Climate change-1970's style

Here's the top lines from the Drudge Report today...

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

The cold winter, the IPCC scandal, and the debacle in Copenhagen will force the Global Warming Shysters to spin data to show that CO2 actually causes a decrease in global temperatures.

Damned if we do. Damned if we don't... either way, they'll find a way to get your money.

Why can't we just face the facts... we don't know JACK SQUAT about weather!

reply to post by Anamnesis


Well I'm glad somebody has such a firm grasp of the intricacies involved in polar weather and climate patterns.

Maybe you should explain it to these ignorant NOAA meteorologists.

Michelle L’Heureux, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, told me there’s simply no explanation for what drives such extremes in the Arctic Oscillation, which she described as both a potent driver of northern latitude conditions and one of the least predictable, and understood, patterns in the atmosphere.

January 4, 2010, 5:39 pm
Cold Arctic Pressure Pattern Nearly Off Chart
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by mecheng
Here's the top lines from the Drudge Report today...

Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

The cold winter, the IPCC scandal, and the debacle in Copenhagen will force the Global Warming Shysters to spin data to show that CO2 actually causes a decrease in global temperatures.

Damned if we do. Damned if we don't... either way, they'll find a way to get your money.

Why can't we just face the facts... we don't know JACK SQUAT about weather!

Shysters aside... Do you know what happens if enough fresh water is introduced into the N. Atlantic waters? The warm Gulf Stream current shuts down and then the Northeastern United States, the Canadian Maritimes, Newfoundland, and Northern Europe all experience cold summers. Seems counter-intuitive to say that warmer global temps can make some places colder, but that's probably what happened in 1816, the year without a summer.

I certainly agree that there are those who wish to profit from the situation but that does not mean that the threat isn't real!!

Like I said before, it only makes sense to clean up and decrease Co2 emmisions. It's your planet and believe it or not, the little green men aren't going to save us from ourselves.

reply to post by Anamnesis


I don't see why you have to be so rude about it ... I simply asked a question. Your right I'm not an expert, I thought you were, thats why I'm asking you to explain.

Yes I looked at the charts.

I see now you are stating the gulf stream will shut down if too much freash water gets into the sea. My next question is why is that ?
What is the mechanism that causes the gulf stream to stop because of not enough salt. And how much freash water would it take to shut the gulf stream down ?

If you dont know the answer just say "I don't know" ... please don't be rude again.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by bigyin]

reply to post by Anamnesis



You do not even know what is going to happen tomorrow, much less x generations into the future.

A lot of the weatherman on tv cannot predict dark at night.

Wondering how you are predicting several hundred years into future?

Originally posted by bigyin
reply to post by Anamnesis

 

I don't see why you have to be so rude about it ... I simply asked a question. Your right I'm not an expert, I thought you were, thats why I'm asking you to explain.

Yes I looked at the charts.

I see now you are stating the gulf stream will shut down if too much freash water gets into the sea. My next question is why is that ?
What is the mechanism that causes the gulf stream to stop because of not enough salt. And how much freash water would it take to shut the gulf stream down ?

If you dont know the answer just say "I don't know" ... please don't be rude again.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by bigyin]

I apologize if my response to you seemed rude. The question seemed redundant.

As far as the Gulf Stream is concerned, my point is; that increases in global temperature doesn't always mean warmer temps in short term climate change in certain areas.

The quote from Michelle L’Heureux was taken out of context. The article concerns the Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO), not long term polar temperature change as it relates to global temps. Micro ~vs~ macro. the typical length of the MJO cycle or wave is approximately 30-60 days.

I'm done w/this thread as I think I have made my point(s).


[edit on 5-1-2010 by Anamnesis]

reply to post by Anamnesis

Folks, I honestly hope that it's all just BS but I don't think it is. Can we afford to take the risk and just "see what happens"?

You realize we might be wrong about the age of the sun... there is a distinct possibility that it will exhaust its hydrogen supply in the next decade and engulf our planet with its subsequent expansion.

There is a risk that there is an asteroid headed on a collision course with our planet. It could land before 2010 ends, wiping out all life.

There is a risk that a volcano could erupt suddenly in the center of New York City, engulfing millions of people in molten rock (hey, this has actually happened: Pompei!).

There is a risk that one super hurricane could wipe Miami off the map this spring.

There is a risk that Iran could have long-range missiles tipped with tactical nuclear warheads, and that they could launch them in the next 30 minutes toward the US.

None of these things have a high probability of happening, but all have some possibility of happening. So, what would you have us do? True, we might not be able to prevent a sudden solar expansion or an asteroid impact, but couldn't we move New York City to a safer place? Couldn't we just go ahead and nuke Iran? We might be wrong in both cases, but what if we're right?

Therein lies the folly in your argument. It is impossible to protect against every conceivable danger. Simply impossible. The logical course of action when confronted with a possible scenario is to examine the probability that the scenario is true as well as the possibilities to change it. In the case of CO2-based Global Warming, we have the following observations in favor of AGW:

• Carbon dioxide levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Age
  
  
• Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of combustion of all organic material in an oxygen atmosphere
  
  
• Temperature averages, as reported by international observatories (IPCC, CRU) have shown an increase globally until 1998.
  
  
• Carbon dioxide will absorb certain bands of radiation and re-emit them in a random direction, this making it a 'greenhouse gas'.
  
  
• Life on planet Earth depends on a fairly consistent temperature within certain limits.
  
  
• Greenhouse gases can trap heat from blackbody or solar radiation, slowing its escape and increasing the average temperature of the planet.

All of the above are true statements, and lend themselves to the AGW position. However, there are also observations that go the opposite way:

• Carbon dioxide levels have only risen by 100 ppmv, which accounts for a mere 0.01% of the volume of the atmosphere.
  
  
• There are no alternative energy sources which can replace combustion of organic materials at this time.
  
  
• Global average temperatures since 1998 have stopped rising and are even showing indications they may be falling.
  
  
• Compared to other components of the atmosphere, some of which exist in concentrations much higher than carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide absorption bands are so minor as to be almost insignificant.
  
  
• Life exists in more abundance and diversity in warmer temperatures than the global average at present, evidenced by the amount of biodiversity and density at the equator as compared to the polar extremes. This could indicate that warming by a few degrees could actually be beneficial to life.
  
  
• Carbon dioxide is a necessary and vital part of the life cycle of the planet, responsible for the ability of photosynthesis to allow plant growth. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, life would not exist.
  
  
• There is ample evidence that increased amounts of carbon dioxide are not toxic to animal life until levels over ten times present are reached. There is also evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels increase the speed of plant growth, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the process.
  
  
• Historical records that show a correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature also show that temperature increases precede carbon dioxide concentration increases.
  
  
• No worldwide sea level increases have been observed, contrary to IPCC/CRU predictions.
  
  
• Arctic ice is still extant, although it is shrinking. Antarctic ice is remaining fairly constant overall, with melting occurring in some areas and increased ice accumulation in others. This indicates that the Arctic Ice retreat is a local phenomenon.
  
  
• Polar bear populations, touted as a barometer of biological collapse, are at record highs.
  
  
• The data and models used to make predictions based on AGW theory are either not available to those outside the IPCC/CRU, or are presented in a manner which is so complex as to make true peer review by anyone outside the aforementioned organizations impossible.
  
  
• The CRU has been caught concealing private emails within the organization that appear to cast some doubt on the validity of their data adjustments and computer models. Investigation into this isnot transparent and is being regularly delayed by political and media powers,as well as by certain individuals in the CRU itself and in the IPCC. Therefore, the veracity of the IPCC/CRU is at best questionable and at worst criminally fraudulent.

So the confidence level for catastrophic warming is not as high as many have been led to believe. In addition, there are other occurrences happening that hold much more dire consequences for the planet, with much higher levels of confidence:

• Deforestation, especially in the equatorial rainforests, is leading to increased extinction rates, soil erosion, and the loss of huge numbers of natural carbon dioxide scrubbers, commonly referred to as plants.
  
  
• Over-fertilization and harsh chemical fertilizers are causing increased amounts of actual poisons in groundwater.
  
  
• The improper disposal of medications are also causing dangerous levels of toxic ingredients to turn up in potable water supplies.
  
  
• Intentionally added chlorine and fluoride to potable water supplies is causing elevated levels of these chemicals in groundwater as well. Chlorine and fluoride are deadly toxins.
  
  
• Litter is being produced at rates which swamp existing landfills and cause entire islands of plastic bottles to accumulate in the oceans,endangering oceanic fauna.

All of the above have serious immediate impacts on our environment,and can be corrected without destroying the economic and social base of our species. Confidence is high and cost is low, whereas AGW confidence is low and the cost is enormous.

So I'm sorry, but I am not buying that little graph that is regularly bantered about. It is logically flawed at its core.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Crackin post ... I like it

reply to post by TheRedneck


Excellent post. Can you please provide the sources for the polar bear, ice sheet and sea level statements you made? These seem to be frequent points of contention and I would like to research them further and would appreciate any help you can provide.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Polar Bears:

"In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."

Source: www.polarbearsinternational.org...

(The above is part of a question asked, and is an excerpt from Fox News. The answer, however, on a web site devoted to Polar Bear Conservation, did not dispute the validity of the statement.)

Ice sheets:

However, Monaghan et al. note that there is evidence of conflicting trends in ice sheet thickness across Antarctica: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been thinning over the past decade, while the East Antarctic Ice Sheet became thicker over the period 1992 through 2003 (Davis et al. 2005). Previous work attributed the thickening of the East Ice Sheet to an increase in snowfall accumulation across that portion of the continent, following the logic of a warmer atmosphere and therefore greater moisture capacity. The thinning of the West Ice Sheet, however, is not well explained. As it turns out, Monaghan and his colleagues do not think that the thickening of the East Ice Sheet is well explained either!

Source: www.worldclimatereport.com...

Arctic Ice (since you indicated a desire to research): Daily Arctic Sea Ice Photos

Sea level rise:
No, I do not have a link to that. What I have is an absence of links to global news stories about low-lying areas being inundated on a global scale. It is physically impossible for sea level to rise in one area without rising in all areas.

Water seeks its own level.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I've been banging on about sea level for ages. As you say its hard to find actual proof one way or the other, so I decided to check the level for myself by going down to the shore and checking it out. Guess what it is the same level as it was 30 years ago when I first moved here. In fact I would say its actually gone down because areas round here that used to flood on a high tide don't anymore.

Good work though ... thank you

reply to post by TheRedneck


So... there's a possibility that I may be killed in a car crash tomorrow through no fault of my own. Does that mean I should let my tires go bald and my brakes wear out?

Of all the things you cite as being threats, which ones do we have control over?

reply to post by Anamnesis

So... there's a possibility that I may be killed in a car crash tomorrow through no fault of my own. Does that mean I should let my tires go bald and my brakes wear out?

It would make more sense than trying to remove an invisible gas responsible for all life from the air.

The point being, however, the cost to keep good tires and brakes on your car is minor compared to the confidence you (should) have that faulty tires/brakes could result in a loss of control and therefore an accident. If the cost to maintain those tires/brakes was such that you could not afford to drive the car afterwards, then yes, it would be a wise decision to not worry about your tires and brakes... you just can't drive the car at all, and you will at least save a few bucks to get a bicycle with.

It would also be more apt with my post if you stated that perhaps you shouldn't drive because of the possibility that you could be killed in a car wreck tomorrow. That possibility does exist; so will you now refuse to drive or ride on a motorized vehicle?

Of all the things you cite as being threats, which ones do we have control over?

The sun: we could put all our resources into moving at least some of our population to another planet. Everyone could contribute, without pay of course because that would be the only way it could economically afforded, by assisting with the building of the spacecraft involved.

The asteroid: Again, it would take a worldwide grass-roots effort, but there are theories on how we could deflect an incoming asteroid.

The volcano: You can move a city! Just build a new one somewhere else and move everyone and everything to it. Cost is no concern, remember?

The nuclear threat: We could launch a couple bombs right now and remove any threat from Iran within 30 minutes or so. Again, cost is not an issue, is it?

Laughable explanations, aren't they? Well, let's look at this one:

The CO2: we could simply stop using any energy. We could live in caves, do without lights at night, use blankets to stay warm in the winter without heat, and walk everywhere we wanted to go. We could give up cooking food and eat it raw. We could give up reading since there would be no way to print books without technology. We could give up the Internet, phones, television, movies, video games, and even radio.

Oh, that sounds preposterous as well? Well, it is the only possible way to stop CO2 production, and even that will not stop our biological production. We will still produce CO2 by simply breathing.

Again, confidence is low, cost is enormous.

TheRedneck

What about acid rain? Remember that media blitz in the 80's? The focus of the scare-mongering seems to go in cycles.

Check out this google news graph for "acid rain". It peaks in the mid eighties than suddenly drops, forming an almost perfect bell curve. What happened to the acid rain?

news.google.com...

Then just as acid rain fell from the media spotlight, bam! Here comes the ozone hole scare which reached a peak in 1992 and slowly fell from the media spotlight until global warming took its place. What happened to the ozone hole?

news.google.com...

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Deny Arrogance]

Anamnesis-
I have a question about the ice core samples. How do we know what they mean? All I see is that warm climate and increased Co2 happen to correlate. But it doesn't show which one is the culprit. How can we assume that an increase of Co2 will increase temps. Why can't increased temps produce more Co2? Doesn't the tundra lock away Co2 in the frozen ground? If the earth got warmer, then all that Co2 would release into the environment...increasing the levels. What if the sun(or even other solar/space interactions) raised the temps. How can an ice core sample identify the cause? How do we know if it's not a third party outside of warm climate or Co2?

If anything, the core sample show a rhythmic heating and cooling cycle. It appears to be a natural process. How can it be said to be man based? Life flourishes in warmer climates as well, how is longer growing seasons a bad thing?

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thank you for your quick response. I look forward to going over the sources as this subject is one that I find extremely crucial in regards planned policy.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

My pleasure.

And those are quick responses. I have no doubt I could find many more links if I spent some time researching. I have a feeling you may find the link to Arctic ice photos extremely interesting. I know I did.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


yes... those explanations ARE laughable. However, those are not the ONLY ways to signifigantly reduce C02 emmisions. Presenting preposterous strawman arguments hardly proves your point. You've probably seen the movie "who killed the electric car", that's just one example of cost effective ways to reduce C02. It's a shame that Oil Co.'s dictate policy and actively seek to destroy technologies that would help reduce our dependance on fossil fuels as well as reducing consumption of electricity. I'm certainly not suggesting that we resort to living in caves but that's where we are headed if we continue on our current course undetered.

You say that confidence is low with regards to global climate change. That's just your opinion and I'm assuming that you are not an expert on climate or meteorology. So, I'm going to believe what the experts are saying, they indicate that confidence is high w/regards to Co2 having a direct correlation to increased tempuratures globaly. But you can certainly believe what you want, I can't force you to objectively look at the data.

@ LordBaskettIV ~ Please, do some research. There are plenty of un-biased resources on the web.

@ Deny Arrogance ~ Acid Rain? Caused by S02 and NOx emmisions from both natural and man made sources. A good example of how man can and does effect the climate. Since reducing NOx and So2 levels, acid rainfall amounts have decreased.

Meanwhile, in 1990, the US Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide.

Nat Geo article on Acid rain.

One last thing...

Obviously, we have two choices: The first would be to deny that we have any influence whatsover on the climate and just continue on our course consuming fossil fuels undetered hoping that our assumptions are correct. The second choice would be to take the warnings seriously and begin to reduce Co2 emmisions with the hopes that we can prevent catastrophic climate change.

reply to post by Anamnesis


This is not black and white, either/or as many alarmists try to frame it.

I am anti co2 fear mongering and profiteering not anti-environment.

I am an environmentalist. I have never owned a car nor will I ever own a car. I am all for reducing fossil fuels. I walk, bike or take mass transit which is electric here in San Francisco. My "carbon footprint" is miniscule compared to most Americans but that is not my motivation.

I am anti-pharmaceutical pollution. I recognize that many people benefit from drugs but most prescriptions are unnecessary. These drugs are now found in all of our groundwater. They are attacking the reproduction systems of animals and humans alike. Why wasn't this addressed by the UN?

I am an organic gardener and I grow my own medicine. I would love to grow my own food but don't currently have a yard or the space required.

I am against corporate farming, genetic engineering of food crops and pesticides.
Why wasn't this issue addressed by the UN?

Ever since the corporate-sponsored global CO2 alarmists/profiteers and the UN co-opted the environmental movement, more important and immediate environmental concerns have been all but ignored.

reply to post by Deny Arrogance


I agree that corporate profiteering is clouding the real issues which creates a backlash of distrust directed at anyone who believes global climate change is real and that we are partly or mostly responsible for the rapid changes occuring.

Further, I'm not attacking anyone's character here. I would hope that a discussion can be had w/out implying or insinuating negativity with regards to any person. I'm sure we can disagree without questioning one or the other's integrity.

And for all those who believe that climate change is a myth.... I hope to God that you are right!