Global Warming?

[frobert]

Global warming is not about boats getting through the Northwest Passage. It is about long term trends. I know you have said before you are not interested in long term trends. Then I can only assume you are not interested in the truth of global warming, because you cannot seriously consider the question if you don’t know what the question is about.

Exactly. Too many people are not aware of the difference between weather and climate and even though they are sincere they are easily manipulated by the financial interests in the status quo. Unfortunately, the world may already have breached the tipping points by our inaction. Time will tell. We will either reap the benefits if they are correct or suffer the consequences if they are wrong.

 

[JB_Dugan]

A hoax takes a lot of coordination and control. Even if there are “over zealous researchers with a left wing agenda”, it is beyond their capability to engineer such a massive hoax, involving so many independent groups of scientists who are mostly in agreement on the core facts. Let’s keep the speculation within the bounds of the possible, OK?

Sorry, Leaf, It is a hoax.

It started with James Hansen (who I believe is certifiably insane) and his rantings before congress, the U.N. and any media outlet that would give him time.

Then Algore made a movie…

Oh, there has been plenty of coordination and control, whether deliberate or not, between the political scientists, environmentalists and the media.

I believe what environmental analyst Rich Trzupek notes, "The golden rule among environmental groups is never, ever admit that progress has been achieved. It’s awfully tough for those organizations to raise money if donors aren’t kept in a constant state of panic."

None of them correctly predicted the outcome of the last 17 World Series games either. So what?

Yes, Leaf…that is true. Your grasp of the obvious is remarkable.

The problem is that these “massaged” computer models are presented to clueless politicians who are aggressively pursuing environmental policies that will dramatically affect the economy and our standard of living based on a theory that is increasingly suspect.

It proves nothing about global warming. All it proves is that somebody got lucky and tried the Northwest Passage at the time and a place where the random variations in ice distribution allowed them to get reasonably far. Global warming is not about boats getting through the Northwest Passage. It is about long term trends. I know you have said before you are not interested in long term trends. Then I can only assume you are not interested in the truth of global warming, because you cannot seriously consider the question if you don’t know what the question is about.

I am not a scientist. I am only trying to show that the Arctic Ice has expanded and contracted over ions (Trend?) with or with out man’s help. Since scientific study of the Arctic really didn’t begin until the 1950’s and accurate measurements started in 1979…I have to rely on history.

The fact that early explorers were able to sail ships through the Arctic during times of minimal ice (Just like today) proves that the condition of the Arctic is nothing really new.
To blame man’s contribution is absurd.

I don’t know what it means when you put “trends” in quotes. Do you mean that the real trends are not what those manipulators have led everyone to think they are? Or do you mean there is no such thing as a trend? Or are you using quotes as I did above, as a way of emphasizing the same word I used? Please be clear.

Awww,Leaf, I do that just to bug you.

 

[frobert]

Here is another cute story about statistics which happens to be true.

Statistics was developed by a farmer named Fisher

He wanted to test if fertilizer had a significant effect on his crops

He carefully prepared one plot of land that he fertilized

Then carefully prepared another plot which was equal in every way but did not fertilize

You can see that statistics started with bulls**t and to a lot a people it still is.

Lighten up everyone, its time to get ready for the coming of Christ.

 

[estesbob]

Here is another cute story about statistics which happens to be true.

Statistics was developed by a farmer named Fisher

He wanted to test if fertilizer had a significant effect on his crops

He carefully prepared one plot of land that he

Then carefully prepared another plot which was equal in every way but did not fertilize

You can see that statistics started with bulls**t and to a lot a people it still is.

Lighten up everyone, its time to get ready for the coming of Christ.

Reminds me of the statistician who had his head in a freezer and his feet in a furnace.When asked
how he felt he said"on the average I feel fine"

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sorry, Leaf, It is a hoax.

It started with James Hansen (who I believe is certifiably insane) and his rantings before congress, the U.N. and any media outlet that would give him time.

Then Algore made a movie…

Oh, there has been plenty of coordination and control, whether deliberate or not, between the political scientists, environmentalists and the media.

I believe what environmental analyst Rich Trzupek notes, "The golden rule among environmental groups is never, ever admit that progress has been achieved. It’s awfully tough for those organizations to raise money if donors aren’t kept in a constant state of panic."

You seem to have rolled into one a large collection of issues - the politicians, the media, policy decisions, and scientific facts, so they can all be decided and dispensed with at once. Whereas I see these issues as separate things. I am not taking a position on political policy, or the media, or politicians. I am only talking about scientific fact. So when you bring in Al Gore’s movie, or any of that stuff, you won’t get any argument from me on any of those issues. We probably agree on many of them. But it is beyond belief that the majority of the world’s climate scientists could be coerced into perpetrating a hoax in making up raw data. (I’m not talking about isolated cases, but about the climate scientists as a whole.)

The problem is that these “massaged” computer models are presented to clueless politicians who are aggressively pursuing environmental policies that will dramatically affect the economy and our standard of living based on a theory that is increasingly suspect.

Again you are wandering into areas I don’t care about and will not discuss with you.

I am not a scientist. I am only trying to show that the Arctic Ice has expanded and contracted over ions (Trend?) with or with out man’s help. Since scientific study of the Arctic really didn’t begin until the 1950’s and accurate measurements started in 1979…I have to rely on history.

Of course everyone knows that the earth’s climate has undergone extreme changes over the eons. Otherwise how could there be oil under Alaska? But you are wrong in thinking that the only tool available to study the history of Arctic ice is historical testimony. Just like you can cut down a very old tree, and by measuring the pattern in the tree rings you can chart the amount of rainfall going back hundreds of years, so ice cores can be drilled into the polar ice and all sorts of amazing parameters can be determined. You see the yearly snowfall deposits ice in layers that can be counted just like the rings on a tree stump. So we actually do know a great deal about what went on in the Arctic long before man ventured there.

The fact that early explorers were able to sail ships through the Arctic during times of minimal ice (Just like today) proves…

You keep saying that, but it just isn’t true. Today there is a sizable shipping season during which navigation of the Northwest Passage is relatively easy. That has never existed in recorded history, the McClure Expedition not withstanding.

To blame man’s contribution is absurd.

The facts are certainly suggestive of that conclusion.

 

[JB_Dugan]

You seem to have rolled into one a large collection of issues - the politicians, the media, policy decisions, and scientific facts, so they can all be decided and dispensed with at once. Whereas I see these issues as separate things. I am not taking a position on political policy, or the media, or politicians. I am only talking about scientific fact. So when you bring in Al Gore’s movie, or any of that stuff, you won’t get any argument from me on any of those issues. We probably agree on many of them. But it is beyond belief that the majority of the world’s climate scientists could be coerced into perpetrating a hoax in making up raw data. (I’m not talking about isolated cases, but about the climate scientists as a whole.)

I like it when we agree…I get a warm fuzzy feeling all over.

From a scientific perspective (remember I’m not a scientist) I would somewhat agree that the Earth is probably warming. Although, noted climate scientists, back in the late 1970’s, were predicting a new ice age (cause for skepticism?) I simply cannot accept the idea that this warming (or cooling) trend is nothing more than the natural climate cycle of the Earth. I believe that it is absolutely absurd to think that man can have such an effect on the climate system of our planet. I also believe that it is the height of arrogance, especially for Catholics, to accept this theory.

Please understand that I include media and government along with science because, from my perspective they have become very intertwined in this issue. We have the media sensationalizing and misrepresenting a scientific report. That leads to a government over regulating an economy based on false understanding of scientific reports.

However I will concentrate on science for the remainder of this discussion.

Of course everyone knows that the earth’s climate has undergone extreme changes over the eons. Otherwise how could there be oil under Alaska? But you are wrong in thinking that the only tool available to study the history of Arctic ice is historical testimony. Just like you can cut down a very old tree, and by measuring the pattern in the tree rings you can chart the amount of rainfall going back hundreds of years, so ice cores can be drilled into the polar ice and all sorts of amazing parameters can be determined. You see the yearly snowfall deposits ice in layers that can be counted just like the rings on a tree stump. So we actually do know a great deal about what went on in the Arctic long before man ventured there.

…and what do the ice core samples tell us about the amount and fluctuation of Arctic ice in relation to concentrations of CO2? Hmmmmm.

You keep saying that, but it just isn’t true. Today there is a sizable shipping season during which navigation of the Northwest Passage is relatively easy. That has never existed in recorded history, the McClure Expedition not withstanding.

Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage in in 1905. He got stuck in the ice for a whole winter…but he made it through.

Actual records of Northwest Passage navigation began in 1966. There have been years that ice prevents any passages…and, like now, there have been years of relatively ice free conditions.

My point being…the NATRUAL fluctuations of climate and weather occurring before man was blamed for global warming.

The facts are certainly suggestive of that conclusion.

The facts are ONLY suggestive and very nebulous. So far I have not seen any concrete PROOF (not a study, not a computer model, not a theory and certainly not a consensus ) that man is causing the Earth to warm. In FACT, most of the predictions have not been true.

In a way I am looking forward to a scientifically accepted experiment that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that mankind is responsible. Because then we can argue about what the ideal global temperature should be set at…

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Just to update everyone. The Global warming system in Michigan appears to be on-the-fritz again.

ATB

 

[frobert]

Reminds me of the statistician who had his head in a freezer and his feet in a furnace.When asked
how he felt he said"on the average I feel fine"

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I believe that it is absolutely absurd to think that man can have such an effect on the climate system of our planet. I also believe that it is the height of arrogance, especially for Catholics, to accept this theory.

There is nothing anti-Catholic about a belief that man is capable of affecting the climate system of our planet. Even the lowly microbes in the oceans and the lowly trees have affected the planetary atomosphere. Is it arrogance to believe that we can have as significant an effect on the earth as those lowly creatures?

Please understand that I include media and government along with science because, from my perspective they have become very intertwined in this issue. We have the media sensationalizing and misrepresenting a scientific report. That leads to a government over regulating an economy based on false understanding of scientific reports.

Quite true.

…and what do the ice core samples tell us about the amount and fluctuation of Arctic ice in relation to concentrations of CO2? Hmmmmm.

Quite a bit. You see trapped in the ice are bubbles of air - air that was encapsulated way back when the ice formed. It is possible to analyze that air for CO2 content. That is where they get the prehistoric CO2 concentration data from. And since we know which layer the bubbles were trapped in, we know exactly when in prehistory this particular sample of air was trapped.

Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage in in 1905. He got stuck in the ice for a whole winter…but he made it through.

Actual records of Northwest Passage navigation began in 1966. There have been years that ice prevents any passages…and, like now, there have been years of relatively ice free conditions.

My point being…the NATRUAL fluctuations of climate and weather occurring before man was blamed for global warming.

Yes, there are natural fluctuations that have nothing to do with man. But that does not refute the theory that superimposed on these natural cycles is a man-made effect. It is not a case of all one or the other. If you would just look at the raw scientific data for yourself you would see that, instead of relying on very indirect measurements, such as when so and so made it through the Northwest Passage. I suggest looking at the satellite pictures and the graphs of data from ice cores. These are very direct measurements. Unlike computer models, they are hard to falsify.

The facts are ONLY suggestive and very nebulous. So far I have not seen any concrete PROOF (not a study, not a computer model, not a theory and certainly not a consensus ) that man is causing the Earth to warm.)

If that is the level of proof you need, and if it does turn out to be true, by then it would be too late to take any corrective action.

There is an old story about how to boil a frog. You don’t just throw him in the boiling water, because he will immediately jump out. Instead you place him in cool water, then gradually turn up the heat. By the time the frog realizes he is being boiled he will be dead.

In a way I am looking forward to a scientifically accepted experiment that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that mankind is responsible. Because then we can argue about what the ideal global temperature should be set at…

I, on the other hand, am desperately looking forward to being proved wrong - that there is nothing to worry about.

 

[JB_Dugan]

There is nothing anti-Catholic about a belief that man is capable of affecting the climate system of our planet. Even the lowly microbes in the oceans and the lowly trees have affected the planetary atomosphere. Is it arrogance to believe that we can have as significant an effect on the earth as those lowly creatures?

Now …you bring up a very interesting point to ponder…

If man is a natural resident of the Earth, just as the microbe… and affects nature (climate, atmosphere,whatever)…just as the microbe…does that not mean man’s activities are as natural as a microbe’s or a beaver building his dam???

Quite a bit. You see trapped in the ice are bubbles of air - air that was encapsulated way back when the ice formed. It is possible to analyze that air for CO2 content. That is where they get the prehistoric CO2 concentration data from. And since we know which layer the bubbles were trapped in, we know exactly when in prehistory this particular sample of air was trapped.

Yes, there are natural fluctuations that have nothing to do with man. But that does not refute the theory that superimposed on these natural cycles is a man-made effect. It is not a case of all one or the other. If you would just look at the raw scientific data for yourself you would see that, instead of relying on very indirect measurements, such as when so and so made it through the Northwest Passage. I suggest looking at the satellite pictures and the graphs of data from ice cores. These are very direct measurements. Unlike computer models, they are hard to falsify.

Yes, I understand about bubbles trapped in the ice cores. I also understand that these measurements show warming periods that occurred when there was less CO2 concentration than today. That indicates that something other than CO2 was responsible for warming and maybe responsible scientists should consider that avenue rather than belittling the skeptics.

I looked at satellite data and graphs only to become more skeptical…

“US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in
shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.”

klimarealistene.com/Official-%20Satellite%20Failure%20Means%20Decade%20of%20Global%20Warming%20Data%20Doubtful.pdf

If that is the level of proof you need, and if it does turn out to be true, by then it would be too late to take any corrective action.

Not at all…American ingenuity and industry could produce better and more efficient air conditioning. Dykes could be built to protect low lying cities and we wouldn’t need to burn as much oil and coal to keep warm.

I, on the other hand, am desperately looking forward to being proved wrong - that there is nothing to worry about.

When I think about it, a warmer Earth wouldn’t be as bad as a frozen one.

 

[estesbob]

Just to update everyone. The Global warming system in Michigan appears to be on-the-fritz again.

ATB

It is broken in Galveston Texas alsf course we know individual weather events dont really prove anything.Unless, that is, they can be used to advance the global warming theory.

 

[Ender]

But it is beyond belief that the majority of the world’s climate scientists could be coerced into perpetrating a hoax in making up raw data.

Why do you believe that the majority of the world’s climate scientists think that man is responsible for global warming? Other than by accepting the publicized assertions of others we really have no way of knowing who believes what and that’s kind of the point here. There are certain memes being pushed because they aid the narrative about AGW and it isn’t at all clear what the truth of this claim really is, but, based on the deceptions regularly practiced by the pro-AGW side, I would hesitate to believe this assertion.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why do you believe that the majority of the world’s climate scientists think that man is responsible for global warming? Other than by accepting the publicized assertions of others we really have no way of knowing who believes what and that’s kind of the point here. There are certain memes being pushed because they aid the narrative about AGW and it isn’t at all clear what the truth of this claim really is, but, based on the deceptions regularly practiced by the pro-AGW side, I would hesitate to believe this assertion.

Ender

That is not the hoax I was referring to. I was referring to the supposed hoax that global warming is happening at all - in other words, the raw data. On that point we do know where the majority of the world’s climate scientists stand, because that is what they publish. Yet some continue to call even that a hoax.

 

[weller2]

I am talking about man’s contribution. It is miniscule! You seem to have all the facts and figures correct me if I am wrong…

Again, why do you claim that 280 → 400 is miniscule contribution, I cannot understand.

CO2 is a natural gas that makes us a very small portion of our atmosphere.

I’ve posted a 1 hour lecture which explains physics of CO2-driven warming. If you can’t be bothered to watch it, that’s your problem, not mine.

Nice chart. But it is meaningless since it does not show how much of the measured CO2 is man made.

newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

You’re welcome.

 

[weller2]

I’m not interested in long “term trends” or what went on from 1978-2006. What I am pointing out is that Arctic Ice** is increasing** while climate alarmist political scientists predicted an Ice Free North Pole in 2013.

If you have actually bothered to read Maslowski’s paper (which I have linked upthread I think) you’d see that his actual prediction was that Arctic will be ice-free for the summer in 2016 +/- 3 years. So technically speaking you will have to wait until 2019 to claim that he was wrong.

I think this “Climate Science” is a new religion and possibly only a three generational thing. Once the 20 something’s see that nothing is happening, they’ll turn on their elder climate scientists. Gonna be ugly.

I’m afraid that Russians, Norwegians and Canadians did not get the memo. Their recent actions make no sense unless the Arctic is rapidly defreezing.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Again, why do you claim that 280 → 400 is miniscule contribution, I cannot understand.

Because CO2 levels exceeded 5000 ppm in the past…and man was not around.

I’ve posted a 1 hour lecture which explains physics of CO2-driven warming. If you can’t be bothered to watch it, that’s your problem, not mine.

…and I can post 5 minute explanation of why CO2 is NOT the only driver of climate.

Do you have any information about WHY CO2 levels increase AFTER a warming trend???

newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

You’re welcome.

For what?

 

[JB_Dugan]

If you have actually bothered to read Maslowski’s paper (which I have linked upthread I think) you’d see that his actual prediction was that Arctic will be ice-free for the summer in 2016 +/- 3 years. So technically speaking you will have to wait until 2019 to claim that he was wrong.

Why bother?..We won’t be here. Algore told us that the Earth will be “toast” by 2016.

I’m afraid that Russians, Norwegians and Canadians did not get the memo. Their recent actions make no sense unless the Arctic is rapidly defreezing.

No argument there. The Arctic has “defreezed” (like it does on a pretty regular basis)
But according to NOAA it is freezing up again…

 

[weller2]

Because CO2 levels exceeded 5000 ppm in the past…and man was not around.

You should really watch that lecture.

CO2 was indeed at 5000ppm during Ordovician – 500 million years ago:



See the decline of CO2 during Devonian and Carboniferous? It’s caused by uptake of atmospheric CO2 by plants which later became fossilized. Which is also why the latter period is called Carboniferous – because it created massive coal (carbon) desposits. As you can see from the graph, this process needed some 100 million years to reduce CO2 from 5000ppm to about what it is now.

What we are currently doing is that we are taking this carbon which nature has stored in the ground and releasing it back into the air – in other words, we are reverting the climate back to Ordovician. (Actually, warmer than that, because back then the Sun was 30% dimmer).

Of course, if Ordovician world is your thing, fine – I must admit that it has some appeal:



However we must remember that humans, as well as plants and animals we depend on, are not well suited to operate in Ordovician climate.
"Wikipedia:

The Ordovician saw the highest sea levels of the Paleozoic, and the low relief of the continents led to many shelf deposits being formed under hundreds of metres of water.[15] Sea level rose more or less continuously throughout the Early Ordovician, levelling off somewhat during the middle of the period.[15] Locally, some regressions occurred, but sea level rise continued in the beginning of the Late Ordovician. A change was soon on the cards, however, and sea levels fell steadily in accord with the cooling temperatures for the ~30 million years leading up to the Hirnantian glaciation. Within this icy stage, sea level seems to have risen and dropped somewhat, but despite much study the details remain unresolved.[15]

At the beginning of the period, around 485.4 ± 1.9 million years ago, the climate was very hot due to high levels of CO2, which gave a strong greenhouse effect. The marine waters are assumed to have been around 45°C (113°F), which restricted the diversification of complex multi-cellular organisms.

…and I can post 5 minute explanation of why CO2 is NOT the only driver of climate.

So what? If other drivers are constant, then altering one will change the climate. To prevent CO2-driven warming, you’d have to have another driver acting to COOL the climate – and so far, nobody in the anti-AGW camp has managed to demonstrate that such driver exists (and they have really tried).

Do you have any information about WHY CO2 levels increase AFTER a warming trend???

Yes. It’s explained in that lecture around 35:00 mark. The guy uses an analogy which you will love

 

[frobert]

Why bother?..We won’t be here. Algore told us that the Earth will be “toast” by 2016

Funny thing about predictions a prediction can be correct but the date could be off.

Toast is the eventual fate of the world, how fast we get there is the unknown and more difficult to predict.

 

[weller2]

Why bother?..We won’t be here. Algore told us that the Earth will be “toast” by 2016.

He has also claimed that he has invented the internet. Politicians say various things – that’s how they get elected.

I don’t see why I should care what he said.