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

You have a good eye, Okie. Indeed, Mr. Kuvasz's chart shows that Mr. Kuvasz's own chart shows that the termperature in 1940 was the highest on the chart until 1980.

This is exactly in line with the comments made by Baliunas and Soon that the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. Baliunas and Soon did indeed mention that since the increases in the greenhouse gases occurred after 1940 and therefore cannot be the cause of the 0.4 warming that occurred earlier in the twentieth century.

Note to you, Baliunas and Soon's work has been debunked.

But, Okie, now we have more "EVIDENCE"!

Article in June 1, 2006- Chicago Tribune which references the journal "Nature"

Quote

"The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic Ocean was much warmer than scientists imagined--a Floridian year round average of 74 degrees"

end of quote

"much warmer than scientists imagined"? How could that possibly be true? Does this mean that scientists and their computer MODELS are not on target?

um..... did it ever dawn on you predicting the future from present data is easier than explaining the past without any data prior to that which is discovered?

back to the article

quote

"And while they show that much remains to be learned about climate change, they suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm the Arctic."

end of quote

I am astonished to learn that much remains to be learned about climate.

Really? so that makes what we do know now unknowable?

Where does that logic system come from, the rings of uranus?

How much more there is to learn is not discussed in the article but the article indicates that the scientists have greatly underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm the Arctic.

so you seem not to understand that the computer models are actually presenting "best case" scenarios for temperature rises and the worst case ones would predict even wose global warming.

where does that leave you?

I did not realize that scientists could underestmate or overestimate things like that.I thought their computer models were right on target.

So, the greenhouse gases warmed the Arctic more than scientists thought. How did the scientists come to the conclusion that was trumped by this study,namely, that the Arctic was much warmer than scientists imagined? Why, using computer simulations, of course. Those simulations were wrong!!

um, see above?

The greenhouse gases which warmed the Arctic 55 Million years ago were, of course, NATURAL- NOT MAN MADE.

yeap, and they were not there then, but are now, so what does that tell you? it will be worse now
Return to the article--


quote--
Something extra happens when you? push the world inton a warmer world and we just don't understand what it is"

end of quote.

Well, that's refreshing. "We just don't uinderstand what it is". I thought that the scientists who were predicting doom understood exactly what "it is"


But, Okie, the question that, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever answered( I don't think it can be answered)- How much is any so called "Global Warming" due to Natural Causes and how much is man made.

No one will answer that question, Okie

I did, you just refuse to read about it rainman because your head would explode from cognitive dissonance You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your ignoble behavior. I gave you the link. and here is another; read it and learn. If you don't want to learn anything, hell, you are a lost cause and deserving of all the scorn that can be heaped upon you by reasonable men.

"How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81

and the one I gave you before.

http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Note:

NewYork New York went from 54.1 degrees Fahrenheit in 1930 to 55.1 degrees Fahrenheit in 2000- A large rise, to be sure- one degree.

On the other hand, Albany NY, not far from New York had a decline in Temperature 1930-2000 of 48.4 degrees Fahrenheit to 47.4 degrees Fahrenheit. a large drop, to be surfe-one degree.

How could that be, Okie?


I await the two or three paragraphs from the learned Mr. Kuvasz proving that there could be NO discernabile NATURAL warming that has taken place in the last twenty years.

kuvasc, before even going any further into the science of climate, just a little about the science of this forum's posting format, it would help if you would learn how to show your remarks outside of the quote boxes. It would be much easier to readily separate your opinions from quoted opinions.

Okie- Mr. Kuvasz gives arcane references but he still has not given any evidence to show exactly how the scientists have been able to separate the NATURAL effects from the MAN-MADE effects.

dont be a schmoo. read the links I posted. if they are too hard for you to understand that is your problem. but dont insist to be led bythe hand like some sort of drooling idiot.

Mr. Kuvasz is very brilliant and it should be easy for him to write tow or three paragraphs showing exactly how the NATURAL effects are separated from the MAN-MADE effects.

It is clear, Okie, that even Mr. Kuvasz cannot hold that the warmth in the Medieval Warm Period was created by man. The temperature went so high that the Vikings were able to intensively farm Greenland and Iceland.

Then, Okie, came the Little Ice Age--The British Isles which during the Medieval Warm Period were growing grapes to compete with the French in wine making now turned much colder. So much colder that the Thames froze in the winter time.

Now, Okie, even someone as scientifically brilliant as Mr. Kuvasz cannot deny that this Warm Period followed by a Little Ice Age was Man-Made.

The SUV was not being produced then.

since this localized effect was discussed already in the debunking of the Beluinas and Soon paper i can assume only that your ideology prevents you from seeing reason.

Now, Mr.Kuvasz and other alarmists tell us that MAN-MADE emissions are causing "Global Warming".

Really? How much "global warming"? One degree Fahrenheit? Two degrees? In how many years?

And of course, and this is the key, Okie, Mr. Kuvasz can give us incontrovertible evidence that the above "warming" does NOT COME PARTIALLY FROM NATURAL EFFECTS>

I have provided you with sources from the leading experts in the world. it is a mark against your ablity to see reason that you deny what they state.

You have a chance to post on that website and ask your questions to the world's experts or even debate them, why don't you? are you afraid that they would laugh you right off the site?

Natural effects caused the Medieval Warm Period. What is the evidence that shows that natural effects are not in play at this time?



The funniest thing I have in my files, Okie, is the 1975 Newsweek Front Page warning of a NEW ICE AGE.

No one has ever explained that one either.

But, Okie, I have some more for you.

According to the United States Historical Climatological Network( USHCN) the median temperatures( ground measures) in some cities close to each other are vastly different:

Note:

NewYork New York went from 54.1 degrees Fahrenheit in 1930 to 55.1 degrees Fahrenheit in 2000- A large rise, to be sure- one degree.

On the other hand, Albany NY, not far from New York had a decline in Temperature 1930-2000 of 48.4 degrees Fahrenheit to 47.4 degrees Fahrenheit. a large drop, to be surfe-one degree.

How could that be, Okie?


I await the two or three paragraphs from the learned Mr. Kuvasz proving that there could be NO discernabile NATURAL warming that has taken place in the last twenty years.

nice try, but that is hardly the issue and btw, you left out your definition of what you mean by "natural." but that is standard from you.

Try to be a man for once around here and admit that everything you have posted here has been shown to be irresponsible nonsense and refuted by those a lot smarter than you.

btw: you still can't read the websites I linked to? are you a coward or are they too difficult for you to understand

No, sir, Mr. Kuvasz. I will not visit your web sites. YOU are smart enough to post in two or three paragraphs exactly why there is no NATURAL warming occuring.

The ball is in your court!!!!

I read your link called Dejavu, Mr. Kuvasz


Mr. Kuvasz- Do you really think I am going to read through all of the left wing crap presented in the "Deja Vu all over again "to mine a few nuggets which might turn out to be fools' gold on the alleged shortcomings of Dr. Baliunas and Soon. It is not an article about Global Warming. It is a left wing department store site.

You can do better than that, I hope!

Have you read the meandering garbage in that link?

Mr.Kuvasz. Youknow what I wrote. Why don't you respond to it.No red herrings please.

Here, Mr. Kuvasz,is your article with all of the proofs.

It proves nothing!!

Yes indeed I do know what you wrote, but apparently you do not. and not surprisingly you cannot even tell the truth, because you did not quote the papers, just the press release which does not detail the "proofs."

If you care travel to yesteryear you will find a post by you ballyhooing the Baluinas and Soon paper on localized global warming in Europe and by extrapolation proclaiming it debunked global warming and you challenging anyone to debunk it, which was done in the links I provided. it shut you up for a day or two, and I had hoped you would have learned how stupid your challenge was.

The quotes from below are from press release of the American Geophysical Union reiterating that the B/S paper was bad science whose link also presented several links to scientific papers that debunked B/S in detail and futher supported global warming due to human causes.

Did you read them; apparently not becuse they contain much of what you ask about.

When you insist on a specific ratio of natural to human derived affects to global warming you truly and appallingly show your profound ignorance on this issue.

These were detailed to you several times in the links to realclimate.org, and in the link that was included in the press releas. Apparently you refused to read them.

Leading Climate Scientists Reaffirm View that Late 20th Century Warming Was Unusual and Resulted From Human Activity

WASHINGTON - A group of leading climate scientists has reaffirmed the "robust consensus view" emerging from the peer reviewed literature that the warmth experienced on at least a hemispheric scale in the late 20th century was an anomaly in the previous millennium and that human activity likely played an important role in causing it. In so doing, they refuted recent claims that the warmth of recent decades was not unprecedented in the context of the past thousand years.

Writing in the 8 July issue of the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and 12 colleagues in the United States and United Kingdom endorse the position on climate change and greenhouse gases taken by AGU in 1998. Specifically, they say that "there is a compelling basis for concern over future climate changes, including increases in global-mean surface temperatures, due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil-fuel burning."

The Eos article is a response to two recent and nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard‑Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors). These authors challenge the generally accepted view that natural factors cannot fully explain recent warming and must have been supplemented by significant human activity, and their papers have received attention in the media and in the U.S. Senate. Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, lead to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed.

Paleoclimatologists (scientists who study ancient climates) generally rely on instrumental data for the past 150 years and "proxy" indicators, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and lake sediments to reconstruct the climate of earlier times. Most of the available data pertain to the northern hemisphere and show, according to the authors, that the warmth of the northern hemisphere over the past few decades is likely unprecedented in the last 1,000 years and quite possibly in the preceding 1,000 years as well.

Climate model simulations cannot explain the anomalous late 20th century warmth without taking into account the contributions of human activities, the authors say. They make three major points regarding Soon and Baliunas's recent assertions challenging these findings.

First, in using proxy records to draw inferences about past climate, it is essential to assess their actual sensitivity to temperature variability. In particular, the authors say, Soon and Baliunas misuse proxy data reflective of changes in moisture or drought, rather than temperature, in their analysis.

Second, it is essential to distinguish between regional temperature anomalies and hemispheric mean temperature, which must represent an average of estimates over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions. For example, Mann and his co- authors say, the concepts of a "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" arose from the Eurocentric origins of historic climatology. The specific periods of coldness and warmth differed from region to region and as compared with data for the northern hemisphere as a whole.

Third, according to Mann and his colleagues, it is essential to define carefully the modern base period with which past climate is to be compared and to identify and quantify uncertainties. For example, they say, the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carefully compares data for recent decades with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in those reconstructions. IPCC concluded that late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere likely exceeded that of any time in the past millennium. The method used by Soon and Baliunas, they say, considers mean conditions for the entire 20th century as the base period and determines past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving trends on a decadal basis. It is therefore, they say, of limited value in determining whether recent warming in anomalous in a long term and large scale context.


The very first line says--

Leading Climate Scientists( says who) reaffirm VIEW(not PROVE) that late 20th Century warming was Unusual and resulted from human activity.

Then they say-"Human activity LIKELY played an important part in causing it( warmth).

Then they say--"These authors challenge the generally accepted view that NATURAL FACTORS CANNOT FULLY EXPLAIN RECENT GLOBAL WARMING AND MUST HAVE BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY SIGNIFICANT HUMAN ACTIVITY"
read the papers
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html

I accept that-- My question, easy to understand-

HOW much of the warming is coming from Natural Sources?

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

[http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html

If 20% of the warming is coming from Man-Made sources( we have no information from the article to tell us) how in the world can there be any justification for turning an economy uspide down when the pollution levels in China and India will more than meet that 20% level?

Then the scientists say that the warmth of the Northern Hemisphere is "unprecedented"

WRONG!!!

well you could also argue that the entire planet was a molten ball 3billion years ago, but climatologists are not working within such time frames, and it is idiotic to claim so.

Tribune Article-June 1, 2006

Headline- Ancient Arctic had warm spell

quote

"The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 Millionyears ago the Arctic was much warmer than scientists imagined- A YEAR ROUND AVERAGE OF 74 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT>"


All of that from NATURAL ,not MAN-MADE sources!!!!

_______________________________________________________



The writers say that Soon and Baliunas "misuse" proxy data in their analysis but they do not show how Soon and Baliunas "misuse" proxy data.

Really, Mr. Kuvasz, you can do better than that with sources. The artical
makes unproven claims and makes a quite egregious error( about the "Unprecedented Warmth"

clearly, you have not read the links to realclimate.org I posted and only the press release from the American Geophysical Union debunking the B/S paper, but not the papers referenced in the link containing the press release.

why did you not read the scientific paper? because instead of actually rying to learn somthing you are attempting to win a debate.

you are intellectually dishonest to point out the press release summary when the link directs you to the actual papers that the press release has condensed.

your argument is a fraud.
color=blue]
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html [/color]



Again, Mr.Kuvasz, instead of forcing people to read those unproven claims, why don't you post IRREFUTABLE evidence?

I have, repeatedly yet all you have done is ignore them, repeatedly, while alledged evidence to support your claims have been refuted repeatedly

Please sir, respond to what I wrote. Respond directly, please. Begin with my perennial question--How much of the alleged warming is coming from NATURAL sources?

why is it so hard for you to understand that it depends on the assumptions being made for the modeling? and that these issues are addressed in the links I provided. if you would just read them instead of typing you would know this by now.

If you can't answer that, anything else is useless!!

nope. you are wrong once again. and I linked it for you days ago.

okie wrote:

kuvasc, before even going any further into the science of climate, just a little about the science of this forum's posting format, it would help if you would learn how to show your remarks outside of the quote boxes. It would be much easier to readily separate your opinions from quoted opinions.

i can only assume you are colorblind.