Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells
DailyTech
. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
So again, crisis averted ... well, it never existed in the first place ... but at least we can focus on more real problems now ...
I heard of one study once.. somebody claimed that the global average temperature would directly affect the number of lightning strikes. They even put together something to count the lightning strikes. Never heard much after.. I always wondered what the results were.
This past winter's weather could send a mixed message. Globally, it was the coolest December through February since 2001 and a year of heavy snowfall. Despite that, it was still warmer than average for the 20th century.
If it is global warming, oceans should be warming ... but we can see the uptrend has been soundly broken. It is more evidence of a regular cycle than the runaway warming the alarmists are promoting, so we should calm down a ittle before passing more crippling CO2 laws.
yet combined temps were still .58 degree F warmer than the 20th century mean temps.
However, it was interesting that you posted only those parts of your article that support your belief. You left out this:
"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
are you guys gonna breathe a sigh of relief everytime you get a week of cold weather?
and this:
Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
So the REAL gist of the story is that this study does not have many or any answers, only more questions, contrary to what you imply by the title to the thread. Nice try, but not much of an article to argue your point.
I would CERTAINLY never direct the following quote towards YOU Rhino, but I did get a laugh out of what one poster on another board replied to someone else who tried to palm this article off as some kind of proof against global climate change theory:
Only an idiot or someone with their own personal agenda on this issue would read this as support for saying there's no global warming. All this says is that this bit of data doesn't fit with our understanding and is even counter to other empirical data, therefore, we don't know what it means yet.
I wouldn't presume to say if global warming is or isn't. I would, however, challenge the notion that it's caused by human activity and would even further challenge the absurd notion that eliminating captitalism and plunging the world into the enslavement of international socialism and global governance would somehow rectify the situation.
yet combined temps were still .58 degree F warmer than the 20th century mean temps.
However, it was interesting that you posted only those parts of your article that support your belief. You left out this:
are you guys gonna breathe a sigh of relief everytime you get a week of cold weather?
A week? This was ocean temps over four or five years. No warming but a slight cooling.
Where did you come up with .58 degrees above the mean?
So the REAL gist of the story is that this study does not have many or any answers, only more questions, contrary to what you imply by the title to the thread. Nice try, but not much of an article to argue your point.
The gist of my post is about the data .. the article is by NPR, they already believe in AGW, but they have no way to explain away this very significant data. It is not the NPR nuts that are going to argue my point. But they admit it flies in the face of their pet theory.
What you quote and seem to accept by faith is funny ..
"And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
So those that have accepted AGW have to define data in terms of their belief, no scientific method necessary. Over the last four or five years, the oceans have cooled slightly, which they redefine as "a period of less rapid warming"
The first paragraph says it all .... it has the data , then the NPR writer trying to explain it away.
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home
a puzzling message
. These diving instruments
suggest
that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That
could mean global warming has taken a breather
. Or it
could mean scientists aren't quite understanding
what their robots are telling them.
The message is not puzzling nor suggested ... it is data that says the oceans are slightly cooling over four or five years. Easy data to read... unless you have already accepted AGW over evidence. The writer can only accept that AGW is taking a breather, which is a goofy term ... it could also mean we are no longer in a warming trend, or that the supposed warming data is skewed.
But the writer of the article only offers one other option, scientists aren't understanding the slight cooling correctly. So according to him, cooling ocean temps over five years still needs to be understood in light of his theology ... it really somehow must indicate warming.
I would CERTAINLY never direct the following quote towards YOU Rhino, but I did get a laugh out of what one poster on another board replied to someone else who tried to palm this article off as some kind of proof against global climate change theory:
The goofballs that write the insults are true believers in AGW like you Hap ... I'm just looking at the rather significant data. This is evidence against a constant warming due to man made CO2.
Oh, and I believe climate changes, that is not really theory... and currently probably it has warmed one degree over the last hundred years. But if man's CO2 is still rising, and that is the theoretical cause, then these ocean temps slightly cooling over the last five years instead of warming, needs to be explained since it is stong evidence against the theory. They can't explain it away.
Ocean temps are much more stable than air temps, and whether we have accurate measurement within one degree over the last 100 years is questionable. Weather stations are moved, and buildings sprout up next to the stations. But the best data on ocean temps shows a slight cooling over the last four or five years ... which is significant.
the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming. In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can.
yet there is a big difference in the dynamics of how DEEP ocean temps (discussed by your article) and surface temps are affected by global warming. They are two totally different measurements and two distinctly different animals. Hey, I ain't even considering changing YOUR thinking on this, you have been clear. However for others that cared to hear another perspective, I jumped in to mention that the article did NOT say what you implied it did. But of course you are the judge and jury at the cafe about who is a goofball or on a high horse. Personally I think your horse is taller than mine but YVMV.
Further, it was NOT the NPR writer who made up those possible other explanations, but the scientists who were interviewed. One was Willis, who actually was doing the study, and the other was Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Both in the end paragraph were described as agreeing on this:
Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.
The +.58 degree combined land and ocean surface temp for December to February was from:
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 16th warmest on record for the December 2007-February 2008 period (0.58°F/0.32°C above the 20th century mean of 53.8°F/12.1°C). The presence of a moderate-to-strong La Niña contributed to an average temperature that was the coolest since the La Niña episode of 2000-2001.
I jumped in to mention that the article did NOT say what you implied it did. But of course you are the judge and jury at the cafe about who is a goofball or on a high horse. Personally I think your horse is taller than mine but YVMV.
Well the part about global warming being "cancelled" was tongue in cheek ... but the article did say what I quoted. And they don't have deep temps that you mention, the best temps they have surprised them, because it goes contrary to their theory.
Of course they want to understand this data in light of their theory ... but the data is what it is ... not warming, but cooling over five years. The article is exactly about this data being contrary to what they thought it should be. Thanks for the data link ... but the real issue is about the CO2, which keeps going higher, while for five years there is no warming according to the ocean data.
As for me judging who is a goofball, you cited some guy that was just positng a comment on some other site... he was a nobody ... why don't you just make your own insults?
The article title is
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
So it is all about this ocean data showing no warming. It is a mystery becasue they thought heat should show up in the ocean. A more scientific observation would not assume there is heat that is missing, but only state that there is no heat. Why not ...
personally, i think that "global warming" is a faith based religion and part of the currently popular gaia (mother earth) religion...
of course, it is being foisted upon on all of us (in the name of psuedo-science)... and that's where i have a problem... people can believe whatever they want, but they should not be allowed to enact legislation (which they are trying to do on a global level) to force me to accept their faith-based religious system...
global warming is about global CONTROL!
from an article entitled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming":
To begin with, those who believe the dire warnings of today's establishment press should know, as U.S. Sen. James Inhofe has pointed out, that "for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."
Believe it or not, over the last century America's major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."
Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press is changing its terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" or "climate catastrophe." That way they're covered either way: If the world gets colder, global warming is still at fault.
as i recall, when i was a youngster back in the 70s, there was a lot of talk about depletion of the ozone layer and global COOLING...
p.s. rhino, of course they cling to the theory over data; it really is not about scientific data... it's a faith-based system of beliefs...
Way back in time, shortly after the dinosaurs exited the planet, my teachers told me we were still coming out of the last Ice age. The result of coming out of the last ice age means we have to get warmer. At one time there were buttercups in Barrow Alaska, and fern forests and tropical bogs in what is now most of the United States etc (that's where we get coal and oil ,folks, that decayed vegetable matter.) So we are a long way from being out of the Ice Age.
And guess what? there's not a bloody thing we can do about it because planet earth is going to come out of that Ice Age and then start heading back to another ice age whether we like it or not-- So get used to it.
IN the meanwhile I have this snippet of a cave drum broadcast from the time before the last Ice Age.
drummer 1 " the Shamans all say that it is getting colder"
Drummer 2 " this is serious we need to build more fires to induce global warming"
Drummer 1 " if global warming doesn't take place we are looking at ice in the northern regions."
Drummer 2 " ice means that ocean levels will sink and fresh water will turn into glaciers."
Drummer 1 " dropping ocean levels will mean that more coast will be exposed--caves near fishing resources will be left miles from food stores leading to possible starvation"
Drummer 2 " lower ocean levels will mean higher salinity in the water and all fish will die off"
Drummer 1" larger exposed land masses will mean an increase in herd animals -- which mean more danger for hunters and families since predators will be more numerous due to larger heard.
Drummer 2 " the only solution is for the Federation of Caves to mandate that more wood be burned--even in daylight hours -- we need to set up wood stations so that people will burn more fuel even if they can't collect it themselves.............................
Unfortunately the wise words of the cave drummers were not heeded and the Ice Age came--thus leaving us in our present predicament
It says they dive down to 3000' ... I figured they took readings at all levels down to that ... and thought you were referring to
It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says.
There ... I found the Argo site ... pretty cool, they sit at a certain depth, usually 2000M, so more like 6500 feet. Then they go up to the surface and measure data on the way up ... then transmit and go back down ... so in the last four or five years, no warming, but slight cooling in the top 6500 feet of ocean, it would seem ...
So we are a long way from being out of the Ice Age.
And guess what? there's not a bloody thing we can do about it because planet earth is going to come out of that Ice Age and then start heading back to another ice age whether we like it or not-- So get used to it.
So it is those drummers fault .. nice you unearthed that broadcast ...
We don't even have to get used to it ... a one degree change over a lifetime is hardly insufferable ... not even detectable. But this whole "tipping point" scare mongering seems to get a big slap in the face from this ocean data. Not to mention that rising CO2 has not casued rising temps in the last five years, and that the portion of man made CO2 that can be reduced is even more insignificant.
Good to have you chime in TL
and you too jen-o ... it does seem a mother earth religion thing for many, and a huge political tool for others, and a giant source of funding for scientists ...
I remember learning something in TWI that still sticks with me today. Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
You're wasting your time by using logic and science here. Arguing with these people who have made up their minds is like trying to teach a paraplegic to become an Olympic gymnast. I know it's difficult to let people post nonsense here and make it seem like everyone believes what they do, but the majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat. This site is one of the few refuges angry anti-intellectual bullies have left, because anti-science views are laughed at in most public places anymore. Just let it go, and wait for either the anti-science crowd to grow up, or to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's simply not worth it to argue with people who are brainwashed and unwilling to think for themselves.
It's also unfortunate that this got posted on the Open section of the site instead of politics. Some people enjoy starting threads to create strife and arguments, and I guess the Political forum is too full of junk and they needed to try to stir up anger in other areas of the site.
"This site is one of the few refuges angry anti-intellectual bullies have left, because anti-science views are laughed at in most public places anymore."
THAT'S why you keep coming back to spew your socialist, racially bigoted and anti capitalist drivel. You got laughed out of places where rational people dwell.
I know it's difficult to let people post nonsense here and make it seem like everyone believes what they do, but the majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat. This site is one of the few refuges angry anti-intellectual bullies have left, because anti-science views are laughed at in most public places anymore.
The thread is about the science ... not all the stuff you just posted. ...
You don't have an answer why the 3000 buoys showed a slight cooling since they were put in service some five years ago ... all the way down to 6500 feet in the oceans around the globe? This is where warming should be most obvious in evidence.
CO2 up ... ocean temps down ... explain that science boy ... oh ... you're in your twenties ... I knew everything at that age also ...
Oh, but you are saying this is all about the science to you?
But I'm glad Hap spoke up, so i looked up the site .. it is really pretty nifty, pretty much live data from all these buoys ... technology is groovy ...
I remember learning something in TWI that still sticks with me today. Matthew 7:6
You're wasting your time by using logic and science here. Arguing with these people who have made up their minds is like trying to teach a paraplegic to become an Olympic gymnast. I know it's difficult to let people post nonsense here and make it seem like everyone believes what they do, but the majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat. This site is one of the few refuges angry anti-intellectual bullies have left, because anti-science views are laughed at in most public places anymore. Just let it go, and wait for either the anti-science crowd to grow up, or to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's simply not worth it to argue with people who are brainwashed and unwilling to think for themselves.
It's also unfortunate that this got posted on the Open section of the site instead of politics. Some people enjoy starting threads to create strife and arguments, and I guess the Political forum is too full of junk and they needed to try to stir up anger in other areas of the site.
Are you sure you didn't mean to address this to Rhino? Except for the nonsense about the "majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat" it was exactly Rhino's point. As a practicing scientist, I disagree that "belief in science" requires considering "global warming a threat." Adn certainly not anthropogenic global warming. Why is there so much more CO2 in the air than there was in 1950? There are 3 billion more people exhaling, for one. Why not just exterminate half the planet's population? Heck, getting rid of China and India alone would eliminate most of the problem (and you'd have all that coal-burning go away, too)!
Are you sure you didn't mean to address this to Rhino? Except for the nonsense about the "majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat" it was exactly Rhino's point. As a practicing scientist, I disagree that "belief in science" requires considering "global warming a threat." Adn certainly not anthropogenic global warming. Why is there so much more CO2 in the air than there was in 1950? There are 3 billion more people exhaling, for one. Why not just exterminate half the planet's population? Heck, getting rid of China and India alone would eliminate most of the problem (and you'd have all that coal-burning go away, too)!
George
Hnn.. I am also a practicing scientist in global variability...for 30 years. I'll not comment on this thread...but Gst G - I would be interested in you r professional observations. As an aside I am quite involved in the ARGO program as well as several others...all interesting and all inconclusive at this point. Pm at your leisure if you wish. Regards - RR
Hnn.. I am also a practicing scientist in global variability...for 30 years. I'll not comment on this thread...but Gst G - I would be interested in your professional observations. As an aside I am quite involved in the ARGO program as well as several others...all interesting and all inconclusive at this point. Pm at your leisure if you wish. Regards - RR
Oh come on RR ... you are directly involved and will not comment? Except to say this is not conclusive?
All I see is it seems sun spot activity is more the culprit, and this seems to agree with correlation with that more than CO2 levels. Sun spot activity seems to agree that we would have some cooling now ... IIRC But what other explanation is there for a slight decrease in such a large mass?
I don't quite understand how you are a scientist in "global variability" since you were 21. Were you not in the corpse? Were you in this field (was that a field then?) since you were 21? But you have commented with an opinion, why take it to PM?
Somehow I think cherry cheesecake may be involved ...
Somehow I think cherry cheesecake may be involved ...
I wish! :)
I'm also of the mind that the evidence for CO2-based (i.e., man's fault) global warming is far from conclusive. If I were one of the global warming alarmists, I'd focus my energies on mitigating the effects, rather than trying to stop the inevitable, much like Xerxes having the tide flogged because, darn it, he just should have that sort of power. Build a dike around the US (starting with the Rio Grande). A couple of feet ought to do it.
Why not just exterminate half the planet's population? Heck, getting rid of China and India alone would eliminate most of the problem (and you'd have all that coal-burning go away, too)!
I'm fairly certain Thomas Malthus would have delighted in that prospect.
Recommended Posts
rhino
Oh, and there's more ...
So again, crisis averted ... well, it never existed in the first place ... but at least we can focus on more real problems now ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I heard of one study once.. somebody claimed that the global average temperature would directly affect the number of lightning strikes. They even put together something to count the lightning strikes. Never heard much after.. I always wondered what the results were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
What a crock!
(GW that is -- and I'll leave it to you all to figure out which GW I'm speaking of!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
or not: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWar...tory?id=3342260 (suddenly vanishing lake)
or: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/19/s...warming-02.html (earlier blooming, earlier pollen allergies etc.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well ... this is just a guess, not based on anything but an opinion
But it has happened before, it is just a weak dam breaking ... hardly the same as ocean temps not rising.
If it is global warming, oceans should be warming ... but we can see the uptrend has been soundly broken. It is more evidence of a regular cycle than the runaway warming the alarmists are promoting, so we should calm down a ittle before passing more crippling CO2 laws.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
yet combined temps were still .58 degree F warmer than the 20th century mean temps.
However, it was interesting that you posted only those parts of your article that support your belief. You left out this:
are you guys gonna breathe a sigh of relief everytime you get a week of cold weather?and this:
So the REAL gist of the story is that this study does not have many or any answers, only more questions, contrary to what you imply by the title to the thread. Nice try, but not much of an article to argue your point.I would CERTAINLY never direct the following quote towards YOU Rhino, but I did get a laugh out of what one poster on another board replied to someone else who tried to palm this article off as some kind of proof against global climate change theory:
:lol:Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I wouldn't presume to say if global warming is or isn't. I would, however, challenge the notion that it's caused by human activity and would even further challenge the absurd notion that eliminating captitalism and plunging the world into the enslavement of international socialism and global governance would somehow rectify the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
A week? This was ocean temps over four or five years. No warming but a slight cooling.
Where did you come up with .58 degrees above the mean?
The gist of my post is about the data .. the article is by NPR, they already believe in AGW, but they have no way to explain away this very significant data. It is not the NPR nuts that are going to argue my point. But they admit it flies in the face of their pet theory.What you quote and seem to accept by faith is funny ..
So those that have accepted AGW have to define data in terms of their belief, no scientific method necessary. Over the last four or five years, the oceans have cooled slightly, which they redefine as "a period of less rapid warming"
The first paragraph says it all .... it has the data , then the NPR writer trying to explain it away.
The message is not puzzling nor suggested ... it is data that says the oceans are slightly cooling over four or five years. Easy data to read... unless you have already accepted AGW over evidence. The writer can only accept that AGW is taking a breather, which is a goofy term ... it could also mean we are no longer in a warming trend, or that the supposed warming data is skewed.
But the writer of the article only offers one other option, scientists aren't understanding the slight cooling correctly.
So according to him, cooling ocean temps over five years still needs to be understood in light of his theology ... it really somehow must indicate warming. 
The goofballs that write the insults are true believers in AGW like you Hap ... I'm just looking at the rather significant data. This is evidence against a constant warming due to man made CO2.
Oh, and I believe climate changes, that is not really theory... and currently probably it has warmed one degree over the last hundred years. But if man's CO2 is still rising, and that is the theoretical cause, then these ocean temps slightly cooling over the last five years instead of warming, needs to be explained since it is stong evidence against the theory. They can't explain it away.
Ocean temps are much more stable than air temps, and whether we have accurate measurement within one degree over the last 100 years is questionable. Weather stations are moved, and buildings sprout up next to the stations. But the best data on ocean temps shows a slight cooling over the last four or five years ... which is significant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
yet there is a big difference in the dynamics of how DEEP ocean temps (discussed by your article) and surface temps are affected by global warming. They are two totally different measurements and two distinctly different animals. Hey, I ain't even considering changing YOUR thinking on this, you have been clear. However for others that cared to hear another perspective, I jumped in to mention that the article did NOT say what you implied it did. But of course you are the judge and jury at the cafe about who is a goofball or on a high horse. Personally I think your horse is taller than mine but YVMV.
Further, it was NOT the NPR writer who made up those possible other explanations, but the scientists who were interviewed. One was Willis, who actually was doing the study, and the other was Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Both in the end paragraph were described as agreeing on this:
The +.58 degree combined land and ocean surface temp for December to February was from:http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/2...13_coolest.html
Scroll down to the Global section:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Well the part about global warming being "cancelled" was tongue in cheek ... but the article did say what I quoted. And they don't have deep temps that you mention, the best temps they have surprised them, because it goes contrary to their theory.
Of course they want to understand this data in light of their theory ... but the data is what it is ... not warming, but cooling over five years. The article is exactly about this data being contrary to what they thought it should be. Thanks for the data link ... but the real issue is about the CO2, which keeps going higher, while for five years there is no warming according to the ocean data.
As for me judging who is a goofball, you cited some guy that was just positng a comment on some other site... he was a nobody ... why don't you just make your own insults?
The article title is
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
So it is all about this ocean data showing no warming. It is a mystery becasue they thought heat should show up in the ocean. A more scientific observation would not assume there is heat that is missing, but only state that there is no heat. Why not ...
Ocean Data Shows Evidence of Global Cooling
But they cling to the theory over the data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
The temps Willis measured are 3000 feet down according to the article, not surface temps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
personally, i think that "global warming" is a faith based religion and part of the currently popular gaia (mother earth) religion...
of course, it is being foisted upon on all of us (in the name of psuedo-science)... and that's where i have a problem... people can believe whatever they want, but they should not be allowed to enact legislation (which they are trying to do on a global level) to force me to accept their faith-based religious system...
global warming is about global CONTROL!
from an article entitled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming":
as i recall, when i was a youngster back in the 70s, there was a lot of talk about depletion of the ozone layer and global COOLING...
p.s. rhino, of course they cling to the theory over data; it really is not about scientific data... it's a faith-based system of beliefs...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It says they dive down to 3000' ... I figured they took readings at all levels down to that ... and thought you were referring to
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Look folks, let the old lady speak here.
Way back in time, shortly after the dinosaurs exited the planet, my teachers told me we were still coming out of the last Ice age. The result of coming out of the last ice age means we have to get warmer. At one time there were buttercups in Barrow Alaska, and fern forests and tropical bogs in what is now most of the United States etc (that's where we get coal and oil ,folks, that decayed vegetable matter.) So we are a long way from being out of the Ice Age.
And guess what? there's not a bloody thing we can do about it because planet earth is going to come out of that Ice Age and then start heading back to another ice age whether we like it or not-- So get used to it.
IN the meanwhile I have this snippet of a cave drum broadcast from the time before the last Ice Age.
drummer 1 " the Shamans all say that it is getting colder"
Drummer 2 " this is serious we need to build more fires to induce global warming"
Drummer 1 " if global warming doesn't take place we are looking at ice in the northern regions."
Drummer 2 " ice means that ocean levels will sink and fresh water will turn into glaciers."
Drummer 1 " dropping ocean levels will mean that more coast will be exposed--caves near fishing resources will be left miles from food stores leading to possible starvation"
Drummer 2 " lower ocean levels will mean higher salinity in the water and all fish will die off"
Drummer 1" larger exposed land masses will mean an increase in herd animals -- which mean more danger for hunters and families since predators will be more numerous due to larger heard.
Drummer 2 " the only solution is for the Federation of Caves to mandate that more wood be burned--even in daylight hours -- we need to set up wood stations so that people will burn more fuel even if they can't collect it themselves.............................
Unfortunately the wise words of the cave drummers were not heeded and the Ice Age came--thus leaving us in our present predicament
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
So it is those drummers fault .. nice you unearthed that broadcast ...
We don't even have to get used to it ... a one degree change over a lifetime is hardly insufferable ... not even detectable. But this whole "tipping point" scare mongering seems to get a big slap in the face from this ocean data. Not to mention that rising CO2 has not casued rising temps in the last five years, and that the portion of man made CO2 that can be reduced is even more insignificant.
Good to have you chime in TL
and you too jen-o ... it does seem a mother earth religion thing for many, and a huge political tool for others, and a giant source of funding for scientists ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
HAPe4me,
I remember learning something in TWI that still sticks with me today. Matthew 7:6
You're wasting your time by using logic and science here. Arguing with these people who have made up their minds is like trying to teach a paraplegic to become an Olympic gymnast. I know it's difficult to let people post nonsense here and make it seem like everyone believes what they do, but the majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat. This site is one of the few refuges angry anti-intellectual bullies have left, because anti-science views are laughed at in most public places anymore. Just let it go, and wait for either the anti-science crowd to grow up, or to go the way of the dinosaurs. It's simply not worth it to argue with people who are brainwashed and unwilling to think for themselves.
It's also unfortunate that this got posted on the Open section of the site instead of politics. Some people enjoy starting threads to create strife and arguments, and I guess the Political forum is too full of junk and they needed to try to stir up anger in other areas of the site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
"This site is one of the few refuges angry anti-intellectual bullies have left, because anti-science views are laughed at in most public places anymore."
THAT'S why you keep coming back to spew your socialist, racially bigoted and anti capitalist drivel. You got laughed out of places where rational people dwell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The thread is about the science ... not all the stuff you just posted. ...
You don't have an answer why the 3000 buoys showed a slight cooling since they were put in service some five years ago ... all the way down to 6500 feet in the oceans around the globe? This is where warming should be most obvious in evidence.
CO2 up ... ocean temps down ... explain that science boy ... oh ... you're in your twenties ... I knew everything at that age also ...
Oh, but you are saying this is all about the science to you?
But I'm glad Hap spoke up, so i looked up the site .. it is really pretty nifty, pretty much live data from all these buoys ... technology is groovy ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Are you sure you didn't mean to address this to Rhino? Except for the nonsense about the "majority of Americans believe in science and understand that climate change is a threat" it was exactly Rhino's point. As a practicing scientist, I disagree that "belief in science" requires considering "global warming a threat." Adn certainly not anthropogenic global warming. Why is there so much more CO2 in the air than there was in 1950? There are 3 billion more people exhaling, for one. Why not just exterminate half the planet's population? Heck, getting rid of China and India alone would eliminate most of the problem (and you'd have all that coal-burning go away, too)!
George
Edited by GeorgeStGeorgeLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Hnn.. I am also a practicing scientist in global variability...for 30 years. I'll not comment on this thread...but Gst G - I would be interested in you r professional observations. As an aside I am quite involved in the ARGO program as well as several others...all interesting and all inconclusive at this point. Pm at your leisure if you wish. Regards - RR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Oh come on RR ... you are directly involved and will not comment? Except to say this is not conclusive?
All I see is it seems sun spot activity is more the culprit, and this seems to agree with correlation with that more than CO2 levels. Sun spot activity seems to agree that we would have some cooling now ... IIRC But what other explanation is there for a slight decrease in such a large mass?
I don't quite understand how you are a scientist in "global variability" since you were 21. Were you not in the corpse? Were you in this field (was that a field then?) since you were 21? But you have commented with an opinion, why take it to PM?
Somehow I think cherry cheesecake may be involved ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I wish! :)
I'm also of the mind that the evidence for CO2-based (i.e., man's fault) global warming is far from conclusive. If I were one of the global warming alarmists, I'd focus my energies on mitigating the effects, rather than trying to stop the inevitable, much like Xerxes having the tide flogged because, darn it, he just should have that sort of power. Build a dike around the US (starting with the Rio Grande). A couple of feet ought to do it.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm fairly certain Thomas Malthus would have delighted in that prospect.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.