Warm?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, you can't combine data generated in the U.S. with data generated in the rest of the world to get a unified picture of climate changes on a global level?

I'm saying not only that you can, but also that you must, and you guys are saying you can't. Is that it?

Incorrect. We are saying that the US data was, in fact, included in the world data. And the world temps are still above average despite that.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[popsjumper 2]

Go away. Eat your crow and be done with it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Go away. Eat your crow and be done with it.

Traditionally, it is you, the party who is proved wrong, who eats the crow.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[popsjumper 2]

Troll

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 3,111]

And your one warning. Cut it out.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Post deleted and edited to say:

My apologies Lawrocket...I didn't pick up the sarcasm.

Sad I missed it. It's the problem with my being a royal dick - it's tough to tell when I'm being sarcastic, as the sarcasm matches quite nicely with my general dickishness

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

> But do we have a sampling of trees from the last few hundred million year?

Nope. But we have ice cores going back hundreds of thousands.

>I am not saying we are not in a warming trend, I'm saying it is just that, a trend. A
>trend that is part of the larger cyclic nature of this planet's ecosystem.

Agreed, it is just a trend caused by increasing concentrations of CO2.

Do we want to go back to the CO3 levels of 1927?

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/1927-a-year-that-never-happened/

[billvon 3,111]

>Do we want to go back to the CO3 levels of 1927?

CO3 is fairly nasty stuff, so no. But if you mean CO2, yes, it would be a good idea overall if we could return to <300ppm concentrations of CO2.

[brenthutch 444]

We want to cut our CO2 to 1927 levels, so we won’t have floods, droughts, wild fires and hurricanes......like they did in 1927??????
From the Red Cross
The Red Cross gave aid for: 29 tornados, 24 floods, 23 fires, 4 earthquakes, 9, hurricanes and some “cloudbursts, typhoons and epidemics.”

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

OK. Ya'll win. I got it wrong.

So, you can't combine data generated in the U.S. with data generated in the rest of the world to get a unified picture of climate changes on a global level?

I'm saying not only that you can, but also that you must, and you guys are saying you can't. Is that it?

So if that's true for U.S. data, it is also true for, say, the United Kingdom data and others.... ad infinitum and that leaves no place on earth that can be used to track climate changes.

Sound to me but if you guys really believe that I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

Brenthutch (who you are replying to) is on the anti-global warming side of the fence. So the "you guys" you are referring to: that's you guys.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

OK. Ya'll win. I got it wrong.

So, you can't combine data generated in the U.S. with data generated in the rest of the world to get a unified picture of climate changes on a global level?

I'm saying not only that you can, but also that you must, and you guys are saying you can't. Is that it?

So if that's true for U.S. data, it is also true for, say, the United Kingdom data and others.... ad infinitum and that leaves no place on earth that can be used to track climate changes.

Sound to me but if you guys really believe that I'll bow to your superior knowledge.

Brenthutch (who you are replying to) is on the anti-global warming side of the fence. So the "you guys" you are referring to: that's you guys.

We are not (or should not) be playing Cowboys and Indians. The whole idea behind a forum is to debate and convince others. We should all be given the space to change our minds.

[wmw999 2,587]

True dat.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/arctics-record-melt-worries-scientists-123834411.html

Quote

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet also beat previous records set in 2010, with almost the entire sheet melting by mid-July, Box said.

This I did not know. Almost the entire Greenland ice sheet was gone in July. It melted away.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/arctics-record-melt-worries-scientists-123834411.html

Quote

Melting of the Greenland ice sheet also beat previous records set in 2010, with almost the entire sheet melting by mid-July, Box said.

This I did not know. Almost the entire Greenland ice sheet was gone in July. It melted away.

www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/world/world-climate-ice-islands/?hpt=wo_t3

Where's brenthutch to tell us it isn't happening?

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Hmm. So there are now more ice islands than ever? First question: What the hell is an ice Ice Island? It’s not a classification of “iceberg” by size. (Yes, icebergs have an established classification list – “very large” being the largest (typically 25 feet high and/or 650 feet in length and historically “large” and “very large” have been 15%-20% of total iceberg mass)). So “ice island” is a newer term, designed to invoke some subjective mass and terror.

Next issue is: how long have we been tracking them? If you said, “continuously since 1992” then you’d be correct! So we’ve got 25 years of data on the subject (well, of complete data. It used to be that when an “ice island” blocked the Nansen sound off of Ellesmere Island, we had no clue. But since ERS 1 and 2 were launched, we could look down from space and take pictures, seeing the stuff that previously blocked our vessels in the middle of the night. The first one went up in Jan. 1992. The next one in 1995. Then the SCAT in Sept. 1996. Since then we’ve always had at least one satellite looking at glaciers.

21 years of data. And let’s call them “ice islands” now. What the hell is an “ice island?” Answer: a new term that makes it sound more ominous.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,111]

> What the hell is an “ice island?” Answer: a new term that makes it sound more ominous.

I think they sound like fun. "Ice island." Sounds like a fancy drink at a bar. If Jimmy Buffett ever visits one he'll probably write a song about his adventures with the women of ice island, and about how hard it is to dance on one.

Now, what about "berg?" German for "mountain" and all German words sound vaguely evil. Where would you rather be drinking margaritas anyway, on an ice mountain or an ice island?

Picture what Bond villains would be doing on each one of those. Ernst Blofeld would have a frozen fortress on the top of an ice mountain, with arctic-white-uniformed guards patrolling on snowmobiles, just asking for Bond to knock them off their precarious trails with a well-placed explosive. Elektra King would have a palatial estate on her ice island, with servants running to bring her cocktails and intriguing notes while she tanned on a blanket made of a polar bear pelt.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi bill,

Quote

all German words sound vaguely evil.

Well, well; how nice it is to be of Irish descent.

baumchen => little tree



JerryBaumchen

[Snowwhite 0]

Quote

Very true. But do we have a sampling of trees from the last few hundred million year? If the Earth were on a constant warming trend with no cooling periods or proven "ice ages" to balance them out, the planet either started out as an ice ball at absolute zero or is only a few thousand years old and has been warmed due to man's influence. Is my logic wrong? I am not saying we are not in a warming trend, I'm saying it is just that, a trend. A trend that is part of the larger cyclic nature of this planet's ecosystem.

cool that you should ask this!
Ever wonder about the Stradivarius violins that are now worth MILLIONS of dollars per copy?Let's see. Stradivari built violins in the mid 1700's made out of trees that were hundreds of years old. Ask me more. I know (have) old wood.

skydiveTaylorville.org
freefallbeth@yahoo.com

[Snowwhite 0]

Hey Don! Thank you for the global history lesson. That was fascinating and worth the read!

skydiveTaylorville.org
freefallbeth@yahoo.com

[billvon 3,111]

>We want to cut our CO2 to 1927 levels, so we won’t have floods, droughts, wild fires
>and hurricanes......like they did in 1927?

Lower CO2 levels won't end "floods, droughts, wild fires and hurricanes." It will just reduce the planet's temperature a bit.

[lawrocket 3]

http://news.yahoo.com/20-old-report-successfully-predicted-warming-scientists-200858337.html

Quote

Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.

Quote

The 1990 prediction did require an adjustment, since it did not take into account natural variability — which includes the chaotic nature of weather as well as longer-term natural patterns, such as the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
When Frame and Stone took natural variability into account

So what they are saying is that the prediction missed a bunch of stuff, did not take into account such phenomena as volcanoes, the ENSO, etc., so the researchers when back and adjusted and adjusted the prediction and, by golly by gee, once they finished applying hindsight to the predictions it worked!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>We want to cut our CO2 to 1927 levels, so we won’t have floods, droughts, wild fires
>and hurricanes......like they did in 1927?

Lower CO2 levels won't end "floods, droughts, wild fires and hurricanes." It will just reduce the planet's temperature a bit.

I thought we wanted to reduce the planets temperature "a bit" to prevent floods, droughts, wild fires, and hurricanes.

Don’t you see the breakdown in rational thought?

"CO2 forced Global warming causes floods, droughts, snow storms, hurricanes, and cystic acne, so we have to take steps to reduce our CO2. But if we reduce our CO2 we will still have floods, droughts, snow storms, hurricanes, and cystic acne"

[billvon 3,111]

>I thought we wanted to reduce the planets temperature "a bit" to prevent
>floods, droughts, wild fires, and hurricanes.

No, nothing will prevent floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes. Reducing the warming from CO2 will just reduce the frequency at which they occur, and reduce their overall severity.

To use an example (not to upset you or anything but) someday you will die. Although that's a given, I suspect you think that delaying that day - and staying healthier until that day - is a good thing. Imagine if someone came up to you and said "why bother with doctors and diet and exercise and not smoking? You're going to die anyway." Would you think they were being smarter than you were?

>Don’t you see the breakdown in rational thought?

Yes, I do. You see in only black and white, and if something cannot be prevented, then it's worthless to try to reduce its impact.

[quade 4]

If you're going to hit a brick wall, no sense in trying to slow down, wear seat belts or have an airbag. Just keep driving like nothing is happening. That always works.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No, nothing will prevent floods, droughts, wildfires and hurricanes. Reducing the warming from CO2 will just reduce the frequency at which they occur, and reduce their overall severity.

I’ve got questions about this…

CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of floods?

CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of droughts?

CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of wildfires?

CO2 warming has increased the frequency and severity of hurricanes?

First, what is the metric to determine increased “frequency” and “severity” of these matters? And second, is there empirical data to suggest this? Understanding that dollar damage assessments is one thing that is frequently used, I still have a hard time finding some form of measurement that works well with it. (We can have “hurricanes making landfall in the US” or “major hurricanes making landfall in the US” but that is a small sample of tropical cyclones. Or “number of Atlantic hurricanes” but that is also subject to sampling because prior Atlantic hurricanes would have to have ships there to detect them while today if a storm forms an eye that lasts two hours a satellite can detect it when previously nobody would have known. Or we can have “low barometric pressure” but that is also subject to the aforementioned detection amplification of the present.)

I think that, for me, it’s an issue of an intense mistrust of the subjective in science. Is it true or not? Objective. Yes or no. And here there is “more frequent” and “more severe.” Frequency is far more objective – you can measure a rate. But severity is entirely qualitative. It is argument. It is persuasion. I know lawyering when I see it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.