Global warming strikes again...

[CavLancer]

Ah well, either AGW is right or wrong. Folks who believe in AGW believe what the government is telling them, and who knows? Might be right. I think civ that we will know this winter or next spring. If La Nina kicks in full bore on top of everything else and we don't get colder than ...something really cold, then what? That said, if it does get really cold then the AGW crowd is going to say that its because of global warming and then we'll see if the last brain cell in the faithful has gone on to happy hippie land or whether reality will dawn and then the most vociferous among them will hate us for being right. Either way, I really think that people too easily get in a twist about this stuff and turn on one another, so I'm really going out of my way to be generous to those who use insults to disparage the messenger. That is what this is methinks. We are messengers of something, its either going to happen or its not. If the cold gets switched on as we predict we can effectively quit giving the message. If its hotter than hell same thing. This will be borne out, and while it might wait until solar cycle 25, I rather think it will happen sooner rather than later. So, I made this thread to get on record the opinions of people so that if we are proven right we can explain why the climate does what it does. If wrong, we can give them the satisfaction of hearing it, I'm not so full of myself that my identity is wrapped up in my opinion on the matter, what is, is, and the contrary. Just the facts.

 

[Bootstoots]

The whole point of climate as opposed to weather is that you can't know much about global climate by analyzing the weather in one place next spring. If you average ~30 springs together in the same place, you will then know something about the climate in that place. And if you average the whole world and keep a running average, then you know something about the world's climate and how it is changing.

I'm not really willing to bother debating this right now, but instead I'll give you a tip on where to pick your cherries. If you want to really prove the warmists wrong, I strongly suggest you focus on a region in the North Atlantic south of Iceland, at about 55 degrees north. That's one of the only places in the world that is cooling rather than warming, and really the only spot that is especially consistent about the cooling. It has to do with the slowdown of the (warm) Gulf Stream (and the whole thermohaline circulation). But we are really sure now that the slowdown will be gradual and will not stop abruptly even with rapid global warming, so that's a good thing, especially if you happen to be from Yerp and would rather that cold spot not spread east and engulf you. And we're really really sure that The Day After Tomorrow is terrible Hollywood [feces] that has nothing to do with reality.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are always going to be cycles within cycles. This is what's examined when doing advanced statistics. To assume trapped heat simply disappears in the ecosystem is magical thinking. The heat has to go somewhere

 

[Synobun]

CavLancer and Civman are why I don't like the "global warming" term. They take it far too literally and any deviation from Hell on Earth is the utmost of evidence that everything and everyone is a lying liar.

From a climate perspective, a 10 year period with stagnation or minor decrease is meaningless. If you're going to look at a graph where you have to zoom in and circle one specific small portion of it to disprove a broader concept, you are grasping at straws. Look outside the one singular aspect you singled out and your entire point falls apart.

 

[civman110]

Total global polar sea ice is largely unchanged over the past 35 years. Antarctic sea ice set all time record for size in September 2014.

NASA announces that Antarctica has been adding between 85,000,000,000 and 135,000,000,000 tons of new ice every year since 1993. Since 90% of Earth's glaciers are in Antarctica, this means that global glaciers are growing, not melting. link

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute Greenland has been adding ice since 1993. link Greenland ice mass is expanding link

*NSIDC/NASA AMSR-E also shows that the overall trend of ocean temperatures since 2002 is one of cooling in spite of a recent short lived El Nino warming event link

So what has changed? CO2 concentrations continue to increase yet temperatures have been falling since 2002? Polar ice is growing. Storm intensity is in decline. One reason may be that solar activity is at the lowest level in almost a Century, as shown on the graphs I posted.

From a climate perspective, a 10 year period with stagnation or minor decrease is meaningless. If you're going to look at a graph where you have to zoom in and circle one specific small portion of it to disprove a broader concept, you are grasping at straws. Look outside the one singular aspect you singled out and your entire point falls apart.

But, that's what the entire global warming model is based off of - the last 60 years or so... which is too short of a period.

There is also no real correlation between C02 and warming even during this period. Temperature closely rises and falls along with solar activity.

 

[El_Machinae]

I like the term 'warming', because that's what it is. The heat will be retained, and then some natural process will then take up that heat. Whether it's in the form of melting, or whether certain currents get warmer, or whatever.

Given how much possibility there is in the ocean being where the heat goes, sealevel rise is a real longterm threat.

 

[Camikaze]

If I'm right I got this for those who might laugh...

If future scientific discoveries/wisdom results in a change to the consensus, and global warming doesn't end up happening, that won't retroactively make you right to have ignored the current scientific consensus. If you say that there's a 100% chance of rolling a 6, and you then roll a 6, that doesn't mean you were right.

 

[civman110]

If future scientific discoveries/wisdom results in a change to the consensus, and global warming doesn't end up happening, that won't retroactively make you right to have ignored the current scientific consensus. If you say that there's a 100% chance of rolling a 6, and you then roll a 6, that doesn't mean you were right.

He hasn't based his opinion off of a guess...

 

[Synobun]

But, that's what the entire global warming model is based off of - the last 60 years or so... which is too short of a period.

There is also no real correlation between C02 and warming even during this period. Temperature closely rises and falls along with solar activity.

Where did you acquire your understanding of human-influenced climate change? You're acting like the idea of climate change is some recent human fabrication and that CO2 is the only component within it.

 

[civman110]

Where did you acquire your understanding of human-influenced climate change? You're acting like the idea of climate change is some recent human fabrication and that CO2 is the only component within it.

The entire concept of "climate change" is idiotic. Of course the climate changes. It always has and always will. It's not really an argument for, or against anything.

What I disagree with is that C02 is causing the Earth to dangerously warm, which is something else entirely.

 

[El_Machinae]

We've known about this issue, in a manner sufficient to warrant actual proactive behaviour, since 1992

 

[Akka]

People who believe in global warming are the same kind of people who believed the world was flat.

Funny, that's about exactly the opposite, and not surprisingly it's also the same kind of people (religious and/or right-wing) who held then and hold now the same "let's ignore common sense and what people who do know anything about the stuff says just so we can continue to tell ourselves comforting lies".

Where did you acquire your understanding of human-influenced climate change?

I thought it was obvious he didn't acquire any understanding whatsoever about it.

 

[Synobun]

The entire concept of "climate change" is idiotic. Of course the climate changes. It always has and always will. It's not really an argument for, or against anything.

What I disagree with is that C02 is causing the Earth to dangerously warm, which is something else entirely.

Nobody has tried to argue it was only CO2 that posed a risk to the climate structure of our planet.

I don't understand how the concept is idiotic. Wouldn't the fact that it's persistent demand that we better understand it so we can adapt to it and become capable of molding it to our needs instead of being victim to its attempts of self-correction?

 

[civman110]

We've known about this issue, in a manner sufficient to warrant actual proactive behaviour, since 1992

Protective behaviour from the Earth cooling during that time period? NASA has confirmed countless times that the Earth has been cooling during this time period.

Nobody has tried to argue it was only CO2 that posed a risk to the climate structure of our planet.

I like how it used to be "global warming" and then it was "climate change" and now they're even back-peddling on their claims about C02.

I don't understand how the concept is idiotic. Wouldn't the fact that it's persistent demand that we better understand it so we can adapt to it and become capable of molding it to our needs instead of being victim to its attempts of self-correction?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that we control the climate? If so what does that have to do with the global warming theory? That's bio-engineering. It's something else entirely.

 

[Synobun]

I like how it used to be "global warming" and then it was "climate change" and now they're even back-peddling on their claims about C02.

Global warming is a facet of climate change and has never been portrayed as being solely caused by carbon dioxide.

 

[civman110]

Global warming is a facet of climate change and has never been portrayed as being solely caused by carbon dioxide.

That's blatantly false, but either way I don't see how this is at all relevant to whether or not C02 has anything to do with it, however it has been the main focus of the global warming argument whether, or not you'd like to admit it.

Funny, that's about exactly the opposite, and not surprisingly it's also the same kind of people (religious and/or right-wing) who held then and hold now the same "let's ignore common sense and what people who do know anything about the stuff says just so we can continue to tell ourselves comforting lies".

It was the political establishment at the time which believed the world was flat and denied all evidence to the contrary. They also wouldn't of been considered "right wing" simply because there was a religious aspect to it, that's revisionist history. The concept of modern left-right politics isn't something that existed during that time period and most people would have been religious then anyway.

Religion also has nothing to do with people's position against global warming. It has to do with science.

It's the liberals who treat global warming like it's some sort of religion that they must put their blind faith into because their political moral authority told them so. You're the modern day flat earther.

 

[Archbob]

Total global polar sea ice is largely unchanged over the past 35 years. Antarctic sea ice set all time record for size in September 2014.

NASA announces that Antarctica has been adding between 85,000,000,000 and 135,000,000,000 tons of new ice every year since 1993. Since 90% of Earth's glaciers are in Antarctica, this means that global glaciers are growing, not melting. link

According to the Danish Meteorological Institute Greenland has been adding ice since 1993. link Greenland ice mass is expanding link

*NSIDC/NASA AMSR-E also shows that the overall trend of ocean temperatures since 2002 is one of cooling in spite of a recent short lived El Nino warming event link

So what has changed? CO2 concentrations continue to increase yet temperatures have been falling since 2002? Polar ice is growing. Storm intensity is in decline. One reason may be that solar activity is at the lowest level in almost a Century, as shown on the graphs I posted.



But, that's what the entire global warming model is based off of - the last 60 years or so... which is too short of a period.

There is also no real correlation between C02 and warming even during this period. Temperature closely rises and falls along with solar activity.

There has been for the last 500,000 thousand years. It doesn't matter if it comes from volcanoes or factories.

From your own article:

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

The change in the currents are accumulating snowfall but even that will be offset sea and arctic sea ice is certainly decreasing. And no, our temperature on earth has not been decreasing since 2002, it has been steadily warming:





And over the last 500,000 years between average temperature and CO2.




There is no real debate in the scientific community of human induced climate change. There's a few corporate sponsored hacks that still denying it. The same thing happened when the AG declared Tabacco was bad for your health. Some scientists, like those working for cigarette companies, kept denying it for 2 decades.

 

[civman110]

And over the last 500,000 years between average temperature and CO2.

The chart you posted was a study done where it tracked methane (CH4) levels NOT C02. Someone doctored the chart you posted and changed CH4 to C02.

Here is the link to NASA's website showing the study:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200409_methane/

And here is the original chart (notice CH4 not C02):


You can also tell the chart you posted is fake because it contradicts the data I posted earlier where the temperature and C02 levels are not correlated. I'm going to safely assume that scientific truths are constant and haven't changed over the last several 100,000 years.

And no, our temperature on earth has not been decreasing since 2002, it has been steadily warming:

No it hasn't. Read your chart. The temperature is clearly shown to be dropping during this time.

There is no real debate in the scientific community of human induced climate change. There's a few corporate sponsored hacks that still denying it. The same thing happened when the AG declared Tabacco was bad for your health. Some scientists, like those working for cigarette companies, kept denying it for 2 decades.

Don't you mean the corporate hacks who are looking to make a fortune off of carbon taxes, green energy, and cap and trade? Many of whom predicted that we should have experienced some catastrophic end of the world event by now. The one's who have yet to create a climate model that is capable of predicting anything remotely accurate?

If C02 and temperature was directly correlated like they claim then why can't they predict future temperatures, knowing the rates at which we are emitting carbon? They can't do it because it's pseudo-science.

 

[Cosmic Fox]

Do you have any idea what is actually causing it really? The entire solar system has heated up, even the moon has a slight atmosphere, Mars and the rest of the planets are all heating up together. Discuss this instead because the global phenomenon that we are experiencing isn't from humanity nor volcanoes. It lies out in our solar system, it has perturbed the outer most planets, there is a lot of debate and discussion going on about this. It is not about this made up thing being called global warming. It is indeed a warming but it is interplanetary global warming among all of the planets and moons in the solar system.

What is most interesting is Nasa isn't sharing what it knows, why is that when others are clearly discussing it? This is the debate people it really is.

 

[Synobun]

Do you have any idea what is actually causing it really? The entire solar system has heated up, even the moon has a slight atmosphere, Mars and the rest of the planets are all heating up together. Discuss this instead because the global phenomenon that we are experiencing isn't from humanity nor volcanoes. It lies out in our solar system, it has perturbed the outer most planets, there is a lot of debate and discussion going on about this. It is not about this made up thing being called global warming. It is indeed a warming but it is interplanetary global warming among all of the planets and moons in the solar system.

What is most interesting is Nasa isn't sharing what it knows, why is that when others are clearly discussing it? This is the debate people it really is.

We should find a way to turn the sun off.