The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing

reply to post by TrueBrit


You're very correct here and I couldn't agree more in the reality of what humans should be doing.

Cause is secondary when impact may well be fatal. Adapting while, as you note, mitigating the best we can...but always secondary to adapting to a changing reality we can't 'wish away' or 'hope into moderation'. It's changing...and our weather does seem prone to more extremes on both ends. You put it well by noting the human stakes if we keep bickering over cause while people remain in the bullseye, just waiting for the next big event to prove the problem when it kills them.

reply to post by Kali74


It also has been shown that co2 follows global warming ..it's not the cause but could be seen as a result from warming .I could see the system we have taking the extra co2 and using it to grow more plant life and causing some cooling . The fact that the extra co2 was there is not in doubt but where did it come from and what caused it ..? It wasn't from humans burning fossil fuels .lets celibate and plant something this summer to absorb some of that nasty co2 and make some shade to sit under and have a cool drink .No need to be a member of the chicken littles and try and say it's all going to end because of co2 ...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


As awful as this sounds, we as humanity need a wake up call.

We've witnessed the devastating earthquakes in Chile, New Zealand and Japan and they got everyone's attention. However, as they are tectonic in nature and not weather driven nobody took anything away from it other than nature can be very destructive.

If we did have a winter where all the power and heating was lost in a city and people died, we'd all take note and start to wonder.
It's only because so far, so good as far as losing lives go that people are affording themselves the indulgance of pretending it's a myth or that it is happening somewhere far away from where they live.

gort51
reply to post by Mianeye

 

Actually during ice ages there were'nt many trees either, you would think.

If you believe the scientists, much of the Northern Hemisphere, including Asia, North America, Europe etc, were covered with up to 3 km of Ice (I dont know how they figure that out, but they are scientists??).

I dont think too many trees grow under ice, do they?

The Antarctica is the driest continent on Earth, but it is covered with Ice.......but it has no liquid water or rain.....or trees.

.

Oh really.

The Iceages are small, look here, it's nothing and the rest of the world back then was covered with forest.

Btw, during iceage Co2 is low

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It just concerns me that we are beginning to need to react to these things, and yet we as a species have dealt with disasters time and time again, where buildings which failed in catastrophic circumstances, were replaced with IDENTICAL buildings.

An example would be in tornado alley in the US, repeatedly a scene of death and devastation. If all the houses which are built to replace those which fail in powerful tornados, are built to the same design as those which failed initially, then the same result will surely come to pass. However, if new builds are constructed in the geodesic fashion, and armoured correctly, have decent footings and hardened access points, then a house need never come apart in a storm again.

The houses on the shores which were devastated by the quake driven tsunami in Japan, could be rebuilt in a shape which allows tidal action to merely sweep around and over them, with no water ingress. Using technology developed in both aeronautics and submarine construction, would allow pressure hulls to be created inside the walls of such homes, making them safer in the event of a sudden surge.

And now it appears as if river flooding will be a problem for the future in good old Blighty. I believe that all new houses built within five miles of a river or tributary, ought to have to have tall pontoons, and floatable hulls instead of walls and floors, which would allow them to rise up the pontoon, with the water level, keeping hearth and home dry, and preventing billions of pounds of damages.

These measures need to come on stream, as soon as possible in my view, and well before the argument over the cause of climate change, has finally dwindled to its conclusion.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Which came first the chicken or the egg? It actually doesn't matter. Let's say in the way way back, the Earth enters it's orbital warming phase, we're closer to the sun and our north pole is tilted away only a bit but enough that more of our planet is in direct sun during our 24 hour day. The planet starts warming and only because of the sun. This continues for a thousand years, life on the planet is great, thriving... all the plants and trees are massive but it's starting to get a bit too warm and permafrost is melting, and plant life begins releasing Co2 instead of O2 now, Co2 starts building up in the atmosphere which increases the warming.

So temp increase initiated that warming (400,000 years ago?) and accounted for about 10% of that warming period and Co2 and other greenhouse gas increases accounted for the remaining 90%. This is where you start to get into drivers, forcing, positive and negative feedbacks. Temperature directly caused by our proximity to the sun started that period of warming, so it was the driver... until GHG buildup in the atmosphere began trapping so much heat that GHGs became the primary climate driver.

When we began our current warming period, temperatures had been on decline, our proximity to the sun should have been/be giving us mild summers and mild winters. Nothing else happened to or on the planet to start a warming period except the dramatic increase of GHGs due to our burning of fossil fuels.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I couldn't agree with you more. If we started preparing now we would be in a much better position to deal with the changes as they occur.

Desal projects for the areas already known to be affected by drought, better building standards for those with storm issues, drainage plans for flood prone areas. The list goes on.

Sadly we as humans are worse than emus. We stick our heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening until its too late.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I really think this is a topic too big for people to wrap their heads around on the real global level. It's just too much and so, you get flat denial it's happening at all with blissful ignorance to support the good feelings those folks hang onto or you get people become almost obsessively fixated on single aspects of what may be causing it, as if through sheer will and effort..the titanic forces of nature can be turned around like a ship at sea.

Well, it can be..kinda...but takes decades to do, good or bad.

That puts us back where you started. We do need to do one of two things here and start real quick. We need to adapt to the reality of what we're dealing with here and take actions to accommodate the physical changes coming (both hot and cold extremes) or we can accept the %'s who will die in the coming years for lack of action to make those changes and adapt.

I'm near the center of the North American continent and far from any river that matters in this context. I'm on the right side of a massive geologic formation that acts like a big shock absorber to the New Madrid and whatever the Mississippi may have in store for people in times to come...so heck, this is little more than something to watch for me. I.E....No direct personal threat until far far more than my little area will be suffering. So why should I even care, right?

I'm like you tho... Why see so much death and crippling costs to nations that can least afford this ...by not facing the realities while we can still prevent so much of it? As simple as construction changes (In some cases)..Indeed.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by dragonridr

 

But with all things involving global warming there's a caveat notice he said this isnt the only cause so something else causing the cooling as well i guess.

I think that is the biggest problem we face as a species for response to our changing climate. Some want to say nothing at all is happening...and it's just routine variations on a statistical norm. Well.. Hogwash. Outright on that, I say. Others want to suggest it's all about certain gasses and this always seems to come around to how certain nations in very specific example, need to do this or that. Politics as usual there, and it's as reliable as clockwork. Still others figure it's 100% natural and man can have no impact at all (I wasn't far from this point of view myself, until fairly recently) and that too, doesn't track. Some things changing, aren't changing on geologic timelines but MUCH MUCH faster and beyond what nature is generally known for in changes of any significance.

I think the truth of this lay in it being a very complex interaction of factors. Some we can control, and some we caused. Most we haven't...but it won't matter if the one we DID is the trigger that nudges other natural processes over into critical phases. Whatever the case for cause though, I think it's causes in the plural, and a variety of them. Some, I really think we haven't even discovered or realized yet. Some..very likely..in the depths of our Oceans, to watch some of what is happening and marine life's reactions to it.

I personally believe that theres to many factors contributing to earth's climate.Like volcanos clouds oceans weather patterns melting ice in other places expanding ice. Were going to see a climate change of some sort . As for being shorter or longer that remains to be seen i think that even in the past we couldnt look at a hundred year interval. So one century to the next could have been wide fluctuations but we can only see the overall pattern. Suppose the climate is warming we could have 50 years of warming then cooling for 50 then warming only by tracking long term will we see the increase. Id say the major factor is the sun itself over the past million years its gotten brighter and will continue to do so until earth is a desert. This is inevitable luckily the process will take millions of years and hopefully we will have time to find a new home.

This is a question for Phage, if he comes here.

Now the earth rotates around the sun at about a seven degree angle from the sun's equitorial plane. So half the time we are on one side of this plane or the other, crossing over the plane in early May and early September. This plane seems to congregate some of the suns energy, sending it off into space. The solar cycle means that half the time one side is positive and the other time it is negative. This switching approximately every every eleven years is normal.

My question is whether the energy levels in these two different poles is different? If the north pole side has less energy flowing through it or the direction of the flow is different. It seems to me the spin of energy would change anyway. Based on the spin of the sun.
when we have a longer solar cycle length does it change the time the seasons spend in the high or low energy field. Meaning summers can be either hotter or cooler and winters could be warmer or colder depending on the length of the solar cycle. Maybe this is part of what they base the Farmers Almanac on. In the summer in the higher energy the summer would be hotter. while in the summer within the lower cycle the summer would be just warm

Crossing the equitorial plane seems to coincide with more northern lights in the sky during solar Max years. They start to peak in September. Now this is off from the equinox. The Northerners had a celebration around the sixth of December, different than the 21st. I think they were working their timeframe around this phenomenon. This could have effected their positioning of stones also, as this was different than the 21st. It was not until this last millennium that we actually tried to standardize things, ignoring what the pagan societies were doing. There seems to be two sort of equinoxes. Now the fingers that hold the earth in place, along with the other planets is different. I think they are called lines of connection of the magnetic field. These also shuffle energy to the earth as do flares that follow the spiral pattern to the earth and sometimes shoot straight here. This sounds kind of complex.

I got curious when I saw the sunspots traveling in different directions in relation to the picture on space weather over the years so started researching this. I found the seven and a half degree offset.

Now, this could possibly explain the hotter summers and colder winters we are experiencing now. It could also explain another cycle that needs to be investigated if it has not already been. Just an idea of mine, I can't find any info on this. This would mean that we cannot do anything about this other than weather it out and protect our environment. It would be better to watch our interaction with nature anyway if this is true, it would also make our need to monitor the environment more critical if we can tell something is on the way.

Global Warming (or its new and improved label-- Climate Change) is based on "averages" and "predictions".

In order to support this distraction the weather report should just report the, "Average world temperature out side right now is…"

What use is that?

The climate change in my hood is daily. Every night the sun sets and every morning it rises. The change in temperature and its effects on my clime is vast… about 40 degrees--- Overnight !!!

Whole climate change machination is contrived to keep us from the real subject of pollution. Mans emissions will kill him alright, but not with temperature, with toxicity.

Same with Chemtrails. If you mention jet exhaust some clown will swear its mystery spraying Chemtrails (which it is)…. get it?

So we argue endlessly about whether its a mystery or just pollutants from burning fossil fuels. Whether we are all going to die from the "climate" when in fact we are dying in droves choking on the effluence from our "technology".

See Gulf oil spill, Fukushima, and ask those people in Virginia about their stinking "climate change".

reply to post by Kali74


If you look at MM hockey stick chart we see co2 levels way way above the temp's ....there are so many studies that show graphs and charts making claims that seem to be more speculation then any true facts ..What seems to be hidden in the climate gate emails are hints that one group (the warmers] wanted to control the debate and use models (that do not predict) the actual reality .Their modeld tell us nothing except that that group has fleeced the sheep using tax dollars to create all this empty debating . They had a political agenda and still do and are still in positions collecting more money from us using tax dollars to do it and want to up the game to keep the gravey train going ....they have no solutions ....they just want us to feel guilted so we feel good about all the money they want to steal from us . If Goar really was concerned about sea level rises because of co2 then he surely wouldn't have bought those sea side properties and parked his planes and would have never have help create this notion of selling tax credits ...he is about the $ and so are many of the people working behind the scenes to create fear and desperation to the plebs so that our political saviors can tax us more and keep the money trough going .

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Kali74

 

It's been shown in ice core samples that the co2 levels were much higher in the past and we humans didn't have to do anything to bring them down to someones exceptable levels they are claiming that we need to now .Of coarse back then they didn't have the tax systems and stock exchanges to make the $$ they do now . One should ask ...did it really matter back then? ....were we almost wiped out? ..more co2 helps the plant life grow much faster with bigger yields .. seems that is a good thing ...

Back then was enough trees to help with the CO2. But now thanks to clear cutting the rainforests and other clear cutting of trees like in North America that help is gone. So now there is nothing to absorb the CO2 there are programs that people want to start planting trees but it isn't enough. Also since the start of the industrial age humans have been pumping millions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere and the amount as been growing geometrically since the start.

reply to post by buster2010

Pollution is one thing that we and scientist as well as politicians should be getting on about for sure .It's big business to rape the earth and as long as we keep getting bigger malls with more junk to buy and are kept in the dark about this stuff there will be a price to pay .But to buy into the man made global warming is more of a distraction and has no solutions to what waits for us .Heck even growing industrial hemp can be shown to be a big benefit for us . Change the discussion to something that has some solutions to climate change making better materials for building ,cloths,plastics,and fuel and get away from the global warming/climate change ...make these people that are creating computer models to predict the climate years from now ,build a model that can predict the weather next week and I might think they really have something constructive to say ....they are peddling doom porn and making big bucks doing it ,and it offers nothing constructive doing it .

reply to post by the2ofusr1


See my reply to FlyersFan. Also here's a link to a searchable database of all the emails. What's unfortunate is that the database I used to use you could flip through the emails in chronological order by author, that way you gain the perspective of entire conversations... anyway for w/e it's worth. When I read them the context was clear and there was no wrongdoing or ethics breech etc... Just some frustrated scientists fed up with the constant attacks on their work and the very intentional drowning by FOIA requests they were under.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I 100% agree with you. I know, I live in Quebec and believe me, the Global Warming is really not Global. This year only we hit the -30 C more than once.

reply to post by Kali74

and that debate is still going on ...the foir information was to check MM's work which should have been a good thing .As it turned out Steve Mctinyre had to go about finding the errors in MM's hockey stick .Now if you look at whats going on in the courts you still see him trying to avoid being transparent and saying things that are just not true .Nobel ,he is not .rigor he is not .What he seems to be is not someone anyone should trust . I am thinking that there will be stuff coming out of the court cases that will only shine more light on that dark soul ....

reply to post by the2ofusr1


The foia requests were done as an attack. Requests for one word etc... it was done just prior to IPCC proceedings for AR. It was meant to keep them from working. Also I think you're seriously misinformed on what's going on with the Mann vs Steyn defamation suit.

At any rate these old dinosaurs have no place in the topic hand and furthermore has no effect on what CO2 does in the atmosphere.

reply to post by Kali74


What percentage is co2 in the atmosphere ? It would seem to me that it's only a small portion of the whole .If it had the amount of effect they claim it to have then life probably could not have existed in the past .Look at MM hockey stick and you see a lot of co2 by comparison to other years but we don't see the heat unless we are to believe that co2 decides it's going to hide it's heat in the deep oceans and that has a ring like it's colder because it's warmer .Many word plays but they all have this man made cause that I just cant see how they could .

reply to post by buster2010


Actually there are more trees now than there used to be i read an article that explained how now we suppress forest fires and this means theres actually more trees. They were using this to explain why the numbers dont add up. See we dump CO2 in the atmosphere yet were not seeing the increases we expect even in models. There known as the missing CO2 sinks. We are trying to figure out the more CO2 we dump in the atmosphere than even in the 1900 yet we did get an increase but not nearly what it should have been. So they believe for one we save trees from forest fires and in the paper i read they were discussing the amount of CO2 these fires would create and they got rid of the trees to help remove it. In the paper they were saying we may even release less co2 than they did in the 1900s if we include fires.Interesting theory problem is again no one knows climate is far to complicated for us to know anything for sure.