Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[saggs]

I believe that what saggs said has been attributed to geologic shifts in the earth.  The tropical basin argument is absurd, that change happened over hundreds of thousands of years.  Now what we have seen here is a sudden uptake in the temperature over the last two hundred (more like 50 yrs, from the 1940's till the 1990's) years. And you have no idea if that trend will continue, in fact evidence suggests it has already reversed, like I said Phil Jones has admitted there has been no warming since 1995.  That uptake corresponds to the industrial revolution. Correlation does not equal causation I wake up every morning, the sun also rises, does that mean I cause the sun to rise?  To make the argument that we can't change the climate because it can change on its own is a false dichotomy, since neither precludes the other from being true if true.  

Now as to the question of the medieval warm period, I'm not able to reason that one off.  But how long were the middle ages?  Fall of Rome to Renissance.  That was from the 400's to the 1500's, that was 900 years.  We've seen an uptake in less than one quarter of that time. Again, what evidence have you that this trend will continue, I can say "Since the sun rose this morning it has warmed 20°, so I predict in 2 weeks time the temperature will be 500°" it's absurd.  Meteorologists cannot accurately predict what the weather will be a month from now.  Yet we believe these climate "scientists" who tell us what the climate will be in 100 years.  I don't care how many Playstation 360s they have doing their computer models, there are billions of  unknown variables, it is impossible to predict.  All they are doing is extrapolating a curve from recent past data (which data we know now was manipulated) saying IF, and that is a humongous IF the warming of the past hundred years continue it will be 3° warmer in the next hundred.  My prediction is that IF the sun never sets, and the earth magically moves closer to the sun, it will be 1000° in 2 weeks.  It's a prediction based on unknown variables as well, so it's just as good as global warming predictions right? Volcanic activity was also poorly recorded since we didn't know that much of our world existed, so just about anything that they couldn't see could have blasted the thermostat to the max.  So you admit that the medieval warm period must have been natural causes, yet now you assume the current warming, (well from the 1940's to the 1990's anyway) must be man-made.    Remember in the early 70s these same kind of people were predicting we were all gonna die from global cooling they even had articles about it in Newsweek, and Time magazines.

Did you know there was also a mini ice age in NA in the 1850's?  Yup, the pioneers who settled  I live suffered absolutely brutal winters for several years, much more brutal then anything seen since.  It happened naturally, it stopped naturally, no one understands how, or why.  The only constant on our planet is change.

-Penguin

Last word, even if the dire predictions of the IPCC do come true SO WHAT!?!?!?

Species like sea turtles, crocodiles, and rhinos have survived dozens of warming/cooling cycles, among other earth changes.  Yet humans, the most advanced species on the planet, will all die in a fiery flood if it warms 3°?!?!?!  Come on, be realistic, we would adapt and life would go on.
Places like Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, and Russia would get a longer, more productive growing season, they would love it.  And remember more people die every year from cold weather, then from heat waves.  So in that way global warming is saving lives.   So I'm gonna go idle my SUV in the driveway for 3 hours now to do my part and save a life.  

[saggs]

So tell me which Time magazine cover I'm to believe, the one from 1974, or the more recent one?




Or is Newsweek from 1975 more reliable?

[Penguin]

Ah yes, but doing so would also cause sea levels to rise.  That means that most of New York's financial sector would become part of the Atlantic Ocean.  Many parts of coastline would be flooded, leaving jagged underwater rock formations that skewer ships like shiskebab's.

Not only that, but tropics would become deserts, temperate regions become tropical in temperature (cue incessant mosquito buzzing and malaria screams), and the tundra would melt, along with its permafrost, which is ice mixed with CO₂.

The great plains will become arid at the bottom, and the rocky soil of central Canada doesn't make good wheat even if you boil it!  Many species of flora and fauna will die out, and since the climate will become less varied, biodiversity will decrease.  

As you said saggs, we are the most advanced and intelligent species on the planet.  We owe that to all of the life that lives with us, and should try to respect its existence.  Is idling an SUV for three hours on the driveway intelligent?  I don't think so, it wastes gas and puts needless wear on the engine.  Most of all though, it gets you nowhere, dead polar bear or not.  Advancement can solve the problem all together, since not burning anything on an industrial scale won't screw up our atmosphere.  You can clearly see then, that even though we can do nothing, the rewards of doing something about our pollution are much, much greater.

-Penguin

[saggs]

You can clearly see then, that even though we can do nothing, the rewards of doing something about our pollution are much, much greater.

-Penguin

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

I SWEAR MY FREAKIN' HEAD IS GONNA EXPLODE!!!!!

I'M TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING NOT POLLUTION!!!

get it through your head that
THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES!!

See my previous posts like 30 pages ago in this same thread, I AM A TREE-HUGGER, GLOBAL WARMING DENIER.

And the blasted cute and fuzzy, baby seal eating Polar Bears are NOT DYING, there are more of them now then ever before in the past 50 yrs.

And if you don't get that idling my SUV for 3 hrs is a joke then heaven help you.  

Oh, I give up, yes, YES, YES let's throw trillions of dollars at a problem that does not exist, and which we could not stop even if it did.

[leitwolf]

I have to admit, I am in the sceptics camp.
However, I do not trust Lord Monckton any more than I would trust Al Gore.

I am willing to change my mind about MMGW if someone can explain it to me.
I certainly am a layman (but willing to learn.. my math might be off).
My main question is:
Why is all the focus of the MMGW camp on CO₂?
All the charts I've seen show that CO₂ never was the driving force behind temperature change. CO2 increase always lagged several hundred years behind temperature.
To me, it looks like a clear violation of causality to claim CO₂ is responsible.

The IPCC AR4 says in it's Dumb-People-Summary

[..]The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8] W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. [..]

The Sun chunks out enough energy that roughly 341W/m² reach the upper atmosphere and 163W/m² reach the surface on average.
In other words the IPCC calculated MM warming effect adds 0.9% to the sun's. Now factor in that for a 1% increase in energy we get a tiny increase in temperature (if I didn't get the dreaded physics of Mr Boltzmann wrong: E = s * T⁴. Since I am only interested in the change that human made warming effect has i can omit any constants and focus on the difference between temperatures with and without human RF.)
Putting in the numbers, our glorious effect on temperature is an increase of approx. 0.25% .
The globe has warmed by (I'm willing to change that number if someone has better sources) 1 degree in the last century.

How will changing CO₂ output change anything here?

EDIT: spellingses r bad

[MORAY37]

Is that due to global warming?  Because some also claim the current rather harsh winter in NA is due to global warming.  Which is it?

They say the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are receding due to global warming.  Well glaciers recession is caused by lack of precipitation, then they tell us global warming will cause more precipitation because warmer air holds more moisture.  Ummm... OK  
Pretty much your only valid point in here.  Glaciers are poor indicators of temperature until the temperature shift becomes too pronounced to be ignored by other means

They blamed big hurricanes 4-5 years ago on global warming, because the warmer air puts more energy into the storms.  Then last year when we had NO hurricanes, it was because of global warming causing the warm sea currents to shift.  
Out of everything, Hurricane predictions are not tied into higher temperatures, only for casted strength.  Since there is no way to empirically measure whether a CAT 1 would have become a CAT 2 due to the .15C rise between seasons.... this statement is void.  The only link that can be implied is that more heat may influence the strength, not that it will make more storms, since hurricane development is more dependent upon other factors.
Bill Nye the Science Guy was on some pundit show last week, and I kid you not, in the same sentence he claimed that the big storms and record snowfall in the eastern US, AND the lack of snow at the Olympics in B.C. were both caused by global warming.  

Comparing what happens in two locations separated by 3500 miles, that have two completely different weather drivers.... and you expect them to both have the exact same effect from more energy in the system?  Climate and weather is not simple, and two different places will not respond in the same way.  Elementary science. Bill Nye was completely correct about both, which you would understand if you actually looked into things.

Then last week Phil Jones admits to the BBC that there has been no warming since 1995, and the data going back 1,000s of years they based their research on is not reliable.
This is what Phil Jones said...

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

What he said, is that you can't pull out the trend as easy from such a short period of time.  You are completely and utterly wrong here, with your statement... That is exactly NOT what Dr. Jones said.. Like most of your kin, you stop reading after the initial "yes", and forget about the rest of his answer. 

The Great Basin were I live used to be tropical, I can go out and find fossils of sea life here.  Did prehistoric creatures driving their SUVs cause the climate change that changed the Great Basin from an ocean, to a tropical rain forest, to a desert? (and a couple ice ages fit in there somewhere too.)

A simple foray in the basis for prehistoric climate shifts will easily reveal that our sun and earth have cycles that produce climate shifts.  Currently, the sun is farther away and dimmer than it has been in over 2,000 years. ( Milankovitch cycles)

How many ice ages have there been?  What caused the global warming that melted all that ice?
See above response, and look into reading.

What about the medieval warm period, surely that was caused by all those serf pig farmers putting out methane.

Considering the Greenland Ice Sheet is 400,000 years old..... this line of argument is completely bereft of merit.  The 400,000 year old ice sheet is melting, now.

After commenting there, probably the most important graph I've found to date.  It might show some of you something.

[MORAY37]

All the charts I've seen show that CO₂ never was the driving force behind temperature change. CO2 increase always lagged several hundred years behind temperature.

CO₂ does lag the temperature in prehistoric times, by about 100 to 200 years roughly.  This is because, now stay with me here, there weren't events that put enough CO₂ into the atmosphere to push the temperature.  The forcing was done from outside the system, due to either solar variability or the swings in the orbital mechanics of the earth.

Take a moment to think before you respond. 

CO₂ lagged because there was a natural force that led.   

After that force subsided, CO₂ held temperatures artificially higher then they would have been otherwise. 

Repeat.  This isn't a natural situation.  CO₂ is leading now because it is being introduced artificially into the system. 

[Angus]

That rise in ocean temps is scary. Note that some 30 feet of seawater contains more mass than the atmosphere.

[MORAY37]

So tell me which Time magazine cover I'm to believe, the one from 1974, or the more recent one?


(Image removed from quote.)

Or is Newsweek from 1975 more reliable?

(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)

[leitwolf]

CO₂ does lag the temperature in prehistoric times, by about 100 to 200 years roughly.  This is because, now stay with me here, there weren't events that put enough CO₂ into the atmosphere to push the temperature.  The forcing was done from outside the system, due to either solar variability or the swings in the orbital mechanics of the earth.

Take a moment to think before you respond.  

CO₂ lagged because there was a natural force that led.  

After that force subsided, CO₂ held temperatures artificially higher then they would have been otherwise.  

Repeat.  This isn't a natural situation.  CO₂ is leading now because it is being introduced artificially into the system.  

I would like to agree with you here, but reality says no
We do introduce CO2 artificially now, no arguing with that. But, if what you say is true wouldn't there be a correlation of CO2 and temperature if CO2 is now leading?
Current temperature upswing started after the Maunder Minimum and it started well before we put out any meaningful amount of CO2.
Most of that warming is before 1950 and most of the CO2 output is after 1950.
There just isn't a correlation between these two (and as far as i can make out, never was).
If CO2 is now "leading" there are still stronger forces out there which were able to cool the earth during 1950-1970 despite the increase of CO2.
Even with the now massive 25% jump in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (our doing) those forces were easily able to generate global .. cooling in the 2000's after a big temperature runup in the 1990s.

I would argue that CO2's warming effect is modulated on the natural cycles.. but it seems to me that these natural cycles still dominate (and even the "unnatural" situation w/regards to CO2 post 1950 seems to support this reasoning) and if you look at my second question it seems pretty clear why: at 400ppm CO2 just isn't driving climate. It can't. Laws of physics.

[CAP1]

I would like to agree with you here, but reality says no
We do introduce CO2 artificially now, no arguing with that. But, if what you say is true wouldn't there be a correlation of CO2 and temperature if CO2 is now leading?
Current temperature upswing started after the Maunder Minimum and it started well before we put out any meaningful amount of CO2.
Most of that warming is before 1950 and most of the CO2 output is after 1950.
There just isn't a correlation between these two (and as far as i can make out, never was).
If CO2 is now "leading" there are still stronger forces out there which were able to cool the earth during 1950-1970 despite the increase of CO2.
Even with the now massive 25% jump in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (our doing) those forces were easily able to generate global .. cooling in the 2000's after a big temperature runup in the 1990s.

I would argue that CO2's warming effect is modulated on the natural cycles.. but it seems to me that these natural cycles still dominate (and even the "unnatural" situation w/regards to CO2 post 1950 seems to support this reasoning) and if you look at my second question it seems pretty clear why: at 400ppm CO2 just isn't driving climate. It can't. Laws of physics.

the focus is on co2, due mostly to the fact that the vast majority of people do not know what it is, or what it does.
 they need some way to get the masses to back whatever they want...so they picked somethign that can have a catchy sound to it, and sound scary at the same time. that combined with lack of knowledge of what it is, makes it easy fot them to get the people in  tiff.

 i know i sound cynical saying that crap, but the signs of bs are all over this mess. the fact that they're willing to trade carbon credits shows that htis has nothing to do with changing anything.......with the exception of fattening someones wallets.

[uptown]

 It's a secret military project code naned HAARP. High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. We have the installations as well as Russia and China. Welcome to the next generation in global warfare.

Google it and consider what HAARP is actually capable of.

[MORAY37]

the focus is on co2, due mostly to the fact that the vast majority of people do not know what it is, or what it does.
 they need some way to get the masses to back whatever they want...so they picked somethign that can have a catchy sound to it, and sound scary at the same time. that combined with lack of knowledge of what it is, makes it easy fot them to get the people in  tiff.

 i know i sound cynical saying that crap, but the signs of bs are all over this mess. the fact that they're willing to trade carbon credits shows that htis has nothing to do with changing anything.......with the exception of fattening someones wallets.

CAP...

Do YOU know what it is?  Specifically why it's so important?  Do you know the bonding angles? The hybridization of the electron orbitals?  The net dipole movement?  Could you draw the orbital structure?  Could you say anything that you aren't regurgitating?

No, you can't.  But somehow you think your opinion is equal to people that have spent 20 years in the field with multiple PhD's.  It's like a 15 year old girl telling you how to change an alternator, because she saw a CHILTON diagram once..

Your sudden militant turn to the cynical is troubling. You were at least somewhat open to discussion...but now your true colors shine through.

As far as what "they're willing to do"...scientists have said repeatedly to just halt CO₂ emissions at pre 1990 levels... as a start.  Other aspects of life, politicians, want to make money off this.  You are way off base in your opinion.  Your posts have become like other un-intelligent American pseudo drivel...whoever lies the most and the longest wins.  

History will not look kindly on this period of time.

We had the "Enlightenment".  This time will be called the "Return to Darkness".

[Sonicblu]

Could one of the pro MMGW posters please inform me of what the claim is specifically?
Have read most of the posts on this topic and it seems that there are some implied claims.

In MMGW is the claim that man is responsible 100% for it, or is it a natural earth cycle and man has what percent part in it?

Also is the claim that co2 causing the  heating of  the atmosephere and then doing what heating the water? Is there anyother part to the claim? A, B or C is heating the earth also?

What kind of temperature are we talking about 1degree in 10 years or 1/4 a degree in a hundred?

Thanks.

[CAP1]

CAP...

Do YOU know what it is?  Specifically why it's so important?  Do you know the bonding angles? The hybridization of the electron orbitals?  The net dipole movement?  Could you draw the orbital structure?  Could you say anything that you aren't regurgitating?

No, you can't.  But somehow you think your opinion is equal to people that have spent 20 years in the field with multiple PhD's.  It's like a 15 year old girl telling you how to change an alternator, because she saw a CHILTON diagram once..

Your sudden militant turn to the cynical is troubling. You were at least somewhat open to discussion...but now your true colors shine through.

As far as what "they're willing to do"...scientists have said repeatedly to just halt CO₂ emissions at pre 1990 levels... as a start.  Other aspects of life, politicians, want to make money off this.  You are way off base in your opinion.  Your posts have become like other un-intelligent American pseudo drivel...whoever lies the most and the longest wins.  

History will not look kindly on this period of time.

We had the "Enlightenment".  This time will be called the "Return to Darkness".

yea, i do. it is a natural part of our atmosphere. it is used by plants, trees, foilage, etc, to live, and in return they provide us with o2.
 it is a normal part of what we exhale, as do most all animals on the planet. it is heavier than air.
 do i know the more technical things? no, as i don't study them.

so, how does me stating my opinion(the one you quoted) make me militant? because i see through their charade?

 i mean, c'mon. you can't possibly believe that trading "credits" from here to there, thus allowing one to produce more than they were, because they bought these crdedits is going to help eliminate it, do you?

 i thought more highly of you than that.

i almost forgot......co2 also varies according to the seasons, as things thrive, in the spring(lowering the amounts) and do not thrive in the fall(raising it).
 funny how that brings us back to the natural cycle of things.