Cooling?

I don't know about the rest of you, but it is Dec. 7th and I have been running around outside (central Ky) with my shorts and t-shirt on. It is not cold here at all.

For that matter, I think we have only had 3 or 4 days that have been cold enough for coats.

I vividly remember being a kid and needing a heavy coat by this time of the year. I can remember the ice storms we would get and how we could go out and "skate" down the street till we were too cold to move anymore.

Nothing like that now. At least not here. If we get any kind of winter weather, I would be seriously surprised.

VV

Originally posted by whatsup
1000's of the worlds top scientists are now in complete agreement that climate change is real AND IS MAINLY BEING CAUSED BY MAN (this time around).

Increasing numbers of top scientists are coming out on the other side of the issue as well. Do you find it odd that all of the scientists on the side of human caused global warming happen to be funded by the government to study it? It's a huge money train that stops when it's proven wrong.

Originally posted by whatsup
Folks that still will not believe what the scientists are saying are "flat earthers" and should also argue with their doctors, chemists, biologists, and all other scientists. Quite believing what Rush Limbaugh, Michael Crichton, Shawn Hannity, and fox news claims to know about this subject and START LISTENING TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO STUDY THIS DAILY are saying!

Great argument! If you don't agree with me, you're a "flat earther", ie. you're stupid. Your quickness to jump to name calling shows just how lacking your argument is. I suggest that you do a little research on the number of scientists that have recently come out against manmade global warming and look into the amount of $$ that's being funneled to the scientists studying it.

I'm in South Florida and it has been unusually warm for this time of the year. We barely had any chilly days at all. This week, weather forecasters hyped up a cold front coming down.. it lasted a day and not even a day, because it was only at night that it was actually chilly.

Originally posted by scientist
What forum do your moderate? I thought I was on ATS for a second.

Ah...here we go. Now it must get personal because I've dissed the junkscience website.

Well... I suppose you win then, because I refuse to debate on that level.

Originally posted by masqua
Now it must get personal because I've dissed the junkscience website.

no, not at all. I was actually searching for any theories on GW that also related to the Gaia theory, and came across a review of another book by James Lovelock about the exact topic, but he was actually embracing the GW theory, which sort of caught me off guard. Anyways, further on that page was a rebuttal, which then linked to junkscience for that graph alone.

I have no personal stake in the site, in fact it's the first time I've come across it, or at least the first time I noted it. I'm just saying that taking NASA as divine law seems a bit myopic. Plus, you seem to be refuting the graph based on the site the image was posted on. I highly doubt junkscience.com put that graph together

I suppose you win then, because I refuse to debate on that level.

It's a bit unfair, and a manipulative tactic to make a condescending comment like this. I'll pass it off as some sort of offense you took by taking something personally. Nothing of the sort was intended.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
But, as both phenomons are fairly predictable,

While I agree with most of your post. El Nino's and La Nina's are not very predictable. They are very observable ie. you can tell when one is weakening or gaining strength and what that means weatherwise, however they are fairly random in their sequence and length. You can have two El Nino's in a row, one lasting 2 1/2 years the other for only a year without a La Nina between for example.

We are getting a better understanding of the phenomena's but still haven't figure them out save for us observing if they are getting stronger or weaker. They do seem to be one of the more worldwide effecting weather phenomenas that's for sure.

Originally posted by Indy
While CO2 CAN cause temperature changes the amount is so small that it is irrelevant. However CO2 levels can be influenced by temperature changes.

I don't see how much of what you posted has anything to do with what the guy said. What he said was fine in that paragraph, you've just taken it to move into your normal areas of obfuscation. There was no nonsense there, CO2 has increased about 30%ish, CO2 is a GHG, GHGs cause warming.

We know there is a degree of lag during deglaciation, it doesn't matter. No-one would suggest that CO2 magically appears in the atmosphere, it would have some cause, and that is an initial rise in temps.

But lets highlight the nonsense in your post. Good to see you've moved on from the binary thinking here, but only to a position of 'the amount is so small'.

Where does this come from? Especially considering the best estimates we have are that GHGs accounted for about 30-40% of the warming during deglaciation (Hewitt & Mitchell, 1997). That's not small. If we take it as 5'C warming, GHGs account for about 1-2'C of this.

It has been shown that increasing CO2 levels has a diminishing return on the greenhouse effect. So that would be an unlikely culprit in any significant warming. As I have explained and as the Vostok core samples indicate CO2 levels are simply along for the ride.

It doesn't mean it's an unlikely culprit, it just means there will be some limit to the effect it can have. Thus, if 280-560ppm gives 2-4'C (2x), then 2x-4x would give a bit less than this (but not much at all at this level). We could take up 10,000 times the preindustrial level (280ppm) and still be increasing the greenhouse effect. Lots of room for increasing radiative absorption for CO2.

And now we move from 'so small' to 'along for the ride'. Not when it might be accounting for about 30-40% of the warming during deglaciation.

Based on the Global Warming caused by man theory this would not be possible. It would be impossible for temperatures to fall in advance of CO2 delinces.

Why not? If something like orbital variations provided less solar radiation then it would pretty easy, no?

You seem to falling into binary thinking again here.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by melatonin]

Rainy everyday here in England.
Damnit we're all gonna die of this boiling unexpected weather in winter.

Originally posted by MiRRoR_MuSiC

but if it is warming the raining and snow would make sense, with warming temperatures it means more water is being evaporated, creating more clouds, clouds that will provide more cover and more rain, with more cloud cover, the earth cools because the clouds reflect more sunlight, maybe mother natures way of keeping some form of equilibrium,

So why do most models of GW seem to indicate drought and other bad things in many areas but don't show the areas where rainfall or other attributes of GW will increase and help?

The truth seems to nearly always lie in the middle of a debate. We all have various evidence, based on where we live, that affects our opinions.

I'm another person who lives quite far north. Here there have been no winters or summers outside of historical norms. In fact a significant record low happened in recent years. Most of the records listed by the NOAA happened in the 1960's or prior to the 1930's from a quick search.

Last year I got to looking at averages on the Weather Channels website and wondered what they were based on. I went to the NOAA and looked up what is available. It soon became clear there must be a lot of guess work going on. Go back over 70 years and there is no way on this earth they can claim enough data to make any suppositions about these topics. Ever wonder how they can even make a statement about temperatures prior to the mid 1900's? They have some highly localized data but entire areas of the earth are ignored or averaged in as far as I can see. They talk about past centuries as if they have data equal to today's. What a scientific travesty. I may not be qualified to make the calculations but it does not take a genius to know if they don't have accurate data their assumptions can't be anything more than politically expedient. Global Warming may well be occurring but proof? They don't have it. Their just trying to validate their jobs and incomes.

The outcome of my comparison of the averages presented by the Weather Channels site? I took all the available data from NOAA and did a simple average which any child could do. The Weather Channels listed averages were off around 3 degrees in my opinion. The error supported Global Warming and the real number from the NOAA data probably does not.

Public opinion clearly has to do with where a person lives. It does not account for the fact that if it is warmer than usual in one area it is always cooler than usual somewhere else. I have noticed that I can use the weather in NY to predict the weather here in Anchorage. If it is colder than normal in NY it is nearly always the opposite here. In fact it is more accurate than the TV Weather Report just from casual observation. For instance it has been warmer than usual here which relates to what you are saying.

Another issue is I have spoken often with Slope Workers (Oil Workers in the northernmost part of Alaska). They tell me that the Polar Bear population is exploding and it is getting so dangerous they have to take along an extra person with a rifle to protect them when they work in the field. The complete opposite of what the GW crowd reports. Who is lying. Well, it is clear to me the workers are telling the truth. So why are they lying about the bears? There are numerous articles about the problems they are having with the increasing number of Polar Bears in Canada as well. All of this can't be true unless some manipulating of evidence is happening in the scientific community. Can it? Somebody is clearly rigging the information.

Add the above to the knowledge that Mars and other planets are also warming and what do you get? What I get is the scientists are protecting their jobs by validating them through exaggerations and suppositions. They are throwing the scientific method out the door with the trash.

I currently believe that we are warming at a slow and less than dangerous rate. I believe we do have an impact but it is a tiny part of the real cause and that this would be happening if we did not exist. The blame game is simply a Political Tool improperly used to excite the public for less than honest reasons. We all want clean air and water but do we want to be scared needlessly and lied too at the same time? I don't and I'm less than impressed by these so called scientists who clearly are lying for money.