The truth of Global Warming

[Catawba]

If you grow weary of all this after so many logged comments check out this source for a concluding comment that does make sense. One must acknowledge and understand that these changes are hemispheric in nature.
Are We on the Brink of a 'New Little Ice Age?' : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

(Quote highlighting mine for emphasis.)

YOU Fail yet again. Your report there is from 2003. Here is what Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says today:

"Q. Are all these changes really caused by human behavior, or natural causes, or a combination?

A. RUTH CURRY: We have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past.

Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels."

Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

 

[Dittohead not!]

A copy and paste from a blog in large font is how you refute the world wide scientific consensus????

Apparently so, followed by much leaping in the air, beating of the chest, hooting, and declaring everyone else in the room to be wrong.

 

[doctorhugo]

YOU Fail yet again. Your report there is from 2003. Here is what Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says today:

"Q. Are all these changes really caused by human behavior, or natural causes, or a combination?

A. RUTH CURRY: We have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past. (in that area only, in that portion of that hemisphere at only one end of the planet. Wow! I'm genuinely unimpressed by such outhouse quality science.)

Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels."(More supposition that ignores the devastating effects of increased volcanic activity and airborne dispersal and ASSUMES it all to be man created)

Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Yeah, you must be right.
In a pig's ass you are. I just took apart these comments as to a question of validity in one minute. You haven't won any debate. I concede nothing, but keep on trying to confuse, it's your strong suit. It does prove one thing though. That this issue has become so politicized that you cannot get a straight and open response from resources assumed to be legitimate.

I had this tucked away and thought little of it until I reread it after seeing your updated article.
"Does Global Warming Exist?" : Vanishing Arctic
Funny thing here is that a kid sent in a question to one of the scientists there asking this:“Do all the scientists aboard the Healy believe in the global warming theory? If not, how many don’t?” (That Healy is the Icebreaker Healy on a twenty-three day expedition at that time.) I read the entire article and guess what? She never answered the question the kid asked. A simple straightforwrd question. Totally avoided it and gave her opinion stated as such, that props up the man-made global warming influence 'theory".

I believe it is climate change.

How about that? What was she trying to hide? Could it be that they have some negative science regarding the man-made influence they found? After that international cover-up discovered by the email revelations anything might be. My point is that all this is subjective and nobody really can PROVE ANYTHING. The opposing science camp, as I posted in my recommended reading source, which you chose to ignore, notes the very real concern, also not provable, for an eminent ice age return. Why did you chose to not comment on that? It diminishes some of your grandiose purported authority for global warming.

Bottom line being that what you think is a victory is nothing of the sort. Science is split on whether global warming or freezing is the real next dire threat. I could now go and find another article that supports this and sounds quite plausible. Then you'd do the same for the opposing view. SO WHAT? The thing you'll never admit, and I mean the collective YOU, is that no matter what is done by mankind it will not be enough in the short-term to change anything, whether the threat is warming or cooling. You don't know that the measurements they use to base the article on are suppositions based upon computer projections dependent upon THE FACTS entered into them. And what about the theory that all this change is different in different parts of the world and change is hemispheric, not worldwide. Do you realize that is a valid theory that your side scientsts, without proof, reject out of hand. Do you want me to post articles attesting to that? You don't want to hear about that. Why do I say that? Because none of it can stand up to the test of scientific evidence. They are ALL an educated guess. And you guys blabber that you have more scientists on your side of the argument. Get real! It's NOT about the brilliant scientists, it's about the irrefutable evidence that stands up to challenges without being doctored and hyped. It just ain't there and you haven't posted it.

 

[ptif219]

Rush was most certainly on the radio in the 70's

No he was not, not as a political commentater and not national

Rush Limbaugh: Biography from Answers.com

Limbaugh got his start in radio while still in high school. He landed in Sacramento, California in the 1980s and perfected the politically-oriented sarcasm that earned him national syndication.

Rush Limbaugh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He was born into a family with a long history of involvement in Republican politics and first began working at a local radio station at age sixteen. In 1984, after a series of radio related jobs, Limbaugh began working as a radio talk show host in Sacramento, California at radio station KFBK, which still airs his syndicated program today. His unique program featured no guests, relying exclusively on his conservative political analysis for content. He moved to New York City in 1988 where he began the national broadcast of his program on WABC radio. His program grew in popularity and he began his rise to national fame.

 

[ptif219]

The author of this article (not peer reviewed) is a technology journalist, NOT a climatologist. You proved my point, that you quote opinion as fact.

Notice he is using information from climate scientist. Funny how you always condemn blogs but have no answewr for their facts

 

[ptif219]

Already have, many times on this thread. No scientific institution of national or international standing has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007.

So no Global Warming scientist disagree?

 

[ptif219]

Right, but he is not denying AGW. So you realize this does nothing to change the scientific consensus regarding AGW, right?

Seems he is saying GW scientist are deceiving and lying to us

 

[Catawba]

Yeah, you must be right.
In a pig's ass you are. I just took apart these comments as to a question of validity in one minute. You haven't won any debate. I concede nothing, but keep on trying to confuse, it's your strong suit. It does prove one thing though. That this issue has become so politicized that you cannot get a straight and open response from resources assumed to be legitimate.

Red font does not a valid argument make.

I had this tucked away and thought little of it until I reread it after seeing your updated article.
"Does Global Warming Exist?" : Vanishing Arctic
Funny thing here is that a kid sent in a question to one of the scientists there asking this:“Do all the scientists aboard the Healy believe in the global warming theory? If not, how many don’t?” (That Healy is the Icebreaker Healy on a twenty-three day expedition at that time.) I read the entire article and guess what? She never answered the question the kid asked. A simple straightforwrd question. Totally avoided it and gave her opinion stated as such, that props up the man-made global warming influence 'theory". How about that? What was she trying to hide? Could it be that they have some negative science regarding the man-made influence they found? After that international cover-up discovered by the email revelations anything might be. My point is that all this is subjective and nobody really can PROVE ANYTHING. The opposing science camp, as I posted in my recommended reading source, which you chose to ignore, notes the very real concern, also not provable, for an eminent ice age return. Why did you chose to not comment on that? It diminishes some of your grandiose purported authority for global warming.

There never was a scientific consensus for an eminent ice age so it is irrelevant to a discussion of GW. From your article, further scientific testimony to AGW:

"Satellite imaging carried out by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that 40 percent of our multiyear ice has rescinded between 2005 and 2007. In my opinion, there is no room to argue that an environment that has been cold for nearly 10,000 years is going through a heat stroke. The planet’s various ecosystems operate naturally together like the many systems in a body would. What happens when a body gets overheated? It does not operate normally as it should."

"The health of the walrus and bowhead whale are intrinsically tied to the health of the Northern communities. It is not surprising that the 40 percent loss of multi-year ice coverage between 2005 and 2007 contributed to the anomaly of beached and trampled walruses in 2007 and the very low spring whaling season of 2006.

For too long, American communities have become comfortable within the capitalistic world market. Many of us live our lives, within the comforts of our own homes, without thinking about where our energy is coming from and where the pollution is going. The Northern Inupiat hunting lifestyle is being threatened by the shrinking and weakening of sea ice. Who carries the burden of the warming Arctic temperatures while others benefit from the over-usage of fossil fuels?"

Bottom line being that what you think is a victory is nothing of the sort. Science is split on whether global warming or freezing is the real next dire threat. I could now go and find another article that supports this and sounds quite plausible. Then you'd do the same for the opposing view. SO WHAT? The thing you'll never admit, and I mean the collective YOU, is that no matter what is done by mankind it will not be enough in the short-term to change anything, whether the threat is warming or cooling. You don't know that the measurements they use to base the article on are suppositions based upon computer projections dependent upon THE FACTS entered into them. And what about the theory that all this change is different in different parts of the world and change is hemispheric, not worldwide. Do you realize that is a valid theory that your side scientsts, without proof, reject out of hand. Do you want me to post articles attesting to that? You don't want to hear about that. Why do I say that? Because none of it can stand up to the test of scientific evidence. They are ALL an educated guess. And you guys blabber that you have more scientists on your side of the argument. Get real! It's NOT about the brilliant scientists, it's about the irrefutable evidence that stands up to challenges without being doctored and hyped. It just ain't there and you haven't posted it.

No, science is not split. There has been a solid consensus, as I have shown, since 2007. And you have provided absolutely nothing to refute it.


Your font work however is very nice! :sun

 

[ptif219]

Red font does not a valid argument make.





There never was a scientific consensus for an eminent ice age so it is irrelevant to a discussion of GW. From your article, further scientific testimony to AGW:

"Satellite imaging carried out by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that 40 percent of our multiyear ice has rescinded between 2005 and 2007. In my opinion, there is no room to argue that an environment that has been cold for nearly 10,000 years is going through a heat stroke. The planet’s various ecosystems operate naturally together like the many systems in a body would. What happens when a body gets overheated? It does not operate normally as it should."

"The health of the walrus and bowhead whale are intrinsically tied to the health of the Northern communities. It is not surprising that the 40 percent loss of multi-year ice coverage between 2005 and 2007 contributed to the anomaly of beached and trampled walruses in 2007 and the very low spring whaling season of 2006.

For too long, American communities have become comfortable within the capitalistic world market. Many of us live our lives, within the comforts of our own homes, without thinking about where our energy is coming from and where the pollution is going. The Northern Inupiat hunting lifestyle is being threatened by the shrinking and weakening of sea ice. Who carries the burden of the warming Arctic temperatures while others benefit from the over-usage of fossil fuels?"




No, science is not split. There has been a solid consensus, as I have shown, since 2007. And you have provided absolutely nothing to refute it.


Your font work however is very nice! :sun

You mean like Greenland that was farmed around the year 1000AD by the Vikings

 

[doctorhugo]

Regarding the volcanic activity effect:

By comparing the climate simulations from the Pinatubo eruption, with and without aerosols, the researchers found that the climate model calculated a general cooling of the global troposphere, but yielded a clear winter warming pattern of surface air temperature over Northern Hemisphere continents. The temperature of the tropical lower stratosphere increased by 4 Kelvin (4°C) because of aerosol absorption of terrestrial longwave and solar near-infrared radiation. The model demonstrated that the direct radiative effect of volcanic aerosols causes general stratospheric heating and tropospheric cooling, with a tropospheric warming pattern in the winter.

"The modeled temperature change is consistent with the temperature anomalies observed after the eruption," Stenchikov says. "The pattern of winter warming following the volcanic eruption is practically identical to a pattern of winter surface temperature change caused by global warming. It shows that volcanic aerosols force fundamental climate mechanisms that play an important role in the global change process."

This temperature pattern is consistent with the existence of a strong phase of the Arctic Oscillation, a natural pattern of circulation in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates, bringing higher-than-normal pressure over the polar region and lower-than-normal pressure at about 45 degrees north latitude. It is forced by the aerosol radiative effect, and circulation in winter is stronger than the aerosol radiative cooling that dominates in summer.

Source: Volcanoes and Climate Change (DAAC Study) : Feature Articles


There you have validation of the volcanic effect that mixes with the AGW effect and is promoted by some as all AGW. It is significant and only for one big volcanic eruption. It also confrims what I said about a hemisheric nature/effect global warming in one are and cooling in another easily explaining the iceberg anomaly.And then this concluding comment from the source noted:

However, over long periods of time (thousands or millions of years), multiple eruptions of giant volcanoes, such as the flood basalt volcanoes, can raise the carbon dioxide levels enough to cause significant global warming.

Source: volcanoes and climate



And then this story going right to the contemporary picture on AGW:
Amazon drought caused huge carbon emissions

RIO DE JANEIRO, Feb. 3, 2011 (Reuters) — A widespread drought in the Amazon rain forest last year was worse than the "once-in-a-century" dry spell in 2005 and may have a bigger impact on global warming than the United States does in a year, British and Brazilian scientists said...

 

[Catawba]

You mean like Greenland that was farmed around the year 1000AD by the Vikings

Are you speaking about the Holocene warming period? What is your question about it?

 

[ptif219]

Are you speaking about the Holocene warming period? What is your question about it?

1000 years ago they were farming on Greenland. So the warming is not as extreme as you claim

 

[Catawba]

Regarding the volcanic activity effect:Source: Volcanoes and Climate Change (DAAC Study) : Feature Articles


There you have validation of the volcanic effect that mixes with the AGW effect and is promoted by some as all AGW. It is significant and only for one big volcanic eruption. It also confrims what I said about a hemisheric nature/effect global warming in one are and cooling in another easily explaining the iceberg anomaly.And then this concluding comment from the source noted:

Source: volcanoes and climate

If you had read just a little bit further in your article you would have read their point, which was:

"Man-made, or "anthropogenic" emissions can make the consequences of volcanic eruptions on the global climate system more severe, Stenchikov says. For instance, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere start a chain of chemical reactions on aerosol surfaces that destroy ozone molecules in the mid-latitude stratosphere, intensifying observed stratospheric ozone depletion."

And then this story going right to the contemporary picture on AGW:
Amazon drought caused huge carbon emissions

You are surprised that droughts get worse when it gets warmer? :sun

 

[Catawba]

1000 years ago they were farming on Greenland. So the warming is not as extreme as you claim

You mean if you don't count the mass extinctions? And that period only affected regions, not the whole earth which is happening now.

 

[ptif219]

You mean if you don't count the mass extinctions? And that period only affected regions, not the whole earth which is happening now.

Yet you use ice melting on Greenland as proof of warming. That means they will back to where they were 1000 years ago

 

[Catawba]

Yet you use ice melting on Greenland as proof of warming. That means they will back to where they were 1000 years ago

No, as I said, the Holocene warming was not a global event and was not caused by excessive CO2 as is occurring in this warming period.

 

[LimeLight]

No he was not, not as a political commentater and not national

Rush Limbaugh: Biography from Answers.com

Limbaugh got his start in radio while still in high school. He landed in Sacramento, California in the 1980s and perfected the politically-oriented sarcasm that earned him national syndication.

Rush Limbaugh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He was born into a family with a long history of involvement in Republican politics and first began working at a local radio station at age sixteen. In 1984, after a series of radio related jobs, Limbaugh began working as a radio talk show host in Sacramento, California at radio station KFBK, which still airs his syndicated program today. His unique program featured no guests, relying exclusively on his conservative political analysis for content. He moved to New York City in 1988 where he began the national broadcast of his program on WABC radio. His program grew in popularity and he began his rise to national fame.

Again. I'm not talking about Limbaugh.

 

[ptif219]

No, as I said, the Holocene warming was not a global event and was not caused by excessive CO2 as is occurring in this warming period.

Nice spin but then you should not use Greenland as proof

 

[Catawba]

Nice spin but then you should not use Greenland as proof

Why??????????

 

[Catawba]

Again. I'm not talking about Limbaugh.

I know, I know. (raises hand)

 

[ptif219]

Why??????????

Because it was normal 1000 years ago. This show this is just climate change repeating cycles

 

[Catawba]

Because it was normal 1000 years ago. This show this is just climate change repeating cycles

That makes no sense. Brush fires start naturally without man. Does that mean man is incapable of starting brush fires? Do you see how your reasoning fails?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Why??????????

Local weather is not global climate.

 

[BmanMcfly]

That makes no sense. Brush fires start naturally without man. Does that mean man is incapable of starting brush fires? Do you see how your reasoning fails?

So, brush fires are causing global warming now?

Here's the thing though : Natural or man-made, brush fires are NECESSARY to the continuation of the forests. The fact is that many trees seeds will ONLY germinate when exposed to the heat of a fire.

In the grand scheme, if there's going to be a catastrophic climactic shift, it's going to be due to something much larger then the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and I've time and time again made you guys concede that other issues are of less importance then Co2.... even when those other issues are causing devastating, measurable, and immediate consequences.

 

[ptif219]

That makes no sense. Brush fires start naturally without man. Does that mean man is incapable of starting brush fires? Do you see how your reasoning fails?

No, I see how you fail to prove global warming whrn recurring climate change melts ice it made over the last 1000 years