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

@High Seas,

Clever !

@Irishk,

Interesting read...good pick up. I have always argued it is a self correcting system and without accurate knowledge of the complete picture, it is pointless to try to prove Global Warming. Now lets wait and see who is stupid enough to argue tipping points and other unsubstantiated nonsense.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Interesting read...good pick up. I have always argued it is a self correcting system and without accurate knowledge of the complete picture, it is pointless to try to prove Global Warming. Now lets wait and see who is stupid enough to argue tipping points and other unsubstantiated nonsense.

Well, the IPCC is a political organization, is it not? So, would you say ignoring readings from below the equator is shoddy science or intentional deceit? They will say neither, I'm guessing. Wink

0 Replies

ican, you claim the interval 1998-2008 (the end year in the data you use) shows a decrease in global temp, while CO2 is increasing, so CO2 can't be the cause. Look at 1997-2007: global temp increases, CO2 increases. Now that they've posted 2009 (click your link again, your data end a year too soon), compare 1999-2009: CO2 increases, global temp increases. Your supposed "correlation" only "works" because you you INTENTIONALLY CHOSE (as you yourself stated)to use two anomalous years when something OTHER than CO2 or solar irradiance had a KNOWN TEMPORARY effect on global temperatures. You picked the strongest el Nino year on record for your initial year and a strong la Nina year for your final one. Pick an interval of similar length on either side of your interval and you get the opposite result. As we keep telling you, you're cherrypicking the data.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

So what happened from the 40's till the 70's ? CO2 decreased ? The average temp got cooler so all that industrial expansion must have been carbon free...obviously we need a return to that type of pollution.

0 Replies

<sigh> Do try to keep up, ionus, before you consider getting snarky. For the sixth or seventh time, short answer: mostly anthropogenic aerosols, with help from lots of volcanic aerosols.

Just another thing the IPCC has summarized the research on:

Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You probably have some reason why Pinatubo and St Helens, to name a few, didnt cool the planet like the eruptions you mentioned ?

0 Replies

they did, as a matter of fact. do a little research. Mt. St. Helen's was a pipsqueak, tho, it didn't do much. Krakatoa did more and Tambora was the big one in probably the last five hundred years at least. It produced a "Year with no Summer" for one year, then another cold but less cold one, and then it had pretty much shot its wad. We've talked about those at length, too, and pretty recently. Where were you?
thing is, huge volcanoes aren't that common. Big volcanoes can have an effect for a year, maybe two and then usually taper down quite a bit. And the stuff they blow out, mostly particulates and sulfates, settle out or rain out or combine out pretty quickly. So they affect the weather for a couple years, decreasingly much, and then other processes again outweigh them by a lot. Weather, not climate.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

We've talked about those at length, too, and pretty recently. Where were you?

I was the one you were talking to. I just want to know why you mention volcanoes as a part of the 40's to 70's scenario, when you leave them out for the later period. Isnt that selecting the data, something your friends have been found guilty of already ? Wouldnt it be more appropriate for you to break with tradition in climate science and admit the errors inherent in Global Warming ?

If we change to prevent the planet warming (a Quixotic task at best) and the planet gets cooler, what then ? What do we do to prevent an Ice Age because I know which one is far more dangerous than the other. Which one do you think is more dangerous ?

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Jone didn't claim there was "no warming" he said the warming that DID occur wasn't statistically significant. One of the reason being it is a short time period.
And you offer this in SUPPORT of Global Warming ???

Yes, that's the only argument Parados has ever produced and been able to back up - Professor Jones's guarded statement on the significance of his (sadly and mysteriously missing) data. And Jones knows more about density functions of statistical distributions than either Parados or Monterey.

Even you seem to think we should accept Jones' argument that warming has occurred over the last 100 years. OK.. So, why are you trying to discredit that argument?

1 Reply

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

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

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).
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
367
Air resources engineer Tom Scheffelin, who estimates on-road vehicle emissions for the California Air Resources Board, declared himself a climate skeptic in 2007. "Does carbon dioxide affect the climate? Carbon dioxide levels track temperature changes between 300 to 1,000 years after the temperature has changed. Carbon dioxide has no direct role in global warming; rather, it responds to biological activity, which responds to climate changes," Scheffelin wrote in a November 5, 2007 article titled "Global Warming Causes Carbon Dioxide." Scheffelin critiqued what he termed "the quasi-religious fervor surrounding global warming." He explained, "Cyclic global warming is normal and must occur no matter what anyone does or does not do. The most frequent global climate cycle is caused by the ocean's response to the orbits of the earth and moon." Scheffelin continued, "Carbon dioxide levels track temperature changes between 300 to 1,000 years after the temperature has changed. Carbon dioxide has no direct role in global warming; rather, it responds to biological activity, which responds to climate changes." He concluded by issuing a warning to the public about climate fears. "Beware future radical government mandates designed to save the planet. What can one do? Elect legislators who do not fall prey to the global warming hysteria. Walk or bicycle as often as possible; the world is a better place when experienced on foot or by bicycle. Grow two ears of corn where before only one ear grew (Gulliver's Travels). Stop worrying over global warming; worry causes poor health. Study geology, it's fascinating. Enjoy life during this, the most productive, safe and healthful era in the history of mankind," he concluded. (LINK)

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Tell me Tom Scheffelin didnt suggest Global Warming Thuggees should stop ? They have a messianic complex everyone of them. They are the people who form cults using the ignorant and impressionable. In some ways, I think we are lucky to have all the basket cases in one basket. Lets leave them there so we can keep an eye on them, but lets destroy their political power so we wont be doing any whacko ideas to save our souls. Correction, save our planet.

0 Replies

Tom Scheffelin is talking thru his hat, much like Ionus. What he is talking about is what happens at the start of an interglacial period, as we are in now. The glacials are initiated by very very long period changes in the earth's orbit, which cause changes in the amount of solar irradiance the earth receives. That is NOT what is happening now, so attempting to say the situation today is parallel is total bull. He also conveniently neglects to mention that in the six or so cycles between glacials and interglacials that we have information on, CO2 in the atmosphere cycles between about 180ppm during the glacials to 280-300 in the interglacial. C02 in the atmosphere is now around 385ppm, which has NOT happened before in the last roughly 600K years. Just because something happens one way in one set of circumstances, it is totally invalid to say it will happen the same way with a completely different set of causative factors. Scheffelin has proved he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Whatever an air resource engineer does, it obviously confers no expertise in climate.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Scheffelin has proved he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

Is this because he disagrees with you ? It is only YOUR opinion after all. People can decide how much that is worth.

Quote:

The glacials are initiated by very very long period changes in the earth's orbit

And we know this how ? Because the only measure we have is in large increments...rocks. The magical tipping point that Global Warming hinges on only applies to CO2 and not Glacial advances ? So what happened in the mini Ice Age ? How long did that take to start ? Was that a very, very long period to get cold ? By your reckoning it was over long before it could even start.

Quote:

which has NOT happened before in the last roughly 600K years

That is rubbish and you know it. Exactly what magic was used to determine that ?

0 Replies

Milankovitch cycles, ionus. And the ice core analyses from Greenland and Antarctica--you've heard of them,surely. The ORBIT has a very long change cycle, roughly 100,000 years.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

they did, as a matter of fact. do a little research. Mt. St. Helen's was a pipsqueak, tho, it didn't do much. Krakatoa did more and Tambora was the big one in probably the last five hundred years at least....

Hey Jack - why keep speculating without ever checking any facts? Tambora made a huge noise, true, and Krakatoa was almost as big, but when it comes to cooling effects "in the last five hundred years" Iceland holds the record:

Quote:

IN JUNE 1783, lava and gases began pouring from the Laki fissure in Iceland in one of the biggest and most devastating eruptions in history. Poisonous gases and starvation killed a quarter of Iceland's population. The effects of the eight-month-long eruption were felt further afield, too. In the rest of Europe, a scorching summer of strange fogs was followed by a series of devastating winters. In North America, the winter of 1784 was so cold the Mississippi froze at New Orleans....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527481.400-smoke-bomb-the-other-climate-culprits.html

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Jone didn't claim there was "no warming" he said the warming that DID occur wasn't statistically significant. One of the reason being it is a short time period.
And you offer this in SUPPORT of Global Warming ???

Yes, that's the only argument Parados has ever produced and been able to back up - Professor Jones's guarded statement on the significance of his (sadly and mysteriously missing) data. And Jones knows more about density functions of statistical distributions than either Parados or Monterey.

Even you seem to think we should accept Jones' argument that warming has occurred over the last 100 years. OK.. So, why are you trying to discredit that argument?

LOL - truly you fail elementary reading comprehension: Jones discredited his own (and the IPCC's) argument so thoroughly that elaborating on his comments would be overkill Smile

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Clever !

Thanks - it also happens to be demonstrably true.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

So High Seas, do you think the warming in the last 100 years is statistically significant?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

So you take measurements and readings from the ice....when was that laid down ? During a cold period or a hot period ? And then you compare it with today and find it is hotter now...does this surprise you ?

As for Milankovitch cycles. I take it is your opinion they can only make the earth colder but not hotter ?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know