Global warming?
- Thread starter MCary
- Start date
- Status
greenbean36191
Premium Member
They aren't going down but they aren't following CO2 increase directly because CO2 is only one of many factors that affects global temperature. No one who actually understands AGW theory is making the claim that the opposite is true or that any single factor exhibits total control over the climate system.
What he said is absolutely right. Global warming does not mean that everywhere will get warmer. Places like the UK and central Antarctica could become colder and dryer while places like Florida or Southern California could become warmer and wetter. Local weather depends heavily on the circulation of heat and moisture from the oceans and atmosphere and changing the heat input or paths of circulation changes the weather patterns (think of a permanent El Nino or La Nina). However, while some places will cool, the overall trend for the planet will be warming. So no, not all weather variation is evidence for AGW and in fact no weather variation is evidence for any theory.
(emphasis is my own)
Agreed. Parts of Antarctica (mostly in the interior) becoming colder does not conflict with AGWs predictions, nor do 2 or even ten years of hurricanes in a single region (the US). Due to the geographic and temporal scales neither one can prove or disprove anything, nor did AGW ever make predictions that would be violated by the observations. As far as the temperature change, sure over geologic history .74 degrees of increase is well within the natural variation. The fact that .74 degrees of warming have occurred in the last 150 years is alarming because almost all of it occurred in the last 100 years and in the last 30 years the rate has been above 0.15 degrees of warming per decade. That's far from usual. That rate hasn't been seen in about 10,000 years.
I had internet connect problems bean so my responses to your questions of my bonifides, especially in statistics went unanswered. I am an expert in statistics. Besides applying them hundreds of times a day, I have had numerous courses on them in college. Your application of them is misguided and your suggestion that we cannot prove things with science is, well...., I guess crap is the best word. But I can't blame you for your ignorance with the quality of professors today. True science should be hard science. But everyone today wants to be creative and explore feeeeeeeeelings. So we can't definitively say that 2+2=4, that disparages the ones who think its 5.
But I digress, the reason I'm posting is this:
I don't know what your arguing anymore. If your saying that CO2 put into the atmosphere can possibly affect the planets climate to a unknown degree, then fine, you could be right, let's so stipulate. I doubt that anyone cares to even disagree with that. If that was all there was to it, then the whole debate of AGW would be a footnote in a science journal.
Unfortunately, if that's the argument of a scientist, it has gotten a little off course by "those of no clue". Because what I get from the current argument, Ted Turner included, is that we're heading for canabalism. Rapid climate change, deadly hurricanes, new desserts, New York underwater.
You say the reason Antartica has more ice is because of increased precipitation. Let forget for a moment that that statement is about greenland and antartica is actually the largest dessert on the planet with <1 inch of precip a year. The fact that it has 95% of the worlds ice should keep New York above ground for a while shouldn't it? I mean if its expanding for whatever reason. Right?
And of course the last part of your post was again propaganda you must have heard because it is not at all true. On of the major stumbling blocks of the AGW alarmists was the presence of the midevil warm period. A period of time much warmer than today. It was one of the reasons Mann's graph was so popular. He found away to not show it. It had been a thorn in the side of the AGW alarmists for years. Tree rings, sorry, makes you laugh. A guy looks at tree rings and overwrites known data. I still love how you guys on that side explain away the reading on a thermometer. Or any other measuring equipment. Like I said, its like arguing with the Monty Python's Black Knight. "I cut off your arm" "No, you didn't" It's lying right there" "It's just a scratch"
Mike
But I digress, the reason I'm posting is this:
I don't know what your arguing anymore. If your saying that CO2 put into the atmosphere can possibly affect the planets climate to a unknown degree, then fine, you could be right, let's so stipulate. I doubt that anyone cares to even disagree with that. If that was all there was to it, then the whole debate of AGW would be a footnote in a science journal.
Unfortunately, if that's the argument of a scientist, it has gotten a little off course by "those of no clue". Because what I get from the current argument, Ted Turner included, is that we're heading for canabalism. Rapid climate change, deadly hurricanes, new desserts, New York underwater.
You say the reason Antartica has more ice is because of increased precipitation. Let forget for a moment that that statement is about greenland and antartica is actually the largest dessert on the planet with <1 inch of precip a year. The fact that it has 95% of the worlds ice should keep New York above ground for a while shouldn't it? I mean if its expanding for whatever reason. Right?
And of course the last part of your post was again propaganda you must have heard because it is not at all true. On of the major stumbling blocks of the AGW alarmists was the presence of the midevil warm period. A period of time much warmer than today. It was one of the reasons Mann's graph was so popular. He found away to not show it. It had been a thorn in the side of the AGW alarmists for years. Tree rings, sorry, makes you laugh. A guy looks at tree rings and overwrites known data. I still love how you guys on that side explain away the reading on a thermometer. Or any other measuring equipment. Like I said, its like arguing with the Monty Python's Black Knight. "I cut off your arm" "No, you didn't" It's lying right there" "It's just a scratch"
Mike
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Well, don't ever trust a medical doctor then, you who are a medical laboratory scientist. Bit ironic isn't it?
Oh, thanks Richard, my bad.
Hippie, I missed your point, sorry. Explain further the doctor analagy. If your question is "do I trust doctors?" Not really that much. Working with them I can tell you that there are as many boneheads in the field as any other carreer. The difference is they're rarely challenged or supervised. Get a second opinion and bring your wallet.
My point was about statistics. The first thing a person should learn about statistics is their limitations. Idiom: Correlation does not show causation.
If a survey of a community that lives near high voltage lines shows 3x the cancer rate, does that mean that high voltage lines cause cancer? Absolutely not, maybe the smoking rate of the community is 3x, or maybe they are asbestos miners or have a toxic water supply.
A poor community is shown to have a life expectancy 10 years less than the neighboring rich community. Does that mean poor communities are more at risk for health problems? What if during the survey there was a school bus accident and many children were killed?
Statistics only analyse and present data. They do not prove anything and are not intended to. They are often abused. Like my favorite. Mann's graph. Supportive data that was outside 3sd's and should have been discarded were acually weighted to give them 340x the value.
Mike
Hippie, I missed your point, sorry. Explain further the doctor analagy. If your question is "do I trust doctors?" Not really that much. Working with them I can tell you that there are as many boneheads in the field as any other carreer. The difference is they're rarely challenged or supervised. Get a second opinion and bring your wallet.
My point was about statistics. The first thing a person should learn about statistics is their limitations. Idiom: Correlation does not show causation.
If a survey of a community that lives near high voltage lines shows 3x the cancer rate, does that mean that high voltage lines cause cancer? Absolutely not, maybe the smoking rate of the community is 3x, or maybe they are asbestos miners or have a toxic water supply.
A poor community is shown to have a life expectancy 10 years less than the neighboring rich community. Does that mean poor communities are more at risk for health problems? What if during the survey there was a school bus accident and many children were killed?
Statistics only analyse and present data. They do not prove anything and are not intended to. They are often abused. Like my favorite. Mann's graph. Supportive data that was outside 3sd's and should have been discarded were acually weighted to give them 340x the value.
Mike
Yeah that is a great graph. Purdy. This is a nice one too...
And this one is great...
I got these somewhere, like bean did. I'll bet either of us can get pages of graphs to show anything we want. Why? Because temperture measurement is extremely complicated. What do you measure? Where do you measure? Where did the historical data come from? What instruments were used? Were they calibrated correctly?
When your driving sometime watch you car thermometer. It'll change by the mile. And remember, they're talking in most cases of tenths or even one hundredths of a degree. And to make it even more confusing, Beans graph wasn't even temps but temp anomalies.
And of course with graphs there's scaling, weighed averages, a hundred different trend line calculations etc etc.
This all means absolutely nothing. Graphs mean nothing, temps mean nothing, theories mean nothing. The only meaningful thing is the predictions! Is the dire predictions of the effects of AGW turning out to be true? This we can measure. Has sea levels risen? No Have there been new desserts created? No Have species been destroyed? Dispite what you heard about polar bears and walruses, it was a lie, the answer is No. Have there been increased and more powerful hurricanes? No
Effects of going green?
World starvation.
Light bulbs whose mercury content (of a single bulb) can contaminate 6000 gallons of water.
No new oil exploration.
No nuclear
and the worst thing of all... A crappy hybrid car that takes 50 miles to get to highway speed and cost a heck of alot for a golf cart.
Mike
virginiadiver69
New member
A complete list of things caused by global warming
A complete list of things caused by global warming
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
It's getting bad out there folks. Can cannibalism really be that far behind? :lol:
Oh, by the way...I was at Home Depot today and noticed their big "green week" display (There's money on that band wagon). It was full of cf bulbs and other silly stuff.
Has anyone else noticed the massive amount of plastic those bulbs are entombed in? :eek2:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
It's getting bad out there folks. Can cannibalism really be that far behind? :lol:
Oh, by the way...I was at Home Depot today and noticed their big "green week" display (There's money on that band wagon). It was full of cf bulbs and other silly stuff.
Has anyone else noticed the massive amount of plastic those bulbs are entombed in? :eek2:
Last edited:
Get off work and immediately go after Bill. I need a life. But...
Two things, first of all, if your going to argue a 30 year cycle, then yes, you would go from peak to peak. 1998 being the last peak. In a cycle, once there is a peak a downward trend and then a trough. It is not only understandable but logical.
Second, if there is a direct correllation between anthro. CO2 and temps then the temp should continure to rise with CO2. If CO2 goes up, but temps go down, then we have a problem with the theory.
okay three things...1998 was touted as proof of global warming. Us skeptics just reloaded with the same ammunition and fired back.
Mike
osprey77
New member
global warming = marketing gold, wish i had though of it first. In college I was an archaeologist, we studied the last 10k + years, there is so much variation and a huge amount of time that we only have emperical (sp) data for. Try not to be wasteful, don't take more than you need, and as mark twain said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp
The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.
Actually, global warming is likely to continueâ€"but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300â€"œ1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950â€"œ1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BCâ€"œ 600 AD).
The stutter in the temperature rise should rein in some of the more apoplectic cries of panic over man-made greenhouse emissions. The strong 28-year upward trend of 1970â€"œ1998 has apparently ended.
Fred Singer, a well-known skeptic on man-made warming, points out that the latest cooling trend is dictated primarily by a very warm El Nino year in 1998. “When you start your graph with 1998,†he says, “you will necessarily get a cooling trend.â€Â
Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist from Australia, notes that the earth also had strong global warming between 1918 and 1940. Then there was a long cooling period from 1940 to 1965. He points out that the current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2. Then the planet cooled for 35 years just after the CO2 levels really began to surge. In fact, says Carter, there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between temperatures and man-made CO2.
The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.
Actually, global warming is likely to continueâ€"but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300â€"œ1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950â€"œ1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BCâ€"œ 600 AD).
The stutter in the temperature rise should rein in some of the more apoplectic cries of panic over man-made greenhouse emissions. The strong 28-year upward trend of 1970â€"œ1998 has apparently ended.
Fred Singer, a well-known skeptic on man-made warming, points out that the latest cooling trend is dictated primarily by a very warm El Nino year in 1998. “When you start your graph with 1998,†he says, “you will necessarily get a cooling trend.â€Â
Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist from Australia, notes that the earth also had strong global warming between 1918 and 1940. Then there was a long cooling period from 1940 to 1965. He points out that the current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2. Then the planet cooled for 35 years just after the CO2 levels really began to surge. In fact, says Carter, there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between temperatures and man-made CO2.
Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack â€" in the face of all the predictions of global warming.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.
That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded â€" up or down.
Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity â€" which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.
That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded â€" up or down.
Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity â€" which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Astronaut Warns of Global Cooling, Possible Ice Age
Carbon Confidential....
In the United States, it is known as the winter that won't end. Record snowfalls, gloomy, cloudy, cold days ... no wonder more and more people are questioning the manmade global warming theory. Add rising energy prices--partly caused by the crippling of our political will to drill for oil and gas and mine and liquify coal--and it is only a matter of time before people will be pelting Al Gore and other climate change charlatans with snowballs.
According to Phil Chapman, the the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, there will be plenty of snow. Now a San Francisco-based geophysicist, Chapman asserts that people should prepare themselves for possible global cooling and a "little ice age." Writing in The Australian, he says the Earth's average temperature has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade -- and that all four tracking agencies report it "cooled by about 0.7C in 2007." That, he says, is the "fastest temperature change in the instrumental record."
Back to 1930
Chapman: "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."
He adds that a little ice age would be "much more harmful than anything warming may do", but still benign by comparison with the severe glaciation that for the past several million years has almost always blighted the planet.
He concludes: "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake."
Astronaut Warns of Global Cooling, Possible Ice Age
Carbon Confidential....
In the United States, it is known as the winter that won't end. Record snowfalls, gloomy, cloudy, cold days ... no wonder more and more people are questioning the manmade global warming theory. Add rising energy prices--partly caused by the crippling of our political will to drill for oil and gas and mine and liquify coal--and it is only a matter of time before people will be pelting Al Gore and other climate change charlatans with snowballs.
According to Phil Chapman, the the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, there will be plenty of snow. Now a San Francisco-based geophysicist, Chapman asserts that people should prepare themselves for possible global cooling and a "little ice age." Writing in The Australian, he says the Earth's average temperature has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade -- and that all four tracking agencies report it "cooled by about 0.7C in 2007." That, he says, is the "fastest temperature change in the instrumental record."
Back to 1930
Chapman: "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."
He adds that a little ice age would be "much more harmful than anything warming may do", but still benign by comparison with the severe glaciation that for the past several million years has almost always blighted the planet.
He concludes: "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake."
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12404970#post12404970 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MCary
Yeah that is a great graph. Purdy. This is a nice one too...
And this one is great...
I got these somewhere, like bean did. I'll bet either of us can get pages of graphs to show anything we want. Why? Because temperture measurement is extremely complicated. What do you measure? Where do you measure? Where did the historical data come from? What instruments were used? Were they calibrated correctly?
When your driving sometime watch you car thermometer. It'll change by the mile. And remember, they're talking in most cases of tenths or even one hundredths of a degree. And to make it even more confusing, Beans graph wasn't even temps but temp anomalies.
And of course with graphs there's scaling, weighed averages, a hundred different trend line calculations etc etc.
This all means absolutely nothing. Graphs mean nothing, temps mean nothing, theories mean nothing. The only meaningful thing is the predictions! Is the dire predictions of the effects of AGW turning out to be true? This we can measure. Has sea levels risen? No Have there been new desserts created? No Have species been destroyed? Dispite what you heard about polar bears and walruses, it was a lie, the answer is No. Have there been increased and more powerful hurricanes? No
Effects of going green?
World starvation.
Light bulbs whose mercury content (of a single bulb) can contaminate 6000 gallons of water.
No new oil exploration.
No nuclear
and the worst thing of all... A crappy hybrid car that takes 50 miles to get to highway speed and cost a heck of alot for a golf cart.
Mike
Come on dude, haven't we gone over this before? show your same graphs with 20 years or more. If this cooling continues for another 10 years then I will happily eat my words. If I am not depressed at the death of the reefs that is.
Yes sea levels are continuing to rise.
Deserts are continuing to be created, but mostly due to deforestation.
Some species have been destroyed already and there are plenty more on the way.
Your effects of going green is quite amusing.
Just how is the world going to starve?
CFL's have very little mercury in them. But I promise not to dispose of them in my water supply. Just ignore the fact that coal fired power plants are the main cause of mercury pollution in the environment. Not to mention many other dangerous chemicals.
We shouldn't need any more oil exploration. We should be changing the way we live to value oil more. This stuff is full of great chemicals and we go and burn it? future generations will look at us and think we are idiots.
No nuclear is a great aspect of going green. How is going nuclear good for anyone? (excepting companies in the industry of course)
There are some better hybrids on the way, or maybe you can get a sporty electric car if you really need one. Hybrids have ok performance now anyway if you compare them to similar size cars.
Well let see, it would greatly reduce the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. It's a technology that is safe and more importantly it already exists. The fact that global warming activists have always been against nuclear has always been proof to me that they do not actually believe their own dire predictions of global disaster due to manmade global warming. If you actually believed that global disaster was going to occur in only a couple of decades then you would be screaming to go nuclear instead of talking about inventing some new feel good technology which could never be developed and implemented in the short amount of time the greenies say we have left before the end of the world.
- Status
Similar threads
