Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Mercy. I certainly hope the climate is changing. It always has. We watched the movie "Groundhog Day" on Saturday to commemorate the actual event. And I have this nightmare in my mind that the climate might become so stable and so static that we get up every day to the same sky, the same windspeed or lack thereof, the same humidity etc. If it is all good, then maybe there could be some advantages. But those who get stuck in one of the yucky days......sheesh. I vote for climate change, the natural way of course.

Climate

conditions of the atmosphere at a particular location over a long period of time; it is the long-term summation of the atmospheric elements (and their variations) that, over short time periods, constitute weather. These elements are solar radiation, temperature, humidity, precipitation (type, frequency, and amount), atmospheric pressure, and wind (speed and direction).
... The best modern definitions of climate regard it as constituting the total experience of weather and atmospheric behaviour over a number of years in a given region. Climate is not just the "average weather" (an obsolete, and always inadequate, definition). It should include not only the average values of the climatic elements that prevail at different times but also their extreme ranges and variability and the frequency of various occurrences. Just as one year differs from another, decades and centuries are found to differ from one another by a smaller, but sometimes significant, amount. Climate is therefore time-dependent, and climatic values or indexes should not be quoted without specifying what years they refer to. [And 102 more pages]

We are losing our snow for the fifth time this year. It's been the snowiest winter in 119 years or something like that. We get dumped on, then it warms up and rains, it all melts, then repeats. I'm sure not looking forward to the 6th time. Enough already!!!

Oh, for those that remember the Lake Michigan digression, this also means that we've had enough water hit the shed that the lake levels should rise substantially by spring. If they don't, then there's only one conclusion. Our water is being siphoned off, possibly stolen.

Here in France, I have bought Philips and Osram CFLs. Both don't work with dimmers.

I know a lot who want to live in parts of the worlds with a different climate than in theirs.

Walter wrote

Quote:

I know a lot who want to live in parts of the worlds with a different climate than in theirs.

And that is one of the benefits some see from climate change that would moderate some of those places. I've mentioned before that Russia is thinking that if the Siberian climate should become warmer, Siberia could become the breadbasket of the world.

New Mexico's climate is considerably more moderate than we recember when we first moved back here more than 20 years ago. The winters are remembered as much colder than now (at least until this year) and the summers much warmer. We have had mild winters and mild summers for several years now. Then again, I suspect many of us remember the weather the way 'it used to be' differently than it probably actually was.

Then again, Hamburger's observations of ice or the absence thereof on Lake Ontario is certainly a valid observation. Is it unusual in the grand scheme of things? I don't know.

But I know that climate does change and does so dramatically over centuries and millenia and eons. And that, in the grand scheme of things, is probably exactly what is supposed to be.

Humans survived the last ice age. And they survived the last periods that were warmer than now. And they are certainly in a position to survive whatever mother nature throws at us now. Lets concentrate on that.

Foxfyre wrote:

Humans survived the last ice age. And they survived the last periods that were warmer than now. And they are certainly in a position to survive whatever mother nature throws at us now. Lets concentrate on that.

That's right. And humans survived Hitler, the bubonic plague, invasions, wars ... ...

ican711nm wrote:

Okie, Is this what you want?

Yes, your graph appears to show an "alarming" rise of 0.4 C since 1880.

ican711nm wrote:

You do not have a cause and effect shown by experiments. All you have is a possible correlation shown by experiments. But currently it looks like it is a weak correlation because the temperature increased at a much slower rate 1976-2007 than did the CO2 in the atmosphere during the same period.
Also, do not forget, correlation alone does not prove cause.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by
Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94,
273-85.


Tyndall, John (1863). "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere."
Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.


Tyndall, John (1863). "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous
Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.


Tyndall, John (1873). Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain
of Radiant Heat. New York: Appleton.


Tyndall, John (1873). "Further Researches on the Absorption and
Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter (1862)." In Contributions to
Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat pp. 69-121. New York:
Appleton.

The link between gas heating and the composition of the gas has been known for 150 years. You have bull **** when you claim there is nothing more than "correlation". There is a very real DIRECT relation. The problem is not that there isn't a direct relation. The problem is in modeling all the other factors that also affect temperature.

You also don't know **** about what "direct relation" means. X = 10Y is a direct relation. X = Y^2 is also a direct relation. A direct relation in no way means that X and Y have to increase at the same rate. It only means that as one increases then the other would also increase. This is something that is quite clear from the graphs. Your statement highlighted in red is nothing but bull **** and pretty poor bull **** at that.

Well, many think different - one of the main topics in our (local) churches (both evangelical as well as catholic) here is ... saving energy to save God's nature.

...

If you want to claim that CO2 has no relationship then you have to account for ALL other variables. You have not done so. If the output of the sun is a component of warming then you have to show that the sun's output was the same for all those years if you want to claim those years show CO2 isn't accurate.

It's amazing the gambles some are willing to take in the long run with the enviorment, but never on other issues, such as social ones.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's amazing the gambles some are willing to take in the long run with the enviorment, but never on other issues, such as social ones.

The gamblers are those who want to risk billions $ in a ressource scarce world for unknown results to "stabilize the climate", a trade war with the Chinese or the Indian, the energy policy decisions dictated by corrupt UN's non-elected bureaucrats for a global gouvernance to comply with a central planning protocol which has PROVED to be an utter failure.
Talk about the precautionnary principle