"Holy crap it's cold today. D*mn global warming"

[MaryL]

I have lived for over 50 years in Colorado. Seen floods and tornados and even lived through a couple of man made earthquakes (Pumping crap down deep wells at the Rocky Mountain arsenal ) Don't underestimate the influence people have on the environment. I have seen our summer rains go from 3 days a week to twice a month. Something is seriously wrong here. Don't BS me. Something is wrong here.

 

[mamooth]

.01 degree C rise with error bars of .1 degree C. C'mon admiral, you don't see a problem with that?

Here, let me make it easy for you, I can just as easily claim, WITH THOSE SAME NUMBERS, that the Earth cooled by .05 degree's C.

No, you can't, not if you understand statistics.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's a theory of climate that explains all of the observed evidence.

 

[westwall]

I have lived for over 50 years in Colorado. Seen floods and tornados and even lived through a couple of man made earthquakes (Pumping crap down deep wells at the Rocky Mountain arsenal ) Don't underestimate the influence people have on the environment. I have seen our summer rains go from 3 days a week to twice a month. Something is seriously wrong here. Don't BS me. Something is wrong here.

No BS, but you really think that it has never happened before? When man wasn't around? Let's look at California, waaaay back in 1862 the entire Central Valley was turned into a lake by an atmospheric river that dumped rain continuously for a month and a half. Guess what, the storms affected Oregon, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Washington as well. It just curved around Colorado though it still dumped there too.

Here's the wiki on it. So, you tell me. This happened long before man had even the most remote capability to affect anything. This is worse than anything we have seen since. BY FAR. Does this irrefutable fact cause you to rethink anything at all?

And before you answer read about the Great Drowning of Men.....and don't forget the 1st Marcellus Flood. Below is a link to the reported floods in Europe. As you can see things were MUCH worse in the past than the present day. It's amazing what you can learn when you allow yourself to do so.

Great Flood of 1862 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Grote Mandrenke - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

http://www.munichre.com/site/corpor... hamburg/historical-storm-surge-events-en.pdf

 

[westwall]

.01 degree C rise with error bars of .1 degree C. C'mon admiral, you don't see a problem with that?

Here, let me make it easy for you, I can just as easily claim, WITH THOSE SAME NUMBERS, that the Earth cooled by .05 degree's C.

No, you can't, not if you understand statistics.

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's a theory of climate that explains all of the observed evidence.

What observed evidence? I would dearly love to see some OBSERVED science from your side. I truly would. And, yes, I understand stats and my statement is every bit as legitimate as the one you claim. That's the problem when your error bars are TEN TIMES the size of your so called "analysis".

 

[M14 Shooter]

.01 degree C rise with error bars of .1 degree C. C'mon admiral, you don't see a problem with that?
Here, let me make it easy for you, I can just as easily claim, WITH THOSE SAME NUMBERS, that the Earth cooled by .05 degree's C.

No, you can't, not if you understand statistics.
And I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's a theory of climate that explains all of the observed evidence.

You mean inference.
You know, where you said that the world had been cooling for 5,000 years and then infer that the world was going to cool for another 20,000 years

 

[mamooth]

What observed evidence? I would dearly love to see some OBSERVED science from your side. I truly would.

So you're just going to pretend the temperature, the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation and the decrease in outgoing longwave observations don't exist?

I guess that's one way to keep the fantasy intact, by simply pretending contrary evidence doesn't exist.

Anyways, still waiting on that theory.

And, yes, I understand stats and my statement is every bit as legitimate as the one you claim. That's the problem when your error bars are TEN TIMES the size of your so called "analysis".

No. You're showing us the same statistical mistake as people who say "It's really tied!" when they see a political poll that shows one candidate ahead, but within the MoE. It's just wrong. Ahead is ahead, no matter what the MoE is. Anyone who says otherwise flunks freshman statistics.

 

[mamooth]

You know, where you said that the world had been cooling for 5,000 years and then infer that the world was going to cool for another 20,000 years

No, I showed you the studies that said that, causing you to cut and run.

Here, I'll post it again, so you can run from it again. I'd prefer you had addressed it in the original thread, but if you're going to threadstalk me, I'll have to demonstrate your propensity to run on each new thread. Hopefully, you'll eventually figure out that threadstalking me is a bad idea.

---

This image comes from
http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf

Note the current 100 kyear ice age cycles. That would give us 50 kyears.

This Nature article places it at 28,000 years for the interglacial length. Note that I said cooling, not interglacial length, and that the cooling would go on after the interglacial was over.

WebCite query result
---
The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long -- 28,000 years compared to, for example, the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities between this earlier warm period and today, our results may imply that without human intervention, a climate similar to the present one would extend well into the future
---

This paper calls for a much longer period, a 100kyear cycle, giving us at least 50k years until the next ice age.

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES290/Rial1999.pdf

Pacemaking the Ice Ages by Frequency Modulation of Earth’s Orbital Eccentricity
---
Evidence from power spectra of deep-sea oxygen isotope time series suggests
that the climate system of Earth responds nonlinearly to astronomical forcing
by frequency modulating eccentricity-related variations in insolation. With the
help of a simple model, it is shown that frequency modulation of the approx-
imate 100,000-year eccentricity cycles by the 413,000-year component ac-
counts for the variable duration of the ice ages, the multiple-peak character of
the time series spectra, and the notorious absence of significant spectral am-
plitude at the 413,000-year period. The observed spectra are consistent with
the classic Milankovitch theories of insolation, so that climate forcing by
100,000-year variations in orbital inclination that cause periodic dust accretion
appear unnecessary.
---

 

[westwall]

What observed evidence? I would dearly love to see some OBSERVED science from your side. I truly would.

So you're just going to pretend the temperature, the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation and the decrease in outgoing longwave observations don't exist?

I guess that's one way to keep the fantasy intact, by simply pretending contrary evidence doesn't exist.

Anyways, still waiting on that theory.

And, yes, I understand stats and my statement is every bit as legitimate as the one you claim. That's the problem when your error bars are TEN TIMES the size of your so called "analysis".

No. You're showing us the same statistical mistake as people who say "It's really tied!" when they see a political poll that shows one candidate ahead, but within the MoE. It's just wrong. Ahead is ahead, no matter what the MoE is. Anyone who says otherwise flunks freshman statistics.

Backradiation and longwave radiation that can't physically do what you all claim you mean? Long wave IR can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans, which everyone agrees are the heat engines of the world. If you want to increase the global temperature of the world you have to warm the oceans to do it and it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for long wave IR to do that.

 

[mamooth]

Backradiation and longwave radiation that can't physically do what you all claim you mean? Long wave IR can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans, which everyone agrees are the heat engines of the world.

Groan. You're not really going back to your magical vanishing energy theory, are you?

IR strikes the ocean. It is absorbed by the ocean. Deep, shallow, it doesn't matter. Energy does not just vanish. Therefore, the energy from that IR goes into the oceans. Period.

If you want to increase the global temperature of the world you have to warm the oceans to do it and it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for long wave IR to do that.

Now that you've declared conservation of energy only holds when you want it to, there's no point in taking you seriously.

 

[MaryL]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

 

[westwall]

Backradiation and longwave radiation that can't physically do what you all claim you mean? Long wave IR can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans, which everyone agrees are the heat engines of the world.

Groan. You're not really going back to your magical vanishing energy theory, are you?

IR strikes the ocean. It is absorbed by the ocean. Deep, shallow, it doesn't matter. Energy does not just vanish. Therefore, the energy from that IR goes into the oceans. Period.

If you want to increase the global temperature of the world you have to warm the oceans to do it and it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for long wave IR to do that.

Now that you've declared conservation of energy only holds when you want it to, there's no point in taking you seriously.

No, that was SSDD's schtick. I'm not talking about disappearing energy. I am talking about the very real fact that long wave IR can not physically do what you all claim. It's simply impossible. Can long wave IR warm water? Yes, very, very slowly. However, the temperature coefficient of water pretty much wipes it out.

Problem two, can the warmer water penetrate deeper into the body of water to warm it? Nope. Warm water rises to the top. Remember that? So, even with thermal mixing due to wind and current, the warm water stays on top.

UV radiation on the other hand can get below wind mixed level and warm the water at depth. That DOES warm the bodies of water. But, as the graph below shows, that temperature drop occurs very, very rapidly.

 

[westwall]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

The world doesn't care how short your life is though Mary. That's the point. The Earth operates on time scales far longer than you can imagine. As far as the overcrowding issue go's, it simply isn't true. You can fit every human being alive into the state of Rhode Island.

Hell termites outweigh us by ten times.

Overcrowding? Not by a long shot.

 

[MaryL]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

The world doesn't care how short your life is though Mary. That's the point. The Earth operates on time scales far longer than you can imagine. As far as the overcrowding issue go's, it simply isn't true. You can fit every human being alive into the state of Rhode Island.

Hell termites outweigh us by ten times.

Overcrowding? Not by a long shot.

Overpopulation. Yes. 7 billion people. We are extinguishing species of animals every year. Sad but true. I am an amateur astronomer, I see were it takes millions of light years for the light of one star to reach our eyes. Deep Time, billions and billions of years is a fleeting thing. It is hard to believe that we humans ARE NOT affecting the climate, and even harder to believe someone can't grasp that...

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know, where you said that the world had been cooling for 5,000 years and then infer that the world was going to cool for another 20,000 years

No, I showed you the studies that said that, causing you to cut and run.

As mentioned earlier, those studies are an example of inference and induction.
I specifically asked for proof that did not rely on inference and induction.
You continue to fail to deliver, you, of course, know this but are too much of a zealot to admit it.

Unless, of course, you do not understand what "inference" and "induction" mean? I picked that up in 6th grade, but you may very well not yet be that far.
Here you go:
Inference - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, whenever you are ready....
What do you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years?

 

[westwall]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

The world doesn't care how short your life is though Mary. That's the point. The Earth operates on time scales far longer than you can imagine. As far as the overcrowding issue go's, it simply isn't true. You can fit every human being alive into the state of Rhode Island.

Hell termites outweigh us by ten times.

Overcrowding? Not by a long shot.

Overpopulation. Yes. 7 billion people. We are extinguishing species of animals every year. Sad but true. I am an amateur astronomer, I see were it takes millions of light years for the light of one star to reach our eyes. Deep Time, billions and billions of years is a fleeting thing. It is hard to believe that we humans ARE NOT affecting the climate, and even harder to believe someone can't grasp that...

Hard to believe and yet factual. The truth is the overwhelming majority of those 7 billion live in bronze age conditions. Figure 5 billion have no impact on anything except their local area. That's just a reality of life in the third world. That leaves 2 billion who live in first world or nearly so conditions. We enjoy electricity and vehicles, telephones etc. We do indeed have a affect on the Earth. In some places it is terrible.

But on a global scale? No way in hell. The Earth is so huge compared to us it is laughable. Some like to compare us to viruses, and to those I would say then end your life if you feel so strongly about that. But the truth is more than 99% of all creatures have gone extinct long before we ever showed up.

Are we driving other critters to extinction? Absolutely. Poachers the world over are hunting animals to extinction and the world sits back and does nothing about real world problems that we actually COULD halt.

76 trillion dollars is what the IPCC says we need to spend and the result of that enormous expenditure would be to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years......maybe. The best frauds are those that don't get detected until the perps are long dead. 100 years seems like pretty good insurance...don't you think?

 

[MaryL]

Like I said before, I only know the window of time I live in. Anecdotally, I know, had that hammered in my head....I have seen the climate change from wet to dry, warm to hot. I am not polluted by politics or profit either. Facts drive me. Truth. I have nothing to gain from this.

 

[westwall]

Like I said before, I only know the window of time I live in. Anecdotally, I know, had that hammered in my head....I have seen the climate change from wet to dry, warm to hot. I am not polluted by politics or profit either. Facts drive me. Truth. I have nothing to gain from this.

And yet you wish to impose rules on the people who live here, based on watching 1 minute of a two hour movie. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

 

[MaryL]

Like I said before, I only know the window of time I live in. Anecdotally, I know, had that hammered in my head....I have seen the climate change from wet to dry, warm to hot. I am not polluted by politics or profit either. Facts drive me. Truth. I have nothing to gain from this.

And yet you wish to impose rules on the people who live here, based on watching 1 minute of a two hour movie. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you?

I don't impose anything. What are you referring to? I am talking about lifelong experiences, not Al Gore propaganda groupthink. Just reality.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh look another scream fest over global warming. It appears to be headed in the same direction as the 10,000 global warming threads before it.

I'm shocked.

^awesome post!

Anything to say about the topic or are you just here trolling along?

Not that hasn't been said in the 10,000 threads on global warming that preceded this one.

The real question is what is new in this thread that supersedes the previous ones ?

What supersedes is that climate change is proven today and it takes the stupidest of stupid to keep repeating what the Koch brothers paid a specific people to repeat.

ANOTHER FACTLESS FILLED THREAD BY AN ALARMIST..

It really is fun to watch the conspiracy theorist alarmists fall all over themselves with out a shred of physical evidence to support their position and make slanderous or libelous claims. Speaking of fact to support accusations, where are yours?

 

[orogenicman]

If I was a thousand years old and had a bigger snapshot of history, I might have a better reference. Nobody has that luxury. We see things through our own filters. But in my brief 57 years on the planet, it has been getting drier and warmer. Not to mention overcrowded. Vastly overcrowded. I don't think that that's a coincidence.

The world doesn't care how short your life is though Mary. That's the point. The Earth operates on time scales far longer than you can imagine. As far as the overcrowding issue go's, it simply isn't true. You can fit every human being alive into the state of Rhode Island.

Hell termites outweigh us by ten times.

Overcrowding? Not by a long shot.

Overpopulation. Yes. 7 billion people. We are extinguishing species of animals every year. Sad but true. I am an amateur astronomer, I see were it takes millions of light years for the light of one star to reach our eyes. Deep Time, billions and billions of years is a fleeting thing. It is hard to believe that we humans ARE NOT affecting the climate, and even harder to believe someone can't grasp that...

Hard to believe and yet factual. The truth is the overwhelming majority of those 7 billion live in bronze age conditions. Figure 5 billion have no impact on anything except their local area. That's just a reality of life in the third world. That leaves 2 billion who live in first world or nearly so conditions. We enjoy electricity and vehicles, telephones etc. We do indeed have a affect on the Earth. In some places it is terrible.

But on a global scale? No way in hell. The Earth is so huge compared to us it is laughable. Some like to compare us to viruses, and to those I would say then end your life if you feel so strongly about that. But the truth is more than 99% of all creatures have gone extinct long before we ever showed up.

Are we driving other critters to extinction? Absolutely. Poachers the world over are hunting animals to extinction and the world sits back and does nothing about real world problems that we actually COULD halt.

76 trillion dollars is what the IPCC says we need to spend and the result of that enormous expenditure would be to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years......maybe. The best frauds are those that don't get detected until the perps are long dead. 100 years seems like pretty good insurance...don't you think?

These are all the same failed arguments you people made about CFCs and tobacco. If you don't believe that cutting down 80% of the worlds old growth forests have impacted the planet in a dozen ways, you are deluding yourself, and certainly not worthy of the PhD in Earth Science you claim to possess.