NationStates Jolt Archive

Latest from NOAA:
May was the 7th warmest May in recorded history:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#temp

Recent temps:
December 2007- 13th warmest December in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/dec/global.html
January 2008 - 31st warmest January in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp
Febuary 2008- 15th warmest Febuary in recorded history.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html#temp
March 2008- 2nd warmest March in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#temp
April 2008- 13th warmest April in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/global.html


So we now stand at 5 orf the past 6 months in the top 20. (and we are under the cooling effect of La Nina!

And 7 of the all time warmest years have occured since 2001!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html

Getting harder for the sceptics to deny AGW!

Are you sure Dragontide? The last time I checked, my heater was still on and I was waking up freezing in the morning. The only reason why the heater has been turned off is because the power bill has gone through the roof.

Although, this last summer was quite lovely. If this is global warming, then bring it on!

Only 1 in the top 10.

*yawns*

This is nothing DragonTide.

I'm cold too, it's really strange I've noticed consistent weather that actually belongs in winter recently. Usually the weather just does whatever it feels like with no regard to what it's been doing recently, or which season it's supposed to be.

Are you sure Dragontide? The last time I checked, my heater was still on and I was waking up freezing in the morning. The only reason why the heater has been turned off is because the power bill has gone through the roof.

Although, this last summer was quite lovely. If this is global warming, then bring it on!

Doh! Sorry but what you described is not global warming. Here in the States the temps have not been bad either. But the average, combined, global land & ocean temps are the ones that matter when referring to global warming.

Only 1 in the top 10.

*yawns*

This is nothing DragonTide.

2! May and March! (and March is a peak La Nina month... 2nd warmest March in recorded history)

Doh! Sorry but what you described is not global warming. Here in the States the temps have not been bad either. But the average, combined, global land & ocean temps are the ones that matter when referring to global warming.

*yawns*

I did a paper on extremly limited data and I got an A on it. This really means nothing.

Now if it was record heat every year, then you could have a point.

It's been hot as hell where I live.

2! May and March! (and March is a peak La Nina month... 2nd warmest March in recorded history)

And what's your point? Still does not prove what you are trying to prove.

*yawns*

Now if it was record heat every year, then you could have a point.

7 of the warmest years since 2001. (you must have missed that part when you yawned)

pretty warm here, i have to keep the window open at night just so i can have a cooler room in the day.
according to my Thermometer it's 22C in my room and it's about 3.30am.

And what's your point? Still does not prove what you are trying to prove.

A La Nina year should be much cooler for one.

7 of the warmest years since 2001. (you must have missed that part when you yawned)

And your point? And no I didn't miss it. However, again, its not number 1 and it hasn't been number 1 for many years in a row. That'll definitely set a trend! Don't you think?

A La Nina year should be much cooler for one.

Ya know? We do have these things called Ridges and Troughs that complicate weather maps. Not to mention weather fronts and terrain.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2008) — Cool, wet conditions in the Northwest, frigid weather on the Plains, and record dry conditions in the Southeast, all signs that La Niña is in full swing.

With winter gearing up, a moderate La Niña is hitting its peak. And we are just beginning to see the full effects of this oceanographic phenomenon, as La Niña episodes are typically strongest in January.

So it was already in full swing back in Jan. And this was not a strong one either but a moderate one.

And your point? And no I didn't miss it. However, again, its not number 1 and it hasn't been number 1 for many years in a row. That'll definitely set a trend! Don't you think?

Many of the points are mentioned in the link. Such as:
Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend.

And one of my points is, it would have been much warmer in from 2007 till now if La Nina was not present.

How freekin hot is it going to get next year when La Nina is gone???!!!

Many of the points are mentioned in the link. Such as:
Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend.

And one of my points is, it would have been much warmer in from 2007 till now if La Nina was not present.

How freekin hot is it going to get next year when La Nina is gone???!!!

Around here? Probably not as hot as you think its going to get.And I forgot to include a link to the article I quoted earlier:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114085128.htm

And yet another highlight about your little La Nina:

The lengths of La Niña events vary as well. “We need to watch to see if this La Niña diminishes, because they can last for multiple years. And if it does last for multiple years, the southern tier of the United States, especially the Southeast, can expect dryer weather. That is not a good situation. If this La Niña behaves like a normal event, we should see signs that it is beginning to weaken by February,” says Adamec.

So far this La Niña is behaving like a textbook case: following the predicted weather patterns, strengthening throughout the winter, and peaking toward January. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, this La Niña episode is expected to continue until the spring of 2008, with a gradual weakening starting in February.

Ya know? We do have these things called Ridges and Troughs that complicate weather maps. Not to mention weather fronts and terrain. They are usually refered to as fluxuations. And normally it's suppose to cool down every now and then.


So it was already in full swing back in Jan. And this was not a strong one either but a moderate one.

But the temperatures do not reflect what even a moderate La Nina should bring.

Climate change.

Climate change.

Does anyone know what "Climate change" means?

Around here? Probably not as hot as you think its going to get.And I forgot to include a link to the article I quoted earlier:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114085128.htm

And yet another highlight about your little La Nina:
So far this La Niña is behaving like a textbook case: following the predicted weather patterns, strengthening throughout the winter, and peaking toward January. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, this La Niña episode is expected to continue until the spring of 2008, with a gradual weakening starting in February.

It is still weakening but it is still there:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/enso-monitoring.html

And a contributor to the recent excess in tornadoes:
http://blogs.earthsky.org/dankulpinski/2008/05/23/why-so-many-tornadoes-this-year/

Climate change.

Climate change.

Does anyone know what "Climate change" means?


Climate change A study dealing with variations in climate on many different time scales from decades to millions of years, and the possible causes of such variations.1) In the most general sense, the term "climate change" encompasses all forms of climatic inconstancy (that is, any differences between long-term statistics of the meteorological elements calculated for different periods but relating to the same area) regardless of their statistical nature or physical causes. Climate change may result from such factors as changes in solar activity, long-period changes in the Earth's orbital elements (eccentricity, obliquity of the ecliptic, precession of equinoxes), natural internal processes of the climate system, or anthropogenic forcing (for example, increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases). 2) The term "climate change" is often used in a more restricted sense, to denote a significant change (such as a change having important economic, environmental and social effects) in the mean values of a meteorological element (in particular temperature or amount of precipitation) in the course of a certain period of time, where the means are taken over periods of the order of a decade or longer.

Climate changes. That's what it does. It's not gonna stay how it is just because we're used to it. It's gonna change. I think trying to intentionally regulate that change based on our current level of information is just asking for trouble.

On the other hand, almost every idea for combatting the hype that is 'global warming' has other environmental benefits that I consider as important, if not more important for humanity's comfort zone and continued ability to adapt to climate change. I just wish the alarmist attitude would at least take a broader view of environmentalism instead of clamping on to a rather minor tidbit like climate change and holding on like an angry pitbull.

No wonder people are getting sick of hearing about it. *bleah*

Some different results from the WMO but both agree on the long upward trend and the WMO has 1998 to 2007 as the warmest decade on record.

Also the WMO states the the current La Nina is a powerful one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

"El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina"

*points and laughs at people in temperate countries*

Hah, you're not just used to temperature in the thirty-degree-Celsius range!

Climate changes. That's what it does. It's not gonna stay how it is just because we're used to it. It's gonna change. I think trying to intentionally regulate that change based on our current level of information is just asking for trouble.

On the other hand, almost every idea for combatting the hype that is 'global warming' has other environmental benefits that I consider as important, if not more important for humanity's comfort zone and continued ability to adapt to climate change. I just wish the alarmist attitude would at least take a broader view of environmentalism instead of clamping on to a rather minor tidbit like climate change and holding on like an angry pitbull.

No wonder people are getting sick of hearing about it. *bleah*
I agree.

Lol, it's pretty cold here in Aus, I wish I had some of that global warming right now.

Lol, it's pretty cold here in Aus, I wish I had some of that global warming right now.

Enjoy the winter down there! It may be the coolest one you get for some time.

Everywhere but here. This is the 3rd time we've had to run the AC.

It's been a cold and wet spring here.

You can't use one year on its own as evidence of climate change.

Climate change.

Climate change.

Does anyone know what "Climate change" means?

The illegible technobabble by eco-freaks trying to push through ideological based bans due to overinflated hype.

Has anyone noticed that we are in a solar hot cycle with much more than the usual solar radiation striking the earth... the opposite of a sunspot cycle where the sunspots cool the suns emissions...

The eco-freaks just report what they see as being in their interests. there are MORE scientists with INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEWED data opposing the global warming hysteria reported by the media and greenie freaks, than there are of the ideology bound narrow minded doom criers who only accept the peer reviews of their papers by members of their own ideology.

Despite the point that the stats you used where single events that prove nothing in the big picture I still agree the earth is currently warming.

However the world cooled for a mini ice age during industrial development. WHY??

And altho I agree the earth is warming I instead blame sun spots. The sun does not consistently supply radiation (therefor heat). And the sun is much bigger and more powerful then earths gasses. The sun spot theory also explains the mini ice age in Europe.

Until someone can explain the physics to me of how Carbon dioxide and other green house gasses warm the planet I will not believe in global warming. The idea that radiation passes through when going towards earth but cant pass through on the way back has not been explained at all.

The earths surface dosnt change the radiation wavelength so the earth is in effect doing nothing. Does anyone have a scientific study that proves this. Oh and dont try the IPCC which as had disenting scientists and was run by a guy with a degree in economics.

ps no one tell me to watch that pollitical movie by Al Gore. His explination of the radiation was by cartoon where the radiation and gasses has personalities.

Latest from NOAA:
May was the 7th warmest May in recorded history:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#temp
*snip*
Getting harder for the sceptics to deny AGW!
Recorded history is very short you know.

Enjoy the winter down there! It may be the coolest one you get for some time.

Enjoy the winter! Enjoy the winter! Are you frecking mad, or it seems more likely that you haven't experienced a proper winter. I will tell you what a proper winter feels like.

A proper winter is so cold that you go to bed with five blankets just to keep warm, and you walk around inside with two layers on, just to keep warm without having to put the heater on. Of course when you walk outside, it gets worse, you need at least another layer to ensure that you don't freeze in the winter breeze; I have spent many a morning standing at a train platform freezing because a breeze has come in from the right direction.

The weather is so shit in New Zealand that we pay money to go to Fiji and Queensland to experience decent weather, and I for one would much rather have Queensland's eternal summer in my own backyard than the crap that we call the weather. We had eternal summer this year; it is just that winter has thrown a spanner in the works.

It is still weakening but it is still there:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/enso-monitoring.html

And a contributor to the recent excess in tornadoes:
http://blogs.earthsky.org/dankulpinski/2008/05/23/why-so-many-tornadoes-this-year/

You do know what the term weakening is right? Also remember that we are at the end of Spring if not into summer. And this article is showing temperature increases in all regions with 1 and 2 in the positive category.

Some different results from the WMO but both agree on the long upward trend and the WMO has 1998 to 2007 as the warmest decade on record.

Also the WMO states the the current La Nina is a powerful one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

And La Nina occurs primarily during Winter as I have shown.

Enjoy the winter down there! It may be the coolest one you get for some time.

*decides not to actually answer*

Recorded history is very short you know.

Most records dating back to around the mid 1800s.

Until someone can explain the physics to me of how Carbon dioxide and other green house gasses warm the planet I will not believe in global warming. The idea that radiation passes through when going towards earth but cant pass through on the way back has not been explained at all.

Ask a physics professor about incoming, shortwave radiation and outgoing longwave radiation. Just like a greenhouse, the shorwave radiation gets through but all the longwave radiation cannot get back out. So it gets warmer.

And La Nina occurs primarily during Winter as I have shown.

Not this time. Summer is next Saturday and it's still there.

Most records dating back to around the mid 1800s.
1880 till now. 128 years. The data certainly should not be ignored.

Enjoy the winter! Enjoy the winter! Are you frecking mad, or it seems more likely that you haven't experienced a proper winter. I will tell you what a proper winter feels like.

A proper winter is so cold that you go to bed with five blankets just to keep warm, and you walk around inside with two layers on, just to keep warm without having to put the heater on. Of course when you walk outside, it gets worse, you need at least another layer to ensure that you don't freeze in the winter breeze; I have spent many a morning standing at a train platform freezing because a breeze has come in from the right direction.

The weather is so shit in New Zealand that we pay money to go to Fiji and Queensland to experience decent weather, and I for one would much rather have Queensland's eternal summer in my own backyard than the crap that we call the weather. We had eternal summer this year; it is just that winter has thrown a spanner in the works.

Sorry. I long for another good winter! (Alabama) Snow has become very rare around here and last winter was so warm we were overwhelmed with spring like tornadoes!

Not this time. Summer is next Saturday and it's still there.


1880 till now. 128 years. The data certainly should not be ignored.

You do know that 128 years ago the little ice age was still going on, right?

You do know that 128 years ago the little ice age was still going on, right?

The tail end of a localized phenom.

The tail end of a localized phenom.
:rolleyes:

Latest from NOAA:
May was the 7th warmest May in recorded history:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#temp

Recent temps:
December 2007- 13th warmest December in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/dec/global.html
January 2008 - 31st warmest January in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp
Febuary 2008- 15th warmest Febuary in recorded history.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html#temp
March 2008- 2nd warmest March in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#temp
April 2008- 13th warmest April in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/global.html


So we now stand at 5 orf the past 6 months in the top 20. (and we are under the cooling effect of La Nina!

And 7 of the all time warmest years have occured since 2001!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html

Getting harder for the sceptics to deny AGW!

Yeah, and look at this recent NASA weather Satellite data (http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm). Oh wait, it says global temperature is slowly going down. Well, lets look at the hottest year of the the past century. 1934, the year without a winter (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/). That was like 80 years ago right?

Considering that some of the most influential climate change studies of the past decade have been completely discredited, Mann's Hockey Stick graph used in Al Gore's movie and the GISS surface temperature analysis used by the UN, I remain safe in my sphere of skepticism.

The theory of greenhouse gases is a good theory, but long term temperature changes seem to be related to the earth's orbit and sun activity, whereas short term changes seem to be related to cloud activity. At least, thats my opinion.

Not this time. Summer is next Saturday and it's still there.

Its weakening. Just because its still there does not validate your arguement.


1880 till now. 128 years. The data certainly should not be ignored.

And we've been studying the climate for how long?

The tail end of a localized phenom.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Thats the funniest comment I heard in a long time.

The illegible technobabble by eco-freaks trying to push through ideological based bans due to overinflated hype.

L O L
W U T
?
Has anyone noticed that we are in a solar hot cycle with much more than the usual solar radiation striking the earth... the opposite of a sunspot cycle where the sunspots cool the suns emissions...
Haven't been out in my spacecraft/time machine lately. Sorry.
The eco-freaks just report what they see as being in their interests. there are MORE scientists with INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEWED data opposing the global warming hysteria reported by the media and greenie freaks, than there are of the ideology bound narrow minded doom criers who only accept the peer reviews of their papers by members of their own ideology.
Do you have any idea what you are saying?
Did you read my post you just quoted?
Didn't I say "Climate Change", quite clearly?

Sorry. I long for another good winter! (Alabama) Snow has become very rare around here and last winter was so warm we were overwhelmed with spring like tornadoes!

We don't get snow in Auckland that often; the last time we had snow was in July 1939, and there was another time in the 19th Century when Auckland got snow, but otherwise, it is a very rare occurrence.

The winter I long for is the winter of 2005, that year was very mild.

Ask a physics professor about incoming, shortwave radiation and outgoing longwave radiation. Just like a greenhouse, the shorwave radiation gets through but all the longwave radiation cannot get back out. So it gets warmer.

If the long wave radiation can not get back out how could it get inside earth in the first place?

Also im sure you will accept the fact that the radiation comes from the sun. What happens is a percentage or radiation gets in and the same percentage can leave earth again. The more gasses that stop radiation getting out will stop radiation going inside.

Mars is experiencing the same thing as eath at the moment. The martian glaciers have been shown to melt. Why??

Greenhouse gasses im sure. The martians must be driving around too much at the moment.

Couldnt be the sun could it. That HUGE star that make the earth look in comparison as a bolder does to a grain of sand

This is a funny OP assertion. In my area we have been having the coldest June in recorded history. We also got 12 inches of snow overnight on June 11 at the 2500 ft level. Again that was extremely abnormal.

Another interesting fact which goes against this popular "global warming" nonsense.

Wampa attacks have been increasing.

Yes, you heard me. As the polar ice caps have been expanding, the numbers of Wampa sightings and Wampa related fatalities have increased exponentially. If you have any Taun-tauns in your corral, best remember to shut the barn doors.

Another funny assertion
If you plot a graph of tempreature pirates and greenhouse gasses they are simularly close to each other

The reason for this is obvious. The pirates stop robbing people at sea so the tempreature rises. To stop climate change aka Global warming I suggest we all go into the sea with an eye patch and a bird on our sholder.

Arr me Hearties lets walk climate change of ye ol plank

Mars is experiencing the same thing as eath at the moment. The martian glaciers have been shown to melt. Why??

Fascinating, you should contribute to all scientific threads, your knowledge would be invaluable.

Latest from NOAA:
May was the 7th warmest May in recorded history:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/may/global.html#temp

Recent temps:
December 2007- 13th warmest December in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/dec/global.html
January 2008 - 31st warmest January in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#temp
Febuary 2008- 15th warmest Febuary in recorded history.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html#temp
March 2008- 2nd warmest March in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#temp
April 2008- 13th warmest April in recorded history!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/apr/global.html


So we now stand at 5 orf the past 6 months in the top 20. (and we are under the cooling effect of La Nina!

And 7 of the all time warmest years have occured since 2001!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html

Getting harder for the sceptics to deny AGW!


Which is why this was one of the longest winters we've had here? We literally had no spring. It was winter all the way into May(we had snow at the end of april!), and then the next week it was in the 80s.

But then again, that shows global climate change even more, because of the lack of the "between" seasons, spring and fall. Our summers last until about October now, and winter until whenever.

Has anyone noticed that we are in a solar hot cycle with much more than the usual solar radiation striking the earth... the opposite of a sunspot cycle where the sunspots cool the suns emissions...

The eco-freaks just report what they see as being in their interests. there are MORE scientists with INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEWED data opposing the global warming hysteria reported by the media and greenie freaks, than there are of the ideology bound narrow minded doom criers who only accept the peer reviews of their papers by members of their own ideology.

1) You can say that right now for this current cycle. The problem is when you look at the last 4 cycles there is 0 correlation between temp and your solar hot cycle.

2) Your 2nd point is so not even in the realm of possibility its funny.

And altho I agree the earth is warming I instead blame sun spots. The sun does not consistently supply radiation (therefor heat). And the sun is much bigger and more powerful then earths gasses. The sun spot theory also explains the mini ice age in Europe.

Until someone can explain the physics to me of how Carbon dioxide and other green house gasses warm the planet I will not believe in global warming. The idea that radiation passes through when going towards earth but cant pass through on the way back has not been explained at all.

The earths surface dosnt change the radiation wavelength so the earth is in effect doing nothing. Does anyone have a scientific study that proves this. Oh and dont try the IPCC which as had disenting scientists and was run by a guy with a degree in economics.



I would be happy to give it a shot if you are really interested.

Its weakening. Just because its still there does not validate your arguement.




And we've been studying the climate for how long?

Point being, before during and now, the cooling effect of La Nina was over shadowed by the excess heat.

The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s

Point being, before during and now, the cooling effect of La Nina was over shadowed by the excess heat.

The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s

I would be very careful with that statement. With La nina you are in the realm of weather and weather is NOT climate. Sure generally La Nina implies generally cooler temps but you are making leaps in your conclusions not supported by the data.

If we had wonderful records of ENSO going back 100's of years then it would be a much more cut and dry but we don't. You can't eliminate the possibility that some other feedback of the climate system is at work to make this year different than the other preceding years.

If the long wave radiation can not get back out how could it get inside earth in the first place?
It dosn't. What gets through, coming down, is shortwave radiation. One thing that can block this is volcanic ash. There was actually a scientist in Russia that wanted to blow up a large volcano as a solution to global warming.


Mars is experiencing the same thing as eath at the moment. The martian glaciers have been shown to melt. Why??
For one thing, the natural atmosphere on Mars is 95% Co2.

I would be very careful with that statement. With La nina you are in the realm of weather and weather is NOT climate. Sure generally La Nina implies generally cooler temps but you are making leaps in your conclusions not supported by the data.

If we had wonderful records of ENSO going back 100's of years then it would be a much more cut and dry but we don't. You can't eliminate the possibility that some other feedback of the climate system is at work to make this year different than the other preceding years.

It's different tools but you cannot deny the fact that tree ring study is an exact science. And I have not seen any tangable debate to dispute ice core accuracy. (which is accurate to +/- 1 year over 500,000 years) Ice core samples show a year by year history of weather patterns, Co2 levels and temps. You can even see the little differences from the 70s w/ the energy crisis and all that.

A decent greenhouse effect explination:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html

Jupiter

A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change. The temperatures are expected to change by as much as 10 Fahrenheit degrees at different places of the globe. At least close to the new spot and to the equator, nothing less than global warming is expected.

New observations of Jupiter's climate change were released in 2008:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522121036.htm

Neptune

The climate of Neptune - more precisely its reflectivity - was recently changing. Lockwood and Hammel argue in Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34 (2007) that the trends on Neptune reveal suggestive correlations of brightness of Neptune with the temperature trends on Earth.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

Triton

Triton is Neptune's largest Moon. Some people believe that it used to be an asteroid. Global warming was detected on Triton. Between 1989 and 1998, the temperature jumped by 5 percent on the absolute (Kelvin) scale. The same relative increase would raise the Earth's temperature by 22 degrees Fahrenheit in 9 years. See thousands of other pages about the global warming on Triton.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+warming%22+triton

Enceladus

Another moon of Saturn's, Enceladus, would be also expected to be frozen and cold. Suddenly, Cassini has informed us that Enceladus generates its own heat. Its high temperatures seem to be incompatible with calculations based on solar energy itself, according to existing models.

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060419/Feature1.asp

Saturn

Saturn itself has a rather warm southern pole, and the temperatures in that region suddenly jumped by 3-5 Kelvin degrees.

Pluto

What's going on with Pluto? Well, yes, your guess is right. There is global warming on Pluto. Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled in 14 years, and the associated increase of temperature is estimated to be around 3.5 Fahrenheit degrees, despite the motion of Pluto away from the Sun.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Mars

Of course, the global warming on Mars is a well-known story. Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius degrees, much faster than Earth: see Nature 2007

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/news070402-5.html

Yes, all due to the evil internal combustion engines, the burning of fossil fuels, and the dastardly evilness of George Bush...

It's different tools but you cannot deny the fact that tree ring study is an exact science. And I have not seen any tangable debate to dispute ice core accuracy. (which is accurate to +/- 1 year over 500,000 years) Ice core samples show a year by year history of weather patterns, Co2 levels and temps. You can even see the little differences from the 70s w/ the energy crisis and all that.

Tree ring studies, like any proxy, are not exact. Trees are growth dependent on several factors including temp, exposure to sunlight and water. They are great proxies because you can get annual resolution however they are modeled just like everything else and therefore not exact.

Ice cores are exact to one year at the top only. Generally you can count the layers back to 30k. Some people think they can count back around 60k. After that there are problems in the ice and like everything else its modeled. One of the Greenland Ice cores (GRIP or GISP i think) has a completely redundant section from where the ice has flowed on top of its self.

Jupiter
(lots of links showing warming outside of earth)

The problem with doing this is even your sources say that this isn't related to what we see on earth.

Come on people, if you take enough curves of independent data there will be times when they are in phase and times when they are out. Stop cherry picking the intervals that work for you and look at the records as a whole.

Here is a link from the mars article also in nature
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/news070402-7.html

The problem with doing this is even your sources say that this isn't related to what we see on earth.

Come on people, if you take enough curves of independent data there will be times when they are in phase and times when they are out. Stop cherry picking the intervals that work for you and look at the records as a whole.

Here is a link from the mars article also in nature
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/news070402-7.html

That's my point.

The OP is cherry picking his temperatures, etc.

That's my point.

The OP is cherry picking his temperatures, etc.

Well I said the exact same thing to him as well...

The problem with the whole argument is fidelity. Sure we can measure things really well today but past a few thousand years we are dead in the water. The basic physics of the argument should work. If you pump more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we will warm. How sensitive the earth is to these changes is the prize.

Tree ring studies, like any proxy, are not exact. Trees are growth dependent on several factors including temp, exposure to sunlight and water. They are great proxies because you can get annual resolution however they are modeled just like everything else and therefore not exact.

Ice cores are exact to one year at the top only. Generally you can count the layers back to 30k. Some people think they can count back around 60k. After that there are problems in the ice and like everything else its modeled. One of the Greenland Ice cores (GRIP or GISP i think) has a completely redundant section from where the ice has flowed on top of its self.

Well if only one core had a problem then no problem. Paul Meyewski has made at least 36 polar expeditions over the years, collecting ice core samples. No major conflictions from core to core. And if they go back 30-60K then that is also information that is not to be ignored.

As for tree ring science, the study shows things like the fact that the MWP and LIC had an affect on the Northern Hemisphere only. (Southern Hemisphere tree ring samples do not show these extremes happening there)

That's my point.

The OP is cherry picking his temperatures, etc.

How is starting now and going straight back in time cherry picking? Hot this year & the past 10 years. noaa & the wmo both agree.

Which is why this was one of the longest winters we've had here? We literally had no spring. It was winter all the way into May(we had snow at the end of april!), and then the next week it was in the 80s.

But then again, that shows global climate change even more, because of the lack of the "between" seasons, spring and fall. Our summers last until about October now, and winter until whenever.

This is the point of it all. It's not a matter of how hot or cold it is in your given area. The concern is the change in temps of the atmosphere and oceans. Global climate change is responsible for the change in climate in particular regions, continents, and biomes. In NJ we had temps in the mid to low 50's a below until nearly the end of May. It then shot up into the 80's for a few days, and back down for a few. Suddenly it was 98 for 3 days straight, real temperature feel was 111 according to NOAA. It seems as though Spring and Fall don't really exist as they did in our region. It stinks because my 2 fave seasons are spring and fall. Are humans to blame for all of this? I don't think so, but they sure contribute in many ways. The problem is not whether or not there are trends, but how far off the norm they are.

This is the point of it all. It's not a matter of how hot or cold it is in your given area. The concern is the change in temps of the atmosphere and oceans. Global climate change is responsible for the change in climate in particular regions, continents, and biomes. In NJ we had temps in the mid to low 50's a below until nearly the end of May. It then shot up into the 80's for a few days, and back down for a few. Suddenly it was 98 for 3 days straight, real temperature feel was 111 according to NOAA. It seems as though Spring and Fall don't really exist as they did in our region. It stinks because my 2 fave seasons are spring and fall. Are humans to blame for all of this? I don't think so, but they sure contribute in many ways. The problem is not whether or not there are trends, but how far off the norm they are.

The oceans aren't warming though.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

They should, but they're not.

Well I said the exact same thing to him as well...

The problem with the whole argument is fidelity. Sure we can measure things really well today but past a few thousand years we are dead in the water. The basic physics of the argument should work. If you pump more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we will warm. How sensitive the earth is to these changes is the prize.

I for one can already see how sensetive with the stronger storms, longer droughts, longer fire battles, west nile virus migration, bleaching reefs, melting ice...

Well if only one core had a problem then no problem. Paul Meyewski has made at least 36 polar expeditions over the years, collecting ice core samples. No major conflictions from core to core. And if they go back 30-60K then that is also information that is not to be ignored.

As for tree ring science, the study shows things like the fact that the MWP and LIC had an affect on the Northern Hemisphere only. (Southern Hemisphere tree ring samples do not show these extremes happening there)

I agree with you on the ice cores. I am just pointing out that they are not exactly what you portrayed them to be.

As for the tree rings I would be careful there as well. The actual data and data distribution across the SH is much less than in the NH. So just because some region doesn't see it doesn't mean another will. There are places in the NH that don't record the MW or LIA

How is starting now and going straight back in time cherry picking? Hot this year & the past 10 years. noaa & the wmo both agree.

Its cherry picking because you can't tell me for certain that the past 10 years are just the up swing of a cycle. Talking about yearly data is a no go for climate change. You are much safer talking about general trends from 1850 to present, this is getting to the time period of actual recorded variability in the climate system.

I for one can already see how sensetive with the stronger storms, longer droughts, longer fire battles, west nile virus migration, bleaching reefs, melting ice...

But you can't say that this is unprecedented over the past 10,000 years. Its all within the data noise.

Don't get me wrong, I largely agree with you. But you are overstating what we can say from physical observation.

The oceans aren't warming though.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

They should, but they're not.

From your link:
it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,"

This is correct. Not warmer but only a very slight cooling. The problem is, the global temps have remained almost exactly the same for 10 years. we should have had at least ONE decent year in the past decade.

The oceans aren't warming though.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

They should, but they're not.

Also cherry picking. three years of data is inconsequential to a system that has a residence time of 1000 to 1500 years.

I could formulate the hypothesis that deep ocean circulation is slowing down due to increased freshwater flux because of warmer temperatures. This would stratify the deep ocean and keep most of the warming constrained to the upper surface ocean.

There are places in the NH that don't record the MW or LIA

I have always thought that this was because they were such small events. It probably was only felt in Europe and just a few 1000 miles in no paticular given direction.

Also cherry picking. three years of data is inconsequential to a system that has a residence time of 1000 to 1500 years.

I could formulate the hypothesis that deep ocean circulation is slowing down due to increased freshwater flux because of warmer temperatures. This would stratify the deep ocean and keep most of the warming constrained to the upper surface ocean.

You would have to prove it.

None of the ocean is warming apparently. Not even the upper surface.

It *should* get warmer - after all, it's the majority of the world's heat sink.

Point being, before during and now, the cooling effect of La Nina was over shadowed by the excess heat.

I love talking about weather. Its so much fun. Especially when it tends to be entirely one sided. Dragon, maybe you should read some of the comments related to weather. Some have had long cold winters during a la nina year which is normally typical.

Thanks.

The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s

And we've been studying climate for how long?

I have always thought that this was because they were such small events. It probably was only felt in Europe and just a few 1000 miles in no paticular given direction.

Its seen in the western North America (those tree rings you speak of). You are correct that its hard to track down .5 to 1 degree change when thats probably close to the error of your proxy. I am fairly certain that I am correct in saying all alpine ice except for the Antarctic shows retreat and growth over the MWP to LIA. Africa also sees changes in the Monsoon.

I love talking about weather. Its so much fun. Especially when it tends to be entirely one sided. Dragon, maybe you should read some of the comments related to weather. Some have had long cold winters during a la nina year which is normally typical.

Thanks.

What comment did I miss?

And we've been studying climate for how long?

Since at least the 1820s. (I just said that)

What comment did I miss?

Go back and read the thread.

Since at least the 1820s. (I just said that)

No I said studying. There's a difference to what you said and what I asked.

This is what you stated:

The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s

First considered is not the same as actually studying something considering the fact that we had no way of really studying greenhouse effect on our own atmosphere till the advent of satellites.

You would have to prove it.

None of the ocean is warming apparently. Not even the upper surface.

It *should* get warmer - after all, it's the majority of the world's heat sink.

Well I don't have to prove anything since thats not what science is about.

So whats the relationship between atmospheric temperatures and ocean temps. In terms of size the ocean is a lot bigger. How well did we know deep ocean temperatures before this experiment? How well did we know upper ocean temps before this experiment? Is it possible that a 1 degree rise in temp on land is equal to less than .1 degree rise in the ocean? I would think it is, how sensitive is the monitoring equipment on the robots? How good of spatial coverage did they get?

I suspect any change in ocean temperature is within the error of the experiment

Well I don't have to prove anything since thats not what science is about.

So whats the relationship between atmospheric temperatures and ocean temps. In terms of size the ocean is a lot bigger. How well did we know deep ocean temperatures before this experiment? How well did we know upper ocean temps before this experiment? Is it possible that a 1 degree rise in temp on land is equal to less than .1 degree rise in the ocean? I would think it is, how sensitive is the monitoring equipment on the robots? How good of spatial coverage did they get?

I suspect any change in ocean temperature is within the error of the experiment

The change in the ocean temperature should more than match the change in air temp. This isn't just about deep ocean temps - the robots are measuring the temperatures at all depths.

It isn't warming the ocean at any depth at all.

Well I don't have to prove anything since thats not what science is about.

You said you could "make a hypothesis".

If your hypothesis is to have any meaning, you have to prove it.

Otherwise, it's just as useful as farting into a paper bag.

First considered is not the same as actually studying something considering the fact that we had no way of really studying greenhouse effect on our own atmosphere till the advent of satellites.

The satellites have been tools that have verified old theories. After Joseph Fourier figured it out, the research went on from there:

Fourier is credited with the discovery in 1824 that gases in the atmosphere might increase the surface temperature of the Earth This was the effect that would later be called the greenhouse effect. He established the concept of planetary energy balance - that planets obtain energy from a number of sources that cause temperature increase. Planets also lose energy by infrared radiation (that Fourier called "chaleur obscure" or "dark heat") with the rate increasing with temperature. A balance is reached between heat gain and heat loss; the atmosphere shifts the balance toward the higher temperatures by slowing the heat loss. Although Fourier understood that rate of infrared radiation increases with temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann law which gives the exact form of this dependency (a fourth-power law) was discovered fifty years later.

The satellites have been tools that have verified old theories. After Joseph Fourier figured it out, the research went on from there:

Fourier is credited with the discovery in 1824 that gases in the atmosphere might increase the surface temperature of the Earth This was the effect that would later be called the greenhouse effect. He established the concept of planetary energy balance - that planets obtain energy from a number of sources that cause temperature increase. Planets also lose energy by infrared radiation (that Fourier called "chaleur obscure" or "dark heat") with the rate increasing with temperature. A balance is reached between heat gain and heat loss; the atmosphere shifts the balance toward the higher temperatures by slowing the heat loss. Although Fourier understood that rate of infrared radiation increases with temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann law which gives the exact form of this dependency (a fourth-power law) was discovered fifty years later.

Source?

Well I don't have to prove anything since thats not what science is about.

So whats the relationship between atmospheric temperatures and ocean temps. In terms of size the ocean is a lot bigger. How well did we know deep ocean temperatures before this experiment? How well did we know upper ocean temps before this experiment? Is it possible that a 1 degree rise in temp on land is equal to less than .1 degree rise in the ocean? I would think it is, how sensitive is the monitoring equipment on the robots? How good of spatial coverage did they get?

I suspect any change in ocean temperature is within the error of the experiment

Seems like the best we can do is simply look a cyclone records. These records have also not been around for very long but what is there shows cyclones becoming more powerful recently than in any time since records began.

Seems like the best we can do is simply look a cyclone records. These records have also not been around for very long but what is there shows cyclones becoming more powerful recently than in any time since records began.

The bolded is the flaw in the logic.

Source?

For Joseph Fourier? Sure! I'll do your homework for you! why not eh? :rolleyes:

http://www.answers.com/topic/jean-baptiste-joseph-fourier?cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
http://www.renewable-green-energy.co.uk/article/5956/greenhouse_effect_joseph_fourier

For Joseph Fourier? Sure! I'll do your homework for you! why not eh? :rolleyes:

http://www.answers.com/topic/jean-baptiste-joseph-fourier?cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier
http://www.renewable-green-energy.co.uk/article/5956/greenhouse_effect_joseph_fourier

You're the one that supplied the information so it is your responsibility to provide a source so none of this "I'll do your homework for you" shit.

The bolded is the flaw in the logic.

Granted it is only a small piece to this very large puzzle. But while the other pieces are fitting with this one, your trying to add pieces that MIGHT belong. Bottom line is with ancient history as a factor, either side can claim a victory, depending on what kind of model you construct.

Granted it is only a small piece to this very large puzzle. But while the other pieces are fitting with this one, your trying to add pieces that MIGHT belong. Bottom line is with ancient history as a factor, either side can claim a victory, depending on what kind of model you construct.

Which makes this discussion mute.

You're the one that supplied the information so it is your responsibility to provide a source so none of this "I'll do your homework for you" shit.

Joseph Fourier is a common name in the study of the greenhouse effect.

Good advice: You want to debunk sombody, google every damm word they say. If you cant find anything in all the links that that will produce then best not to try to debunk.

Which makes this discussion mute.

Only if you ignore NOAA, the WMO, NASA, The National Hurricane center, The IPCC, the scientists that travel to the poles...:rolleyes:

The change in the ocean temperature should more than match the change in air temp. This isn't just about deep ocean temps - the robots are measuring the temperatures at all depths.

It isn't warming the ocean at any depth at all.

No thats not what it said. It said that ocean temps are basically within the error of the measurement.

Why should ocean temps more than match change in air temps? There is way more ocean volume to warm up compared to atmospheric volume. My point is that the deep ocean could be buffering any change seen in the atmosphere to date.

My hypothesis does have support we have been watching ocean circulation slow for the past 50 years. I have the citations if you would like.
EDIT
eh not fair to post and not cite:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416832a.html#B4
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6840/abs/411927a0.html
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=13&page=3721&ct=1

Seems like the best we can do is simply look a cyclone records. These records have also not been around for very long but what is there shows cyclones becoming more powerful recently than in any time since records began.

We had a really interesting talk about that last year. You can find some of the larger events in the geologic record and they correlate to known events. However, you lose a ton of storms that never make landfall.

We had a really interesting talk about that last year. You can find some of the larger events in the geologic record and they correlate to known events. However, you lose a ton of storms that never make landfall.

I wish there was a link that shows the number of Cat 4-5 cyclones around the globe since recorded history and the bests guesses as to when they stayed at the high intensity over a few years, like they do now. could it have been as far back as 125,000 years? (I would say yes)

Dragontide?

Climate Change is a way of life.

Only if you ignore NOAA, the WMO, NASA, The National Hurricane center, The IPCC, the scientists that travel to the poles...:rolleyes:
I thought I told you before, facts and research are unimportant!

Dragontide?

Climate Change is a way of life.

That man obviously has some control over.

I thought I told you before, facts and research are unimportant!

Yea! Let's just flip a coin. Heads: AGW is real. Tails: Hummers for everybody! :D

That man obviously has some control over.

Wait!

We have some control over it? Oh brother :rolleyes:

Getting harder for the sceptics to deny AGW!

At some point it doesn't matter how many facts or arguments you can hold up, people with head-in-the-sand syndrome can deny it all just as easily as pie.

It doesn't take difficulty to say, "La la la, I'm not heeeearing yooou!"

At some point it doesn't matter how many facts or arguments you can hold up, people with head-in-the-sand syndrome can deny it all just as easily as pie.

It doesn't take difficulty to say, "La la la, I'm not heeeearing yooou!"

Oh, I believe global warming is real, and that humans have something to do with it.

I just thought the OP was arrant nonsense posting.

Wait!

We have some control over it? Oh brother :rolleyes:

Yes! Old news! We can control Mother Nature in many ways. Man puts up too much Co2, less heat can escape. (which does many things that I have listed) Cloud seeding. Deforestation. Hunting a species to extinction. A nukefest. A bio weapon fest. The urban island effect....

Yes! Old news! We can control Mother Nature in many ways. Man puts up too much Co2, less heat can escape. (which does many things that I have listed) Cloud seeding. Deforestation. Hunting a species to extinction. A nukefest. A bio weapon fest. The urban island effect....

Then explain all the climate changes that transpired before the industrial age. I'm dying of curiosity.

Oh, I believe global warming is real, and that humans have something to do with it.

I just thought the OP was arrant nonsense posting.

Op was basicly a response to those of a couple of years ago that said it would be much cooler in a couple of years. (I think they were banking on La Nina)

Op was basicly a response to those of a couple of years ago that said it would be much cooler in a couple of years. (I think they were banking on La Nina)

Apparently, over the next 10 to 20 years, it will probably be cooler than the global warming model predicted.

Not that there isn't global warming - just that the sunspots (or lack thereof) have a much larger effect on temperatures than our emissions.

Then explain all the climate changes that transpired before the industrial age. I'm dying of curiosity.

As to several millions of years ago, the excess heat is what can happen when a planet is forming. The big bang was quite a warm and violent period you know!
Link (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/timeline.html)

Counting Down to the Big Bang
In what follows I give the temperature of outer space in Kelvin at various times. Kelvin means "degrees Celsius above absolute zero". The melting point of water is 273 Kelvin; the boiling point is 373 Kelvin.

13.7 billion years after the Big Bang - now.
Temperature: 2.726 Kelvin


400 million years after the Big Bang - "reionization": first stars heat and ionize hydrogen gas.
Temperature: roughly 30 Kelvin.


380 thousand years after the Big Bang - "recombination": hydrogen gas cools down to form molecules.
Temperature: 3000 Kelvin.


10 thousand years after the Big Bang - end of the radiation-dominated era.
Temperature: 12,000 Kelvin.


1000 seconds after the Big Bang - decay of lone neutrons.
Temperature: roughly 500 million Kelvin.


180 seconds after the Big Bang - beginning of "nucleosynthesis": formation of helium and other elements from hydrogen
Temperature: roughly 1 billion Kelvin.


10 seconds after the Big Bang - annihilation of electron-positron pairs.
Temperature: roughly 5 billion Kelvin.


1 second after the Big Bang - decoupling of neutrinos.
Temperature: roughly 10 billion Kelvin


100 microseconds after the Big Bang - annihilation of pions.
Temperature: roughly 1 trillion Kelvin


50 microseconds after the Big Bang - "QCD phase transition": quarks get bound into neutrons and protons.
Temperature: 1.7-2.1 trillion Kelvin


10 picoseconds after the Big Bang - "electroweak phase transition": electromagnetic and weak force become different.
Temperature: 1-2 quadrillion Kelvin.

Note: a picosecond is a trillionth of a second. Before this the temperatures were so high that our knowledge of physics is unable to say for sure what happened, though experts have some good guesses.

So how did this affect Earth?

Counting Backwards from Now
60 years ago - Invention of the computer.

130 years ago - Invention of the telephone.

180 years ago - Fossil fuel revolution: coal, trains.

540 years ago - Invention of the printing press.

5,500 years ago - Invention of the wheel, writing.

7,600 years ago - Sahara desert starts forming in northern Africa.

8,800 years ago - The first cities.

10,300 years ago - End of the most recent glacial period: the Wisconsin glaciation.

12,700 - 11,500 years ago - the Younger Dryas.

18,000 years ago - Cultivation of plants, herding of animals. Homo sapiens arrives in the Americas.

21,000 years ago - Last glacial maximum: ice sheets down to the Great Lakes, the mouth of the Rhine, and covering the British Isles.

32,000 years ago - Oldest known cave paintings.

35,000 years ago - Invention of the calendar, extinction of Homo neanderthalensis. Homo sapiens arrives in Europe.

50,000 years ago - Homo sapien arrives in central Asia.

70,000 years ago - Beginning of the most recent glacial period: the Wisconsin glaciation.

100,000 years ago - Homo sapiens arrives in the Middle East.

125,000 years ago - Beginning of the Eemian interglacial.

200,000 years ago - Beginning of the 2nd most recent glacial period: the Wolstonian glaciation.

250,000 years ago - First Homo sapiens.

350,000 years ago - First Homo neanderthalensis.

380,000 years ago - Beginning of the Hoxnian interglacial.

450,000 years ago - Beginning of the 3rd most recent glacial period: the Kansan glaciation, during which ice sheets reached their maximum extent in the Pleistocene, down to Kansas and Slovakia.

620,000 years ago - Beginning of the Cromerian interglacial.

1.4 million years ago - First firemaking by humans.

1.9 million years ago - First Homo erectus.

2.5 million years ago - First Homo habilis. Beginning of a period of repeated glaciation (loosely speaking, "ice ages").

3 million years - Cooling trend causes year-round ice to form at the North Pole.

3.9 million years ago - First known Australopithecus afarensis.

5 million years ago - Humans split off from other apes (gorillas and chimpanzees).

21 million years ago - Apes split off from other monkeys.

24 million years ago - Cooling trend causes the formation of grasslands; Antarctica becomes covered with ice.

34 million years ago - Gondwanaland finishes breaking up, with Australia and South America separating from Antarctica.

50 million years ago - India begins to collide with Asia, eventually forming the Himalayas.

67 million years ago - Asteroid hit Mexico, causing the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. End of dinosaurs. 50% of all species died out! Intensification of world cooling trend.

114 million years ago - First modern mammals. World begins to cool.

150 million years ago - First birds.

200 million years ago - Pangaea began to split into separate continents: Gondwana to the south and Laurasia to the north, separated by the Tethys Sea.

205 million years ago - The Triassic-Jurassic extinction. End of large amphibians and many reptiles.

235 million years ago - First dinosaurs, flowers.

250 million years ago - The Permian-Triassic extinction. 90% of all species died out! Formation of the supercontinent Pangaea, with surrounding ocean Panthalassa.

313 million years ago - First reptiles.

365 million years ago - The Late Devonian extinction. 70% of marine species died out! First amphibians, trees.

395 million years ago - First insects on land.

415 million years ago - The Old Red Sandstone Continent, also known as Laurussia, is formed by the collision of Baltica and Laurentia at the beginning of the Devonian.

440 million years ago - The Ordovician-Silurian extinction. Most marine species died out.

670 million years ago - First animals.

630-850 million years ago - The Cryogenian Period, also known as Snowball Earth - the worst ice age in the Earth's history.

800 million years ago - The supercontinent Rodinia begins to break up.

1 billion years ago - Formation of the supercontinent Rodinia

1.3 billion years ago - First plants.

1.6 billion years ago - First blue-green algae.

2.4 billion years ago - The Great Oxidation Event: the Earth's atmosphere gets oxygen.

3 billion years ago - formation of the first known continent, Ur.

3.8 - 4 billion years ago - The Late Heavy Bombardment: a period during which the Earth, Moon, Venus and Mars were subjected to many asteroid impacts, after a relatively calm period of several million years.

4 billion years ago - First life on Earth.

4.45 billion years ago - Formation of Earth complete; storm of asteroid impacts.

4.55 billion years ago - Formation of the Sun.

13.3 billion years ago - Reionization: the first stars heat and ionize hydrogen gas.

13.7 billion years ago - The Big Bang: beginning of the universe as we know it!

Apparently, over the next 10 to 20 years, it will probably be cooler than the global warming model predicted.

Not that there isn't global warming - just that the sunspots (or lack thereof) have a much larger effect on temperatures than our emissions.

Any proof that sunspots are the current culprit?

Any proof that sunspots are the current culprit?

They aren't responsible for the warming. They're responsible for the cooling.

It's going to be cooler than the global warming model predicts, for at least a decade or two. Then it will resume warming when the sunspots come back.

They have a much more dramatic, and rapid effect, than anything else (it's the Sun, you know).

They aren't responsible for the warming. They're responsible for the cooling.

It's going to be cooler than the global warming model predicts, for at least a decade or two. Then it will resume warming when the sunspots come back.

They have a much more dramatic, and rapid effect, than anything else (it's the Sun, you know).

If you are refering to solar cycle #25, that is possible, but it's not going to help from now till then and no guarentee it will help then.

Global warming study is science. And what is the first rule of science? (and just about everything else) Safety First!!!

If you are refering to solar cycle #25, that is possible, but it's not going to help from now till then and no guarentee it will help then.

Global warming study is science. And what is the first rule of science? (and just about everything else) Safety First!!!

I'm not saying it will "help".

I'm saying it will briefly be cooler. I'm pretty sure of it, since we already seem to be trending that way slightly.

Dragontide, you have to be careful about your view of science.

It isn't infallible, and it is often subject to change without notice.

You seem to think that merely by saying something is "science" that it's inarguably true forever, and that anyone who even questions it (or merely wants to re-examine the data) is an idiot.

If science worked the way you think of it, we would still be wondering about the interstellar ether.

https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/lecture19.html

While the blindness of scientists has been laughed at in fiction:

For years it was stated that men had forty-eight chromosomes in their cells; there were pictures to prove it, and any number of careful studies. In 1953, a group of American researchers announced to the world that the human chromosome number was forty-six. Once more, there were pictures to prove it, and studies to confirm it. But these researchers also went back to reexamine the old pictures, and the old studies--and found only forty-six chromosomes not forty-eight.

--Michael Crichton, The Andromeda Strain (1969;1993), p. 125.

it turns out that decades of "science" were not only wrong, but blatantly so.

"Usually the number of chromosomes is constant in a given species, although it may vary between different species even of the same genus. In man the chromosome number is forty-eight...." [Human Genetics and its Social Import, by S. J. Holmes (1936), pp. 8. The illustration above appears on p. 9.]

"... the number of chromosomes is in general constant for any given species. Thus in each cell of a human being there are 48 chromosomes (24 pairs)...." [Principles of Heredity, 3rd. ed., by Laurence R. Snyder (1946), p. 26.]

And it was proved wrong by a student - not some professor....

"If you learned your biology a long time ago, you learned that men have forty-eight [chromosomes]--but the number has now been revised downward to forty-six (twenty-three pairs)." [The Language of Life: An Introduction to the Science of Genetics, by George and Muriel Beadle (1966), p. 89.]


When and how did the discovery take place? Here's a first hand account from biologist, Maj Hultén, who was then an undergraduate student in Stockholm:

I was walking in the culvert linking the Institute to the Animal House, carrying my mouse cages. It was late at night the day before Christmas Eve, on December 23, 1955, when I suddenly heard the clapping (and echoing) sound of clogs behind me, and a heavy hand landed on my left shoulder. I got mighty afraid, but recognizing it to be the diminutive Chinese visiting scientist, Joe-Hin Tjio, I wondered what on earth this was all about. "I can see that you are equally kind to everybody around here. Would you like to come to my room? I have got something interesting to show you", he stuttered. "Yes, please", I found myself answering.

Peering down the microscope, situated on the bench to the right in Tjio's office cum lab, I was amazed to see the human chromosomes well spread out and separated from each other, and when Tjio demanded: "Count", I did so. My first comment was "You have lost two", but then in metaphase after metaphase there could be no doubt, the chromosome number was 46. It was a cliché to say that I can remember it as if it was yesterday, the stinging smell of the acetic orcein (making Tjio's broad thumbs bright red also when squashing the cells) blending together with that of Turkish coffee made by Tjio.

from "Numbers, bands and recombination of human chromosomes: Historical anecdotes from a Swedish student," by M. A. Hultén, in Cytogenetic and Genome Research 96: 14-19 (2002), pp. 15-16.

Something you should read:

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

If you truly believe that global warming is man-made, you should always accept the idea that someone is going to criticize the studies and the data. To try and sweep away argument by claiming "It's Science!" shows that you have not a clue as to what science is.

Dragontide, you have to be careful about your view of science.

It isn't infallible, and it is often subject to change without notice.

You seem to think that merely by saying something is "science" that it's inarguably true forever, and that anyone who even questions it (or merely wants to re-examine the data) is an idiot.

If science worked the way you think of it, we would still be wondering about the interstellar ether.

https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/lecture19.html

While the blindness of scientists has been laughed at in fiction:



it turns out that decades of "science" were not only wrong, but blatantly so.



And it was proved wrong by a student - not some professor....



Something you should read:

http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html

If you truly believe that global warming is man-made, you should always accept the idea that someone is going to criticize the studies and the data. To try and sweep away argument by claiming "It's Science!" shows that you have not a clue as to what science is.

I also said "and just about everything else" when refering to "safety first!"

You are trying to make the claim that when a scientists is wrong about something, other scientists are likely to wrong about something else! That's a poor arguement!

I also said "and just about everything else" when refering to "safety first!"

You are trying to make the claim that when a scientists is wrong about something, other scientists are likely to wrong about something else! That's a poor arguement!

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that you're trying to say, "It's science!" if someone tries to make a comment about global warming.

Science involves the continuous challenge of concepts by experiment and verification.

Note the word "continuous".

Yes, there's global warming. It's not really possible yet to say more than "man is contributing to it" - how much we don't know. We know it's a bad thing we're doing, but how fast and how far the warming goes we don't know either.

Cherry picking a large storm (and there have been larger storms in the past) and saying "It's global warming, it's science!" is pretty silly.

Last year, they predicted that a lot of hurricanes would pound us to pieces - and it was one of the quietest years on record. If I used your technique, I would say, "No more global warming - it's science!"

Stop being silly, and read the posts.

I'm not saying it will "help".

I'm saying it will briefly be cooler. I'm pretty sure of it, since we already seem to be trending that way slightly.

Since solar cycle #24 just began 5 months ago, we couldn't possibly be feeling anything from #25. Your slight cooler theory can make the claim that it has not got warmer in the past 10 years, but the yearly totals of the past 10 years have been so close to each other that it just dosn't matter.

Year...C.....F
2005 0.60 1.08
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2007 0.55 0.99
2006 0.54 0.97
2004 0.53 0.96
2001 0.49 0.89
1997 0.46 0.83
1995 0.40 0.72

Recorded history chart:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Since solar cycle #24 just began 5 months ago, we couldn't possibly be feeling anything from #25. Your slight cooler theory can make the claim that it has not got warmer in the past 10 years, but the yearly totals of the past 10 years have been so close to each other that it just dosn't matter.

Year...C.....F
2005 0.60 1.08
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2007 0.55 0.99
2006 0.54 0.97
2004 0.53 0.96
2001 0.49 0.89
1997 0.46 0.83
1995 0.40 0.72

You still haven't explained why the oceans haven't warmed at all. Not the surface temps and not the deep temps. Nada. Zip.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that you're trying to say, "It's science!" if someone tries to make a comment about global warming.

Science involves the continuous challenge of concepts by experiment and verification.

Note the word "continuous".

Yes, there's global warming. It's not really possible yet to say more than "man is contributing to it" - how much we don't know. We know it's a bad thing we're doing, but how fast and how far the warming goes we don't know either.

Cherry picking a large storm (and there have been larger storms in the past) and saying "It's global warming, it's science!" is pretty silly.

Last year, they predicted that a lot of hurricanes would pound us to pieces - and it was one of the quietest years on record. If I used your technique, I would say, "No more global warming - it's science!"

Stop being silly, and read the posts.

Your doing it again. What does the number of hurricanes have to do with it?
There is no real way to predict the number of hurricanes. There are just too many variables. But once a TW becomes a TS then a Cat-1, anyone can predict what will happen if it travels over warmer water (and wind sheer is not a factor) It will get stronger.

Not possible to see man's contribution to global warming? Now your just being silly!

You still haven't explained why the oceans haven't warmed at all. Not the surface temps and not the deep temps. Nada. Zip.

They have stayed steady (way above the norm of recorded history) for 10 years. The "slight" cooling is irrelevent.

just look at google scholar. Many people have looked at historic trends between the sun and temperature. There is a statistical correlation. And what is most amazing is that the sunspots by casual observers recognize the mini ice age. The sun spots could also explain why mars is melting.

The science is all out there but is being overshouted. The idea that the science is settled is an absolute joke. The IPCC is a joke which has had the reputable scientists dwindle in munbers. The IPCC takes diplomats as a number of scientists now. There are far more. Not trusting people to read full scientific papers which are of course dry there is one website that has a list of arguments why global warming its just look at google scholar. Many people have looked at historic trends between the sun and tempreature. There is a statistical correlation. And what is most amazing is that the sunspots by casual observers recognize the mini ice age. The sun spots could also explain why mars is melting.

The science is all out there but is being over shouted. The idea that the science is settled is an absolute joke. The IPCC is a joke which has had the reputable scientists dwindle in numbers. The IPCC takes diplomats as a number of scientists now. There are far more. Not trusting people to read full scientific papers which are of course dry there is one website that has a list of arguments why global warming is false. Try skepticalscience.com. Or you could watch the great global warming swindle. If you feel a movie by a politician is trustworthy why not a movie by a produce titled the great global warming swindle

As a science student I recognize that true science is agued over and over. Climate change aka global warming is no different. The involvement of the left to hijack this issue is disastrous for science. The belief that a biologist can prove global warming is false. Only the physicists, chemical physicists and earth system scientists can. These people are being overcome by hippies, politicians, people outside the wrong science profession and people outside science all together.

Please look at a scientific paper about sun spots. There are many out there. They are just deemed politically incorrect

Yeah, and look at this recent NASA weather Satellite data (http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm). Oh wait, it says global temperature is slowly going down
Recent?

October 2, 1997

edit:
And global warming doesn't mean that every day temperatures will be higher, just that in average across the globe they will rise.

This will also lead to more chaotic and unpredictable weather patterns because there's more energy contained in the system...

Though, if the energy is 'absorbed' by movement - winds, increased evaporation & precipitation - then does the temperature actually even have to rise?

edit 2:
Overall, I think using temperature alone as an indicator can be misleading and there should be a meter that should also take into account wind speed, humidity, air pressure, et al.

the term global warming has been slowly replaced by climate change when it was realized that the earths tempreature wouldnt be rising steadily. They both mean the same event. The difference is that when there becomes a blizzard this too should be blamed on greenhouse gasses. Same with a cyclone or any other natural event.

The word phrase global warming is too precise. The scare tactic cant be extended over winter.

The sun spots could also explain why mars is melting.

As a science student I recognize....


...that you talk a lot of nonsense?

This is the second time you've put forward the idea that glaciers on Mars are melting. The most extreme theory says there might have been glaciers on Mars, at the earliest, 10 million years ago, the actual range is between 10-100 million years ago and this is only a theory, a guess looking at terrain.

All the debate raging over climate change is, however, a smokescreen, and I choose my wording carefully because it's very much similar to the debate over whether smoking was the cause of a large portion of lung cancer. On and on it went while the simple fact that inhaling tobacco is in no way good for your lungs was thrown to the wayside.

So we debate climate change, what is the cause? All the while, it simply serves as a smokescreen to the fact that we're polluting the planet, killing ourselves, depleting the oceans of fish, sectioning off and thus dooming wildlife to death, pouring chemicals into the earth, water and skies while bulldozing miles and miles of forest, flattening landscape.

Oh, but is man the cause of climate change?

So until we conclusively prove it, and Exxon, Shell and others pour money into saying it's not conclusive, we carry on in case it's not true?

Honestly, I couldn't care if some data can be attributed to sun spots, it doesn't mean we're not incredibly inefficient with, and in the process, incredibly damaging to the environment, and by consequence, to ourselves.

It's like the last man on Easter Island to cut down a tree shouting 'we can't prove we need trees'.

just look at google scholar. Many people have looked at historic trends between the sun and temperature. There is a statistical correlation. And what is most amazing is that the sunspots by casual observers recognize the mini ice age. The sun spots could also explain why mars is melting.

The science is all out there but is being overshouted. The idea that the science is settled is an absolute joke. The IPCC is a joke which has had the reputable scientists dwindle in munbers. The IPCC takes diplomats as a number of scientists now. There are far more. Not trusting people to read full scientific papers which are of course dry there is one website that has a list of arguments why global warming its just look at google scholar. Many people have looked at historic trends between the sun and tempreature. There is a statistical correlation. And what is most amazing is that the sunspots by casual observers recognize the mini ice age. The sun spots could also explain why mars is melting.

The science is all out there but is being over shouted. The idea that the science is settled is an absolute joke. The IPCC is a joke which has had the reputable scientists dwindle in numbers. The IPCC takes diplomats as a number of scientists now. There are far more. Not trusting people to read full scientific papers which are of course dry there is one website that has a list of arguments why global warming is false. Try skepticalscience.com. Or you could watch the great global warming swindle. If you feel a movie by a politician is trustworthy why not a movie by a produce titled the great global warming swindle

As a science student I recognize that true science is agued over and over. Climate change aka global warming is no different. The involvement of the left to hijack this issue is disastrous for science. The belief that a biologist can prove global warming is false. Only the physicists, chemical physicists and earth system scientists can. These people are being overcome by hippies, politicians, people outside the wrong science profession and people outside science all together.

Please look at a scientific paper about sun spots. There are many out there. They are just deemed politically incorrect

Link (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-activity-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html)

"An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase."

lol here we get into the difference of scientific opinion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm should give you a bit of info into it. The sun spots are responsible for warming. But remember the key part is radiation. Do you wish to give any kind of link to the idea that sunspots have decreased lately. Becuase I was under the belief that they had remained constant.

Oh and about the idea that the martian glaciers are melting. If they have already completely melted why would NASA be planning to drill inside them http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/mars-20070315.html. Or is this just a government conspiracy like the idea that humans didnt land on the moon. I would have thought that if nasa believed sending a machine to mars to drill inside the ice they would have believed ice was there. Or did they just decide to waste billions of dollars on non existant ice

Yes we are damaging the plannet I agree on that. But lets not claim we are changing the worlds climate as a whole untill we are sure. There is enough evidence from the sunspot analysis to point to them. Or if you wish to do fuzzy stats as I said before its the pirates ( I dont believe that).

Next time someone wishes to claim my science is wrong please at least provide a link which mentions a scientific experiment. THERE IS MOST CERTAINLY ICE ON MARS TODAY

the term global warming has been slowly replaced by climate change when it was realized that the earths tempreature wouldnt be rising steadily. They both mean the same event. The difference is that when there becomes a blizzard this too should be blamed on greenhouse gasses. Same with a cyclone or any other natural event.

The word phrase global warming is too precise. The scare tactic cant be extended over winter.

Correction - the phrase climate change replaced global warming when scientists realised that they could be wrong again like they were in the 1970s when they predicted global cooling. The use of the phrase climate change is best described as fence sitting; and given that there has been snow in unusual places at the wrong times of year over the last half decade, I would certainly suggest that there hasn't been global warming to any degree since the 1990s.

lol here we get into the difference of scientific opinion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm should give you a bit of info into it. The sun spots are responsible for warming. But remember the key part is radiation. Do you wish to give any kind of link to the idea that sunspots have decreased lately.

Oh sorry. I thought I had posted this but did not:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm

Another sunspot link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html;jsessionid=ECDC103F589D79819B39C480627555B3)
"Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

And using other planets in comparison to Earth in a global warming debate is rediculious. Different planetary atmospheres. Mars has a 95% Co2 atmosphere.

Oh sorry. I thought I had posted this but did not:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm

Another sunspot link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html;jsessionid=ECDC103F589D79819B39C480627555B3)
"Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."

And using other planets in comparison to Earth in a global warming debate is rediculious. Different planetary atmospheres. Mars has a 95% Co2 atmosphere.

And what about pre-1978?

And what about pre-1978?

What about it? If some solar events brought about unusual heat before 1978 then that could explain things like the Mideval Warming Period and such. But the point is it can't be used an excuse for the current warming.

What about it? If some solar events brought about unusual heat before 1978 then that could explain things like the Mideval Warming Period and such. But the point is it can't be used an excuse for the current warming.

You really do not get it do you? In order to look at things coesively, you must take into account everything including unknown variables. The unknown variables you can play with and make predictions on it (like what the man made global warming folks are doing).

Also, you can look at how certain things formed and we can tell when they did based on what is left behind. That's how we know that the Vikings made their way over here. There was a warming spell and thus increased food production thus more people were born thus the need to migrate. Greenland was settled and from there they made their way towards what we call Labrador today, or so theory states. When the cold returned, food production decreased, people were not having children, and the colonies starved.

That's just one example. Down in the South, we know of massive droughts (not like what we call it today but worse than that).

In the midwest, we have evidence of massive earthquakes (similar to what shook the area that caused the Mississippi River to flow backwards). They are doing what they can to beef up their quake protection. The earthquake that hit the northern plains (forgot the location) scared the shit out of people.

We can look at all the evidence for climate change and make predictions based on that. To point that we have something to do with it (and we are but not to any extent that people say we are) is silly. I can think of one instance where we can and that was the meteor that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.

You really do not get it do you? In order to look at things coesively, you must take into account everything including unknown variables. The unknown variables you can play with and make predictions on it (like what the man made global warming folks are doing).

Also, you can look at how certain things formed and we can tell when they did based on what is left behind. That's how we know that the Vikings made their way over here. There was a warming spell and thus increased food production thus more people were born thus the need to migrate. Greenland was settled and from there they made their way towards what we call Labrador today, or so theory states. When the cold returned, food production decreased, people were not having children, and the colonies starved.

That's just one example. Down in the South, we know of massive droughts (not like what we call it today but worse than that).

In the midwest, we have evidence of massive earthquakes (similar to what shook the area that caused the Mississippi River to flow backwards). They are doing what they can to beef up their quake protection. The earthquake that hit the northern plains (forgot the location) scared the shit out of people.

We can look at all the evidence for climate change and make predictions based on that. To point that we have something to do with it (and we are but not to any extent that people say we are) is silly. I can think of one instance where we can and that was the meteor that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.

Still! Currently it's not a solar event because of the low solar activity recently. Your going to have to do better than "unknown variables." C'mon! Flip a coin or something. You have to do your best Al Pachino, point your finger and say "Dat's da bad guy!" Not just "let's ignore Co2, just in case it might be something else!" Time is running short! If all the peat in Siberia and Alaska thaws, were fukt!
Link (http://www.newruskincollege.com/gorbachevbushartificialcloudsinstitutenewruskincollegecom/id14.html)

Still! Currently it's not a solar event because of the low solar activity recently. Your going to have to do better than "unknown variables." C'mon! Flip a coin or something. You have to do your best Al Pachino, point your finger and say "Dat's da bad guy!" Not just "let's ignore Co2, just in case it might be something else!" Time is running short! If all the peat in Siberia and Alaska thaws, were fukt!
Link (http://www.newruskincollege.com/gorbachevbushartificialcloudsinstitutenewruskincollegecom/id14.html)

What about all that ice in Greenland? You know...the thawing that occured that allowed the vikings to come over to the new world. We were not "fucked" then and most of civilization lived near the coast.

You are the one that has to do better.

What about all that ice in Greenland? You know...the thawing that occured that allowed the vikings to come over to the new world. We were not "fucked" then and most of civilization lived near the coast.

You are the one that has to do better.

Link (http://classic.ipy.org/start/index.php/site/news-archive/polar_cigarette_cards/)
[Norse Chieftan Eiríkr Thorvaldsson (Erik the Red) was banished from Iceland for three years after being convicted of manslaughter/murder (accounts vary in this regard). Many years prior to this, his father was kicked out of Norway under similar circumstances. According to legend, Erik deliberately selected the name "Greenland" so as to get others to follow him. It was one of the biggest real estate scams in history. In fact, about 85% of the island's area is covered with an ice cap, extending 1,553 miles (2,484 km.) from north to south and up to 650 miles (1,040 km.) east to west.]

Link (http://classic.ipy.org/start/index.php/site/news-archive/polar_cigarette_cards/)
[Norse Chieftan Eiríkr Thorvaldsson (Erik the Red) was banished from Iceland for three years after being convicted of manslaughter/murder (accounts vary in this regard). Many years prior to this, his father was kicked out of Norway under similar circumstances. According to legend, Erik deliberately selected the name "Greenland" so as to get others to follow him. It was one of the biggest real estate scams in history. In fact, about 85% of the island's area is covered with an ice cap, extending 1,553 miles (2,484 km.) from north to south and up to 650 miles (1,040 km.) east to west.]

And what's your point? Oh yea...nothing.

Etymology
Look up Greenland in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there.[6] Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer and was likely to have been even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology

And what's your point?

Greenland was not the tropical paradise that you seem to think it was. (not when the Vikings were there)

EDIT: Vikings suck anyway!
GO PACKERS!!! :D

Greenland was not the tropical paradise that you seem to think it was. (not when the Vikings were there)

EDIT: Vikings suck anyway!
GO PACKERS!!! :D

Did I state that it was a tropical paradise? No I didn't.

And yes...the Vikings do suck but then...so do the Packers.

Now the Vikings probably found some patches of green in costal areas but Greenland has been a frozen tundra for a long time!
Link (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/greenland-really-was-green-worlds-oldest-dna-reveals/2007/07/06/1183351455095.html)

Now the Vikings probably found some patches of green in costal areas but Greenland has been a frozen tundra for a long time!
Link (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/greenland-really-was-green-worlds-oldest-dna-reveals/2007/07/06/1183351455095.html)

Again! What is your point?

Again! What is your point?

I think his point was that earlier in this thread you claimed that Greenland ice melting was "the thawing that occured that allowed the vikings to come over to the new world," and that you're completely fucking wrong.

Not only that but even if true, pointing out an instance of melting ice that is not related to global warming is hardly a real argument. Like what, global warming science is invalid unless it can account for any and all instances of ice melting? Hogwash, just like most of your so-called arguments.

I think his point was that earlier in this thread you claimed that Greenland ice melting was "the thawing that occured that allowed the vikings to come over to the new world," and that you're completely fucking wrong.

Actually...no. The rise in temperature caused the growing season to be longer which means more food was able to be produced. So there!

I never said anything about greenland ice melting. I said the ice melting in general. You know...there is alot of ice in the North that is not centered in Greenland. And yes, I went back to the quote that you are referring to. It was a generalized comment and not centered on one geographic area.

Not only that but even if true, pointing out an instance of melting ice that is not related to global warming is hardly a real argument.

Oy vey. Who said it wasn't related to global warming? In case you missed it, we are referring to the MIDEVIL WARMING PERIOD!! Sounds like GW to me.

Like what, global warming science is invalid unless it can account for any and all instances of ice melting? Hogwash, just like most of your so-called arguments.

Have I denied that global warming is occuring?

Actually...no. The rise in temperature caused the growing season to be longer which means more food was able to be produced. So there!

So this is still irrelevant. Nice backpeddling though.

I never said anything about greenland ice melting. I said the ice melting in general. You know...there is alot of ice in the North that is not centered in Greenland. And yes, I went back to the quote that you are referring to. It was a generalized comment and not centered on one geographic area.

Post #132 in this thread. Your words:

What about all that ice in Greenland? You know...the thawing that occured that allowed the vikings to come over to the new world. We were not "fucked" then and most of civilization lived near the coast.

If you weren't talking about ice in Greenland, do explain what you meant exactly when you said "ice in Greenland." I could be mistaken, but that looks an awful lot like you're talking about ice in Greenland!

Oy vey. Who said it wasn't related to global warming? In case you missed it, we are referring to the MIDEVIL WARMING PERIOD!! Sounds like GW to me.

I know what you said (apparently better than you do).

You apparently have no idea what global warming or what the science behind it actually is.

And you are still relying on a very stupid and silly argument which I've already trashed and kicked in the groin and left bleeding on the side of the road. Sorry.

Have I denied that global warming is occuring?

I think at this point you'll deny pretty much anything so long as you come away feeling like you've scored some point. "I didn't really say what I said! So there!"

No, you didn't deny that it was occurring, but you said it wasn't going to be a bad thing since Greenland ice melting in the medieval ages wasn't a bad thing. This again is due to your apparent ignorance about global warming and history.

we are referring to the MIDEVIL WARMING PERIOD!! Sounds like GW to me.


A non factor MWP since it is warmer now!
Link (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png)

A non factor MWP since it is warmer now!
Link (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png)

Might as well rule out all warming periods then. I mean why should we ignore what happened in the past?

Might as well rule out all warming periods then. I mean why should we ignore what happened in the past?

Oh it was hot as hell millions of years ago. (those things happen when a planet is still forming and settling) And it seems likely that when all 3 stages of the Milankovitch cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) are in a non glacial stage, a warming can occour.

Your running out of things to blame today's heat on! Next please?

I don't know where you all live, but here in Alabama we're sweltering. It's only June and we're having the heat we usually experience during "dog days". Last year was the same way, plus there was a drought that covered much of the southeast. We're behind normal levels of rainfall this year, too. :gundge: Someone send us some rain!

Oh it was hot as hell millions of years ago. (those things happen when a planet is still forming and settling) And it seems likely that when all 3 stages of the Milankovitch cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) are in a non glacial stage, a warming can occour.

Your running out of things to blame today's heat on! Next please?

In case you have not noticed, which you haven't, I'm not denying global warming. Just man's role in it. I'm also not denying climate change. Humans can't control climate anymore than they can control temperature.

Now...it is up to you to prove that we have a hand in Global Warming which you still haven't done.

I don't know where you all live, but here in Alabama we're sweltering. It's only June and we're having the heat we usually experience during "dog days". Last year was the same way, plus there was a drought that covered much of the southeast. We're behind normal levels of rainfall this year, too. :gundge: Someone send us some rain!

ROLL TIDE!!!

Better get used to it. It will probably get a lot warmer all over the US in the coming years. While global temps have been the warmest recently, the US has been much cooler. How about Governor Bob Reily calling far a truce to the Alabama-Tennesse-Georgia Water Wars? Did he think people were shooting at one another or something? Hahahaha!

In case you have not noticed, which you haven't, I'm not denying global warming. Just man's role in it. I'm also not denying climate change. Humans can't control climate anymore than they can control temperature.

Now...it is up to you to prove that we have a hand in Global Warming which you still haven't done.

Scroll up to post 59 with the greenhouse effect link. What part of that do you dispute?

I notice Corny is conveniently ignoring my can of WTFPWNAGE post. Guess plain denial is the only real response to being caught in a web of lies and fallacies.

1. It's been an unusually cold spring here, and we had unusually heavy snows over the winter with temperatures at or below average.

2. The information I've researched shows that almost 75% of the 1 degree change occurred between 1900 and 1950. The global temperature average has been essentially flat for a decade, and many climatologists think it's a cycle that will trend downward over the next century.

3. The global warming alarmists have just as much of an agenda as anyone else. They aren't saviors of the planet by any means.

4. Apparently the earth has been far warmer than this, since the Vikings called Greenland "Greenland" and sucessfully farmed there before a cooling period slowly destroyed their farms. The Sahara Desert has been growing throughout recorded history. Also, I remember something about there being this thing called an "ice age", several in fact, punctuated by periods of warmth. We have only been keeping accurate global temperature records for maybe a century - and that's hardly enough to establish a trend considering the age of the earth.

5. None of this is to say that pollution and rabid consumption are OK - I'm just saying you need to look at more than the alarmist info. I suppose I'll be called nasty names because I question the Gospel of Algore, but I am among the unconverted and I refuse to convert when all I hear is frantic ranting.

1. It's been an unusually cold spring here, and we had unusually heavy snows over the winter with temperatures at or below average.

2. The information I've researched shows that almost 75% of the 1 degree change occurred between 1900 and 1950. The global temperature average has been essentially flat for a decade, and many climatologists think it's a cycle that will trend downward over the next century.

3. The global warming alarmists have just as much of an agenda as anyone else. They aren't saviors of the planet by any means.

4. Apparently the earth has been far warmer than this, since the Vikings called Greenland "Greenland" and sucessfully farmed there before a cooling period slowly destroyed their farms. The Sahara Desert has been growing throughout recorded history. Also, I remember something about there being this thing called an "ice age", several in fact, punctuated by periods of warmth. We have only been keeping accurate global temperature records for maybe a century - and that's hardly enough to establish a trend considering the age of the earth.

5. None of this is to say that pollution and rabid consumption are OK - I'm just saying you need to look at more than the alarmist info. I suppose I'll be called nasty names because I question the Gospel of Algore, but I am among the unconverted and I refuse to convert when all I hear is frantic ranting.

Ah yes, more of the "Global Warming is a Liberal Lie!" rant.

I'd be inclined to call you names not because your position on global climate change, but because you have the sickening pseudo-pundit like tendency to say stupid-ass phrases like "the Gospel of Algore" and "global warming alarmists" like they mean something other than you're a Republican party parrot.

Your point 4 is nothing more than "there was climate change before human industry! therefore, humans aren't affecting climate change!" Doesn't even need debunking. It's bunk.

Point 3 translates to: "I have an obvious political agenda. Because I do, everyone else does too!"

Point 2 is rather suspect in light of the shittiness of your other points. But OK, let's play. Where did you "research" this information? Where's your source for this 75% of 1 deg C claim?

And Point 1 is the tried-and-tired, pathetic "It's cold today! Therefore global warming is false!" Honestly, get a new 'argument.'

we are referring to the MIDEVIL WARMING PERIOD!!
As opposed to the REALLY EVIL warming period.

"During the Middle Ages, everyone was middle-aged, and government was run by the Futile system. It was also called the Middle-evil period, because most of the kings were pretty bad, just not as bad as Emperor Nemo. There were also powerful Poops, who invaded the Holey Land to fight the Musclemen. This time was also called the Dark Ages, because there was no electricity, and people had to burn witches when they ran out of candles."

1. It's been an unusually cold spring here, and we had unusually heavy snows over the winter with temperatures at or below average.
You cant measure global temps by what local conditions are, over the course of a spring.

2. The information I've researched shows that almost 75% of the 1 degree change occurred between 1900 and 1950. The global temperature average has been essentially flat for a decade, and many climatologists think it's a cycle that will trend downward over the next century.

3. The global warming alarmists have just as much of an agenda as anyone else. They aren't saviors of the planet by any means.

4. Apparently the earth has been far warmer than this, since the Vikings called Greenland "Greenland" and sucessfully farmed there before a cooling period slowly destroyed their farms. The Sahara Desert has been growing throughout recorded history. Also, I remember something about there being this thing called an "ice age", several in fact, punctuated by periods of warmth. We have only been keeping accurate global temperature records for maybe a century - and that's hardly enough to establish a trend considering the age of the earth.


I read the same thing on a bubble gum wrapper.

Scroll up to post 59 with the greenhouse effect link. What part of that do you dispute?

The fact that we really do not know what exactly is going on is what is in dispute.

meh, its summer, its like 110F here average, its always hot.

1. It's been an unusually cold spring here, and we had unusually heavy snows over the winter with temperatures at or below average.

2. The information I've researched shows that almost 75% of the 1 degree change occurred between 1900 and 1950. The global temperature average has been essentially flat for a decade, and many climatologists think it's a cycle that will trend downward over the next century.

3. The global warming alarmists have just as much of an agenda as anyone else. They aren't saviors of the planet by any means.

4. Apparently the earth has been far warmer than this, since the Vikings called Greenland "Greenland" and sucessfully farmed there before a cooling period slowly destroyed their farms. The Sahara Desert has been growing throughout recorded history. Also, I remember something about there being this thing called an "ice age", several in fact, punctuated by periods of warmth. We have only been keeping accurate global temperature records for maybe a century - and that's hardly enough to establish a trend considering the age of the earth.

5. None of this is to say that pollution and rabid consumption are OK - I'm just saying you need to look at more than the alarmist info. I suppose I'll be called nasty names because I question the Gospel of Algore, but I am among the unconverted and I refuse to convert when all I hear is frantic ranting.

Well said my friend. Well said indeed.

You cant measure global temps by what local conditions are, over the course of a spring.

Actually...that's not true. If you map things over a period of time, you can see certain trends appearing. Just like at pittsburgh, they get a really bad snow storm every 10 years. Hell Denver had their worst snow storm in 20 years a couple of years ago. So yes you can detect trends in local areas.

I read the same thing on a bubble gum wrapper.

Now prove them wrong.

As opposed to the REALLY EVIL warming period.

"During the Middle Ages, everyone was middle-aged, and government was run by the Futile system. It was also called the Middle-evil period, because most of the kings were pretty bad, just not as bad as Emperor Nemo. There were also powerful Poops, who invaded the Holey Land to fight the Musclemen. This time was also called the Dark Ages, because there was no electricity, and people had to burn witches when they ran out of candles."

lol, that was a good one.

Can anyone explain how greenhouse gasses actually work? I asked this question before with no answer to it. But I guees this isnt really an important issue in the global warming debate. It is much more convenient to argue the effect of a tempreature rise then argue what caused it.

Oh by the way about referincing from wikipedia. That is a horrible idea. Any one can change what wikipedia says. You have no idea whom last edited it, what education they have, what research they did or for what reasons.

But then again the global warming debate is never really about accuracy is it?

Can anyone explain how greenhouse gasses actually work? I asked this question before with no answer to it. But I guees this isnt really an important issue in the global warming debate. It is much more convenient to argue the effect of a tempreature rise then argue what caused it.

Do you know how a greenhouse works? Well according to theory, its a similiar principle. Through enough shit into the atmosphere and A) it traps things much like Venus's cloud layer does and B) keeps additional crap out so though we may warm up a bit, we'll suddenly be in a deep freeze.

Oh by the way about referincing from wikipedia. That is a horrible idea. Any one can change what wikipedia says. You have no idea whom last edited it, what education they have, what research they did or for what reasons.

But then again the global warming debate is never really about accuracy is it?

Referencing is one thing! Normally you can find other sources through Wiki to use. Using it as fact...that's a whole different issue.

NASA study, linking global warming directly to human activity

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06937.html

Unfortunately, you have to log in to view the full study, but the abstract tells the story pretty well. Here's an article about the study as well.

http://************/5sdwhd

If you still think global warming is a myth and not due to our actions, you're a fool.

Can anyone explain how greenhouse gasses actually work? I asked this question before with no answer to it. But I guees this isnt really an important issue in the global warming debate. It is much more convenient to argue the effect of a tempreature rise then argue what caused it.


Greenhouse gases have certain chemical properties that cause them to emit infrared radiation into the atmosphere which in addition to solar radiation, heats the surface of the earth.

Greenhouse gases are important -- without them the planet would be too cold...however, too many and you start getting weird results.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When we burn fossil fuels we are releasing sequestered carbon (carbon that wasn't previously part of the carbon cycle so we're essentially unbalancing the system IIRC) into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 because CO2 happens to be one of the major byproducts of combustion (chem 101).

Of course, global warming skeptics don't really care about this. The basic argument boils down to:

1.) There's been climate change in the past, so this must be exactly the same.
2.) Studies released by several scientists opposing AGW constitutes a majority.
3.) Just because there's a scientific consensus doesn't mean it's true. Therefore, global warming is false. (nice logic there, huh?)
4.) My opinion and research is much more credible than the work of climatology experts and scientific organizations (IPCC, US National Academy of Science, American Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science...you know, people who really don't know what they're talking about when compared to Bill O'Reilly or some libertarian think tank) who have been collecting data over the past decade which suggests that global climate change is most likely anthropogenic in origin.

But whatever. If calling AGW a lie, along with all the unfunny, overused Al Gore jokes is politically convenient for you, then all the more power to you...

Can anyone explain how greenhouse gasses actually work? I asked this question before with no answer to it.
Yes there was! Post #59 Let Corneliu 2 tag along too would you? He seems to have gotten lost.

Actually...that's not true. If you map things over a period of time, you can see certain trends appearing. Just like at pittsburgh, they get a really bad snow storm every 10 years. Hell Denver had their worst snow storm in 20 years a couple of years ago. So yes you can detect trends in local areas.
So just for instance then, how does 10 years of Pittsburgh or Denver weather tell you what the average temps in Austrilia have been?


Now prove them wrong.

They can read the posts and click the links. Any specific questions, I would be happy to answer.

Greenhouse gases have certain chemical properties that cause them to emit infrared radiation into the atmosphere which in addition to solar radiation, heats the surface of the earth.

Greenhouse gases are important -- without them the planet would be too cold...however, too many and you start getting weird results.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. When we burn fossil fuels we are releasing sequestered carbon (carbon that wasn't previously part of the carbon cycle so we're essentially unbalancing the system IIRC) into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 because CO2 happens to be one of the major byproducts of combustion (chem 101).


Your first point is incorrect. It really don't work the way you described.

Your 2nd point is inconsequential to the debate. they are here and they have changed through time. You never get weird results, rather something different than today

We are not unbalancing the system, the system is remarkably balanced no matter what we do. The more correct thing to say is we are potentially moving the system into a different state.

Here is a figure that I like that people hardly ever look at: What comes in must go out...

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/2805/S250_3_011i.jpg

Here is a figure that I like that people hardly ever look at: What comes in must go out...

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/2805/S250_3_011i.jpg
And what happens when either solar input or greenhouse effect increases?

The added energy has to go somewhere y'know... ;)

And Point 1 is the tried-and-tired, pathetic "It's cold today! Therefore global warming is false!" Honestly, get a new 'argument.'

"OMZ! It be hot today! We're all gonna die! Global warming is troo!"

All I ask is a rational look at the information available, both recent and historical. History suggests that there is a temperature cycle. We know that the global temperatures have risen slightly over the past century. We know industry has increased over the same period. This does not necessarily mean that there is a correlation. Insisting that there is makes no more sense than linking the rate of industrial growth to the divorce rate. We still aren't sure whether rising temperatures might precede CO2 increases. I've heard compelling arguments for both sides of that one.

There is no consensus among the many disciplines of science as to whether human activity has any significant effect. More information is needed before action is taken, lest our best intentions make things worse. Conservation is good, but draconian legislation and regulation is not. I suspect that no one here is an expert in climatology or meteorology. Everything we "know" is taken on authority, rather than through first-hand knowledge. Under such circumstances, it is wisest to proceed with caution. Actions always have consequences, and the more drastic the actions, the more drastic the unforeseen consequences.

All I ask is a rational look at the information available, both recent and historical.

Have you tried IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/) yet?

There is no consensus

Well, all it takes is one dissenter to remove any 'consensus.' And there isn't a single scientific theory or observation that isn't challenged by at least one. This is good. Holding things to an unrealistic standard of "there must be consensus" is a fast route to nihilistic "nothing is true!" viewpoint, IMO.

A) it traps things much like Venus's cloud layer does and B) keeps additional crap out so though we may warm up a bit, we'll suddenly be in a deep freeze.

so it keeps things out. then how do they get in? Thats the first problem. They must have personalities like on futurama. But yes only the convienently that suddenly means we will freeze when i thought climate change would increase the mean tempreature.

Well done dosnt that make sense

Have you tried IPCC yet?

Well its a bit like tying the japanese whaling body to see if there are enough whales in the ocean to hunt. It has been designed for a particular purpose.

And new genoa when radiation occurs the atoms change towards lead. Meaning we must be building Fluorine and or Nitrogen in the atmoshpere. That is a huge concen. Nitrogen causes algal blooms when introduced into a system and Fluorine would act in a simular form to mustard gas. We would be having respiatory problems.

Isnt it great that no one knows how this really works. And yet the idea that is could be the sun releasing variable radiation is flatly rejected by the climate change religion

So just for instance then, how does 10 years of Pittsburgh or Denver weather tell you what the average temps in Austrilia have been?

I have to see the Australian Meteorological data to answer for Australia. However, so far up in this neck of the woods, the weather cycles of these storms seems to have not gone away nor gotten worse. Earlier this year, Lancaster had a couple of bad ice storms. Probably due to La Nina.

They can read the posts and click the links. Any specific questions, I would be happy to answer.

Nice dodge. In other words, you cannot prove it wrong.

"OMZ!
All I ask is a rational look at the information available
I have been for years and one of the the main problems with the sceptics is.. (and pardon me for quoting you out of context)

There is no consensus

...among the sceptics.

I have heard: hotter sun, magma, volcanoes, orbits, this happens all the time, a chemical event, space dust, it's not hot at all, beans & cola...on and on. It has been suggested that there are only 31k sceptic scientists. That's only about 0.15% of the scientific community. If they could at least pick one reason and agree on it, their arguement might actually hold water.

I have to see the Australian Meteorological data to answer for Australia.

Correct! As I pretty much said with this statement:
"You cant measure global temps by what local conditions are"

So was wondering why you said:
"Actually...that's not true."

And again, what part of the greenhouse effect theory do you disagree with?

Greenhouse effect theory easily explained link (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html)

Ya know? I saw a story on forcast earth and you know what? Several cities were BELOW the monthly average for May. This includes cities like Albequerkie and Atlanta.

Please explain that.

Well its a bit like tying the japanese whaling body to see if there are enough whales in the ocean to hunt. It has been designed for a particular purpose.

If I wanted to know how many whales are in the ocean to hunt, a bunch of whalers would indeed be a good place to start.

If I wanted to know about climate change, the intergovernmental panel on climate change would be a good place to start too.

And yet the idea that is could be the sun releasing variable radiation is flatly rejected by the climate change religion

The idea that man has no impact on climate is flatly rejected.

Your continuing "climate change religion" nonsense is also rejected, because it's lame. You don't apparently know what a religion is, or alternatively you know, but don't care about looking like an ass as long as you get to imply that your opponents are religious zealots believing in magic sky-fairies.



Ya know? I saw a story on forcast earth and you know what? Several cities were BELOW the monthly average for May. This includes cities like Albequerkie and Atlanta.

Please explain that.

Certainly; your confusion is due to your ignorant belief that if global warming is happening, every day, every month, and every place must be hotter.

This is due to your fundamental lack of comprehension about science.

Which seems to be due to your continuing obliviousness to information.

I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, self-parodying, or you just really don't read anything anyone writes on this forum. But you exhibit signs of all three behaviors.

Ya know? I saw a story on forcast earth and you know what? Several cities were BELOW the monthly average for May. This includes cities like Albequerkie and Atlanta.

Please explain that.

Go to the OP and surf around NOAA. The US has been cooler than most of the world recently. China had record snow over the past winter. Every temperature is factored in when getting a global average temperature. Then any long term trend (like the past 10 years) can be identified as cooler, warmer or normal (with recorded history as a reference) The 10 year warm trend can only be blamed on the greenhouse effect. All the other possibilites have been explored and debunked.

I for one am with the sceptics in spirit and hope they can prove the world wrong so that no unnecessary long term solutions are implemented. So far they have not and if it is the Co2 then we did this and only we can fix it! (but we must hurry)

Isnt it great that no one knows how this really works. And yet the idea that is could be the sun releasing variable radiation is flatly rejected by the climate change religion

It's nice to call major bodies of scientific groups simply a religion. I'll admit, I'm not an expert in the exact sciences of climatology. But I'm not an arrogant enough of an ass to regard my knowledge of climatology to supersede that trained professionals. I just think it's absurd how little credibility skeptics give actual climatologists while holding their own opinion to be something extraordinary.

Points in no particular order:

We really don't know enough. There are mechanisms and feeddback loops that we can't model. Some scientists say global warming can create a shift in oceanic currents that can bring about another ice age. Warming ourselves into a deep freeze! For example, some have said that meltwater from Greenland could bring about a shift in the Gulf Stream, pushing it south, bringing sub-arctic temperatures to the UK and reminding Norwegians that Oslo has about the same latitude as Churchill, Canada: where the polar bears roam.

With increased heat we should expect increased climate chaos, because differential heating is the main engine driving wind. That means some areas will be drier, wetter, hotter, colder, just because the increase in energy pushes more or less of something in any given direction. Ergo, local "it's been really hot/cold here" observations are not useful.

Skeptics have an important place- they force scientists to study further.

Since we don't know enough, we don't know what the outcomes will be. Will Bangladesh be under water next century, or will the new ice age cause the sea level to drop?

Truth is, we don't even know what would happen if there was NO human input at all- Earth's climate is not stable. Hence, no Neanderthals left.

The rational action we should be taking is studying the hell out of this- and investigating each and every point from skeptics, without assuming they are merely ignorant pawns of the oil industry. Are we SURE that temperature readings aren't going up because of urbanization, which creates hotter local temperatures? Instead of just sneering at the critique, scientists should be looking at each and every weather station: is the one built in woods in 1940 now located behind a shopping mall's asphalt parking lot?

That being said, there are more than enough other critical reasons to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We've only seen the beginning of oil shortages. And heavy concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can reduce the ph of lakes, and that can be very bad for fish. And we eat fish, and we should be eating more of them.

THAT being said, if it turns out that the real culprits are solar heating, or methane gas from rice paddies, we're just screwed. It is a little unnerving that there is definite global warming being observed on Mars and Jupiter.

And THAT being said, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go into the future with the science you've got, not necessarily the science you want. It doesn't make a lot of sense to simply wave it all off with a "you might be wrong" attitude. Not when the potential for trouble is so big. At the very least, we should be taking it very seriously and laying in some contingency plans.

And what happens when either solar input or greenhouse effect increases?

The added energy has to go somewhere y'know... ;)

Sure it does, was I implying anything different? You add more co2 and the outgoing radiation is out of balance but this is a fast process. So the figure, if normalized to 100% is always correct on medium to long time scales.

Points in no particular order:

We really don't know enough. There are mechanisms and feeddback loops that we can't model. Some scientists say global warming can create a shift in oceanic currents that can bring about another ice age. Warming ourselves into a deep freeze! For example, some have said that meltwater from Greenland could bring about a shift in the Gulf Stream, pushing it south, bringing sub-arctic temperatures to the UK and reminding Norwegians that Oslo has about the same latitude as Churchill, Canada: where the polar bears roam.

With increased heat we should expect increased climate chaos, because differential heating is the main engine driving wind. That means some areas will be drier, wetter, hotter, colder, just because the increase in energy pushes more or less of something in any given direction. Ergo, local "it's been really hot/cold here" observations are not useful.

Skeptics have an important place- they force scientists to study further.

Since we don't know enough, we don't know what the outcomes will be. Will Bangladesh be under water next century, or will the new ice age cause the sea level to drop?

Truth is, we don't even know what would happen if there was NO human input at all- Earth's climate is not stable. Hence, no Neanderthals left.

The rational action we should be taking is studying the hell out of this- and investigating each and every point from skeptics, without assuming they are merely ignorant pawns of the oil industry. Are we SURE that temperature readings aren't going up because of urbanization, which creates hotter local temperatures? Instead of just sneering at the critique, scientists should be welooking at each and every weather station: is the one built in woods in 1940 now located behind a shopping mall's asphalt parking lot?

That being said, there are more than enough other critical reasons to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. We've only seen the beginning of oil shortages. And heavy concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can reduce the ph of lakes, and that can be very bad for fish. And we eat fish, and we should be eating more of them.

THAT being said, if it turns out that the real culprits are solar heating, or methane gas from rice paddies, we're just screwed. It is a little unnerving that there is definite global warming being observed on Mars and Jupiter.

And THAT being said, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go into the future with the science you've got, not necessarily the science you want. It doesn't make a lot of sense to simply wave it all off with a "you might be wrong" attitude. Not when the potential for trouble is so big. At the very least, we should be taking it very seriously and laying in some contingency plans.

1) thats the media version not the "real science" version. Even if the worst (and I doubt it can happen, i posted the literature in this thread or the another recent thread) happens we are talking a slowdown on the order of 100 years.

2 fine

3) your right but there is a difference between healthy skepticism which forces people to think and down right denial under the guise of skepticism which does nothing at all except make the internet a lively place for a discussion.

4) again, there will be no new ice age as a result of changing ocean currents

5) show me where Neanderthals died out because of climate trouble... I think we have a really good idea where the climate should go without humans based on the paleorecords. At least a much better idea than a world influenced by humans

6)We do this every day

7)fine thats your oppinion but it doesn't add to this conversation.

8)Who cares about mars and jupiter? their climates are nothing like ours

9)Isn't that what we are doing??

Certainly; your confusion is due to your ignorant belief that if global warming is happening, every day, every month, and every place must be hotter.

This is due to your fundamental lack of comprehension about science.

Which seems to be due to your continuing obliviousness to information.

I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, self-parodying, or you just really don't read anything anyone writes on this forum. But you exhibit signs of all three behaviors.

The thing is Trostia, remember that what was mentioned is not just isolated circumstances; for the last five years, there has been evidence of cooler weather everywhere. You had snow in Southern Queensland for the first time in sixty years in November 2005; you had snow in Los Angeles for the first time in recorded history in February last year; you had snow in Florida in April last year, the lastest it has been in recorded history; you had snow in Buenos Aires for the first time since 1918 in last year; you had snow in Kathmandu for the first time since the 1940s in 2006.

All climate is is weather over long periods of time. I could go on with the incidents of colder weather over the last half decade, but a good Google search would find them all. The IPCC in one of their reports (I forgot which one, and I don't have the link on me right now), said that everywhere was going to get warmer, although some places would be warmer than others.

The thing is Trostia, remember that what was mentioned is not just isolated circumstances; for the last five years, there has been evidence of cooler weather everywhere. You had snow in Southern Queensland for the first time in sixty years in November 2005; you had snow in Los Angeles for the first time in recorded history in February last year; you had snow in Florida in April last year, the lastest it has been in recorded history; you had snow in Buenos Aires for the first time since 1918 in last year; you had snow in Kathmandu for the first time since the 1940s in 2006.

All climate is is weather over long periods of time.

And weather averages out. Global warming is again not a weather prediction, but with regards to climate.

I could go on with the incidents of colder weather over the last half decade, but a good Google search would find them all. The IPCC in one of their reports (I forgot which one, and I don't have the link on me right now), said that everywhere was going to get warmer, although some places would be warmer than others.

I remain dubious.

A google search did find "Never Yet Melted," which basically argues your point in addition to adding the obnoxious "global warming is a religion lol!" nonsense.

Major question: If humans are responsible for global warming, are we also responsible for the shrinking ice caps on mars and the increasing storms on Jupiter? Jovian warming, Martian warming, and probably Venusian warming are occuring. Links are to nonpartisan websites.

Jovian Warming link (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html)

Martian Warming link 1 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

Martian Warming link 2 (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm)

Major question: If humans are responsible for global warming, are we also responsible for the shrinking ice caps on mars and the increasing storms on Jupiter?

No. Any other questions?

So the warming on 3 other planets that share our sun in just a coincidence? The fact that the behaviour of other planets are changing without any known reason in a simular manner couldnt be contributed to the sun at all and somehow earth can not be considered part of the same planetary system?

Well I will believe the crazy thought that jupiter, saturn. mars and earth all orbit the same star. I guess I cant convince you otherwise

So the warming on 3 other planets that share our sun in just a coincidence?

We have no idea the time scale that these planets have been supposedly warming for, we have very little data on them and no real history of even mere observation of their climates. Not compared to Earth's.

And of course we have quite a lot of data on Earth's climate change, and of the factors involved in Earth's climate. Data that's not even addressed by this so-called argument.

The fact that the behaviour of other planets are changing without any known reason in a simular manner

It's not a similar manner. "Warming" does not amount to a meaningful correlation. "Hey, the sun is getting hotter. Therefore, since global warming claims that anytime a mass heats up, it can't be because of human influence!" I mean do you even see how many flaws are packed into this argument?

couldnt be contributed to the sun at all and somehow earth can not be considered part of the same planetary system?

Well I will believe the crazy thought that jupiter, saturn. mars and earth all orbit the same star. I guess I cant convince you otherwise

Gosh they DO orbit the same star.

....



....


....


Hence man has no impact on climate! :headbang:

So the warming on 3 other planets that share our sun in just a coincidence? essentially, "yep (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm)"

The fact that the behaviour of other planets are changing without any known reason in a simular manner couldnt be contributed to the sun at all and somehow earth can not be considered part of the same planetary system? "any known reason"? The visible Martian warming trends are probably due to changes in the planet's orbital eccentricity & inclination (this is even touched on in Lord Tothe's article (second page of the National Geographic one)), and the Jovian warming can be easily explained by the simple fact that it generates the vast majority of its thermal energy through internal turbulence (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm) (which is agreed to be variable) rather than receiving it from solar radiation.

I don't know why you're on about Saturn, post a credible link first plz

Well I will believe the crazy thought that jupiter, saturn. mars and earth all orbit the same star. I guess I cant convince you otherwise
You have fun with that.

The climate change CO2 belief is far too symplified. "co2 is proportionate to tempreature (full stop)" .err, yes, and this simplification is mostly your fault - it should read "in the absence of other factors, co2 is proportionate to tempreature (full stop)." A great deal of time and effort (much more than we've spent on Mars or Jupiter), even by the industrial think tanks, has failed to identify what any of these factors might be. The Earth lacks a mostly gaseous composition that generates twice as much surface heat as does the sun and is not in an erratic orbit; what it does not lack is an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you've discovered that the reason the Earth's climate is becoming gradually hotter is due to massive roving clouds of hydrogen gas I'm sure there are a great many people who would be interested in seeing your data; otherwise that just leaves anthropogenic climate change.

also, the ocean happens to be a carbon sink, and a large one at that - otherwise coral reefs would be fine & dandy right now, which they aren't

Did you just aknoledge that there are other significant factors other then carbon dioxide?

The visible Martian warming trends are probably due to changes in the planet's orbital eccentricity & inclination (

If so have these been factored into any carbon dioxide blaming research that explains how it works? Because as iv asked before not one support has been able to explain how carbon dioxide reports.

And even if this was all true I would love to see how much is coming from under the earth in this as well. The earths core releases CO2 in the ocean then thus the climate.

Still for one scientific theory to be established there must be a theory of how this all works that has been explained. The climate change CO2 belief is far too symplified. "co2 is proportionate to tempreature (full stop)" . There is so much going on with the earth and other plannets that before we blame the sole impact on CO2 we must work out what effect all these other impacts have first.

There is an slight chance that CO2 is responsible but I very much doubt it is anywhere near the sole reason that the earths climate changes.

Major question: If humans are responsible for global warming, are we also responsible for the shrinking ice caps on mars and the increasing storms on Jupiter? Jovian warming, Martian warming, and probably Venusian warming are occuring. Links are to nonpartisan websites.

Jovian Warming link (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html)

You do realize that Jupiter radiates around twice as much heat as it recieves from the sun? So correlating Jupiter's heating to sun is sketchy at best.

Martian Warming link 1 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

Martian Warming link 2 (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm)

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html)

Sure it does, was I implying anything different? You add more co2 and the outgoing radiation is out of balance but this is a fast process. So the figure, if normalized to 100% is always correct on medium to long time scales.

It's correct but that doesn't correlate to ambient temperature.

Remember, the same graph - roughly - holds for Venus too.

Despite the point that the stats you used where single events that prove nothing in the big picture I still agree the earth is currently warming.

However the world cooled for a mini ice age during industrial development. WHY??

And altho I agree the earth is warming I instead blame sun spots. The sun does not consistently supply radiation (therefor heat). And the sun is much bigger and more powerful then earths gasses. The sun spot theory also explains the mini ice age in Europe.

Until someone can explain the physics to me of how Carbon dioxide and other green house gasses warm the planet I will not believe in global warming. The idea that radiation passes through when going towards earth but cant pass through on the way back has not been explained at all.

The earths surface dosnt change the radiation wavelength so the earth is in effect doing nothing. Does anyone have a scientific study that proves this. Oh and dont try the IPCC which as had disenting scientists and was run by a guy with a degree in economics.

ps no one tell me to watch that pollitical movie by Al Gore. His explination of the radiation was by cartoon where the radiation and gasses has personalities.

You could start from here (as usual it's wiky, but it is, as usual, a good starting point):
Greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

And the sunspot theory has been disproved:
'No Sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)

Gee... You'd say that with Internet acces one could be a little ore informed...

Global warming is again not a weather prediction

It's amazing though that the weatherman sometimes can't accurately predict what the weather will be a few hours from from now, but climate researchers told us long ago about the extreme droughts and more violent weather that global warming would bring. Just this alone should be enough to convince anybody.

It's amazing though that the weatherman sometimes can't accurately predict what the weather will be a few hours from from now, but climate researchers told us long ago about the extreme droughts and more violent weather that global warming would bring. Just this alone should be enough to convince anybody.

You do know that Global Warming and Climate change are not necessarily the samething right?

You do know that Global Warming and Climate change are not necessarily the samething right?

Tomato-Tomahto. I do know that the current Climate Change brought about by Anthropogenic Global Warming is bad thing! Bad! Bad! Bad! Must fix to be Good! Make Good! Good! Good! Good! No like Bad! :p

Tomato-Tomahto. I do know that the current Climate Change brought about by Anthropogenic Global Warming is bad thing! Bad! Bad! Bad! Must fix to be Good! Make Good! Good! Good! Good! No like Bad! :p

If a hot climate becomes a cold climate, that's not Global Warming :rolleyes:

If a hot climate becomes a cold climate, that's not Global Warming :rolleyes:

But it has to happen first. 10 years and still waiting!

But it has to happen first. 10 years and still waiting!

I see that you do not realize that Climate Change occurs slowly. It is occuring but not at the pace that you want it.

I see that you do not realize that Climate Change occurs slowly. It is occuring but not at the pace that you want it.

Sure as hell not the pace I want but it's there none the less!
2000 Year Temperature Comparison Link (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png)

Sure as hell not the pace I want but it's there none the less!
2000 Year Temperature Comparison Link (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png)

You are right that Climate Change is occuring. Remember...some areas will get hotter and other areas will get colder. Its natural.

You are right that Climate Change is occuring. Remember...some areas will get hotter and other areas will get colder. Its natural.

Yes! That's what's been confusing the hell out of people. Especially here in the states. People here have not been taking the average "global" temps into account and think global warming is not happening just because it's been a lot cooler in the US. Still polar ice continues to have record net ice loss each year, droughts have become more extreme, violent weather, etc...

You can't measure global warming by what the thermometer at your house says or what your skin feels.

Yes! That's what's been confusing the hell out of people. Especially here in the states. People here have not been taking the average "global" temps into account and think global warming is not happening just because it's been a lot cooler in the US. Still polar ice continues to have record net ice loss each year, droughts have become more extreme, violent weather, etc...

Some areas will experience Global Warming. Others will experience Global Cooling. Do you admit this?

Some areas will experience Global Warming. Others will experience Global Cooling. Do you admit this?

If you are refering to the seasons then yes.

If you are saying that there are nations that will not be bothered at all by what AGW does then I disagree.

You are not going to see all hot, all over the globe at the same time.

But one area cooling or warming is not global.

It's correct but that doesn't correlate to ambient temperature.

Remember, the same graph - roughly - holds for Venus too.

The picture isn't there to show anything about temperatures. The picture is there for the people that have no idea how greenhouse gases work... Look at the energy budget, imagine the bit in the middle with greenhouse gasses is increased, see the resultant downward energy increase. There you go

This type of graph works for any rocky planet although the reservoir numbers will be different.

If you are going to go with recorded history it is wise to understand how that history is recorded. Please take a look at this site:

http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm

It is interesting to note how many of the stations violate all the rules pertaining to the correct setup required to get proper data. I am sure that many AGW alarmists have no interest in real science since they have no interest in real, accurate data.

And now Dragontide, please consider the concept of a Global Temperature. I see you and your fellow believers talking about cold first, then warm even though this directly contradicts everything said by Gore, the UN, and all the other believers. Your best quote is this one:

You can't measure global warming by what the thermometer at your house says or what your skin feels.

Aren't you the guy who said that proof of AGW could be found in Indian lore?

Here are some primers on the uncertainty, if not downright stupidity, of talking about a Global Temp:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm

All that said, if you were really interested in scientific validity you would realize that the science behind predictive climatology is in its infantcy and that it is unwise and ignorant to base economic policy on the poor models we currently possess. As it stands AGW only exists in a carefully manipulated computer model.

I believe in the purity of science and not the alarmism of politicians and activists who view AGW as way of pushing policies and social engineering that would never be enacted without the spectre of looming disasters.

Here is a nice page of scientists who you would label "deniers":

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Remember that being a Skeptic is a good thing and, if you were truly devoted to science, is exactly the label you would wish to be branded with.

It is interesting to note how many of the stations violate all the rules pertaining to the correct setup required to get proper data. I am sure that many AGW alarmists have no interest in real science since they have no interest in real, accurate data.

As it stands AGW only exists in a carefully manipulated computer model.

I believe in the purity of science and not the alarmism of politicians and activists who view AGW as way of pushing policies and social engineering that would never be enacted without the spectre of looming disasters.

Here is a nice page of scientists who you would label "deniers":

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Remember that being a Skeptic is a good thing and, if you were truly devoted to science, is exactly the label you would wish to be branded with.

I guess it would please you to know that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the weather stations are tossed in the instrumental record calculations for the very reasons listed on that site.

All models by definition are manipulated, so that doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps the better argument is none (well as of a couple of years ago, not up on it now) of the models can reproduce the climate that we have seen over the past 30k.. All the models have trouble with melting ice sheets when they form.

As for your last link I would be really careful posting that to anyone. Have you read all of those papers? Have you read any of those papers? I have not read all of them but I have read a bunch of them. Every paper that I have read on that list is not skeptical of man made global warming which seems to refute your blogger... I guess if you want information its best to go to the researcher's opinion and not an internet opinion of a title.

If you are refering to the seasons then yes.

If you are saying that there are nations that will not be bothered at all by what AGW does then I disagree.

You are not going to see all hot, all over the globe at the same time.

But one area cooling or warming is not global.

Uh Dragontide? When areas around the Globe have cooling, that is Global Cooling. Likewise when areas around the Globe warm up, it's Global Warming.

I guess it would please you to know that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the weather stations are tossed in the instrumental record calculations for the very reasons listed on that site.

Please expand on this. What do you mean by "tossed" and which study or model, based on these stations, are you speaking of?

All models by definition are manipulated, so that doesn't mean anything to me.

Semantics. I am accusing AGW alarmists of manipulating their models to get the results they have already predetermined. Mann's hockey stick is one glaring example of this.

Perhaps the better argument is none (well as of a couple of years ago, not up on it now) of the models can reproduce the climate that we have seen over the past 30k.. All the models have trouble with melting ice sheets when they form.

Absolutely true. No model to date can reproduce the past. What makes anyone believe they can predict the climate 5, 10, 50, 100 years in the future?

As for your last link I would be really careful posting that to anyone. Have you read all of those papers?

Yep.

Have you read any of those papers?

Again, yup.

I have not read all of them but I have read a bunch of them. Every paper that I have read on that list is not skeptical of man made global warming which seems to refute your blogger...

But each one of these papers is skeptical of essential aspects of the AGW alarmist's theory. Be more specific if you wish but when you write a paper talking about the natural cycles of climate being responsible of our current situation or the lack of solar data in current AGW modelling then you are skeptical of the AGW theory.

I guess if you want information its best to go to the researcher's opinion and not an internet opinion of a title.

I have read far more than what is on this list. This was just a handy page of links. Such articles by respected and scientists are not hard to come by.

Please expand on this. What do you mean by "tossed" and which study or model, based on these stations, are you speaking of?

Semantics. I am accusing AGW alarmists of manipulating their models to get the results they have already predetermined. Mann's hockey stick is one glaring example of this.

Absolutely true. No model to date can reproduce the past. What makes anyone believe they can predict the climate 5, 10, 50, 100 years in the future?

Yep.

Again, yup.

But each one of these papers is skeptical of essential aspects of the AGW alarmist's theory. Be more specific if you wish but when you write a paper talking about the natural cycles of climate being responsible of our current situation or the lack of solar data in current AGW modelling then you are skeptical of the AGW theory.

I have read far more than what is on this list. This was just a handy page of links. Such articles by respected and scientists are not hard to come by.

I distinctly remember reading something in the IPCC #4 about the issues of the instrumental record and culling data. I will have to look through my file cabinet to dig it up. In the mean time here's another, I am sure you have already read it since it comes from surfacestations.org
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-321.pdf

Models are models... What do you want me to say. Like I said above by definition they are manipulated. That doesn't mean that they are not useful. I don't hold much credit in the dire consequences of global warming (atmospheric storms, ground water etc.) but the temp projections are probably correct. Also, you need to change your statement regarding model accuracy. Models can reproduce the recent past very well (2k to present).

I think you are being a bit hard on Mann, yes his statics were bad. I don't think it was a malicious attempt to deceive people. Much more likely that he was motivated to climb the academic ladder and cut corners to get his papers out.

I seriously doubt you have read every paper on that page. If you would have you would know that the conclusions of many authors on the page are the exact opposite of what the blogger is using them for.

as to your reading far more than whats on that page. Good for you! I suppose you do this for a living then because the average person doesn't have access to all those journals nor the time to read it all.

Smiling Frogs:

My Inuit theory makes the claim that the current climate change is not natural. (which it why it was titled "Non scientific proof that the current climate change is not natural")

My proof of AWG is in this thread with temperature averages and greenhouse effect explinations.

Average global temps cannot be exactly measured but the fact that NOAA & the WMO both read the same, basic, long term, 10 year warming trend shows that the system works good enough.


Corneliu 2:

When areas around the globe change temperature, one way or another, or stay the same, those numers are factored in the average global temperature. It is a very simple equation

Uh Dragontide? When areas around the Globe have cooling, that is Global Cooling. Likewise when areas around the Globe warm up, it's Global Warming.

When areas have cooling, that is called LOCAL Cooling. When areas have warming, that is LOCAL Warming. "Global" refers to the average.

The direct warming is mostly in the Pacific; this is transfered to the Arctic by hot winds blowing up from the south and shoving the polar air-mass off toward the southeast (because of the rotational direction of the Earth), and North America happens to catch these air-masses. It is thus common for Alaska to be unusually warmer while the 48 states are cooler, and it is this local effect which mades AGW-denial seem more plausible in the US than anywhere else in the world. Once the Arctic ice-cap is completely gone, there will be less of this.

[QUOTE]Also, you need to change your statement regarding model accuracy. Models can reproduce the recent past very well (2k to present).

I would like to see this model you speak of.

I think you are being a bit hard on Mann, yes his statics were bad. I don't think it was a malicious attempt to deceive people. Much more likely that he was motivated to climb the academic ladder and cut corners to get his papers out.

He pushed a model, used by the UN and many others, that was configured to produce the results he wished to see. If an outside source had not pushed to get a hold of his methods and data this would have never come to light. That is malicious no matter what the motivation.

But you do strike an interesting point: could it be that the desire to be accepted by the academic community and the media that is skewing science towards alarmism and abandonment of the scientific method? Should those who expose or who are skeptical of such studies, models, and methods be the victims of a professional smear campaign? That is what happens when you are skeptical of AGW.

I seriously doubt you have read every paper on that page. If you would have you would know that the conclusions of many authors on the page are the exact opposite of what the blogger is using them for.

Ummm... which ones? It is one thing to say, quite another to prove it.

as to your reading far more than whats on that page. Good for you! I suppose you do this for a living then because the average person doesn't have access to all those journals nor the time to read it all.

I am going to tell you about a mythical place that has access to professional journals as well as a plethora of other interesting sources: The Library! I know in this day and age that word has no meaning but it is an excellent place to go and read.

Also, I doubt the average person reads as fast as I do.

As one who was in debate for a great many years I have to stress the importance of reading source material. As they say, the Devil lives in those details.

I would like to see this model you speak of.

He pushed a model, used by the UN and many others, that was configured to produce the results he wished to see. If an outside source had not pushed to get a hold of his methods and data this would have never come to light. That is malicious no matter what the motivation.

But you do strike an interesting point: could it be that the desire to be accepted by the academic community and the media that is skewing science towards alarmism and abandonment of the scientific method? Should those who expose or who are skeptical of such studies, models, and methods be the victims of a professional smear campaign? That is what happens when you are skeptical of AGW.



Ummm... which ones? It is one thing to say, quite another to prove it.



I am going to tell you about a mythical place that has access to professional journals as well as a plethora of other interesting sources: The Library! I know in this day and age that word has no meaning but it is an excellent place to go and read.

Also, I doubt the average person reads as fast as I do.

As one who was in debate for a great many years I have to stress the importance of reading source material. As they say, the Devil lives in those details.

I will have to look around the office after lunch for a suitable example. For now I would argue that +-.5 degrees is pretty good for a model and get back to you later

As for Mann, its not his fault that the curve became the "gold standard" for climate change. It was the first robust attempt to remove the northern hemisphere bias from recent climate reconstructions with particular attention to mid-latitudes.

As for the papers, start with Bond 1997. Or most the the medieval warming LIA papers.

Your library must be pretty kickass. My University library doesn't have access to all the journals listed on that page.

As a climate researcher I would also agree with reading source material.

You are right that Climate Change is occuring. Remember...some areas will get hotter and other areas will get colder. Its natural.

I seem to recall that the IPCC, in one of their document FAQs, mentioned that everywhere was going to get warmer, but some areas would get warmer than others.

However, if the following that you said is going to happen, then we need not panic. Areas get warmer, and areas get cooler all the time; like you said, its natural - we always get climate change as we move from El Nino to La Nina and from summer to winter. The words climate change were only coined by nervous scientists who did not want to repeat the mistake of the 1970s, and so are sitting on a very comfortable fence.

The words climate change were only coined by nervous scientists who did not want to repeat the mistake of the 1970s, and so are sitting on a very comfortable fence.
Oh. Woah. Thank You Sir. I really thought it was real.

I seem to recall that the IPCC, in one of their document FAQs, mentioned that everywhere was going to get warmer, but some areas would get warmer than others.


Oh? Where? Your fuzzy recollection doesn't really serve as an argument here.

However, if the following that you said is going to happen, then we need not panic.

Agreed. Panic does no good. Nor does burying your head in the sand.

Areas get warmer, and areas get cooler all the time; like you said, its natural - we always get climate change as we move from El Nino to La Nina and from summer to winter.

Ah, yes. The "It's natural, so it's good" argument. The same one used by "organically grown" food advocates and people who shun modern medical science in favor of herbalism, superstition and new-age psychology.

A stupid argument any way you look at it.

And it's based on the mistaken assumption that El Nino and La Nina explain away the effects of global warming.

The words climate change were only coined by nervous scientists who did not want to repeat the mistake of the 1970s, and so are sitting on a very comfortable fence.

Know why the term climate change is used? Because when the term "global warming" is used, you get millions of uneducated "skeptics" bawling "LOL, it's colder this year in LA! Therefore there is no global warming!"

In other words the terminology was dumbed-down so people could have a lower chance of making a complete ass of themselves.

Obviously it didn't work....

we always get climate change as we move from El Nino to La Nina
We didn't when I was growing up. El Nino used to be a rare phenomenon, whose effects were not very noticeable beyond South America; English-speakers never heard of it.

We didn't when I was growing up. El Nino used to be a rare phenomenon, whose effects were not very noticeable beyond South America; English-speakers never heard of it.

I'd like to see proof of that.

i think you will all find the answers you need here:

Causes of Global Warming (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)

(you may want to scroll down to see the part about climate change.)

Oh? Where? Your fuzzy recollection doesn't really serve as an argument here.

Not a problem; at the time, I didn't have the spare hour to go searching through my post history and have problems with DAP at the same time. Anyways, here is the quote and here is where it came from

"Latitude is a good starting point for considering how changes in climate will affect a region.
For example, while warming is expected everywhere on Earth, the amount of projected warming generally increases from the tropics to the poles in the Northern Hemisphere."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf

It is 11.1, pg 127

Agreed. Panic does no good. Nor does burying your head in the sand.

Well, you said places are going to get cooler and places are going to get warmer. That happens all the time my friend, in fact, today, the place where I am located got warmer, and it got cooler.

Ah, yes. The "It's natural, so it's good" argument. The same one used by "organically grown" food advocates and people who shun modern medical science in favor of herbalism, superstition and new-age psychology.

A stupid argument any way you look at it.

And it's based on the mistaken assumption that El Nino and La Nina explain away the effects of global warming.

You said, "Its natural," I merely responded. Again, you said places are going to get cooler and places are going to get warmer, and as I said, it happens all the frecking time without us having any problems whatsoever. Also, I wasn't using El Nino and La Nina to explain away the effects of anything; I was merely pointing out that climate change is normal, natural and occurs within cycles.

Know why the term climate change is used? Because when the term "global warming" is used, you get millions of uneducated "skeptics" bawling "LOL, it's colder this year in LA! Therefore there is no global warming!"

In other words the terminology was dumbed-down so people could have a lower chance of making a complete ass of themselves.

Obviously it didn't work....

Well, hang on a second, the IPCC said that

"warming is expected everywhere on Earth"

No need to sit on a fence; if you have the gumption that the IPCC has, then you would call it global warming. If it is colder this year in LA, then obviously, the IPCC are incorrect - case closed. The terminology isn't dumbed down, it is designed to avoid scientists from making fools of themselves in the event that they are proven wrong; like how Bronty was renamed Apatosaurus when they found out that it had the wrong head.

I would like to see this model you speak of.




Sorry my lunch look a little longer than expected. You can start here for some of the models.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

Specifically section 6.6.3 is what you would be interested in.

Not a problem; at the time, I didn't have the spare hour to go searching through my post history and have problems with DAP at the same time. Anyways, here is the quote and here is where it came from

"Latitude is a good starting point for considering how changes in climate will affect a region.
For example, while warming is expected everywhere on Earth, the amount of projected warming generally increases from the tropics to the poles in the Northern Hemisphere."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_FAQs.pdf

It is 11.1, pg 127


And we're taking this one quote as an absolute, eh? The single line acid test of all climate change.

Well, you said places are going to get cooler and places are going to get warmer.

No i didn't.

You said, "Its natural,"

No I didn't.

Again, you said places are going to get cooler and places are going to get warmer

Again no I didn't.

Also, I wasn't using El Nino and La Nina to explain away the effects of anything; I was merely pointing out that climate change is normal, natural and occurs within cycles.

Yes, climate change is normal, except when it's caused by human civilization.

Well, hang on a second, the IPCC said that

"warming is expected everywhere on Earth"

No need to sit on a fence; if you have the gumption that the IPCC has, then you would call it global warming. If it is colder this year in LA, then obviously, the IPCC are incorrect - case closed.

*sigh*

You really DID take that one line as an absolute, universal prediction. How silly of you. It's "expected," but it doesn't say when and it's obviously just a general statement. "Case closed?" Hah, yes, there's no climate change, cuz "warming is expected" and fuck, I'm cold!

Ridiculous.

The terminology isn't dumbed down

Maybe it should be. So people like you can understand.

Well, hang on a second, the IPCC said that

"warming is expected everywhere on Earth"


No need to sit on a fence; if you have the gumption that the IPCC has, then you would call it global warming. If it is colder this year in LA, then obviously, the IPCC are incorrect - case closed.

Did they say specificly: "warming is expected everywhere on Earth all at the same time"? Because "warming is expected everywhere on Earth" is correct and has been happening.

Did they say specificly: "warming is expected everywhere on Earth all at the same time"? Because "warming is expected everywhere on Earth" is correct and has been happening.

If warming has been happening everywhere on Earth, then why on earth have I seen all this

Snow in the Eastern Deserts of Iran for the first time in living memory (February 2008)
Snow in Saudi Arabia for the first time in living memory (February 2008)
Heaviest snow in thirty years in Massachusetts (February 2008)
Satellite data shows that the Northern Hemisphere has had its highest extent of snow cover since 1966 (February 2008)
Heaviest snow in fifty years in China (February 2008)
Worst snow in thirty years in Afghanistan (February 2008)
Coldest winter in fifty years in Tajikistan (February 2008)
Ice cover around the Antarctic at its greatest extent since records began (February 2008)
New Zealand had coldest December in 59 years (December 2004)
Snowplows are being needed in Washington State this late for only the third time in thirty years (June 2008)
Seattle had its latest snowfall ever (April 19 2008)
Baghdad gets its first snow in recorded history (January 2008)
Buenos Aires gets its first snow since 1918 (2007)
Kathmandu gets its first snow in sixty years (2006)
Los Angeles gets its first snow in recorded history (February 2007)

The list goes on. In fact, if you look back over the last five years, you would see hundreds of weather events associated with colder temperatures. While I do agree that one years variation is not climate, five years almost certainly has to be.

And we're taking this one quote as an absolute, eh? The single line acid test of all climate change.

Well, the IPCC said it.

No i didn't.

Yes you did - here is the quote

"Remember...some areas will get hotter and other areas will get colder"

No I didn't.

Yes you did - here is the quote

"Its natural."

Again no I didn't.

Read above

Yes, climate change is normal, except when it's caused by human civilization.

So, hang on a second, you are saying that climate change isn't normal?

You really DID take that one line as an absolute, universal prediction. How silly of you. It's "expected," but it doesn't say when and it's obviously just a general statement. "Case closed?" Hah, yes, there's no climate change, cuz "warming is expected" and fuck, I'm cold!

Ridiculous.

Ther is no global warming because warming is expected, and fuck, there is an awful lot of snow in Saudi Arabia, Los Angeles, Florida, Queensland and Iran. These aren't places one associates with snow now, do we?

Maybe it should be. So people like you can understand.

I understand plenty - temperatures are supposed to go up, hence global warming. If temperatures are supposed to go up, then why the heck has there been so many incidents of snow in the wrong places at the wrong times of year over the last five years. I'll admit that my list is a little short, but that is because it would take me hours to pour through the search results.

It's actually rather nice here, at least ten degrees below normal. I call bullshit on global warming, which I always do, and ask that people go study their history to check for natural climate changes.

It's actually rather nice here, at least ten degrees below normal. I call bullshit on global warming, which I always do, and ask that people go study their history to check for natural climate changes.

How much studying of the past does one need to before they can make such educated claims about the variability of the natural climate system?

Interesting read on ocean temps since that has been a major player in this thread. Talks about the robots about half way down.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/

I really like realclimate.org. If you have never been there its a blog that its written by climate scientists. Generally, I find the posts to be easy to read and quite accurate.

If warming has been happening everywhere on Earth, then why on earth have I seen all this

Snow in the Eastern Deserts of Iran for the first time in living memory (February 2008)
Snow in Saudi Arabia for the first time in living memory (February 2008)
Heaviest snow in thirty years in Massachusetts (February 2008)
Satellite data shows that the Northern Hemisphere has had its highest extent of snow cover since 1966 (February 2008)
Heaviest snow in fifty years in China (February 2008)
Worst snow in thirty years in Afghanistan (February 2008)
Coldest winter in fifty years in Tajikistan (February 2008)
Ice cover around the Antarctic at its greatest extent since records began (February 2008)
New Zealand had coldest December in 59 years (December 2004)
Snowplows are being needed in Washington State this late for only the third time in thirty years (June 2008)
Seattle had its latest snowfall ever (April 19 2008)
Baghdad gets its first snow in recorded history (January 2008)
Buenos Aires gets its first snow since 1918 (2007)
Kathmandu gets its first snow in sixty years (2006)
Los Angeles gets its first snow in recorded history (February 2007)

The list goes on. In fact, if you look back over the last five years, you would see hundreds of weather events associated with colder temperatures. While I do agree that one years variation is not climate, five years almost certainly has to be.

All of the temperatures of these events were factored in each year in the average global temperatures. If they were part of a global cooling trend then the averages would have shown it. Factor in all the heat waves & extreme droughts during your timeframe and there's your explination.

Well, the IPCC said it.


Big deal. It's not an absolute, universal prediction, but a very generalized statement which you're purposefully misconstruing.

Yes you did - here is the quote

"Remember...some areas will get hotter and other areas will get colder"

Could you link to the post?

Yes you did - here is the quote

"Its natural."

Link?

Read above

Same to you.

So, hang on a second, you are saying that climate change isn't normal?

I'm saying that anthropogenic climate change is not 'normal' in the sense that normally, it wouldn't happen except we have an abnormal situation: human civilization.

Ther is no global warming because warming is expected, and fuck, there is an awful lot of snow in Saudi Arabia, Los Angeles, Florida, Queensland and Iran. These aren't places one associates with snow now, do we?

Do you know what the word "expected" means?

"Gosh it's cold! It can't be cold if there's global warming! It's all false, ha ha I'm so fucking clever!" You're not. You're just rehashing a debunked argument.

I understand plenty - temperatures are supposed to go up, hence global warming. If temperatures are supposed to go up, then why the heck has there been so many incidents of snow in the wrong places at the wrong times of year over the last five years.

Because as your favorite cherry-picked quote from the IPCC says - or rather doesn't say - it doesn't mean "temperatures are going to go up everywhere, and right now." I know you'd like for it to mean that, but reality is interfering.

It's actually rather nice here, at least ten degrees below normal. I call bullshit on global warming, which I always do, and ask that people go study their history to check for natural climate changes.
This argument cracks me up. Next I'll be able to claim that my clothes dry naturally in a tumble dryer on the grounds that I used to dry my clothes on an airer.

For those of you who don't believe in Global Warming happening, I invite you to come work the land here in Arizona, United States, with me for a while.

We already had a week-long heat advisory, and it is not yet July.

For those of you who don't believe in Global Warming happening, I invite you to come work the land here in Arizona, United States, with me for a while.

We already had a week-long heat advisory, and it is not yet July.

So have we in CA. But I don't think an incident of hot weather proves global warming any more than an incident of cold disproves it. Climate is much bigger and broader and longer-term than mere weather.

Also I think given how hot it is on the coast of california, I'd rather shoot myself in the nuts than go to Arizona. :p

Also I think given how hot it is on the coast of california, I'd rather shoot myself in the nuts than go to Arizona. :p

If I had nuts, I'd probably be shooting them now, too. Yesterday was a Godsend. It was only 111 degrees farinheight.

For those of you who don't believe in Global Warming happening, I invite you to come work the land here in Arizona, United States, with me for a while.

We already had a week-long heat advisory, and it is not yet July.

Oh the heat waves have been horrible. Not just in Arizona either. (I have read)
California (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25286598/)
Philly (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=8484936)

You be careful out there Dans!

Doh! Sorry but what you described is not global warming. Here in the States the temps have not been bad either. But the average, combined, global land & ocean temps are the ones that matter when referring to global warming.

The past few days it was in the 90's here and we even got warm rain yesterday.

That statement may not seem that unusual, but I live on the coast of Northern California. Normally, in the bay area, in June it does not get over 75, and is usually in the 60's. Not only that, but we almost never get warm rain. Rain is a winter thing here. Warm rain is normal for the east coast. It's been very strange, in terms of weather. Of course, right now we'll take any rain we can get, since we're in a drought.

The past few days it was in the 90's here and we even got warm rain yesterday.

That statement may not seem that unusual, but I live on the coast of Northern California. Normally, in the bay area, in June it does not get over 75, and is usually in the 60's. Not only that, but we almost never get warm rain. Rain is a winter thing here. Warm rain is normal for the east coast. It's been very strange, in terms of weather. Of course, right now we'll take any rain we can get, since we're in a drought.

Strange weather events have been flooding the headlines. (no pun intended)

Here in the southeast we have been having Oklahoma type weather. (even several super cell tornadoes in each month of the past winter)

The last couple of years there was tropical flooding in NY, Jersey and Boston.

Everything is out of whack!

Strange weather events have been flooding the headlines. (no pun intended)

Here in the southeast we have been having Oklahoma type weather. (even several super cell tornadoes in each month of the past winter)

The last couple of years there was tropical flooding in NY, Jersey and Boston.

Everything is out of whack!

The headlines today are different than 20 years ago. We have 24 hour a day news channels that have to keep the news coming and channels dedicated to just the weather. While weather patters may be changing, I think a lot of this "crazy weather" is business as usual, its just that spatial coverage around the globe and extreme reporting make today seem much more unusual compared to the past. Give me data not headlines!

The headlines today are different than 20 years ago. We have 24 hour a day news channels that have to keep the news coming and channels dedicated to just the weather. While weather patters may be changing, I think a lot of this "crazy weather" is business as usual, its just that spatial coverage around the globe and extreme reporting make today seem much more unusual compared to the past. Give me data not headlines!

Just because there were less news channels 20 years ago, dosn't mean the past 20 years were forgotten.

Sorry Sammy but "business as usual?" I don't think your even close with that one. Have you noticed how many times someone being interviewed on the news has said. "This is a first" and "Never seen that before"

How often are they're tropical floods way up in the northeast? How about those long lasting tornadoes in Minnesota & surrounding areas? Excess rain in the northwest. (and excess fires in the northwest)

The drought here in the southeast has been much more extreme than normal. (thank God we at least had a La Nina this year) My car was destroyed by the biggest hail storm I have ever seen. I have seen a change in lightning. (it now, sometimes does like it does in New Mexico with devistation lightning from the small pop up storms) And winter tornadoes? In every single winter month?....These are all a first!

Just because there were less news channels 20 years ago, dosn't mean the past 20 years were forgotten.
Sorry Sammy but "business as usual?" I don't think your even close with that one. Have you noticed how many times someone being interviewed on the news has said. "This is a first" and "Never seen that before"
How often are they're tropical floods way up in the northeast? How about those long lasting tornadoes in Minnesota & surrounding areas? Excess rain in the northwest. (and excess fires in the northwest)
The drought here in the southeast has been much more extreme than normal. (thank God we at least had a La Nina this year) My car was destroyed by the biggest hail storm I have ever seen. I have seen a change in lightning. (it now, sometimes does like it does in New Mexico with devistation lightning from the small pop up storms) And winter tornadoes? In every single winter month?....These are all a first!

Thats not what I said. I am saying that you are fundamentally biased because 1) we know much more about global weather than we did 20 years ago and 2) because it gets reported much more.

The increased coverage of weather is good for us now however it does complicate the picture when trying to figure out just how abnormal what we see today is (likewise the further back you go the harder it gets).

So because we hear about more and more events occurring in isolated areas of the world and you hear about them every day does not mean that this is abnormal, it just means we know more about the weather system.

What I said exactly is that much of what you see on tv could be related to business as usual, its up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

You listed a string of dramatic weather as support for global warming. Sorry, its not support because you have not provided any reference frame. Give me the comparisons of weather records on different scales for example 10, 100 and 1000 years and then I would believe you because that is a scientific argument based on solid observation.

I am not saying that I think this weather has nothing to do with global warming, rather your argument doesn't hold much scientific merit. 5-10 years is not climate its weather.

Going back some 50-100 years, you did not see the radars and satellite pictures but eventually there were reports from forest rangers if there were the large tornado paths, major fires, etc...

And then back to the tree rings. They would clearly show, how extreme a drought was and such.

Dosn't seem to be much point in going back 1000 years or more in this regard. You get a general idea of what happened over 100 years and it's easy to see how temperatures are the most important factor in weather patterns. You get a warm spike that stays about the same for 10 years and a major climate shift within it. And here we are, still within it, still experiencing the wild weather.

Going back some 50-100 years, you did not see the radars and satellite pictures but eventually there were reports from forest rangers if there were the large tornado paths, major fires, etc...

And then back to the tree rings. They would clearly show, how extreme a drought was and such.

Dosn't seem to be much point in going back 1000 years or more in this regard. You get a general idea of what happened over 100 years and it's easy to see how temperatures are the most important factor in weather patterns. You get a warm spike that stays about the same for 10 years and a major climate shift within it. And here we are, still within it, still experiencing the wild weather.

Maybe the rangers would report activity in this country and Europe but as to intensity the jury is out and the rest of the globe has little to no coverage. Already you are dealing a hugely biased data set. What about the areas of wilderness where no one ever traveled? Or better yet what about the oceans?

What exactly to tree rings clearly show? The rings respond to Temperature, available sunlight CO2 and water. The rings are modeled, probably quite well, but the are not definite proof. Just another proxy that supports or contradicts something else. That it.

Why isn't ther any point going past 100 years. You basically are saying ignore the countless studies that suggest there is 500 year cycle and a range of cycles between 900 and 2500 years throughout the Holocene. Seems to me that you might want to understand 1) why these cycles exist and 2) where we are today in relationship to the cycle.

You are completely off base. Climate does NOT shift back and forth on periods of 10 years. Weather can shift back and forth on those periods while in the same climate state. It might be semantics but what you are describing is not climate. A shift in climate would be a whole different energy state where your baseline is fundamentally different. You have yet to prove to me that what we see is any different than anything else over the past 10,000 years.

Just curious how temperature can be the most important thing when its an obvious feedback in the climate system
(I am really on your side, I am just playing devils advocate to see where this goes).

Maybe the rangers would report activity in this country and Europe but as to intensity the jury is out and the rest of the globe has little to no coverage. Already you are dealing a hugely biased data set. What about the areas of wilderness where no one ever traveled? Or better yet what about the oceans?

What exactly to tree rings clearly show? The rings respond to Temperature, available sunlight CO2 and water. The rings are modeled, probably quite well, but the are not definite proof. Just another proxy that supports or contradicts something else. That it.

Why isn't ther any point going past 100 years. You basically are saying ignore the countless studies that suggest there is 500 year cycle and a range of cycles between 900 and 2500 years throughout the Holocene. Seems to me that you might want to understand 1) why these cycles exist and 2) where we are today in relationship to the cycle.

You are completely off base. Climate does NOT shift back and forth on periods of 10 years. Weather can shift back and forth on those periods while in the same climate state. It might be semantics but what you are describing is not climate. A shift in climate would be a whole different energy state where your baseline is fundamentally different. You have yet to prove to me that what we see is any different than anything else over the past 10,000 years.

Just curious how temperature can be the most important thing when its an obvious feedback in the climate system
(I am really on your side, I am just playing devils advocate to see where this goes).

As for the back in time factor, I agree that we cannot be 100%. But what are the odds though? A large spike in Co2, heat and wild weather, all at the same time. A 180 year old prediction that this could happen. And currently no solar cycles or syncronized Milankovitch cycles that are favorable for warming. Whatever else it could possibly be is one in a million at best.

As for the back in time factor, I agree that we cannot be 100%. But what are the odds though? A large spike in Co2, heat and wild weather, all at the same time. A 180 year old prediction that this could happen. And currently no solar cycles or syncronized Milankovitch cycles that are favorable for warming. Whatever else it could possibly be is one in a million at best.

The whole back in time argument is used to say that todays observations are not unprecedented so the weather system can be chaotic in the climate system that has prevailed for the past 10 kyrs. The problem is that the changes we have seen today are really within the error of the proxies so the end result is we can't say for certain that today is any different than say 2000 years ago.

You have a bunch of correlations but, and this is my big beef with Al Gore, correlation is not causality. Until you can show me that this type of change is in fact different and unprecedented of the past climate state you are dead in the water.

There might not be favorable solar or milankovitch forcings however, I stated above there are 100's to studies that suggest other periodicity throughout the Holocene. We might not know why they manifest themselves the way that they do (we will just say climate system feedback interactions for now) but you can't discount them. Show me how this isn't the result of some cycle amplification of the shorter scale cycles.

The whole back in time argument is used to say that todays observations are not unprecedented so the weather system can be chaotic in the climate system that has prevailed for the past 10 kyrs. The problem is that the changes we have seen today are really within the error of the proxies so the end result is we can't say for certain that today is any different than say 2000 years ago.

You have a bunch of correlations but, and this is my big beef with Al Gore, correlation is not causality. Until you can show me that this type of change is in fact different and unprecedented of the past climate state you are dead in the water.

There might not be favorable solar or milankovitch forcings however, I stated above there are 100's to studies that suggest other periodicity throughout the Holocene. We might not know why they manifest themselves the way that they do (we will just say climate system feedback interactions for now) but you can't discount them. Show me how this isn't the result of some cycle amplification of the shorter scale cycles.

And the most logical explination for extremes of the past are the milankovitch & solar cycles, volcanic activity and space body strikes. Non of which are responsable today. What else could it possibly be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz

What I find interesting is that he proved mathematically that it is impossible to predict how most natural phenomena (weather in particular) will evolve long-term, no matter how much information is known about them, no matter how complex and detailed the model, or how powerful the simulation computer may be.

I guess we'll throw mathematical proof in the trash can of science.

And the most logical explination for extremes of the past are the milankovitch & solar cycles, volcanic activity and space body strikes. Non of which are responsable today. What else could it possibly be?

Ha but we are talking variability on the order of less than 1 degree. The cyclical pattern is found in the paleorecord . So just because you don't understand something it becomes ok to ignore it all together?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lorenz

What I find interesting is that he proved mathematically that it is impossible to predict how most natural phenomena (weather in particular) will evolve long-term, no matter how much information is known about them, no matter how complex and detailed the model, or how powerful the simulation computer may be.

I guess we'll throw mathematical proof in the trash can of science.

Well i guess its a good thing that we are not dealing with weather.
And I would love to see what he proved since everything he has ever published under is theory.

Well i guess its a good thing that we are not dealing with weather.
And I would love to see what he proved since everything he has ever published under is theory.

Actually, it applies to long-term climate as well.

The math is the thing you would have to disprove - using math.

And using math, the odds for anything but the Co2 would be too astrinomical to calculate.

What else could possibly be the reason for the heat if it's not the Co2?

Actually, it applies to long-term climate as well.

The math is the thing you would have to disprove - using math.

Which is why its called chaos proof and not chaos theory.

Lorenz's work suggested that the weather couldn't be reasonably predicted more than a week in advance. To this day that still holds true. It is predictable, you just have to know the exact inputs. Rounding errors on the inputs can potentially wildly change the output on the model. The further you estimate forward in time, the greater the error becomes.

With climate the same limitations apply however since climate operates on a different residence time than weather you can predict further into the future. This is why you see lots of 30 to 100 year simulations and very few 10,000 year simulations.

So whats next???

And using math, the odds for anything but the Co2 would be too astrinomical to calculate.

What else could possibly be the reason for the heat if it's not the Co2?

Whats your source? You still have not disproven that the variability in the natural system is also at work here.

Whats your source? You still have not disproven that the variability in the natural system is also at work here.

I am asking a question. I am "seeking" a source. What besides the Co2 could be responsible for today;s heat?

You mentioned the Paleo record. looking back 12,500 years we had a freeze, some thawing, another freeze, then a steady thaw. With the long intervals between these periods and the number of volcanoes in the world, you have to blame volcanoes for at least some of the ice ages. The super volcanoes DO go off from time to time and will continue to do so. We also DO get hit by space bodies. (MN-4 is going to be a close one on April 13, 2036) These also cause ice ages. Warmer solar activity can bring about some warming.

If you just step back and look at ancient history, not as an exact, but the most likely, you can see how the paterns fit. The things that are suppose to happen had to happen sometime. ;)