Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[82_VOL_83]

And that denial is based on a gut feel?

My personal interpretation of Algore's charts. The most telling one is the one that shows the warming intervals and that we are over due. Additionally, we don't know that the sun doesn't have a 200k year cycle that pulses 3 or 4 times and then skips one. The bottom line is I believe that the global temperature situation is measured in 1000's of years, not 10 or 20.

 

[Sandvol]

The 15 year no warming bit is just silly. If I use narrow reference frames, I can say there has been warning over the last 16 years and over the last 14 years but not the last 15. The absurdity of that shoud point out the flaw of looking at it that way.

Silly? You need to tell that to the IPCC folks then. It is not Darriulat who claimed there was a 15 year pause. He read the AR4 and AR5 reports.

 

[FLVOL69]

My personal interpretation of Algore's charts. The most telling one is the one that shows the warming intervals and that we are over due. Additionally, we don't know that the sun doesn't have a 200k year cycle that pulses 3 or 4 times and then skips one. The bottom line is I believe that the global temperature situation is measured in 1000's of years, not 10 or 20.

Hey Glenn , do you remember those ****ing 5000 dollar electric bills from algor's mansion? Talk about a damn carbon footprint.. Pos Lear jet liberal...

 

[82_VOL_83]

Hey Glenn , do you remember those ****ing 5000 dollar electric bills from algor's mansion? Talk about a damn carbon footprint.. Pos Lear jet liberal...

And the dozen or so ballistic reinforced Tahoe's, the 5 zillion square foot mansion that stayed lit up like Dink with no one ever there, and the people that had been living on "his" land for longer than he had been alive at his dad's behest that he booted? Talk about a scientifical genius! He would have been a better VP than Biden. He is the only guy that can make Unca Joe look smart.

 

[TennTradition]

Silly? You need to tell that to the IPCC folks then. It is not Darriulat who claimed there was a 15 year pause. He read the AR4 and AR5 reports.

A 15 year 'pause' is a nod to the fact that it is part of a larger trend. And honestly I don't like that terminology either. Given it has warmed over the last 13-14 it feels rather odd to act like 98 wasn't a very strange anomaly.

To say there hasn't been warming for 15 years with no other context is intellectually dishonest and that is why I say it's silly.

Note I haven't been slamming Darriulat. It is not him, in the context of what you posted, that I find silly.

 

[TennTradition]

My personal interpretation of Algore's charts. The most telling one is the one that shows the warming intervals and that we are over due. Additionally, we don't know that the sun doesn't have a 200k year cycle that pulses 3 or 4 times and then skips one. The bottom line is I believe that the global temperature situation is measured in 1000's of years, not 10 or 20.

Well at least you aren't making things up to support your narrative.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Well at least you aren't making things up to support your narrative.

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/full/00_23_53.jpg

All I can tell from the chart is that if CO2 levels truly have an effect and the actual correlation is as close as it appears then in the next 5 to 10 years there should be a MASSIVE spike in global temperature. My money is it doesn't happen. It's just gut feel, but from reading the chart, I think either the CO2 levels or the temp data is made up or at best extrapolated about as far as one can extrapolate. Of course you can't tell from the chart what the temp rise actually is. Could be measured in tenths of a degree.

 

[TennTradition]

http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/full/00_23_53.jpg

All I can tell from the chart is that if CO2 levels truly have an effect and the actual correlation is as close as it appears then in the next 5 to 10 years there should be a MASSIVE spike in global temperature. My money is it doesn't happen. It's just gut feel, but from reading the chart, I think either the CO2 levels or the temp data is made up or at best extrapolated about as far as one can extrapolate. Of course you can't tell from the chart what the temp rise actually is. Could be measured in tenths of a degree.

Ah. It is hard to tell in that plot, but I'm pretty sure that you'd see that the CO2 increases actually lag the temperature increases historically. This is because the rising temperatures warm the oceans and release CO2. This rising CO2 further caused some additional warming, over that which was originally caused by some other factor - usually solar activity or orbital shifts I think.

I don't know what Gore implied...I don't remember. But he probably left a lot unsaid and left it for the viewer to take away the message that if CO2 is that much higher, then temperatures must also climb that much higher.

But, that would only be true if CO2 had caused the past warming, which it didn't. It was a positive feedback and did cause some additional warming but was not the primary driver for the increase.

In Gore's plot, the recent large increase in CO2 levels is very different. It is forced by human emissions (validated by isotopic analysis). It is leading temperature rises rather than lagging. Because it is now the driver rather than the feedback, we expect a different correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

Note that if our high CO2 levels were also paired with one of these 'natural' warming events then we would expect even higher temperatures and a further increase in CO2 levels - but this time as feedback rather than a driver.

 

[rjd970]

Really couldn't care less about this topic, but from my limited understanding so far, TennTradition seems to be the only that knows what he's talking about.

 

[Sandvol]

A 15 year 'pause' is a nod to the fact that it is part of a larger trend. And honestly I don't like that terminology either. Given it has warmed over the last 13-14 it feels rather odd to act like 98 wasn't a very strange anomaly.

To say there hasn't been warming for 15 years with no other context is intellectually dishonest and that is why I say it's silly.

Note I haven't been slamming Darriulat. It is not him, in the context of what you posted, that I find silly.

Or it could be a nod to a trend reversal. There is no given that it has warmed over the last 13-14, it hasn't. And, maybe there's not enough information to put it into context. They're just noting it for what it is. Darriulat is saying you just can't ignore it.

 

[Sandvol]

Ah. It is hard to tell in that plot, but I'm pretty sure that you'd see that the CO2 increases actually lag the temperature increases historically. This is because the rising temperatures warm the oceans and release CO2. This rising CO2 further caused some additional warming, over that which was originally caused by some other factor - usually solar activity or orbital shifts I think.

I don't know what Gore implied...I don't remember. But he probably left a lot unsaid and left it for the viewer to take away the message that if CO2 is that much higher, then temperatures must also climb that much higher.

But, that would only be true if CO2 had caused the past warming, which it didn't. It was a positive feedback and did cause some additional warming but was not the primary driver for the increase.

In Gore's plot, the recent large increase in CO2 levels is very different. It is forced by human emissions (validated by isotopic analysis). It is leading temperature rises rather than lagging. Because it is now the driver rather than the feedback, we expect a different correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

Note that if our high CO2 levels were also paired with one of these 'natural' warming events then we would expect even higher temperatures and a further increase in CO2 levels - but this time as feedback rather than a driver.

Maybe they're making correlations and there is no correlation Everyone assumes there is a correlation.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Ah. It is hard to tell in that plot, but I'm pretty sure that you'd see that the CO2 increases actually lag the temperature increases historically. This is because the rising temperatures warm the oceans and release CO2. This rising CO2 further caused some additional warming, over that which was originally caused by some other factor - usually solar activity or orbital shifts I think.

I don't know what Gore implied...I don't remember. But he probably left a lot unsaid and left it for the viewer to take away the message that if CO2 is that much higher, then temperatures must also climb that much higher.

But, that would only be true if CO2 had caused the past warming, which it didn't. It was a positive feedback and did cause some additional warming but was not the primary driver for the increase.

In Gore's plot, the recent large increase in CO2 levels is very different. It is forced by human emissions (validated by isotopic analysis). It is leading temperature rises rather than lagging. Because it is now the driver rather than the feedback, we expect a different correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

Note that if our high CO2 levels were also paired with one of these 'natural' warming events then we would expect even higher temperatures and a further increase in CO2 levels - but this time as feedback rather than a driver.

But that is not the supposition. What was being presented was that we are causing CO2 levels to rise and the temp is lagging the CO2 levels. It appears to me to be the same as you see. Simply shows that planetary environmental science is no better than alchemy. If you don't believe me, follow the severe weather predictions, they are rarely correct.

 

[TennTradition]

Maybe they're making correlations and there is no correlation Everyone assumes there is a correlation.

Correlation between rising temperature and release of CO2 from oceans? It is safe to say that isn't an assumption. Basic physical principles dictate warmer oceans hold less dissolved gas and the historical record lines up well to support that.

If the correlation you are speaking of is does rising CO2 cause warming, then that is why the models exist in the first place. So we can explore causation rather than correlation. We saw warming and we saw rising CO2 - but was their attribution? For years, the models weren't clear. Ron Prinn, who is the climate scientist I have had the most association with, told me that he was a latecomer to the anthropogenic global warming crowd because the uncertainty in the models at the time was larger than the warming. But as the models he and others were building improved, the uncertainty increased and the warming continued to increase. Ultimately he said he readily accepted attribution once this happened.

 

[TennTradition]

But that is not the supposition. What was being presented was that we are causing CO2 levels to rise and the temp is lagging the CO2 levels. It appears to me to be the same as you see. Simply shows that planetary environmental science is no better than alchemy. If you don't believe me, follow the severe weather predictions, they are rarely correct.

Yes - he was presenting that this time the temperature would lag the CO2. But what he probably wasn't as forthcoming about was that all the other times on that chart it was the other way around. There are very good explanations for that and it is still meaningful, but it doesn't tell as nice of a story to go into that detail apparently so my bet is he didn't even address it...just left it to your eye to draw your own conclusions.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yes - he was presenting that this time the temperature would lag the CO2. But what he probably wasn't as forthcoming about was that all the other times on that chart it was the other way around. There are very good explanations for that and it is still meaningful, but it doesn't tell as nice of a story to go into that detail apparently so my bet is he didn't even address it...just left it to your eye to draw your own conclusions.

YOU HAVE FINALLY SEEN THE LIGHT! The reason that they present the CO2 leading the temperature (which is unprecedented) is because they want to trade CARBON credits. Algore and his cronies have lost billions because his carbon banks failed when tax and trade didn't get passed. Have you seen him lately like you did before tax and trade? No! His climate change rhetoric has all but disappeared. NO MONEY TO BE MADE IN THE LIE ANYMORE!

Pray tell why is the CO2 now leading the heat? Truth is, it isn't. Now, I have said many times that I don't disagree with global warming. We create MASSIVE heat sinks in parking lots, building tops, black shingle roofs, etc. etc. Do these have an effect on the overall temp? Hell, I don't know, I would think not but I may be wrong. However, why don't scientists come up with a way of changing those. They don't because it is expensive and it takes private investment to do it. The libs want to attack carbon because that is something they can concentrate on and point too. It is something that can be measured and given cute names like Carbon Footprint. You want to make a difference in global temps? Plant trees everywhere you can instead of plowing them up and building new structures that will absorb heat and then slowly radiate it back into the atmosphere at night (UT Knoxville campus). Figure out a way of cooling parking lots and city streets down. Require all homes to have tin roofs or roofs that reflect/don't absorb heat. Require a tree or shrub density in neighborhoods and city parks. Make "plastic" wood and metal studs more economical to use than wood. Point to the right things, things that we can change and should change, not some mythical carbon footprint that does nothing but line the pockets of dumbasses like Algore. If we get rid of the heat sinks and it cools off, then I will agree with man made climate change, until then, I don't see the complaints of the libs being valid.

/rant

 

[TennTradition]

My position hasn't changed so I wouldn't say I've seen the light.

As for the leading vs lagging, it is consistent with the physical principles driving the current study of climate. There are no surprises there.

Gore is obviously not a climate scientist. And An Inconvenient Truth was a performance not a lecture. The truth is always in the details and Gore didn't have many details.

As for your hypotheses on warming - I think that shifting the albedo of the earth could help but it's hard when do much of the earth's surface is water.

 

[Sandvol]

Correlation between rising temperature and release of CO2 from oceans? It is safe to say that isn't an assumption. Basic physical principles dictate warmer oceans hold less dissolved gas and the historical record lines up well to support that.

If the correlation you are speaking of is does rising CO2 cause warming, then that is why the models exist in the first place. So we can explore causation rather than correlation. We saw warming and we saw rising CO2 - but was their attribution? For years, the models weren't clear. Ron Prinn, who is the climate scientist I have had the most association with, told me that he was a latecomer to the anthropogenic global warming crowd because the uncertainty in the models at the time was larger than the warming. But as the models he and others were building improved, the uncertainty increased and the warming continued to increase. Ultimately he said he readily accepted attribution once this happened.

Being a latecomer to the anthropogenic crowd has sure gotten him a lot of research dollars hasn't it? Keep massaging models until you get one that produces the desired results. Isn't he one of the alarmists who says it will be Armageddon and rather quickly? within the next 10 to 20 years? Richard Lindzen sure doesn't agree with him does he?

 

[TennTradition]

Being a latecomer to the anthropogenic crowd has sure gotten him a lot of research dollars hasn't it? Keep massaging models until you get one that produces the desired results. Isn't he one of the alarmists who says it will be Armageddon and rather quickly? within the next 10 to 20 years? Richard Lindzen sure doesn't agree with him does he?

I honestly don't know about his 10 to 20 stance. It would kind of surprise me if he were overly alarmist because he always struck me as very logical and focused on the modeling science. He would readily talk about where he had confidence in the models and where he did not. I do know that he was very worried about the melting of Russisn permafrost and corresponding methane release. He viewed that as a very serious event that we would be wise to avoid.

As for Lindzen, there isn't a climate scientist in the department that he agrees with. I've heard Prinn talk about Lindzen and it I respectful - but he make it clear they disagree. Prinn cited Lindzen's academic freedom to say what he wants but that it is in sharp contrast to the rest of the department. But that isn't surprising. Lindzen strikes me as a contrarian by nature.

And as for research dollars, there is money to be made either way. Heritage foundation will pay to run your lab if you are producing the right research.

 

[Persian Vol]

Maybe they're making correlations and there is no correlation Everyone assumes there is a correlation.

There is a correlation. The question is if that is sufficient enough evidence to make us believe in causation.

 

[Grand Vol]

There is a correlation. The question is if that is sufficient enough evidence to make us believe in causation.

That's the $64,000 question isn't it?

Some would like you to believe so (Al Gore) while flying around in an aircraft that probably burns up more fuel in a month than most people do in a year.

 

[Sandvol]

There is a correlation. The question is if that is sufficient enough evidence to make us believe in causation.

Prove it.

 

[FLVOL69]

Prove it.

Please don't get him going , he tends to ramble on...

 

[govols/cc]

Prove it.

How else could it be 70 degrees one day & 40 the next? Weather was never like that before. Acid rain has decimated almost all fresh water & aquatic life.

 

[Sandvol]

I honestly don't know about his 10 to 20 stance. It would kind of surprise me if he were overly alarmist because he always struck me as very logical and focused on the modeling science. He would readily talk about where he had confidence in the models and where he did not. I do know that he was very worried about the melting of Russisn permafrost and corresponding methane release. He viewed that as a very serious event that we would be wise to avoid.

As for Lindzen, there isn't a climate scientist in the department that he agrees with. I've heard Prinn talk about Lindzen and it I respectful - but he make it clear they disagree. Prinn cited Lindzen's academic freedom to say what he wants but that it is in sharp contrast to the rest of the department. But that isn't surprising. Lindzen strikes me as a contrarian by nature.

And as for research dollars, there is money to be made either way. Heritage foundation will pay to run your lab if you are producing the right research.

If he were overly alarmist would that change your view of his work? Also, has he ever authored or reviewed a peer reviewed paper that includes these models you mentioned that support anthropogenic global warming? I'm not talking about hypotheticals or Monte Carlo simulations but real world examples. And, could you please cite it?

 

[Sandvol]

How else could it be 70 degrees one day & 40 the next? Weather was never like that before. Acid rain has decimated almost all fresh water & aquatic life.

Just wow.