How did they stop Global Warming so quickly?

[BrownOut]

Global warming didn't go anywhere. As we've established, Canada was as warm as the US was cold. Yeah, it will be back, I'll probably have tornados again by the end of the month. Last time I predicted that, it's exactly what happened. As I write this, the snow has disappeared faster than the US middle class. The predictions are for near spring temperatures for the rest of the month. Then the storms should start again by March. So don't worry, thing will get back to SNAFU soon enough.

If you think I'm disappointed that the winter here was cold, I'm not. Weather isn't climate, so my belief in AGW hasn't waned. But I did enjoy the cold temperatures, and I know next summer will have fewer bugs because of the recent cold temps.

 

[HarveyH42]

Global warming didn't go anywhere. As we've established, Canada was as warm as the US was cold. Yeah, it will be back, I'll probably have tornados again by the end of the month. Last time I predicted that, it's exactly what happened. As I write this, the snow has disappeared faster than the US middle class. The predictions are for near spring temperatures for the rest of the month. Then the storms should start again by March. So don't worry, thing will get back to SNAFU soon enough.

If you think I'm disappointed that the winter here was cold, I'm not. Weather isn't climate, so my belief in AGW hasn't waned. But I did enjoy the cold temperatures, and I know next summer will have fewer bugs because of the recent cold temps.

Climate, only looks at how hot the planet is getting, in relation to how much CO2 mankind pumps into the air. Weather is a much broader subject, and covers climate, and all the more important stuff.

The two are really inter-related, they both have a big influence on each other, a lot more than man-made CO2. Our current cold trend probably has nothing to do with Global Warming, just like CO2 probably doesn't have much to do with Global Warming. There are a lot of other factors at play, and we have very long way to go, before we can consistently and accurately predict future trends. Regardless of which side eventually wins the debate, I'll still survive the outcome. Al Gore's call for immediate action, is asking to much, too quickly, based on what is available. It's not going to matter to those in his financial bracket much, pocket change, and an opportunity to make more money (think he speaks for free, because he really cares). For most of us, who will ultimately be paying to make our planet so much nicer, it's going to be rough, as if things aren't going badly already. A few degrees warmer, or a ruin society and economy, wonder if those future generations would choose Global Warming...

 

[BrownOut]

Climate deals with long term trends. Weather deals with what you immediately observe. Short term trends are not climate. Short terms trends do not influence climate. Weather is not climate. Local events do not indicate global trends. You can't evaluate the state of climate trends by looking out of your widow. There is no evidence that the recent low temperatures in the east US are reflected around the globe. In fact there is lots of evidence that it is not. Climate scientists are not meteorologists, and are not in the business of predicting the weather. That's quite absurd and uninformed to think so. In terms of climate trends, forecasts of more often and more severe weather events, etc. the models have been remarkably accurate. Climatologists look at long terms trends, and aren’t concerned with every little glip in the data, as they shouldn't be. Those little dips and spikes aren't an indication of anything when looking at climate change. That's something the skeptics should understand, or else stop trying to pretend to not understand. Steps should be taken to reduce the amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere, as nothing correlates with temperature rise as well as the concentration of atmospheric rise of this gas, as well as other factors and data that support the CO2 theory. A temp rise of a few degrees may be much worse than any challenge posed by making the reduction. It can probably be paid for with the billions we spend trying to acquire oil fields by force around the world.

 

[shortbus=]

Isn't it strange that the only greenhouse gas that is blamed is one that most of use create and the easiest to pass a law about/tax us over? Nothing is ever said about the other gases that occur naturally and are much more responsible for global warming.


"water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7% "
Data from- Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Water vapor, Methane and Ozone can't be taxed because it happens in nature. Co2 is made by nature also but is also made by humans at a higher rate. And is in the news, and is made by us and we can be made to feel guilty about it so less of a fight to make us pay for it.

As far as Al Gore , if you do some research on him you can see what he is tied to and how he is benefiting by being a spokes person. If he was as concerned about things as he claims, he wouldn't live like he does-- "do as I say, not as I do."

 

[tcmtech]

Summers have become so brutally hot that the Harper's Ferry Nuclear plant has to shut down during parts of the summer because the river water that cools the reactors is too hot and won't get the job done. This January, a tornado hit my home town of Huntsville and tore up the historic district. THIS HAS NEVER happened before in January! Winter tornados used to be unheard of, until the last few years. Now, we live under the threat year-round.

So once again you use YOUR local weather events to suggest that they are evidence of global warming but then later say that other peoples local weather events are not proof of global warming.

Weather deals with what you immediately observe. Short term trends are not climate. Short terms trends do not influence climate. Weather is not climate. Local events do not indicate global trends. You can't evaluate the state of climate trends by looking out of your widow.

This is why the global warming Scientology cult doesn't get much much credit or beliefs for their "words of wisdom". They only work one way. By the way I hope your at least deleteing your emails!

Have you figured out where my

I thought it was clear by now, its a source issue.

comment is based from yet? I suspect a few others may be getting it narrowed down by now.

 

[BrownOut]

These figures you picked from the article does not indicate the relative effect on climate change. It's important to know the difference between greenhouse gases that have existed naturally and those which are being introduced that cause climate change. You're data fails to make that distinction.

 

[BrownOut]

So once again you use YOUR local weather events to suggest that they are evidence of global warming but then later say that other peoples local weather events are not proof of global warming.

Nope. I used my local weather to illustrate that all manners of weather events are occuring. Where does the phrase "global warming" appear in the quoted text? Nowhere. You repeatedly fail to use the LRU method: Look, read and understand.

Have you figured out where my comment is based from yet? I suspect a few others may be getting it narrowed down by now.

You comment makes no sense whatsoever. The source was the people who operate the plant. Do you mistrust all nuclear plant operators, or just the ones who tell the truth?

You seem to want to try to find those "gotcha" moments in what I wrote, but you repeatedly fail in every weak-ass attempt. You're just not smart enough to succeed. But to answer the concerns about local "weather", if these events become a long term trend, then they might indicate a change in climate. As of this very moment, we don't know if that will be a trend or not.

 

[Hero999]

I agree that climate and short term trends have nothing to do with climate change but I have to pull you up on a couple of points:

Climate scientists are not meteorologists, and are not in the business of predicting the weather.

Sorry but that's not true.

For example the Met Office conduct lots of research into climate change and they're the main weather forecasters in the UK. They admit that they're using exactly the same models to forecast long term climate change as they do for seasonal weather forecasts.
https://www.electro-tech-online.com...-global-warming-so-quickly.103732/#post846110

This isn't the only reason why I'm a just bit sceptical.

At best we only have around 200 years of real temperature measurements and about 50 or so sears of really accurate temperature records which have been used to calibrate data gathered from other proxies from the last 100,000 or so years. It just doesn't seem like very good statistical analysis.

Earlier on you said that the mildest winter in in 200 years is rare? I disagree, not when you consider the age of the earth.

Then there's all the other mistakes regarding the Himalayas and tree rings and all the conspiracy theories which have resulted from lots of the research being kept secret.

You have to ask yourself what would happen if a group of scientists found conclusive evidence to debunk anthropogenic climate change and almost completely prove it's a natural phenomenon. How long would it take for the majority of scientists to come round? Or would their work be suppressed? What about the carbon credits?

Of course I'm not saying that this will ever happen but politics have now been added to the equation which is a necessary evil.

There are some compelling evidence to support CO2 absorbing enough energy from the sun to warm the earth but I'm also not convinced of the so-called runaway effects i.e. the reduction in the ocean's ability to sink CO2 could be negated by increased growth in vegetation.

Then there's the unacceptably wide range in predictions ranging from a 1°C rise which will be of little consequence to a 6°C which will cause havoc.

Fortunately so far, the temperature rise has been on the lower end of climate change predictions:

"New analysis has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office is at the lower end of likely warming."
**broken link removed**

Of course this could change, if CO2 emissions rise too much and the link between CO2 emisions and temperature rise is as strong as suggested.

 

[HarveyH42]

I remember that before CO2, Methane was the evil gas, but the climate scientists didn't anticipate all the flatulence jokes it would create. Who would have guessed that cows were the biggest contributors...

Climate deals with long term trends. Weather deals with what you immediately observe. Short term trends are not climate. Short terms trends do not influence climate. Weather is not climate. Local events do not indicate global trends. You can't evaluate the state of climate trends by looking out of your widow.

Strange logic...

 

[tcmtech]

For those who use a dictionary and the correct definitions from the real world.

Main Entry: cli·mate
Pronunciation: \ˈklī-mət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English climat, from Middle French, from Late Latin climat-, clima, from Greek klimat-, klima inclination, latitude, climate, from klinein to lean — more at lean
Date: 14th century
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office>
3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere <a climate of fear>

Main Entry: 1weath·er
Pronunciation: \ˈwe-thər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English weder, from Old English; akin to Old High German wetar weather, Old Church Slavic vetrŭ wind
Date: before 12th century
1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
2 : state or vicissitude of life or fortune
3 : disagreeable atmospheric conditions: as a : rain, storm b : cold air with dampness
4 : weathering
— to weather : in the direction from which the wind is blowing

Brownout, this is why I enjoy your input here so much. You alone have given me reason to consult the dictionary more times in 4 months than I have in probably 10 years. Way to go!

 

[Mikebits]

I think the term climate as used by scientist would fall under definition 2a.

2 a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

Definition 2a. Seems to support Brownouts assertion in post #63.

Climate deals with long term trends

 

[BrownOut]

For those who use a dictionary and the correct definitions from the real world.

Brownout, this is why I enjoy your input here so much. You alone have given me reason to consult the dictionary more times in 4 months than I have in probably 10 years. Way to go!

And each time you do, you prove me right. ( see post #71 )

And this:

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks.

Fits PERFECTLY with what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

 

[BrownOut]

I agree that climate and short term trends have nothing to do with climate change but I have to pull you up on a couple of points:


Sorry but that's not true.

For example the Met Office conduct lots of research into climate change and they're the main weather forecasters in the UK. They admit that they're using exactly the same models to forecast long term climate change as they do for seasonal weather forecasts.
https://www.electro-tech-online.com...-global-warming-so-quickly.103732/#post846110

Perhaps, but climate research is being conducted by USGS, NOAA, NASA, DOD, DOE, State Department, and so forth, and none of those depatments issue weather reports to the general public. But to further my point, climate research is not intended to predict weather. People who think cimate science should predict the weather don't know what the science is. It attempts to predict long term trends, while cold days, hot days, cold snaps, rainy days and so forth are short term events. Even those that last for a few weeks are the exclusive domain of weather science, and are not part of climate science.

EDIT: I looked at your Met site, and weather was listed seperately from Climate Change. I'm I to believe that because both are studied by the same organization, they are necessarily the same?

This isn't the only reason why I'm a just bit sceptical.
At best we only have around 200 years of real temperature measurements and about 50 or so sears of really accurate temperature records which have been used to calibrate data gathered from other proxies from the last 100,000 or so years. It just doesn't seem like very good statistical analysis.

The proxies have been dinigently gathered, complied and studied. The statistical analysis has been peer reviewed. I think it's pretty solid.

Earlier on you said that the mildest winter in in 200 years is rare? I disagree, not when you consider the age of the earth.

A weather event that occurs once in 200 years is very rare. I don't understand your statemen at all.

Then there's all the other mistakes regarding the Himalayas and tree rings and all the conspiracy theories which have resulted from lots of the research being kept secret.

The tree ring problem has been addressed many times already. I don't care anything about conspiracy thoeries. I care about the science.

You have to ask yourself what would happen if a group of scientists found conclusive evidence to debunk anthropogenic climate change and almost completely prove it's a natural phenomenon. How long would it take for the majority of scientists to come round? Or would their work be suppressed? What about the carbon credits?

Hypothetical and hyperbole. I file that with the consipracy thoeries.

There are some compelling evidence to support CO2 absorbing enough energy from the sun to warm the earth but I'm also not convinced of the so-called runaway effects i.e. the reduction in the ocean's ability to sink CO2 could be negated by increased growth in vegetation.

Maybe/maybe not. Some plants may not respond well to increased CO2. I'm not much of a gambler when it comes to my environment.

Then there's the unacceptably wide range in predictions ranging from a 1°C rise which will be of little consequence to a 6°C which will cause havoc.

Fortunately so far, the temperature rise has been on the lower end of climate change predictions:

"New analysis has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office is at the lower end of likely warming."
**broken link removed**

I haven't seen predictions that have that wide of a tolerance. Your article didn't really say what the "low end" is supposed to be.

Once again, no need to point out the fact that I probably have typos. With all the tags, I'm not spell checking.

 

[Sceadwian]

Why is this being discussed again? Several users were given warnings in the last thread that sounded exactly like this.

The single overwhelming theme is, NONE of this, not one single bit of theory based on current information can be proved in the next 10-20 years. 50 years, or even 100 or thousand years more than likely. The greater likley hood is that in the interim more observations will be made that influence current models and theories. Global climate is older than the entirety of human history, it will exist long after humans do, and it will do just what it does without us understanding it.

If you disagree with my theory, check back with me in 100 years. Or even 10 years. The common theme that the absolute fact must be proven in the next few posts based on the few simple blurbs that are being posts is ludicrous.

 

[BrownOut]

Some proof is already emerging. Some of the trends already look like the models. I don't want to wait until the temp has risen to start taking the science seriously; it might be too late to do anything about it by then.

 

[Sceadwian]

There is no such thing as some proof BrownOut, it either is or is not substantiated by data that is reliable and can be used to predict future trends reliably.

There is nothing and has never been anything we could ever do about the global trend, were are totally and completly incapable of affecting this entire planet as dramatically as it already effects itself. The fact that we do influence it is undisputed, and gradual understanding of even what that influence is is still emerging, and energy and resource consciousness is expanding. We can not now nor is it likely to be possible in the span of human existence for us to control that global temperature line to a flat line and create a stable ecosystem, there are too many things we can not ever control that define it's state.

To existentialize a bit, we are surfers, we will never be the ocean.

 

[BrownOut]

Of course there is such a thing as some proof. Some of the data corresponds with the models and predictions. The earth is certainly getting hotter, and much of the rise correlated with the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2, which in turn correlates with the burning of fossile fuels, among other proff and strong evidence.

 

[Hero999]

EDIT: I looked at your Met site, and weather was listed seperately from Climate Change. I'm I to believe that because both are studied by the same organization, they are necessarily the same?

They use the same models.

I've quoted this before, but you obviously didn't read it, not that I blame you because it was part of a huge block of text.

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/02/julia-slingo-1.pdf

At the Met Office we use the same model to make weather forecasts as we do to make our climate predictions

In my opinion the sort term forecasts from the Met Office are excellent but the seasonal forecasts are poor.

The proxies have been dinigently gathered, complied and studied. The statistical analysis has been peer reviewed. I think it's pretty solid.

How is using 150 years of inaccurate temperature records and 50 years of accurate records to calibrate 100,000 years of data from other proxies good statistical analysis?

If the records went back 1000 years or more then maybe I'd be more inclined to agree, but 200 is 0.02% of 100,000.

A weather event that occurs once in 200 years is very rare. I don't understand your statemen at all.

Once in every 200 years is not rare on a geological timescale.

It theoretically means that such temperatures could've been recorded 500 times in the last 100,000 years. Whether they have or not is subject to pure speculation, since the last 99,800 years of data is just a rough guess.

I haven't seen predictions that have that wide of a tolerance. Your article didn't really say what the "low end" is supposed to be.

I was expecting you to have read the IPCC report.

I'l right I got it slightly wrong, it's a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise over the next century.

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, no need to point out the fact that I probably have typos. With all the tags, I'm not spell checking.

Since when have I ever done that?

My typing/spelling is far from perfect, I think you're confusing me with someone else.

 

[HarveyH42]

Some proof is already emerging. Some of the trends already look like the models. I don't want to wait until the temp has risen to start taking the science seriously; it might be too late to do anything about it by then.

From what has been taught in schools, since I was a youngster, the planet was much warmer before the last great ice age. It would make sense that the planet would eventual return to that temperature, as it recovers. All that carbon that has been hidden underground, that we are now burning, was already freely available in the atmosphere and environment. When it got really cold, lots of species became extinct, and when it gets warmer (again), lots of species will become extinct. This global warming trend, didn't just start 100 years ago, it's always been, and will continue, regardless of what we do. Maybe a little quicker with CO2, but not so much to make any difference. I believe it's self-limiting, and it can only get so hot, before it starts to cool off again. Water has a much larger role in all this, than anything else on the planet, in can exist in three different states, depending on temperature and pressure, and has a lot of influence on how everything else interacts. It is the most abundant compound on the planet.

The climate is doing exactly as expected, and still has quite a ways to go, before it returns to 'normal'. Me, I was tired of living in the 'ice age', growing up on a mountain. Moved to a warmer climate, and for the past 3 months, been living in the icy past. Climate Change scientists want us to fight the planet's natural return to warmer temperatures, claiming, that us 'deniers' just don't want to change our lifestyles. I live a reasonable life, work a little harder than I would like, not much left over for luxury. The expense of fighting Global Warming, would change my lifestyle from a small house, to a cardboard box under an overpass.

Climate Change based on man-made CO2, is shaky proof, at best. Everything else is too quickly rejected, to have been considered carefully. This battle has little to do with saving the planet, its an agenda, for political power, and financial gain.

Recycling has been around for decades, but receives little funding, and doesn't get much attention. Just not much profit in it, and actually not even cost effective. We want a cleaner planet, it's the right thing to do, but nobody wants to force it, because it doesn't produce a profit. But in the past 10 years, we are getting a huge push to fight Global Warming, to help preserve cooler temperatures for somebody's great-grandchildren, so they can pick through the landfills in relative comfort. Such a bright future...

 

[BrownOut]

They use the same models.

I've quoted this before, but you obviously didn't read it, not that I blame you because it was part of a huge block of text.

https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2010/02/julia-slingo-2.pdf


In my opinion the sort term forecasts from the Met Office are excellent but the seasonal forecasts are poor.

And so what does that tell you? I've said all along that climate science isn't concerned with sesonal forcasts. The time line is much longer when speaking about climate change from a decade to many decaded. In fact, you can't make a statement about seasonal forcasts from climate science, because it makes no such kind of forcast. You have to look at how long term trends match up with the climate models.

How is using 150 years of inaccurate temperature records and 50 years of accurate records to calibrate 100,000 years of data from other proxies good statistical analysis?

If the records went back 1000 years or more then maybe I'd be more inclined to agree, but 200 is 0.02% of 100,000.

What makes you think the temperature was inaccurate for 150 years? Even mercury thermos were pretty accurate. Proxies have been subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, correlated amongst otherr proxies, tested by observation of fossile recored, etc. Pretty good statics, IMO.

Once in every 200 years is not rare on a geological timescale.

It theoretically means that such temperatures could've been recorded 500 times in the last 100,000 years. Whether they have or not is subject to pure speculation, since the last 99,800 years of data is just a rough guess.

You little math tricks doen't make you statement any more valid. Once in 200 years is very rare. That's why it's called "record" temperature.


I was expecting you to have read the IPCC report.

I'l right I got it slightly wrong, it's a 1.1 to 6.4°C temperature rise over the next century.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It doesn't stop rising at the end of the century.

Since when have I ever done that?

My typing/spelling is far from perfect, I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I don't put that there for you. In past discussions, those who can't refute my facts ***** about my typing.