BS: Where's the Global Warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 01:37 PM

A bit more reading for you BB -

Google - solar variation global warming

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 10 - 12:17 PM

Snail,

"The UK's National Weather Service. A Trading Fund within the Ministry of Defence, operating on a commercial basis under set targets."

No vested intersts there, I guess...



TIA,

CHeck those statements- they refer ( in the cases I looked at) to SOLAR SUNSPOTS, not to the LONG-TERM variability of the sun. If you think that is not significant, please refer to any period prior to the last 200,000 years, when the average temperatures were greater- and even YOU will have a problem blaming that on MAN-MADE greenhouse gasses.

So the explanation for the melting of the Martian ice cap, and the major changes ( after over 300 years of observed stability) of the atmosphere of Jupiter are ????

I think 300 years is greater than 120 years, but I presume you will correct me in order to prove your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 May 10 - 11:22 AM

The evidence in the scientific literature against Sol being a major contributor to recetn climate change can only be described as overwhelming. Here is a summary from SkepticalScience, which provides links to the papers themselves so you can read them rather than believing me or John Cook (even though he has a post-grad degree in Solar Physics)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


•Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
•Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
•Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
•Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
•Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
•Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
•Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
•Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
•Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
•Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
•Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
•Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
•Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
•Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
•Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
•Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 10 - 04:50 AM

According to Sawzaw here the US Department of Defense are issuing deliberately misleading evidence and according to beardedbruce above the UK Met Office, which is part of the Ministry of Defence, is a propaganda site. It would seem that the global military/industrial complex is part of the conspiracy. Of course we only have their word for it about the changes on Mars and Jupiter.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 May 10 - 09:04 PM

"I did not see any explanation that includes the changes on Mars and Jupiter. Maybe this is just another propaganda site. "

When you act the fool in a serious discussion, don't complain when you are treated that way in all seriousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 May 10 - 08:23 PM

beardedbruce

I did not see any explanation that includes the changes on Mars and Jupiter. Maybe this is just another propaganda site.

Wow! You read the whole site in eleven mimutes? REEEESPECT!

Met Office: Who we are

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 10 - 07:55 PM

I did not see any explanation that includes the changes on Mars and Jupiter. Maybe this is just another propaganda site.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 May 10 - 07:44 PM

beardedbruce

The important thing about climate change caused by global warming is that nothing here has talked about the SOURCE OF THE WARMING.

Try this -
Met Office: Key climate change facts

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:13 PM

The important thing about climate change caused by global warming is that nothing here has talked about the SOURCE OF THE WARMING.

If the sun, which is a variable star, has changed t's output, as all evidence indicates, it is a waste of effort, and futile, to expect any changes in MAN-MADE greenhouse gases to STOP CLIMATE CHANGE- Yet that is what is being pushed.

The need is to ACCOMODATE climate change, by adjusting to it, not by denying that it is going to happen regardless of what mankind does.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 May 10 - 02:07 PM

Link to a report on what Amos said on Science Daily. The important thing about climate change caused by global warming is that the warming is global, not local, and that local effects might very well NOT be warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 10 - 10:45 AM

Two separate sources of temperature data – the National Climatic Data Center and NASA – report that, through April, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded.


The climate center (NCDC) reports that the Earth's combined land and ocean average surface temperature from January-April was 56 degrees, which is 1.24 degrees above the 20th-century average.

El Nino -- a periodic natural warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- is partly to blame for the unusual warmth.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies also reports that 2010, so far, is the warmest out of 131 years. Both NCDC and NASA use data that goes back to 1880.

Last month, NASA issued a report that predicted 2010 would likely end up as the warmest year on record, due to the combintation of global warming and El Nino. The report states that "a new record global temperature, for the period with instrumental measurements, should be set within the next few months as the effects of the recent and current moderate El Nino continue."

In the USA, the weather so far this year has been very odd, with the three northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont) having their warmest year on record, while Florida shivers through its coldest year ever.

April itself was also unusually warm, as the Earth had its warmest April on record.

The climate center says that warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe in April, with the most prominent warmth in Canada, Alaska, the eastern United States, Australia, South Asia, northern Africa and northern Russia. Cooler-than-normal places included Mongolia, Argentina, far eastern Russia, the western contiguous United States and most of China.

(USA Today Science)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 May 10 - 08:07 AM

"MUST be due to man-made CO2, right???"

When you act the fool in a serious discussion, don't complain when you are treated that way in all seriousness...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 May 10 - 12:59 AM

Re the sea ice - all science is based on 'best guesses', and then scrabbling around (while the know all ignorant fools laugh at them) trying to find out what they didn't know and what assumptions were wrong. It now appears that the gadgets used to make measurements of sea ice didn't exactly work the way they thought they did - this is scientific progress, and why it is best not to go rushing headlong down paths that may kill us long term, eg why some scientists were highly antagonistic re nuclear things that go bang, and things that just sizzled...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 May 10 - 11:56 PM

Holding my breath...
Can't...hold...much...longer....aaachhhh.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 May 10 - 10:23 PM

That is a nice cherry pick Dunning-Kroger. Now let's look at ice volume versus ice areal extent. I am sure you can find a plot of volume versus time, but I bet you will not be posting a link to that in this thread.

But, I will wait....

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 May 10 - 06:59 PM

Sawzaw

For example, Al Gore and Pachauri.

ANd, presumably, according to your previous post, the Department of Defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 May 10 - 05:16 PM

"Yes, I am well aware that the oil companies will oppose anything they think threatens their financial interests, and will lie and cheat and spread false propaganda. And so will other people too"

For example, Al Gore and Pachauri.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:47 PM

"Human activities, however, ARE a major factor in causing massive environmental damage to topsoil, forests, waterways, oceans, the air we breathe, animal and plant species, and our own health!!!!

Well,have you not considered that all those human impacts you noted has an impact on climate? For exammple, the ocean, which pepresents the big part of the Earths surface, is a major player in climate...and even more so than terrestrial surfaces. Phytoplankton, produced at the ocean surface takes up atmospheric carbon,and the ocean stores it, in cases for thousands of years. The oceans have a tremendous capacity to absorb and store atmospheric heat. Global cceans circulation and currents transfer heat from one area of the Earth to others. Evaporating sea water is an important part of our hydrological cycle and weather generation (just look at El Nino). Human influences on the ocean can have a major impact on climate, and many of these aspects are inter-related and can (and, likely is) impacted by broad based human activities. Generally, we treat our waterways and seas as garbage dumps.

Not that long ago, fishermen and the public said we could never make a impact on global fish stocks....because they were so vast and had a limitless capacity to adjust to right our wrongs. Well, they were wrong and many major fish stoocks have either seriously declined, or are decimated. Just look at the ulf of Mexico today and say humans have no negative impact on important ecosystems that can have many far field effects.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 13 May 10 - 04:33 PM

"According to the data at JAXA, as of 4/23/10, there was 4.69% more Arctic sea ice (13649531 km2) than the 2003-2009 average (13038058 km2)"   Just how far down did these folks look in the Arctic ocean, hod did they measure the thickness and quality of the ice? ... What seems to occur on the Arctic sea surface (speculated in an office from satellite ovservation) is only a small part of the whole story of how much sea ice is in the arctic and what state it is actually in...as noted from scientific research I posted a day or so ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 May 10 - 02:22 PM

Interesting, Sawzaw. What do you conclude from this fascinating information?

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 13 May 10 - 01:30 PM

More "random, cherry picked" data:

Will a tour of the North Pole by dog sledge be possible?
JAXA Aug 11, 2005:

...Last year, scientists of the Department of Defense issued a drastic prediction that the whole sea ice of the Arctic Ocean may melt away during the summer of the year 2010...

---

According to the data at JAXA, as of 4/23/10, there was 4.69% more Arctic sea ice (13649531 km2) than the 2003-2009 average (13038058 km2).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:48 PM

MUST be due to man-made CO2, right???

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:51 PM

Yeah, okay, TIA. I'm sure you have done your utmost to seek out reliable info. I have no problem with that. I'm not questioning your motives at all. I think you are absolutely sincere. And so am I.

I think all of us here are absolutely sincere in our statements about climate change.

Yes, I am well aware that the oil companies will oppose anything they think threatens their financial interests, and will lie and cheat and spread false propaganda. And so will other people too...I said before that I think there are people spreading disinformation on both sides of this particular issue, meaning people in high places.

I wasn't implying that those people were on Mudcat.

Sure...PM me your references. I'll take a look when I have time. Right now I really don't have a lot for the next few days, but I'll get to it presently.

Foolestroupe - I'm sure that human activities and cattle emissions have some effect on the climate. I never said they have no effect on it. I just don't think it's a major factor in causing climate change. Human activities, however, ARE a major factor in causing massive environmental damage to topsoil, forests, waterways, oceans, the air we breathe, animal and plant species, and our own health!!!! Those are matters that very much concern me.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:33 PM

LH-

This line struck me.

"We just make the best guesses or conclusions we can, based on a ton of stuff we've heard from the media and from various "authoritative sources""

I would never spout credentials because it only invites derision (and disbelief...we can all anoint ourselves as whatever the hell we want).

But, believe me, I do not get my "stuff" from the media, nor from authoritative sources. I get it from carefully placed and calibrated instruments, and from migration patterns, and the timing of reproductive cycles, and from isotopic ratios in the rock and ice record, and from quantitatively documented changes in the configuration of landforms.

All of this is not making me rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Sadly, as proud as you are of being non-conformist, and free-thinking, you have drunk the Kool-aid. You have joined the team of the true monied interests. I really don't know you except from your writings for the last ten years, but I am disheartened by your position on this issue. Perhaps you are disheartened by mine. Fair enough.

But then, I re-read this statement of yours, and I am restored:
"I laugh, because I know that NONE of us here know for 100 per cent certain"

Yup. Science is never 100% certain. 100% certainty in anything places it squarely outside the realm of science. Science is all about questioning authority. So, okay, now I am sad again, because you have bought the line paid for by EXXON, BP, Ashland Coal, etc. When I start making the profits they make, you can legitimately start to question my monetary motives. Deal?

BTW, the whole "it's the sun" thing has a mountain of evidence against it. If you are truly one to change their mind based on reading, I am happy to send the references (note, I did not say "post the links"; reading on the internet gaurantees bias).

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 May 10 - 10:30 PM

"questioning how and why it is occuring, and suggesting that people are being misled on that basis by a huge media campaign that has focused primarily on human-created carbon emissions"

Questioning is how science works. I prefer a little basic logic - mankind - and his farming animals that produce various gases - have increased how many thousand times recently? To claim that could have zero effect just seems a little naive to me. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 10 - 09:17 PM

I understand that perfectly, Foolestroupe. I am NOT saying that global warming is not occuring. Neither are most of the other critics of the current most popular theory. I am questioning how and why it is occuring, and suggesting that people are being misled on that basis by a huge media campaign that has focused primarily on human-created carbon emissions...rather than solar effects upon Planet Earth.

We can't do anything about the Sun's behaviour. However, we can do something about helping present societies adapt to rapid climate change, and that is where our attention should be focused.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:05 PM

Australia is now in for a cold winter. The El Nino/El Nina cycle has now tipped again. The turbulence in the global system deceives those hear 'warm' in the term GW and do not under understand the science.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:48 PM

Either one of us might be right or wrong about the primary or significant causes of global warming, TIA. ;-) I don't know for sure, because I'm not God. (I have not yet become infallible or ominiscient...)

My point was that most people never change their minds about anything at all....they just go on fanatically defending their original point of view forever and ever and despising and disparaging the opposing points of view forever and ever. Why? Well, because they've got sensitive little raging egos, that's why....and they couldn't possibly have ever been WRONG about something, could they????? Hell, no! They'd rather die than ever change their minds about anything, specially when it comes to political or social issues.

Accordingly, you will hear them beating the same old damned drums forever and ever. It's as predictable as the rain in Slough...    ;-D

I laugh, because I know that NONE of us here know for 100 per cent certain what we are talking about when it comes to global warming and what are its primary causes. We just make the best guesses or conclusions we can, based on a ton of stuff we've heard from the media and from various "authoritative sources" (who are working for we don't know whom...nor do we know what influence they are put under). We make the best guess or estimate we can...based on the partial (and often very biased) information we have been given.

Any one of us here may be right....or wrong...or partially right and partially wrong.

And I know it.

I also know that lying and propaganda are not limited to just one side of the common political divide (the Right and the Left). They happen all the time on BOTH sides of that political divide.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 May 10 - 09:28 PM

"The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers." Erich Fromm

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 09:20 PM

"That is why the usual springtime tornado activity in the US this year is way below normal"

22 Today! 22 Today! 22 Today!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 May 10 - 07:43 PM

LH
Bully for you that you changed your mind. You may proudly wear that badge of honor.
Does that mean that you are in any fashion at all more likely to be correct?
Not bloody likely.
I am really happy you've done a lot of reading recently.
I have been doing Earth Science since the early 1980's and have zero, zip, nada monied interest in the outcome of the global warming debate.
But you have changed your mind, so I better think again.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 07:32 PM

"LH: I changed my mind based on a lot of reading I did"

That's cool, but when reactionary idiots set out to deliberately increase energy consumption by wastefully using more energy by running unneeded appliance, etc etc etc so as to deliberately counter efforts by those who are trying to reduce, it's just as puerile as the school yard bully... and gains little respect in the long run (typo alert: I had typed ruin)!!!.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 May 10 - 06:11 PM

(BTW, MY is multi year)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ed T
Date: 11 May 10 - 02:37 PM

One can see (in a research summary below) how mistakes can and have been made in estimates of sea ice cover in the Arctic. People often quickly latch onto a first media report, (for example that Arctic sea ice is increasing) and make broad assumptions from that... then do not follow up on later research. In this case, further research shows that information from satellites were giving false readings. This often fuels comspiracy theories.

The perennial pack ice in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as it appeared in the summer of 2009:
In situ observations from CCGS Amundsen indicate that the MY sea icescape in the southern Beaufort Sea was not as ubiquitous as it appeared in satellite remote sensing (Figure 1) in early September 2009. A large sector of what was remotely sensed to be MY sea ice at 7 to 9 tenths ice cover, consisting primarily of large to vast MY ice floes, was in fact a surface of heavily decayed ice composed of some small MY floes (1 tenth) interspersed in a cover dominated by heavily decayed FY floes (4 tenths) and overlain by new sea ice in areas of negative freeboard and in open water between floes. In some areas (e.g., stations L1 and MYI: Figure 1) the ocean surface was dominated in some areas by MY sea ice that was much thicker than the heavily decayed FY sea ice previously discussed. This case of mistaken identity is physically explained by the factors which contribute to the return to Radarsat-1 from the two surfaces; both ice regimes had similar temperature and salinity profiles in the near-surface volume, both ice types existed with a similar amount of open water between and within the floes, and finally both ice regimes were overlain by similar, recently formed new sea ice in areas of negative freeboard and in open water areas. The fact that these two very different ice regimes could not be differentiated using Radarsat-1 data or in situ C-band scatterometer or microwave radiometer measurements, has significant implications for climate studies

and for marine vessel navigation in the Canada Basin. The results also suggest that operational agencies (such as the CIS) should consider making ice decay a variable in their ice charts. The presence of this rotten ice regime in the centre and western limit of the Beaufort pack ice allows for wind generated swells to penetrate far into the last remaining MY ice along the Canadian Archipelago further weakening the continuity of the MY pack (Asplin et al. 2010). Our results are consistent with ice age estimates (Fowler and Maslanik, http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html) that show the amount of MY sea ice in the northern hemisphere was the lowest on record in 2009 suggesting that MY sea ice continues to diminish rapidly in the Canada Basin even thought 2009 aerial extent increased over that of 2007 and 2008.

(David G. Barber1, Ryan Galley1, Matthew G. Asplin1, Roger De Abreu4, Kerri-Ann Warner1, Monika Puæko1,2, Mukesh Gupta1, Simon Prinsenberg3, Stéphane Julien, Centre for Earth Observation Science, Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:15 PM

LH,

"Those studies suggest that the primary cause of global warming phases...and global cooling phases....is the changing activity of the Sun.

And what would be surprising about that? Absolutely nothing. What could be more obvious than that changes in the Sun's output of energy cause changes in the climate of the Earth?"

All true.

I have been pointing out the climate changes in the rest of the solar system ( melting Martian polar ice caps, change ( after 400 years of observation) in the Great Red Spot ( a storm) on Jupiter), but have been infomed by those WHO KNOW ALL that it was just man-made CO2 that was causing everything, and that there was no need to consider anything other than the reduction of CO2- not moving populations, not adopting to new climates, not taking any steps to prepare for the climate change- Al Gore would stand on the shore and command the tide to stop.

But I admit I have know these facts for most of the duration of the debate- I have been working on several of the spacecraft that have been collecting the data being used by both sides of the arguement.

I give you full credit for being open-minded enough to look at the facts and reject the PC viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:02 PM

Yeah, sure global warming is happening lately. Fine. But what role does human-produced CO2 play? How big a role? And is naturally-produced CO2 a primary cause of global warming or is it an aftereffect of global warming?

There have been a number of scientific studies that indicate that human-produced CO2 is a negligible factor in causing present day global warming...and the naturally occuring CO2 levels are increased BY global warming...that is, they follow a warming phase by a few years, they do not cause it.

Those studies suggest that the primary cause of global warming phases...and global cooling phases....is the changing activity of the Sun.

And what would be surprising about that? Absolutely nothing. What could be more obvious than that changes in the Sun's output of energy cause changes in the climate of the Earth?

Now, remember this, folks: I am probably the one person here who has radically changed his original opinion about the theory of human-caused Global Warming, as propounded by Al Gore and numerous others. When I first saw the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", I was totally convinced by it. I supported the theory. And why wouldn't I? ;-) Politically speaking, I've always been on the Left on most issues, I instinctively support people like Al Gore or Michael Moore or anyone else in that general camp, I hate the neocons and the big industries they work for, I detest the Republican Party considerably more than I do the Democrats (although I detest them too...).

So it wasn't surprising that I believed Al Gore's theory and supported it...initially.

It took several years for me to change my mind. I changed my mind based on a lot of reading I did, and interviews I watched with various scientists who have challenged the prevailing theory that the mainstream media have been flogging about Global Warming for years now. I looked into some of the financial moves that are being made, such as levying carbon taxes, and at some of the efforts behind globalization that are going on.

I gradually came to the conclusion that we've been fed a line of tripe on behalf of various monied interests....and that many sincere and honest people have been misled by those interests.

There are other monied interests (in industry) who are opposing the theory too...and I know that...because their interests are being threatened in some way.

So I think there are dishonest and selfish people on both sides of the debate, both pushing the debate for their own gain.

But......I do not believe that human-produced CO2 is a primary or even a very significant cause of the present planetary warming phase. I think it's a cyclical natural event that is being driven by solar activity.

And I repeat: I am (apparently) the ONE person here on this forum who has changed his mind and altered his original position on this popular theory. How about that, eh? Is anyone else here capable of changing an old opinion, re-examining a set of treasured assumptions, and finding a new way of looking at something?

I'm still waiting.............. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 May 10 - 10:51 AM

Sawzaw

You are cherrypicking your data to prove what you want to prove.

Well, it may look like that, possibly because I'm posting isolated snippets of information in response to your isolated snippets of information. You have seleted a chart that you believe demonstrates something or other; I have selected another, frequently from the same source, that demonstrates the opposite. The point is that a more in depth analysis is needed. I'm not actually trying to prove anything. I'd just like a deeper understanding of this fascinating subject.



No problem at all. Actually, you posted a fact about the Antarctic sea ice but don't worry, it's a common mistake to make. In response, I posted a fact about the Arctic sea ice from the same source. Both of them showed significant climate change although that in the southern hemisphere was a little counter intuitive and deserved closer examination. Since I thought you were genuinely interested, I posted some useful links. Here are a couple more -

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You seem to read something in my posts that is not there and make up my reasons for them.

I certainly do not. I have merely enquired what your reasons were.

I don't believe I have to convince anybody of anything.

Just as well really but you seem to be putting an awful lot of effort into it.

The world does not have to follow what I believe.

I don't think it intends to.

So with the full expectation that you will make spurious claims about why I posted the following, find something that contradicts it and demand that I respond, I submit this for thought:

SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

Perhaps if you'd introduced that subject with something a little more informative than "This chart should unleash a flurry if hostile uncivil remarks from the Illuminati." it would have helped. I responded at the time with this reference - Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun which you ignored.

In your link, Joe Bastardi says "the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm". Read that carefully. The INCREASES were HIGHER with the implication that when the PDO went cold the increases were lower. Now look at Figure 3 in my reference which illustrates the point.

Of course El Nino and the PDO affect the climate within their oscillation period; about five years for El Nino and twenty to thirty years for the PDO but that is not the same as the long term trend.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 10:04 AM

"Meanwhile its freezing here in Scotland!"

And when the nice big ocean current (Gulf Stream) that brings all that warmth up that way shuts down (as it has before) due to Global Climate Change, then you will have something to complain about mate! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 11 May 10 - 08:04 AM

Hawk said
'scientifically collected data that indicates that periodic rises in natural CO2 levels are driven BY global warming'

which is what Sawzaw also pointed out with one of the graphs indicating that during the ice ages temperature changes happened before CO2 changes.

I think the key word is 'natural'. In the 'natural' environment there are various factors causing climate changes and CO2 changes may be a result of those changes. But we also know that that we are causing an 'unnatural' situation by changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a short time. Then the question is whether that unnatural increase in CO2 is likely to change the climate. We have known for about 100 years that
CO2 absorbs infra-red energy coming up from the earth and that it absorbs at a slightly different frequency to that of water.

We can now both calculate, and directly measure, the amount of radiation coming back down to earth that otherwise would have escaped into space. Its a significant number. How it translates to warming of the atmosphere is a complex matter but the essential physics is straightforward - if you put more CO2 into the atmosphere it will absorb more heat.
There is a good discussion here:
Physics Forums

If you want a paleoclimatic example of where greenhouse gases do seem to have caused massive global climate changes have a look at the references on this page
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

Meanwhile its freezing here in Scotland!
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:10 AM

The business-driven climate sceptics are to scientists as the Inquisition was to Galileo - just as confident, just as determined, and just as wrong in efforts to limit science as an influence on policy, instead of vested instersts.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:07 AM

New research by Australian scientists at the University of NSW has forecast the effect of climate change over the next three centuries, a longer time horizon than that considered in many similar studies.

It suggests without action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, mankind's activities could prompt average temperatures to rise as much as 10 to 12 per cent by 2300, and that half the planet could "simply become too hot" for human habitation in less than 300 years.

The research, produced in partnership with the Purdue University in the United States, is published in the US-based scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Tuesday.

"Much of the climate change debate has been about whether the world will succeed in keeping global warming to the relatively safe level of only two degrees celsius by 2100," said Professor Tony McMichael, from the Australian National University (ANU), in an accompanying paper also published in the PNAS.

"But climate change will not stop in 2100, and under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more."

Prof McMichael said if this were to happen, then current worries about sea level rises, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties would "pale into insignificance" compared to the global impacts.

Such a temperature rise would pose a "considerable threat to the survival of our species", he said, because "as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there".

Prof McMichael was joined by co-author Associate Professor Keith Dear, also from the ANU.

They describe the UNSW-Purdue study as "important and necessary" as, they said, there was a need to refocus government attention on the health impacts of global temperature rise.

There was also a real possibility, they said, that much of the existing climate modelling had underestimated the rate of global temperature rise.

Dr Dear said scientific authorities on the issue, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had struck a cautious tone in forecasting future temperature rise and its impact.

"In presenting its warnings about the future, the IPCC is very careful to be conservative, using mild language and low estimates of impacts," Dr Dear said.

"This is appropriate for a scientific body, but world governments - including our own - should be honest with us about the full range of potential dangers posed by uncontrolled emissions and the extremes of climate change that would inevitably result."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 04:45 AM

"the Illuminati"

ROFL ....

fnord fnord fnord


...

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 May 10 - 04:40 AM

"Yesterday's high was 56°F "

So what? You have yourself claimed that the evidence from one tiny little place, one place in time, by itself proves nothing - you even said that in an attempt to 'disprove the theory' - now you use evidence from one tiny little place, one place in time, to support whatever it is that you now want.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:39 AM

ACTUAL LOCAL TEMPS MAY 10: 60°F........32°F
  Average...................72°F........47°F                  
  Record....................94°F 1063...28°F 1966

Yesterday's high was 56°F

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 10 May 10 - 04:36 PM

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but global warming is quite real here. We have Lilacs in bloom for the first time in history this early in May. We have Cardinals, Possums and Buzzards, all native to the south.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 May 10 - 11:34 AM

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, that depends on which specific chicken and which specific egg we are talking about, doesn't it? ;-) Every chicken has been preceded by an egg...but when was "the first chicken" there?

Eggs certainly preceded chickens by millions of years, given the fact that chickens are a much more recent development than the dinosaurs from which all modern birds presumably evolved.

But all that has absolutely no relevance to attacking scientifically collected data that indicates that periodic rises in natural CO2 levels are driven BY global warming and there IS data that indicates that. To categorically attack that data and deny what it indicates merely because you don't like it is to take a religious position on global warming, not a scientific one.

In other words, you have absolute faith that your present opinion must be right, and to hell with any scientific data that would threaten it in any way. That seems to be the standard reaction. "Interesting...", as Spock would say.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 10 - 11:22 AM

Another Face on it

"Researchers say that as Arctic sea ice recedes, the chance for human and polar-bear encounters is increasing along the North Slope. Now, following the 2008 listing of the bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a list of guidelines for warding the animals away from towns and villages.

**************
"Build "bear exclusion cages" with bars at least one inch thick around entryways - picture a shark cage on land - so people can step safely outside their homes and look around for lurking bears. Install gates and various barriers, such as chain link fencing around the bottom of buildings to discourage bears from sneaking underneath.

"You don't want bears walking across playgrounds," said Rosa Meehan, chief of the Marine Mammal Program for the Wildlife Service in Alaska."

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: kendall
Date: 08 May 10 - 07:52 AM

Forget Africa, forget Antarctica, forget the HYmalayas, global warming is here in America! By 2035 Glacia National Park will need a new name because its main feature is melting away. One would have to be drunk, retarded, blind or have stock in fossil fuels to deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 10 - 10:23 PM

"I posted a fact about the Arctic sea ice"
Dear Mr. Dunning-Kroger; were you taliking about ice extent (2-D), or ice volume (3-D). BIG difference.

"co2 RESPONDS to warming"
Dear Mr. Dunning-Kriger; are chickens the result of eggs, or eggs the result of chickens? Seriously. If you cannot answer this, please do not pretend that this is a real argument.

"The most damming (sic.) of the evidence against co2 being the driver was the drop around 1992 with Pinitubo (sic.) cooling"
Dear Mr. Dunning-Kroger; Do you REALLY not understand the difference between atmospheric gasses and particulates? Oh dear.


Well. Never mind. My students just took their final exams, and did wonderfully. They have been "indoctrinated" to combat your utter nonsense. Sleep well!

Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 May 10 - 01:17 AM

Dear snail:

You are cherrypicking your data to prove what you want to prove.

My response about the thing you want me to respond to: I posted a fact about the Arctic sea ice. I am sorry if that is a problem for you. You seem to read something in my posts that is not there and make up my reasons for them. I don't believe I have to convince anybody of anything. The world does not have to follow what I believe.

So with the full expectation that you will make spurious claims about why I posted the following, find something that contradicts it and demand that I respond, I submit this for thought:

SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2

The table below shows c02 increases on Mt Loa since 1959. One can notice the spiking of co2 when el ninos occur, and how the co2 increases were higher when the PDO went warm. This further supports my idea that we are going to get our answer as to what is causing the warming. Cycles of c02 and the evidence that the co2 RESPONDS to warming, not causes it, is pretty straightforward with co-ordinating the data. The real kick in the teeth of co2 being the driver is the big fall with the Pinitubo cooling!............
............It would appear the co2 spikes are occurring with warming that is caused by the natural drivers of the warm PDO and the el nino. The most damming of the evidence against co2 being the driver was the drop around 1992 with Pinitubo cooling. To the rationale, objective person, does this look like co2 with its erratic up and downs around the times of el ninos, is the driver, or the driven. The answer is obvious, it is responding to spikes that occur with warming episodes, the driven, not the driver. You can see the response in co2 with and after the nino....