Global Icing

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Any natural 30 year warming/cooling cycle is irrelevant to man-made global warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

There is an annual cycle of cooling -England is at the moment in the grip of the annual cooling cycle; it is called winter.
What does this currently running annual cooling cycle tell us about whether the average global temperature ...[text shortened]... dummy and fry 😛
I hope that the human race will not be so stupid as to make the same mistake.

Of course anecdotes of local cold or warmth are meaningless. But so are the data gathered, and the dire warnings of disaster from CO2 emissions.

The data gathered is all very recent by global standards, and not consistent with data from even a decade ago, never mind more meaningful periods like the past millenium, during which there were no measurements.

Originally posted by Merk
I live awful close to the American West. (Arizona) and we have had well over average rainfall. No drought here in the desert.

Surely hurricanes and drought can not only be caused by climate change?

I'm not one to argue that man isn't causing some degree of warming, but any theory must be verifiably false, or it's a leap of faith, not a scientific theory. Some proponents sure seem to say that everything is proof the theory is true....

"Some proponents sure seem to say that everything is proof the theory is true.."

That's why it smacks of propaganda, or quasi religious fanaticism. We know that cataclysmic climate change has happened on this planet in the past. Entire continents have shifted, much of Nevada was once under water. These changes happened way before the industrial revolution, SUVs, barbecues, and all of the western culture that is now being blamed for global warming.

There is a common thread between this "crisis" and others of past decades, like the coming ice age, global starvation, and running out of fossil fuels all of which were supposed to happen before the year 2000.

Originally posted by normbenign
That's why it smacks of propaganda, or quasi religious fanaticism. We know that cataclysmic climate change has happened on this planet in the past.

One has to wonder why it is that the self same people who see the whole climate change thing as a hoax, also think that Obama is a kindred spirit of the Nazis, characterize the dishonour and perjury of Oliver North as 'true patriotism', rate Ann Coulter as having more integrity than most journalists, see the credit crisis is a result of marxist-tainted over regulation, think of personal firearms as being for self-defence against the excesses of government, reckon Fox News presents balanced panels on their Sunday morning opinion show, etc. etc. etc.

But perhaps you are right about the world wide conspiracy - surely the biggest in the history of mankind, involving almost every scientist, every research institution, every government in the world (of every political hue) - and maybe the climate change is a hoax. Maybe you're right about everything, even if it all sounds like it conforms to some kind of a rigid and predictable (and ubiquitous) template rather than the genuine or reponsible exercise of individualism in terms of arriving at opinions and beliefs.

Originally posted by normbenign
Of course anecdotes of local cold or warmth are meaningless. But so are the data gathered, and the dire warnings of disaster from CO2 emissions.

The data gathered is all very recent by global standards, and not consistent with data from even a decade ago, never mind more meaningful periods like the past millenium, during which there were no measurements.

…Of course anecdotes of LOCAL cold or warmth are meaningless.. .… (my emphasis)

I wasn’t trying to refer to “LOCAL” cold or warmth but rather TEMPORARY GLOBAL cooling or warming -BOTH these things are meaningless in the longer run -get it?

(if I remember correctly, the winter in the northern hemisphere causes the average global temperature to drop slightly despite it coinciding with the summer in the southern hemisphere)

…But so are the data gathered,.…

Why is the data gathered “meaningless” if it can be used to test a modal? or shows a general trend?

…and the dire warnings of disaster from CO2 emissions. .…

Why is the dire warnings of disaster from CO2 emissions “meaningless”?
If the dire warnings are ignored and we cause such a disaster then will they still be “meaningless”?

….The data gathered is all very recent by global standards, and not consistent with data from even a decade ago…

You have lost me -how is the data gathered now “not consistent” with data from a decade ago? In what way is it “not consistent”? is there some logical contradiction here in the data that only you are aware of?
-if so, please share this insight with us.

….never mind more meaningful periods like the past millennium, during which there were NO measurements...…(my emphasis)

-and there didn’t have to be any measurements taken back then for us to know what the temperature was because we can measure the past temperature NOW with such things as tree rings and ice-core data etc and various forms of geological data (there are many forms).
Do you deny this?

Originally posted by normbenign
And you can't get valid results from computer models designed to produce a given result.

Of course not. If we could, we would have been able to put a man on the moon instead of staging it in the Arizona desert.


Originally posted by Merk
I live awful close to the American West. (Arizona) and we have had well over average rainfall. No drought here in the desert.

Yep, Arizona is part of the west. Now, if you can put that past two relatively wet years in context with the long term trends, and revive in your memory the four year drought that ended in 2007, you might begin to see the difference between the weather and climate, and see how the weather in AZ the past ten years is indicative of the climate change that is drying everything west of the Mississippi, while increasing average annual precipitation in southern Appalachia and the Gulf Coast.

-and there didn’t have to be any measurements taken back then for us to know what the temperature was because we can measure the past temperature NOW with such things as tree rings and ice-core data etc and various forms of geological data (there are many forms).
Do you deny this?[/b]

I deny that the same computers that get week long weather predictions wrong, can tell us with any accuracy what is going to happen twenty years from now. Look at the predictions from ten years ago, tell me how accurate they were.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Of course anecdotes of LOCAL cold or warmth are meaningless.. .… (my emphasis)

I wasn’t trying to refer to “LOCAL” cold or warmth but rather TEMPORARY GLOBAL cooling or warming -BOTH these things are meaningless in the longer run -get it?

(if I remember correctly, the winter in the northern hemisphere causes the average global temperatu ...[text shortened]... ce-core data etc and various forms of geological data (there are many forms).
Do you deny this?[/b]

I've been following the warnings of cataclysms coming from leftists for my entire adult life. I mentioned some of them in a previous post. They are now replaced by the notion that CO2 emissions are warming the planet precipitously.

All of the other crisis predictions had the same thing in common, that of Western industrialized nations altering their lifestyles and economies. Look at the proposed solutions to "global warming" and it becomes obvious that it is a politically motivated "crisis" that Karl Marx advocated for gaining power. The focus is on Westerners shutting down their industry, when the real polluters are the emerging economies like China who aren't listening to the global warming scare at all.

The "measurements" of temperatures in the past are computer model guesses. The models are programmed to get the desired result. In short the fix is in. Many of the same "scientists" who forecast the other impending disasters are still on the team.

The contribution of the industrial West to CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the emissions of a single volcanic eruption. If the crisis were real, it would not be necessary for advocates such as Al Gore to embellish or falsify to make their points, as is done in Mr. Gore's film.

It also would not be necessary to attempt to shut down debate and make the claim that it is settled science, when it is clearly not.

Originally posted by normbenign
I've been following the warnings of cataclysms coming from leftists for my entire adult life. I mentioned some of them in a previous post. They are now replaced by the notion that CO2 emissions are warming the planet precipitously.

All of the other crisis predictions had the same thing in common, that of Western industrialized nations altering their ut down debate and make the claim that it is settled science, when it is clearly not.

…Look at the proposed SOLUTIONS to "global warming" and it becomes obvious that it is a politically motivated "crisis" that Karl Marx advocated for gaining power.
.…(my emphasis)

The fact that many of the proposed “SOLUTIONS” are politically motivated when they come from politicians is irrelevant to whether or not there is manmade global warming. Even if some of the proposed “SOLUTIONS” from scientists are politically motivated , that is still irrelevant to whether or not there is manmade global warming.
Was the greenhouse theory made by Karl Marx ? Or by any other significant politician?
Are ALL the scientists that gathered the data that was found to support the greenhouse theory all Marxist or lefties and their gathering of the data is just part of some kind of “leftwing conspiracy”?

…The "measurements" of temperatures in the past are computer model guesses...…

No! -they are not! They come from tree rings and ice-core data etc

http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/sustainabledevelopment/climatechange/areweresponsible/evidence.asp

Or, even better;

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_144487.htm

-note; absolutely NO computer models are used to "measurement" the past temperatures in the above -these “measurements” are real physical measurements of what the actual temperature was.


….The contribution of the industrial West to CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the emissions of a single volcanic eruption.
..…

-Only over many millions of years which means that that counts as zilch because natural carbon sinks have time to absorb away all that CO2 in the atmosphere.
The fact is over the last thousand years virtually all the CO2 emissions have been manmade and a thousand years is not enough time for natural carbon sinks to absorb more than a tiny fraction of it from the atmosphere thus we are currently responsible for virtually all the rise in CO2.
Over a thousand year period, manmade emissions vastly dwarf the emissions of ALL the world’s volcanoes put together. It is a common massive distortion of the facts that climate sceptics often use by saying “vertually all CO2 comes from volcanoes” because of this.

Originally posted by dryhump
I deny that the same computers that get week long weather predictions wrong, can tell us with any accuracy what is going to happen twenty years from now. Look at the predictions from ten years ago, tell me how accurate they were.

Before the Civil War, a few people said that a Black man would be President of the United States someday. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of people made this prediction. None of them said his mother would be a white woman from Kansas.

Were they wrong because they failed to anticipate every detail, or were they correct about the general trend toward liberty and equality for all, regardless of race?

You're mixing the weather and climate. One is far easier to predict than the other. Check the Farmer's Almanac: it has a pretty good track record.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Of course not. If we could, we would have been able to put a man on the moon instead of staging it in the Arizona desert.


Originally posted by Merk
[b]I live awful close to the American West. (Arizona) and we have had well over average rainfall. No drought here in the desert.

Yep, Arizona is part of the west. Now, if you can put that past ...[text shortened]... ssippi, while increasing average annual precipitation in southern Appalachia and the Gulf Coast.[/b]

Are you saying the American west never had a drought before AGW?

Originally posted by Merk
Are you saying the American west never had a drought before AGW?

I've said nothing of the sort. How do you misread my statement so badly as to pose that question?