Question About Global Warming.....

[manu1959]

last year at this time the united states had been hit more more hurricans than in the history of the united states and there were cries of global warming being the casue....

so far this year 0....so is global warming fixed?

edit: wow?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm

 

[manu1959]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=77195

interesting

 

[sitarro]

Here is an interesting perspective.....

http://newsbusters.org/stories/cnn_anchor_falls_asleep.html

Senate Debates Global Warming, CNN Anchor Snoozes
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on December 6, 2006 - 19:14.
As already noted here on NewsBusters, the Senate held a hearing today examining the role of the media in promoting climate alarmism. With others covering the newsmaking part of the discussion, I decided to drop by to observe things from a blogger's point of view.

I went into the discussion expecting it would be more interesting than your typical congressional hearing and wasn't disappointed. Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist from the University of Oklahoma recounted an experience he had with an NPR reporter who hung up on him after he declined to say that he thought global temperature increases were human-caused.

Apparently I was not joined in my assessment of things by CNN "American Morning" anchor Miles O'Brien who fell asleep during the discussion, according to several witnesses. Only a colleague's nudge prevented the slumbering former science correspondent from missing the entire discussion. One would think that O'Brien could have scared up some more interest considering his ongoing feud with the Inhofe.

I also heard some interesting scientific debate as to whether ice core temperature readings can really be used as a reliable indicator of whether carbon dioxide is related to global climate changes. Don't expect to hear much about this, though, since the CO2 proponent, Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard, was less-than-articulate arguing the affirmative. As of the writing of this posting, I haven't found a single news source that quoted from today's hearing. I did see and converse with several reporters but so far have yet to read any coverage.

What I did find online, though, was an AP article which briefly mentioned the hearing but quoted no one other than California Democrat Barbara Boxer, the incoming EPW chair. It went out late today and could easily have quoted from any of the Republican members of the committee but did not.

In the committee room, it was striking to me just how inept that the global warming alarmists seem to be at making their arguments. While many scientists do indeed take the position that humans' carbon dioxide emissions do cause global warming, they and their political allies seemed quite poor at making their case.

Boxer provided the best example. She began her statement with a grab bag of short, context-less quotations from various businesses and government agencies about how global warming is a humongous problem that needs immediate action. Most of her quotes were from non-scientific groups and were not even about the subject of the media's coverage of climate change, the topic of the hearing.

That's bad enough as a rhetorical device but apparently it wasn't bad enough for Boxer. In the middle of the hearing, she reverted to quoting cue cards of media coverage of the issue, ostensibly to show how the press is not being led by alarmists. Unfortunately for her, though, her quotations (from such bastions of conservatism as the New York Times as the Tulsa World) did just the opposite, at least if you didn't automatically agree with her. When Inhofe and my colleague at the Businesses and Media Institute Dan Gainor pointed out her problem, Boxer seemed utterly oblivious.

It only got worse for Boxer, though, as she reverted to the soundbites once again (using many of the same ones she'd already quoted previously) at the end of her testimony but with an added twist. Instead of asking the witnesses what they thought about a specific statement, the California Democrat asked them to “raise your hand” if you disagree with one of her out-of-context quotes. At first, hostile witnesses played along but eventually it got so absurd that Dr. Deming finally called her on it.

None of this seemed to bother a reporter from Roll Call with whom I was seated. She seemed decidedly against Inhofe and scoffed whenever he or one of his witnesses would challenge the liberal point of view. I didn't catch her name but I wasn't exactly surprised since besides the fact that most MSM reporters ideologically line up with Democrats, Barbara Boxer did one thing well—framing the hearings as a matter of whether the government was trying to control the news media.

That was far from the case as anyone who wasn't asleep could have observed.

 

[Hobbit]

last year at this time the united states had been hit more more hurricans than in the history of the united states and there were cries of global warming being the casue....

so far this year 0....so is global warming fixed?

edit: wow?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm

Manu, you can't disprove global warming the way they've defined it. If temperatures go up, it's because of global warming. If temperatures go down, it's because of global warming. If there are more hurricanes, global warming. If there are fewer hurricanes, global warming. If it rains more or less, global warming. If ice shelves grow or shrink, global warming, either that or the growing ice shelves will be ignored. It doesn't matter what happens, it's all global warming.

 

[KarlMarx]

Has anyone heard of "The Medieval Warm Period"? It lasted for 400 years from approximately 800 to about 1300 AD.

I saw a program on the MWP on The History Channel (I think) on Sunday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The program went on to say that the "mini ice age" that followed it lasted about 400 to 500 years, ending about the late 1700s to early 1800s.. which just coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Now, if two events occur at the same time, does that mean they are related? The answer is no, not necessarily. The end of a naturally occurring climate cycle (the mini ice age) occurred at the same time as the beginning of a man made event (The Industrial Revolution).

Looking at just this, one might conclude that Global Warming may not be caused by man, after all.

 

[Hobbit]

Yeah, during the MWP, vikings grew crops in Greenland (as archeological evidence has shown). This is the same Greenland that proves that the Earth is doomed because the ice has receded 1/100 inches.

 

[manu1959]

Manu, you can't disprove global warming the way they've defined it. If temperatures go up, it's because of global warming. If temperatures go down, it's because of global warming. If there are more hurricanes, global warming. If there are fewer hurricanes, global warming. If it rains more or less, global warming. If ice shelves grow or shrink, global warming, either that or the growing ice shelves will be ignored. It doesn't matter what happens, it's all global warming.

i agree....al gore as rainman

 

[Gunny]

last year at this time the united states had been hit more more hurricans than in the history of the united states and there were cries of global warming being the casue....

so far this year 0....so is global warming fixed?

edit: wow?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm

Pretty-much. I made my wife turn our damned thermostat down. Sorry about the fuss.:embarassed:

 

[bobn]

The difference with the recent warming is that we have satellites up there and all kinds of surface measurements to detect changes. So it should be a lot easier to attribute the trend to specific causes.

For example the early 20th century warming is thought to be largely solar caused, as sunspot records indicate a solar irradiance increase at that time significant enough to explain it.

But the late 20th century warming cannot be explained as the same solar cause as the long term trend has been basically flat since 1950. Currently the only explaination that fits well for the late 20th century warming is an increased greenhouse effect.

As for trends in the further past - such as the medieval warm period and little ice age. They may have been solar or something else, but we its more difficult to know because there is less data. It's difficult enough figuring out the precise nature of the temperature trends let alone trying to attribute then to something.

So AGW theory - or the theory that recent warming is anthropogenic - is not based on saying that temperature has not changed in the past naturally. It is based on the recent warming (last 30 years) being better explained as due to enhanced greenhouse effect than anything else.

 

[Hobbit]

The difference with the recent warming is that we have satellites up there and all kinds of surface measurements to detect changes. So it should be a lot easier to attribute the trend to specific causes.

For example the early 20th century warming is thought to be largely solar caused, as sunspot records indicate a solar irradiance increase at that time significant enough to explain it.

But the late 20th century warming cannot be explained as the same solar cause as the long term trend has been basically flat since 1950. Currently the only explaination that fits well for the late 20th century warming is an increased greenhouse effect.

As for trends in the further past - such as the medieval warm period and little ice age. They may have been solar or something else, but we its more difficult to know because there is less data. It's difficult enough figuring out the precise nature of the temperature trends let alone trying to attribute then to something.

So AGW theory - or the theory that recent warming is anthropogenic - is not based on saying that temperature has not changed in the past naturally. It is based on the recent warming (last 30 years) being better explained as due to enhanced greenhouse effect than anything else.

Except for the fact that Mars has also had a warming trend, and there's no pollution on Mars. The sun is getting hotter.

Oh, and average global temperature has only gone up by less than 1 degree farenheit in the past 100 years.

 

[bobn]

Except for the fact that Mars has also had a warming trend, and there's no pollution on Mars. The sun is getting hotter.

Ice melt on mars is not an indicator the sun is getting hotter. A better indicator of that comes from satellites measuring solar irradiance which have not detected any significant trend over the past 30 years. The sunspot record also shows no significant trend over the last 50. So any warming on Mars is despite that.

Oh, and average global temperature has only gone up by less than 1 degree farenheit in the past 100 years.

1.1-1.3F in the past 100 years. Centigrade is less than 1

 

[-Kt Atis-]

Ice melt on mars is not an indicator the sun is getting hotter. A better indicator of that comes from satellites measuring solar irradiance which have not detected any significant trend over the past 30 years. The sunspot record also shows no significant trend over the last 50. So any warming on Mars is despite that.

Well actually ice melts Mars because the sun is indeed getting hotter and brighter. Also since Mars is a big barren desert with no atmosphear the rocks and sand absorb more and more heat from the sun thus making it hot.

 

[nukeman]

The difference with the recent warming is that we have satellites up there and all kinds of surface measurements to detect changes. So it should be a lot easier to attribute the trend to specific causes.

For example the early 20th century warming is thought to be largely solar caused, as sunspot records indicate a solar irradiance increase at that time significant enough to explain it.

But the late 20th century warming cannot be explained as the same solar cause as the long term trend has been basically flat since 1950. Currently the only explaination that fits well for the late 20th century warming is an increased greenhouse effect.

As for trends in the further past - such as the medieval warm period and little ice age. They may have been solar or something else, but we its more difficult to know because there is less data. It's difficult enough figuring out the precise nature of the temperature trends let alone trying to attribute then to something.

So AGW theory - or the theory that recent warming is anthropogenic - is not based on saying that temperature has not changed in the past naturally. It is based on the recent warming (last 30 years) being better explained as due to enhanced greenhouse effect than anything else.

Heres the problem I see with this train of thought and rational for the current climate change being different..

Were any of our current scientist or politicians there at the time of the last warming period uhhhh no. also we ASSUME that the change in the earlier 20th century was due to natural causes yet more polution was put into the atmospher than during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Everything is pure speculation as to what happened 1000 years ago. We are making educated guesses, thats right a guess, and that is all it is. We can only speak for the hear and now and not what happened 200 years ago. I would also like to point out something everyone seems to gloss over, with the temprature rising less than 1 degree celcius in the last 100 years who can say this is completely accurate. Where the thermomaters of 100 years ago as accurate as a laser or electronic one of today?????

So everything that has not been derectly observed by current means is purely speculation and educated guess work......

 

[bobn]

Well actually ice melts Mars because the sun is indeed getting hotter and brighter. Also since Mars is a big barren desert with no atmosphear the rocks and sand absorb more and more heat from the sun thus making it hot.

There is weather on mars such as dust storms and winds, which affect temperature too regardless of whether the sun's output has changed. Ice melting on a region of mars is therefore not a very good proxy for solar variation.

 

[bobn]

Heres the problem I see with this train of thought and rational for the current climate change being different..

Current climate change being different was what I said was not the case for AGW. The case for AGW is the current inability to explain the recent warming using anything other than greenhouse gas forcings as the primary cause.

Were any of our current scientist or politicians there at the time of the last warming period uhhhh no. also we ASSUME that the change in the earlier 20th century was due to natural causes yet more polution was put into the atmospher than during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

That is true of particle pollution like soot and smog. But in terms of greenhouse gas emissions - say co2 specifically we have emitted a lot more co2 in the past 50 years than in the 150 years before that.

Everything is pure speculation as to what happened 1000 years ago. We are making educated guesses, thats right a guess, and that is all it is. We can only speak for the hear and now and not what happened 200 years ago.

That's basically what my post says. The case for AGW is primarily based on explaining the temperature trend here and now. Even if there were no temperature changes in the past, and whether or not we could explain them, there is still a warming in the past 30 years to explain.

I would also like to point out something everyone seems to gloss over, with the temprature rising less than 1 degree celcius in the last 100 years who can say this is completely accurate. Where the thermomaters of 100 years ago as accurate as a laser or electronic one of today?????

It becomes more accurate because of averaging. Average 10 readings with +-1C error and you get an average with a lower error range. Taking multiple temperature readings daily for a whole year leads to a quite accurate reading for the year average. There is probably more variation in temperature year to year than there is in the reliability of the readings anyway.

 

[-Kt Atis-]

There is weather on mars such as dust storms and winds, which affect temperature too regardless of whether the sun's output has changed. Ice melting on a region of mars is therefore not a very good proxy for solar variation.

Mars has the largest dust storms in the Solar System which can vary from a storm over a small area, to gigantic storms that cover the entire planet. They tend to occur when Mars is closest to the Sun, which increases the global temperature. Also solar radiation can wreck havoc upon Mars making it even hotter.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

There are a number of known factors that can influence global warming and cooling trends. Milankovitch cycles, which have already been mentioned deal with the orbital variation of the Earth around the Sun. These cycles have been proven to have a great deal of influence on global climate change patterns in the past. In fact, looking at global temperature data for the past few hundred thousand years, we notice that there appears to be a periodicity to warming and cooling that aligns with the rough duration of a Milankovitch cycle.

There are a few undeniable facts though:

1 - Global CO2 levels are rising, past geologically recent records. These levels are not all time highs. Geological evidence suggests that CO2 levels were many, many times higher in the late Cretaceous than they are currently today, which would happen to coincide with a very warm, wet world, with no polar ice caps (there appears to be a link here).

2 - The average global temperature appears to be varying from historical records for the past hundred to 150 years. However, I would be the first to state that geologically this period of time is almost insignificant. Historically speaking, minor fluctuations appear as blips in the geologic record. Many can be tied back to volcanic or other natural phenomena.

3 - No one can with full honesty tell you what is going on. The fact of the matter is that the climate is too complex for anyone to tell you what is going on. It would appear that warming is being caused by an increase in CO2 emissions, but correlation does not equal causation. Something that many in the scientific community seem to have forgotten.


AGW remains a hotly contested hypothesis, and nothing more.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

last year at this time the united states had been hit more more hurricans than in the history of the united states and there were cries of global warming being the casue....

so far this year 0....so is global warming fixed?

edit: wow?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm

No.

 

[Emmett]

WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Global Warming is true!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It will happen tomorrow!


I predict that on January 5th of 2007 Global Warming will have a definite affect on our atmosphere sometime around 6:00 am or so depending on where you live. Shortly after the sun begins to rise a massive Global Warming affect will be noted throughout the entire US. Tempatures could rise as much as 150% in some areas in a half a day.

This will change the atmosphere for sure. However.................

It will be temporary. Sometime in the afternoon the affect will reverse itself and everything will be better. A cooling starting in the afternoon to evening hours will reverse the horrible Global Warming affect brought on by the sun. According to my predictions some areas will experience a cooling of 30 to 150 % drop in temps.


Stop beating this shit to death folks, your worrying about nothing. Where were the Sunami's and Hurricanes this year. Ah-ha. The problem must be getting much better then. I observed NO glaciers floating by the Georgia coast and don't expect to.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Stop beating this shit to death folks, your worrying about nothing. Where were the Sunami's and Hurricanes this year. Ah-ha. The problem must be getting much better then.

The reason there were fewer hurricanes is because of unusually dry and hot conditions in the Sahara.

Furthermore, you seem to not be able to grasp the concept of a general trend.