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

What was going on several million years ago, not to mention the several hundred million you were talking about when talking about much higher CO2 levels some while ago, is really not necessarily relevant. To return to that topic, when CO2 was much higher, so was the temperature, it would have been akin to living in a sauna (well, not quite that hot, but HOT). And conditions then most likely were not reproducible today. A case has been made that the drawdown in CO2 was associated with the evolution of flowering plants, which make up around 90% of the flora today, and pretty much nudged aside the non-flowering earlier plants. Flowering plants are MUCH better fixers of carbon dioxide for their structure than their predecessors. That's a non-reproducible, non-returnable situation. The earth's history is replete with such. It won't go back. We have to deal with the situation today.

1 Reply

ionus, if you are talking about the last 2.5 million years as being what seems to be our current cycle between ice age and interglacial, then remember we have an actual physically observable timeline of atmospheric composition for roughly the lasst six cycles, which would seem to give us a pretty good window on what's currently happening on earth (and it's not a methane-CO2 atmosphere, like it was at one point, it's not the high CO2 it was later either). And in those cycles, CO2 in the atmosphere ranged between about 180 and just a bit above the historic level of 280 ppm, maybe hitting 300ppm,MAYBE. But the current level of 380+ ppm is unprecedented during those six cycles. Which is a pretty good indication that it's not now a natural state that the earth's physical and nonhuman biological sphere produces, particularly when it conincides with human introduction into the atmosphere of carbon that was sequestered over millions of years--carbon sequestered as part of the feedbacks acting on scales of hundreds to thousands of years,that kept CO2 levels relatively constant in interglacials.

1 Reply

Damn, it's 6am here, and my sleep schedule is fucked again. I'm gone, have a good day.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

you seem to be the only other person here, you would seem to be the usual suspect. If it's not you, I retract the allegation.

Of course you are aware that people do not have to post to mark up or down other posts.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

What was going on several million years ago........is really not necessarily relevant

You first have to determine what would be the natural trend. This can only be done over many years. Once you have the natural cycle, or having established the natural baseline, you can work out how much man made influence has taken place. What GW thuggees do, is plot what they think is happening having made any and all adjustments to the data that they think is required.

Quote:

A case has been made that the drawdown in CO2 was associated with the evolution of flowering plants,

Which occurred only 65 million yrs ago. This is about the time we had our first ice age for a long time, having missed the one in the middle of the Mesozoioc era (if they go roughly by the intervals suggested). Large powerful forces, like the sun, earths orbit, asteroid impact, volcanic activity, etc drive our climate. To say such a small difference in the total CO2 will make a difference is folly.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You measure the CO2 from ice samples laid down during a glaciation phase and declare it to be warmer now during an inter glacial. That is no surprise.

CO2 doesnt impress me. If there is more, plants will breath easier and grow better and store more carbon. The oceans microscopic plant life would be the main beneficiary. Drying of the earth produces dust which settles in the oceans and feeds the plant life with minerals. The weather is more a result of ocean currents, mountain ranges, continental drift, a continent at the south pole, the overall climate (as determined by things mentioned previously)...far more than just CO2.

Naturally occurring cycles fluctuate far more than the GW thuggees give it credit.

If you want to worry about something worry about Global Cooling. THAT would be a real catastrophe for the human race.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Its now 2 am and I think it is time to try to sleep. Catch you later.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
These show clearly that 2002-2009 is way too short a period for the trends to be meaningful and that Monckton’s estimate of what the IPCC projects for the current period is woefully wrong. Not just wrong, fake.

Why rely on reality when you can just fake it, eh Deck?

Would that be like these alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory ?

Quote:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

MontereyJack wrote:

If you're going to attempt to report on research, deckhand, do try to keep up to date, rather than just parroting denialist blog posts, because they tend to be outdated, misinterpreted crap. Systematic errors in the Argo data readings were found after those 2006 statements by Willis, and the corrected figures in fact show ocean warming.

Would that be like these alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory ?

Quote:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Of course these alleged emails could be just more fake data.
I just can't help but think that a theory or idea is born and they try to make the data fit instead of the other way round.
Oh and by the way Jack, it's Deckland not deckhand as you well know.

1 Reply

IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED ABOUT 1°C (1.8°F)

Quote:

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:

405
Geography professor Dr. Randy Cerveny of Arizona State University oversees the university’s meteorology program and was named to a key post at the UN’s World Meteorological Organization in 2007. Cerveny, who has written nearly 100 scientific papers and magazine articles, is in charge of developing a global weather archive for the UN. He was also a contributing author to the skeptical climate change book Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming, edited by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. Cerveny rejected catastrophic fears of man-made climate change in 2007. "I don't think [global warming] is going to be catastrophic,” Cerveny said according to an October 7, 2007 article. "Hopefully, our grandkids are going to have a lot better weather information than we did, and they will be able to answer a lot of the questions we're just in the process of asking," Cerveny explained. (LINK) & (LINK)

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MJ, has it ever occurred to you that precipitation might have as much or more influence than temperature upon ice extent? How come that factor is seemingly ignored when ice is discussed by global warmers?

2 Replies

@Deckland,

Quote:

Would that be like these alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory ?

|
Good point. The emails are alleged and you only suppose they do something. The actual investigations by 3 different groups found no evidence to support any allegations of faking it. In fact, they confirmed the science stands on its own in spite of any supposing about the meaning of the emails.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

precipitation might have as much or more influence than temperature upon ice extent

Seems to me there was some mention of how glaciers advance having something to do with precipitation....but okie, this is not a factual debate. Science is not required. GW thuggees want witless belief, not logic. How are they going to push through their political agenda if people disagree with them and want to know the real reason they are trying to slow modern economies and consumerism ?

We could even mention that for the vast majority of the earth's history there have been no mountain glaciers, but facts are not required. Thank you for your effort though Very Happy

0 Replies

@okie,

I am curious as to your hypothesis about why would precipitation have an influence on the amount of ice, okie.

Could you expound on why precipitation would affect sea ice? Perhaps you haven't spent much time in cold weather so don't know how ice forms on bodies of water.

3 Replies

@parados,

Perhaps you can tell us why the Polar Ice has melted several times in the last couple of million years and how that was due to man made CO2 ?

You do understand the emphasis is for you to prove, not for anyone to disprove ? You do understand that, right ? Do you ?

0 Replies

Global warming is a vast left wing conspiracy to defraud the dumbmasses.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I am curious as to your hypothesis about why would precipitation have an influence on the amount of ice, okie.

Could you expound on why precipitation would affect sea ice? Perhaps you haven't spent much time in cold weather so don't know how ice forms on bodies of water.

But he didn't refer to sea ice. Instead his reference was to the formation and buildup of glaciers, and precipidation is quite obviously a factor there. You have the odd habit of applying the ideas of those you criticize to situations they didn't address and triumphantly using a manufactured (by you) contradiction as some kind of counter argument.

You are not only a very persistent, pedantic nit picker, but are also apparently deliberately deceptive.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You are not only a very persistent, pedantic nit picker, but are also apparently deliberately deceptive.

Damn OB1, you know him better than his mum.....I see you have encountered parados before.....

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Satellite measurement of record low, and decreasing, Arctic circle ice cap extent, and unprecedented loss of dense multi-year ice which is more resistant to melting (about a 75% decrease).

"Ice cap extent" is hardly ice on land. Perhaps you should look at your pedantic nit picking george.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I am curious as to your hypothesis about why would precipitation have an influence on the amount of ice, okie.

Because water is required for ice to form under freezing conditions. In case you are not aware of it, "ice" is the name for frozen water.

Quote:

Could you expound on why precipitation would affect sea ice? Perhaps you haven't spent much time in cold weather so don't know how ice forms on bodies of water.

I don't think I need to expound on it at all. It should be obvious to anyone that precipitation would be perhaps more crucial to the extent of glaciers on land, such as in alpine areas. In regard to sea ice, I am not sure if precipitation is one direct key factor or not, and if so, to what extent. I would advise you to do some reading on this, parados. Just a few minutes of web searching turned up the following:
http://www.heartland.org/ClimateChangeReconsidered/chapter4.html
"Chapter 4 reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century."

2 Replies

@okie,

Ice forming on open water requires NO precipitation.

"ice extent" normally refers to the ice on the sea. If you weren't talking about sea ice then you should have used other words.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know