Climate pledges bound to breach key warming target: scientists

Jun 11, 2009
Pledges currently on the table at the UN climate talks will doom Earth to a warming of more than two degrees Celsius
A NASA image of the planet Earth. Pledges currently on the table at the UN climate talks will doom Earth to a warming of more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a figure that has been widely endorsed as a safe limit, scientists said on Thursday.

Pledges currently on the table at the UN climate talks will doom Earth to a warming of more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a figure that has been widely endorsed as a safe limit, scientists said on Thursday.

Warming "is virtually certain to exceed 2 C" (3.6 F) compared to pre-industrial times, said their assessment of national positions.

The study was published online by the British science journal Nature as a new 12-day round of negotiations was in its penultimate day.

There is no scientific consensus on what constitutes a safe level of warming.

However, the 2 C (3.6 F) goal has been described by the UN's Nobel-winning panel of climate experts as the only practical option for inflicting the least damage to Earth's climate system.

The figure lies at the heart of efforts to craft a new pact in Copenhagen in December for tackling climate change in decades to come.

It has been enshrined as an objective by more than 100 countries, including the 27 nations of the European Union (EU).

The new analysis looks at chances of hitting the 2 C (3.6 F) target, based on the calculation that developed countries would cut their emissions of heat-trapping gases by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to 50-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Developing countries, for their part, would have to reduce their emissions by between 15 and 30 percent by 2020 compared with a "business-as-usual" trend.

"Business as usual" means a rise in emissions by 2020 that would occur through expected economic growth, but without any measures to mitigate the gas.

On both counts, though, the news is dire.

Promises or discernible actions sketched so far at the talks show the world is on track for smashing the 2 C (3.6 F) ceiling, the study said.

Rich countries' positions amount to cuts "in the range of eight to 14 percent" by 2020 over 1990, rising to 57-63 percent by 2050 over 1990 "if current positions were faithfully implemented," it said.

Developing countries would be on track for a reduction of four percent by 2020 compared with business as usual.

As a result, global industrial emissions would be roughly double 1990 levels by 2050.

This pathway "has virtually no chance of limiting warming to 2 C" (3.6 F), said the study, authored by a team from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on (IPCC) predicted warming of 1.1-6.4 C (1.98-11.52 F) by 2100 compared to 1980-99 levels.

Heatwaves, rainstorms, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level were among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread or more intense, depending on the temperature rise.

That report sketched three scenarios for policymakers, although none was a recommendation.

The most ambitious would limit carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), equivalent to a roughly 2 C (3.6 F) warming.

Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations were 280 ppm; in 2007, they were nearly 385 ppm.

To reach 450 ppm would require emissions cuts of 25-40 percent by industrialised countries by 2020 over 1990 and by 80-95 percent by 2050. There would have to be a "substantial" deviation from business-as-usual by developing countries, the IPCC said, without giving a figure.

Reducing emissions has become a fiercely-contested issue because of the cost of easing use of oil, gas and coal, the cheap and abundant "fossil" fuels that meet most of the world's energy needs.

Pressure is rising for an early fix because temperatures have already risen by around 0.8 C (1.4 F), causing worrying glacier melt, snow loss and retreating permafrost.

On top of that, 0.6 C (1.1 F) has to be factored in from past emissions that have yet to have an effect because of the inertia of the system. This leaves very little room for further emissions.

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China: rich nations must cut emissions by 40 pct

May 22, 2009

(AP) -- Wealthy nations, as history's biggest polluters, should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, China says in a policy document on climate change. The government also rolled out fresh ...

Recommended for you

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

3 hours ago

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

Dec 19, 2014

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 172

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 11, 2009
PLEDGES ON TABLE WILL EXPOSE MISUSE OF SCIENCE

Science has been misused for political purposes by those promoting the illusion that Earth's climate is immune from cyclic changes in Earth's heat source -the Sun.

See: "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN", Energy and Environment [SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate] volume 20, pp. 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Modernmystic
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 11, 2009
FTA:"Pledges currently on the table at the UN climate talks will doom Earth to a warming of more than two degrees Celsius"

DOOMED!!!!!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!! Reminds me of the crazy guy on the B movie "Hysterical" who rides around on his bike telling everyone they're dooooomed...
Damon_Hastings
2.2 / 5 (18) Jun 11, 2009
I really wish they hadn't used the word "doom" in the opening sentence of this article. That will cause a lot of people to dismiss the original paper without even giving it consideration. But I guess journalists are trained to "sex up" the original material to catch people's eyes. The original material in this case was a fairly dry mathematical extrapolation showing that current proposals are insufficient to meet warming reduction targets. I agree that the CO2 cuts need to be deeper, but if you try to push people too fast it backfires. The people of the world are already waking up to global warming, and action is already happening very quickly at the highest levels. About as quickly as it could happen, in fact, given political and economic constraints.
Alburton
1.9 / 5 (19) Jun 11, 2009
Am I really alone here in believing that enough heating of the atmosphere would cause so much damage to the earth and the life on it (and our economies you money driven monkeys) that immediate measure HAS to be taken.What does politics have to do with any of it???

System with a feedback (as earth sure is) usually have states of equilibrium which are not easy to get out of,but it is not impossible.The worst part is that once you cross a certain tipping point it is very difficult to get it right again.

I think it was on this very webpage that I read about how if temperatures rised above a certain points the forests would start releasing the C02 they had trapped earlier to the atmosphere. That would certainly mean that you are screwed.

Even if your head happens to be comfortably set between your buttocks.

Plus,come on,it cant be THAT difficult not to destroy earth!
Damon_Hastings
2.8 / 5 (14) Jun 11, 2009
Am I really alone here in believing that enough heating of the atmosphere would cause so much damage to the earth and the life on it (and our economies you money driven monkeys) that immediate measure HAS to be taken.What does politics have to do with any of it???


Politics has everything to do with it. I agree with you about the urgency, but we live in a system of democracies, so you can't just impose your own will by fiat. The people must be convinced, and history has shown that this has always been a slow process. It can take decades or more to convince the common man of something scientists have long accepted (consider evolution, heliocentrism, and even the shape of the Earth!) Perhaps public acceptance is too slow under the circumstances, but you can't accelerate it by yelling and screaming.

But even most Republican US congressmen now concede that global warming is real. And most either concede that humans are to blame or are staying very quiet on that question (which could mean they privately agree but are worried about losing votes.) The tide has turned, and action is happening quickly at the top. Maybe it's not quick enough, but it's as quick as we're gonna get. And even if global warming does cause a global economic depression for a century or two, then perhaps we'll come out the other side wiser for the experience.

freethinking
4 / 5 (16) Jun 11, 2009
OK, Im doomed, the earth is doomed. The only one not doomed are the man made global climate change priests. They will make their money. Governement isnt doomed either, they will grow and become more powerful, dooming the rest of us serfs to poverty. The only hope is that the (new term that I like) biased media becomes unbiased and starts to report the (glup!!) truth!
Damon_Hastings
2.1 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2009
Heck, even *Exxon* now concedes that global warming is real. In fact, they claim that they "never in the past decade doubted the risk from climate change". "We're very much not a denier, very much at the table with our sleeves rolled up." http://www.reuter...20070614

First there was the scientific consensus, and then the politicians were convinced by the science. But when *Exxon* jumps on board, then you really know the game is over. There will always be a few holdouts of course (and they will tend to frequent these boards), but the world as a whole is moving past the debate phase and into the action phase.
Damon_Hastings
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2009
Also, I should point out that over two-thirds of Americans now believe humans contribute significantly to global warming -- even the most recent Fox News polls are now showing this! (Search the page at http://www.pollin...viro.htm for "is caused by".) And of course, the number is even higher among other developed countries (and some developing!) as Americans do tend to lag behind in this sort of thing.
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2009
1,000 years ago global temperatures were a whole 5°C higher than at present. (This period, called the MWP or Midieval Warm Period, was erased from Gore's data when he made "An Inconvenient Truth"). There was no manmade CO2 from burning fossil fuels during that time period and yet the planet survived just fine.

We are now on a cooling trend for the last four years. But, even if we had temperatures rise back to the levels seen and reported during the MWP I fail to see how it would harm the planet now when it did not do so back then?
dachpyarvile
4 / 5 (16) Jun 11, 2009
The plants are going to love the higher CO2 levels. Plants grew to enormous heights way back during the times when CO2 levels were in the 1000s ppm long before man walked the earth. So much nutrition abounded from these plants that many life forms grew to gigantic sizes in response. So what if the levels rise again.

I have been monitoring CO2 levels for several years now and have been seen an increase of the gas with a decrease in temperatures in the northern hemisphere. Indeed, during the nighttime hours I have seen levels as high as just over 400 ppm CO2.

This paper, like the many others I have seen over time, is just so much more propaganda.
Damon_Hastings
2.5 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2009
There was no manmade CO2 from burning fossil fuels during that time period and yet the planet survived just fine.

There is evidence to suggest that some of the more sudden past warmings *may* have caused mass extinctions. But you are correct that drastic warmings did occur naturally every so many million years, and also that there were plenty of plants and animals available to replace those that died as a result. In fact, warmer and wetter climates will cause life in general to flourish and spread better than ever.

The plants are going to love the higher CO2 levels.

Agreed. Plants will love it. The global human economy... well, not so much.
Ronan
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2009
Dachyparville, as far as I know the actual difference in temperature during the Medieval Warm Period is not known for certain, and the effects of that period on the entire globe (as opposed to just the northern hemisphere, where on the whole temperatures were certainly warmer, particularly about Europe and North America) are also somewhat unclear--and certainly not clear enough to say that the planet, or even the northern hemisphere, was as hot as five degrees Celsius warmer. As far as I know, mind, and if I'm wrong I'd be glad to be corrected; where did you get that information about a 5 C difference? Mind linking me to it?

And you're quite right, of course, that ultimately life as it is now ("now" meaning "over the last few hundred million years) prefers lots of CO2 in the atmosphere and a comfortably warm world (within reason; no continent-spanning Permian deserts, please). But that's overall. Currently, we live during an unusually cold period in Life's history, and Earth life has evolved to do well under these rather chilly conditions. The distribution of flora and fauna, of entire ecosystems, of cities and civilizations, has been largely guided by OUR climate, as it is now--not the comfortable conditions of a lush Jurassic world. In a world that's warming quickly, the threat doesn't necessarily come from the change in temperature in and of itself, but the change in climates. In warming, our world may be transitioning to a more comfortable, lush, life-friendly place, but it'll only be more friendly to the future forms of life, and perhaps future civilizations, that will eventually develop. For us and our world, as it is, things are likely to be a tad miserable.

...Erm, sorry. On topic...Yeesh. Disappointing and worrying, this, but as Damon Hastings pointed out the shifts in the political atmosphere are happening about as quickly as they could be expected to happen--and maybe quicker. Over the coming years we'll see what happens, I suppose.
Damon_Hastings
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2009
and certainly not clear enough to say that the planet, or even the northern hemisphere, was as hot as five degrees Celsius warmer.

For what it's worth, here's a graph from Wikipedia's global warming article which includes the medieval warm period: http://en.wikiped...ison.png

It was maybe 0.4 C warmer than the subsequent "Little Ice Age" but still much cooler than now. Certainly nowhere close to a 5 C warming!
Modernmystic
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 11, 2009
During the PETM the Earth was TWELVE degrees warmer than it is now...it's also when our mammalian ancestors had a heyday.

The Earth is warming, but it's not because of the paltry amount of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere...and even if it is a few degrees of warming will be welcome...
Damon_Hastings
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2009
During the PETM the Earth was TWELVE degrees warmer than it is now...it's also when our mammalian ancestors had a heyday.


I have no doubt that many plants and animals would benefit from global warming. They don't have cities on the coasts.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2009
I have no doubt that many plants and animals would benefit from global warming. They don't have cities on the coasts.


My point is that there won't be any runaway greenhouse effect like some morons say there will be with a few degrees of warming....
Dragontide
2 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2009
This pretty much goes along with what was predicted in the film "Earth 2100"
http://abcnews.go...=7697237&page=1
But then again. Al Gore's predictions turned out to be an underestimation. Let's hope these will at least be on target so proper preperations can be made.
dachpyarvile
3.6 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2009
and certainly not clear enough to say that the planet, or even the northern hemisphere, was as hot as five degrees Celsius warmer.


For what it's worth, here's a graph from Wikipedia's global warming article which includes the medieval warm period: http://en.wikiped...ison.png



It was maybe 0.4 C warmer than the subsequent "Little Ice Age" but still much cooler than now. Certainly nowhere close to a 5 C warming!




The data in the graph was "smoothed" using various algorithms. One must also compare reports of those who lived during those times. Greenland's coastal regions were green (which is where that landmass actually got its name, contra myths of map mixups) and there was shepherding and crop planting in Greenland by Danish colonies during the MWP.

A rise of 5°C would melt the permafrost and allow for agriculture in Greenland once again. Pollen counts and examination of the pollens in the soil for the relevant time period would require the temperature to have been 5°C warmer than now, for many of these plants cannot survive cold weather.

I do not recall the location of the article or issue containing it in Nature I read about this but if I do recall I will certainly post the information.

The real question is whether man is doing it rather than a cycle that occurs. This question has not been satisfactorily answered in my opinion.
Dragontide
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2009
It's much warmer now than during the MWP. Unless someone can prove that the Inuit and other polar dwellers were forced to move or sink where they live (like they are now because of lack of sea ice that protects their land from storm surge) then adapt a new lifestyle then move back and resume as normal without the slightest hint of it ever happening in their lore.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2009
So far as agriculture is concerned, there is a study (the citation escapes me at the moment) that has shown from finding of good amounts of corn pollen in soils dating to the MWP that corn was grown in Greenland during the MWP. Corn is classified as a warm season crop.
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2009
It's much warmer now than during the MWP. Unless someone can prove that the Inuit and other polar dwellers were forced to move or sink where they live (like they are now because of lack of sea ice that protects their land from storm surge) then adapt a new lifestyle then move back and resume as normal without the slightest hint of it ever happening in their lore.


FYI. The Hockey Stick Graph has been thoroughly discredited.
Dragontide
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2009
The hockey stick graph from Gore's film was an underesimation. Not an overestimation.

http://www.reuter...4?rpc=64

http://www.usatod...ng_N.htm



dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2009
Gore's graph omitted important information. On the matter of temperature in Greenland and Greenland's waters at the height of the Norse colonies on Greenland, consult HH Lamb's 1995 work, Climate History and the Modern World. See page 159 of said work.

the author clearly states that conditions that existed during a recorded historical episode involving one of the first settlers of Greenland in the late 900s indicate that the water temperature of Greenland's waters in the southwest had to "have been at least 4°C warmer than" at present. If the waters were warmer the land temperatures had to have been warmer as well.

In point of fact the remains of codfish have been found in abundance in middens of Greenland dating to the period of the MWP. These were caught off the shore of Greenland during the same time. Cod do not like the current temperatures around Greenland.

In addition, burials have been found in soil that now is permanently frozen. Temperatures would have had to have been 2-4°C warmer than at present to have allowed such deep-ground burials at that time.

Gore's graph is pseudoscience at its worst.
Dragontide
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2009
During the PETM the Earth was TWELVE degrees warmer than it is now...it's also when our mammalian ancestors had a heyday.


The warming during the PETM took place over a 20,000 year period.
http://en.wikiped..._Maximum

It is was a natural warming brought about by the Milankovitch cycles when they are all in their non-glacial stage. Now we are having a heat spike but it only took a few decades.

Question for global warming deniers:

Why would you trust research that is funded by oil companies?

http://abcnews.go...=2612021&page=1

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/

And how come not one single sceptic scientist will travel to the polls for some REAL research like these guys?
http://www.pbs.or...remeice/

Dragontide
2 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2009
Dach:
You are making the suggestion that Viking days were warmer than now. Erik the Red settled in Greenland. But the temperatures you suggest would collapse the Greenland ice sheet. No more vikings in Greenland if that happened. There is an awful lot of ice there you know. It would have been a brutal death for them all.
Ronan
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2009
Ah, that's where the five degrees figure came from, Dachyparville? Hrm. Well, if you do happen to stumble across the article (don't put yourself out of your way to find it, mind, just if), I'd be glad to know what issue it's in. And I think you may be making something of a mistake in assuming that (if the 5 C temperature is indeed correct) indicates a global temperature difference of 5 C; remember, the poles warm a good deal faster than the equator, and a large polar jump in temperature doesn't necessarily equate to a large GLOBAL jump in temperature.
Velanarris
3.6 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2009
Dragontide,

I'm very sorry that you've missed out on all of the research done since 2002 in regards to global warming, Al Gore, Mann and Hansen, the Hockey stick, the IPCC summary for policymakers, and reality. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between an ice sheet, ice cap, and ice shelf are. I'm sorry that no matter what discussion you engage in that you'll not be able to discern whether someone is telling you the truth or being a sophist.



But most of all, I'm sorry my tax dollars paid for your wasted education. Think for yourself, read the articles objectively, and bring yourself up to date on the topics of discussion. If your point of view remains on the proponent side of AGW, I'll look forward to our future informed debates.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2009
THE ICE AGE THAT NEVER WAS

On July 9, 1971, the Washington Post published a story headlined U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.

It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen, who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.


Hansen has a hardon for fossil fuels. That's all there is to it. He always has and always will.
dachpyarvile
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2009
Ah, that's where the five degrees figure came from, Dachyparville? Hrm. Well, if you do happen to stumble across the article (don't put yourself out of your way to find it, mind, just if), I'd be glad to know what issue it's in. And I think you may be making something of a mistake in assuming that (if the 5 C temperature is indeed correct) indicates a global temperature difference of 5 C; remember, the poles warm a good deal faster than the equator, and a large polar jump in temperature doesn't necessarily equate to a large GLOBAL jump in temperature.




Since Nature is issued weekly it might be a little while until I find it. It was at least three years since I read it.



In the meantime you can read the publication I referenced above by H.H. Lamb. I'd borrow it from a library, however, as it is $230.00 a copy on Amazon.com. Or, you can buy it and enjoy all the charts and scientific data which is pretty much irrefutable. The book does not just cover the Norse colonies of Iceland and Greenland but a number of regions and refers to proxies and direct data combined throughout.



It speaks of several European nations and differences in temperatures throughout. You should look at the data for Norway and crop production in regions further north as well as data concerning wine-growing in Britain during the MWP and RWP.



As to the ice sheets collapsing, I have seen zero valid, unfalsifiable evidence for that or even for such occuring in the near future. Given that the historians who recorded various data for us did not describe the ice sheet melting, I would assume that such did not happen in spite of the warmer temperatures all across Europe. No melt; no gloom and doom.



But, the fact is there was no permafrost soil in southwestern Greenland during the time of the founding of the Norse colonies. This is proven by the fact that bodies were buried pretty deeply in soil that now is frozen solid!



Pollens of crops in Greenland show that they were being planted during those times.



Extensive deposits of codfish bones in middens during the same period proves that they were readily available close to Greenland during those times, showing that the waters were warmer.



A man was recorded as swimming in the water to get a sheep for a guest from an island that was over two miles away and back again. What is known for human endurance of cold water gives evidence that the waters were warmer during the MWP or the man would have died. Even highly trained swimmers likely would not survive swimming for such a long period of time near the Arctic circle today.



Thing is, do I believe what has been observed and recorded by old historians or do I believe Hansen's claptrap predictions that never get it right? I think I will go with H.H. Lamb and the ancient historical data.
toyo
4.2 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2009
Typically in this debate the science takes a back seat to the heat.
I urge everyone here to read "heaven earth - Global warming: The missing science", by Ian Plimer, a renowned geologist.
As a scientist he has put in the hard yards and followed up studies on a variety of subjects related to historical temperature changes and his book contains references to 2311 studies (yes, you read it right - 2311!).
But if the hard work is too much for you simply consider this:
- Weather for a small part of any country cannot be reliably predicted for more than a few days into the future at present, because of the massively complex models that require too many factors to be followed, most of which we cannot, to-day, measure with any accuracy.
- So what chance is there of predicting climate change over the whole planet, a much more complex task?

Let the heat begin! :))
John_balls
2.1 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2009
Dragontide,

I'm very sorry that you've missed out on all of the research done since 2002 in regards to global warming, Al Gore, Mann and Hansen, the Hockey stick, the IPCC summary for policymakers, and reality. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between an ice sheet, ice cap, and ice shelf are. I'm sorry that no matter what discussion you engage in that you'll not be able to discern whether someone is telling you the truth or being a sophist.
But most of all, I'm sorry my tax dollars paid for your wasted education. Think for yourself, read the articles objectively, and bring yourself up to date on the topics of discussion. If your point of view remains on the proponent side of AGW, I'll look forward to our future informed debates.

Brought to you by some who is paid to go to websites to try and debunk AGW. Even your fellow republicans are coming along when will you?

But then again their are people that still do not believe in evolution and believe that the bible is the word of GOD. So maybe their is no hope for you.

Please publish your data or STFU. oh right your not a scientist, your some internet nerd that tries to debunk AGW on the internet.

Any real scientist would be busy working on experiments and modeling and so forth. Your busy trying to debate anonymous people on the internet who side on the opinion of every reputable scientific organization in the world.

Again , please publish your theories and experiments to have them peer reviewed or go get a job.
Arkaleus
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2009
John Balls:

Quit blubbering like a persecuted minority. The burden of proof is always on the ones with the biggest claims.

Why don't you explain to us the kind of social system you need to accomplish your fantastic climate control schemes? Until you can convince people like us to surrender our free societies and submit to your ecological Marxism, you're never going to make progress here.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2009
Brought to you by some who is paid to go to websites to try and debunk AGW. Even your fellow republicans are coming along when will you?




Wow, I wonder when my check is comming. By the way I'm a conservative democrat, not a republican. You can look up my voter registration under the state of Massachusetts from 96-08 and in the state of NH in 08-09.



But then again their are people that still do not believe in evolution and believe that the bible is the word of GOD. So maybe their is no hope for you.
There are also people who have adopted a wholly different system of faith and push their moral and ethical views upon the populace despite the contrary views and lack of evidence. Hallowed are the Gori.



Please publish your data or STFU. oh right your not a scientist, your some internet nerd that tries to debunk AGW on the internet.
Argumentum ad hominem. Could you link your published papers John?



Any real scientist would be busy working on experiments and modeling and so forth. Your busy trying to debate anonymous people on the internet who side on the opinion of every reputable scientific organization in the world.
Which organizations would those be?



Nasa? http://www.msnbc....8964176/



UN IPCC?
The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming.



-John Christy UN IPCC lead Author







I don't see the catastrophic effects from warming that others predict.



-John Christy UN IPCC lead author







What about the World Federation of Scientists?



"models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view". -Antonino Zichichi President World Federation of Scientists




What about the CCR?
"About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." -David Legates, Director of the Center for Climatic Research

Gee, guess not.
Again , please publish your theories and experiments to have them peer reviewed or go get a job.

According to you I'm doing my job right now. That is unless you're just being facetous and disingenuous. As for peer review, the peer review process means nothing if you don't release your data and verification methods so the experiment or model can be independently reproduced. So your "peer-reviewed heroes" aren't peer reviewed.

By the way, feel free to hop on all of your accounts John and de-rank us all to oblivion. The truth can't be downranked Noein/John_Balls/Dragontide/MsDeeNyer
Dragontide
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2009
Still can't back up your lies with proof eh Valanarris?

AGW has been validated by the IPCC (the most peer reviewed science research group on the planet) Also validated by NOAA, NASA, the WMO, the EPA, the British Antarctic Survey, The Nobel Prize Commitee, The National Ice & Snow Data Center and the US Supreme Court. What have YOU got?
Dragontide
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2009
Dragontide,

I'm very sorry that you've missed out on all of the research done since 2002 in regards to global warming, Al Gore, Mann and Hansen, the Hockey stick, the IPCC summary for policymakers, and reality. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between an ice sheet, ice cap, and ice shelf are. I'm sorry that no matter what discussion you engage in that you'll not be able to discern whether someone is telling you the truth or being a sophist.


Ask me any question you like about global warming. (anybody here)I will answer with peer reviewed research and post links to back it up. I have been researching it for 20 years. (for free on my own time as a hobby) I got into it because of a rock song (of all things) I heard in the 80s by a band named Testament. (the song "Greenhouse Effect" from the album "Practice What You Preach")

I know quite a bit about ice Val. How have my comments confused you into thinking I don't? The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than expected.
http://www.scienc...2741.htm
The Wilknis ice shelf (in Antarctica) collapsed.
http://earthobser...ceSheet/

http://www.gearth...ogl.html

I know that there are some scientists that said we could have an ice age in the 70s. But to use that as an excuse to make the claim that AGW is a hoax is just retarded.

dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2009
What people seem to be ignoring is recent volcanic activity on the west side of Antarctica. I know the waters around that region are warming and see evidence that it coincides with the volcanic activity.

Prove to me that the volcanic activity is not in any way responsible for west Antartica's ice shelf collapse and in no way connected.

The eastern ice shelves and ice sheet remain stable and show no signs of volcanic activity at present.

By the way, the Wilkins ice shelf region re-iced less than a month later and is again becoming covered with snow. Well, at least that is what the above-cited article states at any rate. :)

Add to this the fact that glacial ice moves and breaks under the strain of added ice and snow. Could not this also have been partially to blame for the collapse? It is a fact that Antarctica's ice sheets have gained mass over the last few years and the southern hemisphere experienced a cooling trend. I am sure you read but ignored that data in your hobbyist experience.

BTW, the scientists in the 70s who said the earth was freezing because of fossil fuels also are the same ones who started the "fossil fuels are warming the earth" ball rolling, James Hansen being one of the most notable. :)
dachpyarvile
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2009
Although still making allowance for AGW causing Antarctic melt on the peninsula and western ice sheets, consider the following:

ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008) %u2014 The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active.

The subglacial volcano has a 'volcanic explosion index' of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change.

Using airborne ice-sounding radar, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) discovered a layer of ash produced by a 'subglacial' volcano. It extends across an area larger than Wales.

Lead author* Hugh Corr of the BAS says, "The discovery of a 'subglacial' volcanic eruption from beneath the Antarctic ice sheet is unique in itself. But our techniques also allow us to put a date on the eruption, determine how powerful it was and map out the area where ash fell. We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years. It blew a substantial hole in the ice sheet, and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 km into air."

The discovery is another vital piece of evidence that will help determine the future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and refine predictions of future sea-level rise. Glaciers are like massive rivers of ice that flow towards the coast and discharge icebergs into the sea.

Co-author Professor David Vaughan (BAS) says,"This eruption occurred close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The flow of this glacier towards the coast has speeded up in recent decades and it may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration.

(http://www.scienc...720.htm)
dachpyarvile
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2009
Given the fact that the eastern ice sheet still is stable and not collapsing or moving as a result of global warming, I would say that current volcanic activity may well have more than merely "something" to do with the accelerated melt on the western ice sheet.
Dragontide
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2009
Dach:

Wilkins Ice Shelf is now what's known as "first year ice" Even as the earth continues to warm, it will still get very cold at the poles during their winters. To the north, just about all the sea ice is also first year ice.
http://www.cbsnew...21.shtml

And yes there is seismic activity at the poles. Seismic activity is going to increase worldwide. As more ice melts, more water in the oceans puts more weight on the ocean floors giving magma less places to go.
http://www.worldw...ode/4388

What does a prediction in the 70s have to with this? Is Hansen the only debate you have against global warming? Your comparing apples & oranges here.
dachpyarvile
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2009
Yes, I am aware of what first year ice is. There is more than seismic activity at the poles. There is active volcanic action in western Antarctica as part of that seismic activity. Trouble is, mankind had nothing to do with it. It went active in 325 BCE.

It has remained active ever since. It is this volcanic action that has accelerated ice flow in western Antarctica.

Notwithstanding portions of the entire continent have warmed, eastern Antarctica still remains stable. Of course, there is as of yet no evidence of volcanic action in eastern Antarctica as there is in the west of the continent.

You may also be interested in the fact that the Arctic regions also have at least three volcanic "black smokers" nearby. The Arctic ice also has nothing to do with seismic activity of any kind as it does not depress the crust like Antarctic and other landbased glaciers do.
dachpyarvile
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2009
What does Hansen have to do with it? Well, a lot. He is one of the main driving forces in the debate and has yet to get a single model-based prediction right.

He is by far not the only argument I have against an unproven hypothesis. Was there a warming trend across the globe? Certainly! This has been occuring since the end of the Little Ice Age. Did man cause it? I highly doubt it. I have seen zero unfalsifiable evidence for AGW and little that cannot be explained by something else occurring at the same time.

I also have yet to see adequate refutation of historical and other material that shows that Greenland and the European continent was not warmer than today's global temps 1,000 years ago. The evidence suggests that it was warmer by at least 4°C then than now.

I also have yet to see charts that have not been altered and "smoothed" by the IPCC and others of the Gori. Hallowed be the Gori!
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Oh, one other thing. 120,000 years ago freshwater turtles migrated across the Arctic as recent fossil evidence has shown. That would mean a complete meltdown of the Arctic icepack and mankind had nothing to do with it.
Dragontide
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
There are a lot more scientists validating AGW than Hansen. Just because Hansen gets a little too excited about things does not mean he's wrong about AGW. Bob Corell was the one hired by Reagan to look into climate change.
http://www.cbsnew...69.shtml

Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth so the melting will not be as quick as up north. But it's still happening.

As to 1000 years ago, again the Inuit and other Arctic dwellers would have had to leave their land. (like their doing now)then change their lifestyle, then wait out an ice age then move back. There is no mention of this in their history. They have been there for 30,000 years. Now all of a sudden their life changes. And ice core samples tell the story about when it was warm and cold.

Dragontide
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
120.000 years ago the Milankovitch cycles were in their non-glacial stage. Precession (axial rotation) is currently in a glacial stage and will be so for thousands of years to come. And when the Milankovitch cycles bring about warming it is a gradual warming that takes thousands of years to melt the ice. Now it has happened in a few decades.

Plus if it were the Milankovitch cycles, the excess incoming heat (shortwave radiation) would be very easily detected.
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Ice Core samples are proxies and only tell part of the story. Isotope readings show that things were warmer 1,000 years ago as well. Fossil pollens show that it was warmer 1,000 years ago. Finding of deep-buried human bodies in what is now solid-frozen soil proves that climate in Greenland was warmer than at present 1,000 years ago.

One of the first founders swam across two miles in Greenland's frozen waters and did not die or even freeze. Highly trained humans can survive a two mile or more swim at water temperatures of 10°C but not less than that. Thus, the waters had to have been at minimum 4°C warmer than Greenland's present water temperature range of between 3°C and 6°C.

Again, take a gander at page 159 of H.H. Lamb's "Climate History and the Modern World" for starters to see the evidence for yourself. AGW proponents cannot afford to ignore this evidence but it is a certainty that they will continue to do so.

By the way, Innuit incursion was one of the main reasons for the demise of the Norse colonies of Greenland. They had migrated there and heavy conflict began. How versed are you in Innuit lore? Hmmmm???
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
120.000 years ago the Milankovitch cycles were in their non-glacial stage. Precession (axial rotation) is currently in a glacial stage and will be so for thousands of years to come. And when the Milankovitch cycles bring about warming it is a gradual warming that takes thousands of years to melt the ice. Now it has happened in a few decades.



Plus if it were the Milankovitch cycles, the excess incoming heat (shortwave radiation) would be very easily detected.


I have said exactly nothing about Milankovitch Cycles. Again, take a look at H. H. Lambs work cited above. There is really good evidence that things were warmer all across Europe, Greenland and Iceland there. It is a starting point. Refute the evidence contained therein if you can.
Dragontide
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Lamb should try to get the studies in his book peer reviewed. He has had 27 years to do so. Does absolutly NO ONE that studies climate agree with him?

You brought up 120,000 years ago. I explained what happened back then






Dragontide
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Not all of the Inuit went to Greenland. Many stayed right where they are.

http://www.iisd.o...tobs.htm

http://www.cbsnew...57.shtml

http://www.teache...tobserv/
dachpyarvile
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
What makes you think that Lamb's work has not been peer reviewed in the past? What makes you think that the sources he cited were not peer reviewed?

You really think that no one who studies climate agrees with Lamb? That is the height of ignorance.

By the way, I NEVER said that all Innuit migrated so your point is moot. Please stop twisting my words like the IPCC twists the climate data.

Please read Lamb and refute his data. It is hard to refute archaeological facts and evidence, as well as supporting historical data. But, if you think you can refute it do so now.
Dragontide
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Why don't you just post what point your trying to make with Lamb. That some warmer water made it's way to one point in the world at one particular time allowing someone to go swimming?



You tried to make it sound like all the Inuit went to Greenland when you said:

By the way, Innuit incursion was one of the main reasons for the demise of the Norse colonies of Greenland. They had migrated there and heavy conflict began. How versed are you in Innuit lore? Hmmmm???
Because twisting facts around all you sceptics know how to do.
dachpyarvile
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
See! Look at that. You ignored previous posts that mention far more than the swim. Yet, that is what you focus upon. I told you what is in Lamb above. Go read his work and refute it.

I made no such claim or even attempt to suggest that all Innuit migrated to Greenland. That is your false interpretation of what I stated.

Twisting facts is what the IPCC clan do. I do nothing of the kind. REFUTE LAMB, if you can.

By the way, you might want to take a look over at another website containing another piece of data before continuing to spout off as you do.

The ancient boreal forests were thought to cover southern Greenland during a period of increased global temperatures, known as an interglacial.

Temperatures at the time were probably between 10C in summer and -17C in winter.

When the temperatures dropped again 450,000 years ago, the forests and their inhabitants were covered by the advancing ice, effectively freezing them in time.

Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.

At the time the ice is estimated to have been between 1,000 and 1,500m thick.

"If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Professor Willerslev. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming."

("DNA reveals Greenland's lush past" URL: http://news.bbc.c...6576.stm Accessed: 6-16-2009)


Now ignoring the length of time, I want you to focus on the data regarding the temperature during that time.

Note that the data suggests that the temperatures were 5°C warmer at the time studied? Did you also notice that the ice cap in Greenland was a lot more stable than previously thought and that they survived temperatures 5°C higher than those at present?

If that is so, why then are climate scientists of the IPCC variety stating that the cap is going to completely melt off if the temperatures reach even 3.6°C higher than today??? Hmmm...???

Let's see your explanation for this discrepancy in what the data actually tells us as opposed to what the IPCC tells us the data tells them? Explain it now, please....
Dragontide
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
I'd also say the GIS is pretty resistant to melting But now all of a sudden it is theatened to collapse. What does that tell you?
dachpyarvile
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
It tells me that that the IPCC are fudging the data in order to make people panic and bend to their views.

Once again, if the ice pack survived temperatures of 5°C warmer than now, what makes you think that temperatures of that high or lower are going to do it now? Tell me how such dire predictions of the IPCC and others of the AGW camp will be fulfilled? Just answer the question.
Dragontide
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
So then all you have to do is get one (insert cuss words) sceptic science to gather polar data from Greenland and your home free. They won't do that will they? You can't fake or hide global warming.

Nartoon
3 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2009
"inertia of the climate system", what a pile of road apples.
dachpyarvile
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2009
dt,

Just answer the question and try to follow the argument.

1. During the last interglacial period temperatures were 5°C higher than present.

2. The Greenland ice cap was preserved and did not melt down during this time.

3. Climate scientists are now saying that Greenland's ice cap is being threatened with complete collapse if the temperatures reach much higher than they are now.

Now, if the ice cap survived and did not melt down when the world was 5°C warmer during the laster interglacial period, preserving specimens that were frozen in the ice cap long before for us to examine and study today, what makes you think that an increase of temperatures lower than this or even at the level of 5°C will collapse the Greenland ice cap now?

Just answer the question and we can move from there. Or, is it just that you are having difficulty answering this very simple question because English is not your native language?

By the way, even if one cannot hide or fake global warming, one can decide whether or not man is responsible and one can also be misled into thinking that things are heating up uncontrollably in response to anomalies that occurred this last year in Europe.

Europe gets a blast of hot Sahara air from Africa due to anomalous conditions in the Atlantic and everyone suddenly thinks they are going to die from global warming... :)
Dragontide
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
The summers in the last interglacial period were closer to 1-2°C
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html
Velanarris
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2009
Dragontide, you've been refuted and disproved on each of your points. Unless you're going to bring current findings to the table this is akin to having a QM debate with Newton.
Velanarris
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2009
dach, don't waste your time. He and I had the same argument here:http://www.physor...573.html

and you can see how responsive and scientific he is from his demands for my to prove my facts while he unequivocally states his amateur hypothesis is settled science. He's a paid warmist advocate running several accounts on physorg. Speaking with him does nothing to further his understanding as he's more engrossed with money. Aren't you John_balls/Noein/MsDeeNyer/Dragontide?
John_balls
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2009
dach, don't waste your time. He and I had the same argument here:http://www.physor...573.html



and you can see how responsive and scientific he is from his demands for my to prove my facts while he unequivocally states his amateur hypothesis is settled science. He's a paid warmist advocate running several accounts on physorg. Speaking with him does nothing to further his understanding as he's more engrossed with money. Aren't you John_balls/Noein/MsDeeNyer/Dragontide?


You're an idiot I have one account and my theory is backed by peer reviewed studies. I don't have to get into the particulars of the science someone else has done that for me just like I don't have to go to great lengths to dissapprove quantum mechanics because their is a scientific community of experts doing this for me. You know groups like the following that support AGW:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies%u2019 statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Public Health Association
American Medical Association
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Water Environment Federation
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
Royal Society of New Zealan

dachpyarvile
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Well, then, mr. balls, it should be an easy thing for you to answer the questions above, now should it not?

During the last interglacial period the temperatures of the globe were 5°C higher than today.

The Greenland Ice Cap was preserved and did not collapse, itself preserving specimens that were iced centuries before, preserving DNA well enough to identify the sources.

If the Greenland ice cap did not collapse when the global temperatures rose to 5°C higher than present, what makes you think that the Greenland ice cap will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?

Just answer the question. It really is rather simple. :)
dachpyarvile
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Wow, our rampant downranker is at it again. I guess it is easier to hide a tough question than to answer it, eh?

That question again is:

If the Greenland Ice Sheet did not collapse when the global temperatures rose to 5°C higher than present during the last interglacial period, what makes you think that the Greenland Ice Sheet will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?

How about answering the question rather than hiding it?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
By the way, Dt, the Thule Inuit responsible in part for the demise of the Norse colonies in Greenland migrated all the way from Alaska. Thought you might find that interesting. :)
Dragontide
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Quit lying Dach. The temp was not 5°C above today's temp during the last IP. It was closer to 1-2 and only during the summer And the warming was quite localized.
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html

Same thing for the Mid-Holocene Warm Period - About 6,000 Years Ago.

http://www.ncdc.n...ene.html

Excellent post John Balls.

Vel: One word for you "Google"

Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
Vel: One word for you "Google"
Here's a better one for you "Arxiv"
dachpyarvile
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2009
No lying here, Dt, except in your twisting the facts--again!

There is a difference between what you say and the phrase "DURING the last interglacial." There also is a difference between 125,000 years and 116,000-113,000 years ago. Hahahaha!

Your first cited article above refers to "ca. 125,000 Years Ago" whereas mine cited above refers to the period DURING the last interglacial period of "116,000-130,000 years ago."

Nice try at twisting the data but you have failed--again.

Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5°C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.

("DNA reveals Greenland's lush past" URL: http://news.bbc.c...6576.stm Accessed: 6-13-2009)


Now, please just answer the question, Dt. That question again is:

If the Greenland Ice Sheet did not collapse when the global temperatures rose to 5°C higher than present during the last interglacial period, what makes you think that the Greenland Ice Sheet will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Another thing, Dt: CO2 levels were lower during the last interglacial period than at present. How do you account for the warming?

Your second citation has not a whit to do with what we are discussing and is a smokescreen or even a red herring.

Please just answer the question, and now you can answer this question, too. Both questions are relevant. :)
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
And I'm telling you it is a trick question. At no time in the past million & a half years (at least) have the world's land-ocean surface temperatures been 5C above what they are today. In Antarctica, a new life form was discovered in the melting ice.
http://www.indepe...966.html

If the world had been as hot as you suggest (5°C above today) the ice in Antarctica would have melted then and the microbes would have spilled into the ocean. But they didn't They are there now.

The researcher from the BBC link obviously used the incorrect models when the 5°C was equated because it's just not possible.

Dragontide
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2009
ALL warmings before this one were a result of Earth's orbit around the sun. (the Milankovitch cycles) That is not the case today. During the last IP (brought about by the natural Milankovitch cycles) There was a rise in temp (1-2C) in the northern hemisphere ONLY. It was cooler than normal during that time south of the equator.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Ok, here is something else from the website you cited from:

Two deep ice cores from central Greenland, drilled in the 1990s, have played a key role in climate reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere, but the oldest sections of the cores were disturbed in chronology owing to ice folding near the bedrock. Here we present an undisturbed climate record from a North Greenland ice core, which extends back to 123,000 years before the present, within the last interglacial period. The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5°C warmer than today.


("High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period" URL: http://www.ncdc.n...004.html Accessed: 6-13-2009)

So, here is another source that confirms the 5°C higher temperature in the northern hemisphere during the last interglacial period. Incidentally, the data comes directly from the issue of Nature I mentioned above, for those interested in the cite and its location. :)

And no, it is not a trick question. By the way, quit saying that it is not possible when the data seems to show that it is possible. Nice try, but you must try again... :)
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Ah, that's where the five degrees figure came from, Dachyparville? Hrm. Well, if you do happen to stumble across the article (don't put yourself out of your way to find it, mind, just if), I'd be glad to know what issue it's in. ...


Here is the citation for the article, although there are other sources that tend toward confirming that temperature, several of which I have cited above.



Nature v.431, No. 7005, pp. 147-151, 9 September 2004
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Read futher on and it says:

"We find unexpectedly large temperature differences between our new record from northern Greenland and the undisturbed sections of the cores from central Greenland, suggesting that the extent of ice in the Northern Hemisphere modulated the latitudinal temperature gradients in Greenland."

So it got a little hotter in one part of Greenland. That would not be enough to cause a collapse. Now ALL of Greenland is warming. BIG difference there.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Besides, your argument is not with me it is with peer-reviewed science--and peer-reviewed science says that the Northern Hemisphere was 5°C warmer than present during the last interglacial period. :)
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
peer-reviewed science says that the Northern Hemisphere was 5°C warmer than present during the last interglacial period. :)


Peer reviewed science says that a part of Central Greenland was 5°C warmer than present during the last interglacial period. Greenland is a rather largre place you know.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
You misread the article and I would suggest reading the entire article in Nature before you shove that foot further down your throat, Dt. :)

What the article shows is that several sections of the ice sheet were folded by interaction with the bedrock and that they took these samples from another area that contained the desired data. The other ice cores do not go as far back as the samples described in the full article.

Please try not to twist the data as it is applicable to the whole of Greenland. The cores for the article were taken from NORTHERN Greenland, which is, well, further north and more likely to be COLDER than the location further south. :)

In other words, if O16/O18 isotope data was taken from northern Greenland, which was colder, what does that say about southern Greenland?

In reality, the isotope readings tell us what is in the atmosphere and these readings corrolate with 5°C higher temperatures in the atmosphere.

Deuterium isotope readings tell us what is contained in the ice whereas O16/O18 isotope readings tell us what is in the atmosphere and correlates with the "why" of that ratio.

Try again... :)
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Ok Dach. Just for the sake of argument, I'll give to a 5 degree bump for most of Greenland. The nearest waters and other lands were still below or neutral to todays temperatures. That created natural defenses from excess precipitation and southern flow. With warmer average temperatures woldwide, weather and climate patterns react differenly than during the IPs.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Ok Dach. Just for the sake of arguement, I'll give to a 5 degree bump for most of Greenland. The nearest waters and other lands were still below or neutral to todays temperatures. That created natural defenses from excess precipitation and southern flow. With warmer average temperatures woldwide, weather and climate patterns react differenly than during the IPs.


Actually, other data seems to show that there was a 1°C to 2°C climb in temperature in other regions around the same time. Nonetheless, you have not answered the question.

Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5°C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.


Here we present an undisturbed climate record from a North Greenland ice core, which extends back to 123,000 years before the present, within the last interglacial period. The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5°C warmer than today.


If the Greenland Ice Sheet did not collapse when the temperatures in the climate of the Northern Hemisphere rose to 5°C higher than present during the last interglacial period, what makes you think that the Greenland Ice Sheet will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
By the way, up to last year the Southern Hemisphere experienced a cooling trend, with an increase of sea ice by 28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean.

See the chart here: http://www.ncdc.n...3-pg.gif
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Look at the picture:
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html

To start with in only shows a 1-2°C average for most of Greenland. I was not giving you a bump in all those blue sections.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
The picture to which you keep referring to me points to sea surface temperatures NOT ATMOSPHERIC temperatures. Please get a grip on the data. :)
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
Surface temperatures are what's important.
Dragontide
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2009
By the way, up to last year the Southern Hemisphere experienced a cooling trend, with an increase of sea ice by 28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean.



Oh Brrrrr! Yea! Tell that to the folks of Australia that endured "Black Saturday" a few months ago.

http://www.wsws.o...09.shtml



And now El-Nino is returning to start their drought cycle over again. Black Saturday actually happened during a weak La-Nina. That should not have happened. Unless.....

dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2009
Surface temperatures are what's important.


This is precisely why the climate scientists are getting the data and the models wrong. They think only one type of data is important. It all is. Until climate scientists start looking at the whole of the data they will continue to get things wrong. Atmospheric temperatures of 5°C higher than today are important to the interior of Greenland, which is, of course, where the GIS resides. :)
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2009
By the way, up to last year the Southern Hemisphere experienced a cooling trend, with an increase of sea ice by 28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean.


Oh Brrrrr! Yea! Tell that to the folks of Australia that endured "Black Saturday" a few months ago.

http://www.wsws.o...09.shtml

...


Man! There are sure an awful lot of "it is very difficult to say" statements in that article you cited above. :)

By the way, you still have not answered the questions. Still waiting.... :)
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2009
I don't think you quite understand how the greenhouse effect works. Now if you live in the upper troposphere then your good to go, but everybody down here on the surface is roasting.

http://www.ncdc.n...emp.html
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2009
I don't think you quite understand how the greenhouse effect works. Now if you live in the upper troposphere then your good to go, but everybody down here on the surface is roasting.







http://www.ncdc.n...emp.html




Ummm, your chart was current to 2001. Time to update... :)

By the way, winter 2008 was touted as the "coldest winter of the 21st century."
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2009
Hahaha!
"Coldest winter of the 21st century!"


Good one.

That's because the 21st century has been WAY above the 20th century mean.

2008 was still the 8th warmest year in recorded history
http://www.noaane...ats.html

Ninth according to NASA. And the entire top ten occured from 1997-2008.
http://data.giss....mp/2008/
Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2009
Hahaha!

"Coldest winter of the 21st century!"




Good one.



That's because the 21st century has been WAY above the 20th century mean.



2008 was still the 8th warmest year in recorded history

http://www.noaane...ats.html


You are significantly out of date. You're missing 4 months of debate on whether the smoothing method used was accurate, and you're using the old graphs. Good work.

I don't think you quite understand how the greenhouse effect works. Now if you live in the upper troposphere then your good to go, but everybody down here on the surface is roasting.
Yeah, problem is to prove that you need to have an upper tropospheric hot spot. Unfortunately you don't so again, your hypothesis has been disproven by your own sources.
snwboardn
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
My question is this; if CO2 levels and O2 levels dictate the warmth of the earth, why wasn't the earth iced over during the period when insects were huge because there was so much oxygen in the atmosphere?
dachpyarvile
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2009
My question is this; if CO2 levels and O2 levels dictate the warmth of the earth, why wasn't the earth iced over during the period when insects were huge because there was so much oxygen in the atmosphere?


It is not O2 levels that dictate anything. It is the O16/O18 oxygen isotope ratios that demonstrate climate temperature.

During the times when insects were huge there were both high concentrations of CO2 AND O2. Certain kinds of insects can grow to larger sizes in the presence of higher quantities of O2. During the time in question O2 levels were on the order of ~35% of the composition of the atmosphere instead of the current 21%.

The plants also were huge, such as six-foot or higher mosses, and so forth, due to higher than "normal" levels of CO2--well over 5000 ppm (or so the proxies from the period tell us)!

There is something else that has recently come up that is sure to influence discussions of CO2 and how bad/good it is for the earth.

Turns out that recent data seems to indicate that we are dooming life to extinction sooner than later by making any efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2!

Yes, you are reading this correctly. It turns out that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to help control the boiling off of the ocean in a billion years, when the sun grows hot and radiant enough to boil off the oceans and roast everything on the planet into oblivion.

The scientists who made this discovery are advocating bleeding off or sequestering nitrogen out from the atmosphere to compensate for the loss of CO2 by lessening the pressure of the atmosphere in order to extend earth's life another 1.3 billion years!

The basic underlying premise of the article, however, is that we would not need to do that if the CO2 levels were higher!!! Here is the summary of the article:

As the sun has matured over the past 4.5 billion years, it has become both brighter and hotter, increasing the amount of solar radiation received by Earth, along with surface temperatures. Earth has coped by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus reducing the warming effect. (Despite current concerns about rising carbon dioxide levels triggering detrimental climate change, the pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has dropped some 2,000-fold over the past 3.5 billion years; modern, man-made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide offset a fraction of this overall decrease.)

The problem, says Joseph L. Kirschvink, the Nico and Marilyn Van Wingen Professor of Geobiology at Caltech and a coauthor of the PNAS paper, is that "we're nearing the point where there's not enough carbon dioxide left to regulate temperatures following the same procedures."

http://www.physor...824.html


Is working to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere dooming the planet in the long run? Is this another case of saving the planet to destroy it? Of course, what is a billion years? None of us will be there to see it. :)
Noein
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2009
Aren't you John_balls/Noein/MsDeeNyer/Dragontide?


LOL I guess for someone so drenched in the delusional fantasies of big oil's Church of Global Warming Denialism, some sort of tin hat conspiracy just has to emerge.

CWFlink
3.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
Let's do a thought experiment: assume all fossil-based fuels are replaced with hydrogen released from sea-water via one of the several techniques using nuclear power. Will the rise in CO2 levels stop in time to save the cities? I doubt it.

There is massive biomass destruction going on due to population growth, land clearing and movement of people from self-sustaining farm environments to energy intensive cities.

Does anyone have a solid grasp on the impact of this? ...I doubt it. How do you tell the bulk of the world's population that the society they see in the movies can never be one they enjoy... that it is simply unsustainable?

If you want to change the world, change yourself first. ...unfortunately, we lack the will to do that. It is far more likely that rising poverty, rising terrorism and brutal wars or die-offs will solve our climate problem by "fixing" our population problem.

I wish we could first "grow up" and make our lives truly self-sustaining, but even Gore flys about in his plane, supposedly paying for it in "carbon credits". When Al starts wearing recycled drapes and growing potatoes in his back yard, I'll see a glimmer of hope.
jonnyboy
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2009
I don't know about MsDeeNyer, but pretty obvious just from this thread John_balls/Noein/Dragontide are all the same individual, as the writer seamlessly moves back and forth from one to the other without even realizing what he is doing
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
Gore gets part of the money he puts into Carbon Offsets back. He is part owner of the company from which he buys the offsets. He is one of the biggest hypocrites on the face of the planet, using more electricity in a month than the average household uses in a year, and he rewards himself by buying from himself carbon offsets from a company he partly owns.

For my own part, my family and I recycle more than three times what we put out in trash and that ratio of recycling is about to increase as we begin mulching our own soil. We have been replacing our lighting with LED lighting as time goes by.

Of course, I am doing the lighting changes to save money in the long run, not try to save the planet. I simply have seen no hard, irrefutable evidence that man is causing the heating of the planet with CO2, contra the nonsense of the IPCC and clan.

Recycling on a mass scale and cleaning up our pollutive messes will do far more to save the planet than CO2 restriction ever will.
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2009


You are significantly out of date. You're missing 4 months of debate on whether the smoothing method used was accurate, and you're using the old graphs. Good work.


Since NOAA says 8th, NASA says 9th and the WMO says 10th, does it really matter? What number are you suggesting?



Al Gore's home is all alt energy. He had a high utility bill when his home was being renovated. The AGW sceptics jumped all over it in desperation.



CWFlink: there is a point of no return. If the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia thaws, life as we know it is over and will take hundreds of thousands of years to get back to where we are today.



http://abcnews.go...arth2100
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
You still have not answered the questions. How is that coming, by the way?
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
You still have not answered the questions. How is that coming, by the way?

Ask a logical question and I will answer it. All your asking is "what if" the temps were 5°C above today's temps during the last IP. They were only that high in sections of Greenland. If that were the situation today, there would be no worries.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2009
You obviously have not read the material in full. Go back and actually read the whole of it. The CLIMATE was 5°C warmer during the last interglacial period. There is no substitute for actually reading the peer-reviewed science in full, Dt.

When you have done that, answer the question. The question is quite logical, for O16/O18 isotope ratios give information relative to the climate as the ratio changes when the environment is warmer.

You have refused to answer the question because you still think it is a trick question. :)
Dragontide
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2009
YOU need to research what your talking about. Land and ocean surface temperatures are all that matters. We live at the surface. What is this "temperature of the climate" nonsense? When the surface warms too much, that's when all the bad things happen. (migrating disease, more extreme weather, etc...) You are trying to insert a non-tangable into the equasion.
Johannes
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
"Please publish your data or STFU. oh right your not a scientist, your some internet nerd that tries to debunk AGW on the internet."



John Balls; it doesn't matter where a good argument comes from. It also doesn't matter who poses a fact that isn't explained by the current scientific model. A laymen (or internet nerd as you say it) can ask very interesting questions. A saying in Dutch is 'Een gek kan meer vragen dan tien wijzen kunnen beantwoorden.' 'A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise people can answer'.



The internet is a very important instrument for the scientific community. It also enables people without a scientific title and occupation in a relevant field, but with a scientific mind (and maybe even a scientific occupation in another field) to ask possibly interesting questions and pose possibly contradicting data to the recently emerging scientific field of climate science.



After all, logic and fact are fundamental to science, and totally independent of the person.



Only a fool thinks he has all the wisdom of the earth.



J.
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
- Weather for a small part of any country cannot be reliably predicted for more than a few days into the future at present, because of the massively complex models that require too many factors to be followed, most of which we cannot, to-day, measure with any accuracy.

- So what chance is there of predicting climate change over the whole planet, a much more complex task?

Weather and climate are two different things.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2009

Weather and climate are two different things.

Yes, Climate is much larger than weather and as such, climate modeling employs a far many more variables than weather forecasting. Since the models at hand need to be many magnitudes more complex to have a reasonable level of accuracy, one would most likely not base their research on modeling. Yet, everything you bring up states something about these very same models.

Why is that? Is it because it's the only part of the theory that holds true? While the model matches the hypothesis the climate is doing whatever it cares to, in most cases this is making the modelers look very bad.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
YOU need to research what your talking about. Land and ocean surface temperatures are all that matters. We live at the surface. What is this "temperature of the climate" nonsense? When the surface warms too much, that's when all the bad things happen. (migrating disease, more extreme weather, etc...) You are trying to insert a non-tangable into the equasion.

Seeing as it's well understood that heat rises and that the atmosphere is a relatively poor conductor of heat, one would think you'd be more interested in looking at the upper troposphere, particularly the tropopause as that is where the net gain or loss of atmospheric energy would be found. This info is especially important to the Greenhouse gas driven model of Anthropogenic Global warming.

So, where's the hotspot? Surface temperatures can be relegated to having interaction with the UHIE where as CO2 is a well mixed gas, leading to a naturally smoothed reading baseline.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2009
YOU need to research what your talking about. Land and ocean surface temperatures are all that matters. We live at the surface. What is this "temperature of the climate" nonsense? When the surface warms too much, that's when all the bad things happen. (migrating disease, more extreme weather, etc...) You are trying to insert a non-tangable into the equasion.


I didn't know you live on the surface of the ocean! Must be a nice houseboat, Dt. How much you pay for it?
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
Vel:

Weather has more variables than Climate. It's impossible to pinpoint things like when and where a pop-up shower will occur. But global warming is easy to forcast. If you have a greenhouse it is very easy to predict it will stay warm inside. (unless you leave the door open or punch a hole in the roof) Excessive greenhouse gasses do the exact same thing. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Since the upper troposphere temperatures has no effect on the surface temperatures it dosn't matter what the temperatures in the UT are. The UT has been cooling and warming, but the surface temperatures are staying warm.

Dach:

Hurricanes live on the surface of the ocean. When the ocean is warmer the hurricanes get bigger and stronger. Ike should have been a wake up call for everybody last year. It was only a cat-2 but it was the most destructive and costly in history. (because of it's sheer size)
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2009
Vel:

Weather has more variables than Climate.
Climate is weather over time. How would weather have more variables than climate?
It's impossible to pinpoint things like when and where a pop-up shower will occur. But global warming is easy to forcast.
Global warming cannot be easy to forecast. If GW was easy to forecast then one would be able to anticipate the current cooling trend, which no model has done. Conversely, the models would be able to reconstruct past climate accurately but this also has not been done.

If you have a greenhouse it is very easy to predict it will stay warm inside. (unless you leave the door open or punch a hole in the roof)
Or the method of construction of that greenhouse did not take all environmental variables into account. For example, you wouldn't expect a greenhouse in Antarctica to be warm. But if you didn't know it was cold in Antarctica you would expect it to be warm. Current climate science has many holes in its understanding. You cannot say you know anything until the system is well understood, and it is not.
Excessive greenhouse gasses do the exact same thing. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Unless GHGs are not at play due to other unknowns about our climate system.
Since the upper troposphere temperatures has no effect on the surface temperatures it dosn't matter what the temperatures in the UT are.
Upper tropospheric temperatures are a primary indicator of radiative forcings. Without radiative forcing evidence you cannot state that GHG's are suspect. You have no evidence as CO2 IR absoprtion is not driven by altitude. An increase in surface temperature due to IR requires a tropospheric increase in temperature due to fundamental physics.
The UT has been cooling and warming, but the surface temperatures are staying warm.
Cite your references please.
Hurricanes live on the surface of the ocean. When the ocean is warmer the hurricanes get bigger and stronger.
That's not true. Hurricanes are formed by inequality in atmospheric energy contrast. Hurricanes form at the equator and push into areas of lower energy, (towards the poles), warm water flows provide excess energy in localized circumstances, however, that energy is redistributed by the hurricane as the system attempts to reach equilibrium. This is why GW should produce weaker hurricanes, not stronger ones.

Ike should have been a wake up call for everybody last year. It was only a cat-2 but it was the most destructive and costly in history. (because of it's sheer size)
Prior to Ike, the five costliest in history, unadjusted for inflation were Katrina(05) at 76 billion, Andrew (92) at 45 billion, Charley (04) 15.4 billion, Ivan (04) 17.7 billion,
and Hugo(89) 15.6 billion.

After adjusting for inflation, Ike would be sitting probably 4th or 5th at 32 billion (estimated) after Hugo.
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
L had once heard Ike was the most costly but it's the 3rd at $ 22 billion



http://news.natio...ike.html



And inside a greenhouse in Antarctica would be warmer than outside. In a greenhouse, shortwave radiation can get in but longwave radiation is restricted from getting out.

And what cooling trend are you talking about? When the world surface temps drop back down to the 20th century mean for at least one year, then you might be onto something. But that will not happen in the 21st century.
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
This page ate half my post so here is the rest: (hopefully)
Andrew was only 15 billion.
http://www.insure...rew.html

Ivan 14.2
http://www.hurric...van.html

Hugo 13.9 billion
Now lets have a look at other global warming costs:
http://www.infopl...823.html
Look at how much 2008 costs.

Then there's this: (global warming kills 300,000 each year.
http://www.msnbc....30998907

As for the upper troposphere temperatures. Yes is has been cooling. Greenhouse gasses cool the UT. But it dosn't help us any.
http://rankexploi...cooling/
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
Dt,

The peer-reviewed science cited above by me shows and agrees that the climate was 5°C warmer during the last interglacial.

So, based upon that science, just answer the question. We are still waiting....
Dragontide
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
I have already addressed this Dach. Show me where "climate temperatures" are the same as "surface temperatures"

And you are comparing an IP event with a greenhouse effect event. Apples and oranges.
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
And in any event, Dr Enrico Cappellini of the University of York, UK. made his assumption that the Earth was 5°C but looking at only two (2) ice cores out of all that have gathered over the years. It was a quite incorrect assumption. And my link (that says only 1-2°C then and only in parts of Greenland) is MUCH more peer reviewed than yours! :p
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
...And you are comparing an IP event with a greenhouse effect event. Apples and oranges.


Greenhouse effect events ALWAYS happen. IPs come in cycles. Were it not for the constant greenhouse effect, you and I would not be having this discussion and the earth would be a frozen wasteland.

You have yet to demonstrate that earth's recent warming trend is caused by CO2 emissions. This has not been proven and is still in hypothesis stage.

Your link is based on a different analysis than that which demonstrates that the northern hemisphere's climate was warmer by 5°C than present.

In addition, the climate temperatures were those on land and you keep bringing up sea-surface readings, which are two different things. This you seem to fail to grasp.

Here is the thing, Dt, sea surface temperatures are always going to be a few degrees lower than land climate temperatures. So, if the temperatures of the water were at 2.5°C above today's temperatures, what does that really say about other temperatures in the climate on land?

Do the math, buddy...

I think the real reason you do not want to take the time to answer the question is because it will cause you to take your fingers out of your ears and stop chanting, "Lalalalala...I'm not listening...!"
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
You can't prove the temps were that high. You have the word of one doctor. I don't see any peer review on you BBC link. Since it was a BBC link was it reviewed by the Vicar of Dibley? No! No! No! No! No!... I bet she wouldn't even agree! LoL!

I think you need to get back to basics. Here is the easiest explination of the greenhouse effect I can find:
http://www.epa.go...use.html
If this is too complicated for you, you should contact an attorney and sue all your teachers.
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
To get the "world temperature" you use the combined average Land and ocean surface temperatures. That's the way NOAA, NASA and the WMO does it with weather monitoring stations all over the globe. Have you come up with a better way to do it?
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2009
You can't prove the temps were that high. You have the word of one doctor.
And you can't prove there weren't.
I don't see any peer review on you BBC link. Since it was a BBC link was it reviewed by the Vicar of Dibley? No! No! No! No! No!... I bet she wouldn't even agree! LoL!
Lord Monckton disagrees with you. You know who he was, climate adviser to Thatcher.
I think you need to get back to basics. Here is the easiest explination of the greenhouse effect I can find:

http://www.epa.go...use.html

If this is too complicated for you, you should contact an attorney and sue all your teachers.

I think you may want to do the same in regards to your statistics teachers.

"An increase in the presence of one trace gas on the order of 0.0003% of the total atmosphere can increase global temperature by 5 degrees C through the capture of additional IR."

Do you see a problem with that statement? You should, but yet you still hold it to be true.

There is no way CO2 is responsible for GW. It's not possible. There is no mathematical method that can account for it.

So Dragontide, prove your theory that all of the world's warming can be attributed to CO2.

Through what mechanism can a less than 1% change in the atmosphere of the Earth cause a "catastrophic heating" of 5 degrees Celsius? Please be explicit as I've been waiting to see the settled science in pen and paper, peer reviewed, form.
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009
In Thatcher's days, not many knew about global warming.

See John Balls statement above. Plenty of AGW peer review.


The temps will be at least 6C above by 2070. Because of Co2 and the permafrost melt.

What part of the greenhouse effect link confused you?
Dragontide
2 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2009

There is no way CO2 is responsible for GW. It's not possible. There is no mathematical method that can account for it.

The math:
Co2 was 280 PPM in pre-industrial days. It was above 360 in 2002. The sun played a minor role in the years 1900 and 1960.
http://earthguide.../03.html
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
You can't prove the temps were that high. You have the word of one doctor. I don't see any peer review on you BBC link. Since it was a BBC link was it reviewed by the Vicar of Dibley? No! No! No! No! No!... I bet she wouldn't even agree! LoL!



I think you need to get back to basics. Here is the easiest explination of the greenhouse effect I can find:

http://www.epa.go...use.html

If this is too complicated for you, you should contact an attorney and sue all your teachers.



It is not the word of one doctor alone. That appears to have been the only portion of what I have posted above, which the rampant downranker has hidden. There is a whole lot of peer reviewed science out there that says that the climate in the Northern Hemisphere was 5°C warmer than at present.

If you only stick to websites you will never see most of it.

Once again, the sea surface temperatures are going to be lower than land surface temperatures on the order of several degrees. If we average that all out with the sea surface temperatures and compare it to the O16/O18 isotope ratio from the same period, it all comes out to at least 5°C warmer than the present.

Where do you think this idea came from? From people who actually do the science. It did not originate with me. I merely am the bringer of the news. Have you read Lamb yet? Thought not. Perhaps it is you who has need to sue your instructors.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
I think you need to get back to basics. Here is the easiest explination of the greenhouse effect I can find:

http://www.epa.go...use.html

If this is too complicated for you, you should contact an attorney and sue all your teachers.


Here is what I pointed out, which is what is on the weblink you supplied:

The greenhouse effect is important. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would not be warm enough for humans to live.


This website says exactly the same thing I said above. You do not seem to read very well, Dt. I'd lay off the alcohol, if I were you.

To get the "world temperature" you use the combined average Land and ocean surface temperatures. That's the way NOAA, NASA and the WMO does it with weather monitoring stations all over the globe. Have you come up with a better way to do it?


Well, for starters, I did not know that these organizations had temperature monitors during the last interglacial period. :)

The only way to get at the temperatures in the environment and climate is via proxies. Some proxies are better at telling the story than others. Heating of the air by ambient temperature in the climate causes the ratio of O16 to O18 to change.

The ratio as found in the Greenland Ice Cores from the undisturbed sections of the GIS dating to the time of the last interglacial period shows that the temperature was at least 5°C higher than today.

I'd suggest you read the Nature article in full before shoving that foot even further down your throat, Dt.

Fact is, I think you are afraid to read the article and the underlying paper because it will rattle your fantasy world back into reality.
Dragontide
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2009
They come to an average, based on all of recorded history. I never suggested that land and water are the same temperature.



The doctor is obviously a quack. If you want to ONLY count any given two ice core samples, you could come up with just about anything. If you took only 2 from Antartica and ignored the rest, you could show that the last IP was actually cooler and could make the claim the IP never happened.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2009
They come to an average, based on all of recorded history....


Wrong! You have revealed your ignorance. Thank you.

The doctor is obviously a quack. If you want to ONLY count any given two ice core samples, you could come up with just about anything. If you took only 2 from Antartica and ignored the rest, you could show that the last IP was actually cooler and could make the claim the IP never happened.


Would that it were only one doctor. It is obvious that you have not even so much as read even a fraction of what I have given you to read. I think you cannot understand the data, for the raw isotope data is available for download and you can plug the numbers into the d18O formulae.

Here are the names of those involved in the isotope study of the ice cores.

K. K. ANDERSEN, N. AZUMA, J.-M. BARNOLA, M. BIGLER, P. BISCAYE, N. CAILLON, J. CHAPPELLAZ, H. B. CLAUSEN, D. DAHL-JENSEN, H. FISCHER, J. FLÜCKIGER, D. FRITZSCHE, Y. FUJII, K. GOTO-AZUMA, K. GRONVOLD, N. S. GUNDESTRUP, M. HANSSON, C. HUBER, C. S. HVIDBERG, S. J. JOHNSEN, U. JONSELL, J. JOUZEL, S. KIPFSTUHL, A. LANDAIS, M. LEUENBERGER, R. LORRAIN, V. MASSON-DELMOTTE, H. MILLER, H. MOTOYAMA, H. NARITA, T. POPP, S. O. RASMUSSEN, D. RAYNAUD, R. ROTHLISBERGER, U. RUTH, D. SAMYN, J. SCHWANDER, H. SHOJI, M.-L. SIGGARD-ANDERSEN, J. P. STEFFENSEN, T. STOCKER, A. E. SVEINBJÖRNSDÓTTIR, A. SVENSSON, M. TAKATA, J.-L. TISON, TH. THORSTEINSSON, O. WATANABE, F. WILHELMS & J. W. C. WHITE.

One doctor, indeed! :)

Oh, but it gets better than this, Dt. There are a number of newer studies that also looked into the same isotopic ratios in fossils taken from under the sea and from other core samples taken in the Northern Hemisphere. All agree that the climate temperature was higher by at least 5°C.

Add to that another component of the study that involved the Mg/Ca ratio in the shells of various forms of life, calibrated by Antarctica ice core data from Dome 6. The more magnesium in relation to calcium the warmer the water and by extension the air.

All of these agree that the climate was warmer way back then than now and the data correlates well with temperatures on the order of which the above data I presented (which has been hidden by the rampant downranker) gives.

The public will be reading this data shortly so no need for citations at present. But, in the meantime, you might want to obtain the raw data and plug the numbers into the formulae.

Prepare to have your world rocked. Or, you can remain in your state of ignorant bliss like an Ostrich with his head in the sand. It really is up to you. :)
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
Read em and weep:
http://earthobser...ceCores/

Yes it was 5 above. But LONG before the IP. Surf around that site and learn something.

2 ice core samples indeed. You have been joking all along right? You got me.

*pats Dach on the head* :D
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2009
Read em and weep:

http://earthobser...ceCores/



Yes it was 5 above. But LONG before the IP. Surf around that site and learn something.



2 ice core samples indeed. You have been joking all along right? You got me.



*pats Dach on the head* :D


GISP2??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! GISP 2 does nto even go back as far as the data in the Nature article that you keep refusing to read. You must be having trouble reading English, Dt. Maybe I shouldn't laugh. :)

Long before the IP the temperatures were at times reaching as high as 10°C to 15°C higher than today. I suggest a little more research and more reading of the data supplied by the very people who worked on site and published.

The citation from Nature is above. Read the entire article, please. Oh, and read Lamb. Seriously....
Dragontide
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2009
It goes back to the IP. Oh does that put an inconvience on your theory? Well how about the Vostok, Antarctica cores that go back 400,000 from the same link. No darn it. That dosn't help you either. Were running out of options fast Dach! Dr 2 sticks -vs- NOAA and NASA. Not looking good. I'm so sorry.

Suntzu61
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2009
Argue all you want people. The fact is the Sun and oceans create our global temperatures. Another fact is that the sun has had no significant sun spots for this solar cycle. If this continues much longer global temp will drop and all the people arguing will starve as entire crops fail because the growing seasons are much shorter.
Dragontide
1 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2009
Argue all you want people. The fact is the Sun and oceans create our global temperatures.




Even when scientists assume that solar activity is increasing, they can"t account for all of the warming observed at the end of the twentieth century. And when more incoming heat from the sun melts significant amounts of polar ice, it has always taken thousands of years to do so. Now it has only happened in a few decades.



http://www.pbs.or...remeice/
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2009
It goes back to the IP. Oh does that put an inconvience on your theory? Well how about the Vostok, Antarctica cores that go back 400,000 from the same link. No darn it. That dosn't help you either. Were running out of options fast Dach! Dr 2 sticks -vs- NOAA and NASA. Not looking good. I'm so sorry.


They do not go far enough, which is what required examination of the other cores for part of the study. You also seemed to have ignored the fact that more than one "doctor" was involved and you still have not read the papers or books for yourself. Some scientifically inclined person you have turned out to be!

Read the papers. Read Lamb. Ignore their work to your demonstrative stupidity. By the way, it is not my theory. I have only stated what those who did the studies have said about the data.

Since you likely will never read them in full out of fear, I do not expect that you ever be able to dig yourself out of the hole of falsehood in which you have buried yourself.

Read the articles or continue to demonstrate your inanity and failure to comprehend the science.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2009
By the way, I have another reading assignment for you, Dt. I know you won't read it but that is alright. People here more scientifically inclined will read it.

See Frechette, B., Wolfe, A.P., Miller, G.H., Richard, P.J.H. & de Vernal, A. 2006. "Vegetation and climate of the last interglacial on Baffin Island, Arctic Canada" in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 236: 91-106.

Here is a snippet therefrom. The authors of the climate study on Baffin Island say that based upon:

...applications of both correspondence analysis regression and best modern analogue methodologies, we infer July air temperatures of the last interglacial to have been 4 to 5°C warmer than present on eastern Baffin Island...


This compares favorably with the data cited from the Nature article referenced above. In fact, these authors make comparisons with their data to the data found in the Nature article, the abstract I have cited above.

Incidentally, I am in process of locating and obtain some very, very interesting NOAA and NASA paleoclimate data that you might find very interesting. :)
dachpyarvile
4.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
Dt,

Here is another study that might interest you (or, at least those who really understand the science).

Frechette, B.; de Vernal, A.; and Richard, P.J.H., 2008, "Holocene and Last Interglacial cloudiness in eastern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada." in Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45(11):1221-1234.

Here is a snippet from the abstract:

This study presents Last Interglacial and Holocene vegetation and climate changes at Fog Lake (67°11'N, 63°15'W) on eastern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. The vegetation cover is reported as vegetation structural types (or biomes). July air temperature and sunshine during the growing season (June--July--August--September) were reconstructed from pollen assemblages using the modern analogue technique. The vegetation of the Last Interglacial period evolved from a prostrate dwarf-shrub tundra to a low- and high-shrub tundra vegetation. The succession of four Arctic biomes was distinguished from the Last Interglacial sediments, whereas only one Arctic biome was recorded in the Holocene sediments. From ca. 8300 cal. years BP to present, hemiprostrate dwarf-shrub tundra occupied the soils around Fog Lake. During the Last Interglacial, growing season sunshine was higher than during the Holocene and July air temperature was 4 to 5 °C warmer than present. A principal component analysis helped in assessing relationship between floristic gradients and climate. The major vegetation changes through the Last Interglacial and Holocene were driven by July air temperature variations, whereas the minor, or subtle, vegetation changes seem rather correlated to September sunshine. This study demonstrates that growing season sunshine conditions can be reconstructed from Arctic pollen assemblages, thus providing information on feedbacks associated with cloud cover and summer temperatures, and therefore growing season length.


The most important part I want you to see, however, but which you likely won't, is:

During the Last Interglacial, growing season sunshine was higher than during the Holocene and July air temperature was 4 to 5 °C warmer than present.


4 to 5°C Warmer than present! I can keep going but I am beginning to think it a waste of time dealing with someone so abysmally unaware of the science behind the claims I made above.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2009
Uh oh! Another one?!?

Received 15 June 2005; accepted 23 January 2006. Available online 19 April 2006.

Abstract

The warmest millennia of at least the past 250,000 years occurred during the Last Interglaciation, when global ice volumes were similar to or smaller than today and systematic variations in Earth's orbital parameters aligned to produce a strong positive summer insolation anomaly throughout the Northern Hemisphere. The average insolation during the key summer months (M, J, J) was ca 11% above present across the Northern Hemisphere between 130,000 and 127,000 years ago, with a slightly greater anomaly, 13%, over the Arctic. Greater summer insolation, early penultimate deglaciation, and intensification of the North Atlantic Drift, combined to reduce Arctic Ocean sea ice, allow expansion of boreal forest to the Arctic Ocean shore across vast regions, reduce permafrost, and melt almost all glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere. Insolation, amplified by key boundary condition feedbacks, collectively produced Last Interglacial summer temperature anomalies 4%u20135 °C above present over most Arctic lands, significantly above the average Northern Hemisphere anomaly. The Last Interglaciation demonstrates the strength of positive feedbacks on Arctic warming and provides a potentially conservative analogue for anticipated future greenhouse warming.

CAPE-Last Interglacial Project Members, "Last Interglacial Arctic warmth confirms polar amplification of climate change" in Quaternary Science Reviews Volume 25, Issues 13-14, July 2006, Pages 1383-1400.


Again, take a gander at the stuff here. Again, we see the range of 4 to 5°C.

The difference between this article and others seen is that this one shows the strength of positive feedbacks of the Arctic on the environment and relate it to future warming.

But, the key thing you need to see is the temperature range. It is significantly higher than your misused ocean surface temperature chart. :)
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
Here is another interesting study done on Midge (Dioptera) remains. I cite a snippet from the abstract regarding summer temperatures in two locations in the Arctic:

Reconstructions at both sites indicate that summer temperatures during the last interglacial were higher than at any time in the Holocene, and 5 to 10 °C higher than present.

Donna R. Francisa, Alexander P. Wolfeb, Ian R. Walkerc & Gifford H. Millerd, "Interglacial and Holocene temperature reconstructions based on midge remains in sediments of two lakes from Baffin Island, Nunavut, Arctic Canada" in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Volume 236, Issues 1-2, 23 June 2006, Pages 107-124; Special Issue: "Glacial%u2013interglacial climate of the past 160,000 years: New insights from data and models".
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
Dt,

One has to ask:

If the world is warming at such an alarming rate then why have we lost 3 weeks on the global growing cycle since 1998? After all, a warming world would mean warmer temperatures, but our crops are failing due to late frosts and excessive rainfall in the midwest.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
On a re-read my last post wasn't exactly clear.

The US crops are failing in the midwest, meanhwhile similar occurances are happening across China and Europe, shorter growing seasons, late frosts, and deluges of rainwater.
dachpyarvile
4.3 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
Add to this what I have been observing in the unsmoothed data over the past several years. Locally, the patterns are the same as the global patterns. It has now been in the 70s in the middle of June in the high deserts where I live. Last year, the temperatures for June were in the high 80s. The year before that they were in the high 90s. In the year before that the temperatures were in the 100s.

Locally, there has been a pronounced downtrend. Globally the same thing can be seen, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

Last year, China had its worst winter in 50-100 years. Britain had its harshest winter in 13 years according to the Met. Argentina had snow and Malibu, California, received a coat of slushy snow again for the third time in a row. It snowed in Baghdad, taking people by surprise as snow is not a regular occurrence there according to eyewitnesses.

Yep! Things are definitely getting hotter--in opposite world... :)
Dragontide
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
Vel:
Climate change is determined by long term trends. Even 3rd graders know that. The temps shot up in 1998 and they're still there.

Dach:
As pointed out earlier, even if Greenland was as warm as you suggest during the last IP, most of the rest of the world was neutral or below today's temps. That means there was not enough precipitation in Greenland like there is today to accelerate melting. Put an ice cube outside on a hot day. Run cold tap water over another ice cube inside a cool air conditioned house. The second one melts MUCH faster. Dosn't it? You are comparing apples and oranges.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2009
Dt,

You don't read very well, do you? You have not read a single one of the articles, have you? The temperatures were not limited to Greenland during the last IP.

The temps were similar or the same in several locations in the Arctic during the same time period.

By the way, it is not my suggestion that Greenland was 4-5°C warmer during the last IP than today. I merely passed on the data from the several studies I have posted. I can easily dig up more.

As to your elementary school science experiment, a lab or a house is not the earth. There are many factors in the world that cannot be accounted for by elementary school science projects.

And, I do not think you know what precipitation is or what can or cannot influence it. It is you who are comparing apples to oranges and trying to apply it to salvaging the AGW camp's inane claims in the face of the paleo-evidence.
Dragontide
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2009
Excuse me, but YOU are the one that brought up Paleo. It's apples and oranges because solar forcing has nowehere near the effect of a greehouse forcing.

The experts have averaged in ALL the data. If your information was worth the paper it was printed on, it would be available on the web. The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s. The research and predictions have been in sync with the results.
Avitar
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2009
I am curious, what are the mechanisms that would DOOM the earth in the case of Global Warming?

I am afraid I do not see disasters in the geological record short of a temperature rise of about 30 degrees Celsius above current temperatures. Given the established stimulated response of plant life to increased carbon dioxide, I do not believe that is achievable.

The worst-case UN science based models would take 4,000 years to melt the Ice Caps and can only raise the Sea levels by 40 feet. Is this the disaster, change over four thousand years?
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2009
Avitar:
The biggest threat from global warming is migrating disease. But the droughts and extreme weather will take their toll too.

What could happen is shown in the film Earth 2100. (which is based on the research by some of the world's top thinkers)

http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/Earth2100/
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2009
Excuse me, but YOU are the one that brought up Paleo. It's apples and oranges because solar forcing has nowehere near the effect of a greehouse forcing.


You have proven positively that you have not even looked at the relevant data. I suggest that you read each and every source I referenced above. Recent studies found evidence of positive feedbacks in the Arctic in response to the climate. I'm sure you know what "positive feedbacks" in relation to climate science, mean, right??? Thought not. :)

The experts have averaged in ALL the data. If your information was worth the paper it was printed on, it would be available on the web. The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s. The research and predictions have been in sync with the results.


Your first comment here is a lie. New data is streaming in all the time.

Worth the paper it was printed on? I see. You believe just about everything you read on the internet. Ok. Gotcha.

By the way, these materials are available on the internet--for a cost. Pay the fees, logon and have a ball. You always could also obtain them via interlibrary loan in some parts of the world.

They are peer-reviewed science. Peer-reviewed science often has its associated costs. But, anyone can publish on the internet, even if they do not know what they are talking about, just like you. Anyone can go on the internet and post so many cybertons of garbage.

As I said, there is no excuse for ignorance on your part. Use the Libraries or various universities, if you need to do so. That often is where I get my material. Or, purchase access to the articles or borrow copies from friends, if they have them.

Read the articles. Read Lamb in conjunction with the articles. Read the latest science to come out relating to temperatures and causes. Until you do that you demonstrate to the public the ignoramus that you are. :)
Dragontide
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2009
So why won't any of Lamb's peers throw the yellow flag? Why don't they show up at some climate research meetings and show all the experts where they're wrong? Maybe because they don't like being laughed at?
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
So why won't any of Lamb's peers throw the yellow flag? Why don't they show up at some climate research meetings and show all the experts where they're wrong? Maybe because they don't like being laughed at?


No, they don't want their funding pulled so they do not spend time raising their voices as vocally. They produce the science, their work is peer-reviewed and published. That is suffient. In addition, most true scientists do not want to waste their time getting themselves involved in politics.

Again, you also should read the articles I referenced. You really should. A few of them actually mention what they found in a context of global warming. But, if you never read them you never will know what is going on and will remain in the dark ages.

One other thing: you mentioned the lie that all the data is averaged out to come up with what the so-called climate scientists have come up with. The claim is even more of a lie because of what these very vocal, so-called climate scientists do with the data.

It is even more so since much of the data has been discarded and "algorithmically smoothed" before being used by most so-called climate scientists who have worked with the IPCC. That is by no means truly "averaging" anything out. It is cherry-picking the data and discarding anything that might weaken the point being made. It is the PC thing to do these days.

People seem to think that something made more widely available is true while something obtainable but not readily available is not worth the paper it is printed on. In reality, one gets what one pays for in the scientific world as in any other aspect of life.

Fact is, there is a whole lot of data out there that is being discarded and ignored but it is becoming overwhelmingly more numerous as people begin just publishing their data and not worrying about the consequences.

Once again, read all the articles and read Lamb. unlike others, none of them smooth down the data before "averaging" it out like a lot of so-called climate "scientists." Want to learn? Read the materials I have posted and referenced and try not to let the rampant downranker hide the information.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
Vel:

Climate change is determined by long term trends. Even 3rd graders know that. The temps shot up in 1998 and they're still there.


How long does a trend have to be to shift from "weather" to "climate"? I'd like you to frame that before we continue.

How many days, weeks, months, or years do we need on record for a trend to be considered climate?
Dragontide
not rated yet Jun 18, 2009
Dach:

The IPCC is the most peer reviewed science organization on the planet. If your scientist are too scared to attend a climate conference then they are not worth the paper their degrees are printed on. Obviously I didn't mean that data that has just been gathered has been factored in. But all that has been factored in is saying that the Dark Ages" are now just a few decades away.

Vel:
When the trends exceed the ENSO patterns. When things warm up from El-Nino, they cool back down once La-Nina returns. But now La Nina is having very little effect. What are you suggesting is the cause of the ten hottest years in recorded history occuring within the years from 1997 to 2008?
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
So why won't any of Lamb's peers throw the yellow flag? Why don't they show up at some climate research meetings and show all the experts where they're wrong? Maybe because they don't like being laughed at?

Or maybe because the AGW proponents refuse to debate with them.

The climate %u201Ccrisis%u201D is a %u201Cmoral issue that requires serious debate,%u201D Al Gore proclaimed in an April 27 AlGore.com blog post.

His conversion to the Anglo-American tradition of robust debate came a mere three days after the ex-VP refused to participate in a congressional hearing with Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Republicans had invited Monckton to counter Gore%u2019s testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

But Gore froze like a terrified deer in headlights, and Chairman Henry Waxman told the UK climate expert he was uninvited.

Reference - http://climaterea...?id=3485


Dragontide
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
A big climate meeting will be held this December in Denmark. If your people have anything worthwhile to say, that will be the time.
http://www.eranti...ndex.htm
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
Dach:
The IPCC is the most peer reviewed science organization on the planet.
False. There is no such thing as being "more peer reviewed" Secondly, the peer review process, that takes place behind closed doors, is not a matter of validation. Subsequent experimentation brings validity, yet no two climate models agree, meaning, there is no validity in your peer reviewed research.
Vel:
When the trends exceed the ENSO patterns. When things warm up from El-Nino, they cool back down once La-Nina returns. But now La Nina is having very little effect. What are you suggesting is the cause of the ten hottest years in recorded history occuring within the years from 1997 to 2008?

No, answer the question, what period of time determines climate vs. weather?

Tip: your answer should be a sum that can be chronologically measured.

According to you our current climate trend is warming, which it isn't. The span of time that you refer to as being "climate" and not "weather" exists between the years of 1998 and 2002. That's 4 years. So, seeing as you won't answer the question, I'll assume you accept 4 years as a measure of climate. Here's the trend from 2002-2008, that's 1.5x your requirement and 1 year more than NOAA and the NCDC use to define climate.

2002: 0.51 C above prior century mean
2003: 0.56 C above prior century mean
2004: 0.54 C above prior century mean
2005: 0.58 C above prior century mean
2006: 0.54 C above prior century mean
2007: 0.57 C above prior century mean
2008: 0.48 C above prior century mean

All figures referenced directly from NOAA climate information readily available at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/

Standard of variation in measurement: plus/minus 0.05

So let's look at these figures when smoothed using the same method Hansen used to determine the 1975-2000 mean, made famous by the IPCC summary for policy makers.

2002: 0.51 C corrected to 0.44C/0.56C
2003: 0.56 C corrected to 0.51C/0.63C
2004: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2005: 0.58 C corrected to 0.51C/0.65C
2006: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2007: 0.57 C corrected to 0.50C/0.64C
2008: 0.48 C corrected to 0.41C/0.55C

Now we go through and drop the two highest and two lowest.

2002: 0.51 C corrected to DROPPED/0.56C
2003: 0.56 C corrected to 0.51C/0.63C
2004: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2005: 0.58 C corrected to 0.51C/DROPPED
2006: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2007: 0.57 C corrected to 0.50C/DROPPED
2008: 0.48 C corrected to DROPPED/0.55C

Center the standard on undropped values:

2002: 0.51 C corrected to 0.56C
2003: 0.56 C corrected to 0.56C
2004: 0.54 C corrected to 0.54C
2005: 0.58 C corrected to 0.51C
2006: 0.54 C corrected to 0.54C
2007: 0.57 C corrected to 0.50C
2008: 0.48 C corrected to 0.55C

If anything our climate is stable as indicated by the popular simplified modeling methods for trending. The above is an example of smoothing. That's what the data yields. It's also probably the reason why all the current literature comming out on the AGW proponent side is lacking the period of time post 2002.
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
I'm not talking about climate or weather. I'm refering to land & ocean tempeartures. (the only thing that matters in this debate)

http://www.noaane...size.jpg

Global Top 10 Warm Years Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
2005 0.60 1.08
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2007 0.55 0.99
2006 0.54 0.97
2004 0.53 0.96
2001 0.49 0.89
1997 0.46 0.83
1995 0.40 0.72
http://www.ncdc.n...bal.html
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009

Vel:
Climate change is determined by long term trends. Even 3rd graders know that. The temps shot up in 1998 and they're still there.
I'm not talking about climate or weather. I'm refering to land & ocean tempeartures. (the only thing that matters in this debate)
I'm sorry? I don't understand what you mean. I just went through the temperature smoothing method and proved your statements of a warming world wrong using your sources and methods. That would mean your hypothesis, "The temperature measurements are showing an upward trend", as false. But rather than attempting to reinforce your argument you counter by linking your sources, the same ones that just proved you wrong, again and stating that you're not talking about climate.

So what are you talking about? Can you refute my preceeding statement?(remember to show your work). Can you reinforce your hypothesis? Right now I've submitted my burden of proof. Where's yours?
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
Your using junk science. You are factoring in natural temporary cooling effects such as volcanic ash and 20th century aerasols.
http://www.aip.or...rend.htm
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
Your using junk science. You are factoring in natural temporary cooling effects such as volcanic ash and 20th century aerasols.

http://www.aip.or...rend.htm


No I'm not. I'm taking the adjusted figures directly from the NOAA site. To accuse me of data manipulation malfeasance means your very source committed the crime. So do you want to recant that statement or continue with it as planned?

You're also dodging the question again. Where is your burden of proof? Keep in mind you've just taken the adjusted data from NOAA(your source) and claimed it, and the statistical methods for smoothing from the IPCC summary for policy makers, and labeled them as "junk science".
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
http://hadobs.met...lobal/nh sh/

Calculating the global mean as the mean of the northern and southern hemisphere averages helps prevent the value becoming dominated by the Northern hemisphere, where there are more observations.
We have recently changed the way that the smoothed time series of data were calculated. Data for 2008 were being used in the smoothing process as if they represented an accurate esimate of the year as a whole. This is not the case and owing to the unusually cool global average temperature in January 2008, it looked as though smoothed global average temperatures had dropped markedly in recent years, which is misleading.


http://hadobs.met...ing.html

The consensus in is favor of AGW. The burden of proof fall to the sceptics.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
The consensus in is favor of AGW. The burden of proof fall to the sceptics.

More misunderstood quotation and question dodging.

Answer the question on the table before you.
Where is your burden of proof?

And I'd like you to understand something that all classically trained scientists are required to know. That would be the scientific method.

The scientific method is a system of hypothesis verification. The burden of proof is on the one who forms the hypothesis.

You have formed the hypothesis, regardless of how people feel about it, it's in your court to prove or disprove your hypothesis.

Now that we've finished 1st grade science, please, answer the question:

Where is your burden of proof?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2009
Also, I'd like you to understand what you just did.

You completely changed datasets because your original dataset was found to not assist your views. So, you've artificially lowered the average temperature by excluding 1900-1983. An 83 year span of accurate data has been omitted from your statistics.

That, sir, is a cherry pick.
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
No it is YOU that has formed the hypothesis that AGW is a hoax so please explain. Do excess greenhouse gasses NOT trap heat? Is the Earth getting cooler? When they say creatures are migrating farther away from the equator is that a lie? Are weather events NOT becoming more extreme? etc...???
Dragontide
1 / 5 (1) Jun 18, 2009
Also, I'd like you to understand what you just did.

You completely changed datasets because your original dataset was found to not assist your views. So, you've artificially lowered the average temperature by excluding 1900-1983. An 83 year span of accurate data has been omitted from your statistics.

That, sir, is a cherry pick.

Your smoothing claim that makes the temperatures more convienent for you is a cherry pick. The last dataset clearly proves it.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2009

Your smoothing claim that makes the temperatures more convienent for you is a cherry pick. The last dataset clearly proves it.


I used a dataset and smoothing method that I don't agree with. You provided the sources, I simply falsified their conclusion through their own method. That's not a cherry pick, that's the scientific method.

So I'll make sure to read your second dataset and do the exact same thing. Standby.

No it is YOU that has formed the hypothesis that AGW is a hoax so please explain.
Sorry buddy, AGW is a hypothesis that has not been proven regardless of your personal view. So support your hypothesis, prove AGW through your peer reviewed research sources.
Do excess greenhouse gasses NOT trap heat?
That question is too open ended. All greenhouse gasses captre heat. That is a fact and was never up for debate. It's telling that you keep comming back here to attempt to sway my view when you refuse to answer direct questions.
Is the Earth getting cooler?
The data is freely available, and my answer is yes.
When they say creatures are migrating farther away from the equator is that a lie?
I'm guessing you weren't alive in the 70's, or at least you were young to the point of naivete. Animals migrate to where the habitat suits them. Some species are migrating towards the poles, some are not. Remember the armadillo?

Are weather events NOT becoming more extreme?
No, no they're not.

So, once again, where is your burden of proof?
Dragontide
not rated yet Jun 19, 2009
You could not be more wrong Vel.

Weather is becoming more extreme.
http://www.noaane...ort.html

Migrations have lenghtened and is becoming a very serious problem.
http://news.monga...ons.html

http://www.mcclat...948.html

I have shown that the Earth is warming. Where is your proof the Earth is cooling? How can so much polar ice melt if it's getting cooler?
http://www.pbs.or...remeice/
Choice
not rated yet Jun 20, 2009
Fossil fuels do much more harm than adding to GHG emissions: http://www.physor...57.html. It's time to view the problem in a larger context and not get bogged down in scientific debate. The US is making a giant first step with the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Let's start there and then make things better.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jun 20, 2009
You could not be more wrong Vel.

Weather is becoming more extreme.

http://www.noaane...ort.html


First of all, increased winds and storm activity have a lot to do with cold air meeting warm air. If the entire planet is warming, a lot of this storm activity should slow down, for there will be less and less cold air to interact with the warm air.

Second, this article does not say that weather IS becoming more extreme, it says that weather is "VERY LIKELY" to become more extreme! You should count the comments containing the words "VERY LIKELY" in the article, Dt. Nope, not proven; predicted!

Migrations have lenghtened and is becoming a very serious problem.
http://news.monga...ons.html


No again. In spite of a couple mentioned species of birds, for the rest we have words like "is likely to increase" used throughout the article. In other words: not proven; predicted!

By the way, England is not all that far from the Mediterranean. Air currents are likely to make it possible for the birds to travel without expending a lot more energy. Besides, birds like it warmer. What do you think these birds did during the MWP or RWP? The same thing they are doing now. :)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/34948.html


As I was reading this article, the words "'could be a sign it is tied in with global warming,' Field said. 'We are trying to piece this all together.'" jumped out at me. In other words: not proven; questioned and data lacking!

I have shown that the Earth is warming.


From the above you have shown nothing of the kind. Instead, you have demonstrated your abysmal ignorance of the sciences and a lack of understanding of the scientific method at a fundamental level. I suggest getting more education.

Where is your proof the Earth is cooling? How can so much polar ice melt if it's getting cooler?
http://www.pbs.or...remeice/


Well, now, finally, a decent question. Once again, there is volcanic activity going on under Western Antarctica. This needs further study.

As to cooling, it has been a cooling trend. Just look at the raw data without the smoothing. It may in the end be a cooling trend within a greater warming trend but things have been cooling. The data I have observed shows this.

In fact, last year was slated "the coldest winter of the 21st Century."

Last year, China experienced the worst winter in 50-100 years, depending upon whom you talk to about it.

Last year, Malibu, California, a beach city, received a coat of slushy snow for the third time in a row.

Argentina had snow in their last winter. Baghdad, Iraq had snow, which is something that had not been seen in 25 years!

Winter 2009 was the harshest winter Britain has experienced in 13 years, according to the Met.

Please explain how it is that this is happening if there has not been a cooling trend?
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jun 20, 2009
Fossil fuels do much more harm than adding to GHG emissions: http://www.physor...57.html. It's time to view the problem in a larger context and not get bogged down in scientific debate. The US is making a giant first step with the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Let's start there and then make things better.


While I agree that our greater concern should be with pollution rather than CO2, I disagree that the Act you mentioned will help. In fact, it could make things worse. In fact, "clean" energy sources such as solar technology destroy habitat and are responsible for the release of manmade GHGs 17,000 times more potent than CO2 since 1978.

And, let's not get me started on how this legislation will cost jobs (more than six millions lost just since a month after Obama took office) and will ruin the economy further. Don't believe it? Read the entire legislationa as to what will be done. Then, apply that to the current fossil-fuels based economy. Do the math. in the current trend, things are going to get a whole lot worse here in America. And, if America's economy crashes, the world's economy crashes.
Dragontide
4 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2009
If the entire planet is warming, a lot of this storm activity should slow down, for there will be less and less cold air to interact with the warm air.


This coming from sombody that thinks a warming trend in Greenland during the last interglacial period is suppose to warm the entire planey!

Last year, China experienced the worst winter in 50-100 years, depending upon whom you talk to about it


You need to learn the difference between climate and weather. 2008 was still in the top ten of the warmest years in recorded history.

You can't be serious about your mirgation comments. Do you EVER watch the news?
http://www.scienc...5925.htm
http://www.cbsnew...31.shtml
http://audubon.or...life.php
http://wildlife-c...igration

And green products will create many of the needed jobs. One of the reasons the American economy is hurting so bad as the sudden drop in American auto sales. All the commercials have been pushing these gas guzzlers. People in the States don't want to buy them because of the high gas prices and long gas lines that hurricane Ike brought about last year when it destroyed some off shore oil rigs.




Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2009
And green products will create many of the needed jobs. One of the reasons the American economy is hurting so bad as the sudden drop in American auto sales. All the commercials have been pushing these gas guzzlers. People in the States don't want to buy them because of the high gas prices and long gas lines that hurricane Ike brought about last year when it destroyed some off shore oil rigs.

[q/]
Hurricane Ike brought no such thing. The war in Iraq and Chavez lack of willingness to trade with the US brought high gas prices. Ike simply exacerbated existing economic conditions.

A solar infrastructure or wind infrastructure would have failed more gloriously due to Ike.
Dragontide
not rated yet Jun 21, 2009
Agreed about Iraq and Chaves but hurricane Ike is what drove the car over the cliff. There were governors that declared a state of emergency, even though Ike didn't release one single rain drop in their states. (in order to freeze prices) No one went shopping or to the movies...NOTHING because no one knew when and where the next tank of gas was coming from. Oh Ike was a major player.

As far as solar power goes, thin strips that will be placed on your roofs & windows are being developed. And once extreme weather events become less common then less damage will occur at windmill farms.
Velanarris
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2009
As far as solar power goes, thin strips that will be placed on your roofs & windows are being developed. And once extreme weather events become less common then less damage will occur at windmill farms.

I already told you, I'm all done with the Global warming argument, you won't join me in the middle and look at things objectively, nor would many of the other on your side cease the talk of denialists and being in the pocket of big oil.

Go ahead and continue on with your preemptive policies and watch where they get you. Last time someone told me we had to do something Right Now!, it was Bush telling us to go to Iraq. That worked out really well, didn't it?
Dragontide
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2009
But went to Iraq in order to get more defense contracts for the Military-Industrial Complex. (read some of the work by Chalmers Johnson and see the films "Why We Fight" and No End in Sight") His administration was nothing but criminals. That does not negate global warming.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2009
But went to Iraq in order to get more defense contracts for the Military-Industrial Complex. (read some of the work by Chalmers Johnson and see the films "Why We Fight" and No End in Sight") His administration was nothing but criminals. That does not negate global warming.

Yeah well, we'll see how much you think of Pachauri and his team when the legislation comes down.
Dragontide
not rated yet Jun 25, 2009
I have been waiting for such legislation for a long time. This should have been done in the 80s.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jul 03, 2009
I have been waiting for such legislation for a long time. This should have been done in the 80s.


Wait 'til your utility bills go up as well as the cost of basic necessities thanks to your pet legislation. Let's see how much you like it then. :)
Dragontide
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Utility bills are always going up anyway and we are always one hurricane away from $10 a gallon gas. I'd rather my money go to building the future than to some greedy oil barron or utility CEO.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
No, what you are going to do is be supportive of part of the cause of more hurricanes. Hurricanes require colder air in order to gain momentum against the warmer air.

By allowing temperatures to rise to a point there will be more equilibrium, storms potentially can be lessened in strength or prevented altogether. Some of the worst storms in recorded history took place when climate was colder.

In addition, solar and wind technologies destroy habitat and biodiversity, which is what I thought people in general wanted to do is save such things for the future.

In addition, current solar technologies introduce multiple tons of GHGs up to 17,000 times more potent than CO2 into the atmosphere, which GHGs also have a considerably large halflife in the amount of hundreds of years. I thought this also was something people were trying to prevent.

There are regulatory processes in place to prevent gasoline rising to the level of which you complain but in fact those in power do not execute such processes--with the exception of when they temporarily did so to get and keep votes, later letting prices return to higher levels after they were secure in the positions to which they were elected. :)

And now, brace yourself for a worsening economy. No one deserves it more, I think....
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2009
Utility bills are always going up anyway and we are always one hurricane away from $10 a gallon gas. I'd rather my money go to building the future than to some greedy oil barron or utility CEO.

Then why are you using electricity at all? You do realie that the only people who will benefit financially due to the comming legislation are the coal and oil barrons don't you? Or do you not read bills like the rest of the politicians out there?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.