71
   

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

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 09:41 am
@parados,
I cant understand why you go to great complexity to ignore the original question. I know you dont believe the link given has the answer to my question, "How much should it have melted ?" Referring me back to the original problem is not a solution. I was given a different link by Walter in answer to my question. I pointed out that it did not answer my question.
If you dont know, I am happy with that, just say so. If you want to cite a reference and insult me because it doesnt answer my question, I am happy with that also as I understand some people have personality dificulties that interfere with their understanding of science.

So if you are finished playing word games that would excite a teenager learning to debate but leave qualified people a bit baffled by the immaturity of it all, I would like an answer to my question: "How much should have melted ?"
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 12:53 pm
@MontereyJack,
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

The number of sunspots is currently increasing. That may cause SI to increase again. That would cause AAGT (Average Annual Global Temperature) to increase again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiation#Solar_constant

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 12:58 pm
Nice try, ican. However the temps have been going up since the la Nina ended. That's what they do. They go up whether SI increases or decreases, as you can see if you check the temps since the last solar min and compare it against what the sun is doing CYCLICALLY. The largest variables affecting temperature are greenhouse gas accumulation and ENSO, not SI. The cyclical SI change and itsw effect on temp is so small that it gets swamped by transient WEATHER effect on temperature. The CYCLIC change in SI, which is what has been going on since 2000, has at most about an 0.18 degree effect on ave. temp, and it is NOT cumulative--it goes up and down as the solar cycle moves thru its course. The global average temp. change IS CUMULATIVE--it's going up, and it is not due to the cyclic change in SI. It could be due to change in TSI, if it were changing. But the satellite evidence shows that TSI has decreased over the last three solar cycles, the period when we've had accurate measurements of solar output. That also happens to be the period of greatest global temp. increase. Temps up, TSI down. The sun doesn't explain what's happening.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:02 pm
@ican711nm,
No one claims to be able to even estimate 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.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:06 pm
@MontereyJack,
Monty, when do you think la Nina ended?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:09 pm
Wrong,, ican. A number of researchers have very good estimates of CO2, H20, and SI's effect on the temps of the last century. Not to mention aerosols, particulates, and other greenhouse gases. I gave you the figures some pages back. Read any of the IPCC's summaries of research. CO2 is somewhat more than half the total. H20 is an effect of warming, not a cause. SI is now under 25%.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:10 pm
ican, earlier this year. we're now in an el Nino phase, which means that temps this year are likely to be near record if not above previous records, according to NOAA>
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:45 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
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.

All time between ice ages are "interglacial periods".
This from wikipedia.
Quote:
The general term "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" denotes a geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers.

Since "ice age" is the same as "glacial age", interglacial periods" would be when it is NOT a glacial age so it would also not be an "ice age." Since we are currently in an interglacial period we would NOT be in a glacial period so NOT in an "ice age."
Also from wikipedia and matches up exactly with the article you posted

Quote:
The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.


Definition of "ice age"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ice+age
You might want to read them since it lists several dictionaries and the normal usage of the term "ice age". One even states that the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago.

From a lesson plan for teaching about "ice ages."
Quote:
Ice ages are periods of time when large areas of Earth’s surface were covered with ice sheets.

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/programs/iceage/



Quote:
"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."

If someone "asks" something they are asking a question. You don't ask a statement. People that ask "why didnt[sic] animal life die when the planet was warmer?" are asking a question and it is a stupid question since no one has claimed that animal life would die because of an increase in CO2.



You might want to be careful about trying to correct other people when your spelling and use of punctuation is so poor; "dont" "doesnt" and "didnt"
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:54 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
"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.


Why should I defend your statement? Shouldn't you be the one to defend it?

Quote:
"11. Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases that have been released in the past because people may ask why didnt[sic] animal life, esp our evolutionary ancestors (we) die then when the planet was warmer anyway."

I already pointed out your statement was without fact. It is your responsibility to defend it if you want to still claim it is fact. The question that the statement proposes would be asked is not rational based on the facts in evidence. Where has science proposed that humans increase of CO2 would kill all people let alone all animal life? Since science has never made that proposal there is no reason to ask the question. Until you can provide evidence of science claiming the increase in CO2 will kill all animal life, your statement is unsupported.

You made a statement. It is your job to support it. It isn't my job to prove the negative.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 01:57 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
I cant understand why you go to great complexity to ignore the original question.

I didn't ignore your question Ionus. I only pointed out that you were given a place to find the answer before you asked it. Anyone is free to read my post and follow the links to where Walter posted the link and then see your statement that I posted a different link that he had not. Feel free to pretend whatever you want. People can make their own decisions based on the posts.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:14 pm
@parados,
I agree.

Related news, from a few days ago: Two German cargo Sships pass through 'Arctic Passage'

Quote:
Challenge Northeast-Passage mastered:
Wednesday, 9. September 2009
Beluga vessels call at port of destination in Ob delta

Mission accomplished " world premiere voyage successful: Two multipurpose heavy lift project carriers, the MV “Beluga Fraternity” and the MV “Beluga Foresight”, have reached their destination in Siberia safely. On Monday morning CET, 7th of September 2009, within a few hours of each other the vessels which are loaded with heavy plant modules each dropped their anchors at Novyy Port / Yamburg in the delta of the river Ob. Hence, Bremen-based project and heavy lift carrier Beluga Shipping GmbH has successfully sent two merchant vessels through the formerly impenetrable Northeast-Passage from Asia to Europe for the first time. The MV “Beluga Fraternity” had cast off on the 23rd of July and sister vessel MV “Beluga Foresight” five days later from Ulsan, South Korea. They entered the so called Northern Sea Route via the inspection point at Vladivostok in order to deliver their project cargo as far into the destination area as no other merchant vessel had previously been able to. Now, the in total 44 cargo modules with single weights of 200 tons and above have been discharged offshore onto barges by the on-board crane gear and will then be transported further to Surgut.

“We are all very proud and delighted to be the first western shipping company which has successfully transited the legendary Northeast-Passage and delivered the sensitive cargo safely through this extraordinarily demanding sea area”, Niels Stolberg said, President and CEO of Beluga Shipping GmbH, after the masters Captain Aleksander Antonov and Captain Valeriy Durov had notified that they had dropped anchor at their port of destination. “To transit the Northeast-Passage so well and professionally without incidents on the premiere trip is the result of our extremely thorough and accurate preparation as well as the outstanding team work between our attentive captains, our reliable meteorologists and our engaged crew”, said Stolberg.

During the passed days which led through the East Siberian Sea, the Sannikov Strait and the Vilkizki Strait as northernmost part the Beluga vessels were part of a little convoy behind the Russian Atomflot-ice breakers “50 let Pobedy” and “Rossia”. Small ice bergs, ice fields and ice blocks were traversed without incident. After the successful premiere, Beluga Shipping announced further project journeys through the Northeast-Passage for 2010 " then probably with the new Super Heavy Lift vessels of the Beluga P-class already, which will be launched as from autumn this year onwards.

Source

Photos (with German text only)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 02:25 pm
Since a couple of posters predicted how cold it was this year and how the surface temperature was going down, the ice thickening ...

Quote:
The world's ocean surfaces had their warmest summer temperatures on record, the US national climatic data centre said today.

Climate change has been steadily raising the earth's average temperature in recent decades, but climatologists expected additional warming this year and next due to the influence of El Niño.

Ocean surface temperatures were the warmest for any August since record keeping began in 1880. For the June to August summer months, average ocean surface temperatures rose to 16.9C (62.5F), which is 1.04F above the 20th century average, said the report from the climate centre, which is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The world's combined average land and ocean surface temperatures were the second warmest on record for August, and the third warmest for the summer months.

Source
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:18 pm
@parados,
You cant see the forest for the trees. If you are going to call a glacial event an Ice Age, what will you call a collection of glacial events ? My definition is an Ice Age is a protracted time of glacial advancing and retreating. Your definition is silly. This means that North America can have an Ice Age whilst Europe does not, going solely by glaciers. So the earth can never have an Ice Age as the earth never has a glacial event.

When you go to University (big pre-school) you will learn that what the average person considers a definition has nothing to do with its scientific use.

I wasnt asking anything. I was telling you to ignore the huge amounts of green house gases. Surely even with your bias you can see plain english as written.

"dont" "doesnt" and "didnt" As someone who appears to me to have some personality disorder, I wouldnt think you would pick on dyslexics but I always appreciate a spell checker. It is a mindless task best done by automation and I accept you want to do it for me. There is no money involved.

I have to add you argue like a very young inexperienced person. You do not address the broad issues, you avoid committing yourself to a statement that may be examined closely, and youu narrow in on detail as if that will save you from addressing the broader issue. Even if you were to win these pathetic little snipes of yours, you cant win on the overall issue which is why you avoid it. Perhaps you need to learn more about debating, rather than insulting people like you usually do.

You seem typical of the internet arguer. You attempt to bully, bluff and insult your way through perhaps because you are unsuccesful with people face to face.

By the way, when you call someone a liar as you have done on this forum, it is only you hiding your identity that prevents you from being prosecuted. Are you a coward, parados ? That was a question.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:32 pm
@parados,
"No one has said all animal life will die if we increase CO2." Can you see the inverted commas/quotation marks ? That was your statement, not mine and no, you dont have to defend your statement. This is the internet. It is full of people who dont know what they are talking about and can not defend their statements.

" It isn't my job to prove the negative." Wrong. It is your job to prove the negative. Global Warming is the negative. The world will continue to have climate fluctuations as it always has, that is the positive. You have to prove the new theory.

I asked you to tell me what CO2 increases will do. You have not. I can assume you dont know or wont state it. Or perhaps you are one of thiose people you criticise, someone who cant or wont do the research. Or didnt you read the statement ? Too busy to read it only enough time to answer it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:42 pm
@parados,


I said : "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."

You said : If someone "asks" something they are asking a question. You don't ask a statement. People that ask "why didnt[sic] animal life die when the planet was warmer?" are asking a question and it is a stupid question since no one has claimed that animal life would die because of an increase in CO2.

English is a big problem for you and I can only recomend any native language site where you may understand the processes better. The main sentence is a statement. The rest is a phrase. The punctuation follows the sentence, not the phrase. Do you understand now as I would like to get back to the topic of Global Warming that you seem hellbent on avoiding? You see in this last sentence the basic sentence is a question.


0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 06:46 pm
@parados,
You maintain that you are not ignoring the question whilst ignoring the question. Just answer the question before we all die of old age. "How much Ice should have melted ?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 07:17 pm
@MontereyJack,
I'm not wrong on the following:
No one claims to be able to even estimate 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.

The numbers you gave me do not address these questions. I did not ask what were the IPCC's alleged radioactive forcings 1909 to 2009. I already know the IPCC's radioactive forcings numbers are in error. For example, IPCC claims the sun's were 0.12 W/m^2. I showed you they were more than 10 times that amount.

You wrote again: "H20 is an effect of warming, not a cause." Wrong! The amouint of H2O in the atmosphere is both an effect of the temperatures of the surface and a cause. The higher the surface temperatures, the more H2O will evaporate into the atmosphere. The more H2O evaporates into the atmosphere, the more is the warming effect on the global temperature from a given amount of Solar Irradiation.

The same is true of CO2. CO2 in the atmosphere increases both because of global warming and because of human caused emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. So to determine by what percentage a given amount of human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere has caused a specified temperature increase, one must first determine what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by non-human caused emissions and what percentage is caused by human caused emissions.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 07:21 pm
@ican711nm,
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
318
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, a Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion in the department of Mechanical Engineering at Ohio State University, who has published over 45 peer-reviewed studies, dismissed climate fears. "Man's addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant," Essenhigh wrote on June 13, 2005. "Of the two main reasons, the first is that nature does a far bigger job in the carbon-dioxide supply rate, and the second is that carbon dioxide is secondary to water as a so-called greenhouse gas. So shouldn't we first try to control water? And behind that again is the alternative warming concept, most generally known as the Arctic Ocean Model, which is considered by many to be the real driver for the temperature oscillations and has been for the last million years or so. So, is the carbon dioxide driving the temperature, as so many people seem to believe? Or, is the temperature driving the carbon dioxide? If it's the latter, then what's the problem with carbon dioxide emissions?" Essenhigh wrote. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - and can it be wrong? - nature's rate of carbon supply to the atmosphere (carried as carbon dioxide) and back out again is about 150 gigatons per year. About 60 gigatons per year come from and go back to vegetation, and 90 gigatons per year are from and to the sea. And from man? That's about 5 or 6 or possibly 7 gigatons per year, which is about the size of the noise in the nature data and is essentially trivial by comparison," he added. "And, of the two gases in the atmosphere that do most of the warming, carbon dioxide, as noted, is secondary. Water is responsible for roughly 80 percent to 85 percent of the absorption and re-radiation, and carbon dioxide is responsible for (most of) the balance of 15 percent to 20 percent," he added. (LINK)

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 07:41 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
It is irrelevant what the temp is currently doing. Far more important questions are to what degree is the long term temp changing and why ? The extent of warming or cooling has to be compared on a relevant time frame and the coldest or hottest winter grandma can remember is not a relevant time frame. Man has been around for about 100,000 years and this should be regarded as one piece of data to be compared with previous blocks of a similar size. To be statistically reliable, we would have to measure at least a billion years because the world keeps moving and changing the reference.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Sep, 2009 09:17 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
You cant see the forest for the trees. If you are going to call a glacial event an Ice Age, what will you call a collection of glacial events ? My definition is an Ice Age is a protracted time of glacial advancing and retreating. Your definition is silly.
My definition is the dictionary one and the scientific one. Why do you think dictionaries are silly? Why do you think science is silly?

Quote:
When you go to University (big pre-school) you will learn that what the average person considers a definition has nothing to do with its scientific use.
I provided several sources that agreed with my definition. You have not provided a single source.

Quote:
I wasnt asking anything.

Quote:
"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 looks like the word "ask" to me in your statement.

Quote:
ou attempt to bully, bluff and insult your way through perhaps because you are unsuccesful with people face to face.
Right..
Quote:
Your definition is silly.
Quote:
As someone who appears to me to have some personality disorder,
Quote:
I have to add you argue like a very young inexperienced person

Who is trying to bully, bluff and insult their way with those statements?



Now as to someone that is "avoiding" the issue, I see you didn't do anything to defend this statement of yours.
Quote:
"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."

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 08:47:49