Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[fliped42]

post deleted

[WDCRob]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.

[mooncliff]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes, it is possible there will be cooling. The Sun is a variable star. It has not had sunspots for an unusually long period, and its output has dropped about 0.1% There are many other variables, and the uncertainties are large, so I think it makes it impossible to calculate.

Instead, why not concentrate on the result and ask: Why is the arctic melting?

The carbon dioxide level is now as high as it has been in 15,000,000 years. Does that sound like a good idea?

If some factor changes and the planet does start to heat up, it will take centuries to bring the carbon dioxide level down.


A copy of one of my previous posts:

Hmm, while cows, and deforestation, and melting of permafrost in the arctic resulting in decreased albedo and methane release, and clouds, and many other things may be parts of the problem, I think it is undeniable that a huge amount of carbon that was previously sequestered underground as coal and oil has been and is being injected into the atmosphere by human activity and by highly accelerated deforestation.

When we think of the Earth, we think of it the way it has been over the last 10,000 years. But if you were to watch it from 4.5 billion years ago, you would see, for the first 2 billion, no oxygen. Later, horrible ice ages in which the Earth froze to nearly the equator. Oscillations between ice ages and horrible periods of global warming when the oceans were stagnant and released choking sulfur gases into the atmosphere. So, if we look at the quite pleasant climate we have had for the last 10,000 years, we should keep in mind that it has been like this for less than 1% of Earth's history.

Whether trying to slow CO2 increase will wreck the economy, or whether carbon credits are a conspiracy, has no effect on consideration of the following.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration was very recently 280 ppm, and our fossil fuel use seems to be driving it to over 400 ppm over a period of 200 years. Does that seem like a good idea when we don't know what that will do?

Everyone is alarmed by hockey sticks, and this is the biggest hockey stick I know.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slide...ase/core36.jpg


No one believed we could fish cod to near extinction, but we did. The entirety of the US was densely forested from New York to the Rocky Mountains, but it was all cut down or burned by humans. Pennsylvania used to supply all the oil, until it went empty. Texas used to supply all the oil until it went empty.

We can literally see to the end of the Universe and to the beginning of Time. By 2020, we will have scanned half the Galaxy and will either make First Contact or will know that we are even rarer and more precious than we already suspect. We have become really powerful. We even contemplate methods of terraforming Mars to make conditions more Earthlike. I have no doubt we are capable of drastically altering the Earth's climate, and that the result could be highly unpleasant.

This is a must-see about how the oil was formed and its relationship to nastier periods of the climate. Everything will fall in place when you watch this.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

[jtabeb]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes, it is possible there will be cooling. The Sun is a variable star. It has not had sunspots for an unusually long period, and its output has dropped about 0.1% There are many other variables, and the uncertainties are large, so I think it makes it impossible to calculate.

Instead, why not concentrate on the result and ask: Why is the arctic melting?

The carbon dioxide level is now as high as it has been in 15,000,000 years. Does that sound like a good idea?

If some factor changes and the planet does start to heat up, it will take centuries to bring the carbon dioxide level down.


A copy of one of my previous posts:

Hmm, while cows, and deforestation, and melting of permafrost in the arctic resulting in decreased albedo and methane release, and clouds, and many other things may be parts of the problem, I think it is undeniable that a huge amount of carbon that was previously sequestered underground as coal and oil has been and is being injected into the atmosphere by human activity and by highly accelerated deforestation.

When we think of the Earth, we think of it the way it has been over the last 10,000 years. But if you were to watch it from 4.5 billion years ago

Ah HA! Spotted the flaw in this analysis. IT PRESUMES that the earth more than 6,000 years old!:rolleyes:

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Have fun with it but it would be really funny if at the peak of Gobal warming histeria after inacting Cap and Trade, Harsh regulations, Coordinated Global Legislation and a whole lot of misdirected government investments the Earth Cooled for the next 30 years. If it happens which I am not qualified to render an opinion on the science, or in a position to predict,it will go down as the biggest group think bubble in modern human history. But if we are in a period of 30 year cooling I would assume that has serious consequences for the price of fuel and down feathers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Isn't it interesting how everyone must think the same way, in one big group-think bubble? Why can't divergent or minority opinions be heard?

Why can't the media, especially BBC and FOX do some critical thinking and critical review of their own long-held views?

Back to the global warming thesis: So long as the world's sea-level atolls (sp?) are still above sea-level and doing just fine, everything is wonderful. There is no global warming, and the global warming models are obviously mis-calibrated.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

No one believed we could fish cod to near extinction, but we did. The entirety of the US was densely forested from New York to the Rocky Mountains, but it was all cut down or burned by humans. Pennsylvania used to supply all the oil, until it went empty. Texas used to supply all the oil until it went empty.

There are more people alive now than cod. Even 100 years ago, there were more than enough people that a few eating 100 cod a year would have caused a problem given that the relative lifespans weren't dissimilar (20 year max vs. 40 years average).

As for the US being densely forested - are you saying the Great Plains was forest? Secondly in the West there is probably more plant matter now than before due to the suppression of forest fires.

If you meant old growth forest on the East Coast, that is true but there are plenty of trees there now.

And what does the amount of oil in Pennsylvania and Texas have to due with global temperature?

All your arguments have been discussed in rant and rave before and all boil down to the same thing:

1) We don't know what's really happening
2) Enacting catastrophically expensive procedures to account for an unclear outcome is simply a variant of Pascal's Wager. If so, we should be doing a lot of other things 'just in case' like worshipping all the various deities, limiting population growth to zero, etc etc. I don't see any of these other propositions being expounded much.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

There are more people alive now than cod. Even 100 years ago, there were more than enough people that a few eating 100 cod a year would have caused a problem given that the relative lifespans weren't dissimilar (20 year max vs. 40 years average).

As for the US being densely forested - are you saying the Great Plains was forest? Secondly in the West there is probably more plant matter now than before due to the suppression of forest fires.

If you meant old growth forest on the East Coast, that is true but there are plenty of trees there now.

And what does the amount of oil in Pennsylvania and Texas have to due with global temperature?

All your arguments have been discussed in rant and rave before and all boil down to the same thing:

1) We don't know what's really happening
2) Enacting catastrophically expensive procedures to account for an unclear outcome is simply a variant of Pascal's Wager. If so, we should be doing a lot of other things 'just in case' like worshipping all the various deities, limiting population growth to zero, etc etc. I don't see any of these other propositions being expounded much.

Parts of California such as the Santa Clara Valley (Silicon Valley) and the Los Angeles Basin appear to have more trees now than ever before. Entire urban forests are now appearing and replacing desert scrub, especially in Southern California.

[t12357]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Shhh,

This will get "We are "peer review trumps reality" toast" upset again.

[thousandmilemargin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.

A 30 year sideways move within a 100 year upward trend raises the possibiity that the 100 year upward trend is itself part of a larger cycle.

Just like a ten year sideways move in stocks would make fools of people who believe that stocks can only go up, up and away.

The main point is that I didn't hear anyone saying in 1998 that we were about to go sideways for 30 years - it was all about temperatures soaring ever higher.

Now that the models have been shown to suffer from a "small" omission, people are claiming that they knew about this all along. So where was the IPCC graph showing a 30 year sideways move?

The obvious conclusion was that the models were crap, and are still crap.

Yes, I would expect to see a resumption of the dramatic upward trend in 2030 or thereabouts, when the PDO cycle turns. But I'm still waiting for the IPCC graph that shows us moving sideways until then. I don't expect this to get published until 2025.

It's hard to whip up hysteria when your projection is that the world will start getting warmer again ... in twenty years time.

I can't wait for the headlines in 2028 - "2027 was the 29th hottest year on record, planet DOOMED".

[thousandmilemargin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

1998 is the hottest year on record.

Bear in mind that our records don't go back very far. In 1850 there were only 70 weather stations in the entire world. "Global temperature" wasn't something that could be accurately measured prior to 1930.

So it's kind of like people who talk about "average stock returns" based on a graph that starts in 1982. You are only looking at part of a long cycle.

[halcyon]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ah HA! Spotted the flaw in this analysis. IT PRESUMES that the earth more than 6,000 years old!:rolleyes:

ROTFL!

A Classic!

This reminds me of a useful article.

[Master Shake]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

Ah, the Big Lie. Not only is the "record" about 100 years, give or take, but even for that blip in geological time, it's not true.

Was 1998 the hottest year in United States history, as most reporting on climate change has presumed? Or was that record set back in 1934 before "global warming" became a scary household phrase?

A corrective tweak to National Aeronautics and Space Administration's formulation shows that the hottest year on record in the US indeed was back during the Dust Bowl days.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html

Now, if you want to argue that anthropogenic global warming is still a concern, go ahead, but don't repeat disproven "facts."

[Ghent12]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Bear in mind that our records don't go back very far. In 1850 there were only 70 weather stations in the entire world. "Global temperature" wasn't something that could be accurately measured prior to 1930.

So it's kind of like people who talk about "average stock returns" based on a graph that starts in 1982. You are only looking at part of a long cycle.

Yes; also current monitoring stations are in settings that significantly alter the results by +/- up to 5 degrees C. Setting the stations on concrete, near buildings, etc., can drastically skew the results.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ah HA! Spotted the flaw in this analysis. IT PRESUMES that the earth more than 6,000 years old!:rolleyes:

I'm sure I have something marginally useful to say about this but I'll have to wait until I stop laughing.

[touchring]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.

the smog is blocking out the sun, therefore leading to cooling in urban areas. it's that simple.