Historic Antarctic Cold snap kills fish!!!!

[RyzinEnagy]

The question you should be asking is the theory wrong. So far the prime theorists have been proven to manipulate data to further their financial and political aims. This is fact.
To obfuscate the fact that NONE of their predictions have come true (Hansens well publicised prediction of temp rise was 300% off and that even after the CO2 level rose MUCH HIGHER than he predicted).

Now let's look at what the climatologists actually do shall we? They are responsible for generating computer models to predict the future climate. That is their science. The test of their theory will quite obviously be to test their computer models against actual recorded weather. So far they can not recreate weather that occured ten days ago. They can't recreate weather that occured 10 years ago, in short their theories fail every time they are tested.

So to try and push policy they present predictions that will hopefully so frighten the civilians that the people will allow onerous laws to be passed to take their wealth away from them and give it to others (like the AGW "scientists and their cronies in government)
so we end up with predictions for everything.

Here is some homework for you. Type a year into google followed by weather. ANY year.
You will be amazed by all the "weather events", as defined by the AGW alarmists, that occure every single year.

Our point is when you predict everything is related to global warming then eventually you will get one correct. That doesn't make your theory right however!

What's important is the trend. Do the trends show that weather events are getting more extreme? I don't know myself because current data is spotty, but to laugh at the prediction of this thing happening without posting proof of him being incorrect is awful.

Also, the "hide the decline" thing was taken out of context. Aside from that, that some predictions haven't happened as predicted is not proof that AGW isn't happening. I'll elaborate on the other stuff you said when I get back from class tonight.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.amwa.net/galleries/climate-change/2010_NortheastExtremePrecip.pdf

Conclusions
In this study, a range of definitions for extreme precipitation was
examined to provide a robust indicator of climate change in the
Northeastern United States. All of the definitions (frequency
of accumulation, the 99th percentile of events, or recurrence
intervals) indicate that the occurrences of extreme precipitation
events, and the intensity of rainfall, are increasing. Annual
precipitation also showed predominantly positive increases from
1948-2007, with the most significant increases occurring most
recently. The increase in extreme precipitation events and in
annual precipitation is occurring primarily during the spring
and fall. Correlation between seasonal northern hemisphere
temperature anomalies and the occurrence of seasonal one-inch
events is also strongest during the spring and fall, suggesting that
increasing temperatures play an important role in the increasing
frequency of extreme precipitation.
As New England continues to develop and grow, more
development and infrastructure infringe on the area’s watersheds,
rivers, and floodplains. This increases the potential severity of
flooding in the future by decreasing the amount of permeable
surface in watersheds as well as increasing the number of
buildings and roads that are built in flood prone areas.
Understanding extreme precipitation trends is important so that
society can prepare for the potential of more frequent flooding.
Evidence is growing that the observed historical trends of
increasing extreme precipitation are connected to greenhousegas-
enhanced climate change, driven primarily by the burning of
fossil fuels and land use changes. In 2007, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change concluded that it was more likely than
not that human influence contributed to the trend toward more
extreme precipitation events and that future increases in extreme
precipitation are very likely. This study provides further evidence
of these trends.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/2002-osbornhulme_heavyrain.pdf

6. Conclusions
Over 100 weather stations with daily precipitation totals for the last four decades provide
a record of precipitation characteristics across most of the UK. They indicate
increased precipitation totals and increased frequency and contribution of heavyprecipitation
events during winter, and decreases in these characteristics during
summer. These trends are consistent with changes in the full precipitation probability
distributions and are spatially coherent across most of the UK. In relation to
the entire 20th century, there is an indication that recent winter increases in heavy
precipitation are unusual, while recent summer decreases may not be, but the sparseness
of the longer observational records leads to reduced confidence in the extended
results.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A (2002)
12 T. J. Osborn and M. Hulme
The analysis presented here provides a climatological context for recent hydrological
changes (such as the flooding during autumn 2000), though the relationship
between heavy precipitation events and fluvial flooding is not straightforward (Pielke
& Downton 2000). The results also raise the question of whether the observed changes
(particularly those in winter, which may be unusual compared with the longer
records) are a natural multi-decadal climate fluctuation or are part of a climatechange
signal that may continue or even strengthen during the next century. This is
not a simple question to answer, especially given the difficulties outlined in the introduction
with regard to the detection of trends in extremes. The sign of the change
is consistent with the simulated climate-change signal due to increasing greenhousegas
concentrations, though the magnitude of the observed change is greater than
that expected from the model simulations. There have certainly been substantial
changes in the atmospheric circulation over the Atlantic and western Europe in winter
over the past 40 years, related principally to an increase in the North Atlantic
Oscillation (Hurrell 1995). Osborn & Hulme (2000) showed, however, that this was
linked to increased precipitation intensity only in the parts of the UK that experience
significant orographic rainfall (especially western Scotland, northern Wales, and
southwestern and northwestern England), whereas the observed increases are more Author: or ‘south’
(not clear from
uniform across the whole country. In addition, it is likely that the recent changes in original)?
the North Atlantic Oscillation are themselves partly a response to some combination
of climate forcings, and thus may not be simply natural variability (Osborn et al .
1999). We conclude, therefore, that there is some evidence that the recent winter
changes have some component of a climate-change signal within them, but the evidence
is not sufficiently strong on its own to suggest that the observed trends will
continue with the same magnitude into the future.

 

[westwall]

The question you should be asking is the theory wrong. So far the prime theorists have been proven to manipulate data to further their financial and political aims. This is fact.
To obfuscate the fact that NONE of their predictions have come true (Hansens well publicised prediction of temp rise was 300% off and that even after the CO2 level rose MUCH HIGHER than he predicted).

Now let's look at what the climatologists actually do shall we? They are responsible for generating computer models to predict the future climate. That is their science. The test of their theory will quite obviously be to test their computer models against actual recorded weather. So far they can not recreate weather that occured ten days ago. They can't recreate weather that occured 10 years ago, in short their theories fail every time they are tested.

So to try and push policy they present predictions that will hopefully so frighten the civilians that the people will allow onerous laws to be passed to take their wealth away from them and give it to others (like the AGW "scientists and their cronies in government)
so we end up with predictions for everything.

Here is some homework for you. Type a year into google followed by weather. ANY year.
You will be amazed by all the "weather events", as defined by the AGW alarmists, that occure every single year.

Our point is when you predict everything is related to global warming then eventually you will get one correct. That doesn't make your theory right however!

What's important is the trend. Do the trends show that weather events are getting more extreme? I don't know myself because current data is spotty, but to laugh at the prediction of this thing happening without posting proof of him being incorrect is awful.

Also, the "hide the decline" thing was taken out of context. Aside from that, that some predictions haven't happened as predicted is not proof that AGW isn't happening. I'll elaborate on the other stuff you said when I get back from class tonight.

No they don't. Al Gores movie An Incontinent (ooops) Inconvenient Truth stated that hurricanes were getting more frequent and more powerful. And the graph that he used was true. Over the 30 years that the graph used the trend was certainly up. But, (and there's allways a but with alarmists) if you looked back further you saw that the hurricanes 50 years before were more violent and more frequent than even the most recent ones.

I find it amazing that people will ignore tha simple fact that the planet does not operate on mans timeframe. Do you think that a tree experiences the world the same way you do? How about a cat? Cats live their lives out in a period of 10 to 20 years for the most part. Trees exist for between 125 and 4000 years. Do you honestly think that man's experience is the only one that matters?

We are here for an instant. The planet has been around for billions of years. We have no concept really of how the planet operates. To believe otherwise is arrogance on a grand scale.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks, have you considered stand up comedy? You could be the new Henny Youngman, "Take my glacier, please"

 

[westwall]

http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/2002-osbornhulme_heavyrain.pdf

6. Conclusions
Over 100 weather stations with daily precipitation totals for the last four decades provide
a record of precipitation characteristics across most of the UK. They indicate
increased precipitation totals and increased frequency and contribution of heavyprecipitation
events during winter, and decreases in these characteristics during
summer. These trends are consistent with changes in the full precipitation probability
distributions and are spatially coherent across most of the UK. In relation to
the entire 20th century, there is an indication that recent winter increases in heavy
precipitation are unusual, while recent summer decreases may not be, but the sparseness
of the longer observational records leads to reduced confidence in the extended
results.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A (2002)
12 T. J. Osborn and M. Hulme
The analysis presented here provides a climatological context for recent hydrological
changes (such as the flooding during autumn 2000), though the relationship
between heavy precipitation events and fluvial flooding is not straightforward (Pielke
& Downton 2000). The results also raise the question of whether the observed changes
(particularly those in winter, which may be unusual compared with the longer
records) are a natural multi-decadal climate fluctuation or are part of a climatechange
signal that may continue or even strengthen during the next century. This is
not a simple question to answer, especially given the difficulties outlined in the introduction
with regard to the detection of trends in extremes. The sign of the change
is consistent with the simulated climate-change signal due to increasing greenhousegas
concentrations, though the magnitude of the observed change is greater than
that expected from the model simulations. There have certainly been substantial
changes in the atmospheric circulation over the Atlantic and western Europe in winter
over the past 40 years, related principally to an increase in the North Atlantic
Oscillation (Hurrell 1995). Osborn & Hulme (2000) showed, however, that this was
linked to increased precipitation intensity only in the parts of the UK that experience
significant orographic rainfall (especially western Scotland, northern Wales, and
southwestern and northwestern England), whereas the observed increases are more Author: or ‘south’
(not clear from
uniform across the whole country. In addition, it is likely that the recent changes in original)?
the North Atlantic Oscillation are themselves partly a response to some combination
of climate forcings, and thus may not be simply natural variability (Osborn et al .
1999). We conclude, therefore, that there is some evidence that the recent winter
changes have some component of a climate-change signal within them, but the evidence
is not sufficiently strong on its own to suggest that the observed trends will
continue with the same magnitude into the future.

How about coming up with something a little more timely


This is a tad old!

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks, have you considered stand up comedy? You could be the new Henny Youngman, "Take my glacier, please"

You know he knows he's losing when he trots out all of this old crapola!

 

[Old Rocks]

13 years old, so how does the analysis stack up? Tennessee, Russia, Pakistan

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Precipitation Trends in the 20th Century

Precipitation Trends in the 20th Century
By Anthony Del Genio, Aiguo Dai, and Inez Fung — December 1997

Aside from changes in temperature itself, perhaps the most important potential impact of future global warming will be its effect on global precipitation patterns and the frequency of severe droughts and floods. For about a century, a significant fraction of the land area of Earth has been covered by rain gauges that collect rain at individual locations and record the amount that falls over a given time period. In principle, the global network of rain gauges might be used to tell us whether noticeable changes in rainfall have already taken place during the 20th Century. Unfortunately, inferring precipitation over large areas from such point measurements is notoriously difficult. Most precipitation occurs in short bursts over small areas. This is typical of thunderstorms, which can produce torrential rains for a few minutes in one location while no rain at all falls just a few miles away. Since rain gauges are not placed in every spot, it is difficult to objectively estimate how much rain has fallen over a large area. To make matters worse, rain gauges and the way rainfall is recorded have changed over the years, and some station locations have been moved. These changes are not always well documented, making it difficult to separate real climate changes from spurious ones in the historical record.


Long term precipitation trends observed during 1900-88; green/blue indicate places that have become wetter, yellow/orange/red indicate locations that have become drier. The northern half of Africa is omitted because its dominant long-term trend is the Sahelian drought of the past few decades, a phenomenon distinct from the century-long trends seen elsewhere in the world.
Scientists at the Goddard Institute have compiled the available precipitation data into a form that removes these problems and used it to detect some important climatic features of 20th Century precipitation changes. Well-known climatic disturbances that have affected rainfall in the past, such as El Nino and the long-term drought in the Sahel region of Africa, are evident in this dataset. Of more interest, though, are the new things it tells us about how precipitation may respond to, and influence, global warming. We find that in much of the middle and high latitudes, precipitation has systematically increased over the 20th Century. This is consistent with changes predicted by climate models when concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are assumed to increase. The dataset also helps us to put some recent damaging extreme precipitation events into a global, long-term perspective. For example, the severe 1988 drought in the midwest U.S., which raised public awareness about the possibility of global warming, was of a severity that has been repeated 24 times worldwide this century; however, the majority of the other droughts occurred in the tropics and in association with El Nino. On the other hand, the terrible midwest U.S. floods of 1993 are matched in severity by only five other events worldwide this century, and are the worst example recorded this century in the Northern Hemisphere.

Precipitation changes may not only be caused by global warming but may affect global warming as well (i.e., they provide a feedback). A peculiar feature of the warming recorded over the past century is that temperatures have warmed more during the nighttime than the daytime. This has some benefits for agriculture, because killing frosts may be less frequent, but it may adversely affect the growth of some plants and cause pests to proliferate. We find that the precipitation changes recorded over the 20th Century are well-matched to trends in cloud cover measured over the past few decades. Precipitating clouds such as nimbostratus and cumulonimbus can affect the range of daily temperature extremes by reflecting sunlight effectively and keeping the ground cool during the day, and trapping heat at their low bases at night. The observed narrowing of the daily temperature range may thus be one more piece of evidence about how Earth's hydrologic cycle is changing in response to an increasing greenhouse effect

 

[westwall]

13 years old, so how does the analysis stack up? Tennessee, Russia, Pakistan

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Precipitation Trends in the 20th Century

Precipitation Trends in the 20th Century
By Anthony Del Genio, Aiguo Dai, and Inez Fung — December 1997

Aside from changes in temperature itself, perhaps the most important potential impact of future global warming will be its effect on global precipitation patterns and the frequency of severe droughts and floods. For about a century, a significant fraction of the land area of Earth has been covered by rain gauges that collect rain at individual locations and record the amount that falls over a given time period. In principle, the global network of rain gauges might be used to tell us whether noticeable changes in rainfall have already taken place during the 20th Century. Unfortunately, inferring precipitation over large areas from such point measurements is notoriously difficult. Most precipitation occurs in short bursts over small areas. This is typical of thunderstorms, which can produce torrential rains for a few minutes in one location while no rain at all falls just a few miles away. Since rain gauges are not placed in every spot, it is difficult to objectively estimate how much rain has fallen over a large area. To make matters worse, rain gauges and the way rainfall is recorded have changed over the years, and some station locations have been moved. These changes are not always well documented, making it difficult to separate real climate changes from spurious ones in the historical record.


Long term precipitation trends observed during 1900-88; green/blue indicate places that have become wetter, yellow/orange/red indicate locations that have become drier. The northern half of Africa is omitted because its dominant long-term trend is the Sahelian drought of the past few decades, a phenomenon distinct from the century-long trends seen elsewhere in the world.
Scientists at the Goddard Institute have compiled the available precipitation data into a form that removes these problems and used it to detect some important climatic features of 20th Century precipitation changes. Well-known climatic disturbances that have affected rainfall in the past, such as El Nino and the long-term drought in the Sahel region of Africa, are evident in this dataset. Of more interest, though, are the new things it tells us about how precipitation may respond to, and influence, global warming. We find that in much of the middle and high latitudes, precipitation has systematically increased over the 20th Century. This is consistent with changes predicted by climate models when concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are assumed to increase. The dataset also helps us to put some recent damaging extreme precipitation events into a global, long-term perspective. For example, the severe 1988 drought in the midwest U.S., which raised public awareness about the possibility of global warming, was of a severity that has been repeated 24 times worldwide this century; however, the majority of the other droughts occurred in the tropics and in association with El Nino. On the other hand, the terrible midwest U.S. floods of 1993 are matched in severity by only five other events worldwide this century, and are the worst example recorded this century in the Northern Hemisphere.

Precipitation changes may not only be caused by global warming but may affect global warming as well (i.e., they provide a feedback). A peculiar feature of the warming recorded over the past century is that temperatures have warmed more during the nighttime than the daytime. This has some benefits for agriculture, because killing frosts may be less frequent, but it may adversely affect the growth of some plants and cause pests to proliferate. We find that the precipitation changes recorded over the 20th Century are well-matched to trends in cloud cover measured over the past few decades. Precipitating clouds such as nimbostratus and cumulonimbus can affect the range of daily temperature extremes by reflecting sunlight effectively and keeping the ground cool during the day, and trapping heat at their low bases at night. The observed narrowing of the daily temperature range may thus be one more piece of evidence about how Earth's hydrologic cycle is changing in response to an increasing greenhouse effect

well if it had been caused by GW I would say pretty good. But as it was found to have NOT been caused by GW I would say it is an epic fail...How about you

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo West..........Old Rocks got his ass shot off at the Discovery Channel today!!!!

Check it out.................

Environmental Militant James Lee Shot and Killed After Taking Hostages at Discovery Channel Headquarters - ABC News

 

[RyzinEnagy]

The question you should be asking is the theory wrong. So far the prime theorists have been proven to manipulate data to further their financial and political aims. This is fact.
To obfuscate the fact that NONE of their predictions have come true (Hansens well publicised prediction of temp rise was 300% off and that even after the CO2 level rose MUCH HIGHER than he predicted).

Now let's look at what the climatologists actually do shall we? They are responsible for generating computer models to predict the future climate. That is their science. The test of their theory will quite obviously be to test their computer models against actual recorded weather. So far they can not recreate weather that occured ten days ago. They can't recreate weather that occured 10 years ago, in short their theories fail every time they are tested.

So to try and push policy they present predictions that will hopefully so frighten the civilians that the people will allow onerous laws to be passed to take their wealth away from them and give it to others (like the AGW "scientists and their cronies in government)
so we end up with predictions for everything.

Here is some homework for you. Type a year into google followed by weather. ANY year.
You will be amazed by all the "weather events", as defined by the AGW alarmists, that occure every single year.

Our point is when you predict everything is related to global warming then eventually you will get one correct. That doesn't make your theory right however!

What's important is the trend. Do the trends show that weather events are getting more extreme? I don't know myself because current data is spotty, but to laugh at the prediction of this thing happening without posting proof of him being incorrect is awful.

Also, the "hide the decline" thing was taken out of context. Aside from that, that some predictions haven't happened as predicted is not proof that AGW isn't happening. I'll elaborate on the other stuff you said when I get back from class tonight.

No they don't. Al Gores movie An Incontinent (ooops) Inconvenient Truth stated that hurricanes were getting more frequent and more powerful. And the graph that he used was true. Over the 30 years that the graph used the trend was certainly up. But, (and there's allways a but with alarmists) if you looked back further you saw that the hurricanes 50 years before were more violent and more frequent than even the most recent ones.

I find it amazing that people will ignore tha simple fact that the planet does not operate on mans timeframe. Do you think that a tree experiences the world the same way you do? How about a cat? Cats live their lives out in a period of 10 to 20 years for the most part. Trees exist for between 125 and 4000 years. Do you honestly think that man's experience is the only one that matters?

We are here for an instant. The planet has been around for billions of years. We have no concept really of how the planet operates. To believe otherwise is arrogance on a grand scale.

It is obvious that this planet hasn't produced any species that is close to comparing to the success of the human race. We've altered the Earth in many obvious ways that no other species has been able to dream about. Looking at the human race specifically, humans have been far more successful since the Industrial Revolution (the last 300 or so years) than they were in their entire previous history, or just to be a little more conservative, the human race hadn't taken that quantum leap forward since the Agricultural Revolution. So by using that logic, it's easy to see why we're more than just a speck in the planet's history, and why it is possible that we have done more to this planet in the last 300 years than in the millennia that preceded it.

Speaking of predictions that were off, they still don't disprove anthropogenic global warming. Yes, that dude was wrong, and yes, the Earth has warmed before, but it simply hasn't happened this quickly. Consider this chart:

That was compiled using tree ring widths, ice cores, and a host of other reliable scientifically proven sources of historical data. That a NOAA satellite erred and gave an observation that was 16 degrees off target doesn't change this (and I'm taking your word that this actually happened).

When you consider that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, and that CO2 increases during the last 30 or so years have been astronomical, it's hard to not see the link there. There is no mathematical formula that'll tell you exactly how much the temperature will rise when you put a certain amount of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so predictions will not always be on target, but the link is there and we'll get better at it as both science progresses and we acquire more information, but more importantly they've correctly predicted the upward trend that is well beyond what is considered a normal rate of increase when you look at historical data.

There may well be another 10 year period long ago where temperatures rose even more quickly than they have in these last 10 (although that hasn't been proven), but again, it doesn't disprove AGW. Even if they have, the implications this time around are much greater, because no other species in this planet's history has the vastly developed infrastructure that the human race has in the last 300 years, and the disproportionate share of it is near the coasts which stand to be flooded with melting polar ice caps. In the past, animals simply moved further inland (and it didn't come in one big tsunami wave so it's not like they had to run for their lives).

 

[westwall]

What's important is the trend. Do the trends show that weather events are getting more extreme? I don't know myself because current data is spotty, but to laugh at the prediction of this thing happening without posting proof of him being incorrect is awful.

Also, the "hide the decline" thing was taken out of context. Aside from that, that some predictions haven't happened as predicted is not proof that AGW isn't happening. I'll elaborate on the other stuff you said when I get back from class tonight.

No they don't. Al Gores movie An Incontinent (ooops) Inconvenient Truth stated that hurricanes were getting more frequent and more powerful. And the graph that he used was true. Over the 30 years that the graph used the trend was certainly up. But, (and there's allways a but with alarmists) if you looked back further you saw that the hurricanes 50 years before were more violent and more frequent than even the most recent ones.

I find it amazing that people will ignore tha simple fact that the planet does not operate on mans timeframe. Do you think that a tree experiences the world the same way you do? How about a cat? Cats live their lives out in a period of 10 to 20 years for the most part. Trees exist for between 125 and 4000 years. Do you honestly think that man's experience is the only one that matters?

We are here for an instant. The planet has been around for billions of years. We have no concept really of how the planet operates. To believe otherwise is arrogance on a grand scale.

It is obvious that this planet hasn't produced any species that is close to comparing to the success of the human race. We've altered the Earth in many obvious ways that no other species has been able to dream about. Looking at the human race specifically, humans have been far more successful since the Industrial Revolution (the last 300 or so years) than they were in their entire previous history, or just to be a little more conservative, the human race hadn't taken that quantum leap forward since the Agricultural Revolution. So by using that logic, it's easy to see why we're more than just a speck in the planet's history, and why it is possible that we have done more to this planet in the last 300 years than in the millennia that preceded it.

Speaking of predictions that were off, they still don't disprove anthropogenic global warming. Yes, that dude was wrong, and yes, the Earth has warmed before, but it simply hasn't happened this quickly. Consider this chart:

That was compiled using tree ring widths, ice cores, and a host of other reliable scientifically proven sources of historical data. That a NOAA satellite erred and gave an observation that was 16 degrees off target doesn't change this (and I'm taking your word that this actually happened).

When you consider that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, and that CO2 increases during the last 30 or so years have been astronomical, it's hard to not see the link there. There is no mathematical formula that'll tell you exactly how much the temperature will rise when you put a certain amount of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so predictions will not always be on target, but the link is there and we'll get better at it as both science progresses and we acquire more information, but more importantly they've correctly predicted the upward trend that is well beyond what is considered a normal rate of increase when you look at historical data.

There may well be another 10 year period long ago where temperatures rose even more quickly than they have in these last 10 (although that hasn't been proven), but again, it doesn't disprove AGW. Even if they have, the implications this time around are much greater, because no other species in this planet's history has the vastly developed infrastructure that the human race has in the last 300 years, and the disproportionate share of it is near the coasts which stand to be flooded with melting polar ice caps. In the past, animals simply moved further inland (and it didn't come in one big tsunami wave so it's not like they had to run for their lives).

Wow, man has been around for all of 500,000 years give or take. Homo Sapiens for only 200-250 thousand years and Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for between 40,000 and 130,000 years. Dinosaurs ruled the planet for 185,000,000 years!
They are far more successful than us.

As far as your CO2 info, the Vostock Ice Cores show that CO2 gas levels increase 800 years after the warming has begun. Also the paleo climate record shows that even when the CO2 levels were up to 20 times higher than today the temps were either close to the same as today or 5 to 7 degrees warmer. That's it. All evidence that is available to us shows us that CO2 and global temperature have no relation to each other.

Finally, even if the temps rise it will be beneficial to mankind. ALL historical data that we have shows that when it has been warm (up to 6 degrees warmer during the MWP and 7 degrees warmer during the Roman Warming Period) All life on the planet has prospered.
Plants, animals, people, it makes no difference they all did better.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why sure, just ask the Russians how beneficial this summers rise in temperatures has been.

 

[Charles_Main]

Hey guys, can you spot Bolivia on the map? After you have accomplished that, can you then tell where Antarctica lies in relation to Bolivia, and give an approximate distance from Antarctica to Bolivia?

Your point is? The last time I looked Bolivia is around 1000 miles from the Equator. It is over 4000 miles from Antarctica. It is however at high elevation which is a more relevant observation. A little less than half of the population live on the Altiplano plateau which is at an average elevation of around 11,000 to 12,000 feet or so (memoery is getting hazy I'm afraid) and that is the area being affected. The last time I flew in to La Paz it was a tad chilly and that was in June. So it is cool there in the winter, but this winter has been especially hard. Much cooler than normal.

The title of this thread is "Historic Antarctic Cold snap kills fish!!!!" and then we proceed to be treated to an article that states that the fish were actually in the rivers of Bolivia, which as you stated is 4 times farther away from Antarctica than the Equator.

The cold came from the antarctic dude. Just like we have arctic cold snaps in the states even though we are far from the arctic.

 

[RyzinEnagy]

No they don't. Al Gores movie An Incontinent (ooops) Inconvenient Truth stated that hurricanes were getting more frequent and more powerful. And the graph that he used was true. Over the 30 years that the graph used the trend was certainly up. But, (and there's allways a but with alarmists) if you looked back further you saw that the hurricanes 50 years before were more violent and more frequent than even the most recent ones.

I find it amazing that people will ignore tha simple fact that the planet does not operate on mans timeframe. Do you think that a tree experiences the world the same way you do? How about a cat? Cats live their lives out in a period of 10 to 20 years for the most part. Trees exist for between 125 and 4000 years. Do you honestly think that man's experience is the only one that matters?

We are here for an instant. The planet has been around for billions of years. We have no concept really of how the planet operates. To believe otherwise is arrogance on a grand scale.

It is obvious that this planet hasn't produced any species that is close to comparing to the success of the human race. We've altered the Earth in many obvious ways that no other species has been able to dream about. Looking at the human race specifically, humans have been far more successful since the Industrial Revolution (the last 300 or so years) than they were in their entire previous history, or just to be a little more conservative, the human race hadn't taken that quantum leap forward since the Agricultural Revolution. So by using that logic, it's easy to see why we're more than just a speck in the planet's history, and why it is possible that we have done more to this planet in the last 300 years than in the millennia that preceded it.

Speaking of predictions that were off, they still don't disprove anthropogenic global warming. Yes, that dude was wrong, and yes, the Earth has warmed before, but it simply hasn't happened this quickly. Consider this chart:

That was compiled using tree ring widths, ice cores, and a host of other reliable scientifically proven sources of historical data. That a NOAA satellite erred and gave an observation that was 16 degrees off target doesn't change this (and I'm taking your word that this actually happened).

When you consider that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, and that CO2 increases during the last 30 or so years have been astronomical, it's hard to not see the link there. There is no mathematical formula that'll tell you exactly how much the temperature will rise when you put a certain amount of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so predictions will not always be on target, but the link is there and we'll get better at it as both science progresses and we acquire more information, but more importantly they've correctly predicted the upward trend that is well beyond what is considered a normal rate of increase when you look at historical data.

There may well be another 10 year period long ago where temperatures rose even more quickly than they have in these last 10 (although that hasn't been proven), but again, it doesn't disprove AGW. Even if they have, the implications this time around are much greater, because no other species in this planet's history has the vastly developed infrastructure that the human race has in the last 300 years, and the disproportionate share of it is near the coasts which stand to be flooded with melting polar ice caps. In the past, animals simply moved further inland (and it didn't come in one big tsunami wave so it's not like they had to run for their lives).

Wow, man has been around for all of 500,000 years give or take. Homo Sapiens for only 200-250 thousand years and Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for between 40,000 and 130,000 years. Dinosaurs ruled the planet for 185,000,000 years!
They are far more successful than us.

As far as your CO2 info, the Vostock Ice Cores show that CO2 gas levels increase 800 years after the warming has begun. Also the paleo climate record shows that even when the CO2 levels were up to 20 times higher than today the temps were either close to the same as today or 5 to 7 degrees warmer. That's it. All evidence that is available to us shows us that CO2 and global temperature have no relation to each other.

Finally, even if the temps rise it will be beneficial to mankind. ALL historical data that we have shows that when it has been warm (up to 6 degrees warmer during the MWP and 7 degrees warmer during the Roman Warming Period) All life on the planet has prospered.
Plants, animals, people, it makes no difference they all did better.

I think you're wrong about the Vostok Ice Core Data. The graph measures in thousands of years ago, so the time is going backwards. You can see that the temperature increases are in fact a few hundred years more recent than the CO2 increases, meaning that the CO2 increase came before the temperature increase.

The Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than today (look at the graph I posted above...its time scale covers that period). Also, scientific consensus has attributed the warming during the Medieval Period to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity (both of which increase temperatures). Even if we disregard that, at no point on this planet's history have we had giant metropoli that were heavily concentrated on the coasts and are in danger of rising sea levels. The stakes of warming are much higher now, and even if vegetation prospers, humanity is going to suffer.

Also, dinosaurs were around longer as the dominant species but did not have that power over the planet that humanity in the last 300 years alone have.

 

[RyzinEnagy]

Your point is? The last time I looked Bolivia is around 1000 miles from the Equator. It is over 4000 miles from Antarctica. It is however at high elevation which is a more relevant observation. A little less than half of the population live on the Altiplano plateau which is at an average elevation of around 11,000 to 12,000 feet or so (memoery is getting hazy I'm afraid) and that is the area being affected. The last time I flew in to La Paz it was a tad chilly and that was in June. So it is cool there in the winter, but this winter has been especially hard. Much cooler than normal.

The title of this thread is "Historic Antarctic Cold snap kills fish!!!!" and then we proceed to be treated to an article that states that the fish were actually in the rivers of Bolivia, which as you stated is 4 times farther away from Antarctica than the Equator.

The cold came from the antarctic dude. Just like we have arctic cold snaps in the states even though we are far from the arctic.

Bolivia is much closer to the eastern Pacific than Antarctica (can you appreciate how close it is in relative terms when we say that a place is 1000 miles from the Equator...for reference it is about 6200 miles from the Equator to the South Pole), so it's a huge stretch to say than an Antarctic cold snap is what caused this. The eastern Pacific has been going through a powerful La Nina these last few months, and there is an established link between that and temperatures for places near and far away from it (as well as a link between La Nina and conditions conducive to hurricanes in the Atlantic). Bolivia is also high in the mountains, so if it gets cold, it gets really cold. Also, as this article states, the places hardest hit by this winter have been places like Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, and Paraguay, all places close to La Nina (and certainly closer to La Nina than Antarctica).

Even if we disregard everything I just said, this still doesn't disprove anything related to AGW.

 

[westwall]

It is obvious that this planet hasn't produced any species that is close to comparing to the success of the human race. We've altered the Earth in many obvious ways that no other species has been able to dream about. Looking at the human race specifically, humans have been far more successful since the Industrial Revolution (the last 300 or so years) than they were in their entire previous history, or just to be a little more conservative, the human race hadn't taken that quantum leap forward since the Agricultural Revolution. So by using that logic, it's easy to see why we're more than just a speck in the planet's history, and why it is possible that we have done more to this planet in the last 300 years than in the millennia that preceded it.

Speaking of predictions that were off, they still don't disprove anthropogenic global warming. Yes, that dude was wrong, and yes, the Earth has warmed before, but it simply hasn't happened this quickly. Consider this chart:

That was compiled using tree ring widths, ice cores, and a host of other reliable scientifically proven sources of historical data. That a NOAA satellite erred and gave an observation that was 16 degrees off target doesn't change this (and I'm taking your word that this actually happened).

When you consider that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, and that CO2 increases during the last 30 or so years have been astronomical, it's hard to not see the link there. There is no mathematical formula that'll tell you exactly how much the temperature will rise when you put a certain amount of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so predictions will not always be on target, but the link is there and we'll get better at it as both science progresses and we acquire more information, but more importantly they've correctly predicted the upward trend that is well beyond what is considered a normal rate of increase when you look at historical data.

There may well be another 10 year period long ago where temperatures rose even more quickly than they have in these last 10 (although that hasn't been proven), but again, it doesn't disprove AGW. Even if they have, the implications this time around are much greater, because no other species in this planet's history has the vastly developed infrastructure that the human race has in the last 300 years, and the disproportionate share of it is near the coasts which stand to be flooded with melting polar ice caps. In the past, animals simply moved further inland (and it didn't come in one big tsunami wave so it's not like they had to run for their lives).

Wow, man has been around for all of 500,000 years give or take. Homo Sapiens for only 200-250 thousand years and Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been around for between 40,000 and 130,000 years. Dinosaurs ruled the planet for 185,000,000 years!
They are far more successful than us.

As far as your CO2 info, the Vostock Ice Cores show that CO2 gas levels increase 800 years after the warming has begun. Also the paleo climate record shows that even when the CO2 levels were up to 20 times higher than today the temps were either close to the same as today or 5 to 7 degrees warmer. That's it. All evidence that is available to us shows us that CO2 and global temperature have no relation to each other.

Finally, even if the temps rise it will be beneficial to mankind. ALL historical data that we have shows that when it has been warm (up to 6 degrees warmer during the MWP and 7 degrees warmer during the Roman Warming Period) All life on the planet has prospered.
Plants, animals, people, it makes no difference they all did better.

I think you're wrong about the Vostok Ice Core Data. The graph measures in thousands of years ago, so the time is going backwards. You can see that the temperature increases are in fact a few hundred years more recent than the CO2 increases, meaning that the CO2 increase came before the temperature increase.

The Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than today (look at the graph I posted above...its time scale covers that period). Also, scientific consensus has attributed the warming during the Medieval Period to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity (both of which increase temperatures). Even if we disregard that, at no point on this planet's history have we had giant metropoli that were heavily concentrated on the coasts and are in danger of rising sea levels. The stakes of warming are much higher now, and even if vegetation prospers, humanity is going to suffer.

Also, dinosaurs were around longer as the dominant species but did not have that power over the planet that humanity in the last 300 years alone have.

First off you should know that no academic will use wiki for data as it has been compromised since its inception. One individual rewrote over 5000 articles to further his GW agenda. This article shows that in fact over the last THREE interglacials the warming preceeded the rise in CO2 by hundreds of years. This is a fact not an opinion.

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations -- Fischer et al. 283 (5408): 1712 -- Science


ALL evidence from legitimate sources shows that the temps during the MWP and RWP were warmer than the current temps. Once again this is fact not opinion.

CO2 Science

I suggest you look at some archeological books, there are many settlements that were inundated along the Black Sea and Mediterranian Seas coastlines. They now reside 150 feet or more below the current sea levels so once again this is nothing new we just don't remember it save in biblical and other religious tracts (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh).

In California people who built their homes along the Russian River get flooded out every other year. Along the eastern seaboard people lose their homes to storms almost every year. Maybe they shouldn't be building their homes in dangerous areas? Maybe our cities will have to move (it certainly won't be the first time!), though I doubt it. If the Greenland Ice sheet continues to melt at its current rate (it has been melting since the 1860's you know) the oceans will see no appreciable rise for 10,000 or so years so you need'nt worry yourself about that.


What you say about the dinosaurs is true however I look at it a different way....when the asteroid hit the Earth 65 million or so years ago all the dinosaurs could do was watch and die. Mankind is the first creature to come along who can prevent that from happening. It is a fact that global warming is better for life than cold is. It is also a fact that if (more likely when) such a thing occurs again if we do nothing mans existence ends.

I know where I would rather be spending my money.

 

[westwall]

Why sure, just ask the Russians how beneficial this summers rise in temperatures has been.

More importantly ask them how the 85% reduction in their forest managment manpower lead to uncontrolled underbrush accumulation. Also don't forget the exceptionally hard winter that provided tons more fuel to be burned in the first place. That is the primary cause of the fire storms that occured. The grain crop didn't fail because of heat, it failed because of drought which occurs more frequently when it's cold than when it is warm.

See this is the problem when your theory predicts everything. Remember the rains in the southeast? Yup you claimed GW. Remember the drought in Russia? Yup you blamed GW again. When everything that occurs is attributed to GW how can you lose

 

[RyzinEnagy]

First off you should know that no academic will use wiki for data as it has been compromised since its inception. One individual rewrote over 5000 articles to further his GW agenda. This article shows that in fact over the last THREE interglacials the warming preceeded the rise in CO2 by hundreds of years. This is a fact not an opinion.

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations -- Fischer et al. 283 (5408): 1712 -- Science


ALL evidence from legitimate sources shows that the temps during the MWP and RWP were warmer than the current temps. Once again this is fact not opinion.

CO2 Science

I suggest you look at some archeological books, there are many settlements that were inundated along the Black Sea and Mediterranian Seas coastlines. They now reside 150 feet or more below the current sea levels so once again this is nothing new we just don't remember it save in biblical and other religious tracts (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh).

In California people who built their homes along the Russian River get flooded out every other year. Along the eastern seaboard people lose their homes to storms almost every year. Maybe they shouldn't be building their homes in dangerous areas? Maybe our cities will have to move (it certainly won't be the first time!), though I doubt it. If the Greenland Ice sheet continues to melt at its current rate (it has been melting since the 1860's you know) the oceans will see no appreciable rise for 10,000 or so years so you need'nt worry yourself about that.


What you say about the dinosaurs is true however I look at it a different way....when the asteroid hit the Earth 65 million or so years ago all the dinosaurs could do was watch and die. Mankind is the first creature to come along who can prevent that from happening. It is a fact that global warming is better for life than cold is. It is also a fact that if (more likely when) such a thing occurs again if we do nothing mans existence ends.

I know where I would rather be spending my money.

Well here's another chart on the RWP and MWP compared to today, which says the same thing:

This is a reconstruction of the data from a chart produced by a Moberg study in 2005

Can you show me some evidence that contradicts this?

Onto the ice ages, after looking into it more, ice ages are events that occur with very long-term changes in the Earth, such as changes in tilt, changes in ocean currents caused by tectonic shifts of the continents, and changes in the composition of the atmosphere (and without post-Industrial Revolution humans this takes very long periods of time) caused by natural changes or volcanic eruptions. The end of ice ages and the start of interglacial periods are caused by these same changes, such as when the Earth's tilt decreases (allowing more sun to reach the poles and the areas around them), ocean currents change again (allowing warm water to circulate towards the ice sheets and towards the poles and changing the weather patterns around the ice sheets).

Now, it's true that CO2 has lagged behind temperature increases during such long-term periods (which doesn't prove that CO2 cannot increase temperature in short-term periods such as decades). Let's find out why. It's a scientific fact that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases when it warms up (this study uses that premise to study the effects of the carbon cycle during glacial periods). Combine that with the fact that the CO2 locked in ice sheets is now released with the retreat of the glaciers, and we can see why it is that the CO2 increased after the temperature. What does this prove? That in long-term periods such as the transition from ice ages to interglacial periods, that CO2 lagged the temperature increase, and when we're talking about very long time spans, there are many other factors that could trigger a temperature increase/decrease that we do not have when we're talking about periods such as the 20th and 21st centuries. What does it not prove? That CO2 by itself doesn't cause temperature to rise. Observe the graph, and see how when temperature increases, it increases in a big spike. Those short-term periods aren't long enough to be appreciably affected by things such as changing Earth tilt and changing ocean currents, since they happen in time spans over many tens of thousands of years. The CO2 increases also happened very soon after the temperature started increasing, in relative terms. CO2 has been proven to absorb heat and prevent more of it from exiting the atmosphere. The only explanation to the graph is that CO2 amplified the temperature increases up to a certain point where the carbon cycle (without the interference of humans) stopped it.

There's more stuff that I'd like to say, but I'll leave the length of this post at a manageable level and provide evidence in smaller bits so that people actually read it.