80 degrees in January is NOT okay with me

This is why trying to talk about this subject is like trying to convince a birther that Obama has a birth certificate.

So lets make it simple shall we?
Nature has cycles that cause Global and Regional climate changes. All humans have done is accelerated the process a bit.

I was a professional paraglider pilot and used thermals to soar, sometimes for hours. Something as simple as a parking lot in an area there was previously not one, changes the dynamics of that area. I also fly balloons. Something as simple as a road, a cool grassy field or flying over water changes the dynamics significantly.

So, I would have to argue that humans build roads and parking lots, they change the local climate and that is undeniable to a soaring pilot.

If I notice these changes on a small level what effect do you think it may have to build roads and parking lots all over the world? Now add in factories that produce large areas of warm air where there was previously cool air.
Now add in tossing tons of pollutants into the air. Those particulates have mass, air reacts to mass.

Too complicated for you yet?


Added: The single largest mistake made by scientists was using the term "Global Warming" They should have called it "Climate Re-organization.

reply to post by Mamatus

The discussion is about the effect of co2 though and not the urban heat island effect which the pro warmists loves to ignore when us skeptics bring it up.

The so called consensus claims that this effect is too weak to even affect weather stations even though they are pretty much sitting right ontop black asphalt.

And again co2 is not pollution.
I would also like to see anyone explain why co2 is mostly lagging behind temperatures and not the other way. I would also like to know why we had ice ages starting even when co2 levels was in thousands of ppm range which is supposed to be way higher than what is supposed to cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

There is just no evidence for the current warming being mostly from co2.
And now we got yet another study that contradict previous claims: link

Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern­mental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”. –John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013 The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

The truth is no one #ing knows how much of the warming is from humans. But if you look at past history you can see that it is nowhere near what warmists predict.

Regardless of the amount, humans have had an effect. THAT IS MY POINT.

Originally posted by Mamatus
Regardless of the amount, humans have had an effect. THAT IS MY POINT.

That is true and something we all agreed on since beginning. I dont know of a single skeptic who disagree with this. The disagreement is only about how much warming is human related.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by IamCorrect
Just thousands of years ago, the Sahara desert was allegedly green and lush. If it was just now starting to become dry, activists would be blaming that on carbon emissions, too.

Source

It was green and lush - at the time of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago. Massively different climate conditions.

Perhaps you missed the first sentence of the article, which reads, "At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today."

But all mention of the "ice age" does is bring up another point. Are humans responsible for those, too?

Humans are partially to blame. That is no longer possible to deny. As for the ice age comment? It is not rooted in anything other than sarcasm. So IMHO if that's all you have got to counter the argument I would venture to say that you may not be a climate scientist......

reply to post by pasiphae

It sounds like you can expect 110 degrees late this coming summer then.

Originally posted by Hushabye
It'll go back to normal. We had a 60° winter in Buffalo last year. It only got cold enough to snow like twice all winter.

This winter we're back to normal. All this week it's been single digit temperatures. Today it's a balmy 20°!

I concur with you on that! I live below Buffalo in Jamestown NY and last winter was creepy warm now this winter seems more legit. Although the single digits temps were tough this week!

Ice on the way Sunday supposed to be 30 Monday 40 and rain tuesday 55 and rain Wednesday 44 and rain Thursday 22 Friday 20 and so on . Could be a mess tomorrow night and Thursday morning

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by pasiphae

 

It sounds like you can expect 110 degrees late this coming summer then.

yes, good thing i got a new A/C. a couple of summers ago (or was it one summer ago) it was 110 for 2 months straight. it was AWFUL.

reply to post by Mamatus


you're right. the people on the side of denial will never believe anything someone who talks about climate change being accelerated by humans.... and vice versa.

as for the comment about humans causing the ice age.... that happened over a much longer time period. i don't deny that the earth has changed many times over it's history. what's happening now is RAPID change. that's the issue. it's too fast for us to be able to adapt well. there are too many people and too many things we need to change to adapt to it in time.

reply to post by Mamatus

So I guess that means you don't have any predictive models or predictions made in general that can be sourced for what was said in the last 15 years to what has happened .....where it actually did happen?

I'll be straight on this. I've seen this debate played out on this precise point at much higher levels than we're at here or I've personally engaged in it. I've never seen that point answered in an accurate and direct way. So I didn't much expect that to change here and suddenly find an environmental scientist HAD been right on a past prediction of 'climate change' related impact coming to pass.

It never hurts to ask though... Someone may have an example where it was more than pure guesswork and SWAG.

SWAG's aren't something to base policy on or make plans by though. When they actually have something predictive that pans out to show the modeling everything ELSE is based on has a known accuracy? I'll stop chuckling about consensus statements. Science isn't consensus. It's a lot less subjective when it's valid, IMO.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Think you have seen this debate? Did you miss the part where I said I was a delegate (for a very well known NPO) at the Governors Conference on Climate Change? I have seen this being played out at the highest levels. I have seen those that truly care for other humans and I have seen those that look at Climate Change as nothing more than a opportunity to make money.

Sadly, if people have no opportunity to profit from making sweeping changes then no changes will be made.

BTW I told some folks 15 years ago that calling it "Global Warming" was a mistake. It gave the deniers an opportunity to say "We just had more snow than ever" and ignore the obvious. Climate change is happening. Some places will flood (already have) others will suffer extreme drought (Texas), others will have more snow and ice (UK Russia). That the climate is changing is no longer up for debate.

Instead of divisive arguments we should all work together to deal with the changes. Arguing why the changes happened is a waste of time. Being Americans we are as destined to disagree on this as we are racism, gun control, religion and politics.

reply to post by Mamatus

I heard what you said on background and so, my question on modeling that at least gives some basic support to the theories being valid wasn't rhetorical or in jest. It was a serious and sincere question on the topic. People here claim a great many things though. I, myself have led a very diverse life with a real range of experience.....and I'll bet maybe 1/4 of that is believed by anyone until or unless the topic presents itself to source and support a part of that background somehow beyond mere words to claim it. Hence, asking at a level I wouldn't even bother with most in this debate. You may just have had something supportive for data. It WAS worth the effort, in my view.

I'll be happy to support measures to address climate change...when we know beyond presumption and faulty modeling, what is causing it and which direction, if either in particular, it's going. The 1970's had a mini Ice age of the 1600's variety predicted to repeat. Now, it's warming ...but still some DO suggest cooling.

If we jump one direction when the climate we're trying to understand is actually going the OTHER? Well, the moves made to solve the perceived problem will actually greatly compound it as realization of the error dawns far too late.

It's that trial and error part I dispute and find impassible until reliable and repeatable data is available to work from. Some of that DID seem to exist at one time....but then the handlers were busted with emails showing some had been massaged and nudged to read better. That's the kind of thing it's VERY hard to recover credibility from, eh? Solid data doesn't need massaging, just presenting.

Enjoy the blessing. It's normal, and cold, in Illinois. Some of my best memories are of skiing in January, and hitting a tennis ball against a wall while wearing Summer clothes the next day. Most doom porn freaks were whacking to the coming ice age, back then. Whichever way the wind blows is a great ideology, for blades of grass, politicians, and those who wish to become world tyrants.

Try to get over your feelings of having low self esteem. If possible.

reply to post by Mamatus


I agree that humans are accelerating global warming. It could actually turn into another ice age too. That is unknown. Common sense approach's to combat the fact are pretty much non-existent. For instance, cars, Cars run great on natural gas, they pollute far less,they require less frequent oil changes, fewer engine repairs due to less carbon buildup. Fewer parts to be replaced equates to less production of said parts and cleaner air. Yet, we don't build the infrastructure required to make the switch. This has been known for over 40 years. They simply do not care about global warming. Why, i don't know. Just building the infrastructure would create massive amounts of jobs. Instead we blow hundreds of billions of dollars building solar panels that very few can afford and China builds cheaper anyway. They could have pumped that money into natural gas and effected huge change.

Originally posted by Mamatus
Humans are partially to blame. That is no longer possible to deny. As for the ice age comment? It is not rooted in anything other than sarcasm. So IMHO if that's all you have got to counter the argument I would venture to say that you may not be a climate scientist......

But again skeptics have never denied that humans are partially to be blamed. So I dont know why you even bring that up here.
What skeptics claim is that it is an insignificant amount and poses no threat to our planet. I myself think that a doubling of co2 would not increase temperature more than 0.xc

Originally posted by pasiphae
reply to post by Mamatus

 

you're right. the people on the side of denial will never believe anything someone who talks about climate change being accelerated by humans.... and vice versa.

as for the comment about humans causing the ice age.... that happened over a much longer time period. i don't deny that the earth has changed many times over it's history. what's happening now is RAPID change. that's the issue. it's too fast for us to be able to adapt well. there are too many people and too many things we need to change to adapt to it in time.

You are actually very wrong. What led to the ice age happened over a long period, but the onset and end of a ice age apparently happened very quickly. Ice core studies show that there were drastic climate shifts that happened over the course of just decades.
And you might want to look at the climate earlier this interglacial period and you will see that current warming is not that rapid compared to previous warming and cooling cycles. You also have take into the account the strongest solar grand maximum since beginning of the holocene period as well as warming up from little ice age and previous cooling period. When this current warming cycle started it was actually pretty cold compared to the average for holocene. The little ice age was also one if not the deepest cooling period in the entire holocene with exception of younger dryas.
And what happens after a cold cycle ends?? Then it has to warm up back to "normal" and then what happens when you add a grand solar maximum ontop of that?? Then more warming and there you have our current warm period that is not even as warm as the previous ones. Again what makes this current warming period so special?

At least we will get our answer within 10 years if we get another weak solar cycle.

reply to post by pasiphae


At least you see it, you are not one of the damned frogs in the pot. Stay alert and know that by being alert you are already blessed and a true survivor. Trust your own self and your higher intuition. I would love to discuss more sometime but am exhausted from getting my gardens ready. Doing the barebones work, prepping, and taking the heat as the neighbors, some family and friends think I am nuts.

This time of year is all wrong, I am doing the stuff today that I generally do in late feb. or march. Yes there may be some cold snaps, some snow, but I also think that we are going into a severe drought this summer, that food is going to be sky high and contaminated crap from china and Mexico.

There is no time to waste. Each day finds me doing something towards getting food up before the heat of summer.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My particular specialty in that environment is not one of science. I do not have a litany of graphs and charts to parade about too make my argument for humans causing or accelerating the changes. I am more of an analyst/researcher. I look over documents for contradictions and I follow the money when arguments are presented that may not be true. It is not my job but something I volunteered for as my Uncle was in need of some help and NPO's are cheap lol. I am also a logic geek.....

I am however at dinner with policy makers a few times a year and have been called upon to be a presence at a few events. It has given me the ability to hear things that one usually does not.