World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[gmx2014]

I don’t doubt that. But I also think improper use of grasslands is equally important, if not more so.

But an EPA under Obama is, to me, no more trustworthy than he is in other ways.

I like Barack Obama (and his family).

Lucky me, poking around the research links on the EPA website and I found the electricity section, muahahha. Can’t wait to find out if they’ve taken into account the Truth about electricity’s “dark side”.

nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P10089YQ.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006%20Thru%202010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX%20DATA%between%6THRU10\TXT%between%0000019\P10089YQ.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1

 

[gilliam]

deforestation has been going on for a very long time
geography.fullerton.edu/taylor/enst595t/darkages.pdf

 

[gmx2014]

I like Barack Obama (and his family).

Lucky me, poking around the research links on the EPA website and I found the electricity section, muahahha. Can’t wait to find out if they’ve taken into account the Truth about electricity’s “dark side”.

nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P10089YQ.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006%20Thru%202010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\ZYFILES\INDEX%20DATA%between%6THRU10\TXT%between%0000019\P10089YQ.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1

Insofar, I don’t see mention of electricity itself as a primary pollutant.

Section 1, page 4
Table 1.1: Percent of Total Emissions from U.S. Electric Generation Technologies

Pollutants:

PM10 (particulate matter)
PM2.5 (“fine particles”, particulate matter)
SO2 (sulfur oxides)
NOx (nitrogen oxides)
Hg (mercury, from burning coal)

I don’t know, but I have to find out if electricity itself is the source of PM, SO and NO, or if electricity production (gas, coal) are the sources.

But, (omw, I’m so excited) guess what I see?

Another image, showing perfect alignment between heavy, dense electricity concentration and other presentations, such as this one:

“Your Air Quality” (per region). I can’t post images right now, but the image I’m pointing out is on the bottom of the page. The image shows moderate for the East Coast, and is in perfect alignment with Earth at Night images.

epa.gov/air/particlepollution/

nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.html

See how the images align, SO perfectly? Electricity itself is the pollutant.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So after the last mini ice age. Wouldn’t it make sense that the world is warmer than at a low during a mini ice age?

The climate cycles.

Here is the world temps from last year

These are both satellite data, the Troposphere is the one closer to us.

 

[phil19034]

I think what people don’t realize is that “global warming” could lead to either (a) a real hot planet or (b) an ice age.

When the polar ice caps melt due to warming at the poles, it causes the salt levels in the oceans, bays, harbors, etc to lower. This makes is easier for the water to freeze. When you have more frozen water, you have more cold.

Humans are contributing to climate change. How much is us vs nature, not sure. But I know we have done more damage to the natural environment in the last 200 years than in the rest of human history.

We need to be careful and take better care of our planet. But that does NOT mean that we should start using birth control, abortions, killing old people, etc.

We can take care of the environment and still be Catholic. Environmental Science can care of the environment doesn’t have to be a liberal cause and frankly, we should take it back from them.

 

[gmx2014]

These are both satellite data, the Troposphere is the one closer to us.

There’s this place I call red realm. It’s an atmospheric layer, but it correlates to a mental dimension. When I passed through it (on my way to be born here), I SCREAMED. I cannot forget it. It’s horrible. It is the most evil, atrocious place. I think it’s the ionosphere but it could be the troposphere. That realm, it’s a thick red mental plane. I hope I don’t have to pass through it on my way out. By the looks of it, I might have to.

 

[Ender]

1880

On and by the way, that data was only until 2011, 2012 also made it into the top ten years on record and 2013 is also expected to.

The point being raised is not whether the Earth is warmer now that before (although some contest even this) but whether the warming continues. No one has suggested that the climate has cooled since 1998, only that it has not continued to warm. Since the assertion (admission?) that the Earth has not warmed for 15 years or some comes from NASA is there any reason we should doubt the claim?

Ender

 

[gilliam]

I think what people don’t realize is that “global warming” could lead to either (a) a real hot planet or (b) an ice age.

I don’t think anyone knows for sure

When the polar ice caps melt due to warming at the poles, it causes the salt levels in the oceans, bays, harbors, etc to lower. This makes is easier for the water to freeze. When you have more frozen water, you have more cold.

The Artic is melting as the weather warms. The Antarctic is not melting, in fact the ice fields there are growing year by year and it is MUCH, MUCH larger than the Artic.

Humans are contributing to climate change. How much is us vs nature, not sure. But I know we have done more damage to the natural environment in the last 200 years than in the rest of human history.

Yes humans are contributing. How much, again, I don’t think anyone knows. Compared to other factors, like the sun, it may not be that much.

We need to be careful and take better care of our planet. But that does NOT mean that we should start using birth control, abortions, killing old people, etc.

Yes good stewardship is important

We can take care of the environment and still be Catholic. Environmental Science can care of the environment doesn’t have to be a liberal cause and frankly, we should take it back from them.

Yes that is true, but we don’t have to spend people into poverty to do it.

 

[gilliam]

Talking about the lower Troposphere, upper Michigan was the coldest place on earth, relatively speaking, in January

nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/december/Dec2013map_th.jpg

Here is a picture of the lower Troposphere over time. As you can see there was significant warming in 1998. After that things have leveled off, it is warm compared to 1978, but for the last 17 years, no increased warming. They have no records prior to 1978, so we don’t know what happened in other warming periods in the lower Troposphere, nor is there enough data here to see if there might be an extended cycle.

nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/january/Jan2014_tlt_update_bar_th.jpg

nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The point being raised is not whether the Earth is warmer now that before (although some contest even this) but whether the warming continues. No one has suggested that the climate has cooled since 1998, only that it has not continued to warm. Since the assertion (admission?) that the Earth has not warmed for 15 years or some comes from NASA is there any reason we should doubt the claim?

Ender

Um, my link was from NASA’s website…

Talking about the lower Troposphere, upper Michigan was the coldest place on earth, relatively speaking, in January

nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/december/Dec2013map_th.jpg
That’s relative to that area’s normal temperatures, not absolute temperatures.
Here is a picture of the lower Troposphere over time. As you can see there was significant warming in 1998. After that things have leveled off, it is warm compared to 1978, but for the last 17 years, no increased warming. They have no records prior to 1978, so we don’t know what happened in other warming periods in the lower Troposphere, nor is there enough data here to see if there might be an extended cycle.

nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/january/Jan2014_tlt_update_bar_th.jpg

nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

There are multiple overlapping systems that influence climate such as as the sunspot cycle, El Niño/La Niña and the overall climate

“Global warming” isn’t about every year will be hotter than the last, it’s about the average moving up.

 

[Ender]

Um, my link was from NASA’s website…
“Global warming” isn’t about every year will be hotter than the last, it’s about the average moving up.

That’s the point: according to NASA the average temperature has not gone up for at least 15 years, nor is it meaningful that several of the “warmest years on record” are recent ones. If you raise the level on the thermostat, your house will warm up and then remain at that temperature. Every hour will be the hottest-since-last-night but that doesn’t mean your house is continuing to warm. The Earth, like your house, has stopped warming.

Ender

 

[gilliam]

“Global warming” isn’t about every year will be hotter than the last, it’s about the average moving up.

Warming or cooling is relative to a certain date and it makes a very big difference what year you pick to start averaging temperatures. We only have global temps since the 1880s and really not reliable ones since around 1978 when satellites started reading the global temps.

On the reliability of the numbers people keep quoting: The GAO recently came out with a report that only 2% of the NOAA ground stations have kept complete records since they were established, and ground stations are not audited for reliability. The GAO states that even today 42% don’t meet current standards; who knows what they were like in 1880. For photos of examples of poor quality in US ground weather stations, go here: surfacestations.org And this is just in the US where there is funding for such stations. Outside of western countries, expect the reliability to be even worse.

That is why I said the only reliable record we have is the satellite record. When we are talking about climate change over a prolonged period of time, we really can’t look just at the satellite record and extrapolate anything reliable (which started around 1978.) That is why the climatologists keep going to indirect methods to try to find temperatures before 1978, like tree rings that are not at all reliable since they are affected by even more environmental conditions (shade, water, etc.) than ground weather stations. That is one reason why the climatologist models did not predict the current halt in warming. Remember the computer term: GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) If your data is worthless, don’t expect good results.

So do I think the earth is warming? My question in response is “warming in relation to when?” In relation to the last mini-ice age? Certainly, and that is to be expected. Warming in relation to, say, 1,000,000 years of climate? I don’t think so, you would have to prove that to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

deforestation has been going on for a very long time
geography.fullerton.edu/taylor/enst595t/darkages.pdf

Extremely interesting article. I have thought for a long time that what we think of as “natural forests” are oftentimes, if not mostly, simply stages in an ongoing process, the “end result” of which we cannot be sure, and aren’t likely to see for perhaps centuries, if ever.

In my area, large areas are forested, but are being converted to grassland. Some former farming areas are converting to forest. But the earliest white history discloses that the area was largely grassland before settlers arrived, with widely scattered, very large oaks on the hills and mostly pines, along with deep soil loving trees like walnuts, cherries, wild plums, etc, in the bottoms and hollows.

Settlers changed all of that, using the pines for homes and the oaks for furniture. But it is a peculiarity of species that oaks will grow from their roots while pines will not. So the pines disappeared and the oaks covered the land as hilltop and hillside farms disappeared.

Gradually, ranchers are turning hilltops and hillsides to pasture, leaving the hollows and ravines to do whatever they will.

But was grassland really the “natural state”? Were the pines? Were the widely scattered oaks? Early histories say the Indians burned the whole countryside annually. They did it to get rid of old grass and encourage new grass, which drew big game animals. A secondary motive was to kill or retard woody plants. Native pines are surprisingly resistant to fire and drought. Oaks and hickories are much less so, but if they are large enough, they are pretty resistant. So, was the precolumbian state simply the “garden” Indians created for themselves? Before the Indians, did this area even remotely resemble anything mankind has seen since?

It’s interesting that in forested areas presently in this locale, red and black oaks prevail. But they are presently undergoing a dieoff whereas white oaks are not. Red and black oaks are more opportunistic and proliferate more rapidly, so they tended to take over when hill farming stopped. But they are not as resistant to certain pests, the action of which is exacerbated by their relative tendency to break limbs in ice storms. White oaks and hickories almost never break due to ice storms and are more pest resistant. The same is true of walnuts. So their relative numbers are increasing as the red and black oaks die back.

So, what is the “natural forest”? Is there any such thing, or are all forests just a stage in a very slow development process. Do many areas go from one thing to another to another in a super-long cycle if left totally alone, or is it even possible to eliminate human intervention in some fashion, even if inadvertent or well-intended?

I don’t think we know.

 

[Monkey1976]

Insofar, I don’t see mention of electricity itself as a primary pollutant.

That’s because it isn’t. “Electricity” is the movement of electrons in a conductor. If it were a “pollutant” dangerous to life, then the greatest source of this “pollution” would be the sun itself, and life on earth would have been extinguished a couple billion years ago.

Section 1, page 4
Table 1.1: Percent of Total Emissions from U.S. Electric Generation Technologies

Pollutants:

PM10 (particulate matter)
PM2.5 (“fine particles”, particulate matter)
SO2 (sulfur oxides)
NOx (nitrogen oxides)
Hg (mercury, from burning coal)

I don’t know, but I have to find out if electricity itself is the source of PM, SO and NO, or if electricity production (gas, coal) are the sources.

Electrical production is the source of some of those pollutants. For electricity itself to produce pollution, there would have to be a way to directly convert electrical energy into matter. Given that a single gram of matter would require over 25,000 kW/h to produce according to the mass-energy equivalence of E=mc^2, the production of any significant amounts of mass of any kind directly from electrical energy would not only require ludicrous levels of power, but would also require a technology far beyond anything we are remotely capable of - something like the Star Trek replicators.

But, (omw, I’m so excited) guess what I see?

Another image, showing perfect alignment between heavy, dense electricity concentration and other presentations, such as this one:

“Your Air Quality” (per region). I can’t post images right now, but the image I’m pointing out is on the bottom of the page. The image shows moderate for the East Coast, and is in perfect alignment with Earth at Night images.

epa.gov/air/particlepollution/

nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at-night.html

See how the images align, SO perfectly? Electricity itself is the pollutant.

You could also line up the images “SO perfectly” with population density maps. Would that make people the “pollutant”?

 

[Monkey1976]

There’s this place I call red realm. It’s an atmospheric layer, but it correlates to a mental dimension. When I passed through it (on my way to be born here), I SCREAMED. I cannot forget it. It’s horrible. It is the most evil, atrocious place. I think it’s the ionosphere but it could be the troposphere. That realm, it’s a thick red mental plane. I hope I don’t have to pass through it on my way out. By the looks of it, I might have to.

I… um… wow. As I can’t say anything charitable regarding the content of this post, I’ll only say that I will pray you find the help you need.

 

[gilliam]

So, what is the “natural forest”? Is there any such thing, or are all forests just a stage in a very slow development process. Do many areas go from one thing to another to another in a super-long cycle if left totally alone, or is it even possible to eliminate human intervention in some fashion, even if inadvertent or well-intended?

I don’t think we know.

Surrounding the “global warming” debate is a underlying debate that assumes change = bad. The truth of the matter is that change is the normal state of things on this earth. That doesn’t mean we should turn the earth into a desolate mars like planet, but for London’s average temp to go up a degree or two isn’t the end of the world; and may actually be the “normal” state for that area when look at over the milleniums.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

That’s the point: according to NASA the average temperature has not gone up for at least 15 years, nor is it meaningful that several of the “warmest years on record” are recent ones. If you raise the level on the thermostat, your house will warm up and then remain at that temperature. Every hour will be the hottest-since-last-night but that doesn’t mean your house is continuing to warm. The Earth, like your house, has stopped warming.

Ender

According to NOAA (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) both 2005 and 2010 were hotter than 1998 (while 1998 had a higher peak those two had sustained highs giving a higher average).

Warming or cooling is relative to a certain date and it makes a very big difference what year you pick to start averaging temperatures. We only have global temps since the 1880s and really not reliable ones since around 1978 when satellites started reading the global temps.

On the reliability of the numbers people keep quoting: The GAO recently came out with a report that only 2% of the NOAA ground stations have kept complete records since they were established, and ground stations are not audited for reliability. The GAO states that even today 42% don’t meet current standards; who knows what they were like in 1880. For photos of examples of poor quality in US ground weather stations, go here: surfacestations.org And this is just in the US where there is funding for such stations. Outside of western countries, expect the reliability to be even worse.

That is why I said the only reliable record we have is the satellite record. When we are talking about climate change over a prolonged period of time, we really can’t look just at the satellite record and extrapolate anything reliable (which started around 1978.) That is why the climatologists keep going to indirect methods to try to find temperatures before 1978, like tree rings that are not at all reliable since they are affected by even more environmental conditions (shade, water, etc.) than ground weather stations. That is one reason why the climatologist models did not predict the current halt in warming. Remember the computer term: GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) If your data is worthless, don’t expect good results.

So do I think the earth is warming? My question in response is “warming in relation to when?” In relation to the last mini-ice age? Certainly, and that is to be expected. Warming in relation to, say, 1,000,000 years of climate? I don’t think so, you would have to prove that to me.

Even by satellite data it hasn’t halted, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter than 1998 and the average for the 2000s was definitely higher than for the 1980s and higher than the 1990s. Remember this is about long term trends.

 

[gmx2014]

That’s because it isn’t. “Electricity” is the movement of electrons in a conductor. If it were a “pollutant” dangerous to life, then the greatest source of this “pollution” would be the sun itself, and life on earth would have been extinguished a couple billion years ago.

Electrical production is the source of some of those pollutants. For electricity itself to produce pollution, there would have to be a way to directly convert electrical energy into matter. Given that a single gram of matter would require over 25,000 kW/h to produce according to the mass-energy equivalence of E=mc^2, the production of any significant amounts of mass of any kind directly from electrical energy would not only require ludicrous levels of power, but would also require a technology far beyond anything we are remotely capable of - something like the Star Trek replicators.

You could also line up the images “SO perfectly” with population density maps. Would that make people the “pollutant”?

Hey Monkey, guess what?

I used to shoot bolts of electricity from my fingertips. I could open electromagnetically locked doors. I was always zapping, and getting zapped. How do you think all of that happened?

There’s a huge piece of information that I’m not going to give you right now, just because I want to see what you’ll make of what I just said.

 

[gmx2014]

You could also line up the images “SO perfectly” with population density maps. Would that make people the “pollutant”?

I don’t like your attitude.

Let’s put 200 people in a 20 x 40 room. They’re all wearing sandals, shorts and a t-shirt. The temperature in the room before they pack in is 72 degrees. After 20 minutes of 200 people in the room, what will the temperature be?

Now, let’s have 200 light bulbs in the same room. Turn them all on. What’s the temperature after 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 20 minutes? How many people would feel sick and have to leave the room?

 

[Monkey1976]

Hey Monkey, guess what?

I used to shoot bolts of electricity from my fingertips. I could open electromagnetically locked doors. I was always zapping, and getting zapped. How do you think all of that happened?

There’s a huge piece of information that I’m not going to give you right now, just because I want to see what you’ll make of what I just said.

I can do the same thing. We call it static electricity, and it’s the result of accumulating a negative charge on our skin then discharging it to a ground. If an electronic lock was poorly shielded and failed to an open state, then I see no issue with using it to unlock doors, though the people who paid for those locks probably weren’t amused.

Like I said: Electricity is simply electrons in motion. If electrons are in fact a deadly pollutant, then we have a major problem, because electrons are part of every single atom in the universe.