How did they stop Global Warming so quickly?

Your sarcasm and circular rationale reminds me of this blurb from a blog I read.

Here is a hypothetical transcript of how to play the game:
Dem: A new scientific report says that all polar bears will drown because the polar ice cap is melting.
Rep: Where does it say that in the Bible?
Dem: But if you read the report, surely, you will admit that without a polar ice cap, the polar bears will soon disappear form this earth.
Rep: Don't call me Shirley.
Dem: So you don't care if all the polar bears drown?
Rep: Polar bears are known for their remarkable long distance swimming ability, polar bear skeletons have been found on Samoa. (Republicans are not confined to reality. For Democrats, truth is a self imposed restriction limiting their retorts.)
Dem: Don't you care about Global Warming?
Rep: If you could prove it exists, I most certainly would, but for now, I think it's like the "theory" that if I flap my arms fast enough, I'll start to fly. Aren't scientists the ones who say that, according to the laws of aerodynamics, bees can't fly?
Dem: I'll do anything I have to, to prove that Global Warming really exists.
Rep: Anything? . . . ?
Dem: Science has proved conclusively that global warming is occurring and that polar bears are in peril.
Rep: Apparently they did not get the Memo.

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.

Click to expand...

Do you have a hockey-stick to substantiate that? 'Let stay on the same fruit', only thing in common is they are both molecules consisting of three atoms. But then again, only had two years of chemistry, High School and College, wasn't a major interest, and hardly an expert, but do know enough to be dangerous.

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.

Click to expand...

This is significant, because there is no man-made CO2 to contribute to the warming, it's all natural occurrence, nothing there, but the planet doing it's normal thing. Except maybe Mars, which NASA dumped a couple of SUV on about 6 years ago, but don't think they burn fossil fuels. I something is causing warming on the other planets, it's just as likely to be doing it's thing to ours as well. Why is it silly? Other than it doesn't support CO2 warming? The other planets still have the same characteristics they had, decades ago, when we first start measuring them, except for the higher temperatures. Well, Jupiter did get slammed by a comet a few years ago, and of course we've been messing around on Mars. This a good example of excluding findings, that doesn't support the cause/agenda. You can't tax extraterrestrial influences, so its not important.

There are also some very strong mitigating factors, otherwise we would have burned up centuries ago, again these are discounted as inadequate, since it detracts from the out-of-control urgency.

We have a temperature hockey stick, and a man-made CO2 hockey stick, and an assumption they are related. The rest is predictions of what may occur, if we don't follow don't blindly follow. I'm a skeptic, I think, I question. I don't just jump, because everyone else around me does. I don't care to be popular or trendy, mostly just focus on being an individual. Perhaps that's my biggest flaw,I don't get involved much with groups, just too independent.

Even if all human C02 contributions to the world were instantly stopped, the warming trend would still be there.
We're talking a few thousand years difference here, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it in the long term by the human race at our current technological level.
Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good reading.

One thing to keep in mind is that the C02 level prescribed to be the fault of man are based on estimates which are in and of themselves based on assumptions. We don't actually have solid basic facts about what is causing what who what where when and why.

I would honestly put our Kardashev scale rating at closer to .1 We can influence the world on a greater level but we can not control it.

We are the only thing in danger. the rest of nature has been through this before, and some of it will likely be here after we're gone. Right before the planet we're on ceases to exist as it becomes engulfed in our aging sun.

Thats amusing Mike but as you know since it cant be correlated to the hockey puck graph it can't be accepted.
Although it references global warming several times so some individuals may consider it valid.

My general intention was to bring all of the lesser details that have been so far dismissed by the global warming believers in the three related global warming and climate change threads (so far) into one generalized and larger picture so that the whole counter argument logic could be put into perspective with a bit of my usual sarcasm and off beat humor. Its been my general point in these debates for some time now as to how each thing just doesn't add up when combined together.

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!

Click to expand...

Individually each part of this has at one time been mentioned in the debates and the individual counter arguments always seemed to leave some wiggle room for speculation and plausible question of each parts overall influence. But yet when all those individual arguments are put together and seen as a whole it looks like a load of general nonsense and foolishness to say that non of them have any singular or combined effects on how the climate and weather work.

Hockey puck graph be dammed. There are far more other things that have stronger influences on the weather and climate on this planet besides CO2. A 100 PPM (100/1000000 = .01%) increase in atmospheric volume just doesn't carry enough weight in the grand picture and we cant even be 100% sure that all of that .01% net gain is all our doing to begin with either.


And by the way most of the planets, planetoids, and moons have been found to have atmospheres of sorts to lesser and greater degrees. Some are far thicker and dynamic than ours! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere

Guess Global Warming is back on, upper 70s today in Florida. Been dark for a couple of hours, and still around 70 degrees. Can only hope its here to stay this time, and the warming trend continues on schedule. Good thing too, almost out of old tires to burn. Both my truck and SUV are FBR now, might burn them too, if it gets cold again. The Explorer has a full tank of gas, and should be spectacular. On vacation for the next week, so have to hurry and find something new to drive, so I can return to work, and pay my carbon taxes this year. Going for fuel economy this time, since I got a hunch gas guzzlers are going to be targeted for some extra expenses later on. Tag fees have almost doubled already. I really don't enjoy those tiny little plastic cars, I'm a little too tall, and drive like a maniac. Don't use the seat belt, as I can't imagine getting ejected in a crash, with as much trouble as I have get into those miniature marvels. Chances of survival are about the same either way. I know Global Warming will do bad things to my transportation expenses, so might as well get prepared. Obama-Care isn't going to happen this year, the legislators are going to be focused on getting re-elected, and will have to get ready to train a new batch of rookies this fall. Got to break them in gently, or somebody might talk too much.

Hope the rest of the northern hemisphere is enjoying a little global warming right now. It's been rough on a lot of people, special Climate Change scientists. Bummer that one dude was force to quit/resign his well paid position, in disgrace. Doubt he will be moving on to bigger and better things, as the salaried employees where I work, say, before departing. Perhaps he will use his spare time enlightening the rest of us, as to what is really going on, but then again it would only be discounted as words from a disgruntle former employee, rantings of a lunatic, irrelevant to Climate Change.

tcmtech said:

Thats amusing Mike but as you know since it cant be correlated to the hockey puck graph it can't be accepted.

Click to expand...

You really have no idea what a hockey puck is, do you?

HarveyH42 said:

Don't use the seat belt, as I can't imagine getting ejected in a crash, with as much trouble as I have get into those miniature marvels. Chances of survival are about the same either way.

Click to expand...

At least now I know why you are a GW denier.

HarveyH42 said:

Guess Global Warming is back on, upper 70s today in Florida.

Click to expand...

I've had the heat turned off here in Canada for the last 4 days. Reaches into the 70's inside by 2:00pm. Not that it has anything to do with GW. Just like your winter.

HarveyH42 said:

It's been rough on a lot of people, special Climate Change scientists. Bummer that one dude was force to quit/resign his well paid position, in disgrace.

Click to expand...

Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry

You really have no idea what a hockey puck is, do you?

Click to expand...

Well hockey is fairly common game around here so in these contexts I was referring to pie charts.
But technically its a little round chunk of hard plastic that normally gets smacked around on the ice by a 'hockey stick'.

Apparently you didn't catch the general sarcastic tongue in cheek humor being tossed around in the last several threads.

BTW, I have been making fun of the 'hokey stick' graphs for some time now in one way or another. Not all of my grammatical errors are accidental.

tcmtech said:

Apparently you didn't catch the general sarcastic tongue in cheek humor being tossed around in the last several threads.

Click to expand...

With the GW denier crowd it is hard to tell if they are being sarcastic or are uneducated.
So forgive me for my confusion!

tcmtech said:

Not all of my grammatical errors are accidental.

Click to expand...

Never worried about them. It's the overall message that matters.

The models that are so maligned are better than 99.99% of the BS, guesses, false assertions, unlearned opinions and the rest of the crap I read from the denialist sect. Really, I side with the science, no matter what, if for no other reason than the critics have no clue what their are talking about. The earth would continue to get hotter without increase CO2? Really? And upon what evidence is that juicy bit if informaiton based on? The answer in nothing. Absolutly nothing. They carp on and on for pages about how the models don't take into account this and that, and how they are so imcomplete, and can't be tested, etc, but believe that they alone can peer into the future and know what is going to be, without any basis whatsoever to back up their claims. They tell us that 100 or 200 years of data isn't enough to prove anything, but they can look out of their window and tell us if AGW is real or not. Sorry, that is just irrational and just not believable, to anyone with half a brain. Sorry to all of those who admittedly don't have the mental capacity to understand the science and who can't read a really simple graph. Maybe they've been playing with mercury or something, but I don't care if they understand the science or not. They don't influence me a single little bit, because for one thing, if they are too dumb to understand simple things, as they have already admitted to, then they are too dumb for me to listen to. So, go ahead and waste your time and post more dumb sh*t stuff, it doens't inpress me and I can't imagine it will impress anyone else.

The models already take into acount all the atmospheric gases, ocean currents, natural CO2 and all the other things claimed they do not. If those making the absurd claims those effects are not taken into account knew anything at all about the models, or have even paid any attention to the discussion that's taken place over the last few weeks, they wouldn know their claims are beyond rediculous. But hey, if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, just keep writing, eh? Write a bunch of dumb sh*t and hope everyone reading is too stupid to know how stupid what they are reading is. Good job! Keep it up! And BTW, where are all those ocean currents taking the increased heat? To the moon? To Mars? Maybe that explains how Mars is heating up, the ocean currents are carrying all the extra heat from the Eath to Mars? Well, I guess that makes as much sense as anything else you've written on here. If you going to write crazy stuff, might as well go all the way.

One more thing, this piece of crap article linked by one of our denialist members is the dumbest pice of crap writing I've ever seen. First of all, the site uses emotional wording like "alarmists" and other such non objective rhetoric, much as the posters who fake objectivity do. But most of all, check out this hilarous text in the link:

The results of their work are portrayed in the figure below, where it can be seen that the peak strength of the NAO during the MCA was essentially equivalent to the peak strength the NAO has so far experienced during the Current Warm Period (CWP)

Click to expand...

See why this is such a joke? It claims CWP has peaked, and so show it, there is a graps of temperature, which cuts off at the present, making a false, fake synthetic peak! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The denalist sect will do anything, say anything not matter how rediculous or dishonest to distort the truth. They have no interest in finding the truth, only to pimp their opinions, and leave deviod of any integraty whatsoever.

Good job guys. You've proven that even on a site devoted to learning, there are still those who lie, cheat, distort and obfuscate.

With the GW denier crowd it is hard to tell if they are being sarcastic or are uneducated.
So forgive me for my confusion!

Click to expand...

Thats quite understandable. From the skeptics side the believers can come off as clueless sheep following the political heard. The good Shepard Al Gore has gathered a rather amusing flock to say the least! Or is he the Messiah now?

So sit back have a few laughs at all of our combined ignorances and feel free to light up a few tires while your here as well.
We can roast some marshmallows and maybe a deer while we are at it to.
And then later we might even go for a swim at the old swimming' hole down by the nuclear reactor. I hear the waters rather warm there. (um,.. which state is it in again?)

Thanks for the link, but it wasn't the same guy, guess there are several others. It was in the news past day or so, foreign guy, something to do with the U.N., don't remember where I saw it though. I'm back on dial-up, so painfully slow to back-track. Did a quick google-news search, figured it would be top of the list, and I'd recognize the name. Didn't see what I was looking for, a much bigger guy is stepping down now too. If you are taking on water, and even the rats are jumping ship, you know the boat is going down...

Guess I am uneducated, only 2 years of college, nothing compared to a PhD in Climate Change.

It is a major blow to getting our environment cleaned up, and more responsible use of our available resources. Once to real inconvenient truth comes out over the next couple of years, nobody is going to want to hear anymore environmental issues. Well, i could be a lot worse, they could have won the cap and tax, carbon credits first...

The graph below is something the denailsts have been clammoring for. It shows the forcing of several global factors, including CO2, land use, solar, ozone, aerosols and others. There is one factor that dominates, and that factor is CO2. So, although they are right claiming that CO2 isn't the only agent involved in global warming, they are wrong to suggest that it isn't a significant one.

**broken link removed**

source

Here are the REAL relative contributors to the greenhouse effect:

water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

9 - 26% is NOT insignificant, and because the of the rise in CO2, a much larger percentage of the rise in global temperature is logically due to CO2 - see graph above.

So there you have it: data and logic. Sorry to those without the ability to read simple graphs and charts. I have to write for people with this capacity.

**broken link removed**


I may have said too much already.

Originally posted by MIKEBITS: 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.

Click to expand...

Dude, the number you were responding to; 99.9999% is a total fairy-tale, and something he pulled straight out of his arse. You don't have to worry about responding to any such nonsense.

BrownOut said:

The graph below is something the denailsts have been clammoring for. It shows the forcing of several global factors, including CO2, land use, solar, ozone, aerosols and others. There is one factor that dominates, and that factor is CO2. So, although they are right claiming that CO2 isn't the only agent involved in global warming, they are wrong to suggest that it isn't a significant one.

**broken link removed**

source

Here are the REAL relative contributors to the greenhouse effect:

water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

9 - 26% is NOT insignificant, and because the of the rise in CO2, a much larger percentage of the rise in global temperature is logically due to CO2 - see graph above.

So there you have it: data and logic. Sorry to those without the ability to read simple graphs and charts. I have to write for people with this capacity.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify for me , because I don't see CO2 mentioned in the graph

Ross Craney said:

Can you clarify for me , because I don't see CO2 mentioned in the graph

Click to expand...

It's in green, mixed with all the other greenhouse gases, except water vapor, since its below the baseline, and would drag down the averages to a more reasonable level, which wouldn't be as impressive.

Graphs and simulations are basically toys, the tend to show what you want them to show, doesn't have to entirely accurate, or even true. After taking Analysis and Statistics (math), and a class or two in Marketing, I lost all confidence in graphical representations. They really depend on the target audience, and the points you wish to illustrate in your presentation. Brownout will only produce graphs that confirm his faith. Will admit that this one also includes some mitigation, must be slipping...

You did bring up an interesting point, about lumping all the greenhouse gases together, then calling it CO2.

Greenhouse gases don't make a perfect thermal seal, still let a lot of heat to escape. Water vapor seems to be more of the controlling factor, since it's concentration increases with heat, and much more plentiful. Too much water vapor, it cools and condenses, falls from the sky, warming resumes... It's always been self adjusting, that's why it's worked for so long, and we live. CO2 and global warming, is an interesting (entertaining) observation, but little more than colorful graphs.

Can you clarify for me, because I don't see CO2 mentioned in the graph

Click to expand...

My bad. I wrote CO2, but in fact, the green trace includes the relatively small effects of other trace gases. From the source (correct source this time )

Figure 2 compares greenhouse gas forcing (which is predominantly due to CO2 but includes smaller contributions from CH4, N2O and CFC) to global temperature anomaly.

Click to expand...

CO2 in the dominate factor in this mixture, the others have a much smaller effect. Including water vapor does not change the picture, as falsely claimed, because water vapor has no effect on forcing. Forcing describes how the gas reflects energy, and is not effected by other gases, the effect on temperature being cumulative of the individual forcing. Water vapor might influence the temperature that results from forcing, but the effect described comes from Harvey's own faith-based model. I'm quite sure that those who distort these facts and try to confuse the reader know what they are writing is false.

Graphs are tool, not toys. They are just a way to present carefully collected and analyzed data. The denialists sect try it discredit the best data we have, and substitute decidedly non-scientific opinions, beliefs and their own version of faith in its place. I prefer to follow the science as, although it has its problems ( which are in turn analyzed and quantified ) it depends far less on faith than the critic's opinions.

BrownOut said:

Edit in progress

Click to expand...

Please hurry, the planet is going to burn up soon. Have you been 'saved' yet? Tomorrow might be to late. Saw some Jehovah Witnesses working a few streets over, while I was walking my dog. I could send them your way, if you'd like. They don't seem to like large, curious dogs, think I'm permanently on their do-not-call list. If their sales pitch covers global warming, you should be an easy sell. You already have so much in common. Science can't save you in this life, perhaps God will spare you from eternal climate change, since you don't like the heat...

Maybe you should give religion a try. It would seem to be a good fit for you. You already demonstrated your near religious belief that a few weeks of local low temperatures are an indication of long term climate trend. So, other events, like weeping icons should be right up your alley. It certainly fits you better then science, which is what I prefer.

Hi D,
I agree that the global climate is warming up due to both natural and man made causes.

From all the data I have seen it appears that man is increasing the rate at which the climate is warming up.

All the historic and prehistoric data from ice cores and rock/coral samples shows without any doubt that the climate can go and has gone, many times, into thermal runaway, either heating or cooling.

Fortunately for mankind the last 10,000 years of the climate have been fairly stable , so we tend assume thats the norm.

Some people dont see it has 'their' problem, they are sort of right, its not going to be their problem.

Its their children and grand children who going to pay for the 'ostrich, I'm sitting on the fence' attitude.

As a parallel to this man made problem is lead [Pb].
Back in the 60's , lead was added to petrol which created high levels of lead in the background which in turn entered the food chain.

A global decision was made to remove lead from paints and fuels and now the lead level is down to its pre leaded petrol days.
This shows that if we work together as a society we can make a global improvement in our environment.

I am not saying cutting out CO2 emissions completely will prevent global warming, it will hopefully just slow it down enough to give our children time to prepare for it.