Can we control the temperature of Earth?

[Complexity]

Liar, ignorant or just dump.

Crap from A to Z

WHY ?

We MUST ask why, and you MUST keep asking why.

Why?

 

[manofthesea]

We know from temperature measurement in the pacific, that there hasn’t been any global temperature increase since 1995.

Hi guys. I don't mean to interrupt the thread. Climate news interests me somewhat and I just noticed this thread.

But I live in Hawaii and I remember a story about temperature measurements in the 'pacific' ocean. I don't have the links readily available as I don't ever keep notes of any kind. The story said that temperature readings that were used for the pacific were supposedly 'daytime' temperatures, noon I think. But in actuality the temperatures were nighttime temperatures. The story went on to say that climate change skeptics were using this information to counter claims of global warming. I'd never seen that until now.

The story went on to say that we just launched the newest, latest satellite to take more accurate temperature measurements. This story was at least a year ago.

 

[Bjarne]

Crap, we don’t know exactly - we know approximately

Amen.

And there MANY professional skeptical that doesn’t agree and no one cares about "skeptical ".

Because of this is mainstream mass emotion > http://www.science27.com/forum/skrig.jpg

There are MANY, MANY professional climate scientists that know the measurements of CO2 increases correlates with temperature rise.
What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?

Many times almost a fanatic religion, so fanatic that opponent is systematically fought down with all means, also (proven) dirty means.

Answer: Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists think that humans are causing global warming.

Everything is about money.
Doomsday prophecy sells. Amen.

I do not say that we are not to blame for anything but only that we have no overview at all, what is natural caused and what not.

The day we can predict the dd/mm/yy the next acreage starts, or at least understand why we ALWAYS had have large temperature variation, - that day I begin to take that “science" serious.
For example 1000 years ago it was 1 degree warmer by Greenland.
Or that day we exactly understand why the Earth MF is connected to the Earth Temperature variation, - that day too we would maybe be able to begin to distinguish.

We do have a good understanding of the natural temperature variation, especially in modern times. That has no impact on the ability to predict the next ice age.

Still you are closing you eyes for the fact: that natural variation ALSO takes place ALL OF THE TIME. And you have no understanding of these natural temp. variation. For example why was the years 1942 to 1944 dame cold worldwide ? WHY RC ? - You don't know.

Why did we have small ice age here some hundred years ago ? WHY RC ?

However scientists can and have predicted the next ice age.

Completely crap.
Why do you not give me :

• a date SIR ?
• or a month?
• or a year ?
• or a decade
• or a century
• or a millennium ?

BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT, and BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL, - WHAT NATUALLY TEMPERATURE VARIATION IS ABOUT - BASTA.

Every child older than 9 knows that 97% of actively published climate scientists do agree that humans are causing global warming. This means that for every 1 scientist you cite there are 32 others who disagree.

And every child in Mecca know that Allah is the only true good.
For every scientist that agreed there could be 132 cows that not agrees, but off course only if you know how to distinguish between a scientist and cows.,

Yes it is very alarming that the temperature had increased 1 degree.
BUT what would you say if the temperature after 50 years suddenly has decreased 8 degree?

IT CAN HAPPEN and it CAN start any day, and if it did you would now understand why.

What would the cost be compared to the cost we have due to 1 – 2 degree warmer?

Off course > doubt, must benefit mother Earth, - off course it would anyway be good to save fossil fuel. - Off course it is good to build more windmills etc. etc. etc.

BUT the fact is still: that WE DON’T KNOW how much of the temperature increase is due to CO².

This is actually Bjarne's basic problem: He is almost (must leave benefit of doubt) totally ignorant of all things scientific. By his own admission, he can't even do proper math.

NO it is a logical problem.

For exsample

• WHERE did the cold winter 2009/2010 on the whole Northern Hemisphere suddenly came from?
• How will the next winter be here? and WHY
• Predict please RC, - ask all the 97% “scientist”, there must be so many they are hanging around at every corner, so ask then, - how will the next winter be. - I REALLY like to know.
• How is the winter now down under RC? - And in South America?

We can impossible predict this – based on the very limit knowledge we have today.
Can you not see it, our knowledge is almost COMPLETELY useless.

 

[Pixel42]

We can impossible predict this? –[/B] based on the very limit knowledge we have today.
Can you not see it, our knowledge is almost COMPLETELY useless.

Nonsense. Just because we can't predict noise doesn't mean we can't predict trends. Noise is random, trends are not.

For example, it's impossible to predict on Jan 1st whether Jan 14th will be warmer or colder. Does that means our knowledge is useless when it comes to predicting anything even further ahead? Of course it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to predict that (in the Northern Hemisphere) July 1st will be warmer than Jan 1st. We can even estimate with reasonable accuracy how much warmer it will be, and how much on average the temperature will increase each month.

 

[Bjarne]

Nonsense. Just because we can't predict noise doesn't mean we can't predict trends. Noise is random, trends are not.

For example, it's impossible to predict on Jan 1st whether Jan 14th will be warmer or colder. Does that means our knowledge is useless when it comes to predicting anything even further ahead? Of course it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to predict that (in the Northern Hemisphere) July 1st will be warmer than Jan 1st. We can even estimate with reasonable accuracy how much warmer it will be, and how much on average the temperature will increase each month.

Don’t make things more misk mask complicated as it already is .
Of course you can predict that if it is HOT in Russia or Germany, - wind from such direction will make it warmer 1 week after here - because of this and that low pressure and this and that higg pressure.
But this is not the point. – The point is what the underlying cause of temperature variation is.
For example WHERE did the cold come from this winter, or in 1942 to 1944? or in the little ice age? – Its seems to have comes out of the> “big blue”, - everywhere on the Northern Hemisphere..
Was it due to more clouds?
Was the cause of the increase of clouds the Suns weaker MF
How much cosmic rays are hitting us in this part of the galaxies we are now, - did that have an influence?
Does the alignment of the Suns and Earth MF play a role?
And I could continue to ask, - the answers would be the same> We don’t know.

 

[Pixel42]

For example WHERE did the cold come from this winter, or in 1942 to 1944? or in the little ice age? – Its seems to have comes out of the> “big blue”, - everywhere on the Northern Hemisphere..

Wrong. As I've already pointed out to you, there were many parts of the Northern Hemisphere that were warmer than usual this past winter. I know the same goes for the Little Ice Age, and I suspect that if I bothered to look it up I'd find the same was true for 1942-44.

In any case the point remains: difficulty in discovering or predicting trends over short periods because of noise does not preclude success in discovering or predicting trends over much longer periods. For example tidal models cannot predict whether the next wave up the beach will come higher or lower than the previous one, but they can still predict whether the tide will come in or go out in the next few hours.

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong. As I've already pointed out to you, there were many parts of the Northern Hemisphere that were warmer than usual this past winter. I know the same goes for the Little Ice Age, and I suspect that if I bothered to look it up I'd find the same was true for 1942-44.

This is an empty assertion.
A short period of the winter 2009/2010 there was a little “tongue” about zero degree reach so far north (in the Atlantic) as Cap farewell.
This was the last heat that could be taken from the Gulf stream.
Short after this was gone as well.
Also UK was colder, exactly like Scandinavia, and the rest of Euraasia. Warm western winds warms even Russia in the wintertime, but there was no such warm western wind to EuroAsia, - therefore Russia was colder too. So was Canada and USA. I cannot see WHERE you believe the global warming on the northern hemisphere were in the winter period.
Try this:

Historical records show that there was a period of very long and cold winters over a 70-year period from about 1645 to about 1715.
Meteorologists call this time the little ice age (see addendum).
Glaciers in the Alps advanced. The North Sea froze over.
Later examination of astronomical records showed that astronomers reported seeing almost no sunspots during that period. Sunspots are relatively dark spots on the surface of the Sun. They are similar to storms on Earth.
They are associated with the solar wind, which causes the northern lights (aurora borealis) on Earth. Sunspots normally increase and decrease in number over an eleven (varies from 7 to 16 years) year cycle (22 years actually, because the magnetic fields of the sunspots reverse every 11-year cycle, and so are back where they started after 22 years).
During the little ice age, the northern lights were almost never seen, and some people considered them a myth. This relationship between sunspots on the sun and weather on earth has been confirmed by study of other periods of sunspot minimums, each of which has caused colder weather. And droughts seem to occur about every 22 years.
The relationship is not well understood.
http://www.jimloy.com/astro/little.htm

This cold period you can also not explain away..

http://geoffmclane.com/climate/images/clim-01.jpg

I suspect that if I bothered to look it up I'd find the same was true for 1942-44

I believe you can’t… The weather on the northern hemisphere is very strong global connected through the western wind. - I am sure you know this is true since you are from UK

http://www.climatic-research.com/image-global-warming/Slide03.png

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_vs_TSI_2009.gif

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/temp_vs_spots.gif

http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness...re-solar-activity-sunspots-last-100-years.jpg

http://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=...1ADRA_da&tbs=isch:1&ei=tLtJTKr8DMmosgbe68irDg

 

[Pixel42]

I cannot see WHERE you believe the global warming on the northern hemisphere were in the winter period.

Like I said only the mid latitudes were colder. Other latitudes were warmer. For example:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204477-Warmest-driest-winter-on-record-in-Canada

Winter is officially over, according to Environment Canada. And it was one of the warmest and driest across the country since 1948. The national average temperature for this past winter was 4 degrees Celsius above normal.

and (my bold)

http://www.earthweek.com/2010/ew100115/ew100115a.html

A rare disruption of the Northern Hemisphere circulation since mid-December dislodged almost all of the frigid air around the Arctic, sending it thousands of miles to the south.

The surge chilled parts of Asia, Europe and North America with some of the most severe winter conditions in decades.

The Arctic Oscillation also caused temperatures at high latitudes around the North Pole to shoot up to levels much warmer than normal, equalizing the atmospheric heat balance.

ETA: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

There is also an examination of temperature patterns during the Little Ice Age. There is pronounced cooling over the Northern Hemisphere continents. However, some regions such as parts of the Middle East, central North Atlantic, isolated parts of the United States and tropical Eurasia displaying warmth comparable to present day.

 

[uke2se]

As it seems this thread has drifted into global warming denialism as opposed to general reality denialism, it should be merged with the moderated thread. I'm asking the mods to do so.

/Edit: My bad, it started out as global warming denialism. Oh well, it should still be merged.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As it seems this thread has drifted into global warming denialism as opposed to general reality denialism, it should be merged with the moderated thread. I'm asking the mods to do so.

/Edit: My bad, it started out as global warming denialism. Oh well, it should still be merged.

Nah, Bjarne's position is one of global denialism. Also, some of the global warming denialists actually have an idea of what they are talking about. Unlike Bjarne.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Nah, Bjarne's position is one of global denialism. Also, some of the global warming denialists actually have an idea of what they are talking about. Unlike Bjarne.

Hans

This is not correct.
My point is only that we need more and new knowledge.
For example we must know:

• What the cause of ice ages is, - or –
• Why it was 1 degree warmer by Greenland 1000 years ago,
• What was the cause of the small ice ages?
• When will the next ice age start?
• Which direction does the natural temperature curve have, if we ignore the contribution for CO2?
• And 1000 other unanswered questions.

Science shall not be mixed with emotions.
Unfortunately, we cannot say this is the case with the clime debate. .

 

[macdoc]

Umm all of those are answered if you actually cared enough to read the extensive body of knowledge.

Don't compare your own ignorance of the planet you live on to the climate science body and even to the informed lay person.

Most of those are earth climate 101.

Only the last one has some truth and it's nothing to do with the ones above.

Start reading - stop with the inane commentary - this is a science forum and some level of competency is expected.

start here
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

and here
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html

 

[macdoc]

What the cause of ice ages is, - or –

Orbital changes and feedback from that - google Milankovitch cycles

Why it was 1 degree warmer by Greenland 1000 years ago,

NAO

What was the cause of the small ice ages?

Oscillation amongst others including Anthro

When will the next ice age start?

It won't, we've put too much C02 in already

Which direction does the natural temperature curve have, if we ignore the contribution for CO2?

cooler - we WERE drifting down from the Holocene optimum towards a cooler part of the orbit/inclination.
Our Anthro induced GW has turned the trend back....big time.

These are all from basic climate texts...nothing ground breaking with perhaps the exception of the LIA which is still being examined as several combining factors including Anthro are involved.

 

[Furcifer]

This forum is awesome, our members know more than NASA!

While NASA claims scientists are now exploring a few possibilities, JREF members already have it all figured out.

What's the point of misrepresenting the facts? Why not present the facts as they are known instead of outright lying about what is or isn't known to science? It doesn't make sense.

The questions aren't answered, science continues to explore the role things like the Global Conveyor Belt and Milankovitch cycles played in the past, and will play in the future.

Don't believe the hype!

 

[Trakar]

This forum is awesome, our members know more than NASA!

While NASA claims scientists are now exploring a few possibilities, JREF members already have it all figured out.

What's the point of misrepresenting the facts? Why not present the facts as they are known instead of outright lying about what is or isn't known to science? It doesn't make sense.

The questions aren't answered, science continues to explore the role things like the Global Conveyor Belt and Milankovitch cycles played in the past, and will play in the future.

Don't believe the hype!

Be careful not to confuse or misunderstand the generally imprecise and often mistaken language of a PR infotainment blurb for the more carefully worded and vetted findings and understandings of the actual science.

In this case most of the information is accurate enough for casual understanding, but new discoveries and refinements of understandings do not equate to "we don't know," and insinuations that this reference refutes or contradicts statements any AGW supporters have made here is quite simply untrue.

 

[Furcifer]

Be careful not to confuse or misunderstand the generally imprecise and often mistaken language of a PR infotainment blurb for the more carefully worded and vetted findings and understandings of the actual science.

In this case most of the information is accurate enough for casual understanding, but new discoveries and refinements of understandings do not equate to "we don't know," and insinuations that this reference refutes or contradicts statements any AGW supporters have made here is quite simply untrue.

Fair enough. Clarity on any issue is important. Their is a preponderance of evidence in support of these theories, and it is growing every day. There's nothing yet to suggest it's in any way wrong, but it's in need of refinement.

 

[Reality Check]

Amen.

Amen - you may be getting what science is - an approximation to reality!

Because of this is mainstream mass emotion > http://www.science27.com/forum/skrig.jpg

What you stated was

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Scientists do agree how to understand how much CO2 will cause temperature rise, OK ? – That’s the point.

Crap, we don’t know exactly and there are MANY professional skeptical that doesn’t agree. You KNOW that RC, every child does. – So please stop this crap.

That was basically gibberish since there is no such thing as a "professional skeptical". Being a skeptic is not a professin.
So I replied

Crap, we don’t know exactly - we know approximately. And there MANY professional skeptical that doesn’t agree and no one cares about "skeptical ".
There are MANY, MANY professional climate scientists that know the measurements of CO2 increases correlates with temperature rise.
What do you get when you put 100 climate scientists in a room?
Answer: Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists think that humans are causing global warming.
N.B. A consensus for or against a scientific theory does not mean that the theory is right. What it means is that the existing evidence is strong enought to convince the experts.

You KNOW that Bjarne, every child does. – So please stop this crap.

The highlighted statement is a fact.

Many times almost a fanatic religion, so fanatic that opponent is systematically fought down with all means, also (proven) dirty means.

Some religious gibberish.

...snip..
I do not say that we are not to blame for anything but only that we have no overview at all, what is natural caused and what not.

But we have a good overview about what is natural, caused and what not.
Your ignorance about climate science does not mean that climate scientists are ignorant about climate !

The day we can predict the dd/mm/yy the next acreage starts, or at least understand why we ALWAYS had have large temperature variation, - that day I begin to take that “science" serious.

That is really ignorant. Only an idiot would expect a prediction of the dd/mm/yy of the next ice age.

For example 1000 years ago it was 1 degree warmer by Greenland.
Or that day we exactly understand why the Earth MF is connected to the Earth Temperature variation, - that day too we would maybe be able to begin to distinguish.

We do understand why the Earth MF is connected to the Earth Temperature variation, e.g. cosmic rays.

Still you are closing you eyes for the fact: that natural variation ALSO takes place ALL OF THE TIME. And you have no understanding of these natural temp. variation. For example why was the years 1942 to 1944 dame cold worldwide ? WHY RC ? - You don't know.

No. I know that natural variation ALSO takes place ALL OF THE TIME.
So do climate scientists.
You are right - I do not know if years 1942 to 1944 were cold or not. That is your unsupported assertion. A quick check of the IPCC AR3 shows that you are wrong.

Why did we have small ice age here some hundred years ago ? WHY RC ?

Little Ice Age.
WHY are you so unable to do basic research Bjarne?

Completely crap.

• Why do you not give me :
• a date SIR ?
• or a month?
• or a year ?
• or a decade
• or a century
• or a millennium ?

BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT, and BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL, - WHAT NATUALLY TEMPERATURE VARIATION IS ABOUT - BASTA.

Completely crap.

BECAUSE IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT THE EXACT DATE OF THE NEXT ICE AGE , and BECAUSE I HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHAT NATUALLY TEMPERATURE VARIATION IS ABOUT - BASTA.

The ability to predict the next ice age of course is just your personal obsession. The predictions have been done. It has nothing to do with global warming or the topic of this thread:

Yet another fundamentally flawed idea from Bjarne​

...snipped usual rant...

We can impossible predict this – based on the very limit knowledge we have today.
Can you not see it, our knowledge is almost COMPLETELY useless.

We can possibly predict this – based on the limited knowledge we have today. Tomorrow we will have more knowledge and better predictions.

Can you not see it, our knowledge of climat is almost COMPLETELY useful. It allowed us to predict the global temperatures and see that was what happened.
Look around the world and see that our civilization only exists because of the usefulness of scientific knowldege. Look at your computer, It is scientific knowledge that created it.

 

[Bjarne]

Actually only the last 25 years temperatures have increased more than the sun spots (sun’s activity).

So let’s focus only on the last 2-3decades.

One logic way of explaining this is Quote:

Friis-Christensen and Lassen's theory to explain this correlation was that if the time duration between solar maxima peaks was shorter, then the earth was collecting more net energy overall than if the time between maxima was longer. The cycle averages 11 years, but it does shorten to about 10 years at times, and can open out to 12 years. From the maximum of 1980 to that of 1990, the cycle was only 10 years, resulting in the 1980s collecting greater warmth from the Sun than would be usual for other cycles http://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=...da&ndsp=18&tbs=isch:1&ei=NsFJTKOkFobaOPTktZsD .

I believe this sound all right, but what about the total amount of the snow covers in the wintertime.

Since 1985 we have had very poor snow cover in the wintertime many places in the world.
Hence heat from the Sun is in the winter half-year is no longer reflected out in space, but absorbed in the surface of the Earth.
Until 1985 not many did believe that CO2 was the cause of temperature increase.
Probably less than 1 % of the population or less.

We can see the suns activity from 1900 and until 1985, - was pretty parallel with the temperature curve.
There was simply no reason to any alarm until 1985 also not even though the temperature was weakly increasing (and decreasing) from 1900 and until 1985

Now let assume that it really was the Suns increasing activity that until 1985 was the cause of temperature increase, so like the parallel curves clearly indicates.
Hence the naturally temperature increase (until 1985) was the cause of the snow cover in winter time (many places in the world) was decreasing.

But could that have started an independent accelerating process?

Not a single cow in the world can doubt that this is an important factor; - One winter without snow certainly will cause temperature increase.

So the question is: how big a role does the poor snow cover play? .
Did the gradually decrease of the snow cover slowly caused the Earth to lose its ability to cool down in the winter time. ?

I mean after one winter with poor snow cover, the weak temperature increase of the Earth certainly would cause the next winter to be a little warmer, and hence the next winter would have even lesser snow cover than the year before, which then again means that third winter also would be warmer than the winter before.

When the snow cover slowly disappears, this must have caused a serious accelerating process.

So is it a large part of the mystery that the snow covers in winter period in several years (from 1985) prevented the Earth to cool?
Could this have been started due to basic naturally reason (until 1985) - due to the Sun's increasing activity, - and hence continued as a independent accelerating process after 1985 ?

This is certainly a factor that perhaps could be underestimated.

Try to calculate how much warmer would the Earth be just during one winter without snow cover of Europe, compared to full snow cover?

Uhhhhh “ a lot heat is accumulation like this, - Europe is gigantic solar cell, without snow…..

Everyone that has experimented with solar heat systems certainly knows that.

Black color (and color of the farmer fields) are much warmer than white.
But as mentioned above, also the length of the solar period could play a very important role, for the last decades temperature increase, and yes CO² could also be a reason, -but we don’t know enough how much, or how to distinguish from several different contributions.

 

[macdoc]

actually change in albedo is a factor in the Arctic in the ocean - rarely on land and in many cases there is INCREASED snow cover as warmer air carries more moisture....see US middle states 2010.

C'mon - read the science - don't blather.

and yes it IS C02 we have introduced that has made the temp climb despite a very very quiet sun.
At least get some basics down.

 

[Bjarne]

actually change in albedo is a factor in the Arctic in the ocean - rarely on land and in many cases there is INCREASED snow cover as warmer air carries more moisture....see US middle states 2010

Not in Europe.
For example in Denmark we had have many years with only few weeks snow cover.
It wasn’t so few decades ago.

Off course such will contribute to accelerate temperature increase.