What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

[Frixxxx]

The last time I read about weather predictions even with super computers the weather can not be predicted above about 80% for tomorrow.


http://www.forecastadvisor.com/Mississippi/Gulfport/39503/


What does that say to you about global forecasts for the extended future?

I heard that too, but my question is that what I have learned is that as the temperature rises outward from the equator it pushes rainfall numbers up closer to the Arctic and Antarctic regions. When this occurs, the ice shelfs rebuild themselves and that inturn causes the jet streams to drop down again and it has a 2-3% cooling effect closer to the equator.

Now, don't get me wrong, I believe in conservation and reducing my footprint on this earth, but to economically and politically force countries to bow down to a direction from a committee means that that country must resign its' sovereignty. I am not willing to except that on a planet that can't agree to stop killing each other let alone decide how they are going to burn fossil fuels.

I also raise Haiti in my questioning of these types of issues: Would the country of Haiti be required to pay all the carbon points for the other countries that used up theirs in supporting the charitable acts (Plane exhaust, trash from MRE and bottled water)? I mean, I would hate to think that a country may hold back food and water because it would cause a 400% increase in their cap and trade position.

 

[coolhand]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

 

[nnuut]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

It seems the deeper we dig the stinkier it gets!:suspicious:

 

[FundSurfer]

I wonder if the scientist at Glacier National Park are going to revise their estimates of when their glaciers will be gone (2030). When I read the article on the Himalayian glaciers the 2035 number sounded very familiar.

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

Probably not any time soon.

I do find it interesting how the search for sound bites on this issue is driving the bus. Both sides are battling for public opinion on a science issue.

 

[Buster]

How to Look at ‘Global Warming’
A very important thing to understand in interpreting all the swill that issues daily from the Global Warming mill (really the anti-industry, anti-population lobby, headed and pumped with money by the Royal Consort Prince Philip, and former Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands), is that the onset of an Ice Age is not marked by global cooling. In fact, the very same astronomical conditions which cause a cooling at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, produce the opposite effect in the Southern Hemisphere, where there is much more ocean to absorb and retain the incoming solar radiation. Thus the global average temperature does not tell us anything of importance.

The geological requirements for an Ice Age are the presence of a large landmass around the Polar Circle and extending southward. A look at the globe, or world map, shows that those conditions exist in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in the Southern. Therefore, the important thing to look at is the climate conditions in northern and far northern regions. Some of the indicators:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]• Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere[/FONT]

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Ice_Age.html
​

 

[nnuut]

I sense some conflicting data, but it seems to be true that many glaciers in the northern hemisphere are getting smaller sense the Little Ice Age. Ice over New York City was at least 1000 feet thick during the Ice Age, now that's a lot of Ice according to a Planet Earth Documentary I watched the other night. Appears to me that they expand and contract for sure, most the ones that were here in the Ice Age are gone, we see their tracks everywhere. Climate changes and Glaciers come and go. I wish someone could come up with a proved theory to explain it all and predict the next coming of the ice. Is there Data on global warming after the Ice Age, what melted all of that ice? I know nothing just asking stupid questions.IMHO

 

[nnuut]

Thanks for the info, every little bit helps.
I have no problem with the possibility that we are in a long term warming cycle. The only problem I have is the politics of using CO2 as the culprit when every thing I read that's believable says it Could Not be the cause. I learned that a rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at the current levels or even much more would not cause a rise in temperature but actually can have a shielding effect in the atmosphere and block solar heating. It encourages plant growth generating more oxygen and generally is regulated by the oceans. 2+2 =4 I don't buy it. They cooked the books to promote Cap and Trade and the rest of their agenda and used false data to do it!
Thanks again for the information, keep it coming I'm an eager learner.
Norman IMHO!

 

[Buster]

Is there Data on global warming after the Ice Age, what melted all of that ice? I know nothing just asking stupid questions.IMHO

No..that's a very valid question Norm, nothing stupid about it at all..What is stupid, is those sheep that follow Algore's footsteps..

What would of happened to the ICE if the Earth hadn't warmed?...Answer:..It'd be still covering most of the Northern hemisphere and man would not exist yet..What we are seeing in the way of some glaciers retreating, is the last of the last ICE AGE before the Earth begins to start the cycle all over again....Start cutting firewood..cuz if this past winter wasn't a big enough hint, then you sheep are doomed like the dinosaurs...

Hey wait a minute..that's a good thing..Never mind..You sheep go get some sun block instead...Baaaa-bye

 

[FundSurfer]

Is it better to err on the side of caution or explain away what appears to be an acceleration in the warming trend. Yes glaciers have been receeding, it is the increase in the rate - acceleration in the existing warming trend that is troublesome. I'm not convinced that CO2 is the problem or answer either. What I do have a problem with is people who look at the cold snap this January and say, "see, we are obviously not in a warming trend". Ignorant. Ha! California just had 5 tornadoes in a week, we are obviously in a warming trend! We could play that game forever. Right now, greenhouse gasses is a working theory that explains the acceleration. The natural explanation is that the reduction in snow/glacier covererage reduces the solar reflectance allowing more absorption of energy by the earth. I think it would be prudent to make dad-gummed sure it is not greenhouse gas before writing off the warming trend as a natural cycle.

 

[nnuut]

Buster,

You seem to be very much into sheep.

Is it maybe because you come from the land of "velcro gloves"?

Where the men are men, and the sheep...are nervous.:worried:

LOL, Boy-O-Boy, that's a good one!!

 

[nnuut]

Is it better to err on the side of caution or explain away what appears to be an acceleration in the warming trend. Yes glaciers have been receeding, it is the increase in the rate - acceleration in the existing warming trend that is troublesome. I'm not convinced that CO2 is the problem or answer either. What I do have a problem with is people who look at the cold snap this January and say, "see, we are obviously not in a warming trend". Ignorant. Ha! California just had 5 tornadoes in a week, we are obviously in a warming trend! We could play that game forever. Right now, greenhouse gasses is a working theory that explains the acceleration. The natural explanation is that the reduction in snow/glacier covererage reduces the solar reflectance allowing more absorption of energy by the earth. I think it would be prudent to make dad-gummed sure it is not greenhouse gas before writing off the warming trend as a natural cycle.

It may or may not be Greenhouse gas that contributes to the problem but NOT CO2! IMHO

 

[jimijr]

I see the political monkeyshines as due in part to the never-ending quest for funding. Dollars are available for climate-change research, therefore the proposals roll in. Continuinity of funding also is very important so care is taken to produce results that avoid jeopardizing that. There's a lot of grad students out there who need support.

Speaking of myself, for obvious reasons I wish not to be associated here on these pages with my agency. My own meteorological research has been on the air-sea interaction in the tropics mainly, not world climate change and I really have no idea what the official agency line is on the topic. However I believe they are in the process of trying to set up a National Climate Service so that could fall under the "quest for funding" heading, eh?

Perhaps someday we'll have the answers but I suspect not. The atmosphere is too chaotic and sets definite limits on predictability. That right there is reason to go slow on policy changes. Until we know more, we should go for efficiency and use any savings to support further growth.

 

[Buster]

Originally Posted by FireWeatherMet
Buster,

You seem to be very much into sheep.

Is it maybe because you come from the land of "velcro gloves"?

Where the men are men, and the sheep...are nervous

Only EWE would know...

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Is it better to err on the side of caution or explain away what appears to be an acceleration in the warming trend. Yes glaciers have been receeding, it is the increase in the rate - acceleration in the existing warming trend that is troublesome. I'm not convinced that CO2 is the problem or answer either. What I do have a problem with is people who look at the cold snap this January and say, "see, we are obviously not in a warming trend". Ignorant. Ha! California just had 5 tornadoes in a week, we are obviously in a warming trend! We could play that game forever. Right now, greenhouse gasses is a working theory that explains the acceleration. The natural explanation is that the reduction in snow/glacier covererage reduces the solar reflectance allowing more absorption of energy by the earth. I think it would be prudent to make dad-gummed sure it is not greenhouse gas before writing off the warming trend as a natural cycle.

What about volcanic activity? Why is it not possible that volcanic activity in the ocean is causing the glaciers to recede? Scientists don't even know how much volcanic activity is taking place on the ocean floor, so how can they say it is totally and completely caused by Mankind?

I just think that if environmentalists are so concerned about global warming, then they should invent and market a real solution. I would love to own an electric car that will go three hundred miles between charges, run all my electronic extras like gas cars do now, and costs me as much or less to purchase than a comparable gas car. Build a better "mousetrap" that helps the environment, make it affordable, and the people will buy them up. There's no need for government intervention.

While I'm not against all environmental laws, I believe the cap and tax bill is the wrong legislation at the wrong time.

 

[alevin]

Viva, in my world we talk about natural rates of soil erosion and accelerated rates of soil erosion. accelerated doesn't substitute for natural, it's the additive increment from human impacts. same thing with the Co2 and global temp conversations. and it all has to do with different time scales as well as spatial scales. very complex subject, learning curve highest its ever been among a wide range of science disciplines much less collaborate, share and integrate their ideas, findings as fast as occurs these days, I'd venture, things it would have been impossible to even start to get a handle on 30 years ago-satellites, computers, other technology weren't there to do the air, soil, rock, ice chemical and/or physical sampling, do the modelling, do the analyses.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Viva, in my world we talk about natural rates of soil erosion and accelerated rates of soil erosion. accelerated doesn't substitute for natural, it's the additive increment from human impacts. same thing with the Co2 and global temp conversations. and it all has to do with different time scales as well as spatial scales. very complex subject, learning curve highest its ever been among a wide range of science disciplines much less collaborate, share and integrate their ideas, findings as fast as occurs these days, I'd venture, things it would have been impossible to even start to get a handle on 30 years ago-satellites, computers, other technology weren't there to do the air, soil, rock, ice chemical and/or physical sampling, do the modelling, do the analyses.

I have no doubt that we have an impact on the environment. We expel CO2 as part of the breathing process. We use our natural resources for our own purposes. We take from the environment and make tools, shelter, clothes, food, etc. The only way we will stop having an impact on the environment is if we completely disappear from the planet! I don't mind looking for ways to reduce our impact on the environment, but they should be free market solutions, not arbitrary and capricious mandates from government ideologues with a political agenda. IMHO, of course.

 

[FundSurfer]

I just think that if environmentalists are so concerned about global warming, then they should invent and market a real solution.

So if a hog farm moves next door to you since you are concerned about odor then you should invent and market the solution? If a chemical production plant moves into your watershed and begins to use all the water and leave a residue in the water that taste bad, then you should invent and market a solution?

I'm reading that 1. people don't think that there is any problem, 2. If there is a problem then it couldn't possibly be man induced or something we should worry about, 3. If there is a problem, it can't possibly be related to fossil fuel. 4. If there is a problem, we should not address it because it would wreck our economy and not be addressed equitably worldwide.

Hmmm....

If the hog farm creates an odor problem, who should pay to clean up the odor problem? If the industrial plant taints the water, who should be responsible for putting in water treatment? The entity that created the problem or those impacted by the problem. If at some point in the future, we do definitely link global warming acceleration to greenhouse gas production, I sure hope the third world does not figure out a way to sue the polluters.

 

[alevin]

Free market works up to a point, VLM, but from my econ courses I learned about externalized costs-where people that miss out on the profits, get to bear most of the costs-think about air pollution and living downwind of a paper mill with dioxin fumes suffocating the community. or think about coal miners in Appalachia-living on credit at company stores-never out of debt, dying of black lung disease early, families uncared for when the breadwinner dies unless there is a child old enough to quit school and go to work in the mines themselves, meanwhile streams turn acid pH of 3.6 and all life in the streams die and the water becomes unfit for humans as well, while the mine owners live high on the hog somewhere else with clean air, clean water, little personal debt if any. that's the way life was before regulation, and in some places still is, because regulations are not enforced. Mine inspectors still have a high-risk job, and not from the mine itself, not if they are really trying to do their job.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

So if a hog farm moves next door to you since you are concerned about odor then you should invent and market the solution? If a chemical production plant moves into your watershed and begins to use all the water and leave a residue in the water that taste bad, then you should invent and market a solution?

I'm reading that 1. people don't think that there is any problem, 2. If there is a problem then it couldn't possibly be man induced or something we should worry about, 3. If there is a problem, it can't possibly be related to fossil fuel. 4. If there is a problem, we should not address it because it would wreck our economy and not be addressed equitably worldwide.

Hmmm....

If the hog farm creates an odor problem, who should pay to clean up the odor problem? If the industrial plant taints the water, who should be responsible for putting in water treatment? The entity that created the problem or those impacted by the problem. If at some point in the future, we do definitely link global warming acceleration to greenhouse gas production, I sure hope the third world does not figure out a way to sue the polluters.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. A hog farm moving next door to me would have to be in compliance with local zoning laws already in place. A chemical plant would be required to be in compliance with current zoning and environmental laws. If they are dumping hazardous material in violation of current law, then they would be subject to fines, cleanup costs, and possible criminal prosecution. There are already laws on the books to address these situations.

You seem to think that I am opposed to all environmental laws. I'm not. I just think cap and tax is nothing more than a power and money grab based on, at best, questionable science.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Free market works up to a point, VLM, but from my econ courses I learned about externalized costs-where people that miss out on the profits, get to bear most of the costs-think about air pollution and living downwind of a paper mill with dioxin fumes suffocating the community. or think about coal miners in Appalachia-living on credit at company stores-never out of debt, dying of black lung disease early, families uncared for when the breadwinner dies unless there is a child old enough to quit school and go to work in the mines themselves, meanwhile streams turn acid pH of 3.6 and all life in the streams die and the water becomes unfit for humans as well, while the mine owners live high on the hog somewhere else with clean air, clean water, little personal debt if any. that's the way life was before regulation, and in some places still is, because regulations are not enforced. Mine inspectors still have a high-risk job, and not from the mine itself, not if they are really trying to do their job.

There are already laws on the books to deal with these situations. You've said so yourself. Your complaint is that the laws are not enforced. If that is the case, how is creating more laws going to resolve the issue? I work in law enforcement, so I know how politics play a role in how aggressive the law enforcement community is allowed to do their jobs.

This current Congress could pass cap and tax in order to make their base "feel" better, then turn around and not fund it's implementation. It happens all the time.