Global Warming: Policy-Driven Deception

[ricketyclik]

So when were the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change first created Rick? I'll give you a hint..it wasn't in the nineties.

Fine. Then it also wasn't introduced just recently by the AGM side to explain away natural variation either then, was it?

It's been warm globally so far 2010 as we have had an El Nino, a warming of the Pacific.

Plenty of El Nino's have occurred during the record before. For the last several, each is warmer than the last.

It has nothing to do with emissions of CO2, which are a beneficial supplementation to the atmosphere allowing plant yields to rise and biomass to bloom at a much faster rate.

We've been over this. Read above. But, in summary, water is good for you, but not if you're 50 feet under it.

[ricketyclik]

We're repeatedly told temperatures have gone up the last 150 years. But what we're not told is 150 years ago climate was changing from the mini ice age to our modern warming trend. Now maybe thats because the AGW crowd is largely ignorant about that climate change, but what it does mean is that the world saw a natural rebound from a cold swing to a warm period accompanied by increasing industrial gases (which do have effects, both warming and cooling). How much of that increase in temperature (1-2 F?) is due to us is unknown, I'd think its obvious our overall impact was to help warm the world, but we're talking a degree F or less.

getting worked up over that is bat-**** crazy

No one denies the recovery from the mini ice age. It's that the timing and magnitude of the warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century match the predictions of the AGM proponents so closely that's of concern, as well as the simple fact that CO2 concentration has nearly doubled in the last 250 years. That locks in a couple more degrees of warming to come, and if we continue to increase the concentration then...

[Berzerker]

No one denies the recovery from the mini ice age. It's that the timing and magnitude of the warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century match the predictions of the AGM proponents so closely that's of concern, as well as the simple fact that CO2 concentration has nearly doubled in the last 250 years. That locks in a couple more degrees of warming to come, and if we continue to increase the concentration then...

I didn't say they deny it, I said they ignore it. I've never heard the AGW crowd acknowledge that the period just prior to their baseline was a cold snap from which we should naturally warm 1-3 degrees F. The timing IS the point, the magnitude reflects both our contribution and that natural rebound from a cold snap - and it aint much compared to the natural variations we see in the temp records. CO2 does not drive warming and cooling trends, CO2 responds to the factors that do drive climate. The majority of complex life's history on planet Earth has seen much warmer temperatures, we've been stuck in ice ages for the last ~3 my. We're living in abnormal times...

[Spinko]

Fine. Then it also wasn't introduced just recently by the AGM side to explain away natural variation either then, was it?




Plenty of El Nino's have occurred during the record before. For the last several, each is warmer than the last.

We're still cooler than in 1998.

We've been over this. Read above. But, in summary, water is good for you, but not if you're 50 feet under it.

Don't give me any ideas

[ricketyclik]

I didn't say they deny it, I said they ignore it. I've never heard the AGW crowd acknowledge that the period just prior to their baseline was a cold snap from which we should naturally warm 1-3 degrees F. The timing IS the point, the magnitude reflects both our contribution and that natural rebound from a cold snap - and it aint much compared to the natural variations we see in the temp records.

No it isn't. So far. But CO2 concentrations continue to rise.

CO2 does not drive warming and cooling trends, CO2 responds to the factors that do drive climate.

Incorrect. CO2 is one of the many factors that drive, and in its case, respond to climate. It isn't referred to as the CO2 cycle for nothing.

The majority of complex life's history on planet Earth has seen much warmer temperatures, we've been stuck in ice ages for the last ~3 my. We're living in abnormal times...

That is true. I'll go back to an earlier point: it is the rapid changes in climate, not the gradual ones, that result in biomass collapse. The rate of change we're applying to CO2 concentrations is essentially the same as a colossal volcanic eruption or meteorite strike. 300 years is a lot closer to instantaneous than, say 100,000 years.

[ricketyclik]

We're still cooler than in 1998.

Hah! Someone please give this fool a lesson in statistical variation and how climate sits within that. I'm getting tired of carrying all the weight.

[Berzerker]

No it isn't. So far. But CO2 concentrations continue to rise.

No what? And CO2 continues to rise... Doubled? How much of a temperature increase has that caused?

Incorrect. CO2 is one of the many factors that drive, and in its case, respond to climate. It isn't referred to as the CO2 cycle for nothing.

I didn't say it wasn't a factor, I said it doesn't drive climate - other factors do that and CO2 responds to those other factors. When the world heads into another ice age, that CO2 aint gonna help us. Now I hope for the day when we can pump gases into the atmosphere to ward off an ice age, but thats gonna take more than our puny CO2 leaks.

That is true. I'll go back to an earlier point: it is the rapid changes in climate, not the gradual ones, that result in biomass collapse.

And it happens all the time... The last time it happened was the rapid shifts in climate as the ice age ended, especially during the Younger Dryas reversal.

The rate of change we're applying to CO2 concentrations is essentially the same as a colossal volcanic eruption or meteorite strike. 300 years is a lot closer to instantaneous than, say 100,000 years.

Volcanoes cool the planet off... Climates dont take 100,000 years to change, they dont even need 300 years. The last major interglacial period (~130-114 kya) ended literally on a dime, within possibly a decade. And the mini ice age had a similar onset... We're enjoying a relatively stable period in Earth history, sit back and thank God a mile thick slab of ice aint covering NYC.

[Spinko]

Hah! Someone please give this fool a lesson in statistical variation and how climate sits within that. I'm getting tired of carrying all the weight.

Well if the alarmists are correct (GHGs cause 3c/century increase), then given that 1998 was an El Nino year like 2010, we should be 0.36c warmer than in 1998.

I hope I don't have to link to the satellite data to show you just how incorrect the alarmists - and you - are.

Unless yo can point to me how climate fluctuates naturally by 0.36c? And then you just might explain the warming from 1970 to 1998

[HalfLotus]

Catastrophists just can't catch a break these days:

Global Warming activist freezes to death in Antarctria

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing", recounted the pilot, Jimmy Dolittle. "There were two snowmobiles with cargo sleds, a tent, and a bright orange rope that had been laid out on the ice, forming the words, 'HELP-COLD'"

[ricketyclik]

Well if the alarmists are correct (GHGs cause 3c/century increase), then given that 1998 was an El Nino year like 2010, we should be 0.36c warmer than in 1998.

I hope I don't have to link to the satellite data to show you just how incorrect the alarmists - and you - are.

Unless yo can point to me how climate fluctuates naturally by 0.36c? And then you just might explain the warming from 1970 to 1998

Good God, what a fool. Get out any graph of world temperature for the last one hundred years and draw a line of best fit through it.

Better still draw a moving average using 5 - 10 years in the computation.

1998 was the warmest year on record. Most of the years since have been nearly as warm. All of the years prior were colder, and the further back you go, the colder they were.

No more replies to you, you are a troller.

[ricketyclik]

I know most of the sceptics here agree the planet is warming, but for those who are still caught up on 1998 being the warmest calendar year on record (and who don't understand basic trends and statistical variation very well):

The warmest year yet, says NASA
June 4, 2010
LONDON: The global temperature this year reached its warmest on record based on a 12-month rolling average, said James Hansen, the top climate change scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The mean surface temperature in the year to April was about 0.66 degrees warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. That makes it a fraction warmer than the previous peak in 2005.

''Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010,'' Dr Hansen and three co-authors wrote. ''As for the calendar year, it is likely that the 2010 global surface temperature in the analysis also will be a record.''

The figures strengthen the case that temperatures show a warming in the climate. The NASA data series uses information from 6300 monitoring stations around the world and is one of the three main gauges of global temperature used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to compile its assessments.

Bloomberg

[Al B. Sure!]

Wait... there's a fairly recent thread by Caligastia? Caligastia the racist?

[Caligastia]

To be called racist by a Nazi takes real dedication.

[Heraclitus]

Wait... there's a fairly recent thread by Caligastia? Caligastia the racist?

They're everywhere!

[OzzyKP]

This is blatant revisionism. It was Exxon Mobil who introduced that nomenclature in the early 90's to make it seem less threatening, and to assist in the line "but it's always been changing, so what's new?".

As far as I know, "climate change" is now the appropriate term because "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer. If the planet gets screwed up it could mess up the gulf stream and many other systems that could have very different effects. So it could cause much colder temps in some places and much warmer temps in others.

Plus it helps defray the misconceptions that result in people saying "it is snowing, global warming is a myth!"

But if you want to go on believing it is a big bad conspiracy, be my guest.