Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

[ClosedCaption]

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact. Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact. Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

Are you saying hurricanes of that size, strength and force have never occurred in the past? Even when there were far fewer people on the face of the earth? Really?
Did global warming cause the wetlands to be drained, and of course it was global climate change that caused the corps of engineers to create inadequate levee systems.

No, humans cut thru the wetlands. Which didn't slow the strength of Katrina which made it stronger. There you have direct human impact. Period. And you cannot deny that.

 

[Pop23]

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact. Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact. Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

Are you saying hurricanes of that size, strength and force have never occurred in the past? Even when there were far fewer people on the face of the earth? Really?
Did global warming cause the wetlands to be drained, and of course it was global climate change that caused the corps of engineers to create inadequate levee systems.

No, humans cut thru the wetlands. Which didn't slow the strength of Katrina which made it stronger. There you have direct human impact. Period. And you cannot deny that.

Which had diddly squat to do with climate change ....

Thanks for clearing that up.

Still wonder why people keep responding the way they do?

 

[westwall]

Congratulations! Forbes has successfully maintained its reputation as a magazine with no connection whatsoever to dispassionate scientific inquiry.

That makes me feel better. Truly it does. Because now I can have a relatively high confidence that if I buy the latest issue of Scientific American, their contributors won't try to impress me with their knowledge of the causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Did you mention science?

Here is some science for you, let's see how you react to it. Over the last 15 years humans have dumped 100,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is roughly 25% of the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity since 1750. Despite this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature has remained relatively stable.

Every climate model we use says this is impossible, yet it happened. That, like it or not, proves there is a problem with the models, not the people who point that fact out. In fact, the actual real world temperatures were already at the low end of 20 different climate model predictions in 2005. The situation has only gotten worse since then, and the real world temps are expected to fall through the bottom of those predictions in a few years.

The research is beginning to suggest that we really don't know how the climate works. Climate responds to higher degrees of CO2 than we thought. Science, believe it or not, doesn't care that it was wrong. Scientists are developing new models that suggest a doubling of CO2 will result much smaller temperature changes which will remain far below the catastrophic tipping point that the doomsayers love to trumpet.

The question now is, do you trust science, or are you a climate denier?

Source: (I would like to point out that The Economist has been one of the leading voices among the doomsayers before you try to deny their numbers based on a conspiracy theory.)

Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist

Two things.

First of all, climate models are the weakest link in climate science. The models are getting better all the time, but they can't predict with complete accuracy what will happen since not every variable is known, and it's not known how every variable interacts with all others.

Secondly, the increased heat of climate change/global warming doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It ultimately goes into the ocean.

Except it hasn't. Trenberth has famously wondered where it is "hiding" in the deep ocean.
According to the latest mathematical computations of the warmers, the ocean temp has increased .1 degree F. I am wondering how they can measure it that accurately, but we'll ignore the problems of intsrument sensitivity for the sake of argument. That rise has occurred in the last 30-50 YEARS.

I find it amusing they can measure to the nearest .1F but can't pin down the time span any better than that. Remarkable, simply remarkable. And you call it a science.

 

[westwall]

I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.

It's easy.

The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact

Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!

And the fact is the reason the wetlands are disappearing is because of the channelising of the Mississippi river which has reduced the silt load being deposited in the delta. Lets also ignore the fact that the Atchafalaya captured the flow from the Mississippi decades ago and is kept in place by huge dams the Army Corps of Engineers built to maintain it in its original channel.

You see, dear child, there are many causes for the things you like to attribute to AGW. The simple fact is you're wrong as wrong can be.


"How Do People Cause Wetland Loss?
•Construction of river levees, channels, canals and dams that regulate water flows or make it easier for ships to pass through an area.
•Draining wetlands for agriculture or urban development

Human activities disrupt the natural balance of the wetlands in the Mississippi River Delta. Prior to human development, natural wetland loss was replenished by Mississippi River sediments and nutrients creating new wetlands. Human activities have the unfortunate side-effect of causing Mississippi River sediments to go straight down the river's channel and into the Gulf of Mexico. Not only are we destroying wetlands, but we are disrupting the natural cycle that rebuilds them.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of the lessons learned is that a healthy system of wetlands between New Orleans and the Gulf almost certainly would have slowed down the storm and dampened the storm surge. Without natural storm buffers, breaches in levees such as those after Hurricane Katrina could become an even bigger threat. Wetlands serve as nature's first line of defense--by absorbing much of damage caused by hurricanes."



Mississippi River Delta - National Wildlife Federation

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are you saying hurricanes of that size, strength and force have never occurred in the past? Even when there were far fewer people on the face of the earth? Really?
Did global warming cause the wetlands to be drained, and of course it was global climate change that caused the corps of engineers to create inadequate levee systems.

No, humans cut thru the wetlands. Which didn't slow the strength of Katrina which made it stronger. There you have direct human impact. Period. And you cannot deny that.

Which had diddly squat to do with climate change ....
Thanks for clearing that up.
Still wonder why people keep responding the way they do?

like I said those action show direct human impact and you can't And curiosly didn't attempt to deny it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks for posting that example of humans having a direct impact on the earth and it's weather patterns, West. Now will you stop stop saying humans have zero impact?
Probably not.

 

[Pop23]

Why would I attempt to address something not caused by global warming on a thread, about global warming? No one is asserting that draining the wetlands was not a huge screwup.

A tornado takes out a barn, the debris jams up a river causing a flood. What part of that is caused by climate change?

It is your argument after all

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, here it is from another source:

Warming and worry go AWOL

Anthony Watts, April 6, 2013

Some stories this week that show global warming aka climate change is beginning to fade away as an issue.

From the 3C Headlines blog:

Global satellite temperatures confirm hiatus of global warming, while the general public and mainstream press are beginning to recognise what climate sceptics long ago identified…global temperatures are trending towards cooling, not accelerating higher.

Read more @ Prison Planet.com » Warming and worry go AWOL

Oh, I know – it's a right wing blog so the graphs and links can't possibly be true!

Oh brother. A undegreed ex-TV weatherman. Why don't you just post information from a circus clown?

Arctic Change: Global - Global Temprature Trends

Information from real scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jesus, it's not about if we gotten warmer only or cooler only or in the past 20 years only. It's about the shift in weather patterns, the violent storms, the global impact etc.
If you had ants in your yard they would affect your lawn. Hundred of Millions of humans cannot have zero effect on the planet. Be serious.

Could you please provide the link to the statistics on the increase in violent storms, thanks.

North America most affected by increase in weather-related natural catastrophes | Munich Re

Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America. The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe and 1.5 in South America. Anthropogenic climate change is believed to contribute to this trend, though it influences various perils in different ways. Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run most probably also tropical cyclone intensity. The view that weather extremes are becoming more frequent and intense in various regions due to global warming is in keeping with current scientific findings, as set out in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as in the special report on weather extremes and disasters (SREX). Up to now, however, the increasing losses caused by weather related natural catastrophes have been primarily driven by socio-economic factors, such as population growth, urban sprawl and increasing wealth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change: Scientific American

Extreme signals
There are two key lines of evidence. First, it's not just that we've become more aware of disasters like North Dakota or last year's Nashville flood, which caused $13 billion in damage, or the massive 2010 summer monsoon in Pakistan that killed 1,500 people and left 20 million more homeless. The data show that the number of such events is rising. Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies, has compiled the world's most comprehensive database of natural disasters, reaching all the way back to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Researchers at the company, which obviously has a keen financial interest in trends that increase insurance risks, add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year, explains Mark Bove, senior research meteorologist in Munich Re's catastrophe risk management office in Princeton, N.J. The data indicate a small increase in geologic events like earthquakes since 1980 because of better reporting. But the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger. "Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change," says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: "It's as if the weather machine had changed up a gear.

 

[Old Rocks]

Flooding in Australia: The reality of a secondary peril | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

The Australian states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have been heavily affected by the December 2010 and January 2011 rainfalls. These events are a prime example of how secondary perils can cause widespread damage to property.

Secondary perils are usually high-frequency, low-to-medium severity events and include phenomena such as floods, hailstorms and bushfires amongst others. Although they are not usually on the same financial scale as earthquakes, hurricanes or winter storms, they can still cause significant damage.

“As a matter of fact, secondary perils are very often underestimated. Typically, these perils are difficult to model. Hence, there are no adequate risk assessment models available which contributes to uncertainty of assessing these perils”, says Jens Mehlhorn, Swiss Re Head Flood Group.

The Australian floods are the latest entries on the country’s list of secondary perils: In the last four years, Australia has been repeatedly affected by events from this category including hailstorms and bushfires. From 2007 to 2010, four secondary peril events caused insured losses exceeding AUD 1,000m (see table below).

Primary perils such as earthquake, hurricanes and winter storms are mostly responsible for natural catastrophe losses on a global scale, but secondary perils have been the main loss drivers in Australia in recent years, underpinning the country’s heavy exposure towards these perils.

As secondary perils are mainly weather perils, they are strongly impacted by large scale weather patterns and climate change. The recent high precipitation rates in eastern Australia correlate with a strong manifestation of La Niña. This weather pattern and its trade winds push warm water towards the east coast. The warm water is a continuous engine of moist air and precipitation. How much the current event is influenced by climate change is difficult to quantify. However, climate change is a fact and there is consensus that large scale weather patterns will be impacted by climate change leading to an increase of extreme weather disasters.

 

[Old Rocks]

Two things: First of all, the fact that all of the dire predictions you post are based on something you just said is bull shit proves which if us actually cares about science. Secondly, that is what the models say, which you just admitted are useless.

So, to sum it up, models are useless, but the models say we are doomed.

The climate models aren't useless. They're just not infallible anymore than any individual crash test will predict with 100% accuracy what will happen to that make and model car each and every time an accident happens.

yeah they are....these people have been wrong about everything and have calculations way off the cuff, either due to incompetance or making stuff up so they can pass laws to control our lives....I vote on the latter myself.

What bullshit.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

You idiots constantly stating how wrong the climate scientists predictions have been. Yet all the predictions of the denialists have been dead wrong. Not just a little off, but dead wrong.

Up to 2000 you jackasses were saying that nothing at all was happening, then when everyone could see it out there back door, you changed your lies to, well, yes, but it is natural cycles. But none of you can tell us what those natural cycles are.

We have been in a period of low Total Solar Irridiance, strong La Ninas, and very much increased atmospheric aerosols, due to the industrialization of India and China. Yet what we see is a pause in temperature, not a cooling. We should be seeing a strong cooling, like we saw for a while in the 60's and 70's.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks Oldrocks. The problem is freewill asked for proof but didn't say that proof will change anything. They don't believe it's happening (increase in storm activity) and when it's proven they'll create other questions, deny it happens or attribute(with no supporting evidence, that it happens for some other like the one they make up.

When they don't believe science and that's their foundation.

 

[westwall]

Thanks for posting that example of humans having a direct impact on the earth and it's weather patterns, West. Now will you stop stop saying humans have zero impact?
Probably not.

What weather pattern changes darling? Other than the NWF's normal pandering to the AGW fraudsters, their assesment of the actual cause of the loss of wetland is accurate. And As I have allways said mankind can doa tremendous amount of damage on the local scale. Global is beyond us at the moment.

 

[westwall]

The climate models aren't useless. They're just not infallible anymore than any individual crash test will predict with 100% accuracy what will happen to that make and model car each and every time an accident happens.

yeah they are....these people have been wrong about everything and have calculations way off the cuff, either due to incompetance or making stuff up so they can pass laws to control our lives....I vote on the latter myself.

What bullshit.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

You idiots constantly stating how wrong the climate scientists predictions have been. Yet all the predictions of the denialists have been dead wrong. Not just a little off, but dead wrong.

Up to 2000 you jackasses were saying that nothing at all was happening, then when everyone could see it out there back door, you changed your lies to, well, yes, but it is natural cycles. But none of you can tell us what those natural cycles are.

We have been in a period of low Total Solar Irridiance, strong La Ninas, and very much increased atmospheric aerosols, due to the industrialization of India and China. Yet what we see is a pause in temperature, not a cooling. We should be seeing a strong cooling, like we saw for a while in the 60's and 70's.

The one common denominator of all of your posts is they are all desperate for the money that the fraud will give them. What a joke.

 

[westwall]

Thanks Oldrocks. The problem is freewill asked for proof but didn't say that proof will change anything. They don't believe it's happening (increase in storm activity) and when it's proven they'll create other questions, deny it happens or attribute(with no supporting evidence, that it happens for some other like the one they make up.

When they don't believe science and that's their foundation.

Ahhhh, but you're the deniers now. Your own side has stated there has been no warming for at least a decade and up to 17 years in the case of the IPCC.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I take it you believe "Global Warming" only refers to actual warming in spans of ten planet years, correct?

 

[Pop23]

I take it you believe "Global Warming" only refers to actual warming in spans of ten planet years, correct?

No, I think global warming refers to something people with too much time on their hands gives them something to think about?

How in Gods name can you calibrate our modern weather tracking equipment with those of 100, 200, 300 years ago?

Wake me up in a couple hundred years when you get that figured out?

 

[Political Junky]

yeah they are....these people have been wrong about everything and have calculations way off the cuff, either due to incompetance or making stuff up so they can pass laws to control our lives....I vote on the latter myself.

What bullshit.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

You idiots constantly stating how wrong the climate scientists predictions have been. Yet all the predictions of the denialists have been dead wrong. Not just a little off, but dead wrong.

Up to 2000 you jackasses were saying that nothing at all was happening, then when everyone could see it out there back door, you changed your lies to, well, yes, but it is natural cycles. But none of you can tell us what those natural cycles are.

We have been in a period of low Total Solar Irridiance, strong La Ninas, and very much increased atmospheric aerosols, due to the industrialization of India and China. Yet what we see is a pause in temperature, not a cooling. We should be seeing a strong cooling, like we saw for a while in the 60's and 70's.

The one common denominator of all of your posts is they are all desperate for the money that the fraud will give them. What a joke.

It's a handful of scientists who take money from the right to deny climate change.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The climate models aren't useless. They're just not infallible anymore than any individual crash test will predict with 100% accuracy what will happen to that make and model car each and every time an accident happens.

yeah they are....these people have been wrong about everything and have calculations way off the cuff, either due to incompetance or making stuff up so they can pass laws to control our lives....I vote on the latter myself.

What bullshit.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

You idiots constantly stating how wrong the climate scientists predictions have been. Yet all the predictions of the denialists have been dead wrong. Not just a little off, but dead wrong.

Up to 2000 you jackasses were saying that nothing at all was happening, then when everyone could see it out there back door, you changed your lies to, well, yes, but it is natural cycles. But none of you can tell us what those natural cycles are.

We have been in a period of low Total Solar Irridiance, strong La Ninas, and very much increased atmospheric aerosols, due to the industrialization of India and China. Yet what we see is a pause in temperature, not a cooling. We should be seeing a strong cooling, like we saw for a while in the 60's and 70's.

Did you read the article, cooling ahead...man you are a moron....you must be one of the scientists that think the sun controlling our temperature is being a denier.....
And what is the temp of the Earth supposed to be??? I'm just curious.....because obviously it's been static until the last 30 years....of course.

And instead of warming...all the know it all said cooling in the 70s


http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

I mean 6000 years of a glacier wiped out in 25 years....wow.....you guys are geniuses (and that's a different article posted earlier from a libtard like you)