How did they stop Global Warming so quickly?

[tcmtech]

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. ... It certainly fits you better then science, which is what I prefer.

**broken link removed**


When I saw who was the source of this LOL, ROFLAMO, PMSL, and the green smiley faces just couldn't convey what I felt well enough!

(Good thing I did laundry yesterday!)

 

[BrownOut]

You must really enjoy writing completely nonsensical, irrelevant and worthless posts. You remind me of the old saying:

Wise men speak because they have something to say.

The foolish speak because you have to say something.

 

[HarveyH42]

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.

I have about as much faith in organized religion, as I have in politicians caring about the people they serve. Just too skeptical of people reaching for my wallet. I prefer the hard sciences, where you can build physical experiments to prove/disprove observation and hypotheses. The paper and thought sciences require too much faith, which I lacking, but you seem to have a surplus. Nuclear Physics is fine, until it goes beyond the basic 3 particles, then it requires you to accept on faith that certain theories are correct, and builds from there.

Now, I do believe religion is a good thing, and we can see the effects of removing it from schools, and pretty much everywhere else has been. Kids don't learn there a consequences for the choices they make, or why things are good or bad. It true that a lot of people go overboard, but same for about any sort of belief. Most people learned and live a good moral lesson from the Bible, whether they continue to practice or not.

 

[BrownOut]

Mostly from what I've seen of your opinions of global issues are more faith based than scientific. You claim that a few weeks of cold weather has long term implications. By contrast, I look at science based on physical evidence and our understanding of the physical world. It's not faith based, but rather a rigorous study of causes and effects, which are subject to the real sciences of physics, chemistry and so forth. Your faith based opinions have none of that.

 

[tcmtech]

Mostly from what I've seen of your opinions of global issues are more faith based than scientific. You claim that a few weeks of cold weather has long term implications. By contrast, I look at science based on physical evidence and our understanding of the physical world. QUOTE]

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.

The people who follow the scientific research use long term climate trends and don't rely on weather. It's the opposition crowd who uses weather, which was the whole premise of the thread starter in the first place. They use singular events in a desperate attempt to find something.... anything to malign the science, no matter how insignificant, or singluar in nature.

Yet you suggest and imply that global warming was why a nuclear power plant shut down during a heat wave which is also considered a short term WEATHER EVENT even though the actual power plant spokes person said they had serious doubts about global warming being the reason.

Seems like a pile of faith (or something) was needed to make that connection as well.

Seems to me global warming data and examples are very unidirectional. Up is up and down doesn't count.

 

[Mikebits]

There just comes a point...
**broken link removed**

 

[HarveyH42]

Mostly from what I've seen of your opinions of global issues are more faith based than scientific. You claim that a few weeks of cold weather has long term implications. By contrast, I look at science based on physical evidence and our understanding of the physical world. It's not faith based, but rather a rigorous study of causes and effects, which are subject to the real sciences of physics, chemistry and so forth. Your faith based opinions have none of that.

Actually, I just take Global warming that seriously. I find it highly amusing, that people who are educated, relatively intelligent, can be clamped down so hard on believing every word, and colorful graph, without question. Even when the authors occasionally admit to inaccuracies (accidental, or otherwise). It's not hard, providable science, nor are they following traditional scientific methods. Sure, Climate Science isn't traditional, repeatable, or even testable, but the tools, and data should be openly, and freely shared with other scientists, to confirm the work being done.

I opened this thread, sarcastically. Global Warming couldn't be switch on or off, why would anyone believe that statement (guess, I should keep it more literal in the future). I've been through many, long, cold winters, in my life. And probably as many burning hot summers. So has most everyone else here, and has it ever really made much difference? Sometimes we even have several years, that follow the same pattern. What you fail to get, a few months, a few decades, even a few centuries or Milena, it still a short period of time, compared to the age of this planet.

There is no debate, that the planet appears to be on a warming trend, good deal. The question is how long, how fast, and to what extent. Nobody knows, and there is really nothing to base a simulation on. Personally, I'm all for Global Warming/Climate Change, and fully support it. I don't fear the future, and no desire to fight against it. When the smoke and ashes clear, we will have a much nicer place to live.

Climate Science, is only partly based on physical evidence, gathered scientifically, the remainder is questionable, and well hidden. They should be sharing their tools and findings, rather than selectively releasing what supports their claims. Maybe the public can't understand it, but there many other scientist that can.

Remember Cold-fusion a while back? Both Ponds and Fleishman were considered top scientist, well published. They released everything they had, all the details and findings. A lot of researchers tried to replicate the experiments, and fail. Point being, it looked great on paper, many people believed, the outcome was disappointment and disgrace, but it was true science. That is how science works, in my opinion. Your science seems to be a little different though, perhaps why I have such trouble taking it seriously. Try not to take my remarks so seriously, you miss the sarcasm, or perhaps you post these things to avoid something else.

You do see the separation in Climate Science? The data is gathered scientifically, the observations that go into creating proxies is real, that's the creditable portion, the rest is conjecture, agenda, and poor science, which uses credible work from those who gather the evidence, as a crutch, so the can claim the same credibility. Even if half these guys end up in court, it won't make any difference for you, you are hooked solid.

 

[shortbus=]

Quote Brownout, "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."

If this is so,why don't they come up with a way to flip the CO2 over? Like a one way mirror to keep the sun's heat out and the earth's cool in?


Why is any graph or link the refutes your belief irrelevant and nonsense and your graphs and links the truth?

What if the graphs that show CO2 and warming are being read wrong? What if, as you have said, the ocean started losing/giving off CO2 because it started getting warm. Instead of getting warm because of CO2.

 

[shortbus=]

Global warming: What's the real truth?
by Paul Krismanits
Here's a few things most people don't know, because most people like to get their news from propaganda movies which win Oscars (*achem* "An Inconvenient Truth"). So here's some facts I bet Al Gore and your science teacher didn't teach:

1. Contrary to the popular belief that glaciers all over the world are melting, in some places they are actually GROWING. In Iceland and Greenland, the first half of the twentieth century was warmer than the second half. In Iceland, most glaciers lost mass after 1930 because temperatures temporarily rose by .6 degrees Celsius. But since then the climate has gotten colder, and since 1970 the glaciers have been growing. Including eleven glaciers which are surging in size.
(P. Chylek, et al. 2004, "Global Warming and the Greenland ice sheet," Climate Change 63, 210-21)

2. Contrary to popular belief, Antarctica is NOT melting. Only the Antarctic peninsula (a relatively small portion of the continent) is melting, but the continent as a whole is getting colder and the ice is growing thicker. In fact:
a. From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from the cold.
(Doran, P.T., Priscu, J.C. Lyons, W.B. Walsh, J.E., Fountain, A.G. McKnight, D.M. Moorhead, D.L. Virginia, R.A. Wall, D.H. Clow, G.D. Fritsen, C.H. Mckay, C.P. and Parson, A.N., 2002, "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response," Nature, 415: 517-20)
b. Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctica ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6000 years.
(Joughlin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica," Science 295: 476-80)
c. Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979.
(Liu, J., Curry, J.A., and Martinson, D.G., 2004, "Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability," Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003 GLO18732)
d. The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979.
(Parkinson, C.L. 2002, "Trends in the length of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99," Annals of Glaciology 34: 435-40)

3. The arrival of global warming was announced in 1988 dramatically by James Hansen, a prominent climatologist. He predicted temperatures would rise by .35 degrees Celsius over the next ten years. The actual increase was .11 degrees Celsius (that's less than 1/10 of a degree folks). After ten years Hansen claimed that the forces which govern climate changes are so poorly understood that long-term prediction is impossible. Quote, "The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." His prediction was off by over 300 PERCENT, proving that scientists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to predictions in this field.
(James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Andrew Lacis, Reto Ruedy, Ina Tegen, and Elaine Matthews, "Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 [October 1998]: 12753-58)

4. More CO2 in the air actually STIMULATES plant growth.

5. Deserts in Africa are SHRINKING. (Fred Pearce, "Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert," New Scientist 175, 21 September 2002, pp. 4-5)

6. A presumed effect of global warming is that it will increase the rate of emergence of new diseases. Including bringing back diseases like malaria in a big way. In fact, the rate of emerging diseases has not increased since 1960. (Paul Reiter, et al, "Global Warming and malaria: a call for accuracy," Lancet, 4, no. 1 [June 2004]

7. There are around 160,000 glaciers in the world. Only about 67,000 have been inventoried, and only a few studied with any care. There is mass balance data extending five years or more for ONLY 79 GLACIERS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. No one knows whether they're all melting, or if even most of them are.
(H. Kieffer, et al., 2000, "New eyes in the sky measure glaciers and ice sheets," EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 81: 265, 270-71. Also R.J. Braithwaite and Y. Zhang, "Relationships between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate," Journal of Glaciology 45 [2000]: 456-62)

8. The belief that Mt. Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming is false. It has been melting since the 1800s, before "global warming." There is also no recorded warming trend at the altitude of the Kilimanjaro glacier. It is melting because of deforestation at its base which has taken away the moist air blowing upward. (Betsy Mason, "African Ice Under Wraps," Nature, 24, November 2003. Also Kaser, et al., "Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts," International Journal of Climatology 24: [2004]: 329-39)

9. Sea levels are not rising any faster due to global warming. For the last 6,000 years the sea level has been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (4 to 8 inches) every hundred years. There is no recorded proof that they have risen faster. Computer models which claim to have proven otherwise have been proven inaccurate. In fact, the northern Pacific has been measured as rising, but the southern Pacific has fallen by several millimeters in recent years. (**broken link removed**. "Over the last century, global sea-level change has typically been estimated from tide gauge measurements by long-term averaging...")

10. Even if global warming was happening and causing more El Nino weather events, the effects would actually be positive. In 1998 El Ninos direct losses caused in the U.S. were about $4 billion, and the benefits were worth approximately $19 billion. (Stanley A. Changnon, 1999: "Impacts of 1997-98 El Nino-Generated Weather in the United States," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80, no. 9: pp. 1819-28)

11. The Kyoto Agreement is absolutely worthless and will only result in being harmful to world economies. The predicted effect of Kyoto would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. That's the effect if the U.S. DID sign it. (Nature, 22 [October, 2003]: 395-741, stated, with Russia signed on, temperature affected would be -.02 Celsius by 2050.)

12. The modern theory of global warming is based upon the fact that the temperature has been rising steadily for the past 100 years due to rising CO2 and other emissions. The fact is, around 1880 (the beginning of the temperature rise) was actually the end of what many scientists call the "mini-ice age." Where, for about 400 years, the earth had cooled. The theory also presupposes that the greatest change occurred during the height of industrialization (roughly the 1940s-1970s). However, temperature graphs show that:
a. From 1940-1970 CO2 rose moderately yet the earth's temperature actually cooled.
b. The temperature in the United States peaked in the mid-1930s, cooled for about 60 years, and now has risen slightly again, although still not as much as it was in the 30s.
These graphs can be found at NASA GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

More of these graphs show that, while large urban areas have shown mild increases in temperature, many rural areas have actually cooled in the past 150-200 years. This is true globally. One specific example is New York City, which has increased in temperature about 4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1822, yet Albany, which is just north of New York City, has actually cooled a degree in the past 180 years. This shows no actual climate change as they are so close together.

These are just some of the facts people, from real scientists who do REAL research. These facts are not from politicians or actors. Whether the majority of scientists believe in it or not, there simply is not enough evidence to show that global warming is a threat in any way. Also, remember that it is merely a THEORY, and there are very little facts supporting it. I have a great deal more information if you're at all interested. Remember, THINK FOR YOURSELVES! The truth is out there. Don't be ignorant. Find the truth!




What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium



Copyright © 2002-2010 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA

 

[tcmtech]

Here is an interesting link with easier to follow scientific theory's and points that us 'non experts' without all the facts could find educational or at least more informative.
It gives a seemingly fair and reasonable explanation of the theoretical CO2 forcing effect and possible alternate climate influences using numbers that are easy to understand and relate to in non scientific terms.

Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits

 

[BrownOut]

Mostly from what I've seen of your opinions of global issues are more faith based than scientific. You claim that a few weeks of cold weather has long term implications. By contrast, I look at science based on physical evidence and our understanding of the physical world. QUOTE]





Yet you suggest and imply that global warming was why a nuclear power plant shut down during a heat wave which is also considered a short term WEATHER EVENT even though the actual power plant spokes person said they had serious doubts about global warming being the reason.

Seems to me global warming data and examples are very unidirectional. Up is up and down doesn't count.

I asked you once to point out where the phrase "global warming" appears in my text. You've failed to do so. You've failed in every attempt to find anything inconsistant with my postings.

Miserable failure.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

 

[tcmtech]

Reread your second paragraph of your quote and then read what you asked in the reply and tell me what you read and understand.

On a more serious note.
Not to long ago I received a PM from someone stating that they thought at one time there was a thread where you had mentioned that you had a stroke in the last few years or something to that effect and that I should back off on you being you may not be of an entirely sound or stable mind.

I dont know if its true but for some reason I sort of recall a thread as well where I had joked about why you chose brownout as a screen name in regards to having had a stoke or some other similar brain injury. I am probably wrong and have been misinformed but still if it would be nice to know that I am not dealing with a "Henry" in all of this.

Regarding Henry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If not lets continue on!

 

[BrownOut]

There is no issue with the soundness of my mind. I have serious doubts about the soundness of your mind, however.

 

[Mikebits]

Reread your second paragraph of your quote and then read what you asked in the reply and tell me what you read and understand.

On a more serious note.
Not to long ago I received a PM from someone stating that they thought at one time there was a thread where you had mentioned that you had a stroke in the last few years or something to that effect and that I should back off on you being you may not be of an entirely sound or stable mind.

I dont know if its true but for some reason I sort of recall a thread as well where I had joked about why you chose brownout as a screen name in regards to having had a stoke or some other similar brain injury. I am probably wrong and have been misinformed but still if it would be nice to know that I am not dealing with a "Henry" in all of this.

Regarding Henry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If not lets continue on!

Now that was just mean. **broken link removed**

 

[tcmtech]

There is no issue with the soundness of my mind. I have serious doubts about the soundness of your mind, however.

But that is not an actual no.

And I have always had my own doubts about my mental soundness. Its not a well kept secret with me by any means!
Being I keep interacting with you on these threads that pretty much shows I am at least a few degrees short of global warming myself!

 

[kchriste]

Tcmtech,
You obviously know nothing about people who have had a stroke. A person suffering from a stroke can have perfectly good reasoning abilities and simply suffer from reduced physical mobility or speech. It depends on where in the brain the stroke occurs.

 

[BrownOut]

But that is not an actual no.

Yet another bit if evidence of your total inability to understand simple concepts.

 

[HarveyH42]

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 )



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.

Now, water vapor is not a greenhouse gas? I'm getting confused here. Water vapor was the original Greenhouse gas, even during my school years. Doubt it would have lost it's status...

**broken link removed**
From a AGW friendly government site...

My 'faith-based' models? I have thoughts, understanding, beliefs, but no models, and little faith, less in catastrophic AGW. The change is a good thing, don't be afraid of the unknown. This planet was thriving during the dino-days, warmer, more CO2, full of life, and lots of green. Isn't that what ecology is all about? Stop holding onto the past.

Yeah, my opinions, like most here aren't scientific, we aren't scientist by trade, nor do we claim to be, or even pretend to be scientist. Doesn't mean we are uneducated, low intelligence, brain damaged, or inbred. We just follow different fields of study and practice.

You should take some math classes at your local college, if you have one. You obviously don't know much about graphs and statistics. You would be shocked and amazed, when you see some of the things you can do with numbers. You can't out right lie, you get into trouble, but you can bend how people perceive your data. I'm on vacation, maybe I'll see if I can dig something up for you, since graphs are your major argument, specially hockey sticks.

Anyway, looks like my new car is a 2000 Pontiac Grand Prix, 4-door. Lots of buttons and lights. Get to drive it for a few days, before I decide. Asking price is $2500, but think I'll get it for less. The passenger side windows need fixed, neither will go up, but hear the motor spinning. Low oil light is on, will need to check for leaks or burning. Was just delivered, and starting to rain, so didn't get much chance to look it over well. Have to wait until morning.

 

[BrownOut]

Dude, I've taken math. I have an advanced degree for Christ sake. I know all about graphs. I believe it's probably you who doesn't know anything about graphs or mathematics. I've heard uneducated people make all kinds of naive remarks about what can or cannot be achieved with mathematics. You're just one more on the heap. Even if you did know what you were talking about, that proves nothing. It's just an overused dodge that when data doesn't fit one's preconceived notion, they yell about manipulation. I've looked over the evidence, and I'm convinced it's genuine. And you have proved nothing by expressing generalized opinions about what "might" be achieved.

At any rate, I believe the science more than your opinions. The models are subjected to rigorous review by people who really know about these things, as opposed to some who took some math classes at his junior college and thinks he's qualified to invalidate them. I agree that your opinions are unscientific and don't have much to do with anything realistic.

As for the water vapor statement, you're quoting something I wrote in reference to a specific data set, which didn't include water vapor, and I already explained the effects of not including water. How is it you get things so wrong? You can make all kinds of statements about math and know how these things are all manipulated, but you can't understand a simple explanation I gave about a simple graph. Between you and some others, the duh factor is getting out of hand.

Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas. However, the rise in temperature isn't due to water vapor, it's due to an increase on CO2 that comes mostly comes from burning fossle fuels. The data is there, as long as you open your mind to it. Sine you won't, however, I don't expect you to understand the data, research or any simple presentation of the results.

So go look out of your window and report to us what you can tell about long term warming form that.

 

[HarveyH42]

As for the water vapor statement, you're quoting something I wrote in reference to a specific data set, which didn't include water vapor, and I already explained the effects of not including water. How is it you get things so wrong? You can make all kinds of statements about math and know how these things are all manipulated, but you can't understand a simple explanation I gave about a simple graph. Between you and some others, the duh factor is getting out of hand.

Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas. However, the rise in temperature isn't due to water vapor, it's due to an increase on CO2 that comes mostly comes from burning fossle fuels. The data is there, as long as you open your mind to it. Sine you won't, however, I don't expect you to understand the data, research or any simple presentation of the results.

Water Vapor was on your graph, separate from the combined Greenhouse Gasses. Wow, this is really confusing. Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses trap in heat, except for water vapor? The only thing causing warming is CO2, only from burning fossil fuels. So, if I understand this right, water vapor comprises the largest volume of the atmosphere, but doesn't have any significant effect on Global Warming?

Care to share? Advanced degree in what field? I originally intended Electrical Engineering, but knew I couldn't afford it, was tired and bored with required classes that had little or nothing to do with electronics. Was disappointed to learn, that I most likely wouldn't actually be building stuff for a while, except in my spare time, and I would have much choice in what sort of projects I'd be part of, nor actually much choice in the electronics field I might actually find a job. Took what I needed to get an associates degree, so I had something at least.

Ever notice how my posts, are left unedited? No need to correct, or change anything? I type how I think, I don't try to think up clever little gimmicks, or confuse the issues, when things get rough.