How did they stop Global Warming so quickly?

[BrownOut]

OMG Now CO2 caused the Dust Bowl

WRONG!

(graph courtesy of AlGore.com)

WRONG AGAIN!

https://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical03.gif

 

[tcmtech]

Now that was a nicely presented report, much more believable, and pretty much the same information as Team Gore presented, but then again it doesn't do anything to motivate or panic. Surprising that the oceans are such huge CO2 emitters, wonder how we are going to control them. Still believe that what is happening is mostly a natural event, and will continue to do it's thing, regardless of the tax and cap proposals. Pretty sure the environmental changes won't be near as bad, as the economic ones AGW will inflict on us this summer, or next time it warms up...

Thats mainly why I thought it was another one worth linking to. I thought it was fairly neutral on its presentation and its sources are well known and fairly reliable. Plus for once it appears all of the sub links within it related to useful or important relevant information actually work.
That has been one of my peeves for some time on these issues. So many sites and reports have broken links to important and relevant data. It often seems like they are hiding more than they are telling just by what links do work and what ones dont.

You should try Firefox browser, really helps with spelling and typos...

Tempting but I am still skeptical of my abilities to install anything correctly.
Although I am getting fed up with the IE8 and its odd jumping around and other glitches.
I dont mind the IeSpell for the most part but the word archive seems to be loaded with outdated little used words that dont help with already questionable spelling.

 

[tcmtech]

Since certain graphs always seem to conveniently start just AFTER the last warming anomaly that ended around 1400 AD this may shed some additional light on the natural longer term warming and cooling cycles of the last 1000+ years relative to what happened before 1400 AD.

CO2 Science
Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And a related weather event that occurred in the same time frame.

The characteristics and likely causes of the Medieval megadroughts in North America

And for what its worth.

**broken link removed**

Just for giggles. (The commercial is funny too!)

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

 

[BrownOut]

Brownout there is a reason you make me smile and feel confident about what I do understand.

After all the times you've proven me right; if that makes you smile, then rock on brother.

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout, I think you missed shortbus's point. In fact I'm sure of it.

His statement was simple. Showing the dustbowl occurred during the same period in which C02 and global temperature were rising gives anyone reading that graph the impression that either the dustbowl caused C02 rises or that C02 caused the dustbowl. I mean it must right, they're both on the same graph.. The point is just because you can show a link between C02 and global temperature rise does NOT mean that one caused the other. All of our current information is what you would call hearsay, it's data based on assumption of a system which we don't yet understand.

 

[BrownOut]

In fact, if CO2 and temperature rise are correlated, this is a strong indicator that the two are linked. CO2 correlates better with the recent rise in temperature than any other explanation offered. As for the dust bowl, it was shown off-axis with other events that were certainly not related to AGW. Nobody wiht half a brain would think they were trying to show a link to the Little Ice Age (for example). The dust bowl may not be linked to AGW, but it was certainly man-made.

As for the algore remark, that was just dumb.

 

[BrownOut]

Following the sub-links from the above posts, I found an interesting list of agencies that issued concurring statements with the IPCC view of Climate Change here. What is interesting is the breath of the interdiscliplinary of sciences, medical, nature and achedemics involved. Here is the list.

Academies of Science
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
International Association for Great Lakes Research

 

[tcmtech]

When I plot my stock investments on a minute by minute basis I see at times the exact same graph appear. I know that just because my stock value jumped by $100 in a calculation over a few minutes that doesn't mean that in a few hours I am going to be a millionaire. Todays sharp increase doesn't mean a thing on the long term. And its the overall long term that makes or breaks the investment.
If I where to invest everything I had every time I saw what looked like that hockey puck shape starting on any stocks I watch or if I sold everything every time I thought I saw the reverse of the graph happening with the stocks I have I would be broke long before I ever made anything.

On the 260 to 360 scaling model using a 1000 year time line its a measurable change but on the PPM of atmospheric make up and a tens of thousands of years ice age time scale its not even a well defined blip and would be difficult to accurately measure a thousand years or more from now going by geological or other naturally occurring physical indicators.

Its purely how you scale the numbers that makes it look big or nearly non existent.

 

[BrownOut]

Well, climate isn't stock prices, so the comparason is worthless. Global temperatures are subject to completely different forces, the most important of which in recent times appears to be the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Yeah, 200 years on a scale of 10K years doesn't show up well on a graph. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But the graphs showing recent temperature rises along side CO2 concentrations are very telling.

 

[tcmtech]

Fair enough. Here is another naturally occurring phenomenon that also follows the CO2 gains for the last 100 years as well. Is there a link here also?

**broken link removed**

 

[BrownOut]

How do you know it follows CO2 gains? Do you have any data that shows correlation? Such as this?

**broken link removed**

 

[HarveyH42]

The big issue really isn't whether CO2 levels are rising, and Global Warming, but which is the cause, and which is the effect, or if they are really of much concern. As the oceans warm, they release a great deal of stored CO2, so regardless of whether mankind stops contributing all together, CO2 will still continue to rise. There are other non-man-made factors that influence temperature and climate, which the Climate Change Crusade tend to minimize or discard altogether, as there is nothing to control. There is still no way of to determine if the 'greenhouse' gasses are the major control of global temperature. Warmer temperatures increase the concentration of water vapor, clouds form, and block solar energy. Higher concentration of water vapor, also means a lower concentration of CO2, and other crap.

As stated many times, the climate models are for long term predictions, their accuracy won't be known for decades. Considering mankind's first attempt success record, probably needs a few adjustments, if not a complete failure.

It'll be a question of the chicken and the egg, for decades. We haven't been around long enough to know for sure what is normal on this planet, it surprises us almost everyday. The CO2 factor could just as well be coincidental. We do need a change, things are getting pretty stagnated and smelly. Politicians want more power over the people, the wealthy have run out of ways to increase their horde of bounty. Quality in manufacturing has dropped, most products aren't built to last for generations, seem to barely survive the warranty period, or hardly worth paying the shipping to send in for replacement or repair.

The responsible way to clean up this planet, and improve energy usage, would be to support new cleaner technology, stop building stuff based on old and outdated technology. The proposed, AGW immediate action, would be worse for the majority of living creatures, than anything this planet will likely subject us to. We can't do much about the warming, but we can improve how we use our resources, and adapt to a warmer environment. Fighting a few degrees is a wasted effort, we could better use the time to ensure that we can continue to live comfortably, and survive. We made it through the ice and snow with fire and stone knives, pretty sure we can get through this as well.

 

[BrownOut]

If the oceans release CO2 when they warm, then the way to control that is to stop warming in the first place. The oceans will stop warming, and thus will cease releasing increasing levels of CO2. See how easy that was? Increasing CO2 release from the oceans with increasing temperature is a feed-forward effect, which is one of the things the models warn about. That gives rise to the "tipping point", where rapid increase in climate change might occur. Water vapor might mitigate the problem somewhat by increasing earth's albedo, but that ignores the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and as such, its total effect might be neutral or even to continue to make things hotter. The models are consistently being tested, refined and retested. Data showing increasing temperature that correlates with increasing CO2 appear to validate the models. DOE estimates 23GT CO2 produced annually by man, of which 11.7GT is retained in the atmosphere and not absorbed. That accounts for the total rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[shortbus=]

Brownout- you got to chillout guy.

Who decides what is NORMAL? Temp and CO2 wise?

Every time a graph or chart is posted all that is shown is temp vs CO2, the graph would only be scientifically viable if it showed ALL the gases! Like I said before, it's always CO2's fault, because "they" will be able to control the CO2 producing commodities.

What if the recent temp rise is caused by all the wind generators slowing down wind speed ?

Please tell us what YOU are doing to lower your carbon footprint.

 

[Thunderchild]

What if the recent temp rise is caused by all the wind generators slowing down wind speed ?

Can't beleive I just read that unless your joking, for those ranting about the enviromentalists did they tell you it would't be a cold winter ? if you think climate change = getting hotter you have a lot to learn, what ever you want to call it you must know that the earth and its systems (weather - oceans etc) all interact the world over, criky we can live in the uk because we get the gulf stream come all the way over from mexico ! what will happen if you upset that and it moves errr... yes that's right !!! it will get bloody cold ! now fancy that ! I really worry when I get a glimps of the ignorance of the general public and at the end of the day we will run out of fuel at some point and with our ever increasing usage and increasing population it won't be long before your burning everything in sight just to keep warm in any winter !

 

[BrownOut]

Brownout- you got to chillout guy.

I"m as cool as a cucumber.

Every time a graph or chart is posted all that is shown is temp vs CO2, the graph would only be scientifically viable if it showed ALL the gases!

Why show gases that have little or no effect? That would not make it scientific vaiable. Other gases may not even register on a graph with CO2, so there would be no reason to show them together.

Like I said before, it's always CO2's fault, because "they" will be able to control the CO2 producing commodities.

Ohhhh a scary "they" Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, eh?

Please tell us what YOU are doing to lower your carbon footprint.

You go first. Actually, I've already done that. It's on the previous GW thread.

 

[tcmtech]

Now seriously guys haven't you figured out now that in global warming world CO2 IS THE ONLY GAS THAT MATTERS.

Heres how it works.
Water vapor and its 70%+ influence in climate effects is irrelevant.
The other mixed gasses associated with another 15% of the green house effects are irrelevant.
The sun providing energy for 99.9999% of our weather and climates actions is irrelevant.
The oceans natural changes in its circulation patterns and ability to transfer massive amounts of thermal energy around the planet to different places at different times are irrelevant.
All past geological and natural records of any time periods that where possibly equal to or warmer than it is now or had similar possible CO2 levels are irrelevant.
The rest of the solar system showing possible indications that it too has been warming up for some reason is irrelevant.
So basically the other 99.99% of the stuff that was already there that influences the climate doesn't matter. It all comes down to that .01% of CO2 in the atmosphere we humans could be responsible for being it and thats all!

Its simply not comprehensible to the average person who is not in some way at least slightly "special" or "gifted" in a specific and unique way to ever be able to understand the intricacies involved. It at times could appear that if you dont have OCD or have not had a stoke of some sort you cant possibly understand the logic and thusly can't play the CO2 = global warming game.

So for the rest of us global warming looks sort of like Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, or a religion that is not of your following. Only if you truly believe in it then just maybe you will get your wish. And just as long as you dont look to hard at what you actually got, how it got there, and or what and who may have been behind the scenes to make it appear real to you.

But thats just what seems like a possible and plausible explanation anyway but unfortunately I dont have a hockey puck graph to back it up so its not valid in some "scientific" circles.
(and excuse my misuse of punctuation in some areas. I was a D student in its "proper" use after all.)

 

[HarveyH42]

If the oceans release CO2 when they warm, then the way to control that is to stop warming in the first place. The oceans will stop warming, and thus will cease releasing increasing levels of CO2. See how easy that was? Increasing CO2 release from the oceans with increasing temperature is a feed-forward effect, which is one of the things the models warn about. That gives rise to the "tipping point", where rapid increase in climate change might occur. Water vapor might mitigate the problem somewhat by increasing earth's albedo, but that ignores the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and as such, its total effect might be neutral or even to continue to make things hotter. The models are consistently being tested, refined and retested. Data showing increasing temperature that correlates with increasing CO2 appear to validate the models. DOE estimates 23GT CO2 produced annually by man, of which 11.7GT is retained in the atmosphere and not absorbed. That accounts for the total rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

But you can't stop the warming, even Al Gore only hopes to slow it down. Easy, but meaningless, I'm not brain-dead.

'Might', means there is nothing to support that it is even a possibility. Just something thrown in to sidetrack the issue. Does water vapor trap more heat in, than it blocks out? It's not as powerful as the almighty CO2, but much more plentiful.

Models constantly tested, refined (tweaked), to better illustrate the cataclysm. You've said many times, that climate models predict decades into the future, so their results are tested against what, the Hockey-Stick?

What exactly is the difference between natural CO2, and Man-Made? You've brought this up before.

Wouldn't it be funny, if we eventually find out that they have been measuring the CO2 released from the oceans, as the water warms...

Just seems that with the warming, will come a natural increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of man's contribution. Seems to support the warming is the cause of the higher levels of CO2, not just mankind. Destroying our economy isn't going to effect the climate on bit.

I don't deny for one moment that AGW is man-made, the issue, not the event. Man created the whole thing, words, numbers, and hockey-stick graphs. It's been very entertaining these past couple of years, hope they do a sequel soon.

 

[Mikebits]

Now seriously guys haven't you figured out now that in global warming world CO2 IS THE ONLY GAS THAT MATTERS.

Heres how it works.
Water vapor and its 70%+ influence in climate effects is irrelevant.
The other mixed gasses associated with another 15% of the green house effects are irrelevant.
The sun providing energy for 99.9999% of our weather and climates actions is irrelevant.
The oceans natural changes in its circulation patterns and ability to transfer massive amounts of thermal energy around the planet to different places at different times are irrelevant.
All past geological and natural records of any time periods that where possibly equal to or warmer than it is now or had similar possible CO2 levels are irrelevant.
The rest of the solar system showing possible indications that it too has been warming up for some reason is irrelevant.
So basically the other 99.99% of the stuff that was already there that influences the climate doesn't matter. It all comes down to that .01% of CO2 in the atmosphere we humans could be responsible for being it and thats all!

Its simply not comprehensible to the average person who is not in some way at least slightly "special" or "gifted" in a specific and unique way to ever be able to understand the intricacies involved. It at times could appear that if you dont have OCD or have not had a stoke of some sort you cant possibly understand the logic and thusly can't play the CO2 = global warming game.

So for the rest of us global warming looks sort of like Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, or a religion that is not of your following. Only if you truly believe in it then just maybe you will get your wish. And just as long as you dont look to hard at what you actually got, how it got there, and or what and who may have been behind the scenes to make it appear real to you.

But thats just what seems like a possible and plausible explanation anyway but unfortunately I dont have a hockey puck graph to back it up so its not valid in some "scientific" circles.
(and excuse my misuse of punctuation in some areas. I was a D student in its "proper" use after all.)

Now seriously guys haven't you figured out now that in global warming world CO2 IS THE ONLY GAS THAT MATTERS.

It is a significant gas for a reason. Read on why?

Heres how it works.
Water vapor and its 70%+ influence in climate effects is irrelevant.

Over a long term trend it is insignificant as H2O has a atmospheric shelf life of a around 5 to 10 days do to its nature of going from liquid => <= gas and back again. As opposed to CO2 shelf life of around 100 yrs.

The other mixed gasses associated with another 15% of the green house effects are irrelevant.

The other gases radiative effects are minimal at best, therefore insignificant compared to CO2
.
The sun providing energy for 99.9999% of our weather and climates actions is irrelevant.

Seriously, who ever said the sun had nothing to do with climate? The earths ability to properly shield the planet from the full brunt of solar energy is the issue.

The oceans natural changes in its circulation patterns and ability to transfer massive amounts of thermal energy around the planet to different places at different times are irrelevant.

Again who ever argues this. I was taught in my Geology 101 class how GW could have a major impact on the Gulf Stream conveyor belt, hence climate change. It is believed that GW will only exacerbate proper functioning of this delicate global homeostatic mechanism.

All past geological and natural records of any time periods that where possibly equal to or warmer than it is now or had similar possible CO2 levels are irrelevant.

Huh? aside from 4.5 billion yrs ago when the earth was a molten furnace or the Cambrian period where the molten furnace released massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, Ice core samples have shown a pretty consistent level of CO2 as opposed to the last 100 yrs, but I am sure you think Ice core samples are bunk.

The rest of the solar system showing possible indications that it too has been warming up for some reason is irrelevant.
So basically the other 99.99% of the stuff that was already there that influences the climate doesn't matter.

To compare other planets to earth is just silly. Other planets do not have the necessary components to sustain a atmosphere let alone a livable one. Distance from the sun, a magnetic field, proper gravity to sustain a breathable density of air, so on etc, etc. Mars for example barely has any atmosphere to speak of in turn no shielding from solar rays. Let's stay in the same fruit group like apples.

It all comes down to that .01% of CO2 in the atmosphere we humans could be responsible for being it and thats all!

Not sure about your .01% figure, but how can you say we humans could be responsible for. When is the last time you got to a big industrialized city? Have you seen the spew going into the air. Take a trip to LA for another example.

 

[tcmtech]

Didn't you realize that after all of the overwhelmingly convincing arguments and vast presentations of data presented here for human induced global warming and man made climate changes I have switched sides now and I just used that post as a summary of how it all gets figured and factored in layman's terms?

The hockey puck graphs alone dam near give me a heart attack every time I see them!

Its all so clear now. Set off the nukes and lets end this ride since there is clearly no way out.