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

@parados,

Quote:
"(Why does the ice age have to ended when most ice melted ?) I have no idea why you are even asking that question. "

I thought it was obvious, but I will explain: You said it takes thousands of years for glacial ice to appear after a cooling period has started. Why is it impossible to take thousands of years for the Ice Age to end after all the ice has disappeared ? Remembering we still have some ice around, all warming may be due to a natural cycle. Unless you know the temperature that exists in between glacial retreats and the next advance, then you are guessing as to where we are naturally. Without that, you can not calculate any effect man has had on temperature. It would also be essential to know the natural temperature in between periods of grouping of glacial ice, called "Ice Ages", to determine any natural cyclic effects. Without hard evidence, you are guessing.

Quote:
"(The world does not usually have glacial ice),Your evidence of this?"

During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. This is so commonly known I have no doubt you already know it, but if you dont you can find it under most scientific information on Ice Ages. Look anywhere... General Books, Scientific Magazines, Published Papers, Museums...

Quote:
"Ice cores go back 420,000 years. That would mean that for the last 420,000 years we have had ice. Are you trying to argue that we are still in an ice age?"

I note your use of the word we. As you criticised me for this, as man had not been around then, I take it you have agreed with me secretly rather than you are applying double standards ?

With the 420,000 years, I take it you are refering to Russia's Ice Station Vostok ? This is one site, and you are in error if you think this is multiple sampling. It is sampling from the one area to produce an average for that area. Multiple sampling should come from multiple locations as far apart as one can find them. If you cant find them, doesnt that suggest something ? Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. To say 420,000 years ago without further explantion of which advance it belongs to is a misuse of statistics. Taken over the last 1 billion years this is 0.042% of the data required to state facts. The ice that would tell us the temperature for when we are not in an ice age does not exist...by definition. It is not scientific to measure ice from an ice age and declare the world warmer. With more information it wont be a guess, it will be a theory. When we have all the information, we can state facts about the past but that doesnt mean an accurate prediction of the future. The future will always be a theory. Until then, keep guessing but dont dishonour science by saying it is factual.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

This is what Walter had posted..

Quote:

Infos can be found at the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) website.

You will note that Walter included a reference.

You responded

Ionus wrote:

How much should have melted ?

It took me less than 2 minutes to find and post the answer simply using Walter's original link.

The problem isn't that a link wasn't included but that you didn't seem capable or willing to follow that link.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

I thought it was obvious, but I will explain: You said it takes thousands of years for glacial ice to appear after a cooling period has started. Why is it impossible to take thousands of years for the Ice Age to end after all the ice has disappeared ?

Therein lies your problem Ionus. Is it an "ice age" if the ice has disappeared? I have no idea what you are asking because you don't seem to know what "ice age" means. You seem to think ice ages continue for thousands of years when there is no ice. Do you also think the ocean extends for thousands of miles when there is no water?

Quote:

During most of the last 1 billion years the earth had no permanent ice. This is so commonly known I have no doubt you already know it, but if you dont you can find it under most scientific information on Ice Ages. Look anywhere... General Books, Scientific Magazines, Published Papers, Museums...

Which ones in particular did you use to come up with your information? Do they also tell you this?

Quote:

10. Dont mention that we will most probably go back into an Ice age within several thousand years, and this is due to the continental positions amid ocean currents and cycles of the sun. Or it could be before the end of this century, we dont know.

We are talking about your list that you claim is "science" so which science book told you we will be in an ice age within several thousand years? And which ones told you we will have a km of ice in just a few years time? Which ones told you that a mega volcano can produce more CO2 than all of human activity for the last 150 years? I am curious as to what science books you read Ionus.

Quote:

I note your use of the word we. As you criticised me for this, as man had not been around then, I take it you have agreed with me secretly rather than you are applying double standards ?

I criticized you because you implied man had been around when CO2 was much higher than it is today. Man was not around then. I didn't say anything about man not being around or being around but in case you didn't know it man in various forms has been around for a million years. What did YOUR science books tell you?
As for the use of the pronoun "we" what did I tell you last time? It refers back to the previous noun. In the case you are now criticizing "we" refers to the previous noun "the world".

Quote:

The future will always be a theory. Until then, keep guessing but dont dishonour science by saying it is factual.

Perhaps you should have considered how you would dishonor science before you posted this..
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-717#post-3742994

1 Reply

Quote:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tax carbon dioxide emissions by households and businesses, a measure aimed at helping France slash its output greenhouse gases over the coming decades -- but viewed with skepticism by many.

Sarkozy Urges Carbon Tax on Households and Businesses

0 Replies

Five EU states vow to step up climate diplomacy

Quote:

Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden and Finland agreed Thursday to intensify "green diplomacy" to rescue an ambitious global climate agreement in Copenhagen in December, officials said.

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
317
Climatologist Dr. Robert E. Davis, a Professor at University of Virginia, a former UN IPCC contributor and past president of the Association of American Geographers, and past-chair of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Biometeorology and Aerobiology, dismissed what he termed "hysteria over global warming." "We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc. for which mankind's striving for a high quality of life is to blame, via the internal combustion engine and its by-product, carbon dioxide. But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good observations to really determine how much of a record we're even close to setting," Davis wrote on May 12, 2005. "Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts -- in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists. Remember one of the absolutely fundamental and too-often unstated tenets of science -- there's little point in studying anything that doesn't vary during a scientist's lifetime," he added. Davis has written numerous papers on such topics as atmospheric circulation change." (LINK)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

What has caused the 100-year (1909 - 2009), 1°K increase in the average global temperature from about 286.54°K to about 287.54°K?

The difference in the 100 year average global temperature anomalies = (287.54°K - 287.06°K) - (286.54°K - 287.06°K) = (+0.48) - (-0.52) = 1.0°K.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

0 Replies

Instead of repeatedly askjing the question, which the IPCC, among others, has answered several times over the past dozen years, ican, why don't you go back and look at the graphic Parados posted, which references the causes of temp. rise to a common standard, i.e. the calculable change in W/m^2 which the sun would have to undergo to produce that change. Looking at that graph, it represents roughly a change of 3.35 W/m^2, of which CO2 is about 1.7 W/m^2, or about 50%, other anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions about 1 watt, or 30%, increase in stratospheric water vapor due to breakdown of methane about .15 or about 4%, changes in solar irradiance .2 or about 6%. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a dependent variable, not an independent one--it is a feedback, not a forcing--CO2 increase (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gas raises) raises the temperature, which causes more water to vaporize, which in turn warms the earth a bit more--it's the endresult of the CO2 increase, which is a forcing. No one has come up with a significant non-anthropogenic change in water vapor to account for the rise, merely the temperature-related change, which is dependent on other factors.

It's not due to water, it's not due to SI changes (which have been found to be less that originally observed).

1 Reply

And the consensus view continues to hold sway and be supported by more research, as it often is whenever a new issue of "Science" comes out:

"updated 4:43 p.m. ET, Thurs., Sept . 10, 2009
WASHINGTON - Arctic warming is affecting plants, birds, animals and insects as ice melts and the growing season changes, scientists report in a new review of the many impacts climate change is having on the far north.

"Arctic ecosystems ... have been severely perturbed," the experts wrote in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

As the global climate changes, the Arctic Circle has been warming faster than other regions and scientists have documented a series of affects on wildlife in the region."

And further from that article:

"The study and survey follow a study last week where researchers reported that the Arctic is warmer than it has been in 2,000 years, even though it should be cooling because of changes in the Earth's orbit that cause the region to get less direct sunlight."

Got that, ican? It's not the sun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32783365/ns/us_news-environment/

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The graphs Parados posted are contradicted by this graph (Please carefully examine the period 1901 to 2001 for which I have compute an average increase in SI = 1.35 W/m^2.):

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

The IPCC answers do not address my often repeated question. Until the IPCC or someone else can not only address my question, but can provide evidence for their answers, I say we do not know what caused the 1°K (or 1°C, or 1.8°F) average global temperature increase over the last 100 years..

No one claims to know by what percentage each of the following caused the 100-year, 1909 to 2009, 1°K (or 1°C, or 1.8°F) increase in the average global temperature:
(1) Human caused increased CO2 emissions into the atmosphere;
(2) Increased evaporation of H2O into the atmosphere;
(3) Increased SI radiations in and onto the atmosphere.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

By the way, the Average Global Temperature has decreased about 0.085°K (or 0.085°C, or 0.153°F) AND SI has decreased 0.80 W/m^2,
since 2001.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The graphs Parados posted are contradicted by this graph (Please carefully examine the period 1901 to 2001 for which I have compute an average increase in SI = 1.35 W/m^2.):

The numbers you provide are clearly contradicted by Lean's data
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

1. Lean doesn't give data for 2001.
2. The TSI 100 year difference from 1900-2000 is not 1.35W/m^2.

You have never addressed my oft repeated questions about how you misrepresent the data ican. Until you address why you lie about the data ican, I see no reason to accept that you are not lying about what has been given by the IPCC.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, the Average Global Temperature has decreased about 0.085°K (or 0.085°C, or 0.153°F) AND SI has decreased 0.80 W/m^2,
since 2001.

You don't stop to think do you ican?

From 1901-2001 you claimed temperature went up 1 degree and SI increased by 1.34
Since 2001 we see your reported decreases.

Simply examining your 2 sets of numbers should reveal that something MORE than just SI is affecting temperature. If it wasn't then the decrease should have been at least .5 degrees since 2001. But it was only 1/5th of that. Why is that ican? Perhaps the science is correct and your idiotic statements are the problem.

0 Replies

Take a look at the right hand side of the Hadcrut graphs you keep posting, ican. Notice that the temp is going back up, just as we told you it would. That is because 2008 was a la Nina year, which causes a temporary small drop in global temp. It's over. Temps are going up. SI is still down. SI is clearly not the cause.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

It is a simple question. How much should it have melted ? As parados would say, "you either cant or wont do the research". If you dont know how much the Artic Ice should have melted, say so. It is no shame to be ignorant where there is no science to state facts.

0 Replies

@parados,

The link I was given :
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02547411.htm

This is the link you refer to
http://neem.ku.dk/

To which you said "The problem isn't that a link wasn't included but that you didn't seem capable or willing to follow that link. "

For someone with an over active imagination the connection is obvious, but I dont have your ability to visualise. Have you thought of a career in the arts ? I am getting the strong impression that science or logical, unemotional debate is not your forte. You have abused, sneered, laughed, felt threatened, applied double standards and never once admitted a week point in the global warming debate. Is this the only field of human indeavour that is beyond approach because you are a believer? Will you feel less powerful if it is all a guess? Are you overcompensating for other problems that you have ?

Might I suggest being logical and honest in this debate, and if you have already done so, then keep up the good work .

1 Reply

@parados,

"Is it an "ice age" if the ice has disappeared?"
Yes it is. We are considerd to be in a Ice Age until we reach the temperatures characteristic of the warmer periods that are typical of our planet and it is clearly obvious the ice will not return.

"Do you also think the ocean extends for thousands of miles when there is no water?" I do not think that. Do you ? Your ability to use anologies is only exceeded by your grasp of science. Let me try one : Do you think Global Warming Politics extends to affect the lives of billions of people when there is no science? How was it ? As good as your's ? You know any prediction of the future is a guess. The more complicated the model and the further in the future it is, the more it is a guess. The worlds climates are a self correcting system. Factor that in.

" Do they also tell you this?"
Yes they do.

"..which science book told you we will be in an ice age within several thousand years?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/when-will-the-next-ice-age-begin.html
(Source by Illinois State Museum)
Obviously you are not familiar with any reason for global climatic change except for man. Are you aware temperature has fluctuated before ? You are selecting the most recent times because it suits your argument. You should employ general trends and not rely on emotional issues like the shortness of the human lifespan to make 100,000 years seem a big deal. In the 3.2 BILLION years we have had a climate, we had the longest and most extensive Ige Age when we had the most greehouse gases.

"...man in various forms has been around for a million years"
Oh, parados, not another science for you to get wrong. Erect hominids have been around for roughly 6 million years. Our homo ancestors for about 2.5 million years. Homo is a genus and any biologist will tell you that just using the genus is not close enough. Homo sapiens, as opposed to Homo neanderthalis, has been around for 100,000 years, at a stretch 120,000 years. But dont worry, I am used to Global Warming guessers being out by a multiple of 10.

"In the case you are now criticizing 'we' refers to the previous noun 'the world'."
Before "We are the World" gets to replace "Gombaya" as your fav song, may I quote from you ? "It's a little disingenuous to turn the "we" into "animal life" don't you think?" but is it OK to turn "we" into the "entire world" ? I dont know, I am asking you . I trust your decision in this matter because I know you dont want to look foolish or appear to have double standards.

"I criticized you because you implied man had been around when CO2 was much higher than it is today."
This is what I wrote
"11. Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases that have been released in the past because people may ask why didnt we die then when the planet was warmer anyway."
As it is a cause of constant distraction for you, I will amend it to
"11. Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases that have been released in the past because people may ask why didnt animal life, esp our evolutionary ancestors (we) die then when the planet was warmer anyway."

"Perhaps you should have considered how you would dishonor science before you posted this.."
What I did consider is how you have dishonoured science by bluffing with half the facts. With a narrow enough sampling you can justify anything. Even Global Warming.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Why would you post a link to your "science" when it refutes your argument that we are still in an ice age?

Ionus wrote:

Yes it is. We are considerd to be in a Ice Age until we reach the temperatures characteristic of the warmer periods that are typical of our planet and it is clearly obvious the ice will not return.

The title of your link

Quote:

When Will the Next Ice Age Begin?

Quote:

Through that span, in fact, the cold spells have so dominated that geophysicists regard warm periods like the present one, called the Holocene, as the oddities. Indeed, the scientific name for these periods -- interglacials -- reflects the exceptional nature of such times.
...
This is no mere intellectual exercise. The equable conditions of the Holocene, which has lasted 10,000 years so far, have enabled the flowering of agriculture, technology, mobility and resulting explosive population growth that has made the human species a global force.

So which should we trust Ionus when there is a conflict? You or what you are presenting as "science?"

Is English your second language? You seem to have a problem understanding how pronouns work.

Quote:

our ability to use anologies is only exceeded by your grasp of science. Let me try one : Do you think Global Warming Politics extends to affect the lives of billions of people when there is no science? How was it ? As good as your's ?

It's a horrible analogy Ionus since one can have politics without science. Can you name the ocean that doesn't have water or the ice age that doesn't have ice? I realize you already tried to make that argument but even your "science" disputes it.

Quote:

As it is a cause of constant distraction for you, I will amend it to
"11. Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases that have been released in the past because people may ask why didnt animal life, esp our evolutionary ancestors (we) die then when the planet was warmer anyway."

That is a pretty stupid question, don't you think? No one has said all animal life will die if we increase CO2.

Quote:

What I did consider is how you have dishonoured science by bluffing with half the facts.

This from the guy that says we are currently in an ice age and presents as his science an article stating we are NOT in one. You are really quite humorous Ionus in a sad sort of way. Who should we believe Ionus, you or our lying eyes?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

The link I was given :
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02547411.htm

This is the link you refer to
http://neem.ku.dk/

Which is a link posted by Walter
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-717#post-3739349

To which you responded here....
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-720#post-3749000

Quote:

To which you said "The problem isn't that a link wasn't included but that you didn't seem capable or willing to follow that link. "

Not only couldn't you follow the link, you now want to pretend the link was never given before you asked the question.

Quote:

For someone with an over active imagination the connection is obvious, but I dont have your ability to visualise. Have you thought of a career in the arts ? I am getting the strong impression that science or logical, unemotional debate is not your forte. You have abused, sneered, laughed, felt threatened, applied double standards and never once admitted a week point in the global warming debate. Is this the only field of human indeavour that is beyond approach because you are a believer? Will you feel less powerful if it is all a guess? Are you overcompensating for other problems that you have ?

Might I suggest being logical and honest in this debate, and if you have already done so, then keep up the good work .

I posted the links to Walter posting the link and you asking your question without first following his links. He is under no obligation to give you information he gave you previously. My original statement stands. You seem incapable of following the links. Then when it is pointed out you didn't follow the link you want to pretend you weren't given the link.

1 Reply

@parados,

There is so much you dont know about this, it is difficult to know where to begin. An Ice Age consists of Glacial advances and retreats. These glaciers are often misnamed by you and others as an Ice Age. We are currently imbetween glacial advances. We are in a interglacial period. If the only thing that sticks in your mind is the title, no wonder we are having trouble convincing you of your folly.

Quote:
Through that span, in fact, the cold spells have so dominated that geophysicists regard warm periods like the present one, called the Holocene, as the oddities. Indeed, the scientific name for these periods -- interglacials -- reflects the exceptional nature of such times.
Please read your own quotes. They are, on occasion, factual.

"Is English your second language?" I asked you first and I am not convinced it is your first language.

"We are the World"? Rather emotional, but not scientific.

"Can you name the ocean that doesn't have water..." Yes. Oceanus Procellarum on the Lunar surface. "...or the ice age that doesn't have ice?" Yes. All Ice Ages do not have Ice at the start and the finish, which may take thousands of years. Do you remember telling me they take thousands of years ? Depending on the depth of the interglacial, they may not have ice then either. But even at the height of the Ice Age there are many areas not covered in ice. Does that help you understand better ?

You say my anology is horrible but suggest yours is fair? Unfortunately, I have already learnt to discount a lot of your opinion. I will ask for your opinion on one thing though: Is it possible that Global Warming is wrong?

"So which should we trust Ionus when there is a conflict?" Me. Always trust me. I have come to realise you are too emotional and biased to be scientific in these matters.

"...since one can have politics without science." Try having Global Warming "lack-of-science" without politics. Can you name the Global Warming science that doesnt have politics ?

"That is a pretty stupid question, don't you think?" When you are better at english you will have learnt that a question is most easily identified by a question mark at the end. It is not even a question that you have quoted me as saying; "Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases" is a statement. The basic sentence is a statement. Why am I always explaining the basics to you, parados ? - is an example of a question. I hope this helps you with your english studies.

"You are really quite humorous Ionus in a sad sort of way." Back to sneering ? That didnt take long. Was that a record for you ? Tolerating a different opinion for two days before your personality failings led you to laugh at others ? Do other people laugh at you and you are getting even with the "we", sorry, I mean "the world"?

I repeat my earlier statement: "What I did consider is how you have dishonoured science by bluffing with half the facts." Present all the data on Climate change going back for as long as we have had a climate. If you cant, then surely you can put aside your religious devotion to Global Warming long enough to admit it is a guess. Why is the stability of your personality so dependant on Global Warming being true ? Why all the emotions when I accused science of being hysterical in its defence of Global Warming? Are you TRYING to prove me right ? Are you secretly on my side and trying to damage the Global Warming argument from within ?

"No one has said all animal life will die if we increase CO2." So what will happen? Enlighten me, parados, this is your chance to shine...

Oh, and ah, keep it factual and without emotion. There's a good chap.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know