A little rebuff to global warming

[Tigger]

KennyR wrote:

I think the anti-global warming crowd are just taking this opportunity to try to launch yet another publicity drive against a firmly supported theory held by tens of thousands of experts and scientists in 170 countries. Actually, I had expected the accusations to come from the other side first. Seems America's industrial ruling class and their pocket 'scientists' preempted it. Like Saddam's WMDs.

As usual, real scientists tell KennyR his most popular myth (actually Nessie is his most popular myth but we'll talk about that later) Global Warming isnt happening and he rants about the 1000's who believe in it.  Tell you what Kenny over 1 Billion people believe in Noah and the Ark, that doesnt mean its a scientific fact.  If you want to believe in Global Warming, thats great, if you want to talk science, then put some up, or just go away.
      -Tig

[Tigger]

KennyR wrote:
You know what, Tigger? Your country is probably the only place in the world where one can find a scientist who will actively aoppose global warming theory. Isn't that a little strange to you? Doesn't it ever occur to you that it's you who might be the one who's believing in a myth?

Thats funny Kenny, since I've quoted you lots of things from non-US scientists that say the same thing about the Global Warming Myth.  We have the huge space conspiracy you believe in, 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.  You completely dont want to talk about how 20 years ago your alma mater taught global cooling with the same fervor they have not instilled in you about global warming, I know, I know, this time they are right, right??  
      -Tig

[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
 

[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

[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

[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.      

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

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.

I go away for 3 weeks, and the warming kids come out to play I see.    As I have explained to you before Fluffy, I make fun of the scientists who in the late 60's and early 70's told us that the new ice age was going to be freezing us out  by the turn of the century (the land based thermometers cooling trend from 1954 got that started) and 20 years later the same scientists are part of the IPCC telling us that global warming is occuring.  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

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:


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.

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.  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.

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).

Not sure where you got that crazy belief, North America (which included all those glaciers I was just visiting) was definitely effected by the Little Ice Age, the biggest proof of the Little Ice Age (ie Greenland) is part of North America, so you are really running like a bull in the china shop with no clear direction in mind.  
     -Tig

[Tigger]

KennyR wrote:
I doubt he'd accept the results, probably calling them liberal propaganda or flawed IPCC science or something again. He'd be doing that still when his house is underwater, I think.

KennyR,

This is just getting silly.  We have a computer simulation based on the IPCC climate model (it says so) and you are acting like those of us who want a climate model that actually fits the historical data are silly.  Once again explain to me why we should use a climate model that requires deletion of two global climatic events (LIA & MWP) and throwing out the most independently verified temperature profile of the last 25 years for it to correct.  Dont you think maybe we should come up with a model that actually fits the known data instead of altering or throwing out the data that doesnt fit the model??
      -Tig