What happens if this turns out to be a natural pattern?

[westwall]

Also, women got the vote. And damnit, Pluto is no longer a planet, albeit still a lovable cartoon character.

Now then, what's what either you or I said tell us about global warming / climate change?

Unlike your non sequiters, his comments directly relate to climate change, as he showed quite correctly that climate change is cyclical and natural.

Cool. Direct in what way?

Read what he said again. Then look up the history of the ice ages and the interglacials. You will understand quite quickly after that.

 

[SSDD]

I dont doubt stuff is happening. It is a natural cycle. Has happened a few times. I DO doubt it is man-made.

Why?

Because for all of the billions of dollars squandered by climate science, there isn't a single bit of hard evidence of a human finger print in global climate change and all of the predicted fingerprints that would prove man's hand in altering the climate have failed to materialize.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The North Pole has been ice free before, most recently during the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago. It may have been during the MWP, we simply don't know for certain. Here is the sea ice extent today and here is a photo of the three subs in open water at the North Pole back in 1987. You would have a pretty difficult time doing that today.

In other words....it's normal and is nothing to get all worked up about....no matter what your science and history denying religious leaders tell you.

I'm sure your certainty comforts you, it does not comfort me. Cause and the effect 8,000 years ago may have some relevence to the cause and effect at work today, however, there are too many variables for any one cause to fully explain the changing climate of our time.

We know we have an impact on the environment, there are too many examples for that to be in dispute. A classic example of several factors at work explains the killer fog of London in 1952. See:

Dec. 9, 1952: 'Killer Fog' smothers up to 12,000 Londoners - StormWatch 7 | WJLA.com

Cause and effect of 8,000 years ago is the same as that today. the Laws of Physics (which ultimately drive everything) don't change within the confines of this universe.

I couldn't disagree more with your first sentence.

Man certainly has the ability to affect LOCAL conditions. Your link is an example of a LOCAL effect. The problem is it doesn't scale up to the levels you think it does. the Earth is an engine far greater than we are. Think of man as rust. Rust will be all over an engine and yet it continues to work just fine. I have an old engine that is 95 years old and has been outside for the majority of that time and it is still plugging along just fine.

It looks like hell but it keeps on keepin on.

Let's put physics aside and look at a little chemistry:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv13n1/v13n1-5.pdf

 

[SSDD]

The question is (and was) are we affecting the climate in a significant way, vis a vis an historic and unnatural rise in greenhouse gasses due to man-made effects?

Science says, "yes."

So please provide a link to the proof because if there were proof you can bet that there would be thousands of links. Computer models say yes, but it is more than obvious that those models are fatally flawed.

 

[SSDD]

Oh Pahleeze...Give us an example. And please peer reviewed, not some loon website, or somebody with an agenda. Cold, hard facts please...

The cold hard fact is that you can't link to a single piece of hard evidence linking man to global climate change. If you believe you can, by all means do it.

 

[Koios]

Unlike your non sequiters, his comments directly relate to climate change, as he showed quite correctly that climate change is cyclical and natural.

Cool. Direct in what way?

Read what he said again. Then look up the history of the ice ages and the interglacials. You will understand quite quickly after that.

Yeah; caught that part.

My question is, what bearing has it, directly?

 

[SSDD]

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

Once in a hundred years? Are you kidding? Here are some historical storm surges since 1935. Sandy was hardly unprecedented and damned sure not a once in 100 year storm.

Here, have some more truth. These are cat III and better storms. Sandy couldn't even manage to remain a cat I after making landfall.

 

[Sallow]

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

No it's not.

Quite the opposite.

The east coast is now experiencing "once in a 100 year storms" , once a year.

That's EXACTLY what people who have done the science said would happen.

Not true Sallow. Sandy wasn't even a Cat 1 hurricane when she came ashore. In fact it is the longest time in our history that a major hurricane has hit the US. If you want to look at bad weather check 1926, Florida was hit by 3 different hurricanes in a period of weeks...alll when the CO2 levels were far, far below what they are today. Or how about 1935 when a hurricane killed hundreds in teh Miami area...once again when CO2 levels were low.

Sandy was a large storm and powerful, but she became the killer she was because she combined with a cold front coming from the north. The last time that happened was in the '90's.

Far different than once every year.

Um..

This is the new normal.

Bank on it.

By bank..I really mean bank.

Cause it's going to cost..big.

 

[SSDD]

Um..

This is the new normal.

Bank on it.

By bank..I really mean bank.

Cause it's going to cost..big.

My, don't you have the buzzwords down? The old normal was stronger storms more often. The new normal of weaker storms less often. The new normal sounds like a better arrangement to me.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A few questions
1# How much warming do you see since 2000?
2# Do you really believe that we didn't have hurricanes on the east coast before?

 

[SSDD]

A few questions
1# How much warming do you see since 2000?
2# Do you really believe that we didn't have hurricanes on the east coast before?

The media and maybe a climate scientist told him that this is the new normal, so it must be true. Neither the media nor climate scientists would lie....would they?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Answers
1# .14 based on UAH, RSS
2# Lots

Look up 58, 59, 38, 42, 54, 55 to name a few years for the east coast.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why is .14c a big deal? Well, because the 1990's were warming at .18 to .2c.

Most of this warming happened from 2000 to 2005.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looking at the data shows very little warming since 2007 based on the UAH and RSS data sets. 100% of the forcing is coming from the arctic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

I would be very surprised. And wonder about the laws of physics.

However, it would be a pleasant surprise.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

In the same alternative reality where Romney scored 332 electorial votes, that might be true. However, in this universe, this is what is happening.

AGW Observer

 

[SSDD]

Why is .14c a big deal? Well, because the 1990's were warming at .18 to .2c.

Most of this warming happened from 2000 to 2005.

What was the rate of warming from 1911 to 1941 and during what period during that time frame was there the most warming and how long did it last?

What was the rate of warming from 1964 tp 1998 and during what period during that time frame was there the most warming and how long did it last?

Considering that there has been no warming for the past 16 years, how exactly does most of the warming occur during a period when there has been no warming without substantial alteration of the temperature record?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is .14c a big deal? Well, because the 1990's were warming at .18 to .2c.

Most of this warming happened from 2000 to 2005.

Read Hansen's comments on the Faustian bargain. China and India as well as other third world nations seeking to become second world nations, are releasing tremendous amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere. This reflects a good deal of the incoming solar radiation, and, when that ceases to be the case, the rise will reflect the increase in GHGs.

Even with this masking effect, and the lower TSI of recent years, the sensitivity to the warming seems to be far greater than previously thought. Both the observed increase in extreme weather events and the melting of the alpine glaciers and Arctic Sea Ice are far ahead of anyone's expectations.;

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is .14c a big deal? Well, because the 1990's were warming at .18 to .2c.

Most of this warming happened from 2000 to 2005.

What was the rate of warming from 1911 to 1941 and during what period during that time frame was there the most warming and how long did it last?

What was the rate of warming from 1964 tp 1998 and during what period during that time frame was there the most warming and how long did it last?

Considering that there has been no warming for the past 16 years, how exactly does most of the warming occur during a period when there has been no warming without substantial alteration of the temperature record?

Crap. No warming for the past 16 years? Have you ever been able to read a simple graph?

UAH v5.5 Global Temp Update for October 2012: +0.33 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[SSDD]

Let's say 10 years from now the temperatures are going down and we come to the conclusion that it was bull shit all along???

What will you say.

Is there really any doubt that is exactly what is going to happen in the end? The wheels are falling off the greenhouse effect hypothesis (all versions of it) as we speak.

In the same alternative reality where Romney scored 332 electorial votes, that might be true. However, in this universe, this is what is happening.

AGW Observer

Where in there is the proof that any of that is due to CO2? Claiming climate change is not the same as defining what caused the change.