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

@okie,

The first rule of science is accurate data collection and then you post a graph that is based on no accurate data collection?

You are really funny okie.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Go ahead and ride the pop science band wagon,MJ

That would be you okie. You seem to not understand that global warming doesn't affect the earth's tilt.

1 Reply

@parados,

Everyone knows that excessive tilt of the earth is caused by too many people being on one side of it. Just thinking like okie. My God!!! Maybe its time to quit reading his posts.

0 Replies

okie, your argument seems to be "Oklahoma was already hot, so it can't get hotter", when you boil it down to its essentials. That is, of course, not true. Texa was already hotter than Oklahoma. And now it's beaten its own records for heat and drought. Why do you appear to think Oklahoma is exempt? Matter of fact, OK news reports say OK's July temperature set new records. As I said, no matter how hot your uncle thinks it was in your granddad's day, it's hotter now. So unless you say OK's own data is junk science, you're wrong. Better update your anecdotal history.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

okie, your argument seems to be "Oklahoma was already hot, so it can't get hotter", when you boil it down to its essentials. That is, of course, not true. Texa was already hotter than Oklahoma. And now it's beaten its own records for heat and drought. Why do you appear to think Oklahoma is exempt? Matter of fact, OK news reports say OK's July temperature set new records. As I said, no matter how hot your uncle thinks it was in your granddad's day, it's hotter now. So unless you say OK's own data is junk science, you're wrong. Better update your anecdotal history.

Fine,but I was there when it had some of the hottest weather this summer, and it was normal according to my experience. For one thing, heat island effects make it hotter in the larger cities like Oklahoma City. Add to this the fact that next year may be not as hot. Ask the farmers and they will tell you the same thing. This is anecdotal but peoples own thermometers do not agree with what some weather stations report,which adds to the skepticism about this entire climategate fiasco. Perhaps you don't think personal observation matters,but my grandpa homesteaded a farm in 1893, my parents were born in Oklahoma in 1912 and 1916 and I in 1946.
To repeat, believe whatever you want,but I choose to expect more sound evidence than what I have seen from the alarmists, some of which call themselves scientists. But good scientists must first prove their data collected are accurate.

2 Replies

@okie,

Monterey Jack, to conclude my opinion, I don't see much to be gained by more debate, as I think both or us are probably as well informed as most people. In summary, after following this issue using information from proponents on both sides, Iam going to continue to monitor it with a healthy balance of skepticism. One big justification for skepticism is the fact that this issue has been politicized,thus it has been removed from sound scientific evaluation. I think some minor fraction of a degree warming may be ocurring, but I do not believe at all that it constitutes something catastrophic.

We will just have to see how it all plays out in the future, and I am reasonably confident that my skeptical approach will be proven as better. I do intend to keep an open mind and admit it if I live long enough to see it.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

No complex calculations required. All you need to do is look at what has happened and look at where we are in the cycle. As you can see, we're already beyond some of the past peaks and behind others. So the peak for us could happen in a thousand years, or tomorrow. Notice how sharp the peaks are; they don't happen slowly. This implies that some large controlling mechanism in the earth's planetary systems changes rather abruptly. I suggest the thermohaline cycle in the oceans. And as your previous link notes: "... the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6058/carbondioxidekz6.jpg

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Add to this the fact that next year may be not as hot.

You make me laugh okie..
You want to argue that the heat is only weather and will change but you repeatedly pointed to the cold last winter as evidence climate change didn't exist.

0 Replies

And the cold was due to a high pressure area over the Arctic Ocean, which diverted the Arctic winds, normally contained by the Jetstream, south, and froze the heck out of us. That diversion has happened every few years normally, which is why we get colder winters. But now Arctic ice is disappearing, because the Arctic Ocean is warming (are you listening, Ros?), so there're going to be more high pressure areas over the Arctic, which means we're likely to get more of those frigid winters--that doesn't mean anything is cooling, it just means we're getting the cold stuff which the Jetstream usually held back. Many Arctic scientists have said that the case that this was caused by climate change was unproven (not untrue, just not enough evidence yet to decide one way or the other). There were a couple last winter that decided that climate channge in fact was causing it, and changed their minds.

1 Reply

Ros, there are a couple of overlapping cycles in the earth's orbit, and the orbital dynamics guys say they won't reinforce for greater than 10K years away, and that's the trigger for the ice ages. You're not gonna need that super-down parka any time sooon, unless of course Ray Kurzweil comes through and figures out how we can all live forever. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Since 3/4 of the earth's surface is water, SST has a heavy effect on global temperature. Heat that goes into the ocean is also radiated back out. And you might want to do a little research into the science that says that the increasing temps and increasing acidification due to increasing uptake of CO2 are affecting plankton and crustaceans that form the basis for the oceanic food chain and temperature-dependent coral reefs, which are the habitat for many of the food fish that the 50% of the human population that lives within 50 miles of a coastline rely on for their protein.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

But now Arctic ice is disappearing, because the Arctic Ocean is warming (are you listening, Ros?)

That's exactly what I'm saying MJ. The Arctic is warming, just as it's done in the past. And eventually the temperature increase is going to melt enough ice and free up enough fresh water to cause a change in the thermohaline cycle powering the major ocean current systems. And once that happens the switch will have been thrown, and it's bye bye global warming and welcome to the return of the ice age (which as you can see from the chart are the more stable of conditions. Our current warm stretch is just one of those rare but regular spikes that happen every 40,000 years or so.). But the main point is that this is a natural cycle, not a man-made problem. As you can see from the chart, all of this has been happening (repeatedly) long before humans had any impact at all.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Ros, there are a couple of overlapping cycles in the earth's orbit, and the orbital dynamics guys say they won't reinforce for greater than 10K years away, and that's the trigger for the ice ages.

The orbital mechanics guys don't know exactly what combination of conditions trigger the ice ages. Nobody does. But if we drop all the calculation speculation and just look back at past events as examples of the cycle, then it's clear that the peak of our current warm patch could be any time now or several thousand years away. And since none of the peaks get much higher than where we are now, it seems reasonable to assume that the hotter it gets then the closer we get to the precipice.

For a more precise timeline, I would bet that a better indicator of the threshold event will come from monitoring of ocean currents (since I believe that's what triggers the primary change).

0 Replies

That's not the switch. Happened, AFTER the last ice age, in the Younger Dryas, caused a colder period, but not a recurrent ice age, for a few centuries. Seems to depend on a sudden melting and colder water shutting down the circulation, which is not happening that way now. The ice ages seem to occur because of orbital changes which lead to long term reduction in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth, a considerably larger trigger. And the cycle is around 100K years, not 40K.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Sorry. The cycle time I'm referring to is the one shown on the chart I posted. 40K was just me rushing on my post Smile

If you don't think it's ocean currents that cause the abrupt peaks in the chart above, then what do you think is causing those peaks?

And regardless of the cause, you would agree we are in one of the peaks, right?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
But now Arctic ice is disappearing, because the Arctic Ocean is warming (are you listening, Ros?)

That's exactly what I'm saying MJ. The Arctic is warming, just as it's done in the past. And eventually the temperature increase is going to melt enough ice and free up enough fresh water to cause a change in the thermohaline cycle powering the major ocean current systems. And once that happens the switch will have been thrown, and it's bye bye global warming and welcome to the return of the ice age

And then we will have to put up with the sky is falling doomsdayers regarding an ice age. It is all so predictable.

0 Replies

the ice age doomsayers are on your side of the aisle on this one, okie.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

the ice age doomsayers are on your side of the aisle on this one, okie.

Totally wrong, which demonstrates your lack of understanding of my "side of the aisle." Disagreement with one extreme does not translate into agreement with another. I think if you were debating honestly, you would say so. We've had ice age doomsdayers before and I did not buy into it then.

1 Reply

@okie,

Here is an example of the enviro-whackos ice age scare and impending doom in the 1970's. Message is different but tactics the same. Reported by the liberal rag, Newsweek. I think I remember the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

0 Replies

Quote:

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global WarmingPublished September 14, 2011

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?test=latestnews

1 Reply

@Pamela Rosa,

Ah well, Ivar Giaever, who stated in Aftenposten: "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know