A little rebuff to global warming

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

[...] where every nation with a weather balloon, satellite or astronaut is helping NASA fake the cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC report you currently are in love with.

What NASA data shows cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC. Are those the studies that show changing heat distribution in the atmosphere where some latitudes and altitudes show cooling? Or is this some data that shows that everything is cooling?

[Bobsonsirjonny]

Last night I was typing up my youngest sisters homework - she wrote it all out in long hand and I typed it as she is slow and it had to be in this morning.

It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out. Thats two reasons to start taking a mature and adult response to the problems which we are brewing up. When the oil runs out we are screwed. You cant very well mine for Oil on the moon either - there is none there - infact there is no other planet yet discovered with the black stuff - and you'd use more fuel trying to retrieve it.

[glockspeel]

Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
Last night I was typing up my youngest sisters homework - she wrote it all out in long hand and I typed it as she is slow and it had to be in this morning.

It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out. Thats two reasons to start taking a mature and adult response to the problems which we are brewing up. When the oil runs out we are screwed. You cant very well mine for Oil on the moon either - there is none there - infact there is no other planet yet discovered with the black stuff - and you'd use more fuel trying to retrieve it.

She should do her homework herself...

[cecilia]

glockspeel wrote:
She should do her homework herself...

she did. he's just being a good brother typing it for her.
nice...

[Bobsonsirjonny]

I'm having to babysit her this week.. Drag her to school each morning etc.. To be late for work and get the grilling by those in charge. Yet they go off cos they need to take their cars to the garage etc..

Its quite funny. I knocked on her bedroom door at 6.00am - she didnt get up till 7.30.. I ironed her shirt for School - it was perfect. Even burnt myself doing it. She grabbed her breakfast and ate it in the car en route to her School. As soon as I dropped her off - she gave me a totally blank look, didnt say goodbye or anything. She Untucked her shirt, tucked her tie in between the third and forth button. Messed her hair up - and ignoring me did this weird walk through the main doors.

Its hard to describe the walk. It was kinda like a cross between MC Hammer and Micheal Jackson - had a sort of skip, drag thing to it..

Ah the joys of trying to be cool.. hehe :-D

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

With China and Russia basically on board and most of the industrialised countries, they can start putting the screws to the US via the WTO.

First of all Russia hasnt ratified the treaty and until they do (and 4 others by my count) the speculation is silly.  Secondly, since Kyoto gives China a pass on everything, of course China ratified it.  There are no restrictions on China made by Kyoto, despite being the #2 producer (and gaining) of the problem at hand, plus china runs at a net gain for the world of CO2, yet they are treated as a developing nation and have no restrictions placed on them.  Its the #1 complaint of Kyoto.
     -Tig
 

[blobrana]

Hum,

Yes and no...


OK, it should be widely accepted that humans have raised the global temperature (0.2 degrees this century), this is  a fact. The ice sheets are melting and the sea levels are rising...

But, it should be noted that there are large scale cyclic patterns that may confuse the outcome..

It's been about 10,000 years since the last iceage, we should be due for the next one at any minute: hum, perhaps in next one hundred years or so...
We should be painfully aware, that if (when) it happens, that upto 99% of all northern living creatures will perish in the frozen wastes, nothing will escape the big freeze that may hit us...Anywhere...
 
This fact taken with the latest satellite observations show that we are living at one of the warmest periods of earths history, and that a runaway greenhouse scenario may raise the temperature even higher. But eventually this will be `buffered` by the planet and that eventually the world will get cooler , a lot cooler, dude...


 :-?

[Tigger]

Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
.

It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out.

I appreciate you proving my point Robert.  Over 70% of the temperature increase in the 20th century happened by 1954.  Most of the CO2 increase of the 20th century happened post 1954.   Do you now see that blaming the CO2 increase for the small temperature increase post 1954 and saying the big pre-1954 increase was a natural phenomena (ie what the IPCC consolidated report says) is bad science??  And you are right, about the last 10K years, grapes for wine were grown in parts of England which wont support them now (too cold), the Viking settlements in Greenland are now under ice, I'm pretty sure they didnt build them that way.  
    -Tig

[KennyR]

Blobrana wrote:
This fact taken with the latest satellite observations show that we are living at one of the warmest periods of earths history, and that a runaway greenhouse scenario may raise the temperature even higher. But eventually this will be `buffered` by the planet and that eventually the world will get cooler , a lot cooler, dude...

The Earth does 'sink' excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and that sinking does increase in speed by the warmer the seas get. Fossil fuels are one of these natural sinks, storing biological carbon since the Carboniferous, when the climate was a lot warmer than it is now. Limestone has been storing it for even longer.

But as you know, that carbon doesn't stay trapped forever. Volcanism will release it eventually. It will be stored again, of course. But this takes time - if the volcanism is too extensive, it will release CO2 faster than the biosphere can store it. And you also know, from the fossil record, that periods of intense volcanism also match periods of very rapid climate warming, mass extinction, and desertification.

What the burning of fossil fuels is doing now is simulating intense volcanism. We push billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere which is not being recycled and which is streaming out faster than the biosphere can store it. The last decade has not only been the hottest on record, its temperature has increased faster than at any other time in the fossil record, barring mass extinction events.

Mass extinction is already occuring due to climate change. The environment is warming. This pattern is too familar in Earth's history to simply be ignored or dismissed. Every year digs up more evidence from now and from fossils.

[KennyR]

Tigger wrote:
And you are right, about the last 10K years, grapes for wine were grown in parts of England which wont support them now (too cold), the Viking settlements in Greenland are now under ice, I'm pretty sure they didnt build them that way.

And 10K years ago the Sahara wasn't a desert. The rising of the Himalayas starved it of moist winds from the east. If you say that large scale geological events could have happened unnoticed in the last 50 years and still be causing the average global temperature to rise geometrically, you're the one with bad science. Even the Gulf Stream cycles (which made Greenland's coast livable for a time) aren't so short.

And as for the IPCC - you keep saying this like I read a report once and formulated all my opinions from that. I remind you once again that environmental chemistry was an integral part of my honours degree, and I do know the science, and none of it was ever taught to me as political or even as data in doubt or in controversy.

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

What NASA data shows cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC. Are those the studies that show changing heat distribution in the atmosphere where some latitudes and altitudes show cooling? Or is this some data that shows that everything is cooling?

The NOAA MSU satellite data, you know the same data we talk about every time this topic comes up, at which point invariably it becomes a NASA/US government conspiracy and gets silly, if someone is on a role, the illuminati get blamed as well.  
    -Tig

[Tigger]

KennyR wrote:
 If you say that large scale geological events could have happened unnoticed in the last 50 years and still be causing the average global temperature to rise geometrically, you're the one with bad science.

Kenny, do you even know what the phrase rise geometrically means??   DO you honestly believe that the temperature has risen geometrically in the last 50 years??  Can you explain why it rose more in the 50 years before that with your theory??  Wouldnt by mathematical default that preclude the recent rise being geometric??

And as for the IPCC - you keep saying this like I read a report once and formulated all my opinions from that. I remind you once again that environmental chemistry was an integral part of my honours degree, and I do know the science, and none of it was ever taught to me as political or even as data in doubt or in controversy.

Gee you have a whole bachelor degree (new in the box and never used), and yet still aren't arguing the points here.   Why is the temperature increase of the first 50 years of the 20th century larger then the increase for the second 50 years, given the CO2 increase of the second 50 is by far the largest??   Does it really make sense to you to blame CO2 for the smaller increase??
    -Tig

[Tigger]

blobrana wrote:
Hum,

Yes and no...


OK, it should be widely accepted that humans have raised the global temperature (0.2 degrees this century), this is  a fact. The ice sheets are melting and the sea levels are rising...

Some ice sheets are melting, some are growing, we talk about this every time on this topic.   Since technically we are still in the Holocene retreat, this fact isnt terribly interesting or important.

This fact taken with the latest satellite observations show that we are living at one of the warmest periods of earths history, and that a runaway greenhouse scenario may raise the temperature even higher. But eventually this will be `buffered` by the planet and that eventually the world will get cooler , a lot cooler, dude...

Actually the satellite doesnt show that, it shows a cooling trend for the last 25 years.   As for warmest period in earths history, as we have talked about before 20th century is the 4th or 5th warmest century of the last 20, thats surely not one of the warmest periods in earths history.
    -Tig

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

Can you explain why it rose more in the 50 years before that with your theory??  Wouldnt by mathematical default that preclude the recent rise being geometric??

Can you explain why these graphs from you buddies at NASA seem to disagree with that statement?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.pdf

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

Actually the satellite doesnt show that, it shows a cooling trend for the last 25 years.

Make fun of the climatologists in the 70's for saying a new ice age is on the way by saying that climatologists today expect warming.

Make fun of the climatologists today for expecting warming by pointing to a 25 year cooling trend.

(As revealed by "the satellite". Which one is that Bill? What's wrong with the other ones? Wrong numbers?)

[Tigger]

Actually as you well know, the sentence was supposed to say "the satellite data".  Thanks for playing again Fluffy.  As usual instead of a discussion on actual facts we you playing confuse the issue.  As for the GISS site, the data as well as your beloved IPCC report agrees that the majority of the temperature change in the 20th century occurred by the 1950s.   I'm using your source, your data, you can't explain the answer they are given with there data, so are throwing more data at it.

Make fun of the climatologists in the 70's for saying a new ice age is on the way by saying that climatologists today expect warming.

Not sure what your point is here, but you are missing at least part of it.  I am making fun of the same scientists who claimed the ice age was coming for claiming global warming was coming 25 years later.  I also think it funny that KennyR believes its right because thats what they teach him in school, completely disregarding that they taught new ice age in those very same schools years ago.

Make fun of the climatologists today for expecting warming by pointing to a 25 year cooling trend.

Again, not sure what this is about.  My issue is that the satellite data verified by balloon data do not show the trends in either the troposphere or stratosphere to support the current IPCC Global Warming theory.  A theory that predicted dire circumstances over 10 years ago and which by the time of the 3rd report had to revise its numbers down hugely (for the 2nd time) because the data of the last 10 years dont really support the theory.