Did you know the Global temps have decreased over last 10 years?

[old&slow]

Researchers, like politicians, all have an agenda imho!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm

The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say.

Cooling La Nina conditions in the Pacific brought temperatures down to levels last seen in the year 2000.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) notes that temperatures remained about 0.3C above the 1961-1990 average.

Computer models suggest that natural cycles may cool the Earth's surface in the next few years, masking the warming impact of rising greenhouse gas levels.


Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years
Peter Stott, UK Met Office

El Nino/La Nina explained

One recent analysis suggested there may be no warming for about the next decade, though other scientists dispute the conclusion.

What is beyond dispute is that 2008 saw temperatures a shade below preceding years.

Using data from two major monitoring networks, one co-ordinated by the UK's Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia (UEA) and the other by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the WMO reports that despite the cooling, 2008 still ranks among the 10 warmest years on record.

At 14.3C, the average temperature for the year was significantly above the 14.0C average for the 1961-1990 period, a commonly used baseline.

Temperatures are about 0.7C above pre-industrial times.

Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the UK Met Office of which the Hadley Centre is a part, suggested that in previous decades 2008 would have stood out as unusually warm.
Weather station
Data is recorded at thousands of weather stations

"Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years," he said.

Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), which produces its own record of atmospheric temperature, agreed that 2008 was the coolest year since the turn of the century.

But Giss still ranks it as the ninth warmest since 1880.

The warmest of all remains 1998, when exceptionally strong El Nino conditions added to rising greenhouse gas levels sent thermometers to an average of about 14.5C.

"The most important component of year-to-year variability in global average temperatures is the phase and amplitude of equatorial sea surface temperatures in the Pacific that lead to La Nina and El Nino events," observed UEA's Dr Phil Jones.

Millennial warmth

John Christy, a scientist noted for taking a cautious approach to the likely impacts of human-induced climate change, agreed that the Earth's atmosphere had warmed by about 0.4C over 30 years.

His own research team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) produces global temperature data from satellite readings, and uses weather balloons to verify the satellite record.

Professor Christy suggested that the trend in the immediate future would be decided by whether conditions in the Pacific veer towards El Nino or La Nina.

THE 10 WARMEST YEARS
1998 - 14.52C
2005 - 14.48C
2003 - 14.46C
2002 - 14.46C
2004 - 14.43C
2006 - 14.42C
2007 - 14.40C
2001 - 14.40C
1997 - 14.36C
2008 - 14.31C
Data: Met Office Hadley Centre

"If you look at the 30-year graph of month-to-month temperature anomalies, the most obvious feature is the series of warmer than normal months that followed the major El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of 1997-1998," he said.

"Right now we are coming out of one La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event, and we might be heading into another.

"It should be interesting over the next several years to see whether the post La Nina climate 're-sets' to the cooler seasonal norms we saw before 1997, or the warmer levels seen since then."

The effect of El Nino and La Nina conditions are one reason why scientists prefer to average temperatures over 10-year periods, which smoothes out the annual variations and gives a better picture of long-term trends.

On average, the decade from 1990 to 1999 was 0.23C above the 1961-1990 baseline, while in the period 2000-2008 it was 0.40C over, indicating a warming trend.

It is almost certain that the first decade of this century will turn out to have been significantly warmer than the last decade of the last century, notwithstanding the freak El Nino year of 1998.

The question for the next decade or so will be whether natural cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation continue to moderate the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

[The Cosworth]

rkJUJ5-PL-0

[khtm]

Originally posted by old&slow
Did you know the Global temps have decreased over last 10 years?



Originally posted by old&slow
On average, the decade from 1990 to 1999 was 0.23C above the 1961-1990 baseline, while in the period 2000-2008 it was 0.40C over, indicating a warming trend.


:rofl: :facepalm:

[rage2]

Old news...

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/210394/global-warming-over-global-cooling-now/

Known this for a while now. It's more than an anomaly at this point, it's a trend. But nobody gives a fuck. Global warming guys just call it climate change now. Gotta figure out a way to sell more carbon credits.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

Look at that... direct correlation with temperatures! Cant wait till 2010 and beyond when shit gets warm again. Definately buying a new convertible in 2012... looks like we're gonna have 3 kickass summers there! :rofl:

[szw]

What does that trend look like if they keep going back a hundred years?

[ianmcc]

Sunspot activity has more to do with climate change than greenhouse gas emissions.

[old&slow]

Originally posted by The Cosworth
rkJUJ5-PL-0

watched the whole thing...very interesting.
makes a lot of sense!

[revelations]

Originally posted by ianmcc
Sunspot activity has more to do with climate change than greenhouse gas emissions.

Hasnt the mean solar output increased by something 0.1% during the last 50 years?

(conveniently raising global temps)

[Eleanor]

IIRC, if you compare the trends in temperatures on earth, they are very similar to the trends on Mars, meaning that we may not be the most important things in the universe as Al Gore and David Suzuki would have you believe.

[Canucks3322]

Martians are retards.

[Tik-Tok]

I'd love it if the earth were warming, I'm tire of Canada's winters. :rofl:

On a more serious note, I don't give a rats ass if scientists are wrong or right about global warming, personally I still think we need to take hard measures about pollution, if for no other reason then our quality of breathing air.

[Toma]

Originally posted by The Cosworth
rkJUJ5-PL-0

This.

[nonlinear]

what you are observing is residual variation. from year to year, there are going to be relative 'ups' and 'downs,' but what is really important is the moving mean temperature, which is undoubtedly increasing.

this article is just another attempt by the media to scare up some attention to their papers and sites.

scientists do not have an 'agenda,' as someone suggested - there are just way too many egos, different funding agencies, competition for jobs, etc. for there to be a concerted conspiracy among scientists to scare people or whatever.

actually, if you want to see a conspiracy, look at the NASA climate reports that were basically rewritten by the Bush administration to hide the evidence of increasing global mean temperatures. one of the big shots at NASA climate research resigned over this... i saw him talk about it at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in SF a few years ago. i can get more info on this if anyone is interested.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by nonlinear
this article is just another attempt by the media to scare up some attention to their papers and sites.
You mean like we'll all be drowning in the ocean in 15 years? :dunno:

[cosmok]

Originally posted by Eleanor

You mean like we'll all be drowning in the ocean in 15 years? :dunno:
Hopefully not, Waterworld was a terrible movie.

[tsi_neal]

Everytime I hear about climate change I change the channel... 99% of people out there are very misinformed.

The climate IS changing, always has and always will. Climate records that date back to the 60's are worthless. Its like saying we will have a 14.372 degree day because at 6:37:16.15am it was that temperature. There is more to climate than carbon dioxide, its just hard to convince people of that because of guys like gore and suzuki.

I think the real thing here is climate change is big business. As long as enough people are making enough money it will be a problem...

[nonlinear]

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by cosmok

Hopefully not, Waterworld was a terrible movie.

:werd:


then I


:rofl:

[chkolny541]

:bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:global warming :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit: :bullshit:

[Generic]

Institute for Liberty (IFL) has taken data from federal agencies, environmentalist organizations and news agencies to extrapolate the estimated environmental impact for the 2009 Inauguration. It concludes that the 600 private jets expected to fly visitors to and from the capital city will produce 25,320,000 pounds of CO2, with personal vehicles accounting for 262,483,200 pounds of the odorless gas.

Indeed, during the Inaugural Parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 pounds of carbon dioxide, with the total carbon footprint for the day likely exceeding 575 million pounds of CO2.

In comparison, it would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new President's housewarming party.

I can't wait for these climate changes laws to occur by Obama.

[old&slow]

From the video posted by The Cosworth, it's apparent that by reducing emissions they will cause global warming to speed up...kinda ironic and not surprising given the arrogance of the people who lead those types of campaigns!

[Generic]

http://www.680news.com/news/headlines/more.jsp?content=20090119_091621_43432

Toronto has almost received the amount of snow it usually gets over an entire winter, and weather experts said the city is on track to surpass last year, which was the snowiest in seven decades.


Arctic blast brings London earliest snow for 70 years
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-details/Arctic%20blast%20brings%20London%20earliest%20snow%20for%2070%20years/article.do?expand=true

[clem24]

Originally posted by szw
What does that trend look like if they keep going back a hundred years?

:rofl: Where are they going to get sunspot data from 1909...

[EG STyLeZ]

Originally posted by clem24


:rofl: Where are they going to get sunspot data from 1909...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

[alloroc]

From the same wiki article above ...


Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[14]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/800px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png

Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon. Present period is on left. Values since 1900 not shown.

[alloroc]

Now compare the chart above to recorded temperatures ...
Remember the chart above goes right to left and the one below goes left to right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



Global Warming Advocates ..."Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts:
1.Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).

2.Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

3. Only about 0.037 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

4. The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

Global Warming Advocates ... "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does. 14% of 0.037 is 0.005% of the total atmosphere, it is just not enough to make a difference.

[tsi_neal]

Originally posted by nonlinear
^^so what is your argument, that the climate is changing but we don't know why?

links between human activities and climate change are well-established in the refereed literature. you can argue all you want about it on a car forum (haha), but your uninformed opinion is going nowhere fast.

My point is what gets force fed down our throats is a bunch of hocus pocus put on by people that drive an economic machine.

Of course humans have an impact but unless something substantial has changed since i did my degree there was no solid evidence to say that we were 1% or 99% of the issue. There is only evidence saying that we are one of the factors.

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
I'd love it if the earth were warming, I'm tire of Canada's winters. :rofl:

On a more serious note, I don't give a rats ass if scientists are wrong or right about global warming, personally I still think we need to take hard measures about pollution, if for no other reason then our quality of breathing air.

CO2 doesn't affect air quality and it isn't a pollutant (not at least in the concentrations we'll ever see even if we burn hydrocarbons for the next 1000 years).

This is all about CO2 and regulating our CO2 emissions.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by old&slow
From the video posted by The Cosworth, it's apparent that by reducing emissions they will cause global warming to speed up...kinda ironic and not surprising given the arrogance of the people who lead those types of campaigns!

It's not really ironic - It's simply a consideration that needs to be taken into account when determining a fix.

Truly though, it underscores that we're likely too late now, and there are no good options before us.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


options before us.

The atmosphere is not what is causing the current temperature spike.
The option to Canadians is to open the NW passage and start farming the NWT.

Yay

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by alloroc


The atmosphere is not what is causing the current temperature spike.
The option to Canadians is to open the NW passage and start farming the NWT.

Yay

There was a report on CBC a few months ago about how Canada would benefit greatly from global warming...

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by old&slow


What is beyond dispute is that 2008 saw temperatures a shade below preceding years.



Short term oscillations don't negate long term trends.

My UUU shares are worth less than they were yesteryday - But they're worth double what they were last month.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by badatusrnames


CO2 doesn't affect air quality and it isn't a pollutant (not at least in the concentrations we'll ever see even if we burn hydrocarbons for the next 1000 years).

This is all about CO2 and regulating our CO2 emissions.

Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough. Not so much CO2 emissions, but NOx, which is also a heavy by-product of fossil fuel buring.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Sorry, I wasn't being specific enough. Not so much CO2 emissions, but NOx, which is also a heavy by-product of fossil fuel buring.
I think you're looking for SO2 emissions, IIRC NOx emissions we can't really sense directly. NOx is to blame primarily for causing acid rain.

[alloroc]

Nox (In the free world anyway) is going to be reduced greatly in the next ten years with the new advances in diesel engine technology. Can't say much for what is going to happpen in China.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by alloroc


The atmosphere is not what is causing the current temperature spike.


Please explain.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by Eleanor

I think you're looking for SO2 emissions, IIRC NOx emissions we can't really sense directly. NOx is to blame primarily for causing acid rain.

This which-pollutant-does-what shell game isn't really helpful. There are many pollutants, with many accompanying concerns. Some exacerate other pollutants, some mitigate. They arise from many different sources and activities.

It's a complex interplay that can't be addressed by looking at isolated components.

[nonlinear]

^^haha absolutely

and, only on beyond will you see everyone suddenly turning into geophysicists and climatologists :rofl:

[rage2]

Originally posted by clem24
:rofl: Where are they going to get sunspot data from 1909...
Galileo discovered sunspots in the early 1600's. Astronomers started collecting the data shortly after. It's not like the telescope was invented yesterday haha.


Originally posted by Legless_Marine2
Please explain.
You'd think that with all the pretty little graphs that's been posted that you'd figure it out.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by rage2

You'd think that with all the pretty little graphs that's been posted that you'd figure it out.

You are joking, I hope...

[alloroc]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


Please explain.

I did.

Its the sun.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by nonlinear
and, only on beyond will you see everyone suddenly turning into geophysicists and climatologists :rofl:
Or maybe someone who's taken a chemistry class? :dunno:

Just because you're stupid and don't understand the difference between various organic compounds, don't assume I'm incapable of differing them as well.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by nonlinear


and, only on beyond will you see everyone suddenly turning into geophysicists and climatologists :rofl:

.... I'll second that.

I love some of theses posts: "I've concluded that global warming doesn't have anything to do with the atmosphere and posted a graph of sunspots to prove it".

I've seen primary school science fair projects with greater depth.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


I love some of theses posts: "I've concluded that global warming doesn't have anything to do with the atmosphere and posted a graph of sunspots to prove it".


And the difference between that and the posters on the other side of the debate is....? Are you a climatologist that can make the opposite claims with certainty?

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by badatusrnames


There was a report on CBC a few months ago about how Canada would benefit greatly from global warming...

The idea is insane to me. Although we will be hit less than the rest of the world, we will suffer from cascading effects. The costs will be high, and will outweigh any minor benefits.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Are you a climatologist that you can make the opposite claims with certainty?
Yes he is, didn't you get the memo?

This is how he can dismiss all the charts and graphs from legitimate sources posted in this thread already, because he's actually Dar McBool. :D

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


And the difference between that and the posters on the other side of the debate is....? Are you a climatologist that you can make the opposite claims with certainty?

Burden of proof rests on the party making the claim.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


Burden of proof rests on the party making the claim.

Indeed it does, and since the anti-Global Warming movement is a reactionary one based on disproving an existing unproven claim, would the burden of proof therefore not rest with the progenitors of the Global Warming claim?

Oh, and by the way, your response was obviously sidestepping my question. What sort of professional capacity makes you qualified to comment with certainty on climate change?

[Schwa]

Originally posted by tsi_neal
Its like saying we will have a 14.372 degree day because at 6:37:16.15am it was that temperature.

This.

Looking at 10 years of data is hardly enough when you consider the geological timespan of the earth. I'll be laughing my ass off once we start descending into the next ice age.

[nonlinear]

the heat budget of earth and, thus, long term climate dynamics, are coupled with population and community dynamics of living organisms, and it's a very complicated system that science has just began to understand (in the last 50 years or so - and that's being fairly liberal). the heat budget is determined not only by greenhouse gasses (that have an albedo and absord/emit radiation from both earth and the sun and space and stars and other planets and anything it can "see') but also the percent land cover of snow, soil, rock, forest, water, etc., each of which has a different albedo and ability to reflect and absorb heat.

the global temp dynamics that you guys are looking at (derived in various ways, from dendrochronology or ice cores etc.) result primarily from changes in life (populatoin/community dynamics) that affect the concentration of gasses in the atmos as well as land cover. like i said the system is coupled, so temperature dynamics also affect organismal dynamics. global temperature dynamics have been correlated with organismal dynamics - this is undisputable. what is also undisputable is that the earth is in the midst of another mass extinction, and global mean temp is increasing at unprecendented rates (at least from the perspective of Homo sapiens). it is well-established that the current warming is correlated with human populatoin growth, the green revolution, and the industrial revolution (which have lead to human-caused co2 concentratoin (atmos albedo) and human-caused changes in the albedo of the earth surface).

it's important to note that scientists aren't claiming that global warming will be good or bad for humans - they are just saying that the warming is human-caused. society is responsible for assigning a value to the finding.

it's really hard to convince people of this who just look at the dynamics, but do not understand all of the coupled biophysical processes that underlie the dynamics. it's very complicated and we have very little understanding of the mechanisms, however based on the empirical evidence of the current and past warmings, it is clear that the current global warming is human-caused.

[nonlinear]

^^sorry for that rant, but i've had a couple of beers and on a tear! yay obama lol :thumbsup:

[alloroc]

[i]it is clear that the current global warming is human-caused. [/B]
No it is clear that global warming hysteria is human caused.

Climatic warming is from the sun.

[nonlinear]

hahah

[szw]

Originally posted by clem24


:rofl: Where are they going to get sunspot data from 1909...

I love that the very next post is "400 years of sun spot data" in huge letters.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by rage2
Old news...

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/210394/global-warming-over-global-cooling-now/

Known this for a while now. It's more than an anomaly at this point, it's a trend. But nobody gives a fuck. Global warming guys just call it climate change now. Gotta figure out a way to sell more carbon credits.

Look at that... direct correlation with temperatures! Cant wait till 2010 and beyond when shit gets warm again. Definately buying a new convertible in 2012... looks like we're gonna have 3 kickass summers there! :rofl:

Just a heads up. Most everything I have researched is that this cycle is a bit slower so we won't see a warming trend until about 2020 and the next cycle is going to be very weak so average temperatures are likely to drop and stay lower until at least 2050.

[clem24]

Fucked.. pwnt :banghead:

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


The idea is insane to me. Although we will be hit less than the rest of the world, we will suffer from cascading effects. The costs will be high, and will outweigh any minor benefits.

Haha not really, a researcher did a report studying the economic effects of global warming on various countries. Canada was determined to be one that would benefit from an increase in global temperatures.

For Canada it would mean an absolutely massive boon to agriculture with arable land increasing, the growing season extending and a larger variety of crops being able to be grown. We would largely be spared the drought and desertification expected in warmer climates. Essentially, the climate would shift up a few latitudes.

Also, it would open the north up to settlement habitation and make the broader exploitation of mineral wealth in the north easier. Also, being such a large country geographically, we would stand to lose very little land (proportionally) if sea levels rose.

About the only downside predicted was that being a country able to prosper with climate change, we would have to deal with "climate refugees" and a population shift as people leave countries where the land can no longer support them to places that can.

What costs are you talking about? We would likely lose coastal towns and cities... but otherwise, we would gain quite a bit.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by badatusrnames


What costs are you talking about? We would likely lose coastal towns and cities... but otherwise, we would gain quite a bit.

1) Climate refugees, as mentioned. We're not just talking about the familiar trickle of brown folk fleeing war and famine. When London, Miami, and other large coastal cities flood, anyone who can afford a plane ticket will be looking for a "safe and prosperous" place to settle. That's probably Canada, and likely Calgary (except Dover).

2) Decrease in rainfall in some areas: Some areas, particularly souther Alberta, are already highly FF/irrigation dependant to farm. These areas will become increasingly FF dependent, increasing farming inputs, increasing food cost.

A few weeks ago, I saw an old friend who is a biologist specializing in water resources. His job consists of knowing where water is, and where it isn't, on a province-wide basis. We chatted a bit about the 15 yr water outlook for Alberta, and suffice it to say it wasn't pretty. He moved to BC two years ago.

3) Increase in pests and pestilence: This, to my mind, is the worst, and we've hardly gotten started. Pine beetle is expected to wipe out most of BC's pine forests in the next decade. West Nile is here, with Malaria soon to follow. Mother nature has many more "adjustments" in store for us.



The next decades will not be pretty. I used to long to see the future. Now, I can guess at what's in store, and it's ugly.

[nonlinear]

^^the world is a dynamic place, man. you can't take a snapshot and say "this is how the world should be." it's hard for humans to realize that because our lifespan is so short relative to dynamics of our population, not to mention climate change. the current warming is caused by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all doom and gloom.

i think most people are 'afraid' because they can't predict what will happen. same reason people are afraid of death and invent things like god.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by nonlinear
^^the world is a dynamic place, man. you can't take a snapshot and say "this is how the world should be." it's hard for humans to realize that because our lifespan is so short relative to dynamics of our population, not to mention climate change. the current warming is caused by humans, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all doom and gloom.


While I agree in principle with what you're saying, I don't think this makes the picture any rosier.

I don't claim to see the future, but I have a clear enough understanding of it to know it's going to to be ugly.

[alloroc]

^I do - this is my prediction.

The next three - four years on average will still be cool (as was this year) {At which point David Suzuki will claim we tipped the balance point in sea salt state and exhort that we are headed for another ice age}, followed by 4 years of mild warming {entrust Global warming activists to freak again} with about 3 years of weather similar to 1998 through to 2002 then 20 years of general cooling of about 0.4C average temperature.

[nonlinear]

i think you're being a bit alarmist.


you know, there are militias down in montana that are preparing for what you speak of - stockpiling weapons, food, etc. for when Armageddon happens and they have to kill off the world to save themselves.

[alloroc]

Actually Marine is being alarmist.

I'm saying all this global atmoshpere warming bs is just that ..BS and everyone is getting worked up over nothing.

[nonlinear]

^^yea, i was referring to the legless one. i think you just got your post in right before me :)

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by alloroc
^I do - this is my prediction.

The next three - four years on average will still be cool.

I still don't really get your "cooling" claim. AFAICT, you are mistaking a plateau in a long term trend for a reversal of that long term trend, if not proof of a countertrend.

Did I get that right?

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by alloroc
Actually Marine is being alarmist.


No need to hyperbolize my viewpoint. I see the trends for what they are - That's not to say that I think the world is going to end tomorrow.

I know that these things don't hit everyone equally, or at once. I also know that just because it's not happening to me now, doesn't mean it eventually won't.

These are long term trends, and won't happen overnight. It will happen gradually, and we'll try to adjust. Some adjustments can be made, and some won't. Economy will suffer, and some will die. The rest will press on.

Already we can see manifestations of the trend: Sudanese immigrants fleeing climate war. People dying of West Nile. Ever-increasing water warnings in Calgary. Loggers in BC scrambling to harvest what's left of their dying softwood forests.

Small things, but the start of a trend that will continue and to have ever more impact on our lives.

[nonlinear]

^^dude, you should move to hollywood and get a job making movies like armageddon or that one where a major flood covers NYC and the statue of liberty and stuff!

haha, just givin' ya a hard time

[alloroc]

Here's some more food for thought.

The drop in global sea surface temperature this year was the greatest in recorded history 0.75C.

2008 http://global-warming.accuweather.com/anomnight_3_27_2008-thumb.gif

2007 http://global-warming.accuweather.com/anomnight_3_26_2007-thumb.gif

[texasnick]

I'm not going to go all out on this one, but wow, there are a LOT of assumptions being made in this thread....by both sides of this debate.

FACT: Using data that can only accurately measure CO2 levels, sunspots, global mean temperature, WHATEVER within the past few hundred thousand years to extrapolate and take trends from and apply to what is going to happen in the future is rediculous.

The earth is about 6 billion years old. Carbon dating accurate to within a few hundred thousand years is NOT going to give you any worthwhile results on predicting what is going to happen in the future.

That's like taking a temperature measurement every minute for 5 minutes, and saying that all day the temperature has been increasing, so therefore it has to increase tomorrow.

NOT ENOUGH DATA!!!

[alloroc]

Originally posted by texasnick
I'm not going to go all out on this one, but wow, there are a LOT of assumptions being made in this thread....by both sides of this debate.
NOT ENOUGH DATA!!!

I'm not assuming I'm telling.


Originally posted by texasnick

FACT: Using data that can only accurately measure CO2 levels, sunspots, global mean temperature, WHATEVER within the past few hundred thousand years to extrapolate and take trends from and apply to what is going to happen in the future is rediculous.

The earth is

Yes you can. Solar cycles and POD cycles are just that ... cycles, they occur naturally and you cannot stop them, and because they occur rythmically you can predict them. To use your analogy it is like taking the temperature every day for five days at the same time and say that it will be warmer at 2:00pm than 2:00 AM. More often than not you will be right.

I have studied this in depth at my place of employment to analize the need for certain types of construction within the industry that we serve and or the need to allow for certain future retrofits.

The reason we have seen such a significant drop the last year is that both cycles have happened to coincide at a minimum. Usually one or the other leads or lags.

A La Nina year plus no sun activitiy = big temperature drop.

See look ... no spots.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/sun_mdi_031308.jpg

It the sun.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by texasnick
I'm not going to go all out on this one, but wow, there are a LOT of assumptions being made in this thread....by both sides of this debate.

FACT: Using data that can only accurately measure CO2 levels, sunspots, global mean temperature, WHATEVER within the past few hundred thousand years to extrapolate and take trends from and apply to what is going to happen in the future is rediculous.

The earth is about 6 billion years old. Carbon dating accurate to within a few hundred thousand years is NOT going to give you any worthwhile results on predicting what is going to happen in the future.

That's like taking a temperature measurement every minute for 5 minutes, and saying that all day the temperature has been increasing, so therefore it has to increase tomorrow.

NOT ENOUGH DATA!!!

i read that three or four times, and i still don't get it man.

i guess these are your points:

1) do not extrapolate from empirical data

2) ????

3) not enough data


WHAT?

[nonlinear]

alloroc, it is not only the sun.

with all due respect, you might be able to get away with that argument in the construction industry, but (if you are a geoscientist or even an engineer) you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming that also explains global temperature dynamics.

variations in intensity of the sun are minor and insignificant relative to the changes in other, more important components of global heat budget including chagnes in greenhouse gasses and land cover that govern atmospheric and land cover albedo. global temperature dynamics are determined by how the earth absorbs and emits heat, which is coupled to dynamics of living organisms.

[nonlinear]

looking through today's issue of Nature and i came across this (not sure if you guys can see this or if you need a subscription - let me know if not):

Changes in the phase of the annual cycle of surface temperature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07675.html


abstract: The annual cycle in the Earth's surface temperature is extremely large—comparable in magnitude to the glacial–interglacial cycles over most of the planet. Trends in the phase and the amplitude of the annual cycle have been observed, but the causes and significance of these changes remain poorly understood—in part because we lack an understanding of the natural variability. Here we show that the phase of the annual cycle of surface temperature over extratropical land shifted towards earlier seasons by 1.7 days between 1954 and 2007; this change is highly anomalous with respect to earlier variations, which we interpret as being indicative of the natural range. Significant changes in the amplitude of the annual cycle are also observed between 1954 and 2007. These shifts in the annual cycles appear to be related, in part, to changes in the northern annular mode of climate variability, although the land phase shift is significantly larger than that predicted by trends in the northern annular mode alone. Few of the climate models presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reproduce the observed decrease in amplitude and none reproduce the shift towards earlier seasons.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Yeah, that article needs a login.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by alloroc
Here's some more food for thought.

The drop in global sea surface temperature this year was the greatest in recorded history 0.75C.


Hi allroc,

You're posting all of these snippets of data, and while this may mean something to you, but it's clear to me that without a lot more accompanying data, it's relevant.

If you're going to show me a data point, also tell me what the previous data point was, and relate it to trending.

Don't show me a short term trend and try to suggest it's a reversal, particularly without demonstrating to what degree it runs contrary to the long term trend. Without context, it could easily be a slowing of the rate of increase, or a plateau.

Likewise, graphs and pictures of sunspots are meaningless without relating them to what's happening on earth, and other mitigating and exacerbating factors at play.

All of these little snapshots, while they may be individually accurate, are meaningless without relating them to the big picture.


I'm not asking for a PHD dissertation here... But cherry picking data points is grossly insufficient for intelligent discussion.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by nonlinear


i read that three or four times, and i still don't get it man.

i guess these are your points:

1) do not extrapolate from empirical data

2) ????

3) not enough data


WHAT?

Sorry, sometimes I don't communicate very well.

I'm saying that using emperical data that comprises about 5/1000ths of a percent of the data set you are trying to extrapolate to, gets you results that don't mean anything.

Doesn't matter if it's pro/anti climate change. You are trying to use insufficient empirical data to make assumptions about a very complicated situation.

I can make you a graph that shows how the Earth's population has increased over the past 10 years, and say that this is the reason for climate change. The graphs may correlate, but for me to draw this conclusion would be quite presumptuous.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2

Don't show me a short term trend and try to suggest it's a reversal, particularly without demonstrating to what degree it runs contrary to the long term trend. Without context, it could easily be a slowing of the rate of increase, or a plateau.

All of these little snapshots, while they may be individually accurate, are meaningless without relating them to the big picture.

I'm not asking for a PHD dissertation here... But cherry picking data points is grossly insufficient for intelligent discussion.

This is what I was trying to say...lol

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by nonlinear
alloroc, it is not only the sun.


In his oversimplistic way, he's right - Not that this saves him from being completely wrong.

The sun is the primary source of heat for the surface of the earth - So in that sense, we can attribute global warming to the sun.

But his gross error in logic is that he discounts the Earths own cooling mechanisms, or the compromise of them, as factors.

But then again, he's got pictures of sunspots, so what do I know.



Originally posted by nonlinear

with all due respect, you might be able to get away with that argument in the construction industry, but (if you are a geoscientist or even an engineer)

It's quite clear that alloroc is not a scientist, and has little technical background, beyond the ability to build his own PC.

[Legless_Marine2]

<Redundant post snipped>

[alloroc]

Originally posted by nonlinear
alloroc, it is not only the sun.

with all due respect, you might be able to get away with that argument in the construction industry, but (if you are a geoscientist or even an engineer) you should be ashamed of yourself for claiming that also explains global temperature dynamics. [/B]

Give me an Explanation for the Maunder Minimum other than decreased solar activity and I might believe you. I have had debates with others before and I have always been proven right in the long run.

We do not live on Venus. The earth gives up its heat pretty readily.

I cant wait for global warming activists response in 15 years when things start to really chill. .... Its human kind's fault all the CO2 is escaping out of the hole in the Ozone layer and extinguishing the solar flares.

[rage2]

Originally posted by alloroc
I cant wait for global warming activists response in 15 years when things start to really chill. .... Its human kind's fault all the CO2 is escaping out of the hole in the Ozone layer and extinguishing the solar flares.
hehe, we're already laughing at the global cooling alarmists from the 70's :).

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by rage2

hehe, we're already laughing at the global cooling alarmists from the 70's :).

Et tu, Suzuki?

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Yeah, that article needs a login.

http://rapidshare.com/files/187347331/nature07675.pdf.html

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by texasnick

I can make you a graph that shows how the Earth's population has increased over the past 10 years, and say that this is the reason for climate change. The graphs may correlate, but for me to draw this conclusion would be quite presumptuous.

ABSOLUTELY ~ and that is exactly why it's taken scientists from several fields 50 years to come to the conclusion that humans are the cause of our current warming.

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by alloroc

I cant wait for global warming activists response in 15 years when things start to really chill. .... Its human kind's fault all the CO2 is escaping out of the hole in the Ozone layer and extinguishing the solar flares.


I don't claim to have all of the answers regarding climate change, but it's pretty clear to me when someone is conflating a subset of data with the whole.

That's aside from your claim about C02 escaping via ozone layer holes and extinguishing solar flares being complete nonsense.


If this climate change discussion were an elephant, and we were all blind men, you'd be Helen Keller. Without arms and legs.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by alloroc


Give me an Explanation for the Maunder Minimum other than decreased solar activity and I might believe you.

argh... first of all, the "maunder minimum" is a period of low sunspot activity. not sure what you're getting at. are you trying to pass off the little ice age as a result of the decreased sunspot activity?

you really don't get what i'm saying. sunspots are irrelevant man - their effect on our mean surface temperature is just too little relative to all of the other controlling factors... and if it was sunspots (a completely simple and amatuer explination), earth surface temps should be highly correlated and we would have extremely nice datasets documenting the whole phenomenon and the case would be closed. shit.

and, saying the "maunder minimum" coincided with the little ice age (it depends on how you define the little ice age which is still contentious), not to mention using that to explain the little ice age, is silly and akin to something you would find in a creation science textbook.

i haven't done the sensitivity analysis required to show you that these sunspots are insignificant, and honestly i don't have the time or interest :D but i'm sure it's been done, probably in an intro text or check out google scholar or web of science.

anyhow, i REALLY gotta get some work done now :)

[texasnick]

Originally posted by nonlinear


ABSOLUTELY ~ and that is exactly why it's taken scientists from several fields 50 years to come to the conclusion that humans are the cause of our current warming.

Who has come up with this conclusion? How have they come to this conclusion? Using what techniques?

As an example, Al Gore's gay little documentary used carbon dating to "prove" that CO2 levels coinside with Mean global temperature.

Carbon dating is NOT an accurate way to measure anything over a few hundred thousand years old. So, if you can prove this correlation for the past 300,000 years, it doesn't really mean you can make predictions based on these measurements given the fact that the earth is 6.5 billion years old. That is only using 4.5 x10 ^-5 of a percentage of the relevent dataset to form a hypothesis.

If you are a "scientist/engineer" like you make yourself out to be, you should see something inherently wrong with that.

Geological timescales are massive. Data analysed with regards to climate change covers barely a fraction of the age of the earth.

All of the data I have seen in this thread, regardless of what side it is on, is insufficient to make any conclusions from. That's all I'm trying to say.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by texasnick

Who has come up with this conclusion? How have they come to this conclusion? Using what techniques?


dude, go to cnn.com, there was an article on there this morning saying 97% of scientsts suurveyed (from the American Geophysical Union, i belwive) agreed that 1) warming is happening and 2) it is human caused.

i don't have time to give you the at least 15 years of education it would require to give you the background, perspective, and ability to understand why.

that's what people like suzuki and gore are for (just wish they would present the science and leave the values/morals aside.)

[texasnick]

Originally posted by nonlinear


dude, go to cnn.com, there was an article on there this morning saying 97% of scientsts suurveyed (from the American Geophysical Union, i belwive) agreed that 1) warming is happening and 2) it is human caused.

i don't have time to give you the at least 15 years of education it would require to give you the background, perspective, and ability to understand why.

that's what people like suzuki and gore are for (just wish they would present the science and leave the values/morals aside.)


On CNN.com?!?!?! It must be true.

lol you sound like a typical hotshit engineer. And just an FYI, unless you are ACTUALLY a climatologist, I highly doubt you would be able to teach me anything. I deal with geology, geological dating, and trending on a daily basis.

You realize that when you dismiss the sunspot guy for irrelevent data correlation, you are being quite ironic? I see no difference in the correlations he is making and the correlations made by the "Human caused" side of the argument.

[nonlinear]

^^nope, not a 'hotshit engineer.' got an axe to grind, or what???

btw, i'm sorry but geology really has nothing to do with this at all ;)

[semograd]

Originally posted by texasnick



On CNN.com?!?!?! It must be true.

lol you sound like a typical hotshit engineer. And just an FYI, unless you are ACTUALLY a climatologist, I highly doubt you would be able to teach me anything. I deal with geology, geological dating, and trending on a daily basis.

HEY! have more respect when your speaking to us hotshit engineers! Besides that you are totally right. When you look at it from a geologists perspective the time when the earth was most saturated with CO2 was during the *cambrian* period.

As a matter of fact the only thing that saved the earth from being a gigantic snow ball 1 billion years ago was the release of evil green house gasses by volcanoes.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by nonlinear
^^nope, not a 'hotshit engineer.' got an axe to grind, or what???

btw, i'm sorry but geology really has nothing to do with this at all ;)

1) I AM an engineer. I deal with the "hotshits" every day. No axe, you just sounded like you were one.

2) lol. Geological dating techniques have quite a bit to do with this, actually, since the techniques that are used to determine how much CO2 was in the air 4 billion years ago, is something that was originally used to date rocks.

Not only that, but geology (mainly the convective properties of rocks in the lithosphere....don't worry, I don't really expect you to understand) have an effect on the earth's surface temperature.

How much CO2 would a large volcanic eruption emit? How many volcanic eruptions have we had in the past 100 years compared to the 100 years before that? Is me using this data, and then using the fact that the earths mean temperature has increased in this time, sufficient enough for me to correlate the two?

[semograd]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

To put that graph into perspective the early carboniferous period had about 1500 ppm of co2 in its atmosphere while the late carniferous period only had about 350 ppm. Today we are dealing with 380 ppm. Our temperature today is roughly the same as it was in the late carboniferous period as well.


There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

I think the earth is doing fine.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by semograd


HEY! have more respect when your speaking to us hotshit engineers! Besides that you are totally right. When you look at it from a geologists perspective the time when the earth was most saturated with CO2 was during the *cambrian* period.

As a matter of fact the only thing that saved the earth from being a gigantic snow ball 1 billion years ago was the release of evil green house gasses by volcanoes.

lol...hey buddy! I'm an engineer too, I just get fed up with how arrogant some of them are.

Geology FTW! I'm actually known as "the rock guy" to some of my friends. I freaking hate it.

[semograd]

Originally posted by texasnick


lol...hey buddy! I'm an engineer too, I just get fed up with how arrogant some of them are.

Geology FTW! I'm actually known as &quot;the rock guy&quot; to some of my friends. I freaking hate it.

K sweet, I see that you and I are on the same page :thumbsup:

[Legless_Marine2]

Originally posted by texasnick



On CNN.com?!?!?! It must be true.


High level summaries are useful for creating understanding, but insufficient as proof.

Meanwhile, discrete facts can be used to prove discrete points, but are insufficient to contribute to understanding.

If you want to understand someone's POV, high level summaries can be helpful. To dismiss it as not constituting proof shows only that your lack of understanding of critical analysis.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by texasnick


1) I AM an engineer. I deal with the &quot;hotshits&quot; every day. No axe, you just sounded like you were one.


nope, i'm a geophysicist/biogeoscientist, but i have a background in engineering and have used quite a lot of engineering models and approaches in my work

as for the cnn thing, it's a SURVEY of SCIENTISTS guys. do you think ionstead of doing a real survey, they just made it up?"

[nonlinear]

.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by Legless_Marine2


High level summaries are useful for creating understanding, but insufficient as proof.

Meanwhile, discrete facts can be used to prove discrete points, but are insufficient to contribute to understanding.

If you want to understand someone's POV, high level summaries can be helpful. To dismiss it as not constituting proof shows only that your lack of understanding of critical analysis.

From the article:



-- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.




Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.


I didn't dismiss anything. First off, CNN is not the most accurate source of information in the world. Second, it was a survey of about 3,000 scientists. Not a high level summary. Not only that, but this article doesn't give any evidence that concludes human involvement in global warming.

Anything else?

[texasnick]

Originally posted by nonlinear


nope, i'm a geophysicist/biogeoscientist, but i have a background in engineering and have used quite a lot of engineering models and approaches in my work

as for the cnn thing, it's a SURVEY of SCIENTISTS guys. do you think ionstead of doing a real survey, they just made it up?&quot;

I don't think they made it up, but a survey can be made to draw conclusions about anything you want, depending on the sample set surveyed.