CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Essentially, many people are incorrectly assuming that a warmer Europe equals a warmer planet. This is simply not the case. I hope this clears it up for you and I appreciate your respectful question, unlike that of the OP.

Typical, the areas where there is actual hsitory was a freak accident of nature and AL Goridiot knows better.......so by you account because cold air sinks, the southern hemisphere was cooler when the North was warmer........dude get a grip,

And greengrass dude, read the NOAA data carefully, me thinks you are a bit blind to truth.

reply to post by heliosprime


A simple virus can decimate an entire species. A simple beetle has decimated an entire tree population in the span of only one summer. And millions of dollars and hundreds of natural resource workers couldn't even put a dent in it.

To pretend that we are nothing more then a virus or a cancer and we could never do anything "bad" is what is arrogant.



[edit on 21-12-2008 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by heliosprime

 

A simple virus can decimate an entire species. A simple beetle has decimated an entire tree population in the span of only one summer. And millions of dollars and hundreds of natural resource workers couldn't even put a dent in it.

To pretend that we are nothing more then a virus or a cancer and we could never do anything "bad" is what is arrogant.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by nixie_nox]

You miss the greater point, man can not change nor destroy what God has created. Only God can destroy his work. Man is only a pest...........

Man can influence his local environment, but has not the ability to destroy the climate, perhap affect it for a short term, all out nuclear war perhaps, but even then, the planet would survive. But we know God won't let man destroy his creation, he said so in his book..........

reply to post by habeas corpuss


The earth is only 25k miles around. It is not that big. We can travel around it in a day. I can call someone in 20 seconds.

The US can volly a nuclear missile at Russian and it can be there an in hour.

History channel had a nice little segment that if you could connect an elevator, fed by gravity.that ran through the center of the planet, it would only take 42 minutes to get to China.

Jupiter has a little storm three times the size of the planet earth.

I know it makes it seem so nice and safe and warm and fuzzy to think that the Earth possibly couldn't be destroyed or ruined. But we are the Rhode Island of the Solar System. If a little 100 foot meteor can destroy the dinosaurs, 5-6 billion people and a 150 years of industry certainly can.


We have been creating this problem for over a century, it is not like we singlehandedly did it in the 70s when it was brought to our attention.

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Essentially, many people are incorrectly assuming that a warmer Europe equals a warmer planet. This is simply not the case. I hope this clears it up for you and I appreciate your respectful question, unlike that of the OP.

Typical, the areas where there is actual hsitory was a freak accident of nature and AL Goridiot knows better.......

No one said it was a "freak accident", except you of coarse. You see, when calculating GLOBAL temperature you take into account temperature data from many different continents, not just one (Europe in the case of the MWP scenario). Essentially, and in simple terms, the sample size of data for the MWP scenario is not large enough to make any conclusions about the GLOBAL temperature during medieval times. Sure, based on historical records about Europe during medieval times, Europe was warmer then than it is today. However, Europe is but one continent out of seven, thus records about Europe alone are not sufficient to make any conclusions about the global temperature.

Again, when we look at ice core samples and tree ring data from around the world, we see that the GLOBAL temperature during medieval times was in fact about 0.03 degrees C below the GLOBAL temperature present TODAY.

Originally posted by heliosprime
so by you account because cold air sinks, the southern hemisphere was cooler when the North was warmer........dude get a grip,

Man, do you even understand how ridiculous you sound? First, I never said anything about the thermodynamic properties of air. Second, you obviously have no grasp on these properties. When someone speaks of warm air rising or cool air sinking, it has nothing to do with it moving North or South, it has to do with it moving up or down in elevation (duh).

Originally posted by heliosprime
And greengrass dude, read the NOAA data carefully, me thinks you are a bit blind to truth.

Heliostupid (see, I can do it too), I did read the NOAA data, it stated that the GLOBAL temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was less than or comparable to the GLOBAL temperature during the early to mid 20th Century. Thus, the GLOBAL temperature was less during the MWP than it is TODAY (Late 20th century to early 21st century). What you do not get about this is beyond me. Perhaps it is you who is a bit blind, not to the truth, but to logic.

Helios, I am going to look for your response to this posting and expect to see one thing. "Bluegrass, you were right and I was wrong. I apologize for starting a thread of which I had little grasp upon the subject and about which I lacked the mental capacity necessary to hold and intelligent conversation."

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Heliostupid (see, I can do it too), I did read the NOAA data, it stated that the GLOBAL temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was less than or comparable to the GLOBAL temperature during the early to mid 20th Century. Thus, the GLOBAL temperature was less during the MWP than it is TODAY (Late 20th century to early 21st century). What you do not get about this is beyond me. Perhaps it is you who is a bit blind, not to the truth, but to logic.

Helios, I am going to look for your response to this posting and expect to see one thing. "Bluegrass, you were right and I was wrong. I apologize for starting a thread of which I had little grasp upon the subject and about which I lacked the mental capacity necessary to hold and intelligent conversation."

First of all the you assume the data I provided was localized.......mistake

Earth's Climatic History

Climatologists have used various techniques and evidence to reconstruct a history of the Earth's past climate. From this data, they have found that during most of the Earth's history global temperatures were probably 8 to 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today. In the last billion years of climatic history, warmer conditions were broken by glacial periods starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

The period from 2,000,000 - 14,000 B.P. (before present) is known as the Pleistocene or Ice Age. During this period, large glacial ice sheets covered much of North America, Europe, and Asia for extended periods of time. The extent of the glacier ice during the Pleistocene was not static. The Pleistocene had periods when the glacier retreated (interglacial) because of warmer temperatures and advanced because of colder temperatures (glacial). During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today.

The most recent glacial retreat is still going on. We call the temporal period of this retreat the Holocene epoch. This warming of the Earth and subsequent glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling, known as the Younger-Dryas, at about 10,000 - 8500 BC. Scientists speculate that this cooling may have been caused by the release of fresh water trapped behind ice on North America into the North Atlantic Ocean. The release altered vertical currents in the ocean which exchange heat energy with the atmosphere. The warming resumed by 8500 BC. By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands (Bahamas) and coastal areas that are still above sea level today. A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.

The period 900 - 1200 AD has been called the Little Climatic Optimum. It represents the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum. During this period, the Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. The snow line in the Rocky Mountains was about 370 meters above current levels. A period of cool and more extreme weather followed the Little Climatic Optimum. A great drought in the American southwest occurred between 1276 and 1299. There are records of floods, great droughts and extreme seasonal climate fluctuations up to the 1400s.

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 7x-1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 2006. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomolies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomolies became more common, and from 1980 to 2006 most of the anomolies were between 0.20 to 0.63 degrees Celsius higher than the normal period (1951-1980) average.

www.physicalgeography.net...

The data specifically addresses historical data from europe but is not limited to it. The data speaks of Global temperatures........

reply to post by heliosprime


Helios,

Here are two very informative graphs and their explanations. Both show that the average global temperatures during both the Climactic Optimum during the Holocene era and the Little Climactic Optimum (Medieval Warm Period) were less than the global temperatures today.

en.wikipedia.org...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

I will give you that global temperatures during the Holocene Climactic Optimum varied greatly across the planet and across methodologies used to determine global temperatures. Due to this, I feel that the dark line represents the best indication of global temperatures and indicates a global temperature less than that of today. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the data for the last decade or so is less than what would be desired to make any conclusions about long term trends. However that being said, graph show that temperatures today are clearly greater than they were at any period including the Climactic Optimum.

This next graph shows that temperatures today are greater than they were during the Little Climactic Optimum (Medieval Warm Period).

commons.wikimedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Look, I think that we both would agree that only time will tell what is going to happen to earth's climate. Believe me, I hope you are right because, unfortunately, I seriously doubt much will be done over the next decade or two to combat global CO2 emissions. However, if you are wrong, 20 years from now the earth could look dramatically different than it does today and we may have passed the point of no return, making any efforts then essentially futile.

On a side note, I apologize for getting as snippy with you as I did. I just don't take kindly to being accused of "deception." Have a happy holiday season.





[edit on 24-12-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


One more question I have to ask though. The Vikings managed to sail all the way to what is now NEw England, or at least pretty darn close. They had settlements on Iceland and Greenland and some on the northeast coast of the continental US (what is now). Apparently the whole northen hemesphere was warmer if they managed to sail through seas that are usually cluttered with ice from the north. But after a few decades the cliate got much colder and he glaciers advanced to such an extent that the colonies on Greenland, and the Newfoundland settlements had to be abandoned. Iceland just hung on barely. Places that are today nderneath thick ice was all barren and enough for agriculture. If this was the case, then it must have been much warmer over a larger scale. The Vikings weren't dumb either and they did keep logs of their travels. I don't have the sources in front of me right now, but I do recall that they usually mentioned no ice in the regions between Iceland and Greenland and later, massive glaciers demolishing their outposts and colonies. By this account, Greenland must have had less ice on its edges and it must have been much warmer there.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

If I hear one more person say that global warming is BS because it "is cold here" or "snowing there," I think I will have to puke.

Just be sure that puke doesn't freeze you mouth shut as we enter the next ICE AGE.

I am wondering how long good old Al Gore will rake in the money fro carbon credits before he is ...... well I best not say that. But I sure will be laughing when he get what is comming to him. lol:

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

One more question I have to ask though. The Vikings managed to sail all the way to what is now NEw England, or at least pretty darn close. They had settlements on Iceland and Greenland and some on the northeast coast of the continental US (what is now). Apparently the whole northen hemesphere was warmer if they managed to sail through seas that are usually cluttered with ice from the north. But after a few decades the cliate got much colder and he glaciers advanced to such an extent that the colonies on Greenland, and the Newfoundland settlements had to be abandoned. Iceland just hung on barely. Places that are today nderneath thick ice was all barren and enough for agriculture. If this was the case, then it must have been much warmer over a larger scale. The Vikings weren't dumb either and they did keep logs of their travels. I don't have the sources in front of me right now, but I do recall that they usually mentioned no ice in the regions between Iceland and Greenland and later, massive glaciers demolishing their outposts and colonies. By this account, Greenland must have had less ice on its edges and it must have been much warmer there.

Sorry so long since last post.

Well, I recently heard an interesting theory that prehistoric man (before the vikings) were able to "sail" to North America due to large ice sheets that extended from Europe to the North America. This essentially allowed them to stay relatively close to "land" allowing them to hunt and replenish their supplys. However, again this was well before the Vikings.

Without doing a lot of research, I would speculate that the vikings chose the warmest parts of the year to make their voyages, thus avoiding much of the ice that would be present during the winter months. In other words, their voyage was possible because of seasonal fluctuations in sea ice rather than to any broad climatological trend leading to the decline of sea ice.

On a side note, I am sure that you have heard it is quite probable that in the next few decades or so there will be no sea ice in the entire north pole during the summer. Some have even speculated that this may occur in the next ten years. Many countries such as Russia, the US, and Canada are in fact making preparations for this very scenario. That being said, to my knowledge there has never been a time when, during any season, the entire north pole has been devoid of ice. However, I would have to do some research to be completely confident in this claim.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

If I hear one more person say that global warming is BS because it "is cold here" or "snowing there," I think I will have to puke.

Just be sure that puke doesn't freeze you mouth shut as we enter the next ICE AGE.

I am wondering how long good old Al Gore will rake in the money fro carbon credits before he is ...... well I best not say that. But I sure will be laughing when he get what is comming to him. lol:

WOW, I will have to watch out for this "Next Ice Age" you are predicting and do my best not to puke when it happens.

By the way, thanks for contributing to the intellectual discussion we have been having in this thread.

I do have a question for you though that pertains to your dislike for Al Gore. Honestly ask yourself this question; Would you feel the same about Gore if he had delivered the same message but been a Republican while doing so?

I think that if you are really honest with us, and yourself, you will realize that your true problems with Gore have little to do with his message about global warming and instead center around his political affiliation.