Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

[SFC Ollie]

LOL yeah you have to watch the video. The la Nina was "not a pause in climate change"

lol. do you see how stupid that is? (i slipped on global warming and broke my left wrist on monday so im lazy about caps and stuff...fuck off)

I hear that. We've got about 12 inches of Global warming here.

 

[OregonStream]

Frank, although it's not the most informative thing in the world, I for one would have trouble getting much out of 40 seconds. And since when is Gore's book "peer reviewed" in the traditional sense? Was that tongue-in-cheek? I also doubt Gore said water vapor is the main cause of global warming. I believe he acknowledges water vapor as a significant amplifying feedback (discussed here), as most climatologists do. Big difference.

Ollie, I think that's a perception problem. You can't get a picture of a global climate trend by looking at seasonal weather events, or listening to media accounts of regional record temperatures. The averages are what count, and the ratio of record highs to record lows over time is also telling. And it could be a mere 31 degrees and you'd still get heavy snow if regional moisture availability is high.

Those blaming practically everything on global warming (especially at this stage) seem to be in the minority, but that doesn't stop some from pointing to them as a reason to dismiss the issue. Realists know we're looking at an interaction of natural factors and the growing radiative imbalance of the planet. The science examines the influence on things like atmospheric circulation, pressure gradients, and precipitation patterns, and on the incidence, duration, and intensity of events. It doesn't tend to say event X was "caused" by global warming. Heck, from what I've seen even Al Gore generally avoids such language. Not that Gore is the be-all and end-all of AGW, as much as those obsessed with political whipping boys like to think so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics.

Stuck on stupid.

Stuck on stupid yourself. That is an American Institute of Physics site, not a Limpbaugh or Wafflin' Watt site.

Of course we realize that you think that being a scientist automatically makes you a "Librul". And, of course, "Libruls" cannot be correct about anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

American Institute of Physics.

That's not an answer, you quoted from the Warmers Bible

Well, of course. I quoted from real scientist, Physicts in this case. But then I have already posted lectures from the American Geophysical Union in this thread.

Care to post something from real scientists?

 

[Old Rocks]

yeah so is expanding antarctic ice.

What expanding Antarctic Ice?

Satellite data stunner: “Our data suggest that EAST Antarctica is losing mass…. Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise.” « Climate Progress

"A Project of Center for American Progress Action Fund"

And we ALL know that Center for American Progress doesn't have any political agenda, don't we?

Ol' Doooodeeee... , at it again, eh. Well, I suppose you will just claim that NASA, NOAA, and the Royal Society are all part of a great global conspiracy.

Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting Speeds Up

Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting Speeds Up
A NASA News Release - Janruary 23, 2008

Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

In a first-of-its-kind study, an international team led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine, estimated changes in Antarctica's ice mass between 1996 and 2006 and mapped patterns of ice loss on a glacier-by-glacier basis. They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica's ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.

Rignot said the losses, which were primarily concentrated in West Antarctica's Pine Island Bay sector and the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, are caused by ongoing and past acceleration of glaciers into the sea. This is mostly a result of warmer ocean waters, which bathe the buttressing floating sections of glaciers, causing them to thin or collapse. "Changes in Antarctic glacier flow are having a significant, if not dominant, impact on the mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet," he said.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, although it's not the most informative thing in the world, I for one would have trouble getting much out of 40 seconds. And since when is Gore's book "peer reviewed" in the traditional sense? Was that tongue-in-cheek? I also doubt Gore said water vapor is the main cause of global warming. I believe he acknowledges water vapor as a significant amplifying feedback (discussed here), as most climatologists do. Big difference.

Ollie, I think that's a perception problem. You can't get a picture of a global climate trend by looking at seasonal weather events, or listening to media accounts of regional record temperatures. The averages are what count, and the ratio of record highs to record lows over time is also telling. And it could be a mere 31 degrees and you'd still get heavy snow if regional moisture availability is high.

Those blaming practically everything on global warming (especially at this stage) seem to be in the minority, but that doesn't stop some from pointing to them as a reason to dismiss the issue. Realists know we're looking at an interaction of natural factors and the growing radiative imbalance of the planet. The science examines the influence on things like atmospheric circulation, pressure gradients, and precipitation patterns, and on the incidence, duration, and intensity of events. It doesn't tend to say event X was "caused" by global warming. Heck, from what I've seen even Al Gore generally avoids such language. Not that Gore is the be-all and end-all of AGW, as much as those obsessed with political whipping boys like to think so.

Oregon, you are pointing out all the right data. And it will no differance to most of the posters here. They are stuck on the Neo-con Conservatives talking point lies. However, for the lurkers, you are doing well.

Your posting is indictutive of a good education with much follow up reading. However, for most of the posters here, slang out of the gutter is all they understand.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, although it's not the most informative thing in the world, I for one would have trouble getting much out of 40 seconds. And since when is Gore's book "peer reviewed" in the traditional sense? Was that tongue-in-cheek? I also doubt Gore said water vapor is the main cause of global warming. I believe he acknowledges water vapor as a significant amplifying feedback (discussed here), as most climatologists do. Big difference.

Ollie, I think that's a perception problem. You can't get a picture of a global climate trend by looking at seasonal weather events, or listening to media accounts of regional record temperatures. The averages are what count, and the ratio of record highs to record lows over time is also telling. And it could be a mere 31 degrees and you'd still get heavy snow if regional moisture availability is high.

Those blaming practically everything on global warming (especially at this stage) seem to be in the minority, but that doesn't stop some from pointing to them as a reason to dismiss the issue. Realists know we're looking at an interaction of natural factors and the growing radiative imbalance of the planet. The science examines the influence on things like atmospheric circulation, pressure gradients, and precipitation patterns, and on the incidence, duration, and intensity of events. It doesn't tend to say event X was "caused" by global warming. Heck, from what I've seen even Al Gore generally avoids such language. Not that Gore is the be-all and end-all of AGW, as much as those obsessed with political whipping boys like to think so.

I used "peer reviewed" because to warmers, it serves as Rashi's commentary on the Torah.

Also read the quote, that's straight from the book, he blames water vapor, not CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, although it's not the most informative thing in the world, I for one would have trouble getting much out of 40 seconds. And since when is Gore's book "peer reviewed" in the traditional sense? Was that tongue-in-cheek? I also doubt Gore said water vapor is the main cause of global warming. I believe he acknowledges water vapor as a significant amplifying feedback (discussed here), as most climatologists do. Big difference.

Ollie, I think that's a perception problem. You can't get a picture of a global climate trend by looking at seasonal weather events, or listening to media accounts of regional record temperatures. The averages are what count, and the ratio of record highs to record lows over time is also telling. And it could be a mere 31 degrees and you'd still get heavy snow if regional moisture availability is high.

Those blaming practically everything on global warming (especially at this stage) seem to be in the minority, but that doesn't stop some from pointing to them as a reason to dismiss the issue. Realists know we're looking at an interaction of natural factors and the growing radiative imbalance of the planet. The science examines the influence on things like atmospheric circulation, pressure gradients, and precipitation patterns, and on the incidence, duration, and intensity of events. It doesn't tend to say event X was "caused" by global warming. Heck, from what I've seen even Al Gore generally avoids such language. Not that Gore is the be-all and end-all of AGW, as much as those obsessed with political whipping boys like to think so.

Oregon, you are pointing out all the right data. And it will no differance to most of the posters here. They are stuck on the Neo-con Conservatives talking point lies. However, for the lurkers, you are doing well.

Your posting is indictutive of a good education with much follow up reading. However, for most of the posters here, slang out of the gutter is all they understand.

You're the most intellectually dishonest person here.

Let's review the highlights: the Warmergate email's show a pattern of deception, destroying data and emails, failing to comply with FOIA, premeditated avoidance of disclosure of the data, destruction of the data, a conspiracy to destroy and discredit anyone who questions the assumptions and data.

How the fuck is that even remotely related to science?

 

[OregonStream]

I used "peer reviewed" because to warmers, it serves as Rashi's commentary on the Torah.

Really? I suppose I could be considered something of a "warmer" on this board, but I've never read it.

Also read the quote, that's straight from the book, he blames water vapor, not CO2

Page 100, off of Google Books: "In addition, the increased warmth also increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which magnifies the process and speeds the process still further."

Or did you have another quote in mind? You must have made the assertion based on something you read. Feel free to post it. I have little confidence in statements about what other people have said (or the supposed malfeasance of certain scientists) if it can't be backed up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank, although it's not the most informative thing in the world, I for one would have trouble getting much out of 40 seconds. And since when is Gore's book "peer reviewed" in the traditional sense? Was that tongue-in-cheek? I also doubt Gore said water vapor is the main cause of global warming. I believe he acknowledges water vapor as a significant amplifying feedback (discussed here), as most climatologists do. Big difference.

Ollie, I think that's a perception problem. You can't get a picture of a global climate trend by looking at seasonal weather events, or listening to media accounts of regional record temperatures. The averages are what count, and the ratio of record highs to record lows over time is also telling. And it could be a mere 31 degrees and you'd still get heavy snow if regional moisture availability is high.

Those blaming practically everything on global warming (especially at this stage) seem to be in the minority, but that doesn't stop some from pointing to them as a reason to dismiss the issue. Realists know we're looking at an interaction of natural factors and the growing radiative imbalance of the planet. The science examines the influence on things like atmospheric circulation, pressure gradients, and precipitation patterns, and on the incidence, duration, and intensity of events. It doesn't tend to say event X was "caused" by global warming. Heck, from what I've seen even Al Gore generally avoids such language. Not that Gore is the be-all and end-all of AGW, as much as those obsessed with political whipping boys like to think so.

Oregon, you are pointing out all the right data. And it will no differance to most of the posters here. They are stuck on the Neo-con Conservatives talking point lies. However, for the lurkers, you are doing well.

Your posting is indictutive of a good education with much follow up reading. However, for most of the posters here, slang out of the gutter is all they understand.

You're the most intellectually dishonest person here.

Let's review the highlights: the Warmergate email's show a pattern of deception, destroying data and emails, failing to comply with FOIA, premeditated avoidance of disclosure of the data, destruction of the data, a conspiracy to destroy and discredit anyone who questions the assumptions and data.

How the fuck is that even remotely related to science?

Really bothers you fellows that I can hand it back in your natural way of speaking, doesn't it.

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

 

[FactFinder]

They are not all not all lying to us. 31,000 of them are honestly skeptical of "unproved" science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I used "peer reviewed" because to warmers, it serves as Rashi's commentary on the Torah.

Really? I suppose I could be considered something of a "warmer" on this board, but I've never read it.

Also read the quote, that's straight from the book, he blames water vapor, not CO2

Page 100, off of Google Books: "In addition, the increased warmth also increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which magnifies the process and speeds the process still further."

Or did you have another quote in mind? You must have made the assertion based on something you read. Feel free to post it. I have little confidence in statements about what other people have said (or the supposed malfeasance of certain scientists) if it can't be backed up.

"But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air or 355 parts per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role as a greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase the amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90% of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the Earth back toward space..."

You're like a religious fanatic and you need to be deprogrammed to even be able to see the once again highlighted quote

 

[CrusaderFrank]

5:36 of the video confirms that, yes, "hide the decline" means when the data conflicts with the theory, the data is discarded.

Was this supposed to be HELPFUL to your case, Butthead?

"Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data," -- Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Tomorrow is supposed to be warmer, only 5 to 10 degrees below normal. WOW!

 

[feudal22]

If we all don't have the awareness of the effect of global warming, we'll be nowhere. CFC from air conditioner, Glass house, emission of carbon dioxide,CO2 and carbon monoxide. Trees is cutting down!
Please people. Protect our EARTH

 

[Foxfyre]

Tomorrow is supposed to be warmer, only 5 to 10 degrees below normal. WOW!

Last night I was working late and listening to Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM on the radio. His guest--I missed the name--was somebody who is absolutely convinced that we are on the verge of a new ice age. (And no, it is nothing humans did to bring it on.) With the cold air seeping through the windows beside my desk, he was quite convincing.

Well, I take that kind of thing with a grain of salt just as I do the absolutists who tell us that we and cow farts are destroying the planet. Then I noted the weather this morning on Fox News that we will see a return to mostly normal temps across most of the nation this week. That would be a welcome relief. But it will also give ammunition to the AGW religionists who will surely point to that and say see? Global warming is still happening.

 

[Oddball]

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

Nobody here has ever said that, dickless.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

The simple truths are:

1) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

Nobody here has ever said that, dickless.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

The simple truths are:

1) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

No, the absorbtion bands of CO2, as established by Tyndal in 1858 equal causation.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

That is correct. But there have been periods of far more rapid change that have negatively affected life during those periods.

Several of those periods were during periods of a rapid buildup of GHGs, and the result was a rapid temperature increase, and major and minor extinction events.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

50 years is more than 1/2 the length of most people lives. And in that period, we have already seen major changes, reflecting the CO2 levels of a few decades ago, such is the inertia in the system.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

Real idiotic statement. We sure as hell know what the ideal temperatures and conditions are for the agriculture that we all depend on.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

Damn, you are one dumb asshole. No, when I see the retreat of glaciers in the Cascades, the Seirra Nevadas, the Rockies, and the disappearing snowfields in the Blues, I will not accept the stupid contention that nothing is changing.

And when I talk to other people that have been in other mountain ranges in the world, and they state that they are seeing the same thing there, then it is a global phenomonem.

And when all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that the warming is happening, am I to say that they are wrong because someone like Dooodeee... says they are?

And never shows any data or evidence to counter their data and evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

Nobody here has ever said that, dickless.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

The simple truths are:

1) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

That's the thing isn't it? Even if changing climate renders some areas too inhospitable, vast fertile areas who have short growing seasons now--i.e. Siberia, Canada, etc.--actually look forward to lengthened growing seasons and could become the world's new bread baskets.

Rising seas--that happens from time to time--might encourage populations in very low lying coastal areas to move inland and thereby save millions of lives from the inevitable killer hurricanes. (I've never understood how folks who choose to live in high risk areas like right on the beach or on flood plains or on top of earthquake faults then complain that the rest of us don't adequately protect them and rescue them from the risk they willingly assumed.)

Okay this is perhaps all a bit simplistic, but honestly. Thinking people have to know by now that we can't change the global climate, and even if we could, we don't have enough time or resources to do it. So the best thing is to help folks understand and adapt to inevitable climate change so that we can just keep on living our lives.

 

[concept]

No, the intellectual dishonesty on this board is that the scientists are all lying to us for some arcane conspiracy.

Nobody here has ever said that, dickless.

The simple truth is that most people that have lived more than half a century can see major changes in the environment around them. Here on the West Coast, simply looking at the mountain glaciers, from what they were in the '50s to present is enough to tell you that there is a major warming underway.

The simple truths are:

1) Correlation doesn't equal causation.

No, the absorbtion bands of CO2, as established by Tyndal in 1858 equal causation.

2) The global climate is not now nor has ever been static.

That is correct. But there have been periods of far more rapid change that have negatively affected life during those periods.

Several of those periods were during periods of a rapid buildup of GHGs, and the result was a rapid temperature increase, and major and minor extinction events.

3) 50 years of data collection is irrelevant in the millions of years of the existence of the planet.

50 years is more than 1/2 the length of most people lives. And in that period, we have already seen major changes, reflecting the CO2 levels of a few decades ago, such is the inertia in the system.

4) Nobody has ever offered up what the "ideal" temperature of the Earf should be.

Real idiotic statement. We sure as hell know what the ideal temperatures and conditions are for the agriculture that we all depend on.

5) There is no evidence whatsoever you will except that will disprove the hoax, other than that which comes from the hoaxers themselves.

Damn, you are one dumb asshole. No, when I see the retreat of glaciers in the Cascades, the Seirra Nevadas, the Rockies, and the disappearing snowfields in the Blues, I will not accept the stupid contention that nothing is changing.

And when I talk to other people that have been in other mountain ranges in the world, and they state that they are seeing the same thing there, then it is a global phenomonem.

And when all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that the warming is happening, am I to say that they are wrong because someone like Dooodeee... says they are?

And never shows any data or evidence to counter their data and evidence.

Here is a list of expanding glaciers.
List of expanding glaciers

Don't click the link without a big box of kleenex handy though because you're hysterical enough as it is and this will put you over the edge.