A little rebuff to global warming

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:

Quote from Al Gore yesterday.
"Gore said, "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend asking the question: 'Could this really happen?'

That's probably true.

I think we need to answer that question."

That is also true.

Two true sentences next to each other. Better than Bush can do.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
Won't make the "Doom & Gloom crowd very happy.

This is just a movie review saying that the science in the movie is bad. That's completely normal for a movie. The only quote from the thing that seems to be from a scientist says:

Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, knows more about ocean currents than most anyone. He thinks the nonsense in The Day After Tomorrow detracts from the seriousness of the global-warming issue.

Did you read that? detracts from the seriousness of the global-warming issue. Doesn't say he thinks global warming is nonsense, implies that it isn't but that this movie makes it look like nonsense.

As to the Atlantic Conveyor / Gulf Stream -

Historically it has shut down from time to time and when it does it does it on very short timescales and takes a while to get going again. It is quite dependant on Northern waters maintaining high salinity and that can easily be threatened by polar melting.

http://www.destinasjontromso.no/gulfstrmmens_historie_eng.htm
http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html

BTW, seems that Russia will now ratify Kyoto. Oh that devious Pooti-poot.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"BTW, seems that Russia will now ratify Kyoto."
---------------

Fluffy, do you really think Russia ratifying the treaty will make any difference in Russia?

Yes. Sure, but it will also make a difference in the rest of the world and could hurt the US (which would be part of the reason why Putin is doing it). He's doing it to get conscessions on joining the WTO, so now he'll be in the WTO with an edge. It also makes the US the bad guy in not ratifying. It isolates the US and gets Russia in cosy with the Euros. Now the US can't say that they won't ratify because the Russians won't as they will.

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.

[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?

[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?)

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:
Actually as you well know, the sentence was supposed to say "the satellite data".  Thanks for playing again Fluffy.

You're welcome.

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.

up .4 C from 1900 to 1950, another .5 C from 1950 to 2000 ?
Are you looking at the same graph I'm looking at?

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,

That's because you can't read two sentences in a row. Splitting the two up looses the point. Oh, but you really knew that, that's why you split them up in your reply.

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.

Back in the 50's the continents didn't move around.

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.      

Science gets revised. Perhaps you are confusing it with religion.

Anyway, the ground temperatures suggest warming. The atmospheric temperatures are all over the map suggesting increased movement, consistant with increased energy.

You complain that the model doesn't model the data well, and that's true, but that is no reason to revise the data.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ KennyR
"And if you think Hollywood summer blockbuster movies can be any kind of serious propaganda, I understand better why you're a Republican, Red."
-------------

Are you really going to ignore the perfect example of "the China Syndrome" movie that they have already used, and I previously pointed out to you.

And was pointed out to you by the article you posted.

[FluffyMcDeath]

blobrana wrote:

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...

With the interglacials being about 10k years and the current one having lasted 10k years, there was an expectation among climatologists that we should start heading into a new ice age in the next few thousand years. This is probably what Tig is always refering to when he tries to make fun of those silly scientists.

But those silly scientists seem to have found that not all interglacials are created equal and it looks like ours (if history and astronomical cycles can be counted on) should last almost 30k years.

More info on epica (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica). Also, seems that our current atmospheric carbon load is at a 440k year max.

A paper can be found here (pdf).

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:
I also laugh at scientists (ie the IPCC gang who funds most of your global warming studies) who are busy deleting the Little Ice age and the Medieval warming as climatic events from history so the can make statements like "warmest century in 10K years" or fastest temperature increase in 20K years.   If you have a global warming theory that doesnt have to delete known climatic events, thats great lets talk about that, but Kyoto and its IPCC backers are using bad science, and I refuse to sit around and act like its ok to delete climatic events just to make there theory make sense.   I just got back from seeing 27 glaciers that were formed as part of a climatic event that the IPCC says didnt happen, our friend Whabang is talking about that very event above, its very important in his countries history, according to current Global Warming theory (IPCC) it NEVER happened.      
     -Tig

Well, while we're covering old ground, I already pointed out to you that your assertion is in error. I'm not sure if you've read the IPCC material, but they do point out that, while those events did occur, they were local phenomena, not global. The trees in North America seem to have completely missed them, if you can trust their rings (which I suppose you can't because they're a bunch of liberal eco-freaks that want you to live in the stone-age).

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:

And as I pointed out earlier your supposition is incorrect, I've read all 3 reports cover to cover, I'm virtually sure you have not.

Perhaps I am confusing the reports with an ancilliary document. If I get the time, I'll do a search.
 

Saying an event that occurred thoughout both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and effected all 7 continents to be a local phenomena is both ludicrous and deceitful.

Indeed, and so is saying that something that was local effected all 7 continents and both Norhern and Southern hemispheres.

The left leaning wanna-be-eco-cavemen-freaks at Science Daily disagree. But that's just the liberal gibberish you can expect from university and NOAA types!! (spit)

edit --
OK, I took a quick look, and it was actually ridiculously easy to find. In IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. It's section 2.3.3 "Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”?"

Here's a link.