The Last Ten Years of Global Warming Never happened

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Loveaduck

"When the estuaries are gone. We are gone."

Technically this is not the case, we can still eat one another, for a little while!

Or TPTB can decide to release some of our shall we say black technology allowing humanity to depart this rock and be on to greener pastures.

After all Mars and some of the exoplanets could quite possibly be within our reach by then.

Then again chance would be a fine thing!

It will be easier to save the estuary's and wetlands that serve as aquifers for the planet, basically the earths kidneys and the rainforests that are it's lungs. Some simple common sense steps now. Everyone is armed and it is not going to be easy to eat them. Not only does the former make more sense, is it easier, it is more ethical and what the people on the planet who are not already suffering from metals poisoning want to do.

a reply to: Loveaduck

So you kind of took the worst aspects of what I said rather than the plus points, which would be humanity departing from this rock.

We are a virus from mother earths perspective, time to move, or time to die, its our choice.

She will get along just fine without our input or intervention, we are not the "be all and end all" regarding nature!

Metal poisoning??? That would be the least of your worries! New Ice Age or no EM shield now that's a problem.

a reply to: mbkennel

Man...I hate it when I take a decent amount of time putting together a reply only to see it disappear before I am finished:

At any rate, here is my reply (I didnt see your reply until today)

Regarding your first physics remark: Physics tells us we have a problem, not to what degree man is responsible. Climate science is ... incomplete to say the least. Climate models do not accurately predict diddley squat. Therefore merely employing the scientific method, given the failure of the climate models, one MUST revise the hypothesis. This is not debatable, this is the scientific method.

What "observations say so" regarding man's effect on the climate? I will present a picture that will, perhaps, if one has an open mind present a somewhat different perspective on the issue. Particularly regarding how close (or not) mankind is to doomsday due to rising co2 and temp levels over the last 300 or so years.

Real co2 levels

Carbon Dioxide

Historic co2 vs temp levels

Returning to your post: Another reference to physics regarding the affect of a weakening magnetosphere. Surely you know the influence of the magnetosphere on solar radiation is well documented, well established and is not even theoretical. It is fact.

The sun affects planetary wind patterns. What perhaps is the clearest evidence that nature, not man, caused the twentieth century warming was the discovery in the past few years that the oceans are playing a far greater role than previously recognized. Although poorly understood, either the sun directly, or through the winds it helps create, phenomena like El Niños and La Niñas are formed in the tropical ocean. (See NASA animation) These equatorial El Niño and La Niña phenomenon have been well known since the early 1900s, but their significance was not realized until the late 1900s.
ts began to realize the impact of El Niños and La Niñas on climate across the world, they also began to notice there was a larger oscillation within which they occurred, extending well beyond the tropics. By 1997 they had named them the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Like El Niño and La Niña, the PDO and AMO have warm and cold cycles. While El Niños and La Niñas only last 1-3 years, the PDO usually lasts from 15 to 30 years and the AMO, 20 to 40 years. In the case of the PDO, the warm phase has more El Niños while the cold phase has more La Niñas. Together they have a profound affect on earth’s climate, and when compared to earth’s temperature, the correlation is considered good, but not great. Nonetheless, it is far better than CO2, which only has a poor correlation with temperature.

With regards to your final statements about co2 levels rising much faster once man began digging up and burning carbon based energy sources, perhaps you should look at the rates of which co2 have increased in the past, pre-industrial revolution. Not much of a difference at all.

I have a degree in geology, 60 years old and no one's fool. I am not just parroting what other's have said, I am employing some common sense combined with interpretations of geologically collected data. I have no particular agenda other than to "deny ignorance". I also am NOT a climatologist, but I am very familiar with scientific method. If one cannot construct an "experiment" that produces the results that your hypothesis demands then you go back to the drawing board and revise your hypothesis.

Once upon a time man looked at the heavens and saw that they, quite clearly, rotated around the earth. This was obvious to any fool. Unfortunately they did not have all the data and their observations were not scientifically sound.

We are making pronouncements today, regarding climate change (which is constant, (not rate, just change) btw) and man's effect (he has had an effect, of this I have no doubt...I just happen to believe that it is not as significant as presented) which is based on an incomplete understanding of the process. Of this, there can be no doubt. We do NOT fully understand the process.

Why is ice coverage increasing in the souther hemisphere? We have no clue...the climate models predicted a retreat of ice coverage....

Why have the temperatures the last 14 years or so been flat globally instead of marked increases as predicted by the models?

I have no doubt we have a severe problem. I do not think it is a doomsday problem but it will be a costly one for man to survive. At the same time that ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing...why is the tundra in the northern hemisphere melting at the same time?

The melting tundra is the single most threat to our way of life. It has already begun and shutting down coal burning plants will not change that one whit. An amazing amount of methane is about to be released into our atmosphere... a truly intimidating amount.

So...physics is the answer as to why I am wrong eh? lol

I agree with this, and we need to understand the difference between global warming and climate change.

In the brief history that we can glean, extremes never worked out well for those on the surface of the planet.

The CO2 is asymptotic, and something has to give. Climate Change will rule what really happens, as it takes in many other variables as well.

The mention of the locked up Methane really has to be seriously considered, because if the trend that climate change takes produces a warmer climate, we have more to worry about than CO2. Methane is a green house gas that is 20 fold more effective at trapping radiated heat energy than CO2.

a reply to: charlyv

I could be a total jerk and say that it was global warming until they found out the temp wasnt rising the last 14 or so years and, hence, changed it to Climate Change.

Realistically there is no difference. I would describe climate change as being a bit more accurate and comprehensive since it takes into consideration changing weather patterns. Obviously if temperatures are rising, there is climate change, but you can have climate change without necessarily having temperature change, at least for a period.

a reply to: charlyv

I agree with this, and we need to understand the difference between global warming and climate change.

The difference between GW and CC is easy. What we need to understand is the difference between NATURAL Climate Change and HUMAN CAUSED Climate Change.

Global Warming is the accumulation of energy in the earth's system. This can happen naturally, if say the Sun gets hotter or the Earth tilts on its axis. It can also be caused by human activity, like when man returns all the carbon that has been buried in the ground for billions of years to the atmosphere in a few centuries and that carbon prevents energy from being radiated out of the system.

Just like when you add energy to a pot of water, the 'climate' in the pot changes - they are related. Adding energy causes the change. It you add energy slowly, you might never get the pot to boil - if you add it quickly, it will.

However the energy gets into system, whether naturally or by human activity, more energy is going to cause changes in the atmosphere, that is, climate change.

I repeat, the problem lies not in understanding the difference between "Global Warming" and "Climate Change". "Climate Change" change follows "Global Warming" like night follows day.

The problem likes in understanding the difference between natural causes and human activity.

We can't do anything about the natural causes of warming and climate change. All we can do is study them and account for them and discover what natural mechanisms exist to keep the system fairly stable. It is that stability that allows our existence.

We can do something about human causes of warming and climate change. But the longer we pfaff about the less we can do that will make any difference to us or our great-grandchildren. Mother Earth couldn't give a care, she'll outlast us all - but that is not an answer to our problem right here and now.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Loveaduck

So you kind of took the worst aspects of what I said rather than the plus points, which would be humanity departing from this rock.

We are a virus from mother earths perspective, time to move, or time to die, its our choice.

She will get along just fine without our input or intervention, we are not the "be all and end all" regarding nature!

Metal poisoning??? That would be the least of your worries! New Ice Age or no EM shield now that's a problem.

Because what you propose is unthinkable. It would be like leaving my mother in a ditch with a fractured skull and a couple of broken ribs. Assuming she'll die. That's OK, I have my eye on another mother. LOL Something is interfering with logical thought processes, I don't really know what it is, it could be metal.

a reply to: bbracken677

The melting tundra is the single most threat to our way of life. It has already begun and shutting down coal burning plants will not change that one whit.

Actually it could save some lives and a few whits.

While annual coal mining deaths numbered more than 1,000 a year in the early part of the 20th century, they decreased to an average of about 451 annual fatalities in the 1950s, and to 141 in the 1970s. From 2006-2010, the yearly average number of fatalities in coal mining decreased to 35. In 2009, there were 18 recorded coal mining deaths, a record low number. Sadly, coal mining fatalities dramatically increased to 48 in 2010, with the tragedy at the Upper Big Branch Mine claiming 29 lives in addition to the 19 other coal miners killed that year. In 2011, 21 coal miners were killed in accidents. 2012 saw 19 coal miners killed in accidents. www.msha.gov...

a reply to: Loveaduck

You think eating another human being is unthinkable? Point taken, not something i would like to have to do myself. Then again i've never been hungry enough yet, and it's a safe bet that nether have you.

So please don't try and take the moral high ground considering you have no idea as to what you would do until you actually face starvation.

Why do you think we have K9 teeth? Ile tell you shall I, its because we are apex predators and flesh is a requirement for our continued survival, even more so when under extreme conditions. Those teeth let's us rip it apart. Its not like we have them for show.

I should also add that Humanity and logic are not exactly synonymous where survival is at stake. Our animal instinctive nature takes over, not something i am proud of nonetheless its what makes us what we are.

And if you think cannibalism is unexceptable where survival is at stake please see below.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />

a reply to: Loveaduck

Back to stone crabs for a second.

Dear loveaduck,

You may be right about Billy's trying to comfort the tourists. I'm not sure you have to fix the blame on the spill. Here's why:

From December 2012

This season ends May 15. Elsewhere in Florida, Gulf Coast fishermen say an octopus population explosion has jeopardized its stone crab catch. The crab is a favorite food of octopus.

archive.firstcoastnews.com...

And from March, 2014

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- Fisherman in southwest Florida say octopuses are threatening to decimate their stone crab harvests.

Octopuses are intelligent, voracious predators. They can easily prey on stone crabs caught in traps in the Gulf of Mexico.

"They're real thick offshore. Past 30 feet deep, we're catching a lot of them," commercial fisherman Shane Dooley tells the News-Press. "Some traps have two or three in them. They eat the crabs as soon as they get in, and they go from trap to trap."

All of Island Crab Co. owner Jeff Haugland's traps are in 40 to 55 feet of water.

"It's like a desert out there," he said. "My boats are seeing plenty of octopus, and they're seeing no stone crab, almost less than none."

www.wptv.com...

Maybe this is one situation that isn't man's fault. A quick question. Do we intervene, and if so, on whose side?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

The problem with stone crab/octopus stems more from over fishing of shark one of the natural predators of octopus.

Same thing is happening on the west cost with squid. Shark fin fishing doesn't happen much in the gulf however it does happen heavily from Central America on down. So much so that it is becoming rare to spot sharks in those areas when diving. Thing is octopus is fished heavily down there as well.

There are a lot of reasons the seas are unbalanced though I wouldn't blame any single event.

a reply to: Grimpachi

dear Grimpachi,

Thank you very much. I appreciate learning new things, and going one step further up the ladder of causation. Thanks for the lesson.

Is the over-fishing of sharks for food or sport? If it's for food, is it to cater primarily for an Asian market, or does everyone gobble it with equal enthusiasm?

I hope to learn more about it when I get rich enough to visit you.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

HAHA

In a few months come on down you can stay at my house. (ATM things are hectic)

Shark fishing in the Gulf is pretty much recreational on the US side when you get near Mexico and on down Asian boats have decimated the shark population in the past. I am not even sure if it continues because there are so few now.

The Asian markets kill the shark for the fins and the rest goes back. It is such a waste. Personally I don't care for shark because they pee inside their own skin when caught it makes the meat rancid. I had it cooked for me in Nicaragua once where it tasted real good but I don't have the culinary skills to replicate what they did.

Now I do know the oil spills had at one time effected the oyster bars in the Gulf but I am not sure if they have rebounded yet. At one time you could get Oysters and huge clams in Florida on both coasts but Run off has been blamed for killing most if not all of that on the Ocean side estuary.

I love some good raw oysters well to be honest I love just about all sea foods except shark unless it is cooked good by someone other than me.

a reply to: andy06shake


Hey I'm a cannibal. I bite my fingernails and sometimes I swallow. I got no problem eating meat. I am simply aware of better ways. I try to lean into them but you can lean however you want. Beauty of a free country.

a reply to: Loveaduck

Well we seem to share that that particular proclivity. The point I was trying to stress is that where survival is at stake people will do what they must.

Humanity generally chooses the easiest path regarding crisis situations simple because it's usually the one that offers least resistance and hence survival rather than the alternative.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: roth1

The hole in the ozone will not "let gasses leak out"...it will, however, allow an increased amount of radiation in. When you toss in the weakening magnetic field that has lost 15% of it's strength since the beginning of the industrial revolution one has to wonder if whatever climate change we see is due more to those factors than man's.

I question man's involvement in "climate change", given that the above conditions exist; given that climate change is, and always has been constant; given that existing climate models are extremely faulty and cannot predict crap (scientific method, anyone?) which proves we do not know squat about how climate change works.

However, there is no argument that the tundra is melting. As the tundra melts, massive amounts of methane will be released into the atmosphere which WILL contribute to global warming. The question is: Is there a damned thing we (mankind) can do to even begin to prevent that from happening? I doubt it....

Just to add to this a thermal dynamic system like our earth has balances. when a Hole is open in the ozone and more UV radiation comes in, it interacts with evaporated water in the upper atmosphere and creates more Ozone. But this process is slower than mans use of diesel fuel which is the number one cause of ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere.

If global warming is real, seems like there is an easy way to stop it, just set off a few small nukes. There's no radiation worth worrying about from the new Nukes, but the atmospheric haze would cool the Earth.

The immediate result of 100 nuclear weapons roughly the size of those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being detonated would be the release of five megatons of black carbon into the atmosphere.

www.dailymail.co.uk... ine.html

A few people might die from inhaling the black carbon, but lots already die from inhaling industrial/automobile pollution, so whats a few more?