Global Warming Non-science

[Starving Steve]

I am just looking at San Francisco Airport's mean temperature for December 2007 at 49.5F which is exactly normal at 49.5F; and January 2008 at 48.4F, 1.0F below the monthly normal of 49.4F.

Nearly every month's mean temperature since and including the months of 2005 has been below normal. See for yourself at www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr. Then click onto Local Climate and pull-up SF Airport Monthly Means. Or check the other sites around the region: Oakland Airport, San Jose Airport, Moffett Field, etc. and do the same.

Understood that La Nina ( which is the current phase of water temperatures in the Pacific ) tends to bring below normal temperatures in California and that El Nino does the opposite, what is remarkable is how little has changed in the climate of central California--- and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

In other words, the current La Nina chill is nicely cancelling the past El Nino's warmth, and the temperatures at SF Airport prove it.

And we have the global warming alarmists who are now telling you on radio commercials in SF that California is now in drought and that water needs to be rationed. But as of yesterday, California's snow pack was at 120% of normal for this date in the season--- which is remarkable in La Nina because La Nina tends to bring drought.

So, if we are running normal or above normal snow pack in La Nina, just think of how much above normal the snow pack will be in the next El Nino due 2011 or 2012.

Go check my facts at the same web-site above. Pull-up the entire California rainfall table, by location. And all sites are near normal or slightly above normal for this date--- which is remarkable and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

So, if the arctic ice sheet is gone, why is the climate remarkably unchanged, at least in California? And I think the same findings ( little change ) can be had throughout the world, but check for yourself.

Common-sense would dictate that if the sea level is unchanged--- and sea level is stable--- the world's climate is stable. But don't confuse the global warming alarmists (at BBC or CBC or in Greenpeace or the Sierra Club) with some hard facts on sea level and mean temperature.

[WDCRob]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

Well, good then. Glad that's resolved. Well done Steve.

btw... smoking doesn't cause cancer. My grandad smoked all his life and never got cancer. So light up!

[GRG55]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

I am just looking at San Francisco Airport's mean temperature for December 2007 at 49.5F which is exactly normal at 49.5F; and January 2008 at 48.4F, 1.0F below the monthly normal of 49.4F.

Nearly every month's mean temperature since and including the months of 2005 has been below normal. See for yourself at www.wrh.noaa.gov/mtr. Then click onto Local Climate and pull-up SF Airport Monthly Means. Or check the other sites around the region: Oakland Airport, San Jose Airport, Moffett Field, etc. and do the same.

Understood that La Nina ( which is the current phase of water temperatures in the Pacific ) tends to bring below normal temperatures in California and that El Nino does the opposite, what is remarkable is how little has changed in the climate of central California--- and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

In other words, the current La Nina chill is nicely cancelling the past El Nino's warmth, and the temperatures at SF Airport prove it.

And we have the global warming alarmists who are now telling you on radio commercials in SF that California is now in drought and that water needs to be rationed. But as of yesterday, California's snow pack was at 120% of normal for this date in the season--- which is remarkable in La Nina because La Nina tends to bring drought.

So, if we are running normal or above normal snow pack in La Nina, just think of how much above normal the snow pack will be in the next El Nino due 2011 or 2012.

Go check my facts at the same web-site above. Pull-up the entire California rainfall table, by location. And all sites are near normal or slightly above normal for this date--- which is remarkable and just the opposite of what the global warming alarmists would have you believe.

So, if the arctic ice sheet is gone, why is the climate remarkably unchanged, at least in California? And I think the same findings ( little change ) can be had throughout the world, but check for yourself.

Common-sense would dictate that if the sea level is unchanged--- and sea level is stable--- the world's climate is stable. But don't confuse the global warming alarmists (at BBC or CBC or in Greenpeace or the Sierra Club) with some hard facts on sea level and mean temperature.

Here's a link to the weather near where I am right now. Current temperature 11 deg C (52 F), low last night was 8 C (46 F), second serious cold spell this winter and far colder than the first 5 years I lived here (normal daytime temps about now would be 70+ F).

The adult locals tell me that this winter and the long cold spell we had last winter are like the winters they used to experience when they were kids. No heat in most of the houses here, but I suppose its still better than a palm frond hut, which is what these locations had not that long ago when they were fishing and pearl diving economies.
http://www.accuweather.com/world-for...0INTERNATIONAL|

[GRG55]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

No conclusions implied, but this site that shows Arctic ice cover is one I have been using for a while now. Compare Feb 1, 2006 with Feb 1, 2008. If (note I said, IF) we have passed the peak of the melt of the Arctic ice pack (in 2007 when polar bears were reported drowning), will the UN Climate Committee take the credit, or will it go to Al Gore? Just wondering...
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/...&sd=01&sy=2008

[World Traveler]

National Geographic: 1-6 Degree Temp Change Impact

National Geographic is doing a special on Feb 10 called "Six Degrees" that explores, from 1 degree Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius warming, what the impact on the world would be. They have a short video exerpt on-line for impact of each degree. Well worth watching.

Most interesting to me was a comment that James Hanson made (one of THE world premier climate modellers, head of Goddard Institute).

If the world warms up 1 degree Celsius from where we are today, earth will be hotter than it has been in last 1 million years. Temperatures from 1 million years ago are known based on studies of Antartic ice cores and ocean beds. One way to look at it is, there were no human beings 1 million years ago, so we've never tried to live in that type of climate.

I actually stated out life as a history major (had to switch to computers though to make any money!). I've always been interested in "Deep History", how humans originated in Africa, then some migrated out between 60-80,000 years ago to populate the world. One thing I learned is that climate has had a dramatic impact on where people went and when they went there. As Ice Ages came and went, as deserts bloomed and faded back to dry, people settled and then were forced out again due to climate changes, etc., over span of last 100,000.

Second link I posted below (Bradshaw Foundation, Journey of Mankind) of has a good overview of the history of human migrations that populated the world, what the climate conditions were at the time of each migration, and the impact of these global climate conditions on migration process.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.co...el/sixdegrees/

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/

[Starving Steve]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

Some of the worst climate analysis has come from modelling global climate. And I think the same thing can be said of economics, some of the worst economic analysis has come from economic modelling ( econometric models ).

Conversely, some of the best climate analysis has come from rigourous climate observation, not modelling, not theorizing, and not spinning anything.

As far as modelling of the migrations that early man took, it sounds like spin to me. (Nice theory to grab a headline, a Ph.D, and a grant. )

What is that stupid gorge in Africa where early man is supposed to have originated from? Odivai Gorge?

Doesn't it seem fishy to you that a few bones somewhere dictate an entire theory about the history of early man and human migration?

How about digging everywhere on Earth and seeing what the diggings and the datings say, instead of what the theory says about man coming out of East Africa?

[Verrocchio]

Re: National Geographic: 1-6 Degree Temp Change Impact

National Geographic is doing a special on Feb 10 called "Six Degrees" that explores, from 1 degree Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius warming, what the impact on the world would be. They have a short video exerpt on-line for impact of each degree. Well worth watching.

Thanks for the link, WT. It is indeed worth viewing.

One Degree of Warming

At one degree of warming, the Arctic is ice-free for half the year, the South Atlantic—typically void of hurricanes—experiences coastal hurricanes, and in the western U.S. severe droughts are plaguing residents. "...deserts in the Western US from Texas to the Canadian border."
Two Degrees of Warming

Polar bears struggle to survive as glaciers increasingly melt away. Glaciers in Greenland begin to disappear, while coral reefs are vanishing. "
Three Degrees of Warming

The Amazon rainforest is drying out and El Niño’s intense weather pattern becomes the norm. Europe repeatedly experiences searing summer heat that has rarely happened before. "The arctic is ice-free all summer..." Summer of 2003 may be a harbinger of the near future. Between 2,500 and 3,000 died in Paris the night of August 10th. Deaths topped 30,000 across Europe, with 14,000 dead in France in a few weeks.
Four Degrees of Warming

Oceans could rise, taking over coastal cities. The disappearance of glaciers may deprive many of fresh water. Northern Canada’s agriculture could boom and a Scandinavian beach could be the next tourism hotspot. A part of Antarctica could collapse, causing water to rise even further.
Five Degrees of Warming

Uninhabitable zones could spread, snow pack and aquifers feeding big cities could dry up, and climate refugees could run in the millions. Human civilization could begin to break down with this drastic of changes to the climate. The poor would likely suffer the most.

Six Degrees of Warming

At six degrees, the oceans could be marine wastelands, the deserts could march across continents, and natural disasters could become common events. The world’s great cities could be flooded and abandoned. This could be “the doomsday scenario.” "nothing less than a global wipeout..."
__________________________________

No man can predict the future, but climate is a fundamental factor that can no longer be considered a constant. How it will vary in the years ahead is perhaps the most complicating and confounding question that we face. It compounds the uncertainty of the economy, currency values, and availability of cheap oil and food, and so on. Despite my limitations in comprehension, the catastrophic nature of the consequences of global warming and the likelihood of positive feedback loops that lead to ever-higher temperatures cannot be ignored.

[grapejelly]

Re: National Geographic: 1-6 Degree Temp Change Impact

global warming doesn't bother me like mercury and heavy metals does. These are vaporized into the atmosphere when coal is burned. It affects all of us now and it not an abstraction.

Global warming arguments are all abstractions of what may or possibly will happen far in the future.

The mercury and radon and heavy metals problem is a "now" problem.

[World Traveler]

Permian Extinction, 95% life gone, 5 degrees Celsius

I agree, changes in global climate are a long term problem, and its our descendents who could possibly suffer the gravest impacts in next 100-500 years if not much is done.

Another way to look at it is, the climate we have had for last 11,000 years (since end of last Ice Age) is about as good as it gets on earth, at least for humans. We're in an inter-glacial period (in terms of long-scale history), with fairly regular, predictable (within ranges) climate and weather patterns. Human population has exploded during this wonderful period.

Even without human interference, earth's climate will have changes in future (Ice Ages are caused by shape of earth's rotation around the sun, as it goes from rounder to more elliptical every 100,000 years and by changes in earth's tilt toward sun every 25,000 years). If Mother Nature's delicate balances are disrupted, it could have unpredictable consequences for Earth and life on it.

The greatest mass extinction that EVER happened was 250,000,000 years ago in Permian Era. What happened was that in the Siberian Traps huge eruptions of volcanic calderas occurred and this increased average Earth temperature by 5 DEGREES Celsius. (Die-offs started, on land). 5 degrees Celsius warmed the oceans enough so that the methane hydrates in oceans floor started releasing huge amounts of methane into atmosphere. This methane raised global temperatures an additional 5 degrees Celsius. At then end of all this, 95% of all lifeforms on earth were gone.

From BBC link below:

"When Paul Wignall learned of Dickens' findings, he used his carbon-12 data to estimate how much methane hydrate would have to be released to affect the isotope balance. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and he deduced that unlocking frozen methane hydrate would have caused a temperature rise of 4-5°C over time. Not enough to kill off 95% of life on Earth but he realised this was a compounded effect. A rise of about 5°C must already have occurred to prompt the frozen methane to melt. The combined temperature rise of 10°C is generally accepted as a figure able to cause truly mass extinction.

So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian Traps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caused by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over 40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas lived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the seas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive loss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of the extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were extinct."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...arthdied.shtml

[Guest]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

Apparently Japan is "tinkering around" trying to figure out how to "safely" mine some of that yummy methane hydrate off the ocean floor. Lots of yummy BTU's locked away down there.

Given the indomitable Japanese technical ingenuity, it's a fair bet we'll see Mitsubishi or Komatsu heavy industries with some sleek new Methane Hydrates submersible tankers in a generation. ... If a little "un-sequestered methane melt" occurs n the process - well that's just the "cost of doing business".

[c1ue]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

A previous post

Once again, is it hype or is it scientific reality?

A good candidate for the last previous opening of the Northwest Passage was the period 5,000-7,000 years ago, when the Earth's orbital variations brought more sunlight to the Arctic in summer than at present. Prior to that, the Passage was probably open during the last inter-glacial period, 120,000 years ago. Temperatures then were 2-3 degrees Centigrade higher than present-day temperatures, and sea levels were 4-6 meters higher.

There it is again, the sun and the earth's orbital tilt.

Yes, the Northwest Passage is open for the first time European recorded history (Eskimos don't have calendars). But that is best case only 500 years to draw on - a lot of time if human intervention scales are at question, but not a lot of time in solar/earth orbital terms.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...&tstamp=200710

Lest you think Dr. Masters is a Republican plant:

Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D.

Director of Meteorology
Jeff Masters grew up in suburban Detroit, and attended the University of Michigan, where he received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Meteorology in 1982 and 1983, respectively. While working on his Masters degree, he participated in field programs studying acid rain in the Northeast U.S. and air pollution in the Detroit area.

What Mr. Masters says on his blog directly contradicts what Hanson says.

Of course, Hanson is also a leading light in the global warming panic support group.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

Long term problem? According to Hanson (assuming that he has some credibility), Climate models driven by "business-as-usual" GHG scenarios for the 21st century yield a global warming of several degrees that would almost surely have detrimental effects on humans and wildlife (IPCC 1996).

This makes me less sanguine that global warming is a problem only for our descendants. I don't expect to be here at the end of the century, but hope to be around for a good part of it.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

Apparently Japan is "tinkering around" trying to figure out how to "safely" mine some of that yummy methane hydrate off the ocean floor. Lots of yummy BTU's locked away down there.

Given the indomitable Japanese technical ingenuity, it's a fair bet we'll see Mitsubishi or Komatsu heavy industries with some sleek new Methane Hydrates submersible tankers in a generation. ... If a little "un-sequestered methane melt" occurs n the process - well that's just the "cost of doing business".

They're after the methane hydrates buried beneath ice layers about 50 clicks from the main island of Japan. Canada has joined with Japan in this project and tests are currently being conducted in the Canadian permafrost. Meanwhile, back in the continental USA, coalbed methane gas has been tapped across the Midwest for a few years now.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Global Warming Non-science

[quote=Verrocchio;26598]They're after the methane hydrates buried beneath ice layers about 50 clicks from the main island of Japan. Canada has joined with Japan in this project and tests are currently being conducted in the Canadian permafrost. Meanwhile, back in the continental USA, coalbed methane gas has been tapped across the Midwest for a few years now.

From Starving Steve:

This is my response to the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and all those here who would tell the public that the world might come to an end with global warming if mankind begins to tap into under-sea natural gas reserves locked-up in methyl hydride ice, etc:

It is imperative that the world taps into pressurized methane reserves, be those reserves under the sea in methyl hydride ice, in coal veins, or wherever. Similarly, it is imperative that the world switches to nuclear power immediately. Otherwise, we freeze in the dark.

There will be risks in any energy project. But freezing in the dark is not an option.

Unless the world reduces its population, we have to have more energy and fast.

So, the dams have to be built. The atomic power plants have to be built. The methane has to be harvested from the sea floor. The oil has to be taken from the continental shelf. The coal has to be mined, like it or not. ( End of story. )

Here in California, our grandparents built the California water project to provide water for Southern California back in the 1920s. They didn't pee around with environmental impact statements and lawsuits from the Sierra Club. They decided to do what was necessary, AND THEY DID IT.

Go have a look at what our grandparents did: They took water from Northern California, pumped it 500 miles south to L.A. They pumped that water over a 3000 foot wall of mountains, and then dropt it into Southern California.

Oh that pumping job? It was not a trickle of water; it was enough water for THIRTEEN MILLION PEOPLE. That 3000 foot mountain range? It was actually an 8000 foot mountain range, but our grandparents found a cliff 3000 feet tall and pumped the entire fresh water river up over the 3000 feet.

Similarly, our grandparents split atoms. They didn't talk about it. THEY DID IT. They built the Rancho Seco power plant near Sacramento and the Valecitos power plant near San Jose.

Similarly, our grandparents built Grand Coulee Dam and the Hoover Dam, regardless of what the nay-sayers of the time said.

One can see this same CAN-DO spirit to-day in China at the Three Rivers Gorge Dam which will provide enumerable benefit to mankind including some 18,200 megawatts of power from 26 generators, beginning in 2009.

The St. Lawrence Seaway was built after WWII with this same can-do spirit.

Sure we have had some negatives from the Seaway such as some salt-water specie transplant to the Great Lakes, especially the issue of muscles being transplanted into the formerly prestine lakes. But the benefits to mankind have far out-weighed the negatives.

Imagine if the Sierra Club and Greenpeace had been active in the post-war era! There would never have been a Seaway.

Imagine what the Sierra Club and Greenpeace would have said about the California Water Project if they would have been around in the 1920s when the project was being proposed!

Our grandparents began the construction of the first water de-salinization plants in California, and they used electricity generated by atomic energy to do it.

Our grandparents began the world's first project to extract maganesium metal from sea water at Moss Landing, California.

Imagine what the Sierra Club or Greenpeace would say now if this project was just in the proposal stage. Imagine the lawsuits! ( Some rare and poisonous jellyfish would have to be protected from the effluent from the magnesium-extraction plant at Moss Landing. )

Our children deserve a future where energy and resources abound. And the radical environmentalists who would obstruct this future ( with fear-mongering, with lawsuits, and with outrageous delay and cost ) must now be politically challenged and stopped.

[GRG55]

Re: Permian Extinction, 95% life gone, 5 degrees Celsius

I agree, changes in global climate are a long term problem, and its our descendents who could possibly suffer the gravest impacts in next 100-500 years if not much is done.

Another way to look at it is, the climate we have had for last 11,000 years (since end of last Ice Age) is about as good as it gets on earth, at least for humans. We're in an inter-glacial period (in terms of long-scale history), with fairly regular, predictable (within ranges) climate and weather patterns. Human population has exploded during this wonderful period.

Even without human interference, earth's climate will have changes in future (Ice Ages are caused by shape of earth's rotation around the sun, as it goes from rounder to more elliptical every 100,000 years and by changes in earth's tilt toward sun every 25,000 years). If Mother Nature's delicate balances are disrupted, it could have unpredictable consequences for Earth and life on it.

The greatest mass extinction that EVER happened was 250,000,000 years ago in Permian Era. What happened was that in the Siberian Traps huge eruptions of volcanic calderas occurred and this increased average Earth temperature by 5 DEGREES Celsius. (Die-offs started, on land). 5 degrees Celsius warmed the oceans enough so that the methane hydrates in oceans floor started releasing huge amounts of methane into atmosphere. This methane raised global temperatures an additional 5 degrees Celsius. At then end of all this, 95% of all lifeforms on earth were gone.

From BBC link below:

"When Paul Wignall learned of Dickens' findings, he used his carbon-12 data to estimate how much methane hydrate would have to be released to affect the isotope balance. Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases and he deduced that unlocking frozen methane hydrate would have caused a temperature rise of 4-5°C over time. Not enough to kill off 95% of life on Earth but he realised this was a compounded effect. A rise of about 5°C must already have occurred to prompt the frozen methane to melt. The combined temperature rise of 10°C is generally accepted as a figure able to cause truly mass extinction.

So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian Traps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caused by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over 40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas lived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the seas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive loss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of the extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were extinct."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...arthdied.shtml

250 Million years ago, eh.

So why is it that we are so arrogant to think that man can "control" the atmosphere? Hell, we can't even forecast the weather very well...