Global Warming Update

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to separate itself from financial political influence.

Shhhh

ClosedCaption thinks celestial observations are pie in the sky kook stuff.

Don't wanna embarrass him

 

[ClosedCaption]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to separate itself from financial political influence.

You must repeat this but you cannot prove this. Which means you are dismissing science based on your gut. Thats not science works buddy.

Also the length of time of research has nothing to do with anything unless you were planning a birthday party

 

[jc456]

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming. I believe it is time for you to look at how the earth was a million years ago before the ice age hit. so you want the ice age? How did the life handle the last one?

Out of touch huh?

If you look at the 100,000 year cycle, you see that temperatures rose, then dropped, a nice little spike.

If you look at the one we are in now, the spike happened, it dropped and then it stopped dropping and has stayed about the same level.

Also, some who reject man made climate change also said that temperatures should be dropping.

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."[1]

While IPCC was predicting global warming, Easterbrook (2001) predicted three decades of cooling due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting from its warm to cool phase.[5] He correlated PDO with climatic changes over the last 500 years.[6]

"The IPCC has predicted a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) by 2011 and 1.2°C (2°F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3–0.5°C by 2040."

So, global cooling by 2007 huh? Probably would have happened without so much greenhouse gas in the air.

William M. Gray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Written in 2006.

Not sure what your attempting to point out. I believe in your one line you stated those opposed to man made stated it should be cooler. The reason is due to the 30 year cycle. 1940 to 1970 cooler then, warmer 1970 to 2000 warmer and now back cooler 2001 to 2014. Although the warming actually leveled off in 1998. The next warming cycle 2030 will be warmer than the previous warming cycle by 1 degree C. It is all normal, no man made anything contributing. What your missing I suppose is that the earth was once warmer. So attempting to state something unusual is happening is just not accurate.

 

[mamooth]

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming.

No, we finished exiting the ice age 5000 years ago, and have been slowly cooling ever since. According to the natural cycles, the globe should be slowly cooling down into the next ice age right now. Instead, the world is warming fast.

And your junk science fails hard at explaining why the world is now warming quickly instead of cooling slowly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not sure what your attempting to point out. I believe in your one line you stated those opposed to man made stated it should be cooler. The reason is due to the 30 year cycle. 1940 to 1970 cooler then, warmer 1970 to 2000 warmer and now back cooler 2001 to 2014. Although the warming actually leveled off in 1998. The next warming cycle 2030 will be warmer than the previous warming cycle by 1 degree C. It is all normal, no man made anything contributing. What your missing I suppose is that the earth was once warmer. So attempting to state something unusual is happening is just not accurate.

The point is, the world SHOULD be getting cooler, but it isn't. It's getting slightly warmer.

It's not a 30 year cycle, and i'm not sure where you get a 30 year cycle from. It's a 100,000 year cycle. But yes, the earth gets warmer and cooler within warming and cooling periods. It is natural.

However there's a difference between where we would be at if we hadn't polluted the world massively and where we actually are, wouldn't you say?

 

[Darkwind]

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html

Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.

Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively.

These results indicate that the slowed warming of average global surface temperature is not as significant as previously believed. Surface warming has slowed somewhat, in large part due to more overall global warming being transferred to the oceans over the past decade. However, these sorts of temporary surface warming slowdowns (and speed-ups) occur on a regular basis due to short-term natural influences.

Oldrocks...
What say you about this:
12.5% of the EARTH's land mass was not included in the temperature recording stations.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations,
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

[URL="http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/[/URL]

Perhaps you should read Cowtan and Way's peer reviewed article. And take a look at this as backup evidence for their study;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

You do understand that 'peer reviewed' is a political distinction, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Naturally? By whose say so?

Based on historical records of temperature rises and falls.

 

[bedowin62]

Naturally? By whose say so?

Based on historical records of temperature rises and falls.

lol historical records;

two words genius; Grand Canyon


global warming?

man-made?

 

[mamooth]

Any website or source that doesn't agree with GW agenda you call "kook right wing".

So after I call you out on that lie, you double down on it.

Here's a hint, kook. Sites that talk about the great global socialist agenda are kook right wing blogs. Political agenda isn't defined by science, it's defined by the political agenda that the websites openly advertise.

I posted a link to peer reviewed articles, that you dismissed. Why should I accept your "kook left wing" sources if you refuse to accept mine.

First, because my sources aren't discussing politics like yours do. Mine just discuss science.

Second, your source quotes all kinds of political conspiracy theories. It rants about the IPCC, Al Gore, supposedly faked data, all the standard kook political nonsense.

Third, your source lies big about the papers. Most of them flat out don't say what your source claims they do. For example, let's look at what Pielke says about his own work being on the list.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Better Recheck That List
--
A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.
--

So, I have addressed your source directly, by pointing out the author just makes shit up. You may continue to run from that point.

I wont even discuss the rest of your ideological crap.

Spanked you that badly, I see. You don't want to talk about why only a handful of bitter right-wing political cranks take the denier side, while nearly the whole world takes the side of rationality. When the whole world disagrees with you, a rational person considers the world might have a point, and that they personally may have made an error. An irrational person declares a global conspiracy must exist.

By the way, can you define real science and who are independent people?

Again, a big clue is whether they often ramble about imaginary political conspiracies when the topic is science.

 

[jc456]

Again, wow, are you out of touch. We should be warming.

No, we finished exiting the ice age 5000 years ago, and have been slowly cooling ever since. According to the natural cycles, the globe should be slowly cooling down into the next ice age right now. Instead, the world is warming fast.

And your junk science fails hard at explaining why the world is now warming quickly instead of cooling slowly.

Just wrong. The earth temperature cycles, you should know this if you believe in science. We are currently in a non warming cooling period until 2030. Go look at the graphs man!

 

[Ame®icano]

Any website or source that doesn't agree with GW agenda you call "kook right wing".

So after I call you out on that lie, you double down on it.

Here's a hint, kook. Sites that talk about the great global socialist agenda are kook right wing blogs. Political agenda isn't defined by science, it's defined by the political agenda that the websites openly advertise.

I posted a link to peer reviewed articles, that you dismissed. Why should I accept your "kook left wing" sources if you refuse to accept mine.

First, because my sources aren't discussing politics like yours do. Mine just discuss science.

Second, your source quotes all kinds of political conspiracy theories. It rants about the IPCC, Al Gore, supposedly faked data, all the standard kook political nonsense.

Third, your source lies big about the papers. Most of them flat out don't say what your source claims they do. For example, let's look at what Pielke says about his own work being on the list.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Better Recheck That List
--
A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does.
--

So, I have addressed your source directly, by pointing out the author just makes shit up. You may continue to run from that point.

I wont even discuss the rest of your ideological crap.

Spanked you that badly, I see. You don't want to talk about why only a handful of bitter right-wing political cranks take the denier side, while nearly the whole world takes the side of rationality. When the whole world disagrees with you, a rational person considers the world might have a point, and that they personally may have made an error. An irrational person declares a global conspiracy must exist.

By the way, can you define real science and who are independent people?

Again, a big clue is whether they often ramble about imaginary political conspiracies when the topic is science.

Visit the link I provided. Until then, stop polluting.

 

[frigidweirdo]

lol historical records;

two words genius; Grand Canyon


global warming?

man-made?

You're going to have to explain your cryptic clue.

 

[jc456]

Not sure what your attempting to point out. I believe in your one line you stated those opposed to man made stated it should be cooler. The reason is due to the 30 year cycle. 1940 to 1970 cooler then, warmer 1970 to 2000 warmer and now back cooler 2001 to 2014. Although the warming actually leveled off in 1998. The next warming cycle 2030 will be warmer than the previous warming cycle by 1 degree C. It is all normal, no man made anything contributing. What your missing I suppose is that the earth was once warmer. So attempting to state something unusual is happening is just not accurate.

The point is, the world SHOULD be getting cooler, but it isn't. It's getting slightly warmer.

It's not a 30 year cycle, and i'm not sure where you get a 30 year cycle from. It's a 100,000 year cycle. But yes, the earth gets warmer and cooler within warming and cooling periods. It is natural.

However there's a difference between where we would be at if we hadn't polluted the world massively and where we actually are, wouldn't you say?

Pure nonsense. Not worthy of anymore than that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Pure nonsense. Not worthy of anymore than that.

Oh, sure, anything you don't agree with is clearly just nonsense. You must be right all the time, it's a God given right, right?

 

[Pete7469]

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers. First they are not scientists. Second, they dont believe scientists. Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE! Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE. Why? Because their gut says its not.

So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money. Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless

The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to separate itself from financial political influence.

Shhhh

ClosedCaption thinks celestial observations are pie in the sky kook stuff.

Don't wanna embarrass him

I rather enjoy seeing him embarrassed.

 

[flacaltenn]

What I said in the post above is the most likely thing to happen. The warming for a Doubling of CO2 , is not likely to exceed 1.2degC. All the rest of the GW hysteria and hype is a side show with political objectives... The massive feedbacks from the GW Magic Multipliers are not even close to settled. They are poor guesses to how a complex climate system like the Earth survives for Millions of years without destroying itself.

So, you're claiming that CO2 at double the amount in the atmosphere will only be a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures?

Okay, let's see you evidence.

Also, what do you think a 1.2 degree rise will do to the earth?

Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in), 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009

So, since 1950 we've seen a rise of about 0.6 degrees in temperature and a rise of 3 inches in sea level. So double that and we're looking at a rise of 6 more inches.


What it could be like if it gets way too high.

If the projected temperature from Doubling CO2 was just the "CO2 only" contribution -- it wouldn't even be making the news. Because the NEXT doubling takes CO2 from about 560ppm to 1120ppm --- FAAAAR into the future.

The 1.2degC is the generally agreeded upon number for CO2 only influence.

CO2 no-feedback sensitivity | Climate Etc.

The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by most skeptics. Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

Even the cult leader James Hansen started this out by saying..

CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks Hansen 1984

This is referred to in GW folklore as "the trigger".. I'll accept the "trigger" or something less than that -- but the rest of the Magic Multiplier are far from "settled science".. Even the latest IPCC report has a HUGE range on the feedback effects from a CO2 doubling. Not an indication of "settled science" either.

No Magic Multipliers -- no crisis. And we'd be spending time fixing REAL PROBLEMS in the environment. We SEEN AND OBSERVED warming more like this simple Doubling number than ANY GW model has projected. About 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Sea level rise since pre-industrial has not accelerated much at all. EVENTUALLY, it will. Because the Climate is rising from the Little Ice Age and the effect of temperature on SLevel rise is highly non-linear. Ice melts at 32degF.. THAT'S when the seas rise. And even at the rate in the 1800s, Greenland would eventually start seeing more months at 32degF or above..

I believe we are in a warming trend, that CO2 is small effect on that rise. And that all those "magic multipliers" are too poorly conceived and modeled to be believed. Because if the Earth Climate System was THAT UNSTABLE -- where a couple degree rise would drive it into Runaway Warming -- we wouldn't be here today to argue about it.

 

[mamooth]

Visit the link I provided. Until then, stop polluting.

I did, shit-for-brains. That would be why I talked about it so much, and why I know the author is a liar.

In contrast, you haven't looked at it beyond a casual glance, making you a hypocrite as well as a dumbshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Visit the link I provided. Until then, stop polluting.

I did, shit-for-brains. That would be why I talked about it so much, and why I know the author is a liar.

In contrast, you haven't looked at it beyond a casual glance, making you a hypocrite as well as a dumbshit.

"The Author" ??? You never looked at the list of Journal Articles didya?
People don't "author" lists of journal articles.

 

[mamooth]

That's pathetic in its desperation, flac. The nitpicking, that is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is the problem for the deniers. Flat and Walleyes have been predicting a cooling trend. Now with an El Nino imminent, they can see that this year, and next year, also, will be warm. Maybe much warmer than 1998, 2005, or 2010. And there goes not only their 'pause', but also, their cooling trend. So now you see them starting to talk about 100,000 year warming trends and other total nonsense.

Look up the Milankovic Cycles and see where we are in those cycles. We really should be in a cooling trend. Not only a lower Total Solar Irradiance, but also India and China mucking up the atmosphere with particulates that reflect the sunlight ( See Dr. James Hansen's article, The Faustian Bargain). We should be cooling, but we are not.