More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I dunno - seems like both sides have their "true believers"...but I do see your point.

I never argued otherwise! That might very well be true in the bigger world outside of speaker's corner.

But rushmc is definitely our most religious "true believer" in this crowd.

On this issue, possibly - we all have our "hot buttons", I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Dr, William Cotton

I would not call him a denier. Skeptical might be a better definition.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/24/perspective-of-professor-william-r-cotton-on-global-warming/


Quotes from the page.

I also point out that I am very “green” as I ride a bicycle to and from work 12 miles a day, I have a Toyota Prius, fly a sailplane, sail boats and paddle kayaks, have an electric lawnmower and weedwacker, florescent lights throughout the house, and support reducing pollution of all sorts.

I put the figure showing the correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and population to show that the bottom line is we are overloading our planet and that as long as we keep putting more and more people on it we will be increasing the likelihood of serious impacts on water resources, air quality, and weather and climate. However, as a scientist I have to draw the line between being “objective” and being an advocate of policies.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Oh. You should also inspect some others in your list:

* Prof John Christy appears to have changed his mind

not really.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Chewbacca Defense: "When someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely."

You mean like this?

Quote

Quote

You do seem to cherry pick. Down slightly more than one quarter of one percent? How about over the last five years? Ten years? Twenty years?

There is an obvious cooling dropping period from the 40s to the 70s June through now that occurs while CO2 levels constantly rise during a republican administration. A five year (and probably a ten year) average would show cooling a rise. How is this explained.... other than discounting it being brought up?

or this?

Quote

Quote

If you're confused as to why CO2 levels have jumped, go look at China's pollution numbers.

Whoah! This could be a previously undiscovered Denier position: "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but blame the yellow people."

This seems to be an intermediate step between the previously identified species of "There is global warming but it has nothing to do with humanity" and "There is global warming and it's humanity's fault but it's a good thing."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Looking at the CO2 levels going back 100s of thousands of years, what
>is the explanation for the peak and subsequent decline of both CO2 and
>global temperatures? How could CO2 levels continue to rise, even as
>temps fell?

Massive volcanic activity increases CO2 and simultaneously causes upper-atmosphere haze, cooling temps both through cloud nucleation and direct blocking of sunlight.

Ice ages kill off forests and shade the oceans (reducing CO2 absorption) while increasing the earth's albedo. More light reflected = less light absorbed = cooler temps. This is a strong positive feedback cycle, and can result in a large area of ice (an ice age, basically.)

Just two possibilities.

I can see how volcanic ash could offset the warming effects of
CO2 in the near term, but your explanations don't really address how temps and CO2 could simultaneously rise over thousands of years, with temps reversing while temps continue to climb.

[billvon 3,119]

>I can see how volcanic ash could offset the warming effects of
>CO2 in the near term, but your explanations don't really address how
>temps and CO2 could simultaneously rise over thousands of years . . .

Due to the positive feedback we're seeing now. (Warmer oceans emit CO2, melting tundra releases CO2 etc.)

>with temps reversing while temps continue to climb.

How can "temps reverse" while they continue to climb? Did you mean to say something else?

[NCclimber 0]

I meant "How can "temps reverse" while CO2 continues to climb?"

[billvon 3,119]

> I meant "How can "temps reverse" while CO2 continues to climb?"

Ah.

I assume you're talking about ice cores. One problem with ice cores is that they can't tell you what _else_ is going on. For example, a land meteor impact is going to raise a tremendous amount of dust (a prehistoric version of "nuclear winter") but not leave much in the way of signs in the ice cores.

Another possibility is the Milankovitch cycle. In these cycles, the resonance of the earth's orbit against its tilt (and the inherent wobble in its tilt) results in changes in insolation. In layman's terms, sometimes the poles get more sun, sometimes they get less. This happens on a pretty regular cycle (100,000 years.) The change in polar insolation during this time is around 18 watts per square meter - far in excess of the 1.5 watts we're seeing now from CO2 forcing.

So you have a climactic change that is started by a rising level of polar insolation. CO2 increases as tundra melts, and this drives the climate change faster. As the insolation peaks and begins to fall, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere keep rising (as more stuff melts) and keeps the process going.

Eventually you get a single cold winter and a lot of snow falls. This increases albedo (reflected light) and that cools things further. The sun cannot "make up" for this lack of radiative retention because the cycle peaked out a long time ago - so you get a rapid descent into a colder climate. Since CO2 has a very long half-life in the atmosphere, and since the oceans keep releasing it for a while even after they start to cool, you see a short rise before it starts to fall again.

(Note that Milankovitch cycles are NOT changes in solar output, but rather changes in the distance from the earth to the sun and changes in its "presentation" to the sun.)

As to what specifically caused the change - we don't know yet. It's good that something _did_ because if the climate continued to run away like that the earth would now look a lot like Venus.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Another possibility is the Milankovitch cycle....

Do you ever get tired of researching and typing out all of this very interesting and educated material for these guys only to have them reply, "But in 1977 Professor Harry S. Unreliable of the Texaco Institute said, 'I dunno. Maybe not.' Besides, it was really cold in topeka last night so that proves the world isn't warming."

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Thanks Bill.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I can see how volcanic ash could offset the warming effects of
>CO2 in the near term, but your explanations don't really address how
>temps and CO2 could simultaneously rise over thousands of years . . .

Due to the positive feedback we're seeing now. (Warmer oceans emit CO2, melting tundra releases CO2 etc.)

>with temps reversing while temps continue to climb.

How can "temps reverse" while they continue to climb? Did you mean to say something else?

I just recently read that the ocean temps have lowered over the last 2(?) years? For reasons researchers do not yet understand (I will see if I can find that and post it) Not talking of surface temp recordings (but there is some dispute to those numbers as well)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>I just recently read that the ocean temps have lowered over the last 2(?) years?

I haven't seen that.

One thing I am worried about is that there's an 11-year solar sunspot cycle that influences total solar output. It peaked in 2002, and is now close to its minimum. That means it's going to start increasing again soon, peaking in 2013. That's another watt/sq m heating until it starts to subside.

To put it another way, when it's at its lowest we see barely more heating than we did before CO2 and methane starting to rise - so we'd expect to see relatively normal (not rising too fast) temps. At its highest, we see considerably more heating, thus faster rises and more rapid changes (like ice melting.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>11-year solar sunspot cycle .......going to start increasing again soon, peaking in 2013....... At its highest, we see considerably more heating, thus faster rises and more rapid changes (like ice melting.)

Cool, maybe we can add some more NSL meets in the Nov-Mar timeframe.

Of course, I'll have to mow a bit more.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I just recently read that the ocean temps have lowered over the last 2(?) years?

I haven't seen that.

One thing I am worried about is that there's an 11-year solar sunspot cycle that influences total solar output. It peaked in 2002, and is now close to its minimum. That means it's going to start increasing again soon, peaking in 2013. That's another watt/sq m heating until it starts to subside.

To put it another way, when it's at its lowest we see barely more heating than we did before CO2 and methane starting to rise - so we'd expect to see relatively normal (not rising too fast) temps. At its highest, we see considerably more heating, thus faster rises and more rapid changes (like ice melting.)

Well, we will see. According to Mr Bryson the melting of the ice is normal and historical research proves that it has happened before.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

>According to Mr Bryson the melting of the ice is normal and
>historical research proves that it has happened before.

That's literally true. Ice ages, meteor impacts and mass extinctions are also "normal" and have happened before - but perhaps it is best to not try to emulate them.

Heck, forest fires happen with some regularity even when we don't start them. But if I started one near you and burned your house down I bet you'd be pissed - even if I claimed forest fires were normal and have happened before.

[rushmc 23]

Still looking for the ocean temp stuff I read. In the mean time I came across this.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,119]

> Still looking for the ocean temp stuff I read. (concerning ocean temps dropping over the past two years.)

I looked at your link, and noted that they had data about recent ocean temperatures. A zoom in to the latest ocean data is shown below.

Summer 2005 was warmer than summer 2004
Summer 2006 was warmer than summer 2004, but not as warm as summer 2005

Winter 2005/2006 was colder than winter 2004/2005
Winter 2006/2007 was warmer than winter 2004/2005

So it looks like the oceans are, on average, still getting warmer - at least in the data you posted, and over the last two years.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> Still looking for the ocean temp stuff I read. (concerning ocean temps dropping over the past two years.)

I looked at your link, and noted that they had data about recent ocean temperatures. A zoom in to the latest ocean data is shown below.

Summer 2005 was warmer than summer 2004
Summer 2006 was warmer than summer 2004, but not as warm as summer 2005

Winter 2005/2006 was colder than winter 2004/2005
Winter 2006/2007 was warmer than winter 2004/2005

So it looks like the oceans are, on average, still getting warmer - at least in the data you posted, and over the last two years.

That well could be Bill. I have read so much of this stuff lately maybe I read into the data what I wanted to see

In any event, I noticed that too when I posted the link.

Related to the link. The variations are astounding. Not an easy thing to do, you know, take the temp of an entire planet. (nothing meant) It is a big place and I can understand the difficulty.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mikkey 0]

Here is another documentary that pokes big hole into the alarmist GW theory:

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=Global+Warming+-+Doomsday+Called+Off

Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Here is another documentary that pokes big hole into the alarmist GW theory:

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=Global+Warming+-+Doomsday+Called+Off

Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind.

The very reason I tittled this thread as I did is because more and more research is begining to build a mountian of evidense that questions the very foundation of the GWing story. That being man made CO2 is causing the temp to rise. Now the very heart of thier story is quesioned. Is CO2 really the cause. At this point I don't think so. So what does that mean? CO2, man made or not, has no real effect. So, they have to get the agenda in place quiclly. If they do not, the next dooms day prediction will soon follow.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,149]

Quote

Here is another documentary that pokes big hole into the alarmist GW theory:

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=Global+Warming+-+Doomsday+Called+Off

Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind.

Documentaries, like editorials, are proof of nothing except the message the producers want to deliver.

The effect (or lack of effect) of man made CO2 will be elucidated by scientists and reported in peer reviewed journals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind.

Just to pass on a helpful observation: your posts do not leave the impression that you have an open mind. They hint strongly at a mind firmly made up.

If your self-assessment is that your mind is open, you might want to adjust how you present that.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind.

Just to pass on a helpful observation: your posts do not leave the impression that you have an open mind. They hint strongly at a mind firmly made up.

If your self-assessment is that your mind is open, you might want to adjust how you present that.

To paraphrase Andrew Lang, he uses data like a drunk uses a light post ...for support rather than illumination.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[speedy 0]

Quote

The effect (or lack of effect) of man made CO2 will be elucidated by scientists and reported in peer reviewed journals.

You really think so? I suppose in your case self policing in fine.
Myself, I am rather sceptical. Peer review is no guarantee of truth, it is merely a method of removing the worst of the trash.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[kallend 2,149]

Quote

Quote

The effect (or lack of effect) of man made CO2 will be elucidated by scientists and reported in peer reviewed journals.

You really think so? I suppose in your case self policing in fine.
Myself, I am rather sceptical. Peer review is no guarantee of truth, it is merely a method of removing the worst of the trash.

You have invented a better way? Please tell us what it is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.