No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead [W:398]

[sookster]

This reasoning is too simplistic.

We know for many years that ice has been melting. That results in dropping ocean temperatures which could account for the decrease of temperatures in that area. You see, global warming tips the average temperature readings. This means that in some areas places get hotter while others get cooler. If you look at ice core samples as well as ocean temperature readings, there have been some cooling periods but the general trend is that temperature is increasing.

I have read studies that show because of ice core samples it is concluded that a rise of CO2 precedes temperature change. I have heard of conflicting statements, that because of ice core samples scientists were concluding that CO2 concentrations were happening after temperature change. This is the true debate. Because there has been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of the Earth. During the bronze age, it was warmer than it is today and there was no fossil fuel burning. This does not mean with certainty we have had no effect. It is very possible that we could have induced a period of warming, and it is possible that we did not. It is also possible that we could be exasperating the process, while skeptics think we are not.

The non-debateable fact is this. CO2 concentrations literally trace temperature changes. Just look at the graphs yourself. As temperature generally rises, CO2 concentration rises, and as temperature decreases, CO2 concentration decreases. Therefore, adding CO2 concentrations to this system/mechanism has an effect. There is no denying it! If CO2 concentrations follow or precede temperature changes are irrelevant, because we are increasing CO2 concentrations! Therefore temperature is going to increase. Does that mean some years will be cooler than others? Of course. We do not fully understand this planet yet, and I firmly believe that we will never fully understand the Earth. But I could be wrong! Imagine that, someone accepting that they could be wrong. But the general trend over time is that the planet is going to continually increase in temperature because CO2 concentrations are continually increasing partially because we are adding CO2 due to fossil fuels.

Another thing I want to point out.

When reading up on a topic like this, please realize that there are very big interests involved with this. They have lots of money. It is very possible with these resources to make the facts confusing by publishing conflicting stances. What I am advocating, is realize this is a possibility and to proceed with caution.

To me this is not evidence that the planet is cooling. I think this is evidence that ice has been melting.

 

[gslack]

This reasoning is too simplistic.

We know for many years that ice has been melting. That results in dropping ocean temperatures which could account for the decrease of temperatures in that area. You see, global warming tips the average temperature readings. This means that in some areas places get hotter while others get cooler. If you look at ice core samples as well as ocean temperature readings, there have been some cooling periods but the general trend is that temperature is increasing.

I have read studies that show because of ice core samples it is concluded that a rise of CO2 precedes temperature change. I have heard of conflicting statements, that because of ice core samples scientists were concluding that CO2 concentrations were happening after temperature change. This is the true debate. Because there has been periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of the Earth. During the bronze age, it was warmer than it is today and there was no fossil fuel burning. This does not mean with certainty we have had no effect. It is very possible that we could have induced a period of warming, and it is possible that we did not. It is also possible that we could be exasperating the process, while skeptics think we are not.

The non-debateable fact is this. CO2 concentrations literally trace temperature changes. Just look at the graphs yourself. As temperature generally rises, CO2 concentration rises, and as temperature decreases, CO2 concentration decreases. Therefore, adding CO2 concentrations to this system/mechanism has an effect. There is no denying it! If CO2 concentrations follow or precede temperature changes are irrelevant, because we are increasing CO2 concentrations! Therefore temperature is going to increase. Does that mean some years will be cooler than others? Of course. We do not fully understand this planet yet, and I firmly believe that we will never fully understand the Earth. But I could be wrong! Imagine that, someone accepting that they could be wrong. But the general trend over time is that the planet is going to continually increase in temperature because CO2 concentrations are continually increasing partially because we are adding CO2 due to fossil fuels.

Another thing I want to point out.

When reading up on a topic like this, please realize that there are very big interests involved with this. They have lots of money. It is very possible with these resources to make the facts confusing by publishing conflicting stances. What I am advocating, is realize this is a possibility and to proceed with caution.

To me this is not evidence that the planet is cooling. I think this is evidence that ice has been melting.

The real problem, the actual issue is not a trace gas. And all of the IPCC think-tanks know this. The real problem is that there are too many of us living too well and just our presence is having an effect already. No one want's to tell us this, much less a politician whose career is based on the whims of another politician, that one elected. His appointed UN guy upsets voters with his doom and gloom "stop breeding" nonsense and he looks a fool.. So they call it global warming until it's not warming, then it's climate change and it can do anything and it's proof.

Instead of going straight tothe heart of it and recomending passing birth limitations globally which they couldn't enforce anyway.They make a trace gas that is unavoidable in modern life, the enemy. Push for legislation limiting it or penalizing for it. In effect a tax on life. And then let the inevitable backlash limit population somewhat, at least until the population must admit they are the problem. That way the problem is slowed and no politician had to say or do anything directly..

6 and a half billion people so far at best guess. I'd place that number much higher, considering how many places we cannot rely on an accurate count. What's going to happen when it's 10? How can we feed everyone? What will power a world of 10 billion very large, and advanced lifeforms all wanting transportation, food, lodging, clothing, you name it.. We can't make enough windmills, nuclear plants, solar panels, burn enough coal, or get enough oil to sustain such a world. And they know this, and so should all of us. We will be unable toavoid the issue soon enough. India and China are rapidly deamnding more andmore resources, and we are already feeling the crunch..

The problem is there is too many of us all wanting to live too well, and the UN thinks we are such children we can't handle it. Read a few of the Sierra Club books, or some of the sutainable development documentation, they tell you in them all too clearly. But those aren't read by most people, even by warmers. They don't read them, they just reference bits of them from time to time to help in their crusade against a trace gas.. Read them, and tell yourself if it's still a trace gas...

 

[Threegoofs]

No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

Phil Plait is a bought and paid for IPCC bootlicker.

Yeah. Along with National Geographic, Scientific American, Science Magazine, NASA,NOAA,NSIDC, AAAS, NAS (of dozens of countries),Nature, The Royal Society, NGS, virtually all climate scientists and large respected scientific organization in the world, and me.

Or you are full of ignorant, nonsensical paranoid ravings.

Pick one.

 

[gslack]

Yeah. Along with National Geographic, Scientific American, Science Magazine, NASA,NOAA,NSIDC, AAAS, NAS (of dozens of countries),Nature, The Royal Society, NGS, virtually all climate scientists and large respected scientific organization in the world, and me.

Or you are full of ignorant, nonsensical paranoid ravings.

Pick one.

Phil Plait a guy... An astronomer... That's it... YOU a forum troller and on again off again medical whatever you are... That's it...

NASA needs funding, so do the others. All of which gets cut if there isn't a problem.. 1.2 to 1.4 billion dollars a year goes to NASA for it's Earth Science Budget. That's just NASA and only for their Earth Sciences.. SO you can pretend an ex-astonomer is like NASA all you want. The fact is he isn't far from it. He takes money to BS, and when it comes to climate change caused by a trace gas, so does NASA..

 

[Perotista]

Arctic sea ice up 60 percent in 2013 | Fox News

Guess we won't burn up from all of our carbon emissions after all..... :shrug:

I don't know who is right, but the month of August was awful weird for Georgia. We had a week where the highs were in the 70's and even a couple of nights where it even got down into the 50's. Unheard of. The average temps for Georgia for this time of years highs 90 plus and lows in the mid to low 70's. Yet during this time places like Chicago, Indiana and Minnesota had highs in the upper 90's while we were having highs in the 70's. All of this is just plain weird.

 

[polgara]

I don't know who is right, but the month of August was awful weird for Georgia. We had a week where the highs were in the 70's and even a couple of nights where it even got down into the 50's. Unheard of. The average temps for Georgia for this time of years highs 90 plus and lows in the mid to low 70's. Yet during this time places like Chicago, Indiana and Minnesota had highs in the upper 90's while we were having highs in the 70's. All of this is just plain weird.

Good afternoon, Pero. :2wave:

Last week here in NE Ohio, we were wearing shorts in the daytime, and had to put quilts on the bed at night for sleeping! Weird, indeed!

 

[Perotista]

Good afternoon, Pero. :2wave:

Last week here in NE Ohio, we were wearing shorts in the daytime, and had to put quilts on the bed at night for sleeping! Weird, indeed!

I never seen the likes of this year. Now down here the last week of August thru the first week of September is when we usually have a string of 4 or 5 days of 100 degree weather. It has been that way close to every year. Not this year, we have had highs in 80's, Definityly not normal. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens next year.

 

[polgara]

I never seen the likes of this year. Now down here the last week of August thru the first week of September is when we usually have a string of 4 or 5 days of 100 degree weather. It has been that way close to every year. Not this year, we have had highs in 80's, Definityly not normal. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens next year.

On top of everything else, we only had 3 days from May 31 to the middle of July when it didn't rain at least part of the day! My garden just said "nuts," and gave up! I've had to go to our local Farmer's market to buy tomatoes for canning, because we had too few sunny day here to ripen them. Lately, I am getting sufficient tomatoes to slice some for dinner, and for grilled cheese sandwiches, but not like usual years! :shock:

 

[Perotista]

On top of everything else, we only had 3 days from May 31 to the middle of July when it didn't rain at least part of the day! My garden just said "nuts," and gave up! I've had to go to our local Farmer's market to buy tomatoes for canning, because we had too few sunny day here to ripen them. Lately, I am getting sufficient tomatoes to slice some for dinner, and for grilled cheese sandwiches, but not like usual years! :shock:

We also had more than our share of rain down here. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the cooler tempertures. Who knows? You ever tried fried tomato sandwichs?

 

[polgara]

We also had more than our share of rain down here. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the cooler tempertures. Who knows? You ever tried fried tomato sandwichs?

Oh yeah, but a grilled cheese sandwich cooked with a couple of slices of tomato on it can't be beat! Yum!

Pero, I was stuck in Texas with a fractured leg during that May till middle of July period I mentioned earlier, since the surgeon would not okay me flying home, and they had temperatures in the mid to high 90s every day! They were praying for rain there, but apparently only the East was receiving it! Go figure!

 

[Perotista]

Oh yeah, but a grilled cheese sandwich cooked with a couple of slices of tomato on it can't be beat! Yum!

Pero, I was stuck in Texas with a fractured leg during that May till middle of July period I mentioned earlier, since the surgeon would not okay me flying home, and they had temperatures in the mid to high 90s every day! They were praying for rain there, but apparently only the East was receiving it! Go figure!

Texas is noted for being dry. Perhaps the western 2/3rds anyway. So hows the leg? Down here in Georgia we passed our year averages sometime during the beginning of August. So any rain from now on is all extra.

 

[code1211]

So you think the NSIDC is a credible organization?

Because there is no doubt in their mind that AGW exists.

Snow, Ice and Climate Change :: NSIDC

But that's because they are scientists.

You'll have to cut and paste your silver bullet on this. It's a big site.

The head of NASA, the organization that oversees this agency says that warming is real, it might have been about a degree in the last century, man may have played a role and there is nothing we can do about it.

He sounds like what you would call a denier.

Do the Cut and paste to show how different the NSIDC is from his view.

 

[sookster]

The real problem, the actual issue is not a trace gas. And all of the IPCC think-tanks know this. The real problem is that there are too many of us living too well and just our presence is having an effect already. No one want's to tell us this, much less a politician whose career is based on the whims of another politician, that one elected. His appointed UN guy upsets voters with his doom and gloom "stop breeding" nonsense and he looks a fool.. So they call it global warming until it's not warming, then it's climate change and it can do anything and it's proof.

Instead of going straight tothe heart of it and recomending passing birth limitations globally which they couldn't enforce anyway.They make a trace gas that is unavoidable in modern life, the enemy. Push for legislation limiting it or penalizing for it. In effect a tax on life. And then let the inevitable backlash limit population somewhat, at least until the population must admit they are the problem. That way the problem is slowed and no politician had to say or do anything directly..

6 and a half billion people so far at best guess. I'd place that number much higher, considering how many places we cannot rely on an accurate count. What's going to happen when it's 10? How can we feed everyone? What will power a world of 10 billion very large, and advanced lifeforms all wanting transportation, food, lodging, clothing, you name it.. We can't make enough windmills, nuclear plants, solar panels, burn enough coal, or get enough oil to sustain such a world. And they know this, and so should all of us. We will be unable toavoid the issue soon enough. India and China are rapidly deamnding more andmore resources, and we are already feeling the crunch..

The problem is there is too many of us all wanting to live too well, and the UN thinks we are such children we can't handle it. Read a few of the Sierra Club books, or some of the sutainable development documentation, they tell you in them all too clearly. But those aren't read by most people, even by warmers. They don't read them, they just reference bits of them from time to time to help in their crusade against a trace gas.. Read them, and tell yourself if it's still a trace gas...

What is your reasoning/evidence that CO2 concentrations does not effect the climate?

 

[Threegoofs]

No Global Warming, Global Cooling Instead

Phil Plait a guy... An astronomer... That's it... YOU a forum troller and on again off again medical whatever you are... That's it...

And you're just an aw shucks guy who has an unspecified job, little science education, and, gee-whiz, coaches kids in baseball.


But somehow you know more about science than actual trained people.

 

[code1211]

What is your reasoning/evidence that CO2 concentrations does not effect the climate?

CO2 acts as a green house gas by reflecting heat radiating from the Earth's surface back to the Earth instead of allowing it to radiate straight into space.

Think of this as painting the outside of a window by applying several coats of paint. The first coat, in the case of CO2, the first 20 ppm, has a pretty dramatic effect. The second coat blocks more of the light, but not as much as the first coat. the third fourth and fifth coats come pretty close to completely blocking off all of the light that can be blocked and successive coats of paint block a little more each, the additional amount blocked by every succeeding coat becomes less and less to the point where it really cannot even be measured.

Getting back to CO2 as the coats of paint, every new coat of paint is an incremental increase of 20 ppm. We are now at the 20th coat of CO2 and the warming effect is still increasing, but, just like painting on the 20th Coat Of Paint, the amount of radiation being blocked is not very great at all. We are at the point where we will need to double the concentration of CO2 to increase the temperature by one degree.

Here is a pretty good article on the topic:

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can « JoNova

 

[code1211]

And you're just an aw shucks guy who has an unspecified job, little science education, and, gee-whiz, coaches kids in baseball.


But somehow you know more about science than actual trained people.

You keep saying that and yet cannot find the scientific organization that has elevated this notion to being a scientific theory the way you do.

What do the real scientists understand about this that is escaping you?

 

[polgara]

Texas is noted for being dry. Perhaps the western 2/3rds anyway. So hows the leg? Down here in Georgia we passed our year averages sometime during the beginning of August. So any rain from now on is all extra.

We actually had vehicles in water, completely submerged! And our elevation is about the highest in the State! :wow: Storm drains were regurgitating fountains of water into the air! That has never happened here before, to my knowledge. We also passed our old yearly averages a few months ago, too. My leg? Since I now have a titanium rod in my leg from hip joint to knee, I guess I'm better than new! Marathon, here I come? :no: I've told my family to let the crematory know, though! :lamo:

 

[Perotista]

We actually had vehicles in water, completely submerged! And our elevation is about the highest in the State! :wow: Storm drains were regurgitating fountains of water into the air! That has never happened here before, to my knowledge. We also passed our old yearly averages a few months ago, too. My leg? Since I now have a titanium rod in my leg from hip joint to knee, I guess I'm better than new! Marathon, here I come? :no: I've told my family to let the crematory know, though! :lamo:

Got to run, babysitting duties and a couple of honey do's. Yeah, weather wise it has indeed been a very strange year. Perhaps it won't be long before you will be another BIONIC WOMAN. Geez, how many years ago was that?

 

[polgara]

Got to run, babysitting duties and a couple of honey do's. Yeah, weather wise it has indeed been a very strange year. Perhaps it won't be long before you will be another BIONIC WOMAN. Geez, how many years ago was that?

I wish I could pretend I don't recall! :lamo:

Be well, Pero. :2wave:

 

[kerussll]

Phil Plait is a bought and paid for IPCC bootlicker.

The man presented theory as fact all through it. Some of the theory has already been disproved... Dude should go back to being an astronomer and leave climate change discussions for those who are not bought out...

What theory are you referring to? Global warming?

 

[kerussll]

The climate is always changing and the earth has been in a warming cycle since the end of the last ice age. I always said warming is good, when things start going the other direction is when I will worry. I hope this growing ice thing is just a blip and it continues to melt next year.

What a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

What a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

Care to elaborate? Where am I wrong?

 

[sookster]

CO2 acts as a green house gas by reflecting heat radiating from the Earth's surface back to the Earth instead of allowing it to radiate straight into space.

Think of this as painting the outside of a window by applying several coats of paint. The first coat, in the case of CO2, the first 20 ppm, has a pretty dramatic effect. The second coat blocks more of the light, but not as much as the first coat. the third fourth and fifth coats come pretty close to completely blocking off all of the light that can be blocked and successive coats of paint block a little more each, the additional amount blocked by every succeeding coat becomes less and less to the point where it really cannot even be measured.

Getting back to CO2 as the coats of paint, every new coat of paint is an incremental increase of 20 ppm. We are now at the 20th coat of CO2 and the warming effect is still increasing, but, just like painting on the 20th Coat Of Paint, the amount of radiation being blocked is not very great at all. We are at the point where we will need to double the concentration of CO2 to increase the temperature by one degree.

Here is a pretty good article on the topic:

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can « JoNova

So according to this source, the double derivative of this function is negative while f'(co2) is positive. Let us assume this is true.

This means the rate of the rate of temperature absorption is decreasing assuming the initial amount of co2 emissions remains the same. There are two things to consider that come to mind:

1.) The amount of co2 released at one time is only going to increase. There are developing countries like India and China that are going to drastically increase their co2 emissions. Plus, for the rest of the world, their energy demands aren't going to decrease, if anything, it is only going to increase. The increase of co2 emissions is going to increase both f prime and f double prime.

2.) The nature of this function shows that it is going to continually grow at a slower rate. However, there is always going to be a continual growth of the rate of CO2 emission absoption. Sure it won't be as much, but it is always going to be there assuming this function represents the true co2 absorption.

As I stated earlier, there is no debate among scientists about the relationship between co2 and temperature. If our influence hasn't been substantial, fine. But even this evidence shows that eventually we will! And the longer we wait, the larger of a financial impact it is going to require, because the supply of oil is continually decreasing (the source of our energy required to make a renewable grid).

This worship of money is making things worse. If we took the investment of replacing our grid with renewables, there is even financial benefits! We could supply power at half the cost of fossil fuels. Half of your electric bill would be the new bill. Plus, over time the money used to build the grid would be paid back. For sure. Why? Because the source of renewable power has billions of years to last.

I really think people are in denial about this. To think co2 emissions has a minimal effect is just making things worse.

 

[Jack Hays]

So according to this source, the double derivative of this function is negative while f'(co2) is positive. Let us assume this is true.

This means the rate of the rate of temperature absorption is decreasing assuming the initial amount of co2 emissions remains the same. There are two things to consider that come to mind:

1.) The amount of co2 released at one time is only going to increase. There are developing countries like India and China that are going to drastically increase their co2 emissions. Plus, for the rest of the world, their energy demands aren't going to decrease, if anything, it is only going to increase. The increase of co2 emissions is going to increase both f prime and f double prime.

2.) The nature of this function shows that it is going to continually grow at a slower rate. However, there is always going to be a continual growth of the rate of CO2 emission absoption. Sure it won't be as much, but it is always going to be there assuming this function represents the true co2 absorption.

As I stated earlier, there is no debate among scientists about the relationship between co2 and temperature. If our influence hasn't been substantial, fine. But even this evidence shows that eventually we will! And the longer we wait, the longer of a financial impact it is going to require, because the supply of oil is continually decreasing (the source of our energy required to make a renewable grid).

This worship of money is making things worse. If we took the investment of replacing our grid with renewables, there is even financial benefits! We could supply power at half the cost of fossil fuels. Half of your electric bill would be the new bill. Plus, over time the money used to build the grid would be paid back. For sure. Why? Because the source of renewable power has billions of years to last.

I really think people are in denial about this. To think co2 emissions has a minimal effect is just making things worse.

Au contraire. There's no evidence at all that things will get worse.

[h=2]Digital Signal Processing analysis of global temperature data time series suggests global cooling ahead[/h] Posted on September 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts
This DSP engineer is often tasked with extracting spurious signals from noisy data. He submits this interesting result of applying these techniques to the HadCRUT temperature anomaly data. Digital Signal Processing analysis suggests cooling ahead in the immediate future with no significant probability of a positive anomaly exceeding .5°C between 2023 and 2113. See figures 13 and 14. Code and data is made available for replication. – Anthony

Guest essay by Jeffery S. Patterson, DSP Design Architect, Agilent Technologies
Harmonic Decomposition of the Modern Temperature Anomaly Record
Abstract: The observed temperature anomaly since 1900 can be well modeled with a simple harmonic decomposition of the temperature record based on a fundamental period of 170.7 years. The goodness-of-fit of the resulting model significantly exceeds the expected fit to a stochastic AR sequence matching the general characteristic of the modern temperature record.
Data
I’ve used the monthly Hadcrut3 temperature anomaly data available from http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/every as plotted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Hadcrut3 Temperature Record 1850-Present
To remove seasonal variations while avoiding spectral smearing and aliasing effects, the data was box-car averaged over a 12-month period and decimated by 12 to obtain the average annual temperature plotted in Figure 2.
Continue reading →

 

[sookster]

Au contraire. There's no evidence at all that things will get worse.

[h=2]Digital Signal Processing analysis of global temperature data time series suggests global cooling ahead[/h] Posted on September 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts
This DSP engineer is often tasked with extracting spurious signals from noisy data. He submits this interesting result of applying these techniques to the HadCRUT temperature anomaly data. Digital Signal Processing analysis suggests cooling ahead in the immediate future with no significant probability of a positive anomaly exceeding .5°C between 2023 and 2113. See figures 13 and 14. Code and data is made available for replication. – Anthony

Guest essay by Jeffery S. Patterson, DSP Design Architect, Agilent Technologies
Harmonic Decomposition of the Modern Temperature Anomaly Record
Abstract: The observed temperature anomaly since 1900 can be well modeled with a simple harmonic decomposition of the temperature record based on a fundamental period of 170.7 years. The goodness-of-fit of the resulting model significantly exceeds the expected fit to a stochastic AR sequence matching the general characteristic of the modern temperature record.
Data
I’ve used the monthly Hadcrut3 temperature anomaly data available from http://woodfortrees.org/data/hadcrut3vgl/every as plotted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Hadcrut3 Temperature Record 1850-Present
To remove seasonal variations while avoiding spectral smearing and aliasing effects, the data was box-car averaged over a 12-month period and decimated by 12 to obtain the average annual temperature plotted in Figure 2.
Continue reading →

He has used data since 1900.

Why hasn't he used data using ice core samples that track back until 4000 BC?

Do you know how to insert graphics from a PDF? I could show you that data. (The data might have reached as far back as 40000 BC, but I am unsure)