Global Warning is Very Real

[jpn of Seattle]

There isn't a shred of evidence to support the idea that humans have anything to do with global climate cycles,

blah blah...

Correction. There isn't a shred of evidence that you accept. In fact, evidence is everywhere.

I wonder what stories the conservatives will be telling themselves 20, 30 years from now when the temperatures are much warmer, when CO2 concentrations are much greater, when catastrophic effects of our ignorance are being inflicted upon humanity with increasing frequency? Will they still be in denial? Will they still be insisting that the climate change is merely temporary and has nothing to do with the way we have changed the atmosphere?

I suppose they will.

Sigh. We are such a flawed species...

 

[palerider]

Correction. There isn't a shred of evidence that you accept. In fact, evidence is everywhere.

No, there are predictions everywhere. Predictions from computer simulations that are notoriously wrong. The predictions simply haven't come to pass and when they don't, a whole new set of predictions emerge. For all the doom and gloom we have heard, we don't even have a whole degree of change in the past 100 years and over half of the change that has been measured happened in the early part of the 20th century before there were millions of cars on the road.

The fact is that there is no evidence of man having anything at all to do with climate change. The whole enterprise is nothing more than an attempt by anti capitalists to get the upper hand on capitalist countries and they are aided by millions upon millions of stooges across the earth who have the sort of mindset that prompts them to believe every "sky is falling" story that comes along, even when none of the previous stories came to pass.

I wonder what stories the conservatives will be telling themselves 20, 30 years from now when the temperatures are much warmer, when CO2 concentrations are much greater, when catastrophic effects of our ignorance are being inflicted upon humanity with increasing frequency? Will they still be in denial? Will they still be insisting that the climate change is merely temporary and has nothing to do with the way we have changed the atmosphere?

Much warmer than what? The fraction of one degree that we have seen in the past century? And based on what? The models? I have news for you, the models have been wrong almost all the time and when they actually managed to get it right, they were right for reasons that weren't even part of the equation.

Lets take a look at how well the models have done.

Type of prediction - 1900-2000 surface temperature trend
Model prediction - 1.1 to 3.3 C warming if all greenhouse gases are included (IPCC 2001)
Actual measurements - Surface temperature warming of 0.6 C

Predicted warming was 2 to 5 times greater than observed warming and they knew it and used the figures anyway. Let me ask. Did you question the fact that the already knew the actual temperatures and used the predicted numbers anyway? Do you realize that when you say that there is evidence everywhere, the evidence you refer to is these eroneous predictions?

Type of prediction - Surface and mid-tropospheric warming, 1979-2005
Model prediction - Mid-tropospheric warming should be 50-100% larger than surface warming.
Actual measurements - Surface warming is 0.18 C/decade compared to mid-tropospheric warming of 0.12 C/decade

In this case, the reality is exactly the opposite of what theory predicts.


Type of prediction - Animals and plants are migrating towards the poles (Parmesan and Yohe, 2003)
Model prediction - Study claims it provides evidence that climate models are correct.
Actual measurements - Actually the migration rates are consistent with a warming of 0.025 C/decade which is much smaller than models predict.

These results actually undermine the model predictions and may be an indication that the surface temperature record is overestimating the warming.


Type of prediction - Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1000-1200 AD)
Model prediction - The state of the art GFDL climate model claims the Medieval Warm Period is physically impossible (Stouffer et al., 1994)
Actual measurements - The MWP exists according to borehole temperature measurements at 6000 locations (Huang et al., 1997).

This one speaks for itself doesn't it? I am curious. What does it say to you?


Type of prediction - Phase of annual cycle
Model prediction - Predicted change of -1.7 days in 20th century.
Actual measurements - +0.8 days increase (Mann and Park, 1997).

Did you note that the model predictions have wrong sign? The wrong sign! Now tell me again about the credibility of that "evidence" that exists everywhere.

Type of prediction - Stratospheric cooling.
Model prediction - Several degrees per decade predicted (IPCC 1995)
Actual measurements - Less than 1 degree per decade to 1995 and no trend since then.

Once again, the predictions are completely off the mark. This is your evidence? I could go on ad nausem about the failure of the climate models which are the basis for what you call evidence. What surprises me is that anyone with even a low level of intellectual wattage can see that the predictions don't match the actual observations and yet, people still maintain their faith in the predictions and ignore the actual observations.

Tell me, by what logic do you favor predictions which have been proven wrong over and over and over in lieu of direct measurements which are the reality?

Maybe you aren't old enough to have been following the predictions for very long. I am and have been hearing them for decades. First, it was cooling. By now, we were supposed to be well into another deep ice age trend. When it became clear that they were wrong, then the next big thing was warming. Consider the logic. "If it is clear that we aren't going into an ice age, then we can scare the hell out of them with global warming."

By now, we were not supposed to be able to spend any time in the sun because the "ozone layer" was supposed to be gone and we would all get skin cancer from even minimal exposure. Let me guess, I bet you believe that CFC's could destroy the ozone layer as well?

Then the pollution was supposed to be so bad that we would need gas masks in order to breathe outside.

And on and on and on and on ad nauseum. None of it has come to pass. It has been almost 30 years since they began predicting warming and by now it was supposed to be damned warm and it just hasn't happened.

And further, by what line of logic do you suppose that the earth is at the optimal temperature for human beings right now? If you look into history, you will see that the great proliferations of life happened during times when it was a hell of a lot warmer than it is right now. Temperatures in the range that we are living in today have historically been times of large die offs. If you took the time to look at the history of the earth, you would see that the normal temperature is so warm that no ice exists anywhere. Ice is the anomoly on earth. Not the norm.

Your "priests" know that most of earth's history has been a good deal warmer than it is now and they know that the earth's climate moves in cycles and they know that since the ice started melting some 14,000 years back, that it is likely to continue melting since that is the way that the earth's climate cycles move. What is surprising to me is that you, and those like you can't see what is so obvious. When confronted with the fact that the earth has been warming now for 14,000 years, you ignore reality and actual measurements and start talking about predictions that haven't happened. You start talking about how much more rapidly the temperature is changing now when compared to the past and your argument is based on climate models which aren't supported by actual measurements.

If in 20 years the climate is a degree or two warmer, and the CO2 level is higher, I won't be complaining. Crops will be growing faster and for a longer growing season thus driving down the cost of food. A greater percentage of the earth will be arable so crops will be grown in more places. Deserts will begin to green as a result of increased precipitation. In fact, all plants will be growing faster and becoming more healthy. One only needs to look at the paleoclimate in order to see that this is true It will cost less to keep warm during the shorter winters, and the detremental health problems associated with cold weather will be lessened.

The fact is that warmer will be better and if we were a race of beings that lived for eons, we would be eagerly anticipating the return of summer after a particularly long and very harsh winter. Open your eyes and learn something. Try, for once, to trust what you can see and measure more than the predictions of computers that have a simply abysmal track record.




















I suppose they will.

Sigh. We are such a flawed species...[/QUOTE]

 

[jpn of Seattle]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[palerider]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

One must suspect that you were sleeping through all of whatever science classes you ever took. Your inability to look at facts and deny them in favor of computer fantasies speaks volumes about you. Of course it isn't just you. There are literal armies of peole who do little, if any thinking for themselves and are very easily duped out there. In fact, they have always been the majority.

 

[Coyote]

The fact is that there is no evidence of man having anything at all to do with climate change.

No one can conclusively say that man doesn'teither.

 

[Popeye]

Interesting article in the WA. Post today for all you skeptics. 7 of the last 8 warmest years on record, have taken place since 2001.

Last Year Among Hottest On Record, Say Scientists



Washington Post
Saturday, January 12, 2008

[Data collected from around the globe indicate that 2007 ranks as the second-warmest year on record, according to a new analysis from climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

A second team of scientists, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has come up with slightly different results using the same raw data -- suggesting that last year was the fifth-warmest on record -- but the groups reached the same conclusion on where Earth's climate has been headed for the past quarter-century. Taking into account the new data, they said, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.[/b]

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Goddard, said researchers are not as focused on "any individual year but the long-term trends."

"We've got a sustained warming of the planet, which is unequivocal, and the best we can work out is that it's because we've been increasing the greenhouse gas emissions, primarily," Schmidt said in a telephone interview yesterday. "That means it's going to continue. The long-term trends are up, and they're up in the same way our models have been predicting for the last 20 years."

According to the NASA analysis, the global average land-ocean temperature last year was 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit, slightly more than 1 degree above the average temperature between 1951 and 1980, which scientists use as a baseline. While a 1-degree rise may not seem like much, it represents a major shift in a world where average temperatures over broad regions rarely vary more than a couple hundredths of a degree.

The 2007 average was the same as for 1998, which was the hottest year on record until 2005 hit a global average of 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

The NASA scientists based their findings, encompassing all of 2007, on readings from thousands of weather stations around the world. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center researchers used the same readings but did not include December in their preliminary assessment, which will be finalized next week. The groups also analyzed the data a bit differently to compensate for phenomena such as the urban heat island effect and gaps in data.

NOAA issued a news release in mid-December saying that the global average for 2007 "is expected to be near 58.0 F." The same release said last year's preliminary annual average temperature for the contiguous 48 states "will likely be near 54.3 degrees F," which would make 2007 the eighth-warmest year since the United States started recording the data in 1895.

Asked about the agency's findings, NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures in the last 50 years is very likely due to increased human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations, but we cannot yet discern warming trends in the last 10 years with the same resolution."

Rafe Pomerance, president of the advocacy group Clean Air-Cool Planet, said he expects "the new data will continue to heighten concern around the world. The need for intervention to turn down emissions is more apparent than ever."

Pomerance said he is particularly alarmed by NASA's findings on temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic, which have warmed faster than other parts of the globe. Schmidt and his colleagues concluded that 2007 is the warmest year on record for the Northern Hemisphere, with a 1.9-degree-Fahrenheit rise over the 1951-80 average, a difference he called "quite significant."

In the Arctic, the NASA scientists found, last year's average was 4.1 degrees higher than the 1951-80 baseline. "The climate signal is just very powerful," Pomerance said.

While Schmidt likened focusing on any one year's temperature readings to "digesting polls in the New Hampshire [presidential] primary," the numbers carry weight in the public policy arena because officials in the United States and abroad have become increasingly focused on what degree of global temperature rise is dangerous.

The world is about 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was in preindustrial periods, and many scientists warn that the globe cannot afford to get 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was in preindustrial times. Current climate models indicate that Earth will warm by about three-quarters of a degree over the next two decades because of greenhouse gases already emitted into the atmosphere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103483.html

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Yes Popeye, the data keeps flowing in, and it simply adds more and more evidence to the theory first articulated in 1896 by Svante August Arrhenius, work which was reproduced using modern radiation physics in the 1960's.

Thus, the anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing.

Now we are living in The Age of Consequences.

 

[palerider]

Interesting article in the WA. Post today for all you skeptics. 7 of the last 8 warmest years on record, have taken place since 2001.

"on record". You guys crack me up when you toss that little caveat out there as it it were meaningful and placed an exclamation point on the "catastrophy" that is about to befall us all.

Explain to me if you will how the fact that as the ice that has existed for a very long time melts back, it is exposing tools, and evidence of mining and agricultural societies that long since ceased to exist when the ice drove them from their once temperate land fits into your theory that modern man is causing unheard of climate change?

The fact is that the climate now is down right chilly when it is looked at in the context of the history of the earth and the earth's normal mean temperature. Like it or not, the fact is that ice on earth is the anomoly, not the norm. Go try to scare someone else. Someone as gullible as yourselves.

 

[WileE]

Global Cooling?

Interesting article in the WA. Post today for all you skeptics. 7 of the last 8 warmest years on record, have taken place since 2001.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103483.html

Here's another interesting article.

The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005.

Actually, global warming is likely to continue—but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD).

The stutter in the temperature rise should rein in some of the more apoplectic cries of panic over man-made greenhouse emissions. The strong 28-year upward trend of 1970–1998 has apparently ended...

http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp
___________________

In my opinion, we still have a lot to learn regarding "Who's doing what to whom?" Meanwhile, we have to continue in our search for clean, alternative energy sources.

 

[9sublime]

Palerider can I just ask you, when you see all those dirty fumes come out the back of cars, lorries, busses, planes, trains, factories, chimneys and houses to name a few, do you think they just vanish away to nothing? Do you really think they do nothing at all?

6 billion people all participating in activities negative to the environment, and you don't think somewhere along the line its going to adversley affect temperature - the earth is a big system that works together, you know that. And when other things start changing, its going to have adverse reactions in a chain, and temperature is going to change, and change the ice caps or whatever example the scientists are pointing out.

 

[palerider]

Palerider can I just ask you, when you see all those dirty fumes come out the back of cars, lorries, busses, planes, trains, factories, chimneys and houses to name a few, do you think they just vanish away to nothing? Do you really think they do nothing at all?

I don't have any problem at all with cleaning up our act. I favor catastrophic fines and imprisonment for people who try to hide their pollution, or dump illegally. I favor cleaning up our waterways, and coastlines, and wilderness areas.

The "fumes" you are speaking of cause pollution but they do not cause climate change and there isn't a whit of evidence that supports the idea that they do. Cleaning up the enviornment isn't what the global warming scare is about though. The climate change scare is about gaining political power over capitalist nations. The climate change scare is about terrifying people like you into giving up your freedom in exchange for "them" doing someithing. What I ask? You reply, anything.

6 billion people all participating in activities negative to the environment, and you don't think somewhere along the line its going to adversley affect temperature - the earth is a big system that works together, you know that. And when other things start changing, its going to have adverse reactions in a chain, and temperature is going to change, and change the ice caps or whatever example the scientists are pointing out.

Effect on the environment and climate change are two entirely different things and should not be confused. In all the history of the earth, prior to modern man, there had never been a landfill, or nuclear waste dump, or a tire fire and I am all for cleaning up the messes that we have made, BUT, if you look back through history you will see that climate change is a thing that happens over and over and over.

Also, the earth is not a delicate system that is poised on the brink of disaster all the time. That is a myth and has no basis in fact. Consider, for example, oil spills. Are you aware that more oil naturally seeps out from the floor of the oceans every year than mankind has spilled since we began transporting oil? Are you aware that the entire CO2 output of the entire human race anually is not enough to overcome the earth's own CO2 making machinery? And the list goes on and on and on. We might be dirtying up the enviornment, but we are not responsible for climate change.

Put your brain to work for just a moment. The ice started melting back some 14,000 years ago because the earth began to warm up. The present warming cycle began 14,000 years ago with no help at all from mankind. The ice has retreated over 2,000 miles and sea level has increased over 500 feet since the melt back began.

Now apply these facts to your enviornment. Tell me, were you live, does winter stay cold until some date that is carved in stone and then summmer happens, or does the warming from winter to summer happen over a cycle with the warming coming faster and faster and faster as winter is left behind?

Does it come as some surprise to you that the warming cycle that the earth is in would speed up as the worst of the ice age is left behind? Does it really surprise you, in any way, that the earth would warm faster as the ice melts back further and further and is there any reason to suspect that since the ice has melted back some 2,000 miles, that the trend would cease when you consider that throughout the earth's history, the presence of ice is not normal. Look at this chart. It is accurate and reflects the climate cycles that the earth has been through.

By the time the mean temperature reaches 17 degrees C the ice is gone and it is clear that for most of earth's history, there has been no ice. Also, take a look at this little chart. The black line represents atmospheric CO2. Look at the amount of CO2 that has been present in the atmosphere throughout history. Compared to today, the earth is CO2 starved. If we tried to raise the CO2 levels to the levels that have existed in the past, we would find that we couldn't do it even if we devoted all of our treasure and technology into the task.

I appreciate the idea of cleaning up but the idea of doing immeasurable damage to our economic systems in a vain attempt to have an effect on the global climate cycles disgusts me and the people who are so uneducated, and gullible that they can be manipulated by people who seek nothing more than political power over them have my pity.

By the way, how about giving me some credible science that suggests that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for either human beings or the world's flora and fauna in general.

 

[ilikeboobs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCb9rtHlNPM

 

[jpn of Seattle]

The comedy act of Palerider and company continues.

I guess the chart above doesn't mean anything if you choose to not believe in the greenhouse effect since admitting that scientists are right about it would mean that your precious conservative ideology has been wrong all this time. No, it is SO much more convenient to pick and choose what to believe--you know, like all the scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are faking the data in order to keep getting grants. Yeah, that's believable.

Meanwhile WileE presents shocking evidence from that authoritative source, The American Conservative Union Foundation which proves that the Earth actually cooled from 1998 to 2005! Amazing what you can learn on the Internet!

Why, I bet you can find something to suit every ideology, every prejudice! (I think I'll stick to NASA, and NOAA, and Oak Ridge National Labs, just the same).

 

[jpn of Seattle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCb9rtHlNPM

Brilliant. The guy in the black hat--sounds just like Palerider talking about global warming!!!

 

[palerider]

I guess the chart above doesn't mean anything if you choose to not believe in the greenhouse effect since admitting that scientists are right about it would mean that your precious conservative ideology has been wrong all this time.

Of course your chart doesn't mean anything. According to your greenhouse theory, a measured increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would lead to a predictiable rise in temperature. Such has not been the case precicely because the greenhouse gas theory is bunk. When you present a theory that predicts X if you get an increase in Y and you do get an increase in Y but X doesn't happen, your theory is shot. Get a new one. Unless, of course, you have a dumbed down educational establishment that allows you to sell it to gullible, uneducated masses whose "scientific analysis" is based not on facts, but on their political agenda.

We know that increases in CO2 are the result of warming, not the cause but your scam artists at the national academy and oak ridge do need to keep that grant money coming or most of them are out of a job and they do have those homes in stylish neighborhoods and BMW's to pay for.

Take your medicine show and try and sell your snake oil to someone as gullible as yourself.

If you look at your silly little chart with its atmospheric CO2 concentration of 370 or so and nothing else it might appear somewhat alarming (if you are the sort to believe that the sky is perpetually falling). When you look at the earth's historic CO2 concentrations and see that for most of history, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been at least 1,000 ppm and for most of history considerably higher than that, the signifigance of your silly little chart is lost. Relative to history, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2. Maybe you can make the case that mankind is unnaturally holding down atmospheric CO2 concentrations. At least you would have historical evidence for that.