P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
somebody might read this. co2, it says, doesn’t cause warming it follows warming. climate warms and cools despite co2 levels.
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
People keep confusing weather and climate. Climate is the sum of weather, one weather event does not make climate. So if it is cold in Podunk today, it does not mean there is no GW, and if a hurricane strikes it does not prove GW is happening.
However, there is some indication that storms will become more severe, tho at this point they cannot say whether they will become more frequent.
There is already evidence that GW is causing more frequent/severe heat waves and less frequent/severe cold snaps, and more drought conditions in some areas.
If you are really interested in the science, you can do an honest web search for legitimate sources and just see what they say. There are 1000s of studies out there now about the negative impacts of GW; there are reports and books about its negative impacts.
If you are truly interested in findings out…I’m sure you can find these, as I have. A good place to start is the IPCC reports, which bring together 1000s of studies (mistakes aside…which they acknowledge and try to fix…which is more than we can say about the denialis fake-science).
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Empirical evidence is often ignored by social scientists and activists, I have seen it happen .
Case in point:
icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/reliving_the_1950s_and_1890s_the_60_year_cycle/
wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/19/whac-a-moling-seth-borenstein-at-ap-over-his-erroneous-extreme-weather-claims/**
J
John1956
Guest
Tell your “global warming” friends; they are the ones making the claim that “global warming” causes hurricanes (and everything else they fancy).
I thought you just said storms do not prove “global warming” is occurring
Sorry, that is not how science works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim - in this case you, not me. Besides, I have already done my research and find the “evidence” highly speculative, theoretical, based on models, and dubious methods of measurement, rather than hard evidence.
John
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s like a multiple choice question in which both A and B are correct: Atmospheric CO2 both contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming, AND warming melts ice and frees carbon trapped in that ice which becomes atmospheric CO2.
So in many of the past warming periods when the warming was caused by orbit, wobble, or other factors, that initial warming caused increase in atmospheric CO2, which caused further warming, which caused further CO2 increase.
And this is not a good thing for us, since the initial warming we are causing by our GHG emissions is at the level of warming the earth system to release many gigatons of GHGs now trapped in ice. That’s already beginning to happen. It’s like we’re poking a sleeping dragon with our emissions, but once that dragon is fully awake it could take over and really contribute to global warming in a terrible way that wipes out most life on earth.
The last man standing, if he be a climate change denialist, will be gloating: “See, I told everyone it was not human-caused, but nature-caused.”
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
**Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
**
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer [amount of warming] is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2LPK3Pike
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Global cooling predicted for the next 30 years
by ROBERT on NOVEMBER 21, 2012 · 22 COMMENTS
**“The general trend is now a cooling towards the next ice age.”
**
**Global cooling predicted for the next 30 years
**By Jonathan DuHamel
Dr. Norman Page says that “The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer.” See his detailed analysis here.
Page’s prediction is based on observation of the geologic record. He notes that there has been no net warming since 1997 even though carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 8.5%. Page says that atmospheric temperature is driven by sea surface temperature (SST) which is, itself, solar driven.
**
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer [amount of warming] is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2LPK3Pike
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Global cooling predicted for the next 30 years
by ROBERT on NOVEMBER 21, 2012 · 22 COMMENTS
**“The general trend is now a cooling towards the next ice age.”
**
**Global cooling predicted for the next 30 years
**By Jonathan DuHamel
Dr. Norman Page says that “The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer.” See his detailed analysis here.
Page’s prediction is based on observation of the geologic record. He notes that there has been no net warming since 1997 even though carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 8.5%. Page says that atmospheric temperature is driven by sea surface temperature (SST) which is, itself, solar driven.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period
by Jonathan DuHamel on Dec. 15, 2010, under Climate change
Most of the headlines are grabbed by NASA’s James Hansen, Head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen has been the doomsayer-sayer-in-chief of the climate alarmists along with Al Gore. Hansen has been quoted as saying, “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.” But other NASA scientists who use satellites to collect real data, take a different view, and are now saying that “our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.”
by Jonathan DuHamel on Dec. 15, 2010, under Climate change
Most of the headlines are grabbed by NASA’s James Hansen, Head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen has been the doomsayer-sayer-in-chief of the climate alarmists along with Al Gore. Hansen has been quoted as saying, “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.” But other NASA scientists who use satellites to collect real data, take a different view, and are now saying that “our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.”
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I said a single hurricane does not prove global warming. However they have found that hurricanes worldwide have been increasing in intensity over the past 30 or so years, and they logically attribute this to the warming - esp the warming sea-surface temps. Warm SST are a necessary cause of hurricanes, but not a sufficient one, since other weather factors need to be present, as well. So what they can say is that the warmer sea-surfaces temps is raising the probability of increased intensity of hurricanes. And there are hurricanes now happening in areas that historically had SST too cold for hurricanes, like Brazil.
It’s also possible that we might luck-out and the other factors necessary to cause hurricane will actually be decreased by global warming. That would be nice, since I live in one of those hurricane zones.
I just would not bank on hurricanes as proof of global warming and think it is not good to use hurricanes as a red herring, distracting attention away from the larger problem and issues; hurricanes and storms are only ONE of many many impacts that they are somewhat sure will become more intense with GW. And global warming has already been proved by other measures, like temperatures, and does not need “increased hurricane intensity” to prove it is happening.
However, I would suggest that people in hurricane places make sure they batten down their hatches and get adequate insurance to cover hurricane damage, since it looks like hurricanes might become more intense in the future. Or, if you think Katrina and Sandy were bad, AGW could make matters worse. It would be wise to hope for the best and be prepared for the worst.
“For if men do these things to the green wood, what will happen when it is dry?”
I’m a Christian, so I have a very different perspective from the scientific perspective.
Scientists require high levels of proof of something before they make a claim, usually 95% confidence (.05 on the null). They are striving to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims, which could harm their reputation and people won’t believe them again – they cannot afford to be “the boy who called wolf.”
People living in the world and concerned about themselves, their progeny, or their morality would want to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to address serious harms (you’d think). They do not need 95% assurance that the toxic energy additive they are putting in their children’s juice will make their children sick and perhaps die, before they stop putting that additive in; they don’t even need even 50% confidence or even 10% – esp since that additive costs money and there are non-harmful alternatives.* A doctor will not tell his patient, “Well, the test came back and there is only 93% confidence that the lump is cancerous. Come back in a year and we’ll see if it gets up to 95% confidence so we can operate.”
People living in the world and concerned about life issues cannot afford to be the villagers who get eaten up by the wolf – the more important moral to that story.
And, wouldn’t you know, the U.S. Catholic bishops agree with me: See: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/environment/global-climate-change-a-plea-for-dialogue-prudence-and-the-common-good.cfm
But they don’t call it “avoiding the false negative,” they call it prudence. I am so old fashioned and religious that I, unlike most Americans, actually like their term.
Now the point is anthropogenic climate change reached 95% confidence (.05 on the null – .06 for winter temps & .04 on summer temps) in 1995, and the evidence has been mounting since and has become evermore robust (from many angles). I’ve been reading it all along, and it is NOT only based on computer models (a favorite denialist strawman). And the science of GW impacts is also increasing and becoming evermore robust.
I would sincerely hope that those who insist AGW is not happening would at least do the things that mitigate GW that save money or don’t cost. I hope that’s not too much to ask. Pretty please
*We’ve managed to reduce our GHG emissions (and concomitant harmful pollution) by 60%+ below our 1990 emissions while saving $1000s & even while increasing our living standards.
BTW, wind power is the biggest power source in Spain now. Alt energy accounts for 25% of their electricity,and by 2020 they aim to get 40% of it from alt energy. See guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/windfarms-break-energy-record-spain
Where there’s God’s will, there’s a way thru the dense thicket of prickly naysayers. The Little Way of Spiritual Childhood, and the Little Way of Environmental Healing… One needs to become little, like kimmielittle
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here is more of that newsstory (with context – which accepts AGW is happening):NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period
by Jonathan DuHamel on Dec. 15, 2010, under Climate change
Most of the headlines are grabbed by NASA’s James Hansen, Head of Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen has been the doomsayer-sayer-in-chief of the climate alarmists along with Al Gore. Hansen has been quoted as saying, “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.” But other NASA scientists who use satellites to collect real data, take a different view, and are now saying that “our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.”
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.
Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.
One of the issues is that the particulate matter is also being emitted with the CO2, however it only stays in the atmosphere a short time, while CO2 stays for a very long time, a portion of it can stay there for up to 100,000 years.
Another issue is that we are actually reducing the albedo (surface whiteness & brightness), by causing snow and ice to melt, revealing much darker land and ocean. So that is actually another positive feeback causing greater warming.
Don’t rely on newspaper journalists to explain the science. You can see all these factors they mention in Hansen’s works – climate scientists are well aware of all the factors and take them into consideration when doing their science.
And earlier a couple of scientists in the 1970s actually thought these cooling factors might overwhelm the warming factors, but nowadays climate scientists know that is not the case.
However, we really should not be too worried about an ice age – if at all one comes about, it will be in 1000s of years from now. And, as I said, we really ought to leave those fossil fuels in the ground for future generations, just in case.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
**Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes
**
The Greenland records show that climate changes have been very large, rapid, and widespread. Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming (8, 25) and ≈2× increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in wind-blown materials (17), and ≈50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).
For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval ≈11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning ≈5 years and in total covering ≈40 years (26). However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less (8). The most direct interpretation of the accumulation-rate record is that snowfall doubled over 3 years and nearly doubled in 1 year (9). Several records show enhanced variability near this and other transitions, including “flickering” behavior in which climate variables bounced between their “cold” level and their “warm” level before settling in one of them (27).
The methane increase at the end of the Younger Dryas began 0–30 years (one sample) after the warming in Greenland, suggesting atmospheric transmission of the signal from the north Atlantic region to methane source regions (8). The relative changes in methane concentrations in Greenland and Antarctica indicate that the increase at the end of the Younger Dryas involved both tropical and high-latitude sources (24, 25), and that the previous large increase about 14,700 years ago was dominated by the tropics (25).
**
The Greenland records show that climate changes have been very large, rapid, and widespread. Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming (8, 25) and ≈2× increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in wind-blown materials (17), and ≈50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).
For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval ≈11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning ≈5 years and in total covering ≈40 years (26). However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less (8). The most direct interpretation of the accumulation-rate record is that snowfall doubled over 3 years and nearly doubled in 1 year (9). Several records show enhanced variability near this and other transitions, including “flickering” behavior in which climate variables bounced between their “cold” level and their “warm” level before settling in one of them (27).
The methane increase at the end of the Younger Dryas began 0–30 years (one sample) after the warming in Greenland, suggesting atmospheric transmission of the signal from the north Atlantic region to methane source regions (8). The relative changes in methane concentrations in Greenland and Antarctica indicate that the increase at the end of the Younger Dryas involved both tropical and high-latitude sources (24, 25), and that the previous large increase about 14,700 years ago was dominated by the tropics (25).
E
Erich
Guest
Astronomers have noted a wobble in the earth’s rotation as far back as the 2nd century BC. Like a top, the Earth’s rotation isn’t getting any faster over time (in fact, it’s slowing down – and wobbling – more). So, if a little bit of “orbit, wobble, or other fractors” caused some initial warming, it stands to reason that more wobble will cause more warming.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
EVERY scientific organization of national and international reputation recognizes the FACT of human influence on the FACT of global warming.
I suppose those that despise evidence and the scientific meathod will claim that Scientific American,National Geographic, NASA,American Meteorological Society,Royal Society, and EVERY scientific organization in the world are part of a conspiracy. Who is behind this conspiracy? Bigfoot? The Lizard people?
I suppose those that despise evidence and the scientific meathod will claim that Scientific American,National Geographic, NASA,American Meteorological Society,Royal Society, and EVERY scientific organization in the world are part of a conspiracy. Who is behind this conspiracy? Bigfoot? The Lizard people?
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Google," Scientific opinion on climate change wiki". OK, you may not trust wiki. However the wiki site gives links to each scientific organization’s official statement.
For a response to all the junk science spewed out by the oil industry backed global warming deniers google,“Seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense Scientific American”.
Unfortunately, logic,science and evidence have no effect on climate change deniers. Their beliefs are not based on logic and evidence.
For a response to all the junk science spewed out by the oil industry backed global warming deniers google,“Seven answers to climate contrarian nonsense Scientific American”.
Unfortunately, logic,science and evidence have no effect on climate change deniers. Their beliefs are not based on logic and evidence.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
between 1880 and 1997 the earths climate increased in temperature by 0.75 degrees C.EVERY scientific organization of national and international reputation recognizes the FACT of human influence on the FACT of global warming.
I suppose those that despise evidence and the scientific meathod will claim that Scientific American,National Geographic, NASA,American Meteorological Society,Royal Society, and EVERY scientific organization in the world are part of a conspiracy. Who is behind this conspiracy? Bigfoot? The Lizard people?
since 1997 the climate has not increased in temperature.
NCAR UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Compare the graph above with the Met Office report below…
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming…
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming–deniers-now.html#ixzz2LU5WmlOP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.
We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.
The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’.
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming–deniers-now.html#ixzz2LU6MMmE9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes
Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved ≈8°C warming…
…The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less
and now we are entering a cooling phase which could see us in an ice-age within the space of 40 years or less!..
"For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval ≈11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning ≈5 years and in total covering ≈40 years (26). However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. "
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Actually it is universally recognized that climate change has DRASTICALLY increased since 1997.
Google,“Climate change speeds up since 1997, Seattle Times”
Google,“Climate change speeds up since 1997, Seattle Times”
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
i don’t know what ‘universally recognized’ knows about the climate but i know where to ask about the climate - The Met Office - shock horror!
Met Office
Increasing temperatures?
“We know from global temperature records that the Earth has warmed by about 0.75°C in the last century. From the 1970s to 1990s warming was faster than over the century as a whole, but the rise has slowed more recently.”
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Obviously you are misunderstanding the Met’s data and findings as did the The Daily Mail" in an article written by James Delingpole.
Google" Met office hits back at inaccuracies in James Delingpoole article."
m.guardiannews.com/uk/jan/11/met-office-james-delingpole
For some reason the link does not work. However the site is easy to find if you google it.
PS: The Daily Mail is a tabloid.
YIKES! My fault! I caused the link to not work! I am using a tablet and have to type in each letter for a site. I spelled delingpoole as delingpole.
Google" Met office hits back at inaccuracies in James Delingpoole article."
m.guardiannews.com/uk/jan/11/met-office-james-delingpole
For some reason the link does not work. However the site is easy to find if you google it.
PS: The Daily Mail is a tabloid.
YIKES! My fault! I caused the link to not work! I am using a tablet and have to type in each letter for a site. I spelled delingpoole as delingpole.
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
but i am not misunderstanding the Met’s data and findings; i am not saying anything myself, this is what the Met Office says on its website about Global Warming;
“…but the rise [Global Temperatures] has slowed more recently [since 1997 or so].”
but you said everyone ‘universally’ accepts that there has been a ‘drastic increase’ since 1997!
W
wittgenstein
Guest
I tried again but failed*. My fingers are too fat for a tablet!
To give the site.
To give the site.
W
wittgenstein
Guest
Can you give me a link to the Met’s quote (from the met’s site) so that I can see it in context? I really do not trust the daily mail.
- Status