The new normal.....rising temperatures

[concept]

"balmier winters".

 

[Bern80]

Indeed.

there's going to be normal fluxusations in temperatures whether the climate is getting warmer, getting colder or staying the same.

That is undoubtably true.

Now who here among us is going to try to tell us that on the EAST COAST the summers haven't been getting warmer and the winters milder even taking into account those normal random deviations from the mean?

Anybody want to tell me that is NOT true in the last 50 years?

My father, having lived in the same hourse for the last 55 years, noted recently that the heat wave in July, something that is normal in July, but that used to be something that typically lasted a week, is now into their 22 day of 90 + temps.

That is a very large deviation from the norm, folks.

Admittedly, it might be normal in the LONG RUN, but human being do not live in the LONG RUN, we live in a very short run.

Our society has based how it works on that SHORT run too.

So regardless of what is causing these changes, it take a special kind of willingness to believe bullshit to deny what is plainly evident to all of us.

It's getting hotter, folks.

Denial doesn't change reality.

What is normal? This is why I keep harping on perspective. Normal is relative. It is not normal to you as a human being with a lifespan of a mere 100 years. But in terms of climate cycles that occur in scales of thousands of years to pretend that what you have observed as far as climate change over your lifetime means something in terms of us causing a problem is ridiculous. There is no such thing as normal as far as climate goes anyway. There is only the cycle we're in while we (humans) occupy the earth. Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

 

[konradv]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

 

[konradv]

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

Phil "AGW" Jones: Yes

LOL!!! This is typical of the dishonesty so prevelant in the denier camp. They trashed this guy for months and now they're hingeing their position on his answer to a narrowly crafted question and touting him! Here's a clue. AGW and the answer he gave could very well both be true. Natural fluctuations will, of course, still occur, but long range trends would still be up. That's why sometimes you have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. The deniers will say those words prove fraud, but the real fraud is that they're trying to change the intent of those words to further their own agenda.

What preytell is our agenda? The GW alarmists agenda is to get rich on the backs of the poor. This is verifiable if you just look at all the highpowered investment companies who are heavily invested in the passage of carbon control laws that they get to profit from. They are allready pre positioned, they just need to get the politicians to pass the laws for them.

I can tell you my agenda, it is quite simply to educate the uninformed so that they can make logical choices not based on emotion so as to not bankrupt the western nations in a ridiculous attempt to control the uncontrolable.

Maintaining the status quo can also be an agenda. Those who would lose out financially due a switch from fossil fuels to other sources of energy are trying damnedest to make sure it doesn't happpen any time soon, regardless of the consequences.

 

[Bern80]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

So really what you're saying is we should alter the course of climate change whethet it's naturally occurring or not?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

That seems to be hubris of the nth degree.

For most of earth's history, the planet was downright inhospitable for human life as we know it. We happen to be occupying a very small window of geologic time. Chances are the earth will become unfriendly to human life again and it will have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

 

[konradv]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

What right do you have to alter the course of a naturally occurring climate change?

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

 

[Douger]

In Highland Peru, a Culture Confronts Blight : NPR

 

[westwall]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

Mankind has no effect on climate no matter what you religious types would try and have us believe.

 

[westwall]

LOL!!! This is typical of the dishonesty so prevelant in the denier camp. They trashed this guy for months and now they're hingeing their position on his answer to a narrowly crafted question and touting him! Here's a clue. AGW and the answer he gave could very well both be true. Natural fluctuations will, of course, still occur, but long range trends would still be up. That's why sometimes you have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. The deniers will say those words prove fraud, but the real fraud is that they're trying to change the intent of those words to further their own agenda.

What preytell is our agenda? The GW alarmists agenda is to get rich on the backs of the poor. This is verifiable if you just look at all the highpowered investment companies who are heavily invested in the passage of carbon control laws that they get to profit from. They are allready pre positioned, they just need to get the politicians to pass the laws for them.

I can tell you my agenda, it is quite simply to educate the uninformed so that they can make logical choices not based on emotion so as to not bankrupt the western nations in a ridiculous attempt to control the uncontrolable.

Maintaining the status quo can also be an agenda. Those who would lose out financially due a switch from fossil fuels to other sources of energy are trying damnedest to make sure it doesn't happpen any time soon, regardless of the consequences.

You might wish to look at a list of corporations who have been giving money to the AGW proponents there konrad, Big Oil is well represented. They want to have their cake and eat yours too.

 

[westwall]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

What right do you have to alter the course of a naturally occurring climate change?

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

And yet when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good. The largest creatures ever to have lived on the planet were romping around, plants were everywhere and biological evolution was proceeding at an extraordinary rate. Please answer that little conundrum. Throughout mans history when it's been warm life has been good. When it has been cold there has been war, pestilence, and plague.

And as far as the science goes, please explain to me how you can put energy into a system and have it generate more energy? The second Law of Thermodynamics says greenhouse gas theory won't work. It is creating in essence a perpetual motion machine.

You've got a real problem there old boy.

 

[westwall]

In Highland Peru, a Culture Confronts Blight : NPR

Didn't you forget to mention this little fact there douger?

Throughout history, these farmers have nurtured thousands of potato varieties, because El Nino has always brought changes in the weather, says Alejandro Argumedo of the Andes Association.

NATURAL CLIMATE CYCLES....as we've been saying all along.

 

[Bfgrn]

What right do you have to alter the course of a naturally occurring climate change?

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

And yet when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good. The largest creatures ever to have lived on the planet were romping around, plants were everywhere and biological evolution was proceeding at an extraordinary rate. Please answer that little conundrum. Throughout mans history when it's been warm life has been good. When it has been cold there has been war, pestilence, and plague.

And as far as the science goes, please explain to me how you can put energy into a system and have it generate more energy? The second Law of Thermodynamics says greenhouse gas theory won't work. It is creating in essence a perpetual motion machine.

You've got a real problem there old boy.

' when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good'

For WHOM??? Human beings?

 

[Bern80]

Frankly we are pretty damn fortunate to be occupying the earth at this particular geological time.

...and we'd like to keep it that way.

What right do you have to alter the course of a naturally occurring climate change?

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

Again perspective. If CO2 were 25-30% of our atmosphere as opposed to not only a trace gas, but a trace greenhouse gas as well, I might be concerned. On top of that man's contribution to said gas being miniscule when all sources of it are considered that would have to be one powerful gas to have such a dramatic impact on climate. We should expect to see an increase in CO2 to be magnified in temperature increases. Yet we don't see that. Have you ever noticed that there is an awful lot of talk about increasing temps, but comparitively little data is presented when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

 

[Bern80]

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

And yet when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good. The largest creatures ever to have lived on the planet were romping around, plants were everywhere and biological evolution was proceeding at an extraordinary rate. Please answer that little conundrum. Throughout mans history when it's been warm life has been good. When it has been cold there has been war, pestilence, and plague.

And as far as the science goes, please explain to me how you can put energy into a system and have it generate more energy? The second Law of Thermodynamics says greenhouse gas theory won't work. It is creating in essence a perpetual motion machine.

You've got a real problem there old boy.

' when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good'

For WHOM??? Human beings?

Might it be inconvenient for humans? Possibly. But what right do we have to change the course of a naturally occurring event just because we are uncomfortable? That's what know alarmist will consider. Any honest person has to at least account for the possiblity that this is a natural event. IF that is the case, and all of the dooms' day scenarios' come to pass, should we still be trying to alter the course of climate change, or should we adapt?

There is no normal climate folks. There is a climate that humans survive best in. Unfortunately the climate of the earth has varied wildly from that comfort zone in earth's history. We KNOW places on earth and indeed the earth as a whole has been warmer than it is now, and frankly there is decent argument that warmer would be better for mankind and on the other hand it doesn't need to get much colder for life to get pretty difficult on this planet. It has been that way and it WILL be that way again. Millions, if not billions of people WILL die when the rest of the country has to suffer year round round winter, like we have 5 months out of the year here in MN.

 

[westwall]

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

And yet when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good. The largest creatures ever to have lived on the planet were romping around, plants were everywhere and biological evolution was proceeding at an extraordinary rate. Please answer that little conundrum. Throughout mans history when it's been warm life has been good. When it has been cold there has been war, pestilence, and plague.

And as far as the science goes, please explain to me how you can put energy into a system and have it generate more energy? The second Law of Thermodynamics says greenhouse gas theory won't work. It is creating in essence a perpetual motion machine.

You've got a real problem there old boy.

' when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 20 times what is now life was good'

For WHOM??? Human beings?

ALL life on the planet did better then. Do you honestly think that man is so weak that when all other life is doing great man will perish? That's just simply assinine.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know......considering the amount of snow in DC over the winter, combined with the record temperatures in NYC this summer........you may wish to look at something else......

Maybe it's not global warming, but rather weather intensification. I mean, look at the floods and all the other places where things have been stronger than what scientists predicted.

It's not global warming, it's global climate change and you can bet, the weather is going to continue to go a bit stronger each time.

Did you notice that there were record tornado storms this summer?

 

[skookerasbil]

The summers are undoutably warmer on the East coast than they were when I was a kid.

The heat waves are getting longer, and their temps higher than any time I can remember in my lifetime.

Whether this is merely a normal deviation from the norm, or the result of global warming I truly cannot say.

But to deny the blantently obvious seems foolish to me.

Whatever the reason, the summers have been getting warmer and the winters milder.

The REASON for this is debateable.

The FACT is undeniable.

Winters milder??? WTF s0n? Maybe in Maine.......not in New York. We froze out asses off from late October right through late May this year. I was putting my kids on the bus in early June and they had sweaters on every morning and Im saying to myself

All the environmental zombies freak out when there is a warmer than normal day or two. Sh!t...........I distinctly remember a couple of summers ago in New York we had a 51 degree day on August 10th. Never saw that in my 50 years s0n................oh, but wait, I guess that is due to man made global warming too!!

 

[skookerasbil]

News flash to the zombies.....................

Weather is cyclical..........it always has been. It always will be. And anyway............you stupid dumbasses, this climate change crap has nothing to do with climate at all. Never has...............

Listen to this guy and dont be a fcukking zombie.......................


CFACT



>>edit.............stolen from Westwall..............<<edit

 

[Old Rocks]

What right do you have to alter the course of a naturally occurring climate change?

Because we're saying it's not natural. If CO2 is 25-30% above historical averages and rising, how can you expect anything but warming? Since man emits more in a few days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year, where do YOU think it's coming from? You can't get away from the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. More CO2 would trap more photons. Given the principle of Conservation of Energy and the fact that statistically only half would be re-emitted into space, what do you think the rest is doing?

Again perspective. If CO2 were 25-30% of our atmosphere as opposed to not only a trace gas, but a trace greenhouse gas as well, I might be concerned. On top of that man's contribution to said gas being miniscule when all sources of it are considered that would have to be one powerful gas to have such a dramatic impact on climate. We should expect to see an increase in CO2 to be magnified in temperature increases. Yet we don't see that. Have you ever noticed that there is an awful lot of talk about increasing temps, but comparitively little data is presented when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

Really? The acidification of the ocean that we are measuring is means nothing? Has nothing to do with the increase in CO2 that man has created?

Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean

Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean

Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean
Robert H. Byrne

College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, Saint Petersburg, Florida, USA

Sabine Mecking

Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Richard A. Feely

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA

Xuewu Liu

College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, Saint Petersburg, Florida, USA

Global ocean acidification is a prominent, inexorable change associated with rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Here we present the first basin-wide direct observations of recently declining pH, along with estimates of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions to that signal. Along 152°W in the North Pacific Ocean (22–56°N), pH changes between 1991 and 2006 were essentially zero below about 800 m depth. However, in the upper 500 m, significant pH changes, as large as &#8722;0.06, were observed. Anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic contributions over the upper 800 m are estimated to be of similar magnitude. In the surface mixed layer (depths to &#8764;100 m), the extent of pH change is consistent with that expected under conditions of seawater/atmosphere equilibration, with an average rate of change of &#8722;0.0017/yr. Future mixed layer changes can be expected to closely mirror changes in atmospheric CO2, with surface seawater pH continuing to fall as atmospheric CO2 rises.