Brrrrrrrrr

[code1211]

Very good. And the deep dive in 2008 meant that 2008 only turned out to be the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. So we have a solar minimum, a strong La Nina, and we still get the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. And, of course, were you to pick a differant start point, the slope of the graph would be flat, or even up.

You dingbat 'coolists' can only make your point by cherry picking data, and outright lying. However, what are you going to say if 2010 comes in close, or higher, than 1998?

Well, Rocks, picking the start of a Century is a pretty justifiable starting point. The assertion made above is that there were no models that predicted this.

To help with the modelers predictions, they might have used the 11 year solar cycle which is pretty steady in its repitition.

Or, as an alternative, they might have used the CO2 progression which is always up.

Ripple screen and harp music takes us inside the head of a climate modeler:

"Hmmm... If CO2 causes warming, then the temperature will always go up. If the Sun causes warming, the temperaure will go up and down depending in the TSI from the Sun. If we get funding to prove that warming is caused by CO2, what should our model show?"

A third option would be to use the millions of factors that influence climate. This is an interrelationship which they do not understand and cannot model. I guess that one's not up for consideration. That brings us back to CO2.

One thing is certain: If CO2 is the primary cause in the models, then funding will always go up.

If I'm a modeler, especially in this economy, I know what my model will show.

Rocks, do you know of any model that showed a 10 year temperature drop starting at any point from 1998 forward?

 

[code1211]

Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2008 State of the Climate Report and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 2008 Surface Temperature

When was this data collected? The array of Argo Buoys is conspicuous by its absence.

 

[code1211]

So it has cooled in the United States but not the rest of the world?

Ah yes, rather interesting...

There are more temperature stations in the USA per square mile than in any other place in the world.

The Southern Hemispere has always shown cooler data than the Northern Hemisphere. If one were prone to citing the effect of Urban Heat Islands, one might cite them in this topic area.

If there is cooling shown in the USA, the most temperature measured place on Earth, and particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, the warming bias which the data produces from the Northern Hemisphere might dial back to match that of the not so really too much warmed up Southern Hemisphere.

What a catastrophe that would be.

 

[code1211]

I read that but also a slew of other reports that state this is normal and that these warming an cooling trends have happened before as seen in ice cores. Many other researchers are claiming to detect thickening of the main body (Arctic and glacial) while the thinner edges melt, also determinable by the same research that claims global warming to have previously occured. Also the Antarctic ice is reported to be growing and that the total overall loss of ice is in fact minimal when all data is taken into consideration. Who am I to believe?

Find out everything you can. Be wary of any information that makes a prediction with a call to action. That is the marker of a political opinion piece. Always seek the proof of the causal connection between the CO2 rise and the temperature increase. The connection is always implied and never proven.

Now that is an outright lie. The causal effect of CO2 as a GHG was proven by Tyndal in 1858 when he established the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.

Establish a context for information. Understand what is being said and parse everything. Check the born on date for any report and fact check every tid bit you come across.

Yes, of course. And remember, James Watt has never published a peer reviewed article on global warming. And that 99% of all peer reviewed articles on global warming not only state that it does exist, but the primary cause in the burning of fossil fuels by man.

If you're like me, you became interested in this because you were concerned that man kind was destroying the planet. The more I find out about this, the less likely that appears to be. Well, at least from a changing the climate with CO2 standpoint.

Of course the fact that real physicists completely disagree with you has absolutely no bearing on the debate.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Not only this, but the geophysicists have well established the corelations of the past climate rapid warming periods with CO2

You may want to start your consideration with two facts:

1. CO2 has RISEN to the level of 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm. Water Vapor, another Green House Gas is 5.0% of the atmosphere. 50,000 ppm. You may arrive the relative temperature forcing capabilities on your own.

You may repeat that spin forever, and it will still be lying spin.

Water vapor has a residence period in the atmosphere of less than 10 days. CO2, 200 years.

Increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer, and more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, creating even more heating. It is called a positive feedback.

2. The total temperature rise Globally across the last 2000 years has been 0.7 degrees. The rate of increase for the most recent 1000 years is slower than the rate of increase for the previous 1000 years.

Yet at no time in the last 1000 years have we seen the effects in the Arctic that we are seeing today.

At no time in the last 1000 years have we been in danger of losing all of our glaciers.

At no time in the last 15 million years has the CO2 and CH4 levels been as high as they are today.

What we are seeing happening today, is the effect of GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago, there is that much inertia in the atmosphere.

This is a fun debate and has nothing to do with religion, natural origin or, if you're a member of the IPCC, facts of any type. Have at it.

Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that Global Warming is happening, that Man's use of fossil fuels in the primary danger, and that the results of this warming represent a clear and present danger to the world's population.

Blah, blah, blah...

As I said above, there is no proof. You presented none above. Connect the causal relationship between CO2 and Temperature rise.

When you cite James Watt, do you mean Athony Watt? Who is James Watt?

Warming in and of itself is NOT proof of a causal connection between CO2 and Warming. Merely repetitively stating that it is warming does not demonstrate this connection.

Demonstrating that it is cooling inspite of elevated CO2 should be sufficient proof of the breaking of this causal connection charade.

I know that you promise that it will warm again when the Sun is more active and has only cooled recently because the Sun is less active. If the CO2 is always rising and the temperature rises and falls due to the relative power of the Sun's radiation, what might an unbiased look at this gleen?

What this observer gleens is that temperature rises and falls based on the Sun's radiation's relative power. Maybe I'm wrong and the Sun has nothing to do with this. Maybe the CO2 in the air which has grown by a factor of 0.01% of the air IS the culprit.

In anticipation of the rise of CO2, the temperature did start to rise about 100 years before the Industrial Revolution. I suppose this could be a connection if CO2 has a time machine.

Glaciers are melting? Glaciers have melted before. Most of our glaciers weren't around 8000 yeaars ago. Outside of Greenland and the Antarctic, none were around since the last interglacial. None. If one were an unbiased observer, again, one might gleen that it was warm enough during the last intergalcial to melt ALL of the glaciers. CO2 was lower then than it is now.

It was much warmer in the last interglacial than in this one. There was less CO2. Interesting departure from your major thesis here, no? Global Temperature has been warmer in the past than it is right now. CO2 was lower at the time. If CO2 was lower and Temperature was higher, could there have been a different cause?

If there was a different cause then, why might that cause have ceased to work at this time?

If temperature is warmer right now and CO2 is higher right now, must CO2 be the cause or could it be just a coincidence? Until there is proof, which you have yet to show, it cannot be considered more than a coincidence.

I am not stating flatly that CO2 cannot cause Global Warming. I am stating that it has never happened before, that our current warming can be explained by causes that we know have acted as causes of warming before and that the evidence points to the same old causes currently producing the same old effects.

The old saying that hoof beats in the distance in the old west might have been Zebras, but were probably horses applies here.

If there are demonstrated causes of a thing that are still working and another thing rises and is stylish and may or not be a cause AND THERE IS NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT HAS OVERPOWERED THE OLD CAUSE(S), it is illogical to prefer the new cause over the old ones.

In this case, the power of the Sun's radiation has always dictated our temperatures in concert with our proximity to the Sun and our relative inclination in orbit. The combination of these factors plus some atmospheric disturbances like volcanic ash or dust can and do affect the the TSI of the radiation at surface.

The density of CO2 in our atmosphere has always responded to changes in the above causes and risen or fallen as a result. CO2 has always been highest right before an Ice Age starts and lowest before an Ice Age warms to an end. Temperature change always has caused CO2 change.

To predict changes in temperature based on changes in CO2 is predicting that the future causes the past.

 

[code1211]

hell, it's a balmy -9 right now here in the Twin Cities. Get me some of that global warming crap I've been promised for being taxed into slavery.

Hey, Fitz. I moved out of Minnesota after 1978. Just too freakin' cold. Still root for the Vikes, though. What the hell is going on with those guys? They looked like world beaters in week 10 and look like an intramural team right now.

Are they getting their act together again or what? Is there a keg on the sideline?

I've been on their side since '61 and don't have any hope of changing over to my local team, I think they're called the Colts or something like that. It sure is hard to be a Vikings Fan. It works out so well for banners to go to a Super Bowl around the V part of the count up.

Super Bowl XLIV ikings. I was really hoping that this might (finally) be the year. Well, we've still got the V and VI years to work with. Can Brett still play AND be a member of AARP?

 

[Old Rocks]

Find out everything you can. Be wary of any information that makes a prediction with a call to action. That is the marker of a political opinion piece. Always seek the proof of the causal connection between the CO2 rise and the temperature increase. The connection is always implied and never proven.

Now that is an outright lie. The causal effect of CO2 as a GHG was proven by Tyndal in 1858 when he established the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.

Establish a context for information. Understand what is being said and parse everything. Check the born on date for any report and fact check every tid bit you come across.

Yes, of course. And remember, James Watt has never published a peer reviewed article on global warming. And that 99% of all peer reviewed articles on global warming not only state that it does exist, but the primary cause in the burning of fossil fuels by man.

If you're like me, you became interested in this because you were concerned that man kind was destroying the planet. The more I find out about this, the less likely that appears to be. Well, at least from a changing the climate with CO2 standpoint.

Of course the fact that real physicists completely disagree with you has absolutely no bearing on the debate.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Not only this, but the geophysicists have well established the corelations of the past climate rapid warming periods with CO2

You may want to start your consideration with two facts:

1. CO2 has RISEN to the level of 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm. Water Vapor, another Green House Gas is 5.0% of the atmosphere. 50,000 ppm. You may arrive the relative temperature forcing capabilities on your own.

You may repeat that spin forever, and it will still be lying spin.

Water vapor has a residence period in the atmosphere of less than 10 days. CO2, 200 years.

Increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer, and more water is evaporated into the atmosphere, creating even more heating. It is called a positive feedback.

2. The total temperature rise Globally across the last 2000 years has been 0.7 degrees. The rate of increase for the most recent 1000 years is slower than the rate of increase for the previous 1000 years.

Yet at no time in the last 1000 years have we seen the effects in the Arctic that we are seeing today.

At no time in the last 1000 years have we been in danger of losing all of our glaciers.

At no time in the last 15 million years has the CO2 and CH4 levels been as high as they are today.

What we are seeing happening today, is the effect of GHGs in the atmosphere 30 to 50 years ago, there is that much inertia in the atmosphere.

This is a fun debate and has nothing to do with religion, natural origin or, if you're a member of the IPCC, facts of any type. Have at it.

Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that Global Warming is happening, that Man's use of fossil fuels in the primary danger, and that the results of this warming represent a clear and present danger to the world's population.

how many of those societies and academies threw out important data?

I see, now you have some lies to hang your hat on, all scientists are suspect. Hello Charlie McCarthy!

 

[Old Rocks]

Very good. And the deep dive in 2008 meant that 2008 only turned out to be the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. So we have a solar minimum, a strong La Nina, and we still get the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. And, of course, were you to pick a differant start point, the slope of the graph would be flat, or even up.

You dingbat 'coolists' can only make your point by cherry picking data, and outright lying. However, what are you going to say if 2010 comes in close, or higher, than 1998?

Hey Ole Crocks... you still can't get around this small fact.

It's not man's fault.

Howdy, Fritz. You still cannot get arround any facts at all.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics. I suppose you are just so much smarter than all of these fellows

 

[driveby]

Very good. And the deep dive in 2008 meant that 2008 only turned out to be the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. So we have a solar minimum, a strong La Nina, and we still get the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. And, of course, were you to pick a differant start point, the slope of the graph would be flat, or even up.

You dingbat 'coolists' can only make your point by cherry picking data, and outright lying. However, what are you going to say if 2010 comes in close, or higher, than 1998?

Hey Ole Crocks... you still can't get around this small fact.

It's not man's fault.

Howdy, Fritz. You still cannot get arround any facts at all.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics. I suppose you are just so much smarter than all of these fellows

He has less of an agenda ............

 

[Big Fitz]

Lemme ask you something Crocks;

If I'm right, what do you lose?

I have stated in the past that climate change is NOT our fault and we can do nothing to stop it or help it. Why? Because there are too many factors, and mankind has an absolutely dreadful record doing it. What we CAN do as a species is what we mammals ALWAYS do, adapt or die off.

Problem, it's getting colder out, how do we survive?
Solution, build more efficient and well insulated houses, clothing, transportation systems and workplaces. Adapt for extracting necessary materials in cold environments. Find new ways to grow and sustain food.

The egomania inherent in the Chicken Littles is staggering. They honestly have the hubris to believe that they are the center of the universe and can control it completely. This is the same level of stupidity held by those who declared the Titanic 'Unsinkable'.

Well the hacked emails were your iceberg. Water's rising fast and will soon be spilling over the water tight compartments. Reminds me of my favorite little exchange from the movie:

Bruce Ismay (owner) "This ship CAN'T sink!"
Thomas Andrews (Designer) "She's made of Iron, Sir! I assure you, she can."

Amazing. In retrospect, this metaphor is all the more accurate.

 

[skookerasbil]

GIVE a Link please!

care

clearly global warming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[uscitizen]

What is it with Sinatra and no links provided for copyrigited materials?

 

[skookerasbil]

What is it with Sinatra and no links provided for copyrigited materials?

nobody cares s0n !!!

 

[Sinatra]

GIVE a Link please!

care

Watts Up With That?

 

[Sinatra]

What is it with Sinatra and no links provided for copyrigited materials?

Actually the source material is cited within the graphic so no link was required.

I have provided the link regardless.

 

[Old Rocks]

James Watt. LOL. A liar, fraud, and charlatan.

 

[Sinatra]

James Watt. LOL. A liar, fraud, and charlatan.

The map is from NOAA...

 

[Big Fitz]

James Watt. LOL. A liar, fraud, and charlatan.

I see you still believe the ship can't sink and that the designer is a liar, Crocks.