Eat that GW believers!

[Skipjack]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141842.htm

JK
Still that is good news for anyone who does worry and supporting evidence for all those who think that GW does not exist.
In either case, this is good news (happens way to rarely).

[flying_eagle]

Yes just goes to prove that the oceans are becoming more aciditic and the loss of coral and other shell animals is a problem in a food web ecosystem. Corals are also temperature sensitive as well. We are not only outstripping natural boundries, but may find beyond marine life ecosystem collapses, we continue to move climate zones poleward and farther up mountains with increasing loss of habitat for land animals. Moving beyond 6 billion humans, we are changing the environment greater than at anytime before. For those who don't see the warning signs, it goes to show that some people never learn like that of the Rapa Nui of Easter island until it is too late! In our case, abrupt climate change is closer than some think. Most arguing about AGW today selfishly will be dead and leave the legacy to another generation to deal with the consequences of our inaction. The IEA said each year it cost 500Billion due to inaction: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Gree ... U420091110 I prefer to do my part in reducing carbon as I look forward to fusion power.

[MSimon]

Yes just goes to prove that the oceans are becoming more aciditic and the loss of coral and other shell animals is a problem in a food web ecosystem. Corals are also temperature sensitive as well. We are not only outstripping natural boundries, but may find beyond marine life ecosystem collapses, we continue to move climate zones poleward and farther up mountains with increasing loss of habitat for land animals. Moving beyond 6 billion humans, we are changing the environment greater than at anytime before. For those who don't see the warning signs, it goes to show that some people never learn like that of the Rapa Nui of Easter island until it is too late! In our case, abrupt climate change is closer than some think. Most arguing about AGW today selfishly will be dead and leave the legacy to another generation to deal with the consequences of our inaction. The IEA said each year it cost 500Billion due to inaction: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Gree ... U420091110 I prefer to do my part in reducing carbon as I look forward to fusion power.

Yes if our climate gets as warm as the Medieval Warm period or worse the Roman Warm period corals will die just as they did then. And if CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 1,000 ppm it will mean the end of life in the oceans just as it killed off the ocean creatures when atmospheric CO2 was above 1,000 ppm in the past.

But I can help. For only $399.95 I can sell you a plastic bag that will capture all your CO2 from breathing and recycle it and allows you to rebreathe it. I guarantee that if you use the device properly all your personal worries about your destroying the Earth will be over. You don't want to destroy the Earth do you? Hadn't you better take personal action at once? Don't forget. It is worse than we thought.

If every one who was seriously worried about global warming took this personal action to prevent further exhalation of CO2 into the atmosphere thus destroying life as we know it. I believe we could solve the global warming problem in weeks.

[MSimon]

fe,

I looked at that Reuters Link and I have come to the conclusion that

It Is Worse Than We Thought.

And the $500 billion number is far too low. The actual number is $690 hundred thousand million billion trillion. Plus yesterday's lunch money. Do you see how impossibly much that would cost us if we do nothing?

Why it is impossible in fact to uneat yesterday's lunch. We are doomed.

The fires of hell will engulf us and we will spend all eternity tortured by the heat. And air conditioning will only make things worse.

I haven't been this scared since I heard that fire and brimstone Christian preacher on TV when I was age seven. And he had it on greater authority than any mere scientist. God told him. And God is never wrong.

Lucky for us that scientists are not infallible. Which does tend to weaken the argument. But I understand how it works. Scientist Hansen is trying to get us off the Auschwitz train so he can stay on the gravy train.

It Is Much Worse Than We Thought.

[flying_eagle]

Yes if our climate gets as warm as the Medieval Warm period or worse the Roman Warm period corals will die just as they did then. And if CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 1,000 ppm it will mean the end of life in the oceans just as it killed off the ocean creatures when atmospheric CO2 was above 1,000 ppm in the past.
...

Yes I'm impressed with that 0 degree anomaly of the Medieval warm period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png

[jnaujok]

Yes if our climate gets as warm as the Medieval Warm period or worse the Roman Warm period corals will die just as they did then. And if CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 1,000 ppm it will mean the end of life in the oceans just as it killed off the ocean creatures when atmospheric CO2 was above 1,000 ppm in the past.
...

Yes I'm impressed with that 0 degree anomaly of the Medieval warm period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png

Aargh! That graph uses the *proven and admitted wrong* data from the GISS "Y2K Bug" that was adding 0.1 degrees per year to any data after 1999. Please go look at a modern graph. 2004 isn't even close to the hottest year (1934) and even 1998's massive El Nino spike only comes in second, with 7 of the 10 hottest years in the 1930's.

Please stop pointing at graphs that contain bad data and claiming they're useful information.

Secondly, the "Zero Degree Anomaly" is meaningful only if you accept the zero line that they chose. If we use the more common 1960 centered average, then the MWP was about 2degrees C higher than average.

[flying_eagle]

Aargh! That graph uses the *proven and admitted wrong* data from the GISS "Y2K Bug" that was adding 0.1 degrees per year to any data after 1999. Please go look at a modern graph. 2004 isn't even close to the hottest year (1934) and even 1998's massive El Nino spike only comes in second, with 7 of the 10 hottest years in the 1930's.

Please stop pointing at graphs that contain bad data and claiming they're useful information.

Secondly, the "Zero Degree Anomaly" is meaningful only if you accept the zero line that they chose. If we use the more common 1960 centered average, then the MWP was about 2degrees C higher than average.

Please provide the data you refer to and how it was computed from what proxy sources? I look forward to your referenced scientific paper on this subject. Your temp claims are misleading at best. Show me your non regional information that takes in global averages over many locations and proxies or measurements. For example correlate to global average ocean temp measurements and proxies may be easier especially in later years on shorter time periods. These averages are more telling that any few local air references. As far as the graph provided, look again the variance is not more that .8 C (not 2c) and that was during the 1600 mini ice age and if you look at 1900-1950 you will see again a zero anomaly or basically no change from that peak you boys refer to. Also even if .1/yr since 1999, wouldn't make more than a .1 on that graph worth of difference!

[MSimon]

Dude,

The EBRE satellite shows that the gain of the system is about .5 (self regulating) and the models use 1.5 to 4 or more.

So right there the models are at considerable variance with the data.

The Earth's capacity for CO2 absorption is about 17 times greater than previously thought. Eliminating tipping point worries. How about a little calculation. (17 * 385 ppmv = 6,545ppmv) near the highest level of CO2 recorded in geological history. And guess what no evidence of a tipping point from that nearly 7% per volume of CO2.

Well not to worry. The voters of the USA do not believe that global warming is significantly man made. And doubt keeps rising.

In addition the "calibration period" for CO2 vs warming (1980 to 2000) was a period of positive PDO. No recalibration has been done on the models. So how do they fix the models to account for the lack of temp rise and estimated cooling coming? Over enhance the PDO. i.e. exaggerate the expected swings. When will we be able to tell them they screwed the pooch on their corrections? Not until warming resumes. About 2020 to 2060 depending on who you believe.

Of course they could fix the gain and correct a lot of errors right there. But that would ruin the tipping point scare. So the farce will continue on.

We are quite fortunate that the G-20 is not interested in restrictions in energy production and use. Germany wants nothing to do with nuclear. That leaves their abundant coal reserves. Heh. India, China, and Africa are not going to sign on either. And the US Congress is not getting on the train unless India and China get on first. India and China are not getting on the train.

I think if you really care you have some choices to make.

1. Suicide - to lower your Nation's carbon foot print
2. Reduce the costs of non-CO2 energy production to below that of carbon sources. And do it so that the wind mills, solar cells, etc. do not need a subsidy. The lower the cost the faster the replacement. It will be unstoppable. No need to take money from people at the point of a (government) gun.

Here in America we generally don't think of taxation as the cost of government provided services (whether we want them or not), we generally like to think along these lines:

TAXATION IS THEFT

Well any way. CO2 is plant food. I like plants (the Real Green). So I think we should keep giving plants better food supplies as long as we can profit from it (by turning coal into electricity say).

[flying_eagle]

You're right about the voters in the USA. I too get my data and research papers from Joe the plumber, or Bob the builder. I'm surprised that the rest of the world body of scientists don't reference these highly regarded studies you boys like to use.

As far as advocating suicide, Simon you should show more compassion for others than that.

You are correct about reaching tipping points, the rest of the world won't wait around and depend on folks like you to solve the problem since like an alcoholic, you can't accept your problem yet. The rest of the world understands that every human on earth can't sustain a 20ton/person CO2 footprint like some Americans selfishly love to do. So to reach equity where all humans enjoy the same basic liberties and lifestyle that your tea party friends seem to be saying that made America great regarding government and taxation, you have no answer for that unless the real motive is to keep the poor man in his place, poor and outside your borders or your house. Have fun trying to maintain that lifestyle when 6-9 billion come looking for you! They won't commit suicide to solve the problem for you, they will be trying to survive. Hmmm. Seems like a real problem for the King and his arrogance.

Even if you think that I'm wrong about AGW, why not just admit that you too don't really know for sure either and that you are just taking a point of view based on the "current science" research you have done. I agree with you that we haven't found all the truths, understanding, etc regarding climate. You and others feel that there is not a problem and this will be born out of research and I and others feel that tipping points are very close at hand and that research will begin to show how multiple factors contribute to feedbacks in a somewhat bistable climate system with sometimes previous extinctions. So I ask, why take the risk? Why push the climate system that just like solar causes climate forcings and GHG also can do the same thing. Why gamble in an experiment that you can't ultimately control and so many lives are at stake? If you are right we have nothing to lose for trying to go low carbon, just another challenge and technical solution for mankind. If I'm right, then it was worth changing the future toward a better tomorrow and prosperity for all.

Either way, accept it as you believe you have nothing to lose and should instead be helping to secure prosperity for all. Why all the foot dragging? Clinging to continuing carbon burned into the atmosphere is caveman thinking, I believe you are smarter than that. If not then I will warn you not to put your head into one of those smokestacks, the CO can kill you and I do not want you to posthumously receive the Darwin award. No need to run the experiment to prove it to be convinced since I'm sure it is already written in the paleo data from our garbage in landfills.

[seedload]

Please provide the data you refer to and how it was computed from what proxy sources? I look forward to your referenced scientific paper on this subject. Your temp claims are misleading at best. Show me your non regional information that takes in global averages over many locations and proxies or measurements. For example correlate to global average ocean temp measurements and proxies may be easier especially in later years on shorter time periods. These averages are more telling that any few local air references. As far as the graph provided, look again the variance is not more that .8 C (not 2c) and that was during the 1600 mini ice age and if you look at 1900-1950 you will see again a zero anomaly or basically no change from that peak you boys refer to. Also even if .1/yr since 1999, wouldn't make more than a .1 on that graph worth of difference!

I don't want to jump into a flame war but I would like you to please consider something.

Start by forgetting everything you know and then read the following.

Please look at the graph you posted and note that the warming it shows starting in about 1800 appears to be rather linear. Approx 0.5 degrees C per century.

Now, consider that the instrumental temperature record starting in 1880 shows four distinct periods of either warming or slight cooling in approximately 32 year cycles. Period A - Cooling from 1880 to 1912. Period B - Warming from about 1912 to about 1944. Period C - Cooling from about 1944 to about 1976. Period D - Warming from about 1978 to 2008.

Now, please consider that the slight cooling in Period A is about the same in scale to the cooling in Period C and the warming in Period B is about the same in scale as the warming in Period D.

Now, consider that the CO2 levels in Periods C and D are higher than those in Periods A and B but the trend of cooling and warming were almost identical despite the difference in CO2.

Now, please consider that the thirty years trends in warming and cooling align very well with known multi-decadal oscillations - specifically the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. If you take away the oscillation by making a linear approximation of the temperatures over the instrumental temperature record (1880 - 2008), you will see that the trend is warming of approximately 0.5 degrees C per century which is consistent with the trend you already showed in your proxy data.

After doing this, please consider the possibility that the little ice age ended and temperatures started going up at about 0.5 degrees C a century. Then please consider the possibility that variations to that overall trend come in natural cycles and documented oscillations and that not compensating for those natural variations makes some periods look more severe than others. Thus the ice age scares of the 1970s and the global warming scare of the last thirty years.

Then ask yourself, how do I know that CO2 causes warming? If I know this to be true, then how to I reconcile these other things I know to be true. That the difference in the trends of cooling and warming over the last 128 years don't appear to show any significant evidence that it does. Maybe I just know it to be true because someone told me it was true.

Then, consider this. Global warming theory depends on feedbacks. All computer models assume positive feedbacks. But, recent research using highly accurate satellite data says that those assumptions appear to be wrong.

And, when you are all done, please consider this. The cooling cycle that started in the 1880s and in the 1940s was due to start again in the 2000s. What have we seen in the first decade of this century? Actual temperatures began diverging from the predictions of temperature given by almost every climate model. There has been a flattening of temperature which will likely go into a slight downturn for another 30 years or so given the earths recent history.

If you do all of this, then you will have repeated what I did. Download some data. Plug it into excel. Actually look at the real temperature record, not just the one truncated to show you the warming. Actually consider the potential that a skeptic might actually really believe what he is saying and may actually have a good point or two. Read opposing ideas.

Best Regards

[flying_eagle]

Dear Seedload,

That is good that you worked some data. Many scientists have done the same. If you can show me where all these scientists agree with your point of view, I will accept it. I'm not a contrary to the idea of where the data goes. I find it interesting that some seem to cling to these short term oscillations that every climate scientist knows already is of larger magnitude than the affect of GW on a year to year basis. But if you look at these averages over say 800,000 to 2 million years, it it quite obvious that instead of being in a cooling period as the record shows we should be heading for, we are changing that and are now higher than at any period during that span of time. Now, explain that without using AGW. I assume you don't need me to pull the ice core data lets say for the last 800,000 years as you should be able to find that and other proxies on the web. I have not problem with opposing ideas during scientific discovery. But these arguments are weak in the face of so much mounting data to the contrary regarding this denial of AGW.

[UncleMatt]

Its so hilarious how people try to pretend global warming isn't occurring, and/or politicize the issue to promote their personal political agenda.

Here is a clue for you guys: why are the glaciers and other large formations of ice melting away so very rapidly? Because temperatures are falling, or staying the same? (rolls eyes)

You can post all the theories you want that claim to refute global warming, but until the ice stops melting LONG TERM, and recovers its former mass, you really don't have much of a case to make. The undeniable evidence proves your anti-global warming BS as just that, BS.

[UncleMatt]

Want more proof of how fast large formations of ice are melting:

http://www.physorg.com/news177258173.html

Greenland ice cap melting faster than ever

"Satellite observations and a state-of-the art regional atmospheric model have independently confirmed that the Greenland ice sheet is loosing mass at an accelerating rate, reports a new study in Science...."

So much for "take that GW believers", the evidence shows it should read "take THAT GW deniers!"l

[TallDave]

Anyone who has looked at the issue already knows the GCM's reliabilities are wildly overstated. The ERBE data is devastating.

Greenland ice cap melting faster than ever

Shrug. Why should we care, since sea levels aren't rising any faster? Antarctica is gaining ice mass.

Here is a clue for you guys: why are the glaciers and other large formations of ice melting away so very rapidly?

Some glaciers are disappearing because nearby deforestation reduces the lcoal envirotranspiration.

But if you look at these averages over say 800,000 to 2 million years, it it quite obvious that instead of being in a cooling period as the record shows we should be heading for, we are changing that and are now higher than at any period during that span of time. Now, explain that without using AGW.

That is just not true. That notion was created in the mid-1990s (probably deliberately) using very bad data and even worse statistical analysis. Yamal, bristlecones, in one case a graph that showed current cooling was actually turned upside down and used to claim warming.... and worst of all the "scientists" involved behaved incredibly irresponsibly in trying to cover up their mistakes by refusing to release much of their raw data and methods.

The CWP is not significantly different than the MWP. We saw exactly the same warming we're seeing now around 1200.

[seedload]

Dear Seedload,

That is good that you worked some data. Many scientists have done the same. If you can show me where all these scientists agree with your point of view, I will accept it. .

Why does 1880-1912 look the same as 1944-1976?
Why does 1912-1944 look the same as 1978-2008?

Find me the AGW scientist who answers these questions. Can you?

I'm not a contrary to the idea of where the data goes. I find it interesting that some seem to cling to these short term oscillations that every climate scientist knows already is of larger magnitude than the affect of GW on a year to year basis.

The entire GW community is based on the notion that short term oscillations mean something.

But if you look at these averages over say 800,000 to 2 million years, it it quite obvious that instead of being in a cooling period as the record shows we should be heading for, we are changing that and are now higher than at any period during that span of time. Now, explain that without using AGW.

That is easy to explain. It's not. Or, if you argue that it definitely is, I will say that I don't know whether it is or not and either do you.

I assume you don't need me to pull the ice core data lets say for the last 800,000 years as you should be able to find that and other proxies on the web. I have not problem with opposing ideas during scientific discovery. But these arguments are weak in the face of so much mounting data to the contrary regarding this denial of AGW.

It has surely become warmer of late (scale left up to you), but what does that have to do with CO2. And if it does have something to do with CO2, then I ask again,

Why does 1880-1912 look the same as 1944-1976?
Why does 1912-1944 look the same as 1978-2008?