PDA

View Full Version : Anthropogenic Global Warming



ChaseKenyon
01-09-2010, 03:40 PM
My pet Troll left this printed out on my keyboard forwhen I got up today.:D From the weather Channel.:rolleyes:


2:14 p.m. ET 1/9/10

James Wilson


From the Plains to the East Coast, the country is in the midst of a major arctic outbreak. Dangerous wind chills have made it all the way South to the Florida Peninsula.
The combination of the extreme cold and the wind makes it especially important to make sure that you dress properly and keep extremities covered through the weekend.
Cold, northerly winds blowing over the Great Lakes are creating lingering minor bands of lake-effect snow on the south side of the lakes with several more inches of snow expected to fall through tonight in northern Indiana and northeast Ohio.
From South Dakota to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, 17 locations have set record lows Saturday morning. In parts of Texas, people haven't seen morning lows this low in 15 to 20 years going back to 1989.
The heart of this arctic blast will begin to shift south and east on Sunday.
Well below freezing temperatures will threaten the Florida citrus crop and other crop both Sunday morning and Monday morning. Parts of Florida could see historical low temperatures with freezing temperatures making it all the way down to Miami.
People without heat in their homes will need to check out a shelter if it gets too cold rather than risk freezing. Check on your elderly parents and friends and help them if the need to get out of the cold the next few days.
The good news is there is a warming trend coming next week with many location going back to average or above by mid-week. Stay warm and take precautions to protect your pipes, property, and yourself through Monday.
:(

pipefitter
01-09-2010, 03:52 PM
Hasn't made it above 35F here in Tampa today. Early this AM it was around 33 and raining and I could have sworn it was sleet that was hitting me as I was outside rescuing my pineapple plants.

LeeG
01-09-2010, 05:17 PM
it's cold in the winter

Captain Blight
01-09-2010, 05:30 PM
Day-to-day temps are weather, not climate. Climate is what happens over a hundred years.

The Bigfella
01-09-2010, 05:51 PM
AGW only took about 2 years... that's how long it took the gravy train mob to figure out where their bread was best buttered. Climate change is the natural state on this planet

Captain Blight
01-09-2010, 05:54 PM
Climate change is the natural state on this planet
I am going to have to think on this quite a bit. It does seem to me that if we have the ability slow down the rate at which the world's warming, we should maybe try to.

The Bigfella
01-09-2010, 06:12 PM
I am going to have to think on this quite a bit. It does seem to me that if we have the ability slow down the rate at which the world's warming, we should maybe try to.

... and you think man has the capacity to get that right? Wouldn't it be nice to try and modify our climate and discover "oops"?

The solution is to minimise actions that may have negative impacts on our environment. Of course, our very existence could be argued as having a negative impact, so let's be a little bit sensible about things eh?

Captain Blight
01-09-2010, 06:15 PM
The solution is to minimise actions that may have negative impacts on our environment.
Which is, of course, an action (or series of them). I think we're in concord on this one, though I would very much like to see more being done sooner.

Peerie Maa
01-09-2010, 06:17 PM
... and you think man has the capacity to get that right? Wouldn't it be nice to try and modify our climate and discover "oops"?

The solution is to minimise actions that may have negative impacts on our environment. Of course, our very existence could be argued as having a negative impact, so let's be a little bit sensible about things eh?

Difficult but do able.
The climate trundled along doing pretty much what it always did for several millennia of our existence. Then started doing something new in the last couple of centuries. So if we existed for millennia without anything unusual happening, we can do it again.

WX
01-09-2010, 06:23 PM
So if we existed for millennia without anything unusual happening, we can do it again.
As we are not likely to give our industrial lifestyle and return to an agrarian one, I guess will just have to find cleaner ways of doing things.

Peerie Maa
01-09-2010, 06:26 PM
As we are not likely to give our industrial lifestyle and return to an agrarian one, I guess will just have to find cleaner ways of doing things.

Yes, difficult but do able.

The Bigfella
01-09-2010, 06:33 PM
Difficult but do able.
The climate trundled along doing pretty much what it always did for several millennia of our existence. Then started doing something new in the last couple of centuries. So if we existed for millennia without anything unusual happening, we can do it again.

Can you tell me what is unusual about the climate in the last couple of centuries please?

This planet goes through regular cooling and warming cycles... don't shoot me if I get this wrong, but hasn't the planet been coming out of an ice age for the last 20,000 or so years, with the minor blip of a mini ice age along the way? Havent sea levels been a long way higher than current in the not-too-distant (in geological terms) past?

We continue to hear rubbish about record temps and record droughts here... yet we haven't had reliable temp readings for more than about half the European settlement of the country. We have photos of dry river beds, etc. We know of massive heat waves in the 1930's. We know of major temp increases in short periods of time in the middle ages too.

Sorry, there's too much selective culling of the facts for my liking.

James McMullen
01-09-2010, 06:41 PM
Like everyone else who fundamentally misunderstands statistics and trends and minimum sample sizes, I prefer to use specific anecdotal and parochial evidence to make up my mind rather than listen to a buncha smarty-pants researchers and scientists. Just because they spend thousands and thousands more hours a year researching, investigating and experimenting on the topic than I do dont mean my opinion aint just as good.

PeterSibley
01-09-2010, 06:42 PM
Speed of change ?

Rate of increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere ?

PeterSibley
01-09-2010, 06:46 PM
Like everyone else who fundamentally misunderstands statistics and trends and minimum sample sizes, I prefer to use specific anecdotal and parochial evidence to make up my mind rather than listen to a buncha smarty-pants researchers and scientists. Just because they spend thousands and thousands more hours a year researching, investigating and experimenting on the topic than I do dont mean my opinion aint just as good.

I don't have too much trouble listening to my doctor , so I tend to listen to people who are better educated on a specific subject than me .

When it comes to glaringly obvious examples of warming , I look at the glaciers .Hard to fake .

The Bigfella
01-09-2010, 06:55 PM
Just as a matter of interest.... here's a scientific paper that backs up something I've been pilloried for saying on this forum

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=kt9p8702j2151717&size=largest

It makes a nonsense of that "current carbon cycle" excuse to pollute too.

Peerie Maa
01-09-2010, 06:59 PM
Can you tell me what is unusual about the climate in the last couple of centuries please?



The weather sees fluctuations all of the time. I posted this

Just been refreshing my recollection. The UK seems to get a cold one every 13 - 14 years.
1947, snow lasted from Jan through to March,
Dec '62 through '63, the coldest on record, ice from the Thames lay along the north Kent coast
'79 and '81 were cold and snowy, as was '95-'6.

This one might be due to the jet stream being further south than usual allowing cold northerly and easterlies over the North sea. in the "Brrr" thread.
El Nino events affect the weather, lots of other events and cycles affect the weather.
As to climate, all of these variations have been hotter and colder around a fairly constant long term average for as long as climate can be measured, until the last couple of centuries. Then the average temperatures have climbed way above the previous highs. Too many sets of data, verified by too many independent researchers, indicate an increase for it to be poo poo-ed.

elf
01-09-2010, 07:01 PM
Yes, difficult but do able.

You're kidding, I assume. Or trying to kid us, maybe? How about just kidding yourself?

Peerie Maa
01-09-2010, 07:05 PM
You're kidding, I assume. Or trying to kid us, maybe? How about just kidding yourself?

If we don't find a way to do it, our grandchildren are likely to be stuffed.

PeterSibley
01-09-2010, 07:22 PM
Just as a matter of interest.... here's a scientific paper that backs up something I've been pilloried for saying on this forum

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=kt9p8702j2151717&size=largest

It makes a nonsense of that "current carbon cycle" excuse to pollute too.

That is a surprise ? Really ?

and ...no .

ChaseKenyon
01-09-2010, 07:52 PM
from Ian BigGuy


Sorry, there's too much selective culling of the facts for my liking.Way too much to call the published conclusions "Science".

Worse is using un proven "models" with serious common software flaws of the early undergrad to foment a new world currency called "carbon credits"

This based on notion that controlling the 20 % or so of the CO2 00.002% of greenhouse GAS is going to grosely affect the actual climate change.

The new world economy will be based on controlling and charging for 00.0004 of the greenhouse gas makeup. Not deadly Arsenides, or something like that. Not photo chemical nasties like N0x or SO2 that cause acid rain and worse.

No we are going to give the NWO a new currency to control the planet by trading usage and rights to a benign gas the most benign of all greenhouse gasses that makes up 00.002 of the greenhouse gases and we can only control CO2 that is about 00.0004 of the total greenhouse gas makeup.

:rolleyes: yeah that makes sense ..........

If you are AL Gore and already are set up to own profits from a majority of the trading that will be done with the new currency.

:mad:BTW before anyone comes back and blah blahs again about my sources being funded by Exxon Mobile, check out the GW/climate-change programs available on line as video from NOVA, PBS and National Geo and more. Exxon Mobile is about 5% of the sponsorship for several foundations that have had conferences on the non AGW side. But they are also the sole corporate sponsor of NOVA which has had a pro GW stance for ten years or so.
Chase

Nicholas Carey
01-10-2010, 12:53 AM
The weather sees fluctuations all of the time. I posted this
in the "Brrr" thread.
El Nino events affect the weather, lots of other events and cycles affect the weather.
As to climate, all of these variations have been hotter and colder around a fairly constant long term average for as long as climate can be measured, until the last couple of centuries. Then the average temperatures have climbed way above the previous highs. Too many sets of data, verified by too many independent researchers, indicate an increase for it to be poo poo-ed.Tie that into the direct correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels and the rise in mean/median temperature since the advent of the industrial revolution. It has, you mght say, a high R-squared.

ChaseKenyon
01-10-2010, 09:15 PM
Nick if you have not yet please read this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cFZHEQZK

and then explain the direct CO2 rise to temperature rise being a high R squared geometric progression.


The real data fromNASA's earth temperature monitoring staelites say the opposite . Teh increasing polar ice for the last two years say the opposite. The opening of the northwest passage in 1939 and 1940 then it's closing up say the opposite.and the list goes on and on.Theonlydirect coreelation is froma known to be flawed set of computer models al using the same flawed data set.
So I have to believe you have found this data to suport your conclusion somewhere. Let's take a look at the data sources and then the methodologies used to derive the conclusion yu have come to or at least come to support. (trying to tye ove a four footed fur ball)

Nicholas Carey
01-11-2010, 01:15 AM
Nick if you have not yet please read this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cFZHEQZK

and then explain the direct CO2 rise to temperature rise being a high R squared geometric progression.


The real data fromNASA's earth temperature monitoring staelites say the opposite . Teh increasing polar ice for the last two years say the opposite. The opening of the northwest passage in 1939 and 1940 then it's closing up say the opposite.and the list goes on and on.Theonlydirect coreelation is froma known to be flawed set of computer models al using the same flawed data set.
So I have to believe you have found this data to suport your conclusion somewhere. Let's take a look at the data sources and then the methodologies used to derive the conclusion yu have come to or at least come to support. (trying to tye ove a four footed fur ball)I'm not talking about the last two years: I'm talking the last two centuries. Atnospheric CO2 levels march pretty much in lockstep with median temperatures.

Quot erat demonstratum, s'il vous plais, to mix som metaphors.

The Bigfella
01-11-2010, 01:21 AM
I'm not talking about the last two years: I'm talking the last two centuries. Atnospheric CO2 levels march pretty much in lockstep with median temperatures.

Quot erat demonstratum, s'il vous plais, to mix som metaphors.

They don't quite go back two centuries, but my total tax payments march pretty much in line with those datasets too.

ripley699
01-11-2010, 01:34 AM
Nick if you have not yet please read this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cFZHEQZK

and then explain the direct CO2 rise to temperature rise being a high R squared geometric progression.


The real data fromNASA's earth temperature monitoring staelites say the opposite . Teh increasing polar ice for the last two years say the opposite. The opening of the northwest passage in 1939 and 1940 then it's closing up say the opposite.and the list goes on and on.Theonlydirect coreelation is froma known to be flawed set of computer models al using the same flawed data set.
So I have to believe you have found this data to suport your conclusion somewhere. Let's take a look at the data sources and then the methodologies used to derive the conclusion yu have come to or at least come to support. (trying to tye ove a four footed fur ball)

Chase,
Better watch your spelling/typing cause somebody who doesn't agree with you will jump in and criticize you and your inability to communicate properly instead of the inormation you bring to the table.

ChaseKenyon
01-11-2010, 03:33 AM
Yah I know what you mean Rip. I go over and over my papers for Thesis and scientific pubs for days . I like to figure this group as family/

Have you ever tried to type on a to small keyboard (standard for everyone else with less than XXL hands) with not one but two 2.5 month old Maine Coon Cat kittens trying as hard as they can to help "grandpa" type? LOL I wish I could find a key board that I could type on without having to scrunch my shoulders up to my neck with my elbows in front of my chest just to get both hands on the keyboard at the same time.

If it was not such a total PITA it would be funny to watch.

BTW Rip when we getting together for EBS?

ChaseKenyon
01-11-2010, 03:48 AM
I'm not talking about the last two years: I'm talking the last two centuries. Atnospheric CO2 levels march pretty much in lockstep with median temperatures.

Quot erat demonstratum, s'il vous plais, to mix som metaphors.

C'est Na'pas Vraiment Monsieur

I am not talking about just the last two years either

(bold for Rip sorry Nick)

Sources and methodologies not unreferenced conclusions S'il Vous Plait.


THe stuff from NASA show the opposite of median temperatures relating to atmospheric CO2. In fact most of NASA's stuff and much of NOAA's stuff shows a CO2 in the atmosphere whether checked by direct measurement or suggested by ice research as lagging median global temperatures. If CO2 as 00.02 % or any percentage of the world's greenhouse gas composition lags long term and even decadal medians then how can we devote some much money and international resources trying to control median temperatures by controlling CO2. CO appears to have a 75% chance based on real field data not computer models by IT students to be the affect of Global temperature NOT the Effector.

I'm open Nick just calling it as I see it. I spend most of my vertical time on net research as my back won't let me work a real job anymore.

Send me to your leader, ooopps I mean source, lol I love research projects and always have.

Have a good one mate.