Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
....which then gets me wondering. What then explained what happened 40 years ago to get those temps? Variations in jet streams that just occur once in a blue moon?
Although, back then cars were billowing out smog. I remember hearing how LA was choking in it. But there was less people back then.
So maybe now, less polution per capita + more people(like double?) = same amount of total polution...maybe worse?
Oh. Then about 35 years ago my south Texas beach house on the gulf froze for days and i have photo of a wall of ice bridging underside of a beach house with the ground. Right on the Gulf!
I guess we cant ever go by such stories as these though.
I guess we go by what thermometers say planted around the entire world, or however they do the measuring. Maybe when i was freezing my ______________ off, it was 160 degrees in the equatorial zones then.
They say energy can be neither gained or lost. Do temps work the same way, where say in the northern hemisphere has a say 10 colder than average period, that then the southern hemisphere must conversely rise 10 degrees above average?

.

Slightly off topic of your comment about (American) Smog and less pollution per capita .... one of the reasons is American manufacturing and smokestacks have disappeared .... most of them are in China now.

The smog there is many times worse than it ever was in LA 40 years ago.

Best wishes
 
.
.

WE just had -51*C wind chill temps (Southern Manitoba Canada)

Where we idiot deniers do our part to balance the planet extremes.

We live on this planet too and should not be discriminated against.

Well no evidence. No great surprise. Denier and idiot go quite well together.
 
.

Slightly off topic of your comment about (American) Smog and less pollution per capita .... one of the reasons is American manufacturing and smokestacks have disappeared .... most of them are in China now.

The smog there is many times worse than it ever was in LA 40 years ago.

Best wishes
Yes, the Chinese authorities and people are waking up to the problem of chronic air pollution, not before time.
 
Well no evidence. No great surprise. Denier and idiot go quite well together.


I suspect Mr. Martin may be a Sun News watcher. If so, that would go a long way in explaining his "knowledge" on the matter of climate change.
 
I am a helicopter pilot (among other things) .... I think you should give guys like me a round of applause for saving yet another bunch of ecotourists from a frozen boat in the warm Antarctica Seas ....

Actually it was a Chinese machine so I cannot take the credit for that one.

Besides , it just goes to show that even China does its part to save wayward climate experts so they can make it home safe and warm to save the planet for the rest of us.


.............................
At least one passenger shed tears of joy as others expressed relief and gratitude on Thursday after a helicopter whisked them off of an icebound Russian ship in Antarctica and delivered them onto an Australian icebreaker that will take them home.

Joanne Sim, a paying passenger from Sydney, wept as she boarded the Australian icebreakers. She said the passengers had spent their time while trapped watching movies and playing games.
"It really has been an emotional rollercoaster," she told a reporter

.............................................


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...s-from-ship-stuck-in-antarctica-head-for-home

.
Long live Chinese Helicopter pilots .... they are the saviors of the planet !!!!!!

.
 

Attachments

  • 2014-01-02t215112z_405049975_gm1ea130g6o01_rtrmadp_3_antarctica-ship-rescue.photoblog600.jpg
    2014-01-02t215112z_405049975_gm1ea130g6o01_rtrmadp_3_antarctica-ship-rescue.photoblog600.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 3
Well no evidence. No great surprise. Denier and idiot go quite well together.

Here ya go Mr Lion .... I fueled my helicopter there and the air-base windchill was actually -51 ... same weather station the climatologists have used since 1940.

I earn my denial status honestly and do not have to quote links from the AWG unionists

Did you know the latest UN "model" report has been severely downgraded from severe warming to just a bit of warming ??

190 "settled Scientists" from around the world have been fighting amongst themselves for weeks trying to get the "wording" just right.

Hope they get it settled soon. I want to read it in its entirety.

Plenty of warmists are ticked off because the planet simply will not obey them.

Personally I wish the planet would warm up a bit

.
 

Attachments

  • ptge temp.JPG
    ptge temp.JPG
    55.6 KB · Views: 4
Did you know the latest UN "model" report has been severely downgraded from severe warming to just a bit of warming ??

.

In the interest of learning were you get your BS from, presuming you don't actually produce it rectally: evidence?
 
Last edited:
See AM if you actually got the blocking structure out of your mind you might understand a bit further why AWG leads to this kind of cold snap.....you have enough meteorology to understand it....just perhaps not enough willingness to try...

AGW and the Arctic Dipole ...see where the jet stream is?? That is driving insane weather in North America and Britain

Screen%2520Shot%25202014-01-02%2520at%2520Jan%252C%25202%2520%2520%2520%25202014%2520%2520%2520%252010.14.36%2520PM.jpg


Greenland and Alaska are both warmer than central Canada as is a good chunk of Mars.
still heading down here

Screen%2520Shot%25202014-01-03%2520at%2520Jan%252C%25203%2520%2520%2520%25202014%2520%2520%2520%25206.14.14%2520AM.jpg


warmer to the north

Nuuk, Greenland
Friday 8:00 AM
Clear
undefined
-5°C | °FPrecipitation: 0%
Humidity: 46%
Wind: 16 km/h
TemperaturePrecipitationWind

While this is not climate....it IS climate driven as the Arctic warms. Good read for those inclined to understand..

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/15787/html

snip.....

Arctic amplification is a consequence of the atmospheric general circulation on the planet, enhanced locally by sea ice and land processes. Ice albedo feedback (insolation) is well known, but a main feature in recent years is the change in upper ocean heat storage in newly sea ice-free ocean areas, the sea-ice insulation feedback. The release of this stored heat to the atmosphere affects tropospheric wind fields which in turn impacts atmospheric and oceanic advection of heat and thus the distribution of sea ice.
Direct observations of such changes were made on recent cruises of the Japanese research vessel Marai (Inoue & Hori 2011).

The sensitivity of one-way shifts in Arctic climate to multiple amplification processes may be greater than previously recognized (Miller et al. 2010; AMAP 2011; Serreze & Barry 2011). This amplification can be driven by internal or external forcing or both, as observed during the ETCW and in the previous decade.

Increased atmospheric temperatures over loss of sea ice areas, creates a meander in the polar vortex flow which will have different downstream effects in different years. Given a continuing trend for increased temperatures and thinner sea ice in the Arctic, modelling results and the data from recent late autumns, December 2008, 2009 and 2010, suggest that the frequency of an autumn warm Arctic—cold continents climate pattern will increase, but because of competing processes, such as changes in Arctic stratospheric flow and the chaotic nature of atmospheric circulation in the sub-Arctic including blocking events, it will not be clearly manifest in the same way in every year.

Sure is manifest this year......brrrrrrr

Climate change means extremes....we certainly are seeing it and the insurance companies are wincing.
 
What about the $1 million your oceanographer friend Stefan Rahmstorf received ??

He received? Or his University/Institute received from funding organizations, to help finance his working group?

These are very different things, and I doubt Rahmstorf receives any more than the salary the University of Potsdam and his Institute pay him.

By the logic of your sentence I "received" €50k just the other day, but somehow failed to see any of that money in my bank account.

But this bring us to a very interesting point. Some (maybe most) deniers tend to think that scientists receive more money if they have big projects. In some Universities/Institutes this might be true, in the sense that the amount of overhead the Uni/Inst receives will influence the bonuses of the faculty responsible for those overheads. However, in many (again, maybe most) Uni/Inst throughout the world, the payment of faculty is tabled, and you receive whatever your position is supposed to receive, independently of what projects you're running.

The truth that a number of deniers fail to appreciate, maybe due to their political views, is that most scientists work because they love Science, and are truly engaged in discovering more about the planet. Again, lets take Rahmstorf as an example. I don't know him, but he is a modeler and teaches Physical Oceanography. He obviously has the intellect and inclination to work (for instance) in economic modeling and forecasting, which would probably get him a salary a couple of orders of magnitude above what he probably makes now. Or, closer to his thing, he could work on commercial applications of currents and sediment transport modeling, or weather forecasting. Again, at his level, we are talking a much higher pay. But instead he is doing that which I presume he loves doing, for a relatively meager pay.

Of course, there's the added bonus that climate scientists get to withstand the innuendos and outright insults of buffoons that have no idea about the subjects they are trying to discuss. And the occasional threats of violence towards them and they're families... You can't put a price on that.
 
Last edited:
You "scientists'' are cute .... you have no issues with Stefan Rahmstorf being handed a million dollars (and neither do I) .... but the minute it is someone "not in your camp" you decry it and start talking about nefarious conspiracy theories funded by big oil companies.

I swear if Koch gave Stefan the $1 million you would be bashing him left and right.
 
Back to science for a minute .... I have a couple of questions:

1. What caused the earths temperatures and atmosphere to be reasonably habitable for the past several thousand years ?? Did it not just "evolve" that way ??

2. And if so , will it not just "evolve" to adapt to our increased CO2 emissions ??

The planet has taken care of itself up till now , why should it stop adapting now ?? Some theories are on the line here .

Thank you.
 
You "scientists'' are cute .... you have no issues with Stefan Rahmstorf being handed a million dollars (and neither do I) .... but the minute it is someone "not in your camp" you decry it and start talking about nefarious conspiracy theories funded by big oil companies.

I swear if Koch gave Stefan the $1 million you would be bashing him left and right.

No, we don't have a problem with scientific grants, and yes, we do have a problem with lying deniers. Why is this strange to you?
 
I earn my denial status honestly and do not have to quote links from the AWG unionists

Please explain what an "AWG unionist" is? I have never heard of the acronym or general appellation and have no idea what you are talking about.

Did you know the latest UN "model" report has been severely downgraded from severe warming to just a bit of warming ??

What are you referring to as a "UN 'model' report"? Again, not a term I've ever heard before.

here is a link to AR5, if that is what you are referring to, the latest IPCC report discussing the physical science basis of climate change:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Usa1N2yA1xA

I don't see anything about any significant reduction of previous assessment determinations, and in fact, most of the evaluations seem to be much worse than earlier assessment estimations:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}
(...)
Atmosphere
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}
(...)
Ocean
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}
(...)
Cryosphere
Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2–4.7}
(...)
Sea Level
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}
(...)
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system. {2–14}
(...)
Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continentalscale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}
(...)
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
(...)

I look forward to seeing your supporting evidences for the assertions you have made and the explanation of the terms you have used.
 
Last edited:
You "scientists'' are cute .... you have no issues with Stefan Rahmstorf being handed a million dollars (and neither do I) .... but the minute it is someone "not in your camp" you decry it and start talking about nefarious conspiracy theories funded by big oil companies.

I swear if Koch gave Stefan the $1 million you would be bashing him left and right.
As was Muller when the BEST study was initially announced, unfortunately for the Kochs the study ended up backing up the other data records and confirming that they were accurate. Seems like money can't buy your own data...
 
start talking about nefarious conspiracy theories funded by big oil companies.

It's hardly a theory - there is plenty of evidence.
Exxon had a shareholders/board members revolt over it's funding of denial sites...do you think the Rockefellers are somehow in error on this??

Rockefeller Rebellion Turns Up Heat on Exxon - WSJ.com

online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB121157457128518175‎
by Russell Gold - in 26 Google+ circles
May 24, 2008 - Several generations of Rockefellers have joined in a campaign to force major changes at Exxon, successor to the oil company founded by John ...

The Royal Society in England for the first time in 400 years called out a private company for it's role distorting science...

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial ...
www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business‎
Sep 19, 2006 - Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial ... be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge. ... If you need help using the site: userhelp@theguardian.com; Call the main ..

and the Smithsonian weighs in

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/12/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement/

snip
The climate denial movement is a powerful political force, says Brulle. They’ve got to be, too, to outweigh in the public’s mind the opinions of pretty much every relevant scientist. Brulle:

With delay and obfuscation as their goals, the U.S. CCCM has been quite successful in recent decades. However, the key actors in this cultural and political conflict are not just the “experts” who appear in the media spotlight. The roots of climate-change denial go deeper, because individuals’ efforts have been bankrolled and directed by organizations that receive sustained support from foundations and funders known for their overall commitments to conservative causes. Thus to fully understand the opposition to climate change legislation, we need to focus on the institutionalized efforts that have built and maintain this organized campaign. Just as in a theatrical show, there are stars in the spotlight. In the drama of climate change, these are often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians, such as Senator James Inhofe. However, they are only the most visible and transparent parts of a larger production. Supporting this effort are directors, script writers, and, most importantly, a series of producers, in the form of conservative foundations. Clarifying the institutional dynamics of the CCCM can aid our understanding of how anthropogenic climate change has been turned into a controversy rather than a scientific fact in the U.S.

Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/sma...nd-the-climate-denial-movement/#ixzz2pLI9gnNS
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12!: http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

This is not science being paid for .....it's manufactured controversy to delay legislation to curb emissions.

Comparing science research with this disniformation campaign is insulting to scientists everywhere and to tax payers who subsidize fossil fuel companies that then pollute and try to cover up the impact.

The same players....Fred Singer notably and others were involved with Big Tobacco and now climate change denial

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-theres-smoke-the-climate-change-denial-lobby/

and this from the Union of Concerned Scientists

Executive Summary

In an effort to deceive the public about the real- ity of global warming, ExxonMobil has under- written the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco indus- try misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease.

As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years. Like the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has:
• Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence.

• Adopted a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organi- zations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public.

• Promoted scientific spokespeople who mis- represent peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade the media and the public that there is still serious debate among scientists that burning fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and that human-caused warming will have serious consequences.

• Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful action on global warming with mislead- ing charges about the need for “sound science.”

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

and this despite being told by their own scientists that the role of GHG could not be refuted....back in 1995.

BTW

AM - you did not "earn your denial stripes"through reading climate science - you are exceptionally misinformed
....I hope you do better on aerodynamics
 
Last edited:
Back to science for a minute .... I have a couple of questions:

1. What caused the earths temperatures and atmosphere to be reasonably habitable for the past several thousand years ?? Did it not just "evolve" that way ??

2. And if so , will it not just "evolve" to adapt to our increased CO2 emissions ??

The planet has taken care of itself up till now , why should it stop adapting now ?? Some theories are on the line here .

Thank you.
The 'Greenhouse Effect' has been around for as long as the planet has had an atmosphere holding GHGs. The species on the planet have evolved for the conditions that existed at the time. Unfortunately we are skewing the conditions ata rate that has never been seen in recent geologic history. Whilst some species may benefit, others will suffer. Whether biosystems can evolve fast enough to compensate will remain to be seen but present evidence is not very supportive of that view.
 
Good explanation M.
There is no doubt the planet will survive with a biome and habitat but human civilization prospered in the rather benign and predictable climate of the Holocene tho a few volcanic episodes wreaked havoc.

Humanity is already facing multiple challenges with population, resource depletion and biome destruction on land and ocean.

Reducing the stress on the systems by leaving a big chunk of the fossil fuels in the ground is only good stewardship.

Sweden shows it can be done.

The planetary systems related to climate are already altered for at least 3,000 years out.
We CAN and should slow the change and get to carbon neutral as ultimately we have to anyway.

Better it is done in a managed manner as Sweden and others are doing....and perhaps save trillions in climate change induced human costs.

There is a ton of money to be made in this transition and jobs galore.
The oil sheiks won't like it but even Dubai is going solar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom