The trend continues in August; The World is Warming as NASA says hottest on record

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Greven

I agree. Who's to say it's entirely our fault, or that it wouldn't happen anyway and either way - what's there to do?

Hold hands and recycle while we all sing folk songs?

It may be too late for a bottom up strategy, but of course it wouldn't hurt if we all do our part. At this point, I think we need a top down strategy which begins with the corporations (oil and gas mostly) and governments and what they can do on a global scale.

Yes, but that isn't going to happen - is it?

Can we then agree that what you're doing isn't creating awareness, but fear?

In this particular case, are they not one and the same? In my attempts to create awareness there may be some fear. Depends on how you choose to absorb it. Sorry, just the way it is, unless you believe that in order to prevent fear, we should bury our heads in the sand...everything will be alright then, but, for how long?

Maybe, just maybe, as more do become aware...the top down strategy may begin as more demand some action. And maybe, it isn't too late.

a reply to: Rezlooper

And yet ice levels the past year were greater than the previous, greater than the year before that as well....first recorded increase in arctic ice in years.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Ignore history, ignore previous interglacials, ignore all the science I have presented.

How do you account for the temperature of other planets as explained by gas law, regardless of co2 or methane content?

How do you account for gas law explaining surface temp here on earth?

How do you explain the high levels of GHG at the start of the ice age? How do you explain the end of glaciation and low levels of co2? How do you explain the lack of correlation between co2 increase and global temperatures over the last 17 years? How do you explain the lack of correlation between co2 levels and temperatures over the last million years or so? Why is it that co2 and temps only seem to show a correlation when a specific range of time?

How do you explain glaciation ending, temperatures rising and co2 increases lagging behind temperature increases by 800-1000 years?

How do you explain the increase in arctic ice last year?

But yeah, let's sing kumbaya and repeat the mantra of the IPCC and their clearly failed climate modeling.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Greven

I agree. Who's to say it's entirely our fault, or that it wouldn't happen anyway and either way - what's there to do?

Hold hands and recycle while we all sing folk songs?

If that's what it takes ---- YES.

I refer you to an earlier post on how the Ozone is healing after the world agreed to cut back and cut out CFCs. That agreement was in 1987 and the trend downward with accompied healing didn't start until the late 90s.

Just don't have children and enjoy your life while it's available.

Personally I think it will come to the choice between drinking/irragating water and electricity. Think on that one for a bit - it's called comtemplation - a spiritual practise in all religions and most philosophies. Go for it.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Greven
What happens when a gas is under pressure? Heat results. Most of the surface temperatures we experience are explained by the simple, well established and documented gas laws. Without GHG effects I might add.
...
Not to mention that our current ice age began with high levels of co2...multiple times the level we see today.

I assume you are referring to Ned Nikolov’s pet theory. Would you trust Dr. Spencer's take on it? Give that a read before you respond. It's a lengthy discussion and debunking of that theory.

Also, please illustrate for us the second claim, as the wording is a bit confusing.

originally posted by: bbracken677
I have learned much related to geology as well as other fields, and many of the more recent finds suggest that co2 is a result of warming, not a cause. Co2 levels have, when interglacials begin, and the process of warming begins at the end of glaciation, that co2 level rise lags behind temperature increases by roughly 800-1000 years. This is quite evident as shown by ice cores that have been layed down at antarctica over succeeding periods of glaciation and interglacials.

I've mentioned this before, but it keeps cropping up.

Historically, CO2 leads temperature increase.
Prehistorically, CO2 lags temperature rise by less than 200 years in the Southern Hemisphere.
Prehistorically, CO2 leads temperature rise by hundreds of years in the Northern Hemisphere.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: DAZ21
Hold on didn't you guys just have one of the coldest winters in decades?

In an attempt to get up a silly fast post for stars, it's obvious you didn't read the OP.

I, in my little neck of the woods, am not the WORLD

Sounds like you have a little star complex going on.......Just saying. Truth be told the climate changes from year to year and who cares if it is warming. Look into the past and see the future.


If all these climate change people actually gave a crap they would be going after mining and fracking. These things actually do destroy the earth not a higher temp.

a reply to: Greven

No, you post links to RealClimate a website where Michael Mann, the creator of the Hockey Stick Hoax, and Gavin Schmidt are two of it's directors, alongside some other people... Realclimate also idolizes the Al Gore hoax of a movie in their site, and try to proclaim "Al Gore has been doing a good job of educating the public", which is BS.

For example.



Continuing to link to FakeClimate, I mean Realclimate site is not going to refute the fact that CO2 lags behind temperatures... Even in the current climate change temperatures on Earth began increasing in the early 1600 and have been increasing exponentially since then, almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution.

they must be in denial... living in the northeast, this has been the coolest summer in years. Again, coolest summer as far back as I can remember. We didn't even hit 100 this year and only had approximately 2 o 3 days that were actually on average of 95 but for the most part, we stayed within the 80's overall this summer.

and now we have dropped to 70's getting to around 50's at some nights.

I really hate the cold... definitely an odd summer.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

A) You're quoting the wrong post.
B) You focus on complaining about one particular link, ignoring the rest.
C) Omitting that one link does nothing regarding my critique - it is simply added context - so ignore it.
D) Dramatic rise in 1600??? Look at your own post elsewhere!

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

One of the key complaints now, and by skeptics, is that temperature is not rising as fast as CO2 levels are. IE: CO2 is, right now, leading temperature.

I am fascinated by all the "experts" on global warning in this thread, that are discussing the "record breaking" hot summer in the U.S.

I'm trying to figure that out. How, it managed to be SO hot and no one here in the U.S. somehow noticed... because we were too busy marveling at all the low temperature records being broken all over our country, while at the SAME time, Australia was having a tough winter as well.

Talk to old timers... and they will tell you they don't remember a time when we had days in the 70's in July and August... one of two, sure... now and then... but day after day? NOPE.

Can't have it both ways kids.

Earliest snows on record in South Dakota and Colorado in places... AND IT'S STILL SUMMER IN THE U.S.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Greven

I agree. Who's to say it's entirely our fault, or that it wouldn't happen anyway and either way - what's there to do?

Hold hands and recycle while we all sing folk songs?

If that's what it takes ---- YES.

I refer you to an earlier post on how the Ozone is healing after the world agreed to cut back and cut out CFCs. That agreement was in 1987 and the trend downward with accompied healing didn't start until the late 90s.

Just don't have children and enjoy your life while it's available.

Personally I think it will come to the choice between drinking/irragating water and electricity. Think on that one for a bit - it's called comtemplation - a spiritual practise in all religions and most philosophies. Go for it.

Your thinly-veiled contempt is a bit unnecessary in this.

You raise a valid point about the stop in CFC use and the ozone layer seeming to heal itself.

Never-the-less, hand-holding will only work in our minds. You and I can also recycle to our heart's content and it wouldn't make a dent in even in a 100 metre radius of our homes.

I'm sorry, but I'm not happy to live in a fairy land, as much as some are.

What's your idea to put a halt to global warming? I'm really curious to know.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Greven

I agree. Who's to say it's entirely our fault, or that it wouldn't happen anyway and either way - what's there to do?

Hold hands and recycle while we all sing folk songs?

It may be too late for a bottom up strategy, but of course it wouldn't hurt if we all do our part. At this point, I think we need a top down strategy which begins with the corporations (oil and gas mostly) and governments and what they can do on a global scale.

Yes, but that isn't going to happen - is it?

Can we then agree that what you're doing isn't creating awareness, but fear?

In this particular case, are they not one and the same? In my attempts to create awareness there may be some fear. Depends on how you choose to absorb it. Sorry, just the way it is, unless you believe that in order to prevent fear, we should bury our heads in the sand...everything will be alright then, but, for how long?

Maybe, just maybe, as more do become aware...the top down strategy may begin as more demand some action. And maybe, it isn't too late.

I just asked another member what their idea is to put a half to global warming. If you have one I'd be keen to hear it, too.

What is to be feared about a warm-hot planet? All that hot light will only contribute to warming peoples hearts

originally posted by: DAZ21
Hold on didn't you guys just have one of the coldest winters in decades?

Oh also they are predicting another freezing winter this year. So which is it global warming or cooling, you can't pick and choose.

whilst we had one of the warmest winters. We didn't have any snow in south England. At all.

a reply to: Greven

Greven, you continually challenge and I appreciate that. Makes me have to work for it I would much rather debate the science than blind repetition of mantras.

I am going to do this in a series of edits, I only have time to do this once, this morning and I hate losing my post before it is done due to a refresh of the screen, so bear with me.

First...your first link is a biased website, but I will respond to your post anyway.

A global reconstruction of subaerial volcanic activity over the last 40 Kyr shows a pervasive high-latitude increase in volcanism between 12 Ka and 7 Ka that more than doubles global volcanic activity. This increase can be understood as a con- sequence of melt generated in response to deglacial decompression. We estimate that increased volcanism during this 5 Ka period emitted an additional 1000 to 5000 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere. Such a flux is consistent in timing and magnitude with ice core observations of a 40 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the second half of the last deglaciation. Anomalous volcanic emissions also persist later into the Holocene, and it appears that elevated volcanic activity helps maintain high levels of CO2 during interglacials.

Source: Harvard Edu

Your 2nd link is supposed to be a scientific article, but clearly written by someone who has zero clue what they are discussing:

The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years.

1: The end of the last ice age? Umm...the current ice age has not ended. Clearly this individual does not even know the terminology. He is referring to the end of the last glacial period.
2: 20,000 to 10,000 years ago was the "end of the last ice age"?. The end of the last period of glaciation is the beginning of the Holocene, which is approximately 12000 years ago.

Clearly a non-scientific article.

When you read the rest of the article it does not state that co2 leads temps...what it does state is that the lag of co2 to temps is "less than previously thought".

Not 1400 years, but possibly more like 200 years. I will continue to use the 800-1000 year range I typically quote until I see better evidence. The method used in the study described has yet to be proven. Interesting and possibly more accurate. Possibly not. This does bear keeping an eye on.

Regarding the 3rd link: From the tone of the article, I would not hesitate to claim bias, but I did read the article. Some good points were made, but it is clear with the following that there is a clear attempt to pin the change from glaciation to interglacial warming on co2. They were, in the last couple of paragraphs, honest if not somewhat skewed.

Overall, there was a 3.5°C degree increase taking place concurrently to a CO2 increase from 180 to 280 ppm. If the warming is entirely due to CO2, then the climate sensitivity should be ΔTx2 ~ 3.5°C/log2(280/180), or about 5.5°C per CO2 doubling. But as I explained above, this conclusions is not supported at all by the above correlation. However, it does imply that if anyone is calculating a probability distribution function for the temperature sensitivity to CO2, then they should cut it at 5.5°C, because it simply cannot be any larger than that. On the other hand, my best estimate for the climate sensitivity, is that CO2 doubling should cause a 1 to 1.5°C temperature increase, or about 0.65 to 1°C for a 180 to 280 increase in the CO2. In other words, at most a quarter of the observed 3.5°C should have been caused by the CO2 feedback. The rest is something else.

Clearly from the above one may surmise they did not exactly see what they hoped to see. The article tries to account for the warming at the end of glaciation and the beginning of an interglacial on co2 and cannot quite do it. They exclude every other source from the discussion. No mention of Milankovitch cycles. No mention of the recent work regarding cosmic rays and their influence.

You may want to give this paper a read: Paper
A pretty interesting read.

Now, last but not least:

During the Ordovician Glaciation began with co2 levels at approx 14x that of modern times.

Stanford.edu

The point I keep making is that the factor that keeps popping up in the geologic record is that time after time it becomes evident that co2 is not the major driver of climate change. In fact, quite often it appears that co2 levels are a result of temperature increase and not the cause of. While that is debatable, what is not (IMO) is that co2 is NOT the major driver of climate change.

a reply to: Rezlooper


Well, it's warming everywhere but Wisconsin then. We just had one of the coolest summers I can remember in my 34 years after having one of the coldest winters in my lifetime. We're actually contemplating moving South because they're saying Wisconsin could be having these frigid winters and cooler summers for a decade. It's still Summer yet Fall has been here for the past 3 weeks. I picked the worst year to buy a new boat. Must be nice to live in any other part of the world.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: bbracken677

The Arctic was ice-free enough that for the first time (in our recorded history anyways) they detected waves this summer.

Well the data from the Viking time says , if that can be called recorded, that we have had several times when the ice was gone since the Roman Empire began.

Doesn't that give credence to the cycles and the real influence of man on the overall climate. I would agree that micro climate changes occur on a case by case basis from man's touch but macro climate change are driven by the Solar and Planetary cycles.

In my years here on earth, this past summer was one for the coldest and fall-like I've ever encountered.

a reply to: TheGoondockSaint

Quite whining, you get Leinenkugels and fresh cheddar. There is no pleasing you packer fans.