this has been the warmest decade in recorded history"
That's because we've been in a natural warming trend for almost 200 years now. If the climate is naturally warming, then you'd expect more recent years to average warmer than preceding years.
And there's been no significant warming for about 15 years now. Either we've hit a plateau or a peak.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 9:08:38 PM
"Even most of the dishonest people have recently admitted no warming this century."
Wrong..(or lie) as proven in earlier posts.
All data shows warming.. quite clearly. No statistical warming???? and yet this has been the warmest decade in recorded history
according to Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 2008. 2009. and 2011 were La Ninas (2012 not avail on scripps site)
NOAA- since Jan 2000 to Mar 2013
53 months of La nina,
73 months of neither,
and only 31 months of El Nino.
(((so theoretically net cooler, but instead the decade was the warmest))
NASA=
February 06, 2013
Sea-surface height data from NASA's Jason-2 satellite show that the equatorial Pacific Ocean is still locked in what some call a neutral, or 'La Nada' state. This condition follows two years of strong, cool-water La Niña events.
January 18, 2012
La Niña, "the diva of drought," is peaking, increasing the odds that the Pacific Northwest will have more stormy weather this winter and spring, while the southwestern and southern United States will be dry.
June 29, 2011
It's what Bill Patzert, a climatologist and oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., likes to call a "La Nada"
December 26, 2010
This La Niña has strengthened for the past seven months, and is one of the most intense events of the past half century ," said Climatologist Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "It is already impacting weather and climate around the planet."
September 15, 2010
The tropical Pacific Ocean has transitioned from last winter's El Niño conditions to a cool La Niña, as shown by new data about sea surface heights, collected by the U.S-French Ocean Surface Topography Mission
June 11, 2010- adios el nino.hello la nina
March 01,2010= el nino's last stand
Dec 01 2009- el nino surges
Nov 01 2009 -el nino picks up
sept 17 2009="Floundering El Niños Make for Fickle Forecasts|"
Nov 16, 2008
latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters.
April 01-2008=Larger Pacific Climate Event Helps Current La Niña Linger
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 5:11:20 PM
gougedQC: "except there was a "la nina" from 2000-2002, and 2007-2009, and 2009-2010..which should have cooled the environment, but it got warmer anyway"
rjhenn: "It did?"
Yeah, well...if you would consider 1/100 of one degree "warmer". Honest people call it no statistical warming. (Even most of the dishonest people have recently admitted no warming this century.)
gougedQC failed to mention there have been 4 El Ninos since 2000 also. Global warming alarmists don't like to mention them, but they love to ride them when they cause temporary spikes in the global temperatures. Makes for great propaganda (fleeting as these natural phenomena are). They're still riding them--every time they talk of records broken over the last decade, they're riding El Nino spikes.
gouged was also wrong about a 2009-2010 La Nina. That was El Nino--which was hyped as evidence of man-made global warming until reality set in with a double dip La Nina and crashing temps after that, which temporarily brought all the fear-mongering to a halt... until the CO2-centric climate liars had a chance to re-group.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/8/2013 5:17:37 PM EST]
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,818
Points:1,010,580
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 5:00:06 PM
Yes idheinz - don't you know that the man caused CO² is dirty brown and greasy and the natural is clean and green.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 1:50:34 PM
gougedQC - "As a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, the average acidity of surface ocean waters worldwide is now about 30% higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution "
How can you determine this? Less than 5% of the world's CO² comes from human sources. All the rest comes from non-human activities. That makes it more than 20x more likely that the CO² in the oceans is from non-human activities. How is the source of that CO² being determined? Is there something different about THAT CO² so that you can tell the difference?
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,950
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 1:13:22 PM
gougedQC - "except there was a "la nina" from 2000-2002, and 2007-2009, and 2009-2010..which should have cooled the environment, but it got warmer anyway"
It did?
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,818
Points:1,010,580
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 10:44:01 PM
Beside Gouge - maybe some warming would be a good thing - Canada would become the worlds leading supplier of wheat when it warms up.
|
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:22,818
Points:1,010,580
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 10:42:20 PM
from idheinz linked article on May 3rd - "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
Gouge - consensus mean nothing if you cant measure and repeat the measurements. How science works is you make up a theory. You then postulate a measurement and method to prove the theory. You then actually measure the subject in the theory and see if the real world facts are accurately described or predicted by the theory. If you like the findings of fact you publish and let others examine it and try to replicate your proof.
If the real world measurements keep showing the theory is not correct in its predictions sooner or later thinking people would start to say that the theory is in error.
The facts and actual measurements of temperature have shown repeatedly that the AGW theory of increased CO² proceeding and causing a temp increase have shown that the theory is not true. The facts are not supporting the consensus wishful thinking. The acolytes who are getting huge govt grants and the folks like Al Gore are still calling heresy on anyone who would doubt them. But regardless of how much the high priests of AGW pray and burn incense at the altar of CO² ships still can sail around the world and the earth still revolves around the sun and CO² change has not been proven to affect global climate.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 9:22:09 PM
gougedQC: "except there was a "la nina" from 2000-2002, and 2007-2009, and 2009-2010..which should have cooled the environment, but it got warmer anyway..imagine if we hadnt had La Nina.."
>>"imagine if we hadnt had La Nina.."<<
Sorry gougedQC--that is not going to happen. ENSO is a naturally occurring ocean phenomenon.
(And one degree warmth per century is EXPECTED AND NORMAL.)
gougedQC: "Meanwhile scientists are concerned about rising acidification of the oceans due to added CO2 and which is increased in the Arctic because of the colder water."
So, when the global temperatures don't match their theory, let's just make up stuff about ocean acidification. They're looking for the missing heat, trying to cover their butts. I have already told you. The heat extra escaped into space.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/7/2013 9:25:07 PM EST]
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2013 7:54:42 PM
except there was a "la nina" from 2000-2002, and 2007-2009, and 2009-2010..which should have cooled the environment, but it got warmer anyway..imagine if we hadnt had La Nina..
Meanwhile scientists are concerned about rising acidification of the oceans due to added CO2 and which is increased in the Arctic because of the colder water.
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme just released their
Arctic Ocean Acidification Assessment:
Point2 of their Key Findings =
The primary driver of ocean acidification is uptake of carbon
dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by human activities
When carbon-rich materials such as coal or oil are burned (for example, at power stations), carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. Some of this gas is absorbed by the oceans, slowing its build-up in the atmosphere and thus the pace of human-induced climate warming, but at the same time increasing seawater acidity. As a result of human carbon dioxide emissions, the average acidity of surface ocean waters worldwide is now about 30% higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 1:39:55 PM
gougedQC - "fact gee this has been the warmest decade in recorded history."
rjhenn - "Which is just what you'd expect, since global climate has been warming for the last 150+ years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. "
Which is just what you'd expect, since this is the Holocene Epoch, which started 11,500 years ago, and is defined as a period of global warming between two glacial epochs. It encompasses all of modern human history, and we should be trying to prolong it, not trying to plunge ourselves into another ice age.
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,175
Points:133,425
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 11:39:13 AM
QUOTE::::Galileo was a scientist, the Vatican consisted of religious politicians who were determined to protect their positions of absolute authority and the wealth and power that came with it....
Perhaps read my earlier posting a little below:::
I did, you put your foot in it.
YOu argued that a consensus equals proof of global warming's validity. I argued that the Vatican's consensus was that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. That was a consensus. It proved nothing.
The global warming acolytes are equivalent to the Vatican of the Renaissance - determined to protect their position and feather their nest at any cost. Including truth. ANd they will burn any heretics at the stake.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 9:47:09 AM
gougedQC,
Warmest decade on record, 2012 was 9th warmest year on record, blah, blah, blah. It just doesn't matter. When we're talking hundredths of one degree, it is absolutely meaningless.
The latest: April global temperature is just 1/10 of a degree above the satellite average.
Today's global temperature is far, far, far lower than what the CO2-centric models (in green) predicted. The global temperature today is 2/10 of a degree cooler than that February Duke University graphic of recorded temperatures. (When updated, that red dot will be close to the yellow line--again--far, far, far away from what was predicted.)
So, in spite of all your scaremongering, the predicted warming is NOT occurring. Increases in storm intensities have NOT occurred, the increases in numbers of extreme storms did not occur. Increased droughts have not occurred. Increased tornadoes have not occurred. 2011 tornado outbreak was just as much an anomaly as was the outbreak of 1974. The most recent? 2013 was the QUIETEST tornado season on record. It appears you *willfully* cherry-pick the scary data to the exclusion of all the rest (especially the latest data do not fit your contrived message.)
I began my search 5 years ago--after having given the Al Gore DVD "An Inconvenient Truth" to friends/family--after having real concern that we MUST act immediately. (THAT is why I began my research.) After about a year of research, my remaining copies of Gore's DVD went into the trash.
I have posted facts after facts after more facts on this thread, which you have wantonly overlooked and ignored. You have ignored all dissenting data, to the exclusion of information that would allow you to justify continuing with your fearmongering. With as many real facts that have been presented here, facts clearly don't mean anything to you. You obviously want to be scared, you want to be worried, and any fact that gets in the way of your fears is clearly irrelevant to you.
I used to be one of you. But I have the ability to adapt to new information. You will adapt also--but not until those you have put your faith in tell you that the man-made global warming did not occur because too much pollution was blocking the Sun overpowering CO2's ability to warm the atmosphere. THAT is exactly where this is all headed. Mark my word. (And again, natural processes and cycles will be avoided and overlooked.)
A quote from a gentleman, who, if he were alive today would most likely be renouncing his economic theory:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
--John Maynard Keynes
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/6/2013 9:56:52 AM EST]
|
rjhenn
Champion Author
Des Moines
Posts:22,430
Points:2,228,950
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2013 1:09:04 AM
gougedQC - "fact gee this has been the warmest decade in recorded history."
Which is just what you'd expect, since global climate has been warming for the last 150+ years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.
|
mudtoe
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:9,489
Points:1,287,555
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: May 5, 2013 11:02:09 PM
You should read about the medieval warm period. It was a lot warmer than it is today, so warm in fact that the Vikings had settlements in Greenland, and wine grapes grew in England. And guess what, not a single internal combustion engine or coal fired power plant was to be found anywhere on the planet. Everything we are experiencing is well within the climatic range of the past few thousand years. The temperature hasn't risen in the last 15 years or so, despite more CO2 being pumped in the the atmosphere during that time than in any other 15 year period in history.
If AGW were true then the temperature should be rising ever more quickly, because every year we put more CO2 into the atmosphere than in any previous year. Yet, that's not happening. Obviously the theory has problems because the CO2 isn't causing the kind of warming that the models predicted. Therefore it can't be used to predict the future, and as such should not be used to influence policy, especially policy that would cost untold trillions of dollars and ruin whole economies. It would be like a doctor suggesting that a patient undergo chemo and radiation treatments, which cause severe damage to the body, just on the off chance that they might have cancer without there being any definitive proof. Nobody in their right mind would agree to that.
mudtoe
[Edited by: mudtoe at 5/5/2013 11:06:23 PM EST]
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 5, 2013 7:21:06 PM
somwhow you seem to have missed the fact that "modelling" decades ago predicted arctic ice melting, gee its happening,... greenland ice sheet melting, gee its happening,.... wacky weather... gee strange things happening, habitually warm places, cold, cold places warm.. massive abnormal floods, massive abnormal droughts ...fact fact fact
fact gee this has been the warmest decade in recorded history.
fact lower atmosphere warmer than it should be, upper atmosphere colder than it should be,, exactly as predicted
Galileo was a scientist, the Vatican consisted of religious politicians who were determined to protect their positions of absolute authority and the wealth and power that came with it.... and therefore were eager to eradicate any threat to that authority, real or imagined. Very similar to the tobacco companies... who trotted out thier (prostituted) scientists and studies to show there was no link to cancer and smoking, and that there was no connection to tobacco and addiction
Perhaps read my earlier posting a little below
|
mudtoe
Champion Author
Cincinnati
Posts:9,489
Points:1,287,555
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: May 5, 2013 6:55:38 PM
Hemond: "Science requires hard evidence, verifiable, and repeatable."
Exactly. And to date not a single prediction made by these computer models, the sole source that says AGW is real, have come true. When a computer model can predict average global temperature as a function of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and be right about it over a period of a decade or two, then I'd be willing to listen. It's not science unless you can use your theory to make a real world prediction about what will happen if the conditions of the theory are met (in this case ever rising CO2 levels), and then see it come true just as you predicted. So far the AGW theory is a dismal failure in the real world.
mudtoe
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,175
Points:133,425
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 4, 2013 8:48:47 AM
::::Ie: if there are is an organization of 10 scientists, 9 of whom believe strongly and completely in human caused warming, and 1 of them doesn't. There is a consensus of the group that humans cause global warming:::
If there is a Vatican council in the year 1600 that the earth is flat, and that the earth is the center of the universe, and if 9 out of 10 cardinals agree, then that is a consensus.
If Galileo or Copernicus offer evidence to the contrary, then that makes no difference to the consensus. If 9 out of 10 cardinals decide Galileo and Copernicus are heretics and will be burned at the stake, that is a consensus.
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,175
Points:133,425
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 10:06:28 PM
::::consensu: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole:::
Does not have any applicability to science. Science requires hard evidence, verifiable, and repeatable. Consensus is neither. Global warming has little hard science backing it up. Its theorems are neither repeatable, nor provable.
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 9:06:27 PM
consensu: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
Ie: if there are is an organization of 10 scientists, 9 of whom believe strongly and completely in human caused warming, and 1 of them doesn't. There is a consensus of the group that humans cause global warming
Frankly in a scientific organization, I cant believe for a nanosecond that if there actually was a majority opinion of members against AGW, that the official position could possibly be the opposite.. It is a non-sense, it is illogical, it is just not possible
consensus does not apply on an individual level, attempting to invert the meaning to an individual level is dishonest
The science of climate is so incredibly complex ie with so many variables that reaching 100% certainty will not happen until we are in very deep doo-doo
Sceintists were warming about the diminishing cod, there was a consensus, but not unanimity some scientists and of course the fish companies behind them, claimed that it was just an anomaly...there were still plenty of cod...right up until cod stocks collapsed totally, 20 years later after a moratorium there still only about 2-3% of what we had in the 70s
for decades there was consensus but no unity on the issue of smoking and cancer...tobacco companies bought off scientists to spread false research..Sociology
Disputing climate science
Monica Contestabile Nature Climate Change 3, 442 (2013)
doi:10.1038/nclimate1897
Published online 25 April 2013
Am. Behav. Sci. http://doi.org/k5r (2013)
Fossil-fuel corporations and conservative organizations in the USA have jointly campaigned to dismiss anthropogenic global warming since it appeared on the public agenda in 1988. To this end, the conservative movement has produced a range of material, including books, challenging the credibility of climate science.
**** this links to a pdf in the online of American Behavioural Scientist-
American behavioural scientist
MEANWHILE- of course heat escapes into space.. just not as much as before as shown CLEARLY by the fact that measurements of the upper atmosphere are colder than usual, colder than normal, while the lower atmosphere is warmer
Meanwhile after wading through all the articles associated with the affects of climate change such as coastal affects of sea-level rise, or another which said...**The summer sea-ice extent in the Arctic has decreased in recent decades, a feature that has become one of the most distinct signals of the continuing climate change**
and although it was difficult to find the article apparently alluded to..especially since there were so many on the effects of climate change and yes AGW..
but I think the article you linked to, once again distorted the truth. the real article abstract from Nature Climate Change is below-
you will note the first line...the countries try to limit fossil fuel consumption to limit GG ( humans=global warming)
They note a slowing during the financial crisis..(duh) and add the inconsistency is an artefact due to previous underestimating of GG from years earlier. However they propose an alternative to explain this anomaly to -yes- anthropogenic warming
Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends
Roger J. Francey, Cathy M. Trudinger, Marcel van der Schoot, Rachel M. Law,Paul B. Krummel,Ray L. Langenfelds,L. Paul Steele,Colin E. Allison,Ann R. Stavert,Robert J. Andres & Christian Rödenbeck
Nature Climate Change3,520–524(2013)doi:10.1038/nclimate1817
Received 26 July 2012 Accepted 07 January 2013 Published online 10 February 2013
Abstract
International efforts to limit global warming and ocean acidification aim to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2, guided primarily by national and industry estimates of production and consumption of fossil fuels. Atmospheric verification of emissions is vital but present global inversion methods are inadequate for this purpose. We demonstrate a clear response in atmospheric CO2 coinciding with a sharp 2010 increase in Asian emissions but show persisting slowing mean CO2 growth from 2002/03. Growth and inter-hemispheric concentration difference during the onset and recovery of the Global Financial Crisis support a previous speculation that the reported 2000–2008 emissions surge is an artefact, most simply explained by a cumulative underestimation (~ 9?Pg?C) of 1994–2007 emissions; in this case, post-2000 emissions would track mid-range of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission scenarios. An alternative explanation requires changes in the northern terrestrial land sink that offset anthropogenic emission changes. We suggest atmospheric methods to help resolve this ambiguity.
In summary, it looks like twice now you`ve cited hacks who have twisted the actual information. Going to the source reveals the opposite, and supports the idea of AGW.
BTW- the sociology study shows how the majority of `denial`articles and books are put out by non-scientists supported by agencies with a financial interest and goal to protect the status quo.
[Edited by: gougedQC at 5/3/2013 9:08:13 PM EST]
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 2:09:06 PM
I realized that this topic never heard about Michael Crichton's Caltech lecture on how Aliens Cause Global Warming. Check it out. It's an entertaining and informative read.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 12:41:45 PM
"It either is or isn't happening, plan accordingly."
Decades of radiosonde tests and satellite data continue to reveal that heat continues to escape into space as it always has. (No trapped heat, no valid AGW hypothesis.) The UN IPCC has recently acknowledged that their projections--from the first report in 1990 to the last report in 2007 (FAR, SAR, TAR and AR4) have all overestimated climate sensitivity to CO2.
Another paper, recently published in "Nature Climate Change" demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels--not man-made CO2
"The data demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels due to ocean outgassing, man-made CO2 does not drive temperature, and that man is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels."
---------------------------------------------------------------
But let's assume it were all true (the global warming predictions), the IPCC's own data, from their own formulas, show there is nothing that we could do to stop it. (Again, the IPCC has overestimated climate sensitivity for over two decades, so it isn't all true). But let's just assume it were (all true):
"Even if the IPCC is right, and even if climate change IS happening and it IS caused by man, we are STILL better off adapting to it as it happens than we are trying to 'stop' it. 'Action' is 50 times more expensive than 'adaptation', and that's a conclusion which is derived directly from the IPCC's own predictions and formulae!"
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/3/2013 12:43:27 PM EST]
|
StArrow68
Champion Author
Oakland
Posts:3,249
Points:1,359,455
Joined:Apr 2003
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 12:00:02 PM
So much band width with so little impact. It either is or isn't happening, plan accordingly.
|
Hemond
Champion Author
Providence
Posts:8,175
Points:133,425
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 9:54:16 AM
::::There you go again with that oxymoron, "scientific consensus". Consensus is a POLITICAL concept. It has no part in SCIENCE.:::
Correct, consensus has no part in science. The word is alien in science. In science, either it is, or it isn't. There is no middle ground for shades of truth. There is no such thing as a gray area.
Global warming is about as far from established science as one can get. It is a theory, a theory full of gaping holes. A theory developed from computer modeling. The models so far have not been corroborated in real world observation.
|
ldheinz
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,024
Points:2,357,895
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 9:12:58 AM
gougedQC - "There is a strong scientific consensus"
There you go again with that oxymoron, "scientific consensus". Consensus is a POLITICAL concept. It has no part in SCIENCE. If it's science, consensus is irrelevant. If it's consensus, it's not science.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 8:36:48 AM
gougedQC, you're confusing the official AMS position from what the AMS' actual membership believe. In the February 2012 George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication Poll that I linked to, conducted under the auspices of AMS Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication (CICCC), there is no consensus on global warming among AMS membership.
The 2012 poll found that although a slight majority (59%) believe warming is caused by man, only 38% believe it's a problem. That's a far cry from consensus.
You may want to actually read the 2012 survey, as well as the summary of 2010 AMS survey. They're both eye-openers.
By looking only at official positions of these organizations, the real picture is hidden. In poll after poll of actual members of these societies, an entirely different picture has emerged--the consensus unravels.
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/3/2013 8:45:52 AM EST]
|
gougedQC
Champion Author
Montreal
Posts:5,130
Points:69,885
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: May 3, 2013 6:45:25 AM
Alas MINI I did not forget the AMS disagrees with the WMO...and that's because unfortunately for you, the AMS actually DOES agree with the WMO. and actually DOES blame human activity..
-below is not some hack claiming things, but from the actual AMS website====
Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)
Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea levelWhy is climate changing?
Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.
|
ministorage
Champion Author
Louisville
Posts:9,220
Points:818,970
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: May 2, 2013 9:59:28 PM
gougedQC, So, when you can't argue the facts, you go with the Trident fallacy that 4 out 5 dentists agree stuff again...
Did you forget to mention that the AMS disagrees with the WMO? Or that the majority of geoscientists and engineers are man-made global warming skeptics who DO NOT BELIEVE that humans are creating a global warming crisis?
According to the peer-reviewed Organization Studies, 64 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a serious problem.
You forgot to mention the 2010 survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that contradicts the claims that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis.
You also forgot to mention the 2012 AMS Survey that yields similar results of skepticism of any present or future man-made global warming
So much for your scientific consensus of geoscientists and meteorologists.
Yes, there are "*lots more avail"
[Edited by: ministorage at 5/2/2013 10:04:43 PM EST]
|