What Do We Think About Climate Change

Shi..., I forgot that.... But then, It's raining (and cold...), so I wouldnt probably seen a thing this night either...

 

wrong again
temps for most of those years of this last decade are actually tied for the second hottest year on record

so once again simply because one or two years of these last ten were not the 1st or 2nd hottest on record still wouldn't produce this mythical falling trend you seem to cling to so desperately assuming you cherry pick the data starting from 98 which you always do and assuming you ignore the long term trend which is unmistakably a rising trend ( another regular trick of yours ) and assuming you use the wrong data set ( as Allan has pointed out to you numerous times ) and my personal fave, assuming you dont have your head up your ***, which based on your statements is a near certainty

and whats up with the childish outbursts lately, seems old Allan got your goat when he exposed your use of improper data and you have been on a bender ever since. I merely point out the hypocrisy in your conflicting statements

for instance

 

here were you are wrong again in your assumptions,

the actual data shows you are completely wrong again

I'll give you one for consistency though,
just about every statement you have made so far has been miles off base

want another for instance



notice anything about that co2 vs temp
are you seriously suggesting they are not linked

clearly co2 has preceded temp in this last century and it is co2 that can be used to calculate the measured temp increase

cheers
B

 

wrong again G the ice core data clearly shows a strong corelation between co2 and temp

what it does not show is ice permeability which is one reason that air trapped in the ice is younger than the ice itself

of course you are going to deny that though just as you will the following information concerning the arctic air temps

from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html

of course you are likely to cling to your diatribe however the reality is that once again you are completely wrong Guillermo

love
B

 

Yes, CO2 was higher at one time on the planet. And if you go back far enough, there was a time when there was none at all, because the planet had no atmosphere. So what? Screw what conditions were like millions or billions of years ago; I'd rather keep them in the range humans evolved within.

And too much of anything can be pollution. For example, horse manure is completely natural, and good for flowers and other growing things. But at the rate it's being shoveled in this thread, it would kill my garden in a heartbeat....

I doubt you're seriously open-minded on the subject ("CO2 is not pollution, CO2 is not pollution, CO2 is not pollution etc"). If you are, it shouldn't be that hard to give us a general idea of the sort of proof that might change your mind.

 

Repeat after me.
Slowly, please: THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION AT ALL BETWEEN HAVING REACHED WHATEVER HIGH TEMPERATURE AND A STAGNATION OR COMING DOWN OF SUCH TEMPERATURES.

Got it now, scatterbrained idiot? I can repeat it again as many times as you need, no problem.

 

As the graphs I posted were obtained from HadCRUT3 data by Ole Humlum (an Arctic climate expert, remember) and I have posted the source where to obtain data, I'm waiting for Alan to run and check with his program such data and see what he finds.

Where do you see the correlation, *****? Only in your eccentric mind.

Please demonstrate CO2 has preceded temperature.

Please show us the peer reviewed paper with such formula to calculate temperature from CO2 for the last century.


Now, what about the +/- 7 months lag between CO2 and temp anomalies I posted a while ago? I'm still waiting for Alan to run such data also.

 

600 to 1000 years LAG explained by permeability?
Where have you taken that from?

Now, why did you post about Arctic ice extension and thickness when you are talking about Vostock?

 

How long do you want to take it? Answer this simple question, please.

 

Boston, my darling: have you realized Tamino information you posted is from his website?

Here what Pielke Sr. ( and remember Pielke Sr. SUPPORTS the AGW theory) says about Tamino:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ino-with-respect-to-his-post-arctic-sunlight/

Lack Of Balance On Tamino With Respect To His Post “Arctic Sunlight”


Tamino’s website “Open Mind” published a post “Arctic Sunlight”on September 8 2009 which criticizes a observational finding which I presented in my post .

The text on his website reads

“Roger Pielke Sr. has joined Anthony Watts in la-la-land with a post which was also posted on WUWT, Pielke Senior: Arctic Temperature Reporting In The News Needs A Reality Check; it’s Pielke’s attempt to throw dirt at the recent Kaufman et al. research.

Pielke refers to modern arctic temperatures thus:

”The documentation of their biased reporting is easy to show. For example, they do not report on observational data which does not show this rapid recent warming; e.g. see that the current high latitude temperatures are close to the longer term average since 1958. The Danish Meteorological Institute Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2008 [and thanks to the excellent weblog Watts Up With That for making this easily available to us!]“

As for current high-latitude temperatures being close to the longer term average since 1958, no they’re not. Pielke and Watts need a sanity check.”

Well, despite the title of Tamino’s weblog as Open Mind, it is anything but that. He conveniently left off the rest of the text in my post on September 4 2009. I will repeat it here for readers who believe in balanced scientific debate:

From Arctic Temperature Reporting In The News Needs A Reality Check, the text left off by Tamino reads

There are also peer reviewed papers which show that the Schmid and Revkin articles are biased; e. g. see

i) the areal coverage of the coldest middle tropospheric temperatures (below -40C) have not changed radically as shown in the Revkin figure; see

Herman, B., M. Barlage, T.N. Chase, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Update on a proposed mechanism for the regulation of minimum mid-tropospheric and surface temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24101, doi:10.1029/2008JD009799.

and

ii) there is a warm bias in the Arctic surface temperature measurements when they are used to characterize deeper atmospheric warming; see

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., accepted.”

Tamino’s weblog is clearly not an Open Minded source of information on climate science. Tamino’s post just reaffirms that there needs to be a reality check in media reporting.

 

If you want to talk information from blogs, perhaps you would like to read also this:

DMI arctic temperature data animation doesn’t support claims of recent Arctic warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...esnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/

 

A very nice and clarifying explanation from Ole Humlum so everybody here can understand the importance of Poles to the warming discussion:

Polar regions as key regions for global climate change

Changes in the Polar atmosphere-ice-ocean system observed in recent years have sparked intense discussions as to whether these changes represent episodic events or long-term shifts in the Arctic environment. Late 20th century concerns about future climate change mainly stem from the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Existing knowledge on Quaternary climate and Global Climate Models (GCMs) predict that the effect of any ongoing and future global climatic change should be amplified in the polar regions due to feedbacks in which variations in the extent of glaciers, snow, sea ice and permafrost as well as atmospheric greenhouse gases play key roles. In addition, variations in the thickness of sea-ice tend to reinforce surface atmospheric temperature anomalies by altering the heat and moisture transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. Thus, during the last 15 years the Arctic has gained a prominent role in the scientific debate regarding global climatic change.

The alleged enhanced temperature increase at high latitudes is mainly due to two theoretical greenhouse mechanisms:

*Firstly, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has its greatest absorption of infrared radiation (IR) at sub-zero temperatures, as its absorption bands lie in the 12-16 micron wavelength band, corresponding to the wavelength of strongest IR surface emission from polar ice and snow. At higher temperatures, the typical wavelength of the strongest IR surface transmission is less than 12 microns, and therefore less affected by CO2. At temperatures near the average surface temperature of the Earth (c. 15°C), the strongest emission wavelength is around 10 microns, a wavelength which is largely unaffected by greenhouse gases. This is the so-called `radiation window' of the atmosphere where IR radiation from the surface escapes freely to the space.


*Secondly, by far the most powerful atmospheric greenhouse gas is water vapour. Water vapour shares many overlapping absorption bands with CO2 and therefore an increase or decrease in atmospheric CO2 has limited effect on the overall rate of IR absorption in those overlapping regions, if water vapour is present in sufficient quantity. In the Polar Regions , the air is dry due to prevailing low temperatures, allowing CO2 to exert a much greater influence than would be possible in warmer and moister air masses at lower latitudes. Here water vapour saturates the absorption wavebands to the point where changes in CO2 have little effect. In addition to the enhanced greenhouse effect, Arctic climate is influenced by a powerful positive feedback mechanism, the temperature-albedo feedback, tending to amplify any initial temperature change. Rising temperatures will usually increase melting of snow and sea ice, reducing surface reflectance, thereby increasing solar absorption, which raises temperatures, and so on. Conversely, if climate cools, less snow and ice melts in summer, raising the albedo and causing further cooling as more solar radiation is reflected rather than absorbed.

For the above reasons, an important enhanced greenhouse surface ‘fingerprint’ is usually considered to be enhanced warming in the polar and sub-polar regions, less warming in the tropics and sub-tropics, and least warming in equatorial regions. This is the basic reason for much renewed research interest in Arctic regions, and recent sub-continental scale analysis of meteorological data obtained during the observational period apparently lends empirical support to the alleged high climatic sensitivity of the Arctic (Giorgi 2002). Analyses by different GCMs specifically of an enhanced greenhouse effect all suggest that the Polar Regions now should be experiencing a much larger warming than registered in lower latitudes. Polyakov et al. (2002a, 2002b), however, recently presented updated observational trends and variations of Arctic climate and sea ice cover during the 20th century, which questions the modelled polar amplification of temperature changes observed by surface stations at lower latitudes. The cryosphere is a prominent feature of the Polar Regions, represented by snow, glaciers, sea ice and permafrost. The physical properties of snow and ice include high reflectivity, high latent heat required converting ice to liquid water, and the low thermal conductivity of snow and ice; these factors all contribute significantly to the characteristics of Polar climates.

 

Excuse me? If temperatures are still rising, it's ludicrous to claim they're stagnating or coming down instead.

Why do you even say such things?

And again, why do you try to keep two parallel arguments going? On the one hand, you're claiming that global warming is due to solar influences. Then you're turning around and saying there is no global warming. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways....

 

so again you claim that temps are falling or stagnant for the last time period you cherry picked although you have used the wrong data set to determine this, as has been pointed out by several people at this point. You have also apparently created your own numbering system when you include 1998 in a "last ten years" look at temp, 1998 was 11 years ago there mate. Nice try.

I can also repeat things as often as necessary cause there is no way this represents a falling trend

it has also been pointed out to you that 1998 was a statistical anomaly which in short term trend analysis might be thrown out just as the low would be thrown out. The remaining years would be averaged to determine the mean or plotted to determine the trend

your floundering her G and no amount of childishness will change the simple realities of science

I'd still get the first round though

cheers
B

ps
I gotta wonder if you dont enjoy being wrong
otherwise why would you do it so often


and need I remind you that the first six months of temp records for 2010 show it to be the warmest first six months ever recorded
not looking good for that stagnant trend you seem to have dreamed up G
no worries though I'll let you apologize soon as I get my *** back on the water and make it down there

by the way
do the south american countries look kindly on the Iroquois passports cause I would prefer to travel as an Iroquois national when traveling outside the US IF at all possible

cheers
B

 

....hey girls, how about we stop worring about the religion of the subject matter and ask .....what causes polution/global warming/global cooling/climate change....that has been observed...it is too many PEOPLE....in the last 100 years the population of the world has gone from 1 billion to over 6 billion...we NEED to stop breeding asap....it WILL solve the problem.....AMEN