Coldest Winter in 100 Years

That might depend on your perspective. Earth's prehistoric hot periods were certainly fine for big lizards and some tiny mammals. But the issue is more about rate of change than optimal temperature. Today's ecology and populous civilizations have arisen during a relatively stable and mild interglacial period. A couple degrees in a century (global average) may not be a widespread disaster, and may even have some regional benefit. We seem to be plotting a course for much more than that. Atmospheric temperatures will keep rising on average for decades after fossil CO2 emissions are cut, just from thermal inertia. That's even assuming we don't reach the point of inducing strong long-term feedback.

You simply don't know that. Nobody does. You are not looking at the several periods of global climate in which temperatures were much lower than now while CO2 levels were much higher. You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later. Nobody can even make educated guesses about what has triggered massive climate change in the past, or what the future holds other than in blocks of time spanning eons. A silly and destructive cap and trade policy to enhance the power of some and the fortunes of others really is like peeing in the ocean and then boldly announcing that every little bit helps.

Here on the high desert of New Mexico we have true desert, rich farmland, alpine zones and lush forests, bitter cold and near tropical conditions all of which were much different some thousands of years ago. We have been lush rain forest and we were once ocean floor. To presume that humankind is powerful enough to have altered any of that happening to me is the height of arrogance; yet, I think there are some sciientific dingbats who probably would have tried had the signs of it happening occurred in their lifetime.

Whether or not humankind has ability to affect the world climate simply by living our lives, civilization is here to stay, there will be a lot more of us and a lot more of it and our efforts will be much more productively spent in focusing on adapting to inevitable climate change instead of pretending that we can play God and control it. I suspect if we ever get to the point where we do figure out how to control it, we'll botch it so badly that we will certainly be doomed.
 
uschill.gif

It is winter time in North America. Amazing that it is cold, correct?
And it's summer in Australia and they're experiencing heat waves and drought. And?

It's STILL not man's fault.
 
Today would have ben an excellent day to go out in your front yard and yell, this is all part of global warming. How did your neighbors take that? Remember twenty minutes and loud enough for passers by to hear.
 
Where is all this global warming. Send some to me cause I'm freezin to death and we are expecting 10-12 inches of snow.
 
So what then is the "Optimal Range" for earth's temps? Would it be the warmer days of the Medieval Warm Period? The colder temps of the Mini Ice Age? The warming days of the 1930s and 40s? What of the colder days of the 1960s and 70s? The warmer days culminating in 1998? Or perhaps the rather stagnant temps experienced for the last decade?...

At least the entire mid-holocene range seems to have been pretty favorable to civilization. Why risk pushing it much further, into abrupt climate change territory, in which (among other things) mountain glaciers that provide water to millions of people stop seasonally replenishing and melt away entirely? We see lots of predictions of economic doom from certain industry segments, just as we did before the clean air act. The ones I've seen ignore the long-term benefits and assume huge costs throughout the process. And I recall proposals for providing energy rebates or tax credits to consumers. The EPA estimated the average cost at around $100/year per household, while the CBO estimated around $175, without considering cost savings. Lower income folks would get an additional offset.

Although the details are still a matter of contention, the basic concept seems pretty straightforward: A cap is set for a given period and emission credits equal to that cap are allocated. Large emitters would need to stay at or below their permit amounts for a given period, or buy credits from those successfully reducing their emissions. Big emitters pay more for polluting while technology implementation is rewarded, and the cap amount is reviewed every few years. The only other method I'm aware of that can use market forces to spur a transition is the revenue-neutral carbon tax, but that's little more than a (probably modest) disincentive with no real targets.
 
You simply don't know that. Nobody does. You are not looking at the several periods of global climate in which temperatures were much lower than now while CO2 levels were much higher.
You mean like this:
skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Nobody has ever said that CO2 accumulation is the only climate forcing in the history of the planet. It's just the increasingly dominant one today.

You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later...
Such as? If you're referring to CO2 spikes at the end of glacial periods, read back in the thread a bit. Otherwise, please educate me.

As for the rest, paleoclimatology looks at past events, both regional and global. Most global ones seem to have been much slower, while disruptive regional ones required ancient civilizations to either migrate or perish. The issue now is the speed at which we're overloading the carbon cycle, and the potential impacts on holocene ecology and much larger populations. I'd love to see any successfully reviewed study suggesting 3+ degrees C will be easy & cheap to adapt to once the ball gets rolling. And this isn't about "controlling" climate: All we're doing is pressuring the system (it takes care of the rest), and all we can do with any measure of safety and economy is reduce that pressure.
 
So what then is the "Optimal Range" for earth's temps? Would it be the warmer days of the Medieval Warm Period? The colder temps of the Mini Ice Age? The warming days of the 1930s and 40s? What of the colder days of the 1960s and 70s? The warmer days culminating in 1998? Or perhaps the rather stagnant temps experienced for the last decade?...

At least the entire mid-holocene range seems to have been pretty favorable to civilization.
____

What do base the concept of "pretty favorable" on given that period occurred thousands of years ago? You best look up that information more so you can pretend to know what you are talking about! :eusa_angel:

You also know of course that the time period you cite was considerably warmer than the temperatures of today? Same for the medieval warm period - both periods of time that saw NATURAL temperature increases, followed by cooling, following by less extensive increases...etc.
___

Holocene (Regional - Asia) -- Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the significance of the global warming of the past century or so, i.e., to determine whether or not it is man-induced, it is necessary to see how the warming of this period compares with that of earlier periods of indisputable natural warming. Within this context, we here review some recent studies of climate reconstructions of the current interglacial for different parts of Asia.

...The scientists discovered a number of several-hundred-year warm and cool periods, including the Medieval Warm Period (AD 850 to 1150), the Little Ice Age (AD 200 through 1800), and the current Modern Warm Period. In regard to the warming between the latter of these two periods, Naurzbaev and Vaganov say it is "not extraordinary" and that "the warming at the border of the first and second millennia [i.e., AD 1000] was longer in time and similar in amplitude." They also note that temperatures of the mid-Holocene were warmer yet, averaging about 3.3°C higher than those of the past two millennia.

...In view of these real-world observations, there appears to be nothing unusual about the planet's current climatic state or its recent climate dynamics, particularly in Asia. In fact, the data of Esper et al. suggest that the Modern Warm Period still has a long ways to go before it can be said to be equivalent to the Medieval Warm Period. Hence, there would appear to be little reason to suggest that the hand of man is evident in the global warming of the past century or so. Indeed, we would say there is no reason to make such an inference.


CO2 Science
 
Back to the OP. I did not read all the posts in the middle.

Using an "experts predict" event to try and discredit another "experts predict" event.

Pretty funny.

We are what 3 weeks into winter?
 
What do base the concept of "pretty favorable" on given that period occurred thousands of years ago? You best look up that information more so you can pretend to know what you are talking about! :eusa_angel:

You also know of course that the time period you cite was considerably warmer than the temperatures of today? Same for the medieval warm period - both periods of time that saw NATURAL temperature increases, followed by cooling, following by less extensive increases...etc.
___
I guess you mean the "mid-holocene warm period", presumably so-named before it was realized that the holocene has a lot more life left in it:
tinyurl.com/yayfo52

Unfortunately, the Naurzbaev and Vaganov reconstruction stops in the mid-20th century (before human influence became clear against a background of natural variability - oops), and the Esper reconstruction "was from mid to high latitude northern hemisphere sites only":
uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@arts/documents/doc/uow039118.pdf
There are multiple other proxy studies (including tree rings from other regions) suggesting that warming of recent decades is stronger (in terms of the global average) than the MWP. Even if it weren't, no proxy can disprove a growing human influence on today's climate (despite the unsurprising interpretations of "CO2science"):
skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
 
Last edited:
Sites like CO2 Science are shit sites. Funded by groups like the Summit Power Group to manufacture doubt exactly in the same manner that the people hired by the tobacco companies cast doubt on the medical studies concerning the harm that cigarettes do to the body. In spite of the fact that cigarettes have been known for generations in accurate slang as 'coffin nails'.

Sure, you buy into it, Sinatra. You buy into anything to avoid facing reality.
 
Sites like CO2 Science are shit sites. Funded by groups like the Summit Power Group to manufacture doubt exactly in the same manner that the people hired by the tobacco companies cast doubt on the medical studies concerning the harm that cigarettes do to the body. In spite of the fact that cigarettes have been known for generations in accurate slang as 'coffin nails'.

Sure, you buy into it, Sinatra. You buy into anything to avoid facing reality.

My reality is 17 degrees with a wind chill taking it lower. Your example isn't too far off, except the people trying to make a living from a lie are the global warmers.
 
It is winter. North America gets cold every winter. But it was 6 to 8 degrees warmer in central Alaska in December than normal. I think they hit -30 during that time. How many times does it hit 17 where you live?
 
It is winter. North America gets cold every winter. But it was 6 to 8 degrees warmer in central Alaska in December than normal. I think they hit -30 during that time. How many times does it hit 17 where you live?

Normal for today is 30 degrees. Our high is suppose to be 22 degrees, but it is currently dropping, who knows? We usually hit a stretch where it is below zero over night for a week or two.
 
"From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>

Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them
. I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil"

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

Why would a real scientist not comply with a FOIA request? Why?

What is he hiding?

Oh, right, he's hiding the decline in temps!
 
"From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>

Tom,
I'll look at what you've said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don't know the other panel members. I've not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn't technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn't worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them
. I'll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil"

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

Why would a real scientist not comply with a FOIA request? Why?

What is he hiding?

Oh, right, he's hiding the decline in temps!

and why did he write "cheers"? is phil jones a raging alcoholic?
 
In researching another issue, I ran across this:

A recent study from the University of Bristol (UK) by Wolfgang Knorr suggests that the airborne fraction of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) has not increased during the past 150 years.

Knorr reanalyzed atmospheric CO2 and emissions data since 1850 and considers uncertainties in the data, according to ScienceDaily.

It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 +/- 1.4% per decade, or close to and not significantly different from zero (no trend). I would like to know what those uncertainties are.

Only 40-45% of emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere, according to the Knorr report. But, other recent studies suggest the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Climate models currently assume that the amount of airborne CO2 from man-made emissions is increasing and will continue to do so, which is a key part of their long term predictions.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles

How do you guys read that? If I am reading it correctly, the climate models used to promote global warming are possibly not reflecting reality?
 
Last edited:
You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later...
Such as? If you're referring to CO2 spikes at the end of glacial periods, read back in the thread a bit. Otherwise, please educate me.

Here ya go. Not precisely a discussion of when or why CO2 increased in the atmosphere, but very close:

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.
 
Last edited:
You aren't looking at the evidence that there were many period of global warming in which the higher CO2 level didn't occur until decades or a century or more later...
Such as? If you're referring to CO2 spikes at the end of glacial periods, read back in the thread a bit. Otherwise, please educate me.

Here ya go. Not precisely a discussion of when or why CO2 increased in the atmosphere, but very close:

Climate during the Carboniferous Period

If this is accurate, and it seems to be as authoritative as most of the other stuff being posted as 'evidence', then our fearless leaders should be urging us to pump a whole bunch more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are.


There are credible scientists who believe just that - the earth would benefit from MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

Not a lot of money for the GO GREEN INDUSTRY in that though...
 

Forum List

Back
Top