Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:19 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: A poll on climate change. What do you believe? Back to Topics
YDraigGoch

Champion Author
Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 1:16:52 PM

Over the years, there have been numerous topics on this subject. Here on Gas Buddies. There seems to be a divergence of opinions among us.

These opinions fall into four major categories. There are subtle divisions from one to the next, but I am looking for a generalization of what we believe, and why.

The main groupings are as follows;

1. Climate change is a complete hoax. The planet is not warming at all.

2. The climate is changing, but it is a natural event. Man is not contributing anything to it.

3. The planet is warming as part of a natural cycle, but man is adding to it.

4. Global warming is real, and is primarily a man made event

I’ll start the ball rolling. I’m for number 3.

My reasons are simple. I see major shifts in history ; The Roman era, the dark ages, the high middle ages, the Medieval period, today. This is backed up by everything from tree rings to ice cores.

I also know how the math works that converts CO2 emissions to BTUs. I see the numbers about methane gas eruptions from melting tundra, and the unprecedented loss of arctic sea ice. I see glaciers in retreat everywhere at levels not seen in the archeological record.

So for me, the facts all point to a natural cycle, with man adding to it. My references are Science, Science News, Scientific American, National Geographic, Discover, and Popular Science (which I sometimes deride as “Popular Gadgets)

There ia also the Science Channel, Discover, Nat Geo, Smithsonian.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 22, 2012 12:33:15 AM


YDraigGoch, "We are not only messing with our climate. We are messing with future food sources"

The Direct and Indirect Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide on Plant Growth

"The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future"

Greater food supply from increased plant growth is a problem?

The point is of course that climate change is a natural process beyond the ability of man to control. As the climate warms the oceans can hold less dissolved CO2 and the excess CO2 is given off into the atmosphere.

Since the heat mass of the oceans is great they warm slowly; the smooth increase in atmospheric CO2 despite the warming/cooling cycles present in the atmospheric temperature is a result of the slow but steady warming of the oceans as the climate warms.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of climate change - not the cause.

And man has nothing to do with it.

Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 10:24:14 PM

CO2 has been proven to be less of an problem than though, as far as warming goes.

It turns out that the oceans are a great carbon sink. They absorb about 60% of the CO2 we produce.

However, that creates excessive acidification in our oceans, which kills reefs, depletes fish stocks, and a number of other nasty things.

This is not a simple problem. It has many twists and turns, some of which are yet to be discovered.

We are not only messing with our climate. We are messing with future food sources.

Or have some of you become so callus and greedy that you just don't care about people who will come after us? Come on. 'fess up. That's it, isn't it?
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 7:59:26 AM


AC-302, "Panama - We are, in effect, saying the same thing. I think that the correlation isn't proven, statistically speaking"

My point is a bit stronger; not only has the CO2/climate correlation not been proven, but it has been positively disproven by the data. Failing to prove the correlation could be due to the lack of sufficient data, but the data is in and it proves conclusively that the mechanism suggested by the AGW crowd does not exist in nature.

"So, since you don't have a correlation, nor a cause-effect relationship, then why are we making policy and law about something that's a phantom?"

Ideology alone, from what I can determine. You can always tell fanatics, but you cannot tell them much.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,410,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2012 2:15:55 AM

Panama - We are, in effect, saying the same thing. I think that the correlation isn't proven, statistically speaking. So, since you don't have a correlation, nor a cause-effect relationship, then why are we making policy and law about something that's a phantom? That is like purposely tying one hand around your back at a piano recital, and hoping against hope to win. This is, in effect, what the global warming alarmists, and other enviro-fools are suggesting we do with respect to business and global trade.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2012 12:35:21 AM


AC-302, "So far, nobody on the global warming proponent side has conclusively (or even tentatively) shown that such a correlation exists, statistically speaking"

In fact the data shows just the opposite - that the CO2/greenhouse effect is in fact not present in nature.

Not only do we see multiple decadal cooling events while CO2 continues its steady rise, but the trapped heat predicted by the computer simulations of climate does not exist in nature - and therefore the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to function can be shown by decades of data not to exist.

Climate warming exists, but AGW is a fraud.


[Edited by: Panama19 at 12/20/2012 12:40:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,410,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2012 9:37:19 PM

Dragon man - So you have a bunch of scientists who you CLAIM are coming out in favor of global warming. Great. Then I take it these scientists are going to put their data out in peer-reviewed scholarly scientific journals and subject their research to scrutiny to scientists from both pro and anti ans well as "disinterested" sides. So far, I'm not seen any dispassionates from the lefties. They're all buying it "hook, line and sinker" without critical review.

And speaking of scientist, how is it that Al Gore was qualified to put out a movie? His whole premise is a steaming pile of male bovine manure, and you know it good and well. His CO2 numbers in terms of % from sources and in terms of PPM increase in CO2/degree C rise don't match.

But getting back to the REAL scientists, we need to see a cause/effect relationship. So far, none has been seen. We eventually showed a strong link to smoking and lung cancer. That's the kind of correlation we need to see. So far, nobody on the global warming proponent side has conclusively (or even tentatively) shown that such a correlation exists, statistically speaking.
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2012 1:54:33 PM

There again you are confusing the archaeological record with the geological record. Big, BIG difference.
And your expertize in the scientific field is what? Just wondering.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2012 1:07:52 AM


YDraigGoch, "Here is the latest AP poll. Even former sceptics are beginning to realize that the planet is warming, and it will cause some serious damage"

1). A poll is not science.

2). Noting that the climate is warming (as it has been doing for four centuries) is not evidence that man has anything to do with it.

"So do go on. Show us how proud you are of your ignorance. Show it off every chance you get. :o) Your numbers are shrinking. Your days are numbered"

Indeed. With the climate in a cooling trend for the past decade while CO2 continues its constant rise, the AGW days are certainly numbered.

How long do you think you folks can keep the CO2 fraud going without evidence?


[Edited by: Panama19 at 12/19/2012 1:11:15 AM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2012 7:13:00 PM

Well well well!

Here is the latest AP poll. Even former sceptics are beginning to realize that the planet is warming, and it will cause some serious damage.

The ever shrinking cabel of the Anti Science Society (ASS)

Still, the angry naysayers will keep things stirred up. And for the dumbest reasons. Like

Scientists don't know what they are talking about. (And YOU do?? Really???)

This is all stuff the Democrats want us to believe (Never mind that all the facts, and most Republicans support them)

GOD will not allow this to happen (No comment on that delusion)

Big business wants to make money off this. (Sort of like the need to eat, wear clothes, transportation, defense, and a host of other things business makes money from. I guess those are not real either)

The reality is that many businesses think that they will have to shell out if they even admit that climate change is real. So they put up millions to buy propaganda to convince the easily misled that climate change is not real. And the wek minded beleivers lap it up.

So do go on. Show us how proud you are of your ignorance. Show it off every chance you get. :o)

Your numbers are shrinking. Your days are numbered.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2012 7:47:12 AM


ministorage, they seem to have retreated.

Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,032
Points:1,103,945
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 6:29:41 PM

Nick Hammer's, YDG's and btc1's latest replies to Panama19

[Edited by: ministorage at 12/12/2012 6:32:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 11:26:07 AM


btc1, "Well, here we go. Now the diversion is what has been the normal climate! LOL!"

Actually, the normal temperature is a matter of record.

Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,482
Points:883,290
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 11:02:01 AM

Well, here we go. Now the diversion is what has been the normal climate! LOL!
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 10:48:02 AM


btc1, "It has been over time without debate"

The AGW crowd attempting to suppress all debate is not the same as there being no debate.

It is just that the AGW fanatics chose not to recognize the debate that was going on all around them.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,722
Points:3,410,795
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 10:43:55 AM

You know, one thing I will tell you is that it is WELL KNOWN that vegetation and shade tend to make an area cooler. For example, as Ydraig pointed out, there are city "heat islands", due to having all kinds of glass, steel and concrete around. Countrysides tend to be cooler as they have more vegetation. However, when you deforest, that exposes the dirt and that area will tend to heat up more. IN fact, in Israel, they have been working to reforest lands that in biblical times were considered "wilderness". In doing so, they've tended to reduce the temp of their country by some degrees (I think in the neighborhood of 5 to 10 F).

Also, did you know the Sahara Desert used to be forested about 10 - 20,000 years ago? Apparently the level of light reduced in the region, and the vegetation died.

Anyway, if you REALLY believe in global warming or global climate change, I'm convinced the correct course of action is to plant trees. Go back to marginal lands and reforest them. Also, forbid destruction of any more rainforests and enforce it.

And I think for whomever it was that was wondering if atmospheric CO2 was absorbed, I think the answer is largely "yes". Vegetation consumes literally TONS of CO2 as it grows. Think of how much a tree weighs. And it's wood (cellulose and lignin) are made up of carbon compounds largely adsorbed from air.
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 10:42:11 AM

Just what exactly is the accepted normal? Is there a procedure for acceptance, & who from 'the club' gets a vote?
Maybe the 'no debate' thingy wasn't such a good idea?
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,032
Points:1,103,945
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 10:33:18 AM

btc1: "Again, I think a few of us are confusing weather and climate. Weather is in constant flux."

It's about time you finally came around. I'll be happy to remind you though, should you forget and "cherry pick" the next weather event and attribute it to the elusive, CO2-centric man-made global warming hype-othesis.

;-P
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,482
Points:883,290
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 10:29:02 AM

"normal" is the accepted normal. It has been over time without debate. So now, all of a sudden someone wants to debate what both sides agree is normal!!??

Now do you see why some are called members of the "flat earth believers"?

[Edited by: btc1 at 12/12/2012 10:31:03 AM EST]
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 9:48:43 AM

Of course, in the course of picking 'normal' does seem to be the rub, no? How many definitions could one come up with? Shall we seat a compromise committee to define it?
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,482
Points:883,290
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 9:20:20 AM

Again, I think a few of us are confusing weather and climate.

Weather is in constant flux.

Climate is a normal state of environment. Change to this is most often at a much slower rate. Unless, there is an outside influence. Hence, our discussion here.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,032
Points:1,103,945
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 9:09:53 AM

"News that the Greenland ice sheet shows surface melting in early July does not surprise me. Tell me what is is doing now, in December. My bet is "freezing"."

I heard the golf game was cancelled today due to inclement weather.

[Edited by: ministorage at 12/12/2012 9:10:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 9:08:46 AM


YDraigGoch, "The warmer oceans are doing it, even though the water at the surface is as cold as the air"

That is the key to the process. Pursue that thread and you will come to a better understanding of the climate process. It has nothing to do with CO2.

Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,406
Points:2,990,020
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2012 8:57:48 AM

Y:>> The number of record droughts, record floods, violent storms is increasing geometrically. We can see all this from MILLIONS of recorded observations over the past two hundred years, including readings from satellites.<<

Do you finally want to examine 200 years of data, as I suggested, from Glacier Bay? Yes, ice has been melting.

But the term you came up with, "increasing geometrically", might be a bit farfetched. How long can a trend continue that is increasing geometrically? Not very long before the entire earth is consumed.
I will give you another basic scientific truism: "If present trends continue..." is a fallacy unto itself, every time. Present trends never continue. This goes along with "Are you measuring what you think you are measuring?"

News that the Greenland ice sheet shows surface melting in early July does not surprise me. Tell me what is is doing now, in December. My bet is "freezing".


[Edited by: I75at7AM at 12/12/2012 8:58:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,491
Points:1,838,615
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 9:03:05 PM

frackensave, >>Real science does take the fun out of characterizing global warming, er, I mean, climate change.<<
***
If we're patient, it'll change to something else.

In the 1980's it was Global Cooling and Newsweek even had an article about us being on the threshold of another ice age. I know I fell for the BS and had a wood burning stove, did my own lumber harvesting and installed a passive solar water heating system. While I did get a Federal Tax credit to make the cost feasible, I would have been better off just buying Exxon stock.

I sincerely hope younger readers can benefit from this.
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 7:26:47 PM

MJ:But why blame something we can't control when the Republicans are so convenient? I wonder if it was B.O. beginning his campaigning in ernest that caused the ice to melt?

Real science does take the fun out of characterizing global warming, er, I mean, climate change.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,482
Points:883,290
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 7:00:14 PM

Honestly, YDraig, I agree. Number 3.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,491
Points:1,838,615
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 6:08:22 PM

frackensave, >>Did you notice the before and after pictures (satellite) of Greenland after that last solar flare last summer? Before, no [not much] melting - after, an unexplained phenomena of massive ice melting in just a few days time.<<
***
But why blame something we can't control when the Republicans are so convenient? I wonder if it was B.O. beginning his campaigning in ernest that caused the ice to melt?
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 5:25:58 PM

Did you notice the before and after pictures (satellite) of Greenland after that last solar flare last summer? Before, no [not much] melting - after, an unexplained phenomena of massive ice melting in just a few days time.

bbc news story dated July 25

huffpo news story July 20

Add in a couple day travel time....



[Edited by: fracknsave at 12/11/2012 5:29:12 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 5:21:27 PM


YDraigGoch, "Now, what part of CLIMATE didn't you understand in fifth grade science?"

The warming of the climate is a fact; it has been warming since the depths of the Little Ice Age four centuries ago. During the six centuries before that the climate was cooling.

So what is your fifth grade point?

Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 11, 2012 5:01:20 PM

To the dangerously uninformed.

Science vol 338, pg 1172 has a great article that explains how and why the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting.

The warmer oceans are doing it, even though the water at the surface is as cold as the air.

The water near the glacial ice is mostly melt, so is less salty than the water coming from the equator. This warmer water sinks, and eats away at the base of the glacier at the water's edge. This allows the glacier to slip into the water a bit.

For centuries, the annual snowfall offset the melting, keeping the ice sheets stable. But now, due to warmer water around the globe, we see more snow, but we see even more melting. It IS getting hotter.

Arctic sea ice will be mostly gone in somewhere from 5 years to 20 years.

The glaciers are melting everywhere. The equatorial rain bands are expanding. Wildlife is moving north as never before. The wildlife that is already there is finding it harder and harder to exist. Insects are destroying trees at latitudes they could not exist at before. Hot weather extremes are now TWICE the cold weather extremes. The number of record droughts, record floods, violent storms is increasing geometrically. We can see all this from MILLIONS of recorded observations over the past two hundred years, including readings from satellites.

Now, what part of CLIMATE didn't you understand in fifth grade science?

Or did you simply not pay attention either time you took it?
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:48:29 PM


NickHammer, "...short-term trend lines, which can change between cooling and warming simply by going back or forth 1 or 2 years, are essentially meaningless"

Agreed. But decadal trend lines are not meaningless, especially when they are in synchronization with larger natural processes such as ocean currents and solar cycles.

"However, expand your graph to begin at 1850 (the first year I can find). You'll see that the temperature goes up and down and, yes, over 10-year periods it's gone down. But overall it's gone up"

This is true; there have been even longer cooling periods such as that from 1878-1915 and 1942-1972.

1850 - present

Again, these are consistent with solar cycles but NOT with the steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 levels over this time span.

And yes, the overall temperature has indeed gone up over that entire timespan - just as it has been doing since the depths of the Little Ice Age four centuries ago - long before man started releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

And for the six centuries before that (since the height of the Medieval Warm Period) the climate was in a long term cooling phase.

The question is not whether or not we have been in an extended period of climate warming - clearly we have been - the question is the cause of these climate fluctuations.

In the relatively short term of centuries one can see temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels moving in the same direction, but this is not proof that atmospheric CO2 levels are the CAUSE of the temperature change.

If you look at the record on a much longer time scale you can see temperature peaks preceding CO2 rises consistently.

You will also note that the huge spike in CO2 in the year 2000 has not resulted in climate change commensurate with the CO2 levels. This is because atmospheric CO2 levels are irrelevant to climate change.

As shown in my links below and repeated here, the mechanism by which CO2 is said to cause climate change is by trapping heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space from the surface of the earth. This trapped heat acts like a "greenhouse", warming the climate.

The problem with that theory is that this trapped heat does not exist in nature; it is strictly an artifact of the assumptions made in flawed computer programs.

There is no "greenhouse" and so there can be no climate warming due to man's release of CO2 in the atmosphere - no matter HOW much CO2 is released.

The fixation on atmospheric CO2 levels and climate change is rather like the assumption that the rooster crowing caused the sun to come up, and the conclusion that adding more roosters crowing will cause the sun to come up faster.

Unfortunately, so many have focused on this for so long that it has become their reality - which is unshaken by physical measurements to the contrary.

Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,756
Points:139,810
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:29:16 PM

I'm #3 too but strike "warming" for "change" as cycling is normal warm and cool.

There is no doubt humans have influence somehow. Is it creating all new catastrophic weather phenomenon? No, its weather, stay out of its way, it always has mood swings.

Now when we look at World gasoline consumption and its byproducts, think about this -- for every 1 gallon burned in an engine, the chemical reaction releases several things, including approx 7 pounds of H2O (a little over a gallon). Is 100% of the 19 pounds of CO2 absorbed by plants and oceans? We dont know for sure.

This "new water" thing is intriguing. Oil once trapped miles below the earth's surface, brought to daylight, refined into a fuel, and one of the chemical reaction byproducts is H2O? Thsi eventually lands on the earth, and is recycled through the normal ground purification process.

So how much water have we added to the planet surface? Is this good or bad? We can assume weather is most influenced by water. How many more plants thrive because there is more water available to make rain? How many more plants have humans squeezed into the land that otherwise might not be there? Tree planting? Leaving swamps alone?

So yeah, man absolutely influences, just how is not exactly known. The assumption "bad" or "catastrophic" is not an absolute -- change is absolute -- good or bad not known for sure.

Its just change, probably wont ever be catastrophic -- and you have to say we are a much cleaner Nation than the 1970s.

[Edited by: e_jeepin at 12/7/2012 12:32:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,447
Points:3,126,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 11:54:47 AM

>>If you include both the El Niño of 1997 - 1998 and the La Niña years 0f 1998 - 2001 in the chart they balance one another and result in a flat trend line.

If you exclude both anomalies and start in 2002 you get a cooling trend line for the most recent decade.<<

Yes, all this is true. But check out this website - El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities. It shows the Niño index going back to 1950. Notice that the 02-07 period had a majority of positive values while the 07-12 had a majority of lower values. This explains the "cooling" trend line. Get a couple more El Niños in there at the end and this trend line changes drastically.

Also, short-term trend lines such as this do not necessarily equate to a long term "cooling trend". Plot the trend lines for the following consecutive periods:
1973-1979
1979-1987
1987-1997

What do you see? 3 "cooling trend lines". So, did it get cooler from 1973-1979? No, not even close. The trend line from 1973-1997 shows a huge warming trend. How is this possible? Because short-term trend lines, which can change between cooling and warming simply by going back or forth 1 or 2 years, are essentially meaningless.

However, expand your graph to begin at 1850 (the first year I can find). You'll see that the temperature goes up and down and, yes, over 10-year periods it's gone down. But overall it's gone up.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 9:49:46 AM


NickHammer, "I simply displayed several years prior to 1998 to demonstrate how anomalous that year was and how it was purposely chosen in order to make a misleading claim"

Sorry I glossed over that point in my reply last night; I was in a hurry and should have waited to reply.

If you take the period from 1972 - present you will see the warming trend that had ended with the 1997 high point and the trend has clearly changed in the past 15 years to a different slope.

The global temperature trend rose from 1972 to peak in 1997, then leveled off, and is now declining. These trends driven by solar fluctuations that occur on decadal time scales for air, and cumulatively on century time scales for oceans due to the oceans' large heat mass.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are tied to ocean temperature changes.

Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:21:56 AM


NickHammer, "I didn't start my chart 'in cooler La Niña years'; I showed the exact same trend line beginning in 1998. I simply displayed several years prior to 1998 to demonstrate how anomalous that year was and how it was purposely chosen in order to make a misleading claim"

Look at the chart in my link and you will see that 1998 - 2001 were La Niña years as were 1995 - 1996.

If you include both the El Niño of 1997 - 1998 and the La Niña years 0f 1998 - 2001 in the chart they balance one another and result in a flat trend line.

If you exclude both anomalies and start in 2002 you get a cooling trend line for the most recent decade.

2002-2012 trend line

The larger point here is that ocean currents are the mechanism that transports heat from the warm tropics toward the poles, and this is the ultimate controller of climate. The changes in ocean currents appear to be driven by fluctuations in solar heating; at least they are in synchronization with them.

The warming/cooling/warming ... cycles in the climate temperature are in synchronization with the Pacific Decadal Oscillator and the Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillator.

The correlation between CO2 and climate is that as the oceans warm they cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 and so the excess CO2 is liberated into the atmosphere. There is a dynamic balance between the partial pressure of CO2 in the water and that in the air.

The oceans represent a large heat mass that does not change quickly and it is also contains a large mass of dissolved CO2. This is the reason that the atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing smoothly on a scale of centuries while the air temperature goes through multi-decadal warming and cooling phases synchronized with the fluctuations in solar output.

Atmospheric CO2 level changes trail climate change by 4-12 centuries.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are the RESULT of climate change, not the cause.


[Edited by: Panama19 at 12/7/2012 12:27:59 AM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,447
Points:3,126,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 11:42:05 PM

>>You would appear to be guilty of the same cherry picking you accuse me of; you would start your chart in cooler La Niña years and call that trend more accurate.<<

Both parts of this sentence are entirely wrong. I never accused you of cherry picking, which I made perfectly clear in my previous post (remember this: "and I wasn't even pointing to you as the perpetrator of this cherry picking"?).

Secondly, I didn't start my chart "in cooler La Niña years"; I showed the exact same trend line beginning in 1998. I simply displayed several years prior to 1998 to demonstrate how anomalous that year was and how it was purposely chosen in order to make a misleading claim.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 7:48:17 PM


NickHammer, "It is cherry picking because the same trend line for 14 years shows warming. The same trend line for 16 years shows warming"

You would appear to be guilty of the same cherry picking you accuse me of; you would start your chart in cooler La Niña years and call that trend more accurate.

The strong 1997/98 El Niño event was the end of the previous warming trend that had been in effect since 1972 when the Pacific Decadal Oscillator switched from the cold phase to the warm phase.

It has since switched back to its cold phase.

If you start your calculations AFTER both the large El Niño and La Niña events, say 2002, the trend line shows climate cooling, which would be more accurate.

The larger message is of course that there has been no warming despite the steady increase in CO2 over the past decade and a half.

CO2 cannot be the driver of climate if a steady increase in input results in a decreasing output over a significant period of time.


[Edited by: Panama19 at 12/6/2012 7:54:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,447
Points:3,126,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 3:00:22 PM

>>It is not cherry picking data to say that there has been no warming in 15 years and then showing the trend line for the 15 years in question.<<

It is. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of cherry picking than this one (and I wasn't even pointing to you as the perpetrator of this cherry picking). It is cherry picking because the same trend line for 14 years shows warming. The same trend line for 16 years shows warming. Same thing for 13 or 17 years. But, magically, when you start at exactly 1998 - a year which, due to one of the strongest El Niños ever, was over .23° higher than the 4 years surrounding it - voilà, there's suddenly a cooling trend!

Of course, were it not obvious from the original chart, you could always begin your graph in, say, 1986 instead of 1998, and the cherry picking is obvious.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 1:56:25 PM


NickHammer, "I'm not claiming that the dataset is cherry-picked; the cherry-picking refers to picking exact dates from exact datasets to get the result you want..."

It is not cherry picking data to say that there has been no warming in 15 years and then showing the trend line for the 15 years in question.

It is also not cherry-picking to say that there has been cooling in the last 10 years and then showing the cooling trend for the 10 years in question.

Both of these show that the atmospheric CO2 cannot be associated with climate change, as the CO2 level has continued its smooth rise while the global temperatures have not responded to this increase for the past 15 years.

How can you believe in a cause/effect relationship in a process in which the "cause" is increasing with no corresponding "effect" for a decade and a half?


[Edited by: Panama19 at 12/6/2012 1:59:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,524
Points:2,078,040
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 1:00:53 PM

Two for me!
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,447
Points:3,126,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 12:48:24 PM

>>Second, your charge of cherry picking data to show the lack of warming for the past 15 years.
...
This is not cherry-picked data; it is the dataset used by the IPCC itself.<<

I'm not claiming that the dataset is cherry-picked; the cherry-picking refers to picking exact dates from exact datasets to get the result you want, when using different years or datasets shows that claim not to be true. In the instance I linked to, "No global warming for 15 years" was claimed by using the anomalous and ultra-hot 1998 as the starting point and the superceded HADCRUT3 as the dataset. Yet changing the starting point +/- 1 or 2 years shows a different story; changing the dataset to HADCRUT4, UAH (a favorite of that user when convenient), or several others also shows a different story. Picking THAT exact year and THAT exact dataset is cherry picking.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,267
Points:3,086,610
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 9:19:28 AM


YDraigGoch,"Do we have any "preppers" out there?"

I took the precaution of being born in 1944 to a family with life expectancies in their early '70s.

Climate change won't affect me much more than it already has.

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,826
Points:2,934,545
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 9:18:07 AM

I don't like it, but I think it's probably 4, even though many would wish that away. I don't "believe" in that, as though it were a religion, but the credible science seems to be pointing that way. (I know, peer-reviewing is so old school).
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:6,891
Points:1,732,615
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Dec 6, 2012 8:56:20 AM

Heat islands do exist around metropolitan areas. Reason: ACs constantly pumping hot air into the atmosphere in the warm months; engine exhausts pumping VERY hot gases into the atmosphere at all times. 60 years ago there were markedly fewer structures with AC and far fewer motor vehicles on the road.

How many vote we do away with AC and cars?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,679
Points:1,477,245
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:36:59 PM

depends on what you mean by prepper?

We have enough food on hand for a month or so. Most of my neighbors are mormon and have lots more food storage. We have a couple of small generators some gas and a place to move into if the power and water etc shuts off. The RV will be good for about a week to a month with little to any outside power and water.

As far as a prepper as seen on the TV shows - nope.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 12/5/2012 11:39:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:30:08 PM

OK, here is a question.

Do we have any "preppers" out there?

Just curious.
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:24:15 PM

@fluffy---- No we gotta follow the advice of one of our literary geniuses Douglas Adams




Don't Panic!
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 7:16:26 PM

>>>We might not be one of those species that survive........ <<<

Yea, I know, and did you hear about that meteor that's gonna hit the earth and knock it off its axis, and that solar flare 10 times bigger than has ever flared which will finish off what the meteor doesn't.....and all we're worried about is taxing the rich their fair share

ROFLOLWTIME
Profile Pic
FluffyDogAttack
Champion Author Riverside

Posts:1,770
Points:190,965
Joined:Oct 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 6:05:38 PM

Regardless of whether we do or do not survive as a species, we should do what we do best in preparation: PANIC
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 5:50:00 PM

michaelphoenix2: "We might not be one of those species that survive........"

Indeed. That's why we need to give up on this UN sponsored, "global warming" global wealth transfer scheme. It is eating up resources and time that we need to figure out how we are going to survive as a species from the inevitable, natural, cyclic, temperature extremes. It is long past the time when we should realize that we can't change what Mother Nature dishes out. We can only learn how to adapt.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/5/2012 5:50:51 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics