The world has never seen such freezing heat

[bradzepfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Tim T, until you have read The First Global Revolution, a report by the Club of Rome, published in 1991, you really shouldn't comment on this issue. The document is shocking. I do appreciate your accomidating attitude however. But for you condescending other posters (We-Are-Toast I'm talking to you!) you guys are BLOW HARD MORONS!!!

And before you sharpen your knives, I should point out that I am a scientist.

[jtabeb]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Now look at the fact that whether temp is leading CO2 or whether CO2 is leading temp is a irrelevant to the broadest parts of the GW question. It matters not which leads the other

Au Contraire, mon frere.

Which is leading which determines CAUSALITY, and that is mighty important. If CO2 Levels rise AFTER temperature rises then no reasonable person could argue that the CO2 levels are RESPONSIBLE for the temperatrure increase.

(would you not be a little suspect of your wife if she got pregnant BEFORE you ever slept with her, even if you slept with her a lot after the fact?)

Because IF CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, what exactly is the benefit of regulating the amount emitted.

(Not withstanding acidification of the ocean due to increased CO2 sequestration in terrestrial bodies of water, and if you want to regulated it for THAT reason, then that's fine do it. But DON'T say it's is because of "global warming".)

Let's do the right thing for the right reason, NOT the right thing for the wrong reason. We have had quite enough of that, thank you very much.

[whatnow]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I for one, don't really care if the earth cools or warms. So the sea levels may rise. They have risen before. Take a look at the many ancient marine terraces along the Pacific coast.

So the ice caps may expand. They have expanded before. Take a look at the terminal moraines in Northern Pennsyvania. What the global warming promoters have not done is convince me that this is something to worry about. It has happened before with and without the presence of man.

Why the need for fear of global disaster? Why the name calling? Why the berating? Does it matter that people do not believe? Some people believe that Elvis is still alive. What harm do they cause? What harm do skeptics of global warming cause? Obviously they are in the minority and should have no weapons to assail the peer reviewed walls of the scientific community.

Using fear as motivation is the work of cowards. Hank Paulson used it with TARP. Coward. The automakers are using it now. Cowards. Global warming proponents will need to stop working the fear angle or be labeled cowards as well.

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Jtabeb - I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally so. I explained this point about six different ways in the point above. Your thesis below is staring at it's own demise in the existing data. The CO2 is soaring far in advance of the temp. Hence there are only two possibilities in that data.

A) the CO2 does indeed lead the temperature.

B) The temperature leads the CO2 in normal circumstances, but the CO2 is in this century and the last, being goosed up sharply by "something" (contemporary humanity's activities seems to you the least likely candidate).

If the correct option is B, which is what you seem to prefer as you wish to excommunicate CO2 from any scrap of culpability, then you are still stuck with the fact that temp and CO2 must always normalise per 500,000 years of history.

Put another way, you are mired in a stale, academic, last-ditch of defense argument, because to suggest that there is no "permeability" between temp and CO2 throughout hundreds of thousands of years is nonsense to the scientific consensus on all sides. The serious science acknowledges above all COMPLEXITY in the relationship between CO2 and temp, such that whenever one or the other of them is artificially pumped up a full standard deviation out of millennial channels, the other is powerfully affected.

Really Jtabeb - you need to find the firm ground underneath your arguments before you deploy them. In this case the point is simple. Whatever has driven CO2 out a full standard deviation from it's millennial channel, it is highly plausibly going to powerfully affect it's alternate, in this case temperature. Hence to engage in artful arguments that there is no "pressing reason" to examine ways to abate the rise of CO2 is a contorted argument.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Au Contraire, mon frere.

Which is leading which determines CAUSALITY, and that is mighty important. If CO2 Levels rise AFTER temperature rises then no reasonable person could argue that the CO2 levels are RESPONSIBLE for the temperatrure increase.

(would you not be a little suspect of your wife if she got pregnant BEFORE you ever slept with her, even if you slept with her a lot after the fact?)

Because IF CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming, what exactly is the benefit of regulating the amount emitted.

(Not withstanding acidification of the ocean due to increased CO2 sequestration in terrestrial bodies of water, and if you want to regulated it for THAT reason, then that's fine do it. But DON'T say it's is because of "global warming".)

Let's do the right thing for the right reason, NOT the right thing for the wrong reason. We have had quite enough of that, thank you very much.

[jtabeb]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Jtabeb - I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally so. I explained this point about six different ways in the point above. Your thesis below is staring at it's own demise in the existing data. The CO2 is soaring far in advance of the temp. Hence there are only two possibilities in that data.

A) the CO2 does indeed lead the temperature.

.

What time scale are you using? If you look at the multi 100K year charts the temp and the CO2 levels are right on top of each other. When you look at the 1000 year charts, CO2 increase is LAGGING by 800-1000 years. So which is it. Is CO2 leading or lagging. I totally agree that a leading function is important and should be examined closely because like I said, that implies causality.

Could you please show me something that shows CO2 Leading temperature rise.

Here is one that shows it following temperature.

Like I said, don't know the answer but will argue agaisnt false logic if I can find it.

Here's the chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ature-plot.svg

Here is another one that shows Solar output leading Temp AND CO2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...insolation.jpg


So please show me the evidence that you have seen (which I haven't) that shows CO2 Leading Temperature (and solar activity if you've seen it).

BTW you state that "The CO2 is soaring far in advance of the temp", I've just show you that that statemen is false. So now the burden of proof is on you to show why you still have a case. And, the only way to do that would be to present evidence that supports your claim. My data is the from the 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

And if you mean to imply that "CO2 is soaring far in advance of the temp rise that we can expect" based on the recent data that shows CO2 far above historical norms in the last 50 years or so, then why has the temperature NOT responded as you suggest?

Also Why is global temeperature Cooling rapidly right now? The global temperature is now cooler that it was in 1980. The solar minimum has not yet, given rise to a new solar cycle. Are these two facts related in anyway? If they are what would that imply about the signiciance of global CO2 ouput? Also, why is it that the contibution of CO2 concentration toward the uncertainty in computer climate models is dwarfed by 3 orders of magnitude by the uncertainty of the assumptions built into the models? What basis do you have for claiming that this is significant when the the greatest variablity in the projections of the computer models is determeinded by user defined inputs vs the CO2 data set?

Can you answer any of these questions vs just insulting everyone?

Like I said I have lots of questions. So far you are not helping me (and all the rest of us) find answers.

Where is your evidence from and what is it?

[Starving Steve]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Dear Luke:

I try to study observed temperatures at airports to see if there is any global warming, and for the past two months, this is what I have observed:

San Francisco Airport, October 63.1F, normal 61.0F, difference +2.1F
Honolulu Airport, October 79.7F, normal 80.2F, difference -0.5F
Washington DC, Dulles Airport, Oct 55.2F, norm 55.0, diff +0.2F

SF Airport, November 57.8F, normal 54.7F, difference +3.1F
Honolulu Airport, Nov 77.2F, normal 77.7F, difference -0.5F
Washington DC, Dulles Airport, Nov 44.2F, normal 45.2F, diff -1.0F

During this fall, a strong sub-tropical high pressure cell dominated the weather along the entire west coast of North America, and temperatures were above normal there. Also, rainfall was below normal along the West Coast.

Due to this high pressure along the West Coast, a low pressure cell developed over the South-east U.S. This made for below normal temperatures all along the East Coast and especially in the South-east.

High pressure which earliar this year dominated the weather over the Hawaiian Island disappeared, and the cell moved north-eastward to the west coast of North America. So, weather in the Hawaiian Island returned to normal. In fact, the temperature which was above normal earlier this year in the Hawaiian Island has now gone below normal. And the drought over the Islands earlier this year has now been ended.

The lesson in all of this is that there is no apparent trend upward in mean monthly temperatures. One region goes up while another region of the world goes down, and back-and-forth. This is due to the migration of semi-permanent high and low pressure cells ( the flow pattern in the atmosphere) .

All three of these airports are just inches above sea level, so if there was any significant global warming taking place, the runways at these airports would all be submerged beneath the sea. But no such submegence has occured. The obvious conclusion is that the temperature of the world is remarkably stable.

The Earth's climate history shows that great changes in climate do take place over time, but no such change has been observed in recent decades. Sea levels are coming up slightly at 6 or 7 inches per century probably due to the fact that the Earth is still coming out of the Ice Age. Considering the 300 foot rise in sea level that occured 10,000 years ago when the ice of the Ice Age actually began to retreat, the six or seven inches per century of sea level rise that is occuring now is truly modest, indeed.

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

----nm----

[Guest]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

The leading or lagging question is one I not only can't claim to answer, but was precisely the point I suggested to you is a boondoggle. Forget which one leads or lags, that discussion is ongoing among scientists far more up to speed than you or I. The question I asked you, was to examine the posted charts and comment on the quite evident gap, between temp and CO2 in 2008. Then comment on their ironclad half million year history of 80%+ correlation and recognize something is very much out of whack between these two.

The correlation is high, and it is there. The gap between them is large, present day, and incontrovertible given that the CO2 is a full standard deviation out of it's millennial channel. The temp is not out of it's millennial channel, clearly evidencing that there is a full standard deviation's gap between one and the other. Either comment on this in a straightforward way or I'll lose interest in this discussion, because I'll conclude all the tangential observations are mere prevarication, which I'm allergic to.

Here (once again) is the chart, and the gap referenced, and the 80%+ correlation - which you need to comment on in straightforward terms.

CO2 CONCENTR AND TEMP - UNCORRELATED IS A SPECIOUS ARGUMENT.jpg

What time scale are you using? If you look at the multi 100K year charts the temp and the CO2 levels are right on top of each other. When you look at the 1000 year charts, CO2 increase is LAGGING by 800-1000 years. So which is it. Is CO2 leading or lagging. I totally agree that a leading function is important and should be examined closely because like I said, that implies causality.

Could you please show me something that shows CO2 Leading temperature rise.

Here is one that shows it following temperature.

Like I said, don't know the answer but will argue agaisnt false logic if I can find it.

Here's the chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ature-plot.svg

Here is another one that shows Solar output leading Temp AND CO2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...insolation.jpg


So please show me the evidence that you have seen (which I haven't) that shows CO2 Leading Temperature (and solar activity if you've seen it).

[jtabeb]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Forget which one leads or lags, that discussion is ongoing among scientists far more up to speed than you or I. The question I asked you, was to examine the posted charts and comment on the quite evident gap, between temp and CO2 in 2008.

Yep I see the gap. Now please respond to my causality question. How can a lagging indicatior be responsible for the behavior you suggest?

BTW didn't you just categorically state that "The CO2 is soaring far in advance of the temp." Now you are telling me to ignore that because at best you claim that the data or concensus on the data is non-conclusive?

Isn't the case of anthropogenic global warming due to excess man-made CO2 emissions toast if CO2 is observed to be a lagging indicator.

You say that, and I paraphrase here, "not even the best sciencist know right now".

And yet we are supposed to accept this theory as factual when by your own admission the causality of CO2 can not be determined at this time?

[we_are_toast]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Quote:


Quote:
"CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are simply opaque to the IR radiated from the earth. The % of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is nearly irrelevant. The more CO2, the more IR is kept near the earth, the warmer things get. It's really that simple."

No. Not quite that simple. The heating is what is called forcing by CO2 because it accumulates. The water cycles as is well known, but the science around how repeatable those cycles are is in dispute. It's not known exactly what the water impact is vs. CO2 even though one side simply dismisses it (e.g. "it's that simple"). Water and methane have larger molar absorbtivity coefficients, so on a concentration basis they are more powerful IR absorbers and emitters.

Yes. For most people it is that simple. You've repeated what I've said above, in that anyone familiar with the science knows that water vapor and several other greenhouse gases are more effective in trapping IR. But, there is no data to support a natural cause for an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere leading to a corresponding increase in global temperatures. As the atmosphere warms, we would expect to see an increase in H2O, but it is unclear if it will be a positive feedback, or if it should condense and increase earth albedo, a negative feedback mechanism. There is plenty of direct CO2 measurement with strong correlating temperature increases over a period of several decades.

Quote:
" I get very angry and avoid that site."

The problem: this has a socio-political approach, not science. Again, "peer-reviewed" journals, the number of them, has absolutely NO bearing on whether something is true or not.

Peer reviewed journals are the microphones for the results of scientific inquiry. It is through these results that the foundation and details of our understanding of the physical world around us is advanced. If you choose not to accept the results published by an overwhelming number of scientists, in an overwhelming number of journals, supported by an overwhelming quantity of data, then what source of knowledge do you use to understand the world around you?

Note: I have spent many hours studying spectra of molecules in the IR, have published in "peer reviewed" journals. I get paid to do that.

Congratulations! I wish you well in the future and hope the coming depression doesn't harm your income. I would be interested in reading some of your publications. Now, back to the subject at hand.

My mind is open. I don't know the answer and my reading of the "peer reviewed" journals doesn't convince me that there is global warming caused by humans. In fact, and this is even more important, it's not clear that the models and measurements are statistically meaningful enough that they could even show whether or not we have global warming.

As I've implied in previous posts: There is hardly a modern concept in science that has more supporting data, that has more cross discipline consensus support, that has more well reasoned arguments. If this is not enough, then there is nothing that can be said, no amount of additional data that can be presented, or no knowledgeable person that can contribute more, that will change your mind or help you reach a conclusion. Whatever decision making process you use, is surely foreign to the scientific approach.

[jtabeb]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Jtabeb - you are indulging in some serious rhetorical jousting here. Sorry. I've lost interest. Run the rhetoric by someone else.

Okay, I'll take your lack of response as an inability to respond factually to the argument presented.

Duly noted.

[Tim T]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Tim T, until you have read The First Global Revolution, a report by the Club of Rome, published in 1991, you really shouldn't comment on this issue. The document is shocking. And you therefore are nothing but a blowhard moron.

And before you sharpen your knives, I should point out that I am a scientist.

Are you certain you directed your message to the correct poster? I believe I have been pretty humble in my posts and have not really taken a strong side either way on this issue. What do you mean I shouldn't comment on "this issue". By this issue do you mean the global warming debate? or the club of rome topic? As far as the club of rome book I was asked whether I new anything about it so I commented that I did not. My post was a response to specific questions being asked of me.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

And I learned my climatology by learning to observe climate from the ground up, not to model, not to spin theories, not to do forecasts.

So, if the Earth is warming, show me the warming. I want the temperature data and the sea level data. I am from Missouri: Show me.

Please do NOT give me polar bears drowning data. I do not want puddles and ponds drying-up in the arctic data. Please, do not give me computer forecasts from the Rocky Mountain Institute or the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, the BBC, or the CBC in Canada. And please, no rubbish from Al Gore or David Sazuki.

Just give me the temperature data at AIRPORTS and the sea level data, thank you. And keep it simple. Make the case for man-made global warming convincing so that I can believe it.

At this point, I don't think a case for global warming can be made, let alone man-made global warming. I just keep observing the climate, and I see almost no change in the climate in recent decades.

[Tim T]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

While this should be the focus of this discussion, unfortunately, this post will surely be ignored, as we are locked in a thread that only authorizes discussion within the physical science frame. Discussions regarding human psychology and social engineering are unauthorized and therefore are at best, dismissed, and at worst, ridiculed.

Some of the pressing questions that should be discussed here are: how is the mass-man so easily misled through media; why does the mass-man exert pressure on other mass-men to participate in the prevailing attitudes of the day (ie group think); how does money so easily corrupt the scientific process; why is the mass-man incapable of independent thought....what is the set of circumstances that stifled this ability?

Until people are willing to step outside what is being fed to them, their thinking will remain within specific authorized frames. Quite frankly, it appears to me that the fear of stepping outside authorized frames of thought is actually greater than the pretext of global disaster promulgated by global warming actors.

Perhaps if you think about this and create a new topic thread in the future it can be designed to better serve the discussion you really want. From what you just wrote it sounds like a very interesting topic. Maybe leave references to global warming out of the title.

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

----nm----