Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Cooler Year on a Cooling Planet.

Recs

7

June 30, 2012 – Comments (73)

Dr Don Easterbrook, geologist, Dec 18th, 2008 

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched from its warm mode (1977-1998) to its cool mode in 1999 and we’ve had global cooling since. Each time this has happened in the past 100 years we�ve had three decades of cool global climate. We switched from the Pacific cool mode to the warm mode in 1977 (The Great Climate Shift) and that ended in 1998 with the switch to the Pacific cool mode. We’re going to have three decades of global cooling, just like we�ve always had when this happens. CO2 has nothing to do with it...

... Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward.  In 2008, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC....

... Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain.  Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle.  A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely. - Geologist, Dr Don Easterbrook Dec 18th 2008.

Best wishes,

Steven 

73 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Melaschasm (56.93) wrote:

While such cooling factors do not disprove the silly Man Made Global Warming theories, it does show the panicked 'we are doomed' pronouncements to be gross exagerations.

I personally prefer warmer weather, and do not want to see three to six decade of substantially colder tempuratures.  The silver lining in such an event would be the removal of the AGW hysterics, allowing for a much higher quality debate about human pollution.

PS thank you for the article, I had missed this one. 

Report this comment
#2) On June 30, 2012 at 9:58 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

I just like to remember that five years ago the loudest arguments against CO2 causing global warming wasn't happening, or had just ended and reversed toward cooling.

 But, just as the CO2 "conspirators to destroy the economy" predicted, it is still getting warmer. And all the denialists have left is "the warmer will be nicer" or "it was never Co2". But they never have math. They neve have data to predict the warming from tectonic plate movement, or volcanic eruptions, or in the case of the Pacific Decadel Oscillations, how much it should have cooled our planet by now. Just a pattern that should have been correct, but "something" has caused the pattern to break. And we know what that is...

Anything But Co2. 

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#3) On June 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

You are turning into another Alstry with these constant global warming threads.  I will keep reprinting until you answer:

Let's assume the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago.  What caused that Devoish?  It wasn't mankind, we were in caves. So for about 10,800 years something else was causing global warming.  

What was it Devoish?

Report this comment
#4) On July 01, 2012 at 7:16 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr,

If you do not like the two answers to your question that I posted already, you are welcome to answer your own question for us. 

If two coincidentally synchronised separate natural forces that were based upon good science and were not just a misleading advertising campaign were supposed to have already been able to force us into a cooling phase, then clearly something else is warming us today...

Anything But Co2. 

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#5) On July 01, 2012 at 2:42 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

For argument sake let's use the 11,000 year mark as the year the glaciers switched directions.  Different sources use different years like 14,000, 13,000, 12,500, 11,700 etc.

It's not an issue if whether I liked any of your answers.  My point of contention is you are looking at it in a vacuum.  You ignore 10,800 years worth of global warming and just want to look at basically the last 200 years.

Something happened 11,000 years ago.  We really don't what it was that caused the glaciers to start retreating.  We just have theories, like orbital shifts or massive solar flares.  But one thing I do submit is that no serious climatologist would say that change in direction was man induced.

I have never argued that mankind has not adversely impacted the planet's environment.  We have.  I do submit, however, that if mankind was still living in caves today global warming would still be occuring.

So in the end the issue, as I have said over and over, is not about global warming, it is about pollution.  To paraphras a scene from Jaws.  "If you cry baracuda (pollution) people say what, what?  If you cry shark (climate doomsday) you then have a panic on your hands."  Al Gore and his ilk are crying shark purposefully when it is really about baracudas.

 

Report this comment
#6) On July 01, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Melaschasm (56.93) wrote:

#2  The five years before and after 1997 are the hottest ten year span since the 1930s.  The past ten years have been cooler than both of the previously mentioned timespans.  In what way can this possibly be construed as global warming?

 

Report this comment
#7) On July 01, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Melaschasm (56.93) wrote:

#2  The five years before and after 1997 are the hottest ten year span since the 1930s.  The past ten years have been cooler than both of the previously mentioned timespans.  In what way can this possibly be construed as global warming?

 

Report this comment
#8) On July 01, 2012 at 5:18 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Melaschasm,

No. Once again I think you are making that up.

You ignore 10,800 years worth of global warming and just want to look at basically the last 200 years. -awallejr

I do not ignore 10,000 years, you misunderstand them. It is not 10,000 years of "global warming". It is 2,000 years of warming followed by 8000 years of a basically stable and slightly cooliing climate, but still slightly warmer than before. Imagine an ice cube or a glacier. At 31.9 degrees it grows. At 32.1 degrees it melts. But the world has not been "warming" all that time, it has been warm enough to melt ice, thats all.

But now, because CO2 is trapping more heat than the atmosphere would have without it, the climate is changing and warming faster and further than what it took to end the last glacial period and despite ChriGraley's exaggerrated fear of a coming ice age, will cause a lot of deaths, injury and property damage.

If the Co2 was coming from volcanoes or suddenly and magically releasing from the oceans for a reason other than that we have saturated it with what you want to call pollution, or releasing from the forests for a reason other than that we have cut them down, than I would say we have to deal with it. But the truth is that we need to stop causing it.

Obviously what happened 10,000 years ago is harder to measure than what is happening right now. It is not hard to measure how much energy CO2 can trap, it is harder to understand where that energy will be stored. But now that temperatures are rising it is a good excersise in marketing to remember the types of commentary that predicted cooling and see their twins in the type of commentary that says it would have happened anyway, (it wouldn't have) or the world will be nicer a little warmer (it won't).

Best wishes,

Steven 

 

Report this comment
#9) On July 01, 2012 at 5:19 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr,

For thoughts on the trigger that ended the last glacial period. 

 http://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/150000446/shake-it-off-earth-s-wobble-may-have-ended-ice-age

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#10) On July 01, 2012 at 5:59 PM, AvianFlu (40.02) wrote:

For those interested in reading a good summarizing scientific abstract on global warming I suggest the following: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

Report this comment
#11) On July 01, 2012 at 6:42 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Except devoish, and AvianFlu beat me to the punch with some of his charts, the glaciers have continued to retreat all during those years.  It is hard to discuss this further if you think this comment of mine is categorically incorrect:

I do submit, however, that if mankind was still living in caves today global warming would still be occuring.

Personally I wish people would just stop the BS and start working on making our air and water cleaner for the health of humanity and other wildlife.  Stop shouting shark, let's talk baracuda.

Report this comment
#12) On July 01, 2012 at 8:00 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Avianflu, 

I have done this before and it is up to you to educate yourself in a free society. The fact is that your link is incorrect. The chart claiming that the rate of glacial loss is the same now as it has been for the last 180 years is incorrect. You do the rest.

awallejr,

You have said that global warming has been continuing for the last 10,000 years, I told you it got warmer 10,000 years ago and has been cooling for 8000, until recently. Avianflus link also disputes your claim. Avianflus link says the climte has been stable within a 3 degree range for the last 3000 years. 

So who's correct? 

Avianflu's link also attempts to link global warming to solar activity!  Lest we forget, CAPS player Devoish discussed that very subject last week!

 

Get Ready for Global Cooling, Dec 19, 2007

Recs 8

JUNE 18, 2012

– Get Ready for Global Cooling, by E Ralph Hostetter - 

 E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and agricultural publisher, also is a national and local award-winning columnist.

 http://www.iceagenow.com/Get_Ready_for_Global_Cooling.htm 

19 Dec 07 - There is growing evidence that the sun itself - the giver of all energy to the planet - plays a major role in the warming and cooling of the planet, cited by dozens of reputable scientists based on a history of climate and temperatures dating back thousands of years.

When the sun is active with sunspot and solar storms, more solar energy reaches the earth. When the sun is dormant (void) of such storms, less energy is emitted and temperatures on the earth begin to cool.

At present, the sun is approaching a more dormant status, and temperatures that reached a high at the turn of the century have now stabilized at slightly lower levels...

 ...This revelation does not mean that the global warming issue has come to an end — by no means.

The global warming hucksters led by former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize honoree, have too great an investment to give up easily.

The corrupt, dishonest media has so much global warming egg on its face it will fight to the bitter end rather than admit it has played such a major role in the "hoax of the century," so described by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Several years will yet have to pass to establish the fact the globe is actually cooling. The years 2009-10 should establish that global cooling has begun...

...The nation will know if and when the solar observations prove to be true. At that time, Al Gore and all the global warming hucksters will claim credit for the change in climate.

Best wishes,

Steven 

 

 

Report this comment
#13) On July 02, 2012 at 1:08 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

So who's correct?

I was referring to the charts showing that the glaciers kept retreating.  You keep throwing up comments by people who I simply disagree with as well. 

The glaciers are still retreating.  And that all began 11,000 years ago from a tipping point event whatever that may have been.  When it will reverse course, as it has done in the past, who knows.  There are too many potential future tipping points and it could take a thousand years or 10 million years.

But please answer my question in #11.  If you think my statement is categorically incorrect (I do submit, however, that if mankind was still living in caves today global warming would still be occuring) then we will forever be going in circles.

Report this comment
#14) On July 02, 2012 at 8:16 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Lets not get distracted. How about focusing on this question instead;

How much additional heat is trapped by increasing Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm?

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#15) On July 02, 2012 at 8:17 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Lets not get distracted. How about focusing on this question instead;

How much additional heat is trapped by increasing Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm?

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#16) On July 02, 2012 at 8:43 AM, dag154 (59.20) wrote:

There are lies, dam lies and statistics. Well done on believing them!   

It is ironic that those who do not believe in the climate change theory (which the majority of scientists consider to be a fact), will equaly believe anything which is written by someone of the opposit view, as long as there is a Dr. in front of his name.

If you are ignorant, you should at least try and gather all the facts untill you can have a definite point of view... Personaly I don't know and am still trying to make up my mind.

Until then you can enjoy the dreadfully hot summer and keep on saying that the globe is cooling (or is it that the A/C running 24/7?) 

 

 

Report this comment
#17) On July 02, 2012 at 10:55 AM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

On July 01, 2012 at 5:19 PM, devoish (98.78) wrote:

awallejr,

For thoughts on the trigger that ended the last glacial period. 

 http://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/150000446/shake-it-off-earth-s-wobble-may-have-ended-ice-age

Best wishes,

Steven

 I love when steven's own links to prove his point admit that CO2 followed warming. Now I'll watch him paint NPR as a climate skeptic.

Report this comment
#18) On July 02, 2012 at 12:34 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Lets not get distracted. How about focusing on this question instead;

How about stop with the cop out and answer my question, either yes or no.  It is pointless to continue any reasonable discussion without knowing your answer, otherwise you are being, as I accused elsewhere, disingenuous.

Please, yes or no?

Report this comment
#19) On July 02, 2012 at 4:40 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr,

No. I am not being disingenious. As Marisa Tomei says "It is a b-sht question".  "Yes" or "no" should not be an acceptable answer to your question.

The correct answer to your question is; "The climate would have done, whatever the climate would have done, without the influence of Co2 which is now forcing a temperature increase.

 Just like a pot of water sitting on a stove would have done whatever it would have done, until someone lights the stove and forces a temperature increase.

You decide if you want to stick with "yes" or "no" as an answer to your question.

Now you are free to answer my question. Don't give us a chickensh*t answer.

Show your math, show your understanding of Co2 as a greenhouse gas, show how much heat energy it retains at 280ppm and 390ppm.

Tell me why water vapor was not as big a concern as Co2 even though it traps more heat. 

Tell me why methane has not been as big a concern as Co2, yet. 

ChrisGraley,

If you are determined to be the hero work with me. 

The article that says that a Co2 increase happened after the most recent glacial age ended when the earth wobbled in its orbit, proving that the climate changed before mankind mattered, something even you and I agree upon. The article says whether or not a wobble actually triggered the end of the ice age, Co2 was released into the climate. Please show your honesty by quoting what the article says concerning the impact of that Co2 on the climate of that time and how long it took to effect that change. Copy and paste of the last three paragraphs is fine. 

You don't have to agree with the article, you can say that you don't. I just want you to show me that you have the integrity to honestly quote the article. Because based upon experience, you won't be able to.

Best wishes,

Steven 

 

Report this comment
#20) On July 02, 2012 at 4:41 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr,

No. I am not being disingenious. As Marisa Tomei says "It is a b-sht question".  "Yes" or "no" should not be an acceptable answer to your question.

The correct answer to your question is; "The climate would have done, whatever the climate would have done, without the influence of Co2 which is now forcing a temperature increase.

 Just like a pot of water sitting on a stove would have done whatever it would have done, until someone lights the stove and forces a temperature increase.

You decide if you want to stick with "yes" or "no" as an answer to your question.

Now you are free to answer my question. Don't give us a chickensh*t answer.

Show your math, show your understanding of Co2 as a greenhouse gas, show how much heat energy it retains at 280ppm and 390ppm.

Tell me why water vapor was not as big a concern as Co2 even though it traps more heat. 

Tell me why methane has not been as big a concern as Co2, yet. 

ChrisGraley,

If you are determined to be the hero work with me. 

The article that says that a Co2 increase happened after the most recent glacial age ended when the earth wobbled in its orbit, proving that the climate changed before mankind mattered, something even you and I agree upon. The article says whether or not a wobble actually triggered the end of the ice age, Co2 was released into the climate. Please show your honesty by quoting what the article says concerning the impact of that Co2 on the climate of that time and how long it took to effect that change. Copy and paste of the last three paragraphs is fine. 

You don't have to agree with the article, you can say that you don't. I just want you to show me that you have the integrity to honestly quote the article. Because based upon experience, you won't be able to.

Best wishes,

Steven 

 

Report this comment
#21) On July 02, 2012 at 6:09 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Don't give us a chickensh*t answer

That is exactly what you have been doing, sidestepping a specific question because you know the answer actually hurts your argument.  You poll any serious climatologist and I am willing to wager that most will agree with my supposition, that global warming would still be continuing even now if mankind was still in caves.

Whether mankind may be contributing to increasing the average global temperature by even a couple degrees IN THE LONG RUN is irrelevant.  The Earth will have its own future tipping point events unrelated to mankind's occupancy on its surface.  Your own link in #9 showed you one, an orbital shift or "wobble" possibly set a chain of events in motion.  Tell me how mankind could stop something like that? 

Keep crying shark devoish and keep drinking the Al Gore kool-aid.

Report this comment
#22) On July 02, 2012 at 10:07 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

That was not an answer. 

That was chickensh*t .

Best wishes,

Steven 

 

Report this comment
#23) On July 02, 2012 at 10:59 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Sure Steven,

But the Antarctic was getting warmer even before CO2 levels went up. 

The article goes on to say that CO2 was picked up in areas later before they were warmed but where do you supposed that CO2 came from? What to you suppose happened when the antartic ice melted? Well even in your world that should be a release of more CO2 from Antarctica and that CO2 isn't gonna stay in place above Antarctica, it's gonna mix in the atmosphere.

Besides you can't talk about the wobble. It doesn't exist in your world.

By the very definition of liberal lunatic you have to deny...

Everything but CO2 

Can't make Al Gore billions trading wobble credits.

Oh and I'd love to take the water vapor and CO2 questions you posed to awallejr if you'll show your own math first. 

Let me know. 

Report this comment
#24) On July 02, 2012 at 10:59 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Sure Steven,

But the Antarctic was getting warmer even before CO2 levels went up. 

The article goes on to say that CO2 was picked up in areas later before they were warmed but where do you supposed that CO2 came from? What to you suppose happened when the antartic ice melted? Well even in your world that should be a release of more CO2 from Antarctica and that CO2 isn't gonna stay in place above Antarctica, it's gonna mix in the atmosphere.

Besides you can't talk about the wobble. It doesn't exist in your world.

By the very definition of liberal lunatic you have to deny...

Everything but CO2 

Can't make Al Gore billions trading wobble credits.

Oh and I'd love to take the water vapor and CO2 questions you posed to awallejr if you'll show your own math first. 

Let me know. 

Report this comment
#25) On July 02, 2012 at 11:14 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Well Devoish I tried to have a discussion with you but you are just obtuse.  I will simply chime in with Chris (which is ironic since we tend to be on opposite sides a lot) and simply mock your nonsensical replies.

I will start with this quote of yours in response to my question if global warming would still have happened if mankind was still in caves:

"The climate would have done, whatever the climate would have done, without the influence of Co2 which is now forcing a temperature increase."

There is only one conclusion, that there would have been no Co2 if mankind was still in caves.  But wait!  Your link in #9 argued that global warming began when some kind of orbital "wobbling" occurred that set a certain chain of events into motion which warmed the planet and then ultimately released Co2 into the air causing further.  All this while Cro Magnon roamed the earth! And there is simply NO REASON why that wouldn't have continued the last 200 years if mankind stayed in caves.

Devoish just buy a simple Atlas of the World and look at the pretty pictures.  Stop making nonsensical arguments and wasting people's time.

Report this comment
#26) On July 03, 2012 at 3:56 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr,

some kind of orbital "wobbling" occurred that set a certain chain of events into motion which warmed the planet and then ultimately released Co2 into the air causing further

Excellent! This may be a productive discussion after all, and I was just giving up. Now comes the harder part. How much warming?

ChrisGraley,  

I did talk about the wobble, such things do exist in my world. Since you failed to quote the article, here it is, for  those you would save from me.

 Eric Wolff, a climate scientist at the British Antarctic Survey, isn't convinced a wobble was the trigger — the planet had wobbled before and not melted the ice. But he says whatever did start the process during the ice age, the subsequent increase in CO2 created a runaway greenhouse effect worldwide.

"The CO2 increase turned what initially was a Southern Hemisphere warming into a global warming. That's a very nice sequence of events to explain what happened between about 19,000 and 11,000 years ago," Wolff says.

But that's a process that has taken about 8,000 years. And Shakun's research found that the amount of CO2 it took to end the ice age is about the same amount as humans have added to the atmosphere in the past century.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#27) On July 03, 2012 at 4:10 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Uhm, I did quote the arcticle.

First sentence.

Didn't let you dictate where in  the article I took the quote from though. 

And that conclusion does the opposite of proving Carbon before warming. Warming started in Antartica and spread. CO2 started in Antartica and spread, but warming happened first.

As for the wobble, that would be something that you would blindly dismiss with your new slogan along with any other common sense that gets in your way. Your world is to dismiss everything but CO2!

Still waiting for your math. If you do dare to post your math for the questions you posed to awallejr, I have a suprise for you.

Come on... 

Take a chance 

Report this comment
#28) On July 03, 2012 at 4:51 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Well actually I have had progress with you.  You used to argue that mankind caused Global Warming until I corrected you.  See here for a fun discussion:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/global-warmings-six-americas/199522

At least now you agree that it wasn't mankind that started global warming.

Now I need to get you to realize that mankind isn't the only source of Co2 and that the global warming that started 11,000 years ago would still continue with or without mankind.  It is a planetary event beyond mankind's power to stop.  I already told you that as the planet continues to warm, massive amounts of Co2 and methane gas will be released from the thawing tundra of Canada and Russia.

You and Al Gore are arguing for the wrong thing.  I keep telling you campaign for cleaner air and water.  Stop campaigning for things simply beyond mankind's power to control (Climate direction). 

I am sorry but I can't take seriously anyone who says "we have to stop global warming."  That is just as nonsensical as someone saying we have to stop the Sun from eventually dying out, although I would concede that I have no clue how mankind will evolve, assuming we survive, over the course of a couple billion years.

 

Report this comment
#29) On July 04, 2012 at 11:01 AM, dag154 (59.20) wrote:

Devoich you are such a fool ... No compliment intended.

 " more than 40,000 daily heat records have been broken around the country so far this year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "

 http://news.yahoo.com/whats-behind-record-heat-125603530.html

 

But that's ok, I am sure you can find some crackpot who has measured lower temperatures in a cave in Tazmania so as to prove the existence of global cooling.  

Report this comment
#30) On July 04, 2012 at 11:11 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

#1) On May 22, 2009 at 9:20 PM, awallejr (84.18) wrote:

The issue never was "IF" global warming is happening.  It is beyond contestation.  Global warming began approximately 14,000 years ago with the "ending" of the last ice age.  The only issue is how will mankind adapt to the everchanging surface of the Earth and its climate, things we literally have no serious control over.

There is nothing mankind can do to cause a permanent stasis for the Earth's climate. The only real remedy to "global warming" is another Ice Age.

 

#4) On May 22, 2009 at 10:18 PM, devoish (98.77) wrote:

awallejr,

Many people made the issue "if" global warming was real for a very long time. They surrendered to "naturally caused" in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is real.

Not neccessarily you. I don't know if you've changed position.

We have been discussing the various causes of warming. I say the primary driver of accelerating warming is Co2 released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. You say I have been a little mean to you by lumping you with the BS artists like ChrisGraley and all of those who will argue Anything But Co2 against the worlds most knowledgable climate experts simply because you and he seem to have that in common.

I look forward to your enthusiastic particpation on my blog. I also apologise for the two posts that pointed out the failure of those who discounted the impact of Co2 as the present days primary driver of climate in favor of solar output and the pacific decadal oscillation, which predicted that those two drivers would cause global cooling to have been measurable by now, but instead it has gotten measurably hotter an increasing heat that you also very accurately predicted, while you also discounted the impact of Co2.

 

ChrisGraley,

I asked you to show your honesty by quoting what the article said about increasing Co2 levels on the climate, not simply quoting the article from anywhere.

I am sorry that was the best you would do.

Best wishes,

Steven 

 

Report this comment
#31) On July 04, 2012 at 2:52 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Devoish I never discounted Co2.  What I discount is whether mankind's activity will matter in the long run since I have argued from day 1 that global warming will continue with or without mankind's existence.  It is a natural planetary event.  And another natural event beyond mankind's control will happen causing another shift in climate.  As I said in that other thread it will always be a story of good news/bad news.  The good news is global warming stopped.  The bad news is we are now entering into a new ice age.

Stick to the real issue, pollution.  Here's a link that presents a poll showing that people are now more concerned with pollution instead of global warming as I think they should be: 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-03/global-warming-no-longer-americans-top-environmental-concern-poll-finds.html

You might counter that the end result will be the same regarding fossil fuel burning, and it could be except the issue of urgency is removed.  You don't HAVE to do something today or die.  You don't have to wreck industries or economies. You can scale things more.  Crying baracuda or crying shark.  K think I said enough I will only be repeating now.

Happy Birthday America.

 

 

Report this comment
#32) On July 04, 2012 at 5:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

What you wanted to do was put words in my mouth. The fact that you ignore part of the same article that you use for proof, just helps prove my point, just like ignoring the part where i challenged you to show your own math like you challenged awallejr.

 

Report this comment
#33) On July 04, 2012 at 10:24 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

ChrisGraley,

All i wanted was to hear you honestly represent what the article said concerning the effect of putting Co2 into the air. The result was predictable, but nice to have out in the open. Your belief that my motivation is to put words in your mouth reflects your character, not mine. 

awallejr,

If you believe that Co2 has an impact on warming, feel free to tell us what it is. But so far you have argued Anything But Co2.

It certainly feels like the scientists who were alarmed about Co2 causing accelerated global warming seem a lot more correct than the ones who thought a decrease in solar activity cool it. You mentioned tectonic plate shifts as one of your concerns. How quickly does that happen?

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#34) On July 05, 2012 at 12:09 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Devoish you simply aren't listening to my arguments.  You are simply being closeminded.  To even say this is nonsensical: But so far you have argued Anything But Co2. Try reading what I have been saying.  To continue this is simply arguing with a wall. Stay obtuse.  Continue to drink the Al Gore kool-aid. As you would say:

Best Wishes.

Adios, life is too short to argue with a tool.

Report this comment
#35) On July 05, 2012 at 12:27 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

P.S. go watch the Twilight Zone tv show "The Midnight Sun." It Is actually on right now on the Syfy channel.

Report this comment
#36) On July 05, 2012 at 4:33 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Steven your myopic view of the universe taints your perspective. The fact that you can't score a point by getting me to quote paragraph G sentence 3 is about as irrelevent as your arguments so far. I did quioe the article and you haven't rebutted. You haven't even put any quantitative argument for CO2 as the primary cause of global warming let alone a qualitative one. I'll give you yet another chance to put for your own math which I will promptly destroy for the questions that you posed for awallejr, but we both know by your avoidance so far that you're afraid to do that. Again you cling to the unproven forcing, the unproven cause, the party choice.

If you were willing to at least think about it you might just open your mind. 

We know the party line.

We know the reasons for it.

We know your motivation and now we should just repeat the slogan.

Party lunatics, do as follows.....

Ignore anything but CO2! 

Report this comment
#37) On July 05, 2012 at 4:59 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Just pick it apart Chris, you don't have to wait on me. 

I asked awallejr to quantify his argument, rather than show his understanding he called me obtuse, which is one way of showing his understandiing.

 Anything But Co2.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#38) On July 05, 2012 at 5:22 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

I also called you a tool, devoish, because it is painfully obvious that you are.  Every time I try to get you to think outside your vacuum, you just pull an Alstry and chime a slogan.  You never had any intention of having an actual discussion.

So I will chime in with Chris.  Show me you aren't the tool I think you are.  Show us your math in your own words, afterall this is your thread and I submit you have the burden of proof if you will not those responding.  But Chris and I understand if you don't.

Report this comment
#39) On July 05, 2012 at 7:13 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr,

All I did was post the prediction of cooling made by one person who discount Co2 as the primary driver of the accelerated global warming we are currently experiencing.

Don't take it personally, you have told us it that it was not you. 

As far as getting me top think outside my vacuum goes, don't interogate me with questions, just tell us what you think\ is causing warming. Tell us how many drivers you think there are and rank them. Do anything, or call names.

The cooling boys were wrong because they discounted Co2. Al Gore spoke for the scientists who got it right. 

Think outside your own vacuum.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#40) On July 05, 2012 at 7:21 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

wow devo, you seem to to be immune to logic and stuff like that so i will play a song or two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GAT7UG-C9s&feature=related

Report this comment
#41) On July 05, 2012 at 8:05 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Re #39. I rest my case. 

Report this comment
#42) On July 05, 2012 at 9:44 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

devo- smart patrol mr. dna circa 1978:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbihNJi9ZOc&feature=related

Report this comment
#43) On July 05, 2012 at 9:52 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

devo- uncontrollable urge:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QZD_niSlK8&feature=related

Report this comment
#44) On July 05, 2012 at 10:02 PM, radoncer (28.10) wrote:

Strange that people can convince themselves that they are qualified to disagree with the experts.  The climate scientists have spoken.  You antiscience denialists don't have any grounds for disagreeing with their conclusions: 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/?emc=eta1

Report this comment
#45) On July 05, 2012 at 10:17 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Notvuffet,

Once again, Al Gore spoke for the scientists who got it right based upon being alarmed about the effects of Co2 in the atmosphere.

The people who discounted the impact of Co2 and believed that solar activity would begin a cooling cycle were wrong.  

awallejr, who believes in warming but does not believe it has been accelerated by our putting Co2 into the atmosphere is also wrong.

ChrisGraley the hero who will not even post what the article says about Co2's impact on warming is pathetic.

If you expect me to write something I don't believe the price is very high.  

#41 - right back at you. See no, hear no and Chrisgraley is speak no Co2

Like I said in the my first reply;

 But, just as the CO2 "conspirators to destroy the economy" predicted, it is still getting warmer. And all the denialists have left is "the warmer will be nicer" or "it was never Co2". But they never have math. They neve have data to predict the warming from tectonic plate movement, or volcanic eruptions, or in the case of the Pacific Decadel Oscillations, how much it should have cooled our planet by now. Just a pattern that should have been correct, but "something" has caused the pattern to break. And we know what that is...

Anything But Co2.  

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#46) On July 05, 2012 at 10:26 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

anti-science denielists? wow, that is rich.  i remember speculating about the possibility of a higgs field over a lunch in middle school with a friend of mine.  i guess i am one of the anti-science guys, lol.

Report this comment
#47) On July 05, 2012 at 10:41 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

devo, this is the thing you have neglected to mention.   they intentend to revert the carbon dioxide level emissions to the 1860's level

Report this comment
#48) On July 06, 2012 at 2:32 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Stephen I don't think you to be an evil person.  We have agreed on issues in the past.  I am not a bullsh*tter.  I have no agenda here except to help people free of charge and to speak my mind freely. 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.  I welcome a good discussion. In fact I encourage it.

I tried with you here.  But in the end you just stuck with the "program."   You preferred looking at the tree instead of the forest. So be it.  That is your choice.  But make no mistake, Chirs and now I asked YOU to present the science and you have done your darndest to avoid.  You don't get a mulligan here.  This is YOUR thread. So DEFEND it.  But you won't because you can't.  You are in the end simply mimicking others.  Pity because a GOOD discussion can be worthwhile.

Report this comment
#49) On July 06, 2012 at 2:52 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

And as for this: awallejr, who believes in warming but does not believe it has been accelerated by our putting Co2 into the atmosphere is also wrong.

I said this: Is mankind adding to it with deforestation and polluting the air with fossil fuel pollutants?  Probably. 

 

Report this comment
#50) On July 06, 2012 at 5:11 AM, gudgpin (< 20) wrote:

J Curve mania ... a neutral statistical analysis of the ups and down of global climate change (year on year) over the past 100 years or so would expose the fact that massive upturns/increases (as represented by the famous hockey stick curve - J curve) in temperature are invariably followed by equally massive downturns. So we can expect a lengthy period of increasingly cooling global temperatures until the long term trend is reached and even then a overshoot is possible. This observation is similar to the behaviour evident in most economic, financial and physical data sets .. of which the most recent dramatic example is the housing market which the pundits (before the inevitable downturn) predicted further (log normal -based model projections) ever increasing growth in prices and were somehow  surpised (?) when the inevitable crash came. Climate models (like financial and projec/ investment models) suffer from the same normative and biased interpretation. Since the causative bases of climate change are so uncertain, we only rely on best guesses for our climate model structure and accompanying assumptions on the future changes and the underlying reasons for change.  A reversion to pure statistical analysis (without a strong normative base) would undoubtedly provide improved climate prediction/forecast  models. This allows for the descriptive (and normative) nature of the variations to be disregarded and a pure stochastic approach adopted. As a result we would be much better prepared to interpret medium-short term changes in climate to help us in meeting the requirements of climate change mitigation investment planning .. and avoid expensive and premature strategies which are based on ever rising global temperatures. Rather than investing for global climate termerature increases we should be doing the opposite and preparing now for a long period of cooling. Thats what a neutral statistical analysis of the data would suggest. Peter Gudgeon - climate neutral observer.

Report this comment
#51) On July 06, 2012 at 5:49 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

I feel better now.

qudgpin has completely reassured me by comparing climate models to economic models and a reversion to the mean theory that I am sure will play out over millenia. 

I am especially reassured by his additional argument that we don't really know that much about the world we live in and his confidence that the accelerated warming we are experiencing will eventually lead to an equally accelerated cooling. 

I mean look, the current heat wave is already breaking from record breaking heat, to just still really hot out.

awallejr,

I have to go to work now, could you explain to qudgpin why you think warming will continue and what you believe the timeline and most significant drivers will be?

Thanks in advance.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#52) On July 06, 2012 at 8:19 AM, CajunRon100 (< 20) wrote:

I've read this "debate" as a somewhat neutral party.  Neutral in the sense that I would just like to know the real truth.   What I see here are personal attacks and entrenchment on both sides.  But I think in summation what I am reading is:

 Point 1: The past can't be used as the basis for determining what is going on today because of mankind's ability to influence the environment today unlike in the past.

 Point 2:  Significant climate change (heating/cooling) takes place with or without human contribution and intervention.

Point 3: The thermodyamics of increased CO2 concentration can be theoretically calculated

Point 4: Naturalistic causes of heating and cooling of the earth and naturalistic sources of CO2 may make man's contribution negligible.

To me these are all valid points.  Hence...at this point we just don't know.  If we could take the politics and emotion out of all of this and have total unbiased scientific study, maybe we could figure it out....but I don't think that's going to happen.   It is so much more fun to call each other names, defend out side to the death and get our guy elected.

We are doomed not by CO2 or earth's warming/cooling, we are doomed by ideological entrenchment.

Report this comment
#53) On July 06, 2012 at 8:59 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Steven, if you look at the last million years or so, ice ages were the norm and warm periods in between (as we are currently) were the exception.

this is one of the big errors in this debate- to assume there is some ideal state of the planet.  also, to assume that the planet is in some fragile state of equilibrium and if it is perturbed in the slightest manner it will crash.

nobody doubts that co2 can absorb heat. but what is the concentration in the atmos[here?  less than 400 ppm.   if it was 1000ppm that would be 1/10%.

Report this comment
#54) On July 06, 2012 at 6:43 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

CajunRon100,

Basically yes.

Except  that in point #4 natures contributions are not enough  to make mans influence neglible. And that is what the climate scientists who did not predict a cooling due to solar influences say. The politicians are political.

NOTvuffett,

Climate scientists are not suggesting there is an ideal state, or an unchanging climate.  They are suggesting that the small percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere is enough to make a significant impact and drive the climate into a state that will cause mankind significantly more hardship a lot sooner than normal changes would have.

If a volcano were to release this much Co2 and drive the climate hotter that would be one thing. To allow politics and self interest to do it to ourselves for the "economy" is another.

A very stupid thing.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#55) On July 06, 2012 at 8:40 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

the really funny thing is no matter what the govt. does to 'save the planet', it wouldn't even change the terperature by 1deg.

do you think that developing societies will eschew the use of things like steel and concrete (big contributors of co2) and driving cars as they become more afluent?  no, of course not.  increases of co2 in the coming decades are already baked into the pie.  what are thought to be reliable models put the number at appx. 460ppm levels.  if there are negative consequences associated with this level we will just have to deal with it.

and now for todays music:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU

Report this comment
#56) On July 07, 2012 at 2:21 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Wow I thought I was done with this thread but this statement is so nonsensical as to prove you don't know what you are talking about devoish:

If a volcano were to release this much Co2 and drive the climate hotter that would be one thing.

Seriously go buy a simple Earth Science book.  Volcanic activity causes ICE AGES. It was that activity along with the meteorite crashing that purportedly wiped out the dinosaurs.  I am pulling a Porte now:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=volcanic%20activity%20and%20ice%20ages&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2012%2F01%2F120130131509.htm&ei=xdP3T9_cO6S40QGgnKjoBg&usg=AFQjCNGxYtAW9EsM7_w6MricPzy6AQPjug

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=volcanic%20activity%20and%20ice%20ages&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGwQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.discovery.com%2Fearth%2Fvolcanoes-erupted-little-ice-age-120203.html&ei=xdP3T9_cO6S40QGgnKjoBg&usg=AFQjCNHAyQQ7r5sZM6Uqyz6waLUKe8mWLQ

Why do you think I kept mentioning Yosemite volcanic activity in all the other threads you started?  Because it is real and it would cause another ice age.

Report this comment
#57) On July 07, 2012 at 2:53 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=volcanic%20eruptions%20in%20yosemite%20new%20ice%20age&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CF4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20100219014428AALAr2q&ei=Pdr3T7qIEIbE0AGR0ZzRBg&usg=AFQjCNEo2fQ84R7Zr1z5cKxIzzYojuELAA

Report this comment
#58) On July 07, 2012 at 4:50 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

If a volcano were to release this much Co2 and drive the climate hotter that would be one thing.

 If any natural causes were to release this much Co2 and drive the climate hotter that would be one thing.

" Why do you think I kept mentioning Yosemite volcanic activity in all the other threads you started?  Because it is real and it would cause another ice age." - awallejr

Because it is Anything But Co2.

You are seriously kidding all of us right? I should be worried about what is not happening - volcanoes - instead of what is happening which is Co2. Brilliant! 

In other news;

'Man Dies in Colorado Wildfire'  

Colorado resident A Walle jr was burned to death as his house was engulfed by flames in the recent, record wildfires. Despite the repeated warnings and evacuation attempts of local authorities, the thick black smoke and falling cinders were not enough to concern Mr Walle of the imminent danger of the onrushing fire. Said one distraught firefighter who had attempted to persuade Mr Walle to leave his residence "He kept looking up at the sky and saying it doesn't matter, there is going to be a volcano and a meteorite any millenia now". 

Anything But Co2. 

Seriously dude, are you worried about warming or cooling and can you explain it to qudgpin for us? We are all still waiting for you to explain your Anything But Co2 theories in favor of some other cause of warming vs his Anything But Co2 theory that it is not even warming  at all.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#59) On July 07, 2012 at 6:48 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Steven, seriously dude, why don't you go buy an electric clown car, some solar panels, $40 led lightbulbs, a composting toilet and leave the rest of us  the hell alone?

Report this comment
#60) On July 07, 2012 at 9:06 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

NOTvuffett,

 Because I want our children to have a world that can support them.

Seriously dude, five years ago a lot of otherwise intelligent people were convinced that Co2 caused global warming was a hoax, based upon the idea that other less significant factors were actually more important. Turns out those ideas were wrong, and the climate scientists who were concerned about Co2 were correct.

You don't want to be reminded, I understand.

best wishes,

steven 

 

Report this comment
#61) On July 07, 2012 at 11:38 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Steven, I would submit to you we will leave the world in a worse shape for our children if we damage our economy for the sake of global warming, a procss we can't materially affect anyway.

Aren't you the least bit concerned that only people that toe the party line are allowed to be 'climate scientists'?  This stinks of Lysenkoism.

Didn't the obvious fraud as exposed by the email scandal open your eyes? 

I can't help myself- here is a different, early version of devo's mongoloid:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJT_MKA3i04&feature=related

Report this comment
#62) On July 07, 2012 at 3:40 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

I look up at the sky and say "man that is dirty we need to clean it."  We don't need to wreck industries or economies.  It can be scaled.  And as new technologies become available, and they will, we can apply it. 

You say "do it now or we all die."

 

 

Report this comment
#63) On July 07, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Melaschasm (56.93) wrote:

#29)  In the past decade we have set many record highs and many record lows.  That is called volatility.

According to the IPC reports from a decade ago we were supposed to have a bunch of years of record high tempatures, particularly during the past five years.  However, we have not yet had a year which exceeded 1997 in average global tempatures.

Despite many predictions that we had less than a decade to take drastic actions to reduce CO2 emisions, we have increased CO2 at a much faster rate. Even though we have increased CO2 emissions at a very fast rate, we have not seen tempatures increase from the high year of 1997.

We also have had the embarassing climategate scandal, which has exposed vast fraud on the part of the man made global warming champions.  Despite the significant evidence against the extreme claims of the man made global warming alarmists, we continue to focus on CO2, rather than forms of pollution that are much more harmful.

The ironic part is that the AGW people will probably be proven to be technically correct in 100 years.  By then we might have the technology and knowledge to measure the miniscule effect that our actions are having on global tempatures. 

Report this comment
#64) On July 08, 2012 at 12:58 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Melaschasm

"Many" record highs and "many' record lows. 

How many of each?

1997 has been bested by 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and probably 2012.

There were many accusations flung about during the climategate scandal.  The climate scientists were accused of putting political ideology before science, falsifying data to make it look like warming would continue, greed for enough funding to go to the coldest least hospitable places on earth, collusion, supressing data, "hiding" a decline in temperature records, suppression of  conflicting opinions, intimidation, lying, cheating and all manner of character flaws.

But it does seem they got the "hotter days ahead" thing correct. 

I agree there is a certain "irony"  concerning the reports of  their bad science and characters vs the trust we put in those who disputed them and how hot it seems to be.

Best wshes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#65) On July 08, 2012 at 7:56 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Decades are not climate

Decades correspond with with weather.  BTW i don't think anyone is arguing that it's getting hotter.

Report this comment
#66) On July 08, 2012 at 11:02 PM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

ChrisGraley 

I think you mean "I do not think that anyone is arguing that it is not getting hotter". Maybe this has all been a language issue. Probably not.

I would say that those who were making a big deal out of "hiding the decline" in temperature data and accusing climate scientists of falsifying or hiding or deleting temperature data that countered the evidence that warming was taking place and implied a truthful examination of data suggested cooling, were certainly argumentative then.

Weather is a five day forecast.

Climate: noun

1.the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of aregion, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation,sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year,averaged over a series of years.

 

Best wishe

Steven 

Report this comment
#67) On July 09, 2012 at 1:04 AM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

That is exactly what happens during global warming, temperatures rise until a next climate tipping event occurs.  When that will be no one has a clue.

Drop the Kool-aid Devoish and join the anti-pollution group.

Report this comment
#68) On July 09, 2012 at 8:28 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

awallejr.

Excellent! And the most recent climate tipping event was mankinds dumping of waste Co2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. It has tipped temperatures upward overwhelming the influence of any change in all other forces combined and changed the climate for the worse!

At least that is what the climate scientists who predicted that co2 would cause warming to happen have been saying. 

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#69) On July 09, 2012 at 3:03 PM, awallejr (83.92) wrote:

Except when I refer to a "next climate tipping event" I am referring to Global Freezing.  As for the rest we have been down that road too many times and am tired of repeating.

 

Report this comment
#70) On July 11, 2012 at 7:41 AM, devoish (98.57) wrote:

Except when I refer to a "next climate tipping event" I am referring to Global Freezing. - awallejr

Don't hold your breath. Sometimes what is happening now is more important than what might happen then. 

Someday in the future my eyes might fail, my reflexes might slow and my hearing might disappear. But today I am still going to look both ways before I cross the street.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment
#71) On July 11, 2012 at 8:48 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

It is hard to express the magnitude of the calamity for mankind the next ice-age will have.  Our data on the periodocity of these events suggest that it could occur anytime between now and 6-7000 years. Additionally, there are also studies that suggest that these glaciation events happen over a relatively short span of time.  Imagine the earth covered with ice down to Kansas in 20 years or so.

Report this comment
#72) On July 11, 2012 at 9:20 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

oops, i forgot the music for today: devo, 'beautiful world' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3MxuDk7wqo&feature=related

Report this comment
#73) On July 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

DNFTT, people.

Some people post for the sole purpose of generating responses. They are like your regular Turthers who question the "physics" behind the mainstream view despite having no formal training.  Leave them be and the nonsense will disappear eventually.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement