Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[francescoassisi]

52 - re wilkopops' comment - Facile means ignoring the complexities of an issue; so far you seem unaware of both the meaning of the word and how it reflects your posts.

Edited November 15, 2013 by francescoassisi

[Credo]

The other problem with the melting of the Tundra that would occur with climate change is we don't know about other climatic conditions. It may be far too wet or far too dry for significant agricultural use.

[FiftyTwo]

[Let me see, the arctic and antarctic melt, seas rise by 20 feet, we lose a large portion of the largest cities on the planet, and then possibly gain some tundra to farm, so that would 'generally, be a benefit to the world' ?

All or most of the the tundra would be covered by sea water also. But just for fun, let's say it was high and dry. Then Man, with his destructive farming methods (scrape, plow, spray, plant, spray, plant, spray, until the soil is depleted) would render it lifeless in short order.

Not that easy,

If North and south pole both melted, sea level at higher latitudes would fall, so tundra wouldn't be underwater.

Sea levels around the world don't behave like water in a bath tub.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

Then we have Glacial Isostatic Adjustment to add to that effect.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Post-glacial%20rebound/en-en/

Sea levels in Scotland, Northern Europe and North America are currently falling.

Not to mention NASA trying to explain away a recent global sea level fall.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

Edited November 15, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[wilcopops]

[Let me see, the arctic and antarctic melt, seas rise by 20 feet, we lose a large portion of the largest cities on the planet, and then possibly gain some tundra to farm, so that would 'generally, be a benefit to the world' ?

All or most of the the tundra would be covered by sea water also. But just for fun, let's say it was high and dry. Then Man, with his destructive farming methods (scrape, plow, spray, plant, spray, plant, spray, until the soil is depleted) would render it lifeless in short order.

Not that easy,

If North and south pole both melted, sea level at higher latitudes would fall, so tundra wouldn't be underwater.

Sea levels around the world don't behave like water in a bath tub.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

Then we have Glacial Isostatic Adjustment to add to that effect.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Post-glacial%20rebound/en-en/

Sea levels in Scotland, Northern Europe and North America are currently falling.

Not to mention NASA trying to explain away a recent global sea level fall.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

You do realise that most of the arctic is sea - not land?

[FiftyTwo]

You do realise that most of the arctic is sea - not land?

You will need to explain the relevance of your post to GIA and gravity effects of polar melts.

[RickBradford]

So tell me again why 4% CO2 is supposed to be negligible.

I would never presume to do that.

However, here on Planet Earth, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is approximately 400 parts per million, or 0.04%.

So you have exaggerated the reality by a factor of 100, and used that figure (twice) to pose your leading questions on climate change.

This is excellent work. You win a lifetime membership of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (just keep paying the subscriptions), you need not attend the next struggle meeting, and they may even let you join 350.org, though they may have to rename it 40000.org in recognition of your great discovery.

The attempted comparison between CO2 and ozone is, however, nonsensical.

Ozone is a highly reactive, highly toxic gas (ranked as a level 4 toxin alongside hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and sarin nerve gas) whose considerable effects all stem from its extreme chemical reactivity. CO2 is an unreactive and benign gas which forms a key part of the chain of life here on Earth.

Must try harder.

Rick Bradford - thank you and good night..........

What is that supposed to mean?

[FiftyTwo]

This is excellent work. You win a lifetime membership of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (just keep paying the subscriptions), you need not attend the next struggle meeting, and they may even let you join 350.org, though they may have to rename it 40000.org in recognition of your great discovery.

I think the problem Rick, is none of the alarmists posting here have any math or science backgrounds/abilities.

Edited November 15, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[attrayant]

So tell me again why 4% CO2 is supposed to be negligible.

I would never presume to do that.

The statement you quoted was not directed at you; why are you taking it personally? It was a response to post #9 in this thread and meant to address the general sloppy thinking and lazy assumption that small amounts of a substance must only be capable of producing small impacts in their environment.

Yes it was a typo - I admit. It was my not my intention to drop the decimal point when I added the percent sign. But as corrected, CO2:O3 is still greater than 1000:1. Not sure how that helps your argument.

The underlying point (which you seem to be going to extremes to miss) is still perfectly valid. One cannot draw the conclusion that since something only occupies a small portion of the atmosphere, that it must exert only a small impact on the environment. The ozone example was just that - an example of the same kind of lazy thinking. And the point is: something which occupies a tiny portion of the atmosphere can indeed have enormous consequences on the environment.

Ozone is a highly reactive, highly toxic gas (ranked as a level 4 toxin alongside hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and sarin nerve gas) whose considerable effects all stem from its extreme chemical reactivity. CO2 is an unreactive and benign gas which forms a key part of the chain of life here on Earth.

I know what CO2 and O3 are. What point are you trying to make with the above comparison?

Must try harder.

Must try making your points without condescension.

[attrayant]

Not to mention NASA trying to explain away a recent global sea level fall.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

You don't like the explanation? Why don't you propose a better one. That's how science works - if you had a math or science background you'd know that.

So where has all the water gone?

[RickBradford]

It was a response to post #9 in this thread and meant to address the general sloppy thinking and lazy assumption.....

You're accusing others of being sloppy and lazy? That's rich. You've just exaggerated the amount of the key variable by a factor of 100 and yet you are assuming the right to correct others' errant ways.

Regarding CO2 and O3, the point I am making is specifically spelt out in my previous post.

[RickBradford]

This is excellent work. You win a lifetime membership of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (just keep paying the subscriptions), you need not attend the next struggle meeting, and they may even let you join 350.org, though they may have to rename it 40000.org in recognition of your great discovery.

I think the problem Rick, is none of the alarmists posting here have any math or science backgrounds/abilities.

Actually, I think it's worse than that -- most influential AGW supporters simply don't care whether the science is right or wrong.

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard certainly doesn't: "Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?."

Er, if you're a well-paid EU bureaucrat, maybe, not if you're an ordinary taxpayer.

Nor does UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

We don't care about the science and we don't care about the environment, we just want the money. No ifs or buts.

Edited November 15, 2013 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

This is excellent work. You win a lifetime membership of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (just keep paying the subscriptions), you need not attend the next struggle meeting, and they may even let you join 350.org, though they may have to rename it 40000.org in recognition of your great discovery.

I think the problem Rick, is none of the alarmists posting here have any math or science backgrounds/abilities.

Actually, I think it's worse than that -- most influential AGW supporters simply don't care whether the science is right or wrong.

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard certainly doesn't: "Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?."

Er, if you're a well-paid EU bureaucrat, maybe, not if you're an ordinary taxpayer.

Nor does UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

We don't care about the science and we don't care about the environment, we just want the money. No ifs or buts.

It's always about the money and power.

[boomerangutang]

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard: "Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?."

I actually agree with Ms Hedegaard. Some of the issues that are on the table, re; climate change, have to do with lessening smog, developing clean/safe power generation, not polluting seas/skies/soil, and lessening dependency on fossil fuels. Just as important, is creating an awareness, particularly among youngsters, that peoples' actions have consequences. Sometimes those consequences, if compounded, can affect the planet as a whole.

A person tossing a bag of trash in a river, if it's an isolated action, doesn't have a big effect (unless the trash is particularly toxic). However, if a billion people each day, each toss large bags of trash in rivers, then the cumulative effect is large. Indeed, Asians still toss raw garbage in seas and rivers, every second, 24/7. I wouldn't be surprised if others, like Africans and South Americans do so also.

When pioneer Americans first went to the west coast of N. America, they saw so many trees, they thought the forests were endless. They cut down trees as fast as possible. Good thing they didn't have chainsaws at that time. Luckily, a few deep-thinking people were able to band together and save the last stands of forests, otherwise the loggers would have clearcut every acre. We need aware-thinkers like Ms Hedegaard and John Muir and others, to counter the immensely strong commercial forces which, if left unhindered, would log/mine/fish and blast away every last resource for a buck. It's no surprise that it's the resource-grabbers who are at the vanguard of trying so hard to discredit GW and climate change.

Edited November 15, 2013 by boomerangutang

[FiftyTwo]

There is some evidence to suggest smog (airborne particulate matter) us lessening the effect of atmospheric warming.

Getting rid of it may well just heat the world up faster.

As suggested by NASA

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature4.php

Dare I suggest it ..... global warming is caused by greens and other environmentalists forcing environmental atmospheric clean-up of airborne particulate matter!

Edited November 15, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[FiftyTwo]

When pioneer Americans first went to the west coast of N. America, they saw so many trees, they thought the forests were endless. They cut down trees as fast as possible. Good thing they didn't have chainsaws at that time. Luckily, a few deep-thinking people were able to band together and save the last stands of forests, otherwise the loggers would have clearcut every acre. We need aware-thinkers like Ms Hedegaard and John Muir and others, to counter the immensely strong commercial forces which, if left unhindered, would log/mine/fish and blast away every last resource for a buck. It's no surprise that it's the resource-grabbers who are at the vanguard of trying so hard to discredit GW and climate change.

Didn't someone suggest native Americans burned huge areas over generations on the West coast of NA?

"In contrast, the relative impact of Native American burning in the coastal portions of California was probably quite significant. Ethnographic studies and other historical documents show that California Indians were responsible for extensive burning and type-conversion of chaparral and other shrublands to grasslands in order to increase favored game species, protect themselves from predators (the favored habitat of the California grizzly bear was chaparral), and as a tool of warfare. They almost certainly increased fire frequencies over what was naturally possible due to lightning. For example, in the 153,000 acre Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area only 2 lightning fires have been recorded over the past 25 years."

http://www.californiachaparral.com/enativeamericans.html

Edited November 15, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[attrayant]

most influential AGW supporters simply don't care whether the science is right or wrong.

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard certainly doesn't: "Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?."

I don't see anything in Hedegaard's hypothetical that says she doesn't care. She's simply suggesting that the things we're doing now that are environmentally friendly are intrinsically good things, irrespective of any future impact they may have on climate change.

You're putting words into her mouth by saying she 'certainly doesn't care'.

I'd like to find the original source for Edenhofer's remarks. All I can find are blogs and opinion pieces -which are infamous for snipping out important context.

[lopburi3]

Misquote post removed - do not combine quote and new text or multi quotes as one.

[F430murci]

I was at Hoover Damn Lake Meade on Friday. I was completely taken back by the water level. Unbelievably low. I would estimate water level has dropped well over a 100 feet. They are saying it is going to get worse with record drought since 2000 and the projected continuing climate change. Both Powell and Meade are around 45 % capacity impacting Vegas water supply and causing decreases in power generation.

[boomerangutang]

Report today on NPR.org's main newscast mentions scientists finding volcanic activity under a part of Antarctica. If true, this could add a whole big dimension to the rising seas debate. The report mentioned, though volcanic activity would probably not break through the mile-thick ice sheet, it could possibly melt and loosen ice sheets where they meet rock - thereby hastening melting.

[RickBradford]

Meanwhile, Japan has just announced it is abandoning its plans to cut carbon emissions. The original plan called for a 25% cut between 1990 and 2020; the new figure represents a 3% increase in emissions over that period.

This is not a total surprise; Japanese business had complained in 2008 that they were being forced to shell out billions of dollars to buy 'carbon credits', and the mothballing of its nuclear fleet after the tsunami didn't help matters.

The timing, however, is exquisite -- slap in the middle of the UN's latest futile climate talks, COP19 in Warsaw. This caused the usual exploding heads among the activists, with even Oxfam joining the fray:

“As one of the world’s largest CO2 emitters, Japan has a responsibility to help lead the world in reducing emissions,” Kelly Dent, climate change spokeswoman at U.K. charity Oxfam, said. “Instead their actions may well further erode trust in current negotiations, which must deliver a global climate deal in 2015.”

More "demands" from the activists, of course, but music to the ears of realists.

[F430murci]

Report today on NPR.org's main newscast mentions scientists finding volcanic activity under a part of Antarctica. If true, this could add a whole big dimension to the rising seas debate. The report mentioned, though volcanic activity would probably not break through the mile-thick ice sheet, it could possibly melt and loosen ice sheets where they meet rock - thereby hastening melting.

Volcano under Antarctic ice may erupt, accelerate melting

http://m.nbcnews.com/science/volcano-under-antarctic-ice-may-erupt-accelerate-melting-2D11603371

[Scott]

Volcanic ash, if it gets above the ice sheet and into the atmosphere has an overall cooling effect. Continent sized chucks of ice floating into the open water, however, could be a problem.

[canuckamuck]

Not much of a surprise, Antarctica is highly volcanic. Why is this suddenly news? Is it another attempt to fuel climate angst by bringing out yet another well known and documented natural process as something new. Some new wrinkle for the doomsday machine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica

[wilcopops]

Arctic and Antarctic circles have been studied for decdes - from the 19th century and are a major key to our climate history - locked in the ice and the ground below. If you are unaware of the research at the poles etc then you are not in a position to comment on climate change

Edited November 18, 2013 by wilcopops

[RickBradford]

Despite the rationality shown by Japan and Poland, senior activists have recently completely abandoned reality and have retreated to the comfortable world of fantasy.

UNFCCC head Christiana Figueres: "We are condemning future generations before they are even born."

Focus on the Global South director Pablo Solon, former Bolivian climate negotiator: "COP-19 is a farce, a charade, a scandal... pretending they are doing something when they are just losing irrecoverable time and allowing a mass killing to happen."

Maria van der Hoeven of the International Energy Agency has completely lost it: "The world is on track for warming of 6C by the end of the century .. wiping out agriculture in many areas and rendering swathes of the globe uninhabitable."

There is simply no rational debate possible with hysterics like these. Then they complain when nothing gets done.

Meanwhile, European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie "I-don't-care-about-the-science" Hedegaard is issuing more activist demands: "In Warsaw, we must agree to prepare strong pledges for the 2015 deal and to step up emission cuts over the rest of this decade."

This, of course, is the same woman who presided over the biggest flop in climate negotiation history, the Copenhagen fiasco in 2009.

Is it any wonder that nothing gets done?

[thaibeachlovers]

Something that the greenies have been keeping quiet about is that alternative energy sources such as wind turbines, solar panels and wave generators are extremely vulnerable to bad weather. None of the examples I gave would have survived a Haiyan type disaster, or the tornadoes that just devestated part of the US.

[FiftyTwo]

Arctic and Antarctic circles have been studied for decdes - from the 19th century and are a major key to our climate history - locked in the ice and the ground below. If you are unaware of the research at the poles etc then you are not in a position to comment on climate change

I'm not sure 'decades' counts as history.

Especially when the subject, polar ice, covers millennia.

Nobody had been to the South pole until 100 years ago, so it can't have been studied that well.

There are claims the North pole wasn't reached until 1969, even if untrue, it can't have been a popular research location.

Edited November 18, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[isawasnake]

Arctic and Antarctic circles have been studied for decdes - from the 19th century and are a major key to our climate history - locked in the ice and the ground below. If you are unaware of the research at the poles etc then you are not in a position to comment on climate change

I'm not sure 'decades' counts as history.

Especially when the subject, polar ice, covers millennia.

Nobody had been to the South pole until 100 years ago, so it can't have been studied that well.

There are claims the North pole wasn't reached until 1969, even if untrue, it can't have been a popular research location.

He is talking about ice cores.

We can do these amazing things in science, and answer a lot of questions. For example, did you know that fish have these little structures near their gills that allow us to know exactly what streams/areas the fish has swam in during its lifetime? It is amazing, isn't it? And yes, we can know, with a very high degree of certainty, what gases were present in the atmosphere thousands of years ago. We can do these things. It is amazing.

[cooked]

Arctic and Antarctic circles have been studied for decdes - from the 19th century and are a major key to our climate history - locked in the ice and the ground below. If you are unaware of the research at the poles etc then you are not in a position to comment on climate change

I'm not sure 'decades' counts as history.

Especially when the subject, polar ice, covers millennia.

Nobody had been to the South pole until 100 years ago, so it can't have been studied that well.

There are claims the North pole wasn't reached until 1969, even if untrue, it can't have been a popular research location.

Great thinking, batman, who's talking about the North and South Poles? Some of us are talking about the Arctic and the Antarctic, quite large areas on the map you may have noticed. Please google 'ice sheet research' or something like that.

[Scott]

It seems that now might be a good time to remind people to stay on topic and to post in a civil manner.