Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 101
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 5 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
wvwaterfall said:


The consensus IS strong that human activity plays a significant role in a warming planet.


So what? Consensus is an irrelevant and blatantly unscientific concept which has NO place in the discussion. The constant harping on "consensus, as if it meant anything, is ridiculous, and VERY telling.

wvwaterfall said:


To reject AGW after the amount of research and science that currently supports it is essentially rejecting the same scientific method that brought us so much over the last century.


That is utter crap, unless you believe that the "scientific method" typically includes fudging data, hiding or ignoring inconsistent data, refusing to share data, homogenizing data with preconceived results in mind, attempting to shut out opposing views from the peer review process, and calling those with opposing views "deniers" and attempting to ruin their careers.

Calling the theory of AGW "science" is an insult to reason, common sense, and the scientific method.


As for the OT - new study into global temperatures - just another lie from the alarmists. Don't think so? Let's see you climate frauds bullshit your way around this.

It begins with Muller lying to the public.


Muller claimed on the BBC Radio 4 Today show:

In our data, which is only on the land, we see no evidence of [global warming] having slowed down.


The MSM, ever ready to catapult the propaganda, reported Muller's lie as proof of AGW. Here's an example:


Eugene Robinson (Washington Post):

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.


After the MSM broadcasts the lie, the true believers come online and bleat out their ignorance, based on the same lie. It would be funny - if only these true believers weren't so dangerous in their delusions.

So - what is the truth about Muller's claim? Let's see what a real scientist (rather than a shill) has to say about Muller's conclusion - let's check what Muller's co-author says:


Professor Judith Curry (Chair, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech) - and BEST co-author said:

There is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for saying that warming hasn’t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.


There it is, in black and white - Muller, according to a co-author (and the facts) is a liar and a shill. Refute that.

The fact is that there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING for the last 10 years. That is the plain, undeniable, scientific fact. Carbon dioxide concentrations, on the other hand, continued to rise steadily. That, also, is the plain, undeniable, scientific fact.

Even you struggling alarmists should realize what that means. The facts have destroyed the theory. The AGW alarmists have been exposed as the frauds and liars they are.

But go ahead, try to refute the facts. See how many pages of sh1t you can write defending your gullibility and insulting others. I find it quite entertaining.

Your fake "science" of AGW is dead - it will be buried in the coming weeks at COP17. Good riddance.


MikeWM, the people attacking you are, for the most part, the usual suspects. You will not get through to them - they have too much self esteem invested. And, you are asking them to think - something they have shown themselves to be incapable of doing. They are so full of belief that there's no room for truth.

They got nothing except long winded appeals to authority and ad hominems. They are a waste of your time. And, they are now conclusively proven wrong.

swingarm1966 said:


Its no use Mike the sliver of indoctrination is stuck deep in their minds.


That ain't a sliver, swingarm - it's a damned sequoia.


RPL
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 11:27:55 PM

Calling the theory of AGW "science" is an insult to reason, common sense, and the scientific method.


Nice rant, rpl. Did I pick the right line to sum up your thoughts?

So....I guess that means all those national science organizations have consciously chosen to endorse a theory that has no basis in science. As have the 184 governments that support the IPCC. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory you've got there.

Common sense says that if you add a lot of something to the atmosphere and dramatically alter the landscape, change is to be expected.

Reason tells us that it would be prudent to understand and do what we can to minimize the negative impacts of our actions.

And the scientific method has provided us much needed detail about what we've done, what the likely consequences are depending on what we do next, and how best to make good choices.

It's an insult to reject all of that based on groundless claims that every independent investigation has shown to be baseless.

Warming has stopped? Huh. I could have sworn that all three major dataset sources show the last decade to be the warmest in recorded human history. I guess if your fever plateaus at 103 F for a while that means you're not sick any more, right?

Any climate scientist will tell you that the SMALLEST meaningful time period to draw conclusions from is a decade, not a year or a month or a day.

And I guess all those governments jockeying for sea lane rights across the north pole as the ice cap melts are just tilting at windmills.

The sad thing is that time will indeed show us whose emperor has no clothes, but while we bicker our options become more and more limited.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 103
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 12:21:30 AM
"Earthpuppy I'd say you've hit upon something there. It makes no logical sense for someone to come up with such a fantastic volume of utter trite as that posted by mikewm unless they are being paid!"- MrNiell

I think you mean "tripe", since that is a noun, and "trite" is an adjective.

So, what should global temperature be, and once we settle THAT question, we can figure out how to achieve the goal. Then we can put the tides on a more reasonable schedule and fix it so there are exactly 360 days in a year and 12 months of equal duration- just don't screw with my weekends.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 104
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 12:28:32 AM
"Considering the shear volume of postings"- earthpuppy

1.) You mean "SHEER volume", and

2.) You are no slouch in the volume department, or that of vapidity for that matter.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 12:45:02 AM
"Nice rant, rpl. Did I pick the right line to sum up your thoughts?

So....I guess that means all those national science organizations have consciously chosen to endorse a theory that has no basis in science. As have the 184 governments that support the IPCC. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory you've got there.

Common sense says that if you add a lot of something to the atmosphere and dramatically alter the landscape, change is to be expected.

Reason tells us that it would be prudent to understand and do what we can to minimize the negative impacts of our actions.

And the scientific method has provided us much needed detail about what we've done, what the likely consequences are depending on what we do next, and how best to make good choices.

It's an insult to reject all of that based on groundless claims that every independent investigation has shown to be baseless.

Warming has stopped? Huh. I could have sworn that all three major dataset sources show the last decade to be the warmest in recorded human history. I guess if your fever plateaus at 103 F for a while that means you're not sick any more, right?"- wvwaterfall
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So "common sense" and "consensus" are more important to you than "proof" and "logic", is that right?

Well, buddy, "common sense" and "consensus" have led to more witch hunts than anything else, if you will look at the historical record. While you're there in the historical record, look up "The Little Ice Age" or "The Medieval Climate Optimum"...

What reason should be telling you is to examine your assumptions.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 106
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:17:26 AM
This is a list of the most common anti-climate change arguments, all of which have been either discredited or addressed by the scientific community in one way or another many times over. Yet they keep being raised in defiance of logic and the spirit of genuine scientific enquiry.
A surprising number (my emphasis) have made an appearance here in this thread.

'The Climate Change Deniers Handbook - Top 30'
* Climate's changed before
* It's the sun
* It's not bad
* There is no consensus
* It's cooling
* Models are unreliable
* Temp record is unreliable
* Animals and plants can adapt
* It hasn't warmed since 1998
* We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
* It's Urban Heat Island effect
* Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
* What about the Ice age predicted in the 70s
* CO2 lags temperature
* 1934 - hottest year on record
* Sea level rise is exaggerated
* Medieval Warm Period was warmer
* It's volcanos
* Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
* CO2 limits will harm the economy
* There's no empirical evidence
* It's a natural cycle
* Scientists can't even predict weather
* It's not us
* CO2 limits will hurt the poor
* The science isn't settled
* It's not happening
* It's methane
* 500 scientists refute the consensus
* Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


I guess the list is interesting in another way too, because it indicates which discredited argument is likely to be presented next.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:18:18 AM
So many scandals, so little time...

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

I have taken to wearing my mask, snorkel, and fins everywhere, in anticipation of the rising sea level. We'll see just how "crazy" it is when Phoenix is UNDER WATER!!!

HAHhahahahaha!!!!

I figure that if IPCC is correct, it should take about a week.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 108
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:18:34 AM
wvwaterfall said:


Nice rant, rpl. Did I pick the right line to sum up your thoughts?


Thank you, sir. Yes, that sums it up nicely.

wvwaterfall said:


Warming has stopped? Huh. I could have sworn that all three major dataset sources show the last decade to be the warmest in recorded human history. I guess if your fever plateaus at 103 F for a while that means you're not sick any more, right?


Your argument isn't with me - it's with the science. Perhaps I should repost this bit. I think you missed it the first time through. It's from a scientist who worked with Muller on BEST. Unlike you and I, she has seen, and understands, the data.


Professor Judith Curry (Chair, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech) - and BEST co-author said:

There is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for saying that warming hasn’t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.


As further proof, this graph shows the past ten years plotted from BEST's own data:

http://www.thegwpf.org/cache/multithumb_images/1500539555.jpg

The following describes the graph and its significance:


It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. It is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement.


and


Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure the past decade. They present data covering almost 200 years with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

When examined more objectively Best data confirms the global temperature standstill of the past decade. That the standstill should be present in land only data is remarkable. There have been standstills in land temperature before, but the significance of the past decade is that it is in the era of mankind’s postulated influence on climate through greenhouse gas forcing. Predictions made many times in the past few years suggest that warming should be the strongest and fastest in the land data.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html


Ooops! Again, the fake science of global warming makes a prediction which turns out to be utterly wrong. Kilimanjaro still has snowy peaks, polar bears are thriving, the Arctic is still frozen, Greenland's ice sheet survives, Venice is still above water, the rise in sea level is NOT accelerating, hurricanes are NOT getting stronger - I could go on, but how much evidence does it take?

And you want to call that crap science? Really?

RPL
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 109
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:46:16 AM
Finnish television:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKZhr3JMhA&list=PLD0A6BB60B3C9C62F

Is that on your list, too, buster? Sorry, was referring to the eponymous lyingcheat...
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 110
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:47:37 AM
Typically, for those on your side of the auditorium, you are trumpeting loudly about a non-event.


Evidence for warming of the climate system includes observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. The Earth's average surface temperature, expressed as a linear trend, rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat island effect is estimated to account for about 0.002 °C of warming per decade since 1900. Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

Recent estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that 2005 and 2010 tied for the planet's warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 19th century, exceeding 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. Current estimates by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) show 2005 as the second warmest year, behind 1998 with 2003 and 2010 tied for third warmest year, however, “the error estimate for individual years ... is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.” The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of the global climate in 2010 explains that, “The 2010 nominal value of +0.53 °C ranks just ahead of those of 2005 (+0.52 °C) and 1998 (+0.51 °C), although the differences between the three years are not statistically significant...”

Temperatures in 1998 were unusually warm because the strongest El Niño in the past century occurred during that year. Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_temperature_changes
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/j/global_temperatures_09.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/slowdown.html
Changnon, Stanley A.; Bell, Gerald D. (2000). El Niño, 1997–1998: The Climate Event of the Century. London: Oxford University Press.

EDIT;

Finnish television:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKZhr3JMhA&list=PLD0A6BB60B3C9C62F
Is that on your list,too, buster?

No, I left it off because I didn't think anyone would really be foolish enough to mention it.
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:52:21 AM
I think you mean "tripe", since that is a noun, and "trite" is an adjective.


Right you are. Thanks for the English lesson!

Perhaps I should have said "such a fantastic volume of utterly trite tripe"

:-D
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 112
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:58:01 AM
As examples of how desperate the IPCC cultists are to press any and all events into service to bolster their preposterous claims I recall an issue of MOTHERJONES magazine, with a claim that a lake in Chad was drying up as evidence. All lakes dry up eventually, they are transitory features compared to rivers, see Great Salt Lake, once an inland sea.

Another claim in that same story was that AGW was causing the atmosphere to expand, producing drag on satellites and orbital decay. Below geosynchronous orbit, all orbits decay and re-entry is inevitable, while above GEO all orbital paths drift AWAY into escape from Earth's gravity well, which is the reason the Moon is receding.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 113
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 7:13:17 AM
Actually, some REALLY scary facts about water and lakes drying up,

1) The great lakes in the US have dried up so noticeably that marsh lands around them that have been boggy for the past 200 years are now rapidly turning to dust threatening a huge envirmental change in the area and as the great lakes contain 10% of the worlds fresh water thats VERY "significant"

2) The artificial lake that feeds Las Vegas and several other large populations is also showing a rapidly reduced average water level


3) Theres an area in africa where around 90% of the wells have dried up over the last 20 years and where the water table is now practically bone dry


All three have actually been claimed to be due to global warming and have also been used to show a scaremongering apocalyptic picture of the future

And at face value they DO seem to be quite compelling

SCARY infact, portents of climate doom and gloom exactly as predicted "seemingly"

_________________________________________________________


But lets look at the three again

1) A previous state governmerner who now refuses to comment on his decision signed a permanent contract with the makers of Evian to allow them to pump as much water as they wanted from the great lakes for a measly sum of $10 per annum. Rather than JUST pumping water out for bottling they actually export huge floats of it to china where its used on their rice fields and there is currently no oversight or restriction put on how much water they can pump nor what they do with it afterwards despite many years of protesting by local residents

2) US law states that if you own a piece of land you also wholly own the water on it and any water flowing through it.

A man whos last name I am fairly sure is Pickering owns large areas of the land around the dam and which is upstream in terms of the underwater streams feeding the dam

On the land he has several pumping plants taking water directly out of the water table and from several of the natural underground streams which is then sold. This has been verified as the cause of the falling water levels.

He does however sell the water to the same local populations in increasing amounts though

3) The area in question gave planning permission to the Coca Cola company to build a bottling plant in the area which pumps water directly from underground reservoirs, streams and from the water table itself. Theres no restriction on the amounts and they extract far more than the plant or the bottling process require and sell a lot of the excess to international aid organisations supplying water to the surrounding tribes and villages, the same ones who wouldnt have dry wells if the plant wasnt there to begin with


Both the manufacturers of Evian and coca cola make huge dinations annually to several green campaigning groups and AGW research funding organisations

Mr Pickering also makes many donations to green biased funding committees as well as having a few million dollars worth of stock in the CCX and several renewable power companies


So, as rapid climate change just isnt arriving to the AGW timetable are pro AGW companies and people who stand to make a fortune the more of a grip the scaremongering attains trying to "create" the proof in a far more proactive way than just doctoring figures and jumping to wild conclusions?

I wonder how many more AGW attributed enviromental disasters can be directly tracked back to people and organisations that are financial supporters of the enviromental and AGW movements or stand to make increased profits if the hypothesis does ever become widely accepted
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 9:04:15 AM
Mike, as discussed on other threads, fresh water depletion is indeed a serious global concern, but your examples are quite literally a drop in the bucket.

The Evian plant in question removes a maximum of 95 million gallons per year of water. Lake Michigan alone is dropping at a rate of over 5 trillion gallons per year. You'll have to look at a lot more reasons to explain the drop in lake level.

Likewise, Lake Meade, which supplies water to Vegas, is itself fed by the Colorado River, which supplies much of the water to much of the West and theoretically Mexico, although some years little actually makes it that far. No single withdrawal can explain the historic lows in lake level.

While ultimately there will be a connection between global warming and fresh water loss in many regions, the reasons for current groundwater and surface water shortages are far more complicated. Irrigation for agriculture is a major culprit, as are municipal withdrawals by large cities (like Vegas from Lake Meade and Chicago from Lake Michigan).

With seven billion people now on the planet, we're going to need to get a lot smarter about our resource management.

Finally, please cite the US law that gives property owners unfettered water rights. I think you'll find many examples in the West where that is very much NOT the case. My sister in Colorado is prevented by law from even collecting rainwater from her roof.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 9:13:06 AM

Actually, some REALLY scary facts about water and lakes drying up, /snip/

You seem to have abandoned the idea of even pretending you're writing these posts?
'A man' whose name you're fairly sure is 'Pickering'? And you know all about his investments and donations he makes?
Conspiracies involving Evian and CocaCola, whose donation habits you also seem to be privy to?

WTF are talking about?
Would you mind posting the source for this 'story', because it looks like an 'example of how desperate the anti-IPCC cultists are to press any and all events into service to bolster their preposterous claims'.



As examples of how desperate the IPCC cultists are to press any and all events into service to bolster their preposterous claims I recall an issue of MOTHERJONES magazine, with a claim that a lake in Chad was drying up as evidence. All lakes dry up eventually, they are transitory features compared to rivers, see Great Salt Lake, once an inland sea.

Another claim in that same story was that AGW was causing the atmosphere to expand, producing drag on satellites and orbital decay. Below geosynchronous orbit, all orbits decay and re-entry is inevitable, while above GEO all orbital paths drift AWAY into escape from Earth's gravity well, which is the reason the Moon is receding.

Gosh, you've got a long, though somewhat faulty, memory.
That story (actually a list) appeared in May-June 2005.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/feeling-burn
And the sources they used -
http://motherjones.com/environment/2005/05/feeling-burn-sources

Here are the two items (of 54 items in the list) you refer to -

* Lake Chad covered 9,650 square miles in 1963. Today it covers less than 500.

* Satellites take longer to fall to earth due to reduced drag caused by greenhouse gases thinning the upper atmosphere.

Ignoring the other 52 circumstances the list refers to, since many of them are unremarkable and undisputed, and ignoring the second one too since your recollection of that was faulty, let's examine the first of these two hey?

Lake Chad...
How old is Lake Chad? How big was it? When did it start shrinking?

Lake Chad gave its name to the country of Chad. The name Chad is a local word meaning "large expanse of water," in other words, a "lake."

Lake Chad is the remnant of a former inland sea, palaeolake Mega-Chad. At its largest, sometime before 5,000 BC, Lake Mega-Chad was the largest of four Saharan palaeolakes and is estimated to have covered an area of 400,000 km2 (150,000 sq mi), larger than the Caspian Sea is today, and may have extended as far northeast as within 100 km (62 mi) of Faya-Largeau.

Closer to the present, Lake Chad was first surveyed by Europeans in 1823, and it was considered to be one of the largest lakes in the world then. Lake Chad has shrunk considerably since the 1960s when its shoreline had an elevation of about 286 metres (938 ft) above sea level and it had an area of more than 26,000 square kilometres (10,000 sq mi), making its surface the fourth largest in Africa. An increased demand on the lake's water from the local population has likely accelerated its shrinkage over the past 40 years.

The size of Lake Chad greatly varies seasonally with the flooding of the wetlands areas. In 1983, Lake Chad was reported to have covered 10,000 to 25,000 km2 (3,900 to 9,700 sq mi), had a maximum depth of 11 metres (36 ft), and a volume of 72 km3 (17 cu mi).

By 2000 its extent had fallen to less than 1,500 km2 (580 sq mi). A 2001 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research blamed the lake's retreat largely on overgrazing in the area surrounding the lake, causing desertification and a decline in vegetation. The United Nations Environment Programme and the Lake Chad Basin Commission concur that at least half of the lake's decrease is attributable to shifting climate patterns. UNEP blames human water use such as inefficient damming and irrigation methods for the rest of the shrinkage. Some consider it likely that the lake will shrink further and perhaps even disappear in the course of the 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chad

So Lake Chad 7000 years ago was bigger than the Caspian Sea is today. Even in 1823 it was still considered to be one of the largest lakes in the world.
Yet in just the past 50 years it has shrunk to a remnant of its former size. Partly from improper use and partly from 'changing climate patterns'.

For comparison then, what is the history of the lake you mention, Great Salt lake, to illustrate the 'transitory' nature of lakes generally?


The Great Salt Lake is a remnant of a much larger prehistoric lake called Lake Bonneville which, at its peak surface area, was nearly as large as Lake Michigan. It spanned 22,400 square miles (58,000 km2), which is roughly ten times the area of the Great Salt Lake. It was also much deeper, reaching 923 ft (281 m) at its deepest point. It covered much of present-day Utah and small portions of Idaho and Nevada during the Pleistocene Epoch, more commonly known as the Great Ice Age, between 32,000 and 14,000 years ago. Lake Bonneville existed until about 16,800 years ago, when a large portion of the lake was released through the Red Rock Pass in Idaho. With the change in climate, the remaining lake began drying up, leaving the Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, Sevier Lake, & Rush Lake as remnants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Salt_Lake


mmm... it appears the two lakes you use to illustrate your point are not really comparable?
The Great Salt Lake didn't dry up in the past 50 years and the reasons it's now a salt pan are entirely dissimilar to the reasons Lake Chad is turning into a bit of a damp patch.

It appears also that various independent studies have broadly confirmed the place of Lake Chad on that MotherJones list.
So what was your point again?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 116
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 4:41:04 PM

You wont find a scientist who says it is unimportant though you may find an idiot.


I take it by the term "idiot" you actually used the AGW dictionary definition of

"Someone who even if they are just as qualified as an IPCC/AGW funded scientist with just as much specialisation and expertise in the same field doesnt agree with the theories and conclusions the IPCC says are true"

Just so we are clear about the actual definition in play, as theres a lot of highly qualified and specialised scientists who DO say exactly that


Other things may increase it more if we increased their output[ say the sun for example] but that in no way shape or form proves that C02 is NOT a climate driver or not driving the change now


Actually if you had looked into the science the sun and its relationship with the upper atmosphere can and infact does trigger cooling at times when the suns output increases rather than warming

Depending on the type and density of cloud cover that can also increase cooling when it increases too

And the oceanic tidal flows which span decades have also been observed to cause negative changes in climate even when all other factors would suggest it should be warming as they've been found to have distinct warming and cooling cycles that alternated and which override many of the more negligible climate drivers that have been more widely researched (CO2 included)

Theyre also the cause of multidecadal patterns of the frequencies of "severe weather" occurences too

Most of which is pretty new science as its only really been able to be observed in any widescale detail with satelite observation. And as such doesnt feature in any climate models

On the CO2 issue though, nobody IS claiming its "not" a driver, but you already know that

Quite simply that not only is it not the majorative driver claimed which no tangible data reinforces, but that its also not even a major climate driver and pales into insignificance when compared to several other drivers that ARE known to be major ones

CO2 is also heavier than air, yet try as I might I cant seem to find any decent research about the levels of CO2 at 100 feet above ground level, 500 feet or 1000 feet above ground level which you'd kind of think would be pretty pivotal research when dealing with a "climate" rather than a dense saturation near to ground level which would have very little impact on a "climate" most of which would be above those altitudes

The other thing that also seems to be a bit thin on the ground is a valid scientific comparison of what percentage of radiated heat would be reflected with varying saturations of CO2, as the principle would work similar to a how effective a bed sheet, a wool blanket and a fishing net would be when used as a parachute

because the lower the PPM the less incidence of reflection as a percentage of the whole

So if the size of a CO2 molecule and the relative sizes of the other molecules in the atmosphere were known then it could be mathematically worked out to give at least some rudimentary idea of what percentage was reflected and what percentage wasnt

Bearing in mind of course that reflection in a chaotic mixture wouldnt be purely in the downwared direction, but more akin to a pinball type effect. But I am sure there should be mathematicians who could or should have already done this kind of thing as it would be a bit ridiculous to be claiming CO2 is so important without having some type of reflection index worked out for a given CO2 component

That could probably then be easily verified over the pacific where theres a huge heat vent to see what percentage of radiation from the sea escapes into space and what percentage gets reflected back to earth

So if you do infact have links for that information that would be quite interesting as I have spent a while trying to track it down and perhaps because I wasnt using the right keywords havent seemed to be able to locate it
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 5:57:26 PM
^^^
So if you do infact have links for that information that would be quite interesting as I have spent a while trying to track it down and perhaps because I wasnt using the right keywords havent seemed to be able to locate it.

Hey... wait a minute. I'm still waiting for you to cite the references you used to 'write' that story about Evian, Coca Cola, and disappearing lakes.

To refresh your memory...
Actually, some REALLY scary facts about water and lakes drying up,

1) The great lakes in the US have dried up so noticeably that marsh lands around them that have been boggy for the past 200 years are now rapidly turning to dust threatening a huge envirmental change in the area and as the great lakes contain 10% of the worlds fresh water thats VERY "significant"
2) The artificial lake that feeds Las Vegas and several other large populations is also showing a rapidly reduced average water level
3) Theres an area in africa where around 90% of the wells have dried up over the last 20 years and where the water table is now practically bone dry

All three have actually been claimed to be due to global warming and have also been used to show a scaremongering apocalyptic picture of the future
And at face value they DO seem to be quite compelling
SCARY infact, portents of climate doom and gloom exactly as predicted "seemingly"
_________________________________________________________

But lets look at the three again
1) A previous state governmerner who now refuses to comment on his decision signed a permanent contract with the makers of Evian.../snip/

2) US law states that if you own a piece of land you also wholly own the water on it and any water flowing through it.
A man whos last name I am fairly sure is Pickering.../snip/

3) The area in question gave planning permission to the Coca Cola company..../snip/

Both the manufacturers of Evian and coca cola make huge dinations annually to several green campaigning groups and AGW research funding organisations

Mr Pickering also makes many donations to green biased funding committees as well as having a few million dollars worth of stock in the CCX and several renewable power companies
/snip/
I wonder how many more AGW attributed enviromental disasters can be directly tracked back to people and organisations that are financial supporters of the enviromental and AGW movements or stand to make increased profits if the hypothesis does ever become widely accepted

Cite your sources.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 118
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 7:10:50 PM
Its not something thats been disputed in the slightest

Infact if you check back I made a comment on that in one of my first posts about how much as a percentage something that makes up around 0.000,04% of the atmosphere would be likely to reflect

And lets face it, its not likely to be very much which is why I suspect I am having trouble finding the information as it wouldnt be "scary" enough

I wouldnt think a number off the top of my head of around 0.1% radiated being reflected would be ridiculous as a total considering the PPM value for CO2, infact thats probably being way too generous

So even if we attributed ALL of the CO2 increases in the last hundred years or so to mankind that would then be 0.025% of the radiation from the earth being rebounded


Still not very scary

But we're also forgetting the sea, which stores vast amounts of CO2, which is known to store less CO2 the warmer it gets. So any natural warming in the sea also releases additional CO2 which even if fractional could still equate to immense amounts of CO2 due to the sheer size of the seas surface area and volume

And a major sticking point there is that the seas core temperatures are suspected to follow solar cycles but has quite a long lag, so CO2 being released now would be in response to increased solar activity many decades ago rather than recent events

But even neglecting to remove the seas vast quantities of CO2 from the total we're still looking at a very small net impact on what percentage of the earths radiant head would be likely to be reflected back by CO2 based on its percentage of the earths atmosphere

admittedly I have literally just plucked the figures from the air if you'll pardon the pun to outline what type of data you would "think" would be so easy to find if it did infact prove the AGW arguement. Infact it would be headline news

Yet its been proving quite difficult to find despite being a very integral and pivotal aspect of the AGW arguement

I did also try to find CO2 by volume as a percentage of the total atmosphere to try and get some idea from that rather than the PPM value which as I understand it is based on molecular instance rather than volumetric proportions incase it was a molecule that was physically significantly larger in size but no luck with that yet but I might tap up a Doctor of chemistry I know for that info although at a guess I dont expect it to be that much larger compared to other atoms that are also gaseous at that temperature

So the mechanism wasnt lost on me, just the significance of the claims about CO2s impact same as its always been

And more specifically the CO2 from the burning of carbon fuels as that once again would only be a percentage of the 0.025% of reflected radiation, as deforestation et al I am guessing also contribute to the amount of CO2 whether natural or caused by mankind so that combined with the seas contribution I am guessing would shrink that 0.025% by quite a large margin

But its the fossil fuel aspect that is currently attracting immense amounts of taxation due to claims that this 0.025 or less is not only "significant" but "MAJORLY significant" which is what I honestly think is a total crock

Are you "there" now?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 119
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 11:39:36 PM

I did also try to find CO2 by volume as a percentage of the total atmosphere to try and get some idea from that rather than the PPM value which as I understand it is based on molecular instance rather than volumetric proportions incase it was a molecule that was physically significantly larger in size but no luck with that yet but I might tap up a Doctor of chemistry I know for that info although at a guess I dont expect it to be that much larger compared to other atoms that are also gaseous at that temperature.

According to the (not difficult to access) Wiki page titled 'Carbon Dioxide'...

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume.

As of July 2011[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 392 ppm by volume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Some other interesting links concerned with CO2 -
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccl/co2report.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/
http://co2now.org/
http://co2now.org/Historical-CO2/
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Trend/acceleration-of-atmospheric-co2.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
http://www.clim-past.net/3/485/2007/cp-3-485-2007.pdf

But your concentration (pun intentional) on CO2 and water vapour (clouds) jumbles up long and short term effects, positive and negative feedback loops, and generally confuses the issue through over-simplification.

Global climate is a very complicated issue.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/climate-change-global-processes-and-effects1

Ignoring the complexity though, it seems an obvious deduction that digging up nearly all of the trillions of tons of carbon that's been stored in the ground for millenia and burning it, considering that CO2 is a by-product of that combustion, is going to have some kind of impact on the atmosphere.

Yet the climate change 'sceptics' would have us believe it's the sun, it's not happening, it's a conspiracy, it's just the 'urban heat island' effect, there's no consensus, Mars is warming too, it's volcanos, it's cows, it's termites, etc etc etc. pfft.
 Natgoat
Joined: 3/24/2011
Msg: 120
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/13/2011 1:24:54 PM
Nature is an interesting subject...
It would be terribly Conceited if people thought they could seriously affect the way our planet evolves....
'Global Warming' has happened MANY times before...!!
Our pollution of the planet is only hurting US...!!
A few million pounds of Styrofoam cups aren't going to affect the planets rotation or significantly alter anything..!
WE have to take care of US..!!
The Planet Will Take Care of Itself..!!
 DartmouthRunner
Joined: 3/5/2009
Msg: 121
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/13/2011 1:45:13 PM

The Planet Will Take Care of Itself..!!


Nobody is doubting that fact. The issue of the planet taking care of itself is the fact that it will do so regardless of how it impacts all life on the planet...including us.

I think people just wants everyone to take care of the planet so it may give us a gentle nudge rather than a sharp punch to the face.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 122
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/13/2011 3:20:47 PM

which does not evolve the things living on it do


See that where your misinformed. Climate is evolving/adapting as we speak.Mountains and rivers and sea's and prarie's are thus changing.evolcing/adapating. Seasons are becoming longer and others shorter.... That is a mechanism this planet has to adress an inbalance...

People are right, this planet is going nowhere and will recover from anything we can do to it.

Its only us and our money that is going anywhere....
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 123
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/13/2011 4:30:12 PM
"Global climate is a very complicated issue. "

Yes it is. So let's not pretend that the science is settled when scientists can't even quantify the effects of CO2, glaciers, clouds, ocean currents, ocean salinity, aerosols, land usage, the sun, and a hundred other relevant variables, on the climate.

"Ignoring the complexity though, it seems an obvious deduction that digging up nearly all of the trillions of tons of carbon that's been stored in the ground for millenia and burning it, considering that CO2 is a by-product of that combustion, is going to have some kind of impact on the atmosphere."

But you can't ignore the complexity and expect to have a sound policy towards global warming.

"Yet the climate change 'sceptics'..."

No one is skeptical of the fact that the climate changes. In fact for decades AGW skeptics have been pointing out that the climate always changes. Feel free to go on believing that the climate was static in some pre-industrial golden age.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 124
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/13/2011 5:04:47 PM
Lets apply the above logic to say bipolar , which is a mood disorder.

So if a person has mood changes the shrink can't consider that as a symptom when diagnosing because everyones mood changes.
Plus the science aint settled.
LOL.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 125
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/13/2011 5:36:28 PM

But you can't ignore the complexity and expect to have a sound policy towards global warming


It seems you can if youre the IPCC

Most of the major climate influences remain grey areas that they openly admit to knowing very little about, infact so little they cant even state whether a change in either direction would cause global warming or cooling

Yet they also claim that by only focusing on trace elements which clearly have no majoritive influence they can create "acurate" models despite not being able to include the major climate influences into those models

Sheesh

As I said earlier, its akin to trying to predict the emissions of a car without knowing what engine or exhaust it will have. CO2 is like spending 2o years theorising about what effect the radio ariel is going to have on the emissions

Otherwise, if CO2 was impactive then a 25% increase in CO2 would have been mirrored by a proportional increase in temperatures. But I havent seen any 25% increases in temperature anywhere

Infact death valley which is not only the hottest place on the planet but one of the most remote too had its hottest periods on record in the 60s and has been fairly steady and cooler most of the time since, australia has actually dropped over a degree too as have many places around the world

if anything death valley seems to follow a 5 year(ish) cycle of temperature rises and falls and has had some of its coolest years on record despite CO2 steadily increasing througout

The "catastrophic climate change" bogeyman has also been predicted and didnt arrive several times in the last few decades and the catestrophic weather (also blamed on global warming) is actually far more likely to be a side effect of the multidecadel cycles of the oceans according to research

As much as the lack of knowledge of the climate and its patterns means that any actual "deniers" (which seem very scarce anyhoo) as well as the AGW crowds claims are just hypothesi? hypotehesises? whatever lol rather than actual theories the AGW sceptics dont from what I see claim that CO2 has "no" influence on climate, just that the scaremongering doom and gloom claims being made are ridiculously overhyped, have no valid data to support them and dont even offer a valid solution anyway

Infact things that "might" actually make a decent and noticeable change arent even getting much attention nor funding because most of that is being directed towards CO2 which isnt even capable of making a rapid change anyway as cutting man made production wouldnt magically stop the sea from releasing tons of the stuff due to warming anyway

Rather than factless pontificating absorbing billions of dollars and billions more being lost to carbon credit trading a "better" approach would sure be to fund massive global planting programmes, epic irrigation schemes and the like which would have an effect


What I did find interesting though that I dont recall being mentioned is human population

Although most of the world actually lives in poverty and hardly has any carbon footprint at all what IS interesting is that the curve of human population and the CO2 curve are uncannily similar

Other than that though, until at least the MAJOR climate drivers can be understood, their effects reliably charted and predicted along with how they interact and then their influences quantified and removed from temperature increases its impossible to even guess at what influence mankind has in the slightest

And until that can be acurately quantified then spending trillions of dollars on an unproven hypothesis when theres far better things that money could be being spent on is pure insanity

As for


Lets apply the above logic to say bipolar , which is a mood disorder.

So if a person has mood changes the shrink can't consider that as a symptom when diagnosing because everyones mood changes.
Plus the science aint settled.
LOL.


Applying AGW logic would give you

Someone has mood swings

We dont quite know what effects all the lead paint we know they ate as a child would have had, we also dont want to research what effect the three severe head traumas they have suffered might have had, the recent period of oxygen starvation we know they suffered also doesnt interest us

but, we make a lot of money from prescribing the bipolar medication that rep dropped off last week so lets just prescribe that and make some cash and hope nobody questions why we diagnose all mood swings anyone has as being bipolar while the commission on the medication for it is so good

Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures