Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

this is where I am actually with CC. I think this is more mother nature fixing herself than us completely screwing the pooch. as i have already stated I think we are to blame for some of it, but not all of it.

Well that's a common sentiment amongst CC and the like but gut feeling is no substitute for science. You admit we are to blame for some global warming, but you feel like it's not significant enough. Well science doesn't care about our feelings. If your dentist tells you you've got a cavity that needs filling, do you refuse it because it 'feels' fine? Do you ask for a second opinion from dozens of dentists before one tells you what you want to hear?

Reminds me of this Doonesbury I posted a while back:

 

[govols/cc]

I am a fan of tree rings going back hundreds of thousands of years. This unprecedented change is frightening. I think we should cut Bart in half perpendicular to his long axis and see what we can gleen from his rings.

Won't take long to see he's full of s***

 

[BartW]

yeah, i got my swings backwards, not sure what i was thinking.

also that chart through me for a fricking loop man. left to right, left to right. took me 5 minutes of staring at it to figure out heads from tails. if you look at that chart again, and blow up the top of the up swings, its not a clear arc down, so while we are up there we got some interesting times ahead of us before it really starts going down. I don't profess to understand all the science but i am pretty good at reading charts, and they say rocky times ahead, look at those up swings in glacier, not clean.

Ah yeah I can see how that would be confusing. Another wrinkle is that the past temperature change is probably a very poor indicator of what's to come. Will temperature go down at all anytime soon? Orbital forcings are going down in the upcoming millenia but will GHG forces keep us in the current interglacial? Will temperatures just continue rising, causing us to enter a new geologic epoch altogether? Many geologists have started using the term "anthropocene". Interesting times ahead for sure.

 

[Obsessed]

Getting down in the 50's this week. I like it.

I mean who wouldn't like the 50 degree weather in SEPTEMBER.

 

[govols/cc]

Getting down in the 50's this week. I like it.

I mean who wouldn't like the 50 degree weather in SEPTEMBER.

For a climate change loon it's climate change. If you argue with them about it then it's weather.

 

[LouderVol]

Well that's a common sentiment amongst CC and the like but gut feeling is no substitute for science. You admit we are to blame for some global warming, but you feel like it's not significant enough. Well science doesn't care about our feelings. If your dentist tells you you've got a cavity that needs filling, do you refuse it because it 'feels' fine? Do you ask for a second opinion from dozens of dentists before one tells you what you want to hear?

Reminds me of this Doonesbury I posted a while back:

i look at the same data you do, a lot of what you have shown me is stuff i have seen before, and I just come to a different conclusion (mine might be a less informed than yours and others). the only real evidence that has been shown is that we are pumping way too much crap into the air and water. This I completely agree with, we need to fricking stop for a number of reasons. but the same charts you say prove we will be melting our faces off is based on co2 and other levels which history has said don't cause climate change/global warming/ whatever PC term is used these days. those gases happen after. (not arguing that we are adding to the gases to atmosphere)

when mother nature wants to dump an ice age on us, it will happen whether we want it or not and no matter how much we throw crap into the sky. its coming, I agree we are about to experience a big climate shift in the next 100-1000 years (or whatever) but i see it as part of the natural swing. But yeah we change it a degree or so one way or the other we are speeding up the process not altering its extremes, imo.

one thing i haven't heard and have no effing clue about, is if these gasses can trap heat in by how much of it is there in the atmosphere; isn't it blocking some too?it would seem to me if we are putting enough stuff up there it would be blocking/deflecting some of the stuff coming from the sun.

 

[LouderVol]

i think the simplest way to describe my beliefs towards all this is: we (the scientific community and the MSM coverage) are looking at the data right now and thinking where we are and the path we are on will completely determine where we will be, but i don't feel this way. I feel we are still looking at half the information and making declarations based on those.

its liked we kicked a ball and it hasn't stopped rolling yet so we are going to say it is going to keep rolling in exactly that same direction and speed forever, while not knowing that we kicked the ball down a hill, and that the ball would be rolling whether or not we kicked it.

 

[BartW]

i look at the same data you do, a lot of what you have shown me is stuff i have seen before, and I just come to a different conclusion (mine might be a less informed than yours and others). the only real evidence that has been shown is that we are pumping way too much crap into the air and water. This I completely agree with, we need to fricking stop for a number of reasons. but the same charts you say prove we will be melting our faces off is based on co2 and other levels which history has said don't cause climate change/global warming/ whatever PC term is used these days. those gases happen after. (not arguing that we are adding to the gases to atmosphere)

when mother nature wants to dump an ice age on us, it will happen whether we want it or not and no matter how much we throw crap into the sky. its coming, I agree we are about to experience a big climate shift in the next 100-1000 years (or whatever) but i see it as part of the natural swing. But yeah we change it a degree or so one way or the other we are speeding up the process not altering its extremes, imo.

one thing i haven't heard and have no effing clue about, is if these gasses can trap heat in by how much of it is there in the atmosphere; isn't it blocking some too?it would seem to me if we are putting enough stuff up there it would be blocking/deflecting some of the stuff coming from the sun.

So again, just to be clear, you're basing your conjecture that the anthropogenic element is real but not substantial on gut feeling -- not science. That's fine as long as you own up to it.

Regarding the last question- greenhouse gases are transparent to visible wavelength radiation but opaque to infrared radiation. Incoming solar radiation is in the visible spectrum so it largely arrives at Earth's surface undeflected. Earth absorbs the sun's heat and re-radiates it as infrared light, which greenhouse gases do deflect. Hence the greenhouse analogy. It's an effect of quantum mechanics -- different atoms and molecules can only absorb specific, discrete quanta of energy. This is the basis for the entire field of spectroscopy.

That said, the atmosphere does reflect some incoming solar radiation too. Just not because of greenhouse gases. Clouds and aerosols like SO2 reflect visible wavelength light.

 

[Sandvol]

i look at the same data you do, a lot of what you have shown me is stuff i have seen before, and I just come to a different conclusion (mine might be a less informed than yours and others). the only real evidence that has been shown is that we are pumping way too much crap into the air and water. This I completely agree with, we need to fricking stop for a number of reasons. but the same charts you say prove we will be melting our faces off is based on co2 and other levels which history has said don't cause climate change/global warming/ whatever PC term is used these days. those gases happen after. (not arguing that we are adding to the gases to atmosphere)

when mother nature wants to dump an ice age on us, it will happen whether we want it or not and no matter how much we throw crap into the sky. its coming, I agree we are about to experience a big climate shift in the next 100-1000 years (or whatever) but i see it as part of the natural swing. But yeah we change it a degree or so one way or the other we are speeding up the process not altering its extremes, imo.

one thing i haven't heard and have no effing clue about, is if these gasses can trap heat in by how much of it is there in the atmosphere; isn't it blocking some too?it would seem to me if we are putting enough stuff up there it would be blocking/deflecting some of the stuff coming from the sun.

You hit the nail on the head LouderVol. The thing we need to be worried about is the next ice age. We've been in this interglacial like Bart said for 10,000 plus years and we're due for the next ice age which will last 100,000 years or more. It is going to be a cold damn planet. What these mutton headed liberals like Bart want has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their agenda which is to grow government and assume more control over everyone's lives. The mutton heads don't understand it doesn't matter because we are going to be scratching and scraping and having a damn difficult time feeding ourselves when the planet's temperatures drop 10degrees. We will be longing for global warming.

 

[BartW]

You hit the nail on the head LouderVol. The thing we need to be worried about is the next ice age. We've been in this interglacial like Bart said for 10,000 plus years and we're due for the next ice age which will last 100,000 years or more. It is going to be a cold damn planet. What these mutton headed liberals like Bart want has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their agenda which is to grow government and assume more control over everyone's lives. The mutton heads don't understand it doesn't matter because we are going to be scratching and scraping and having a damn difficult time feeding ourselves when the planet's temperatures drop 10degrees. We will be longing for global warming.

Back to the stereotyping I see.

Even if it were to arrive "on schedule" (it won't) the next ice age would still be thousands of years in the future. We have more pressing concerns. AGW is a problem on the decadal scale.

Surviving in a radically different climate sure would suck though, wouldn't it?

 

[govols/cc]

Back to the stereotyping I see.

Even if it were to arrive "on schedule" (it won't) the next ice age would still be thousands of years in the future. We have more pressing concerns. AGW is a problem on the decadal scale.

Surviving in a radically different climate sure would suck though, wouldn't it?

People do it all over the world & have been for a long time.

 

[Sandvol]

Back to the stereotyping I see.

Even if it were to arrive "on schedule" (it won't) the next ice age would still be thousands of years in the future. We have more pressing concerns. AGW is a problem on the decadal scale.

Surviving in a radically different climate sure would suck though, wouldn't it?

So now you're predicting ice ages?

 

[Sandvol]

One thing all you guys have to understand is all these global warning weenies like Bart are getting ready to have this big shin dig up in New York to put their agenda into overdrive on the rest of us and Bart is getting all jazzed up for it. They are probably getting panicky and desperate right now because the evidence is starting to stack up against them. They feel like they need to do this now so they're going to do this big show up in New York and try to convince everybody what Obama is about to do by Imperial decree is good for the country. They are going to try to implement this carbon tax against the wishes of Congress and the American People.

 

[govols/cc]

One thing all you guys have to understand is all these global warning weenies like Bart are getting ready to have this big shin dig up in New York to put their agenda into overdrive on the rest of us and Bart is getting all jazzed up for it. They are probably getting panicky and desperate right now because the evidence is starting to stack up against them. They feel like they need to do this now so they're going to do this big show up in New York and try to convince everybody what Obama is about to do by Imperial decree is good for the country. They are going to try to implement this carbon tax against the wishes of Congress and the American People.

Bart says it's not a money grab & this money with bring us future tax cuts.

 

[McDad]

One thing all you guys have to understand is all these global warning weenies like Bart are getting ready to have this big shin dig up in New York to put their agenda into overdrive on the rest of us and Bart is getting all jazzed up for it. They are probably getting panicky and desperate right now because the evidence is starting to stack up against them. They feel like they need to do this now so they're going to do this big show up in New York and try to convince everybody what Obama is about to do by Imperial decree is good for the country. They are going to try to implement this carbon tax against the wishes of Congress and the American People.

Twenty bucks says they get snowed in.

 

[Sandvol]

Twenty bucks says they get snowed in.

I wouldn't take that bet.

 

[LouderVol]

So again, just to be clear, you're basing your conjecture that the anthropogenic element is real but not substantial on gut feeling -- not science. That's fine as long as you own up to it.

Regarding the last question- greenhouse gases are transparent to visible wavelength radiation but opaque to infrared radiation. Incoming solar radiation is in the visible spectrum so it largely arrives at Earth's surface undeflected. Earth absorbs the sun's heat and re-radiates it as infrared light, which greenhouse gases do deflect. Hence the greenhouse analogy. It's an effect of quantum mechanics -- different atoms and molecules can only absorb specific, discrete quanta of energy. This is the basis for the entire field of spectroscopy.

That said, the atmosphere does reflect some incoming solar radiation too. Just not because of greenhouse gases. Clouds and aerosols like SO2 reflect visible wavelength light.

dude the same charts you are living by say nothing about co2 levels directly causing the jumps in the past. the arc we are on follows very closely (as closely as weather permits) to the arcs of the past. yeah even though we have doubled the co2 levels I don't expect a double in temps (thats just crazy) but a significant change would have happened. (again still a lot of time to see this play out) but you are using the argument that because when temps were up in the past that caused co2 to go up; so if co2 goes up the temp goes up in a never ending pattern of climate change. THAT HAS NO PRECEDENT.

will it (the climate) change, yes, did we have a part, yes, is it the end of the world if it happens, no, is it the end of the comfy world we know, maybe in a couple decades, would that have happened anyway, probably, we would have faced the change at some point anyway.

 

[Sandvol]

dude the same charts you are living by say nothing about co2 levels directly causing the jumps in the past. the arc we are on follows very closely (as closely as weather permits) to the arcs of the past. yeah even though we have doubled the co2 levels I don't expect a double in temps (thats just crazy) but a significant change would have happened. (again still a lot of time to see this play out) but you are using the argument that because when temps were up in the past that caused co2 to go up; so if co2 goes up the temp goes up in a never ending pattern of climate change. THAT HAS NO PRECEDENT.

will it (the climate) change, yes, did we have a part, yes, is it the end of the world if it happens, no, is it the end of the comfy world we know, maybe in a couple decades, would that have happened anyway, probably, we would have faced the change at some point anyway.

You haven't heard Bart's explanation for that-Markinkov Cycles or some nonsense.

 

[LouderVol]

You haven't heard Bart's explanation for that-Markinkov Cycles or some nonsense.

nope, looked it up and it was dealing with carbon and hydrogen getting it on. I can see how it somewhat applies but if he thinks its relevant i would like to hear more

 

[BartW]

dude the same charts you are living by say nothing about co2 levels directly causing the jumps in the past. the arc we are on follows very closely (as closely as weather permits) to the arcs of the past. yeah even though we have doubled the co2 levels I don't expect a double in temps (thats just crazy) but a significant change would have happened. (again still a lot of time to see this play out) but you are using the argument that because when temps were up in the past that caused co2 to go up; so if co2 goes up the temp goes up in a never ending pattern of climate change. THAT HAS NO PRECEDENT.

will it (the climate) change, yes, did we have a part, yes, is it the end of the world if it happens, no, is it the end of the comfy world we know, maybe in a couple decades, would that have happened anyway, probably, we would have faced the change at some point anyway.

You’ve got me all wrong. I only posted the ice core temperature/CO2 graph in response to Gramp’s request. I never said doubling CO2 would double temperatures; actually I specifically showed that doubling CO2 will most likely increase global average temperature by ~3C. And no, the CO2 feedback is not immediate, but we have already witnessed significant change. We've seen a 40% increase in CO2 and a 1C rise in temperatures, mostly just over the last 50 years. That might not sound like much but it's the highest temperature for thousands of years and highest CO2 level for millions of years, all over an incredibly short time span geologically speaking.

Milankovitch (SV will learn someday) cycles are the periodic changes in the amount of sunlight Earth receives due to slow wobbles in Earth’s orbital dynamics. The relevance of Milankovitch cycles is that we know Earth should be (and has been for ~7000 years) on a cooling trend. We know the rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution is not because of orbital dynamics or any other “natural” cause for that matter. It’s not coincidence. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have a problem that needs to be addressed yesterday. It’s only going to get worse before it gets better, but we have the capability and responsibility to move forward with the rest of the world instead of dilly-dallying over petty politics.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Wintry Summer Blast Arrives in the West With Record Cold and Snow

 

[LouderVol]

You’ve got me all wrong. I only posted the ice core temperature/CO2 graph in response to Gramp’s request. I never said doubling CO2 would double temperatures; actually I specifically showed that doubling CO2 will most likely increase global average temperature by ~3C. And no, the CO2 feedback is not immediate, but we have already witnessed significant change. We've seen a 40% increase in CO2 and a 1C rise in temperatures, mostly just over the last 50 years. That might not sound like much but it's the highest temperature for thousands of years and highest CO2 level for millions of years, all over an incredibly short time span geologically speaking.

Milankovitch (SV will learn someday) cycles are the periodic changes in the amount of sunlight Earth receives due to slow wobbles in Earth’s orbital dynamics. The relevance of Milankovitch cycles is that we know Earth should be (and has been for ~7000 years) on a cooling trend. We know the rise in temperatures since the industrial revolution is not because of orbital dynamics or any other “natural” cause for that matter. It’s not coincidence. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have a problem that needs to be addressed yesterday. It’s only going to get worse before it gets better, but we have the capability and responsibility to move forward with the rest of the world instead of dilly-dallying over petty politics.

I think you have me wrong as well. I am not saying we don't need to change/stop and I am not saying this won't/isn't having adverse changes, all i am saying is it isn't the end of the world.

also the 'wobbling' has been pretty consistent, on the charts the wobbles go back and forth while still on an upward trend. We haven't seen the 'wobble' in the charts at all, maybe this is it, i have no idea. And i have no idea how to check if the Earth's current alignment means it should be hotter or colder.

as Butch Jones says, "It's never as bad or as good as you think"

 

[Sandvol]

I think you have me wrong as well. I am not saying we don't need to change/stop and I am not saying this won't/isn't having adverse changes, all i am saying is it isn't the end of the world.

also the 'wobbling' has been pretty consistent, on the charts the wobbles go back and forth while still on an upward trend. We haven't seen the 'wobble' in the charts at all, maybe this is it, i have no idea. And i have no idea how to check if the Earth's current alignment means it should be hotter or colder.

as Butch Jones says, "It's never as bad or as good as you think"

OK, I'll say it. We need the CO2.

 

[BartW]

I think you have me wrong as well. I am not saying we don't need to change/stop and I am not saying this won't/isn't having adverse changes, all i am saying is it isn't the end of the world.

also the 'wobbling' has been pretty consistent, on the charts the wobbles go back and forth while still on an upward trend. We haven't seen the 'wobble' in the charts at all, maybe this is it, i have no idea. And i have no idea how to check if the Earth's current alignment means it should be hotter or colder.

Luckily there are astronomers, physicists, geologists, chemists, climatologists, engineers, etc. that do know how to check.

as Butch Jones says, "It's never as bad or as good as you think"

Wth is that supposed to mean? Maybe it's not as bad as we think. Maybe it's worse. Uncertainty is a double-edged sword; that was my point in posting the climate sensitivity figure.

Either way, just *hoping* the entire scientific community is wrong is not prudent risk management. It's good to hear you aren't fundamentally opposed to action. Many posters in here are so frightened by the potential solutions that they choose to deny the problem altogether.

 

[BartW]

June through August 2014 hottest ever recorded globally

Have you heard the argument that the past 15 years we haven’t seen much warming? Those using that argument are – knowingly or unknowingly – dating it back to the extremely warm year of 1998, when an unusually strong El Niño formed. While we haven’t seen as big of a spike in heating as in 1998, the globe continues to warm and records continue to be broken. Just because parts of the Eastern United States saw relatively cool temperatures does not mean the entire Earth was seeing cooler temperatures. This record was broken after NASA, NOAA, and the Japan Meteorological Agency found that August 2014 was the warmest August ever recorded.

NOAA’s National Climatic Date Center global report for August 2014 shows the August 2014 global temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces as 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).

August 2014 officially becomes the warmest August ever recorded since 1880, breaking the old record set back in 1998. As mentioned above, 1998 was one of the warmest years ever recorded thanks to the additional heat in the Eastern Pacific brought on by a strong El Niño.

While it might have been a cool August for you, that was not the case for everyone across the globe. Some of the warmest locations in August 2014 occurred in western Asia, western Australia, and into southern parts of South America. Meanwhile, other spots across the globe experienced cooler than average temperatures including the eastern United States, western Europe, and central Australia.

Remember … climate measures on a global scale take into account whole continents and oceans, not just particular towns and cities.

According to the NCDC, 2014 is on track to become the warmest year ever recorded

:horse: