Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

Stovepipe wrote:

Since you like words, how about "affect" climate? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that there is nothing humans can do to affect the climate on this planet?

No I wont do that...I do believe the earths temperature could be SLIGHTLY altered by man for a small amount of time. I also believe that the dynamics of an extremely complicated heat distribution system would quickly cover our footprint up.

Toot wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:

Since you like words, how about "affect" climate? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that there is nothing humans can do to affect the climate on this planet?

No I wont do that...I do believe the earths temperature could be SLIGHTLY altered by man for a small amount of time. I also believe that the dynamics of an extremely complicated heat distribution system would quickly cover our footprint up.

Well thanks for clarifying your feelings. Meanwhile, the laws of physics say there are all sorts of ways we could significantly change the climate. A change in albedo or disruption of the thermohaline circulation in the ocean for example could alter the energy balance quite a bit. I'm not just talking about CO2 related warming here, I'm talking generally about humans being able to change the climate. Affect/change/control, you pick the word but humans are more than capable of it, regardless of your beliefs. If you have some science to back your views up I'm sure we'd be interested to read it.

You can lump affect and change beside each other if you want... but those two words are lightyears away from the word control... and you know this mann!

And no im not going to be copying and pasting someone elses words and graphs (your so called Science) that are normally skewed in one direction anyways.. to back up my views. If I ever do any personal research on global temperature trends for the last ZILLION years... i'll let you know.

^^lmfao!!




Now...back to this "control" thing. You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview. You're wrong there... and there... oh... and there too. Now let's step back a little... yep.. you're still wrong!












Stove your wife is calling!

Not that a single person on these forums will read this, especially Toot, but here is an interesting write-up on Climate Control. It's an overview of the ongoing study of geoengineering and how this very well could be something humans start implementing in the future. It was written in 2007 and it's not a scientific paper but if nothing else it's a good overview of the factors affecting climate and the possible ways man could influence them.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/climate-control/1

I didnt get any further than this when I tried to read it and this was at the very top of the article..lol

Alaska's Muir Glacier pulled back 12 kilometers and thinned more than 800 meters between August 1941 and August 2004. The global average temperature increased about 0.1 °C per decade in that period.

And that looks like what they're basing their WHOLE hypothesis on. They magically get some crazy idea that "if we melt huge glaciers a little bit.. the global temperature will increase by 0.1 deg per decade and if we're too cold we can adjust our newly found thermostat" (Glaciers)...lmao!

Oh boy...I imagine they will be trying to steer away those hurrycanes and tornaders next

Toot wrote:I didnt get any further than this when I tried to read it and this was at the very top of the article..lol

Of course. You've shown pretty clearly that reading and comprehending are not two of your strong suits.

Stovepipe wrote:

Of course. You've shown pretty clearly that reading and comprehending are not two of your strong suits.

Oh yeah..I forgot that I am a "Dumb clown shoe wearing troll"...now I can add illiterate to that list. Thanks Stove

Toot wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:

Of course. You've shown pretty clearly that reading and comprehending are not two of your strong suits.

Oh yeah..I forgot that I am a "Dumb clown shoe wearing troll"...now I can add illiterate to that list. Thanks Stove

Well, you do have a tendency to lollerskate into this thread on random occasions looking to argue, seemingly just to provoke a reaction rather than engage in any meaningful discussion. That is the very definition of trolling. By all means, have at it.

Computer models provide the only means to bring together all of the interactions and feedback mechanisms to provide an answer. What scientists find is that they can account for the observed patterns of temperature change around the world only if they build in human carbon dioxide emissions--natural variations such as those of solar output, volcanism, and cosmic rays just don't do it. It is possible to find situations for which the greenhouse theory fails. But it succeeds far more than any competing theory and its success rate is only improving.

That is a deceitful statement. Yes, it matches with the period 1970-2000 but before and beyond that it does not match. Thus there is a good chance that the 1970-2000 period was a false positive. Not because the models didn't see the cool periods coming (like the one we are currently in) but they also underestimated the warming period 1910-1940. Why? Because the climate models are far too sensitive. As evidenced by the statement below...

If we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, water vapor becomes more abundant and amplifies the temperature increase that would result from the carbon dioxide alone. Indeed, somewhat more than half of any human-induced global warming comes from this and other feedback processes. (One critical difference between the effect of carbon dioxide and the effect of water vapor is that carbon dioxide lingers for decades to centuries in the atmosphere, but water vapor readily rains out when conditions change.)

Whats odd is that studies have been done to compare cities at the same latitude and elevation and what you find is the cities that have higher humidity have cooler temps.

Also the Muir Glacier pics have been used time and time again to show the impacts of global warming but why don't they show this image from the USGS?

Stovepipe wrote:

That is the very definition of trolling.

No..not really. A Troll is someone who posts inflammatory or off topic messages online with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

Sort of like this fishing post from you

Stovepipe wrote:Not that a single person on these forums will read this, especially Toot

No... you wasnt trying to get an emotional response from me now were you?...lol

snowdog wrote:Also the Muir Glacier pics have been used time and time again to show the impacts of global warming but why don't they show this image from the USGS?

I think it's fairly well known that Muir has been retreating for several centuries, so yes, if one is hoping to make a case for AGW then that isn't the best piece of evidence to hang their hat on.

Toot wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:

That is the very definition of trolling.

No..not really. A Troll is someone who posts inflammatory or off topic messages online with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.

Sort of like this fishing post from you

Stovepipe wrote:Not that a single person on these forums will read this, especially Toot

No... you wasnt trying to get an emotional response from me now were you?...lol

Well, you said:

Toot wrote:And no im not going to be copying and pasting someone elses words and graphs (your so called Science) that are normally skewed in one direction anyways.. to back up my views. If I ever do any personal research on global temperature trends for the last ZILLION years... i'll let you know.

So I assumed you weren't interested in reading any of this "so called science". I posted that article for the rest of the people that might be. And it turns out my statement was correct as you didn't bother to read past the very beginning.

I'd just like to say I did my homework last night and read the article.

Do I get a sticker?

We finally lured JC into this cluster fark of a thread. We should fight more often! Good post and I agree.

I avoided this thread for the simple fact that I’m not a scientist. I’ve not read up on the articles or studies done on this issue, like many here. Furthermore, I know it’s a hot button issue, and frankly, I have enough grief in my life at the moment, and just joined this place to discuss things I enjoy—like the weather. Even so, if I were to err on this subject, I would rather err on the side of caution. I don’t think it is possible that we can undo the effects of the industrial revolution, and it would be foolhardy to attempt such a thing. Like everyone else, I’m a selfish creature. I like my air conditioner, my refrigerator, and my car. And I don’t believe these things are bad on their own, and I'm also not of the view that everything we do brings doom and destruction. But I do believe some significant strides should be made at conservation and preservation. To say we have tried to conserve energy is a falsehood. We balk at simple attempts to replace incandescent light bulbs. And don’t get me started on the huge SUV’s riding the road getting 15-20 mpg.

And, yes, I do believe that we can harm the earth—because, we’ve already done it. Drive through eastern Kentucky and see the flat topped mountains from horizon to horizon. And those mountains will never look like they did before we came along. Unlike any other creature now on the planet, we can completely alter the landscape around us to suit our needs. Whole forests can be removed, and replaced with concrete, asphalt, and steel—literally changing life to lifelessness. I’ve already mentioned what occurred in the Great Plains—were we removed the native grasses, and tilled the soil to such an extent, that for a time, it looked like the our bread basket would turn into a desert. Fortunately, we saw the error of our ways, and thanks to help from above, were able to restore what we nearly lost. The plain and simple fact is, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The bigger the push, the bigger the push back. And we now can push the our environment to such an extent, that we have no clue what the reaction will be—simply because we have no computer model that can accurately tell us so. What should we do? To be honest, I don’t have a clue. And to be even more candid, I’m not sure we’d do it if we could, if it meant sacrificing some of our material things.

Lastly, I do believe that we are stewards of our planet. I think we should do our best to preserve what we have, so future generations can enjoy it. I believe we should conserve our resources, so our great grand-children won’t curse us for being so short-sighted and selfish. I don’t want greed, avarice, and materialism to be the only words used to describe my generation. It has already been called the ME generation—and I’m afraid that will be our final legacy.

Feel free to call me a clown, or a wacko environmentalist, or whatever. We’re all open to believe however we want—that’s what being free is all about. I respect everyone here, and their opinion, even if I have a different world view.

And now on to more urgent matters, like finding mom the perfect Mother’s day gift.

snowdog wrote:I'd just like to say I did my homework last night and read the article.

Do I get a sticker?

Hooooraayyy!

Snowdog, even though we obviously don't see eye to eye on much of this stuff I do appreciate that you actually put thought in to your posts. That's not to say that funny pictures and nonsense aren't great things too, but when discussing a topic such as this a little bit is critical thinking makes for a much better discussion.

And Toot, I'm not calling you illiterate or dumb or anything like that. I just think that if you really wanted to engage in this ongoing conversation you would take a minute and think about what you are responding to before arguing. But hey, that's just my take on it. That's the great thing about this place, people can say whatever they want to and no opinions will be squelched. You might get made fun of, but that's just part of the fun. I've done my share of missing the points along the way as well.

WxFreak wrote:

We finally lured JC into this cluster fark of a thread. We should fight more often! Good post and I agree.

I avoided this thread for the simple fact that I’m not a scientist. I’ve not read up on the articles or studies done on this issue, like many here. Furthermore, I know it’s a hot button issue, and frankly, I have enough grief in my life at the moment, and just joined this place to discuss things I enjoy—like the weather. Even so, if I were to err on this subject, I would rather err on the side of caution. I don’t think it is possible that we can undo the effects of the industrial revolution, and it would be foolhardy to attempt such a thing. Like everyone else, I’m a selfish creature. I like my air conditioner, my refrigerator, and my car. And I don’t believe these things are bad on their own, and I'm also not of the view that everything we do brings doom and destruction. But I do believe some significant strides should be made at conservation and preservation. To say we have tried to conserve energy is a falsehood. We balk at simple attempts to replace incandescent light bulbs. And don’t get me started on the huge SUV’s riding the road getting 15-20 mpg.

And, yes, I do believe that we can harm the earth—because, we’ve already done it. Drive through eastern Kentucky and see the flat topped mountains from horizon to horizon. And those mountains will never look like they did before we came along. Unlike any other creature now on the planet, we can completely alter the landscape around us to suit our needs. Whole forests can be removed, and replaced with concrete, asphalt, and steel—literally changing life to lifelessness. I’ve already mentioned what occurred in the Great Plains—were we removed the native grasses, and tilled the soil to such an extent, that for a time, it looked like the our bread basket would turn into a desert. Fortunately, we saw the error of our ways, and thanks to help from above, were able to restore what we nearly lost. The plain and simple fact is, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The bigger the push, the bigger the push back. And we now can push the our environment to such an extent, that we have no clue what the reaction will be—simply because we have no computer model that can accurately tell us so. What should we do? To be honest, I don’t have a clue. And to be even more candid, I’m not sure we’d do it if we could, if it meant sacrificing some of our material things.

Lastly, I do believe that we are stewards of our planet. I think we should do our best to preserve what we have, so future generations can enjoy it. I believe we should conserve our resources, so our great grand-children won’t curse us for being so short-sighted and selfish. I don’t want greed, avarice, and materialism to be the only words used to describe my generation. It has already been called the ME generation—and I’m afraid that will be our final legacy.

Feel free to call me a clown, or a wacko environmentalist, or whatever. We’re all open to believe however we want—that’s what being free is all about. I respect everyone here, and their opinion, even if I have a different world view.

And now on to more urgent matters, like finding mom the perfect Mother’s day gift.

Man I can't really disagree with anything you said, great post. We are focused on this one possible human influence but there are countless environmental problems that we shouldn't lose track of. Like you said, as stewards of this earth, we have a responsibility to not completely wreck it. I wish more people had your attitude.

WxFreak wrote:But I do believe some significant strides should be made at conservation and preservation. To say we have tried to conserve energy is a falsehood. We balk at simple attempts to replace incandescent light bulbs. And don’t get me started on the huge SUV’s riding the road getting 15-20 mpg.

I know you don't really want to get into it, but I thought I would clear up just one point a bit. I recently went and heard the TDOT commissioner speak (I'm a civil engineer by trade) and he made mention that one of the difficulties TDOT faces right now is the lost revenue from gas taxes. He said this was due to the efficiency of new cars along with better public transportation. So there has been a noticeable difference.

I'll also say the new HVAC units are far more efficient than older models. We added about 1500 sq. feet when we built our new house (vs our old house) and we basically heat and cool for the same price as we did our old house (it had a hvac unit that was built in the early 90's). Plus new homes are being built smarter with windows that are far more efficient as well.

I think we should do what we can to help lessen the impacts on our environment but we have to be somewhat realistic about it. A lot of the easy things we have done and implemented in this country and for the most part I'm ok with it. Now if we want to advance and keep going it is going to take a lot more thought and a lot more work to do it. To me we aren't ready to start doing the tougher bigger steps yet. The technology isn't quite there and in my mind the science hasn't proven that the risk is worth the reward.

Rebellion in the middle east will take care of a lot of our environmental harm for us. Oil, while it may go well below 100 a barrell and stay there, will always be expensive in real terms (if oil falls below 80, its because we're having another financial crisis, so its cheaper in dollar terms, but more expensive because we're all poorer)

What we do need to do is, locally, start thinking about how we can create urban communities that are based around public transportation and walking. Nashville is doing a very good job of this. We've actually got a really cool thing being built called "Bus Rapid Transit" that uses low emission hybrid buses with dedicated lanes, to mimic the aesthetic of commuter rail, without the cost.

http://nashvilleguru.com/3135/nashville-east-west-connector

Looks like a couple more AGW supporters are at least putting one leg out the train and thinking about jumping...

Full Article Here

In an interview on February 9, 2012, with the Austrian daily Die Presse, renowned climate scientist Prof. Mojib Latif confirmed 2 fundamental assumptions made in the book “Die kalte Sonne”. Latif thus openly agrees with the view of authors Vahrenholt and Lüning that natural climate factors are responsible for about half of the 0.8°C of warming since the start of industrialization in 1850. A similar 50/50 ratio of anthropogenic vs natural climate drivers is also assumed by Professor Nicola Scafetta of Duke University in North Carolina (see page 135 in the book) as well as by physicist Prof. Nir Shaviv of Jerusalem (see page 86) in their models.

Here Latif is clearly positioning himself in contradiction to the claims made by the IPCC, which pegged the natural climate factors as having an influence of only single digit percentages. The all important magnitude of the so-called radiative forcings are for CO2 (1.66 W/m²) and the sun (0.12 W/m²), and are thus worlds apart.

Moreover, Latif confirmed in the interview that the stop in global warming over the last 12 years was caused by ocean cycles. Authors Vahrenholt and Lüning have the very same opinion in their book. Anything else would be surprising as the book itself is in part based on Latif’s work. Interestingly, even climate scientist Prof. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg said in an interview yesterday with the TAZ daily that ocean cycles were the main reason for the stopped global warming since the year 2000. Thus the darling aerosol joker used by the IPCC is stripped of it’s importance.

snowdog wrote:Looks like a couple more AGW supporters are at least putting one leg out the train and thinking about jumping...

Full Article Here

In an interview on February 9, 2012, with the Austrian daily Die Presse, renowned climate scientist Prof. Mojib Latif confirmed 2 fundamental assumptions made in the book “Die kalte Sonne”. Latif thus openly agrees with the view of authors Vahrenholt and Lüning that natural climate factors are responsible for about half of the 0.8°C of warming since the start of industrialization in 1850. A similar 50/50 ratio of anthropogenic vs natural climate drivers is also assumed by Professor Nicola Scafetta of Duke University in North Carolina (see page 135 in the book) as well as by physicist Prof. Nir Shaviv of Jerusalem (see page 86) in their models.

Here Latif is clearly positioning himself in contradiction to the claims made by the IPCC, which pegged the natural climate factors as having an influence of only single digit percentages. The all important magnitude of the so-called radiative forcings are for CO2 (1.66 W/m²) and the sun (0.12 W/m²), and are thus worlds apart.

Moreover, Latif confirmed in the interview that the stop in global warming over the last 12 years was caused by ocean cycles. Authors Vahrenholt and Lüning have the very same opinion in their book. Anything else would be surprising as the book itself is in part based on Latif’s work. Interestingly, even climate scientist Prof. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg said in an interview yesterday with the TAZ daily that ocean cycles were the main reason for the stopped global warming since the year 2000. Thus the darling aerosol joker used by the IPCC is stripped of it’s importance.

I assume by ocean cycles, he means the PDO/AMO?

If the JMA and CFS are correct, and we get this crazy cold fall/winter this year, I can't imagine what will happen when the AMO goes into the cold phase as well.

Would love a repeat of the 1970s.

Fact is, if human civilization is meant to be here for a long time to come—non-renewable resources will eventually become so scarce that the cost to get it out of the ground will be far more than the reward for getting it. At that point, I believe all care for the environment will go out the window. Humanity will be simply trying to survive. I’m just glad I won’t be around to see the chaos that ensues when countries begin to war for what little remains. Political parties and agendas will be irrelevant (which would actually be a good thing). Unless we find other ways to feed our need for energy, or better conserve what we have, a complete collapse of what we call civilization is inevitable at some point in the future. The Dark Ages will look bright when we lose all ability to manufacture the medications that keep us alive and healthy today. Human population will crash. All the comforts that prosperous countries enjoy today will be a thing of the past. And that is my biggest peeve with a society that shrugs their shoulders at their responsibility to conserve vital resources—greed. Simply not caring what our over-indulgence today will cost those who come after us. IMO, loss of tax revenue , because we’ve made our cars more efficient, is a very small price to pay to attempt to consume less of something future generations will be desperate for.

And before anyone argues that we don’t over-consume, please explain why there is an epidemic of obesity plaguing the nation at the moment. Food is simply another form of energy being transferred from the earth to our gut. I’m not making fun of fat people—far from it. I’m just using a national problem to illustrate my point.

So, whether or not man-made global warming is real, if we don’t want to conserve today for the sake of less pollution, and not as many overflowing landfills (because in reality we consume far more than we really need—always wanting the newest and best from cars to I-Phones), we should at least make some sort of effort for our great-great grand-children, so they will have something left over to use. All I can say is, literally, God help them if we don’t.

WxFreak wrote:

And before anyone argues that we don’t over-consume, please explain why there is an epidemic of obesity plaguing the nation at the moment. Food is simply another form of energy being transferred from the earth to our gut. I’m not making fun of fat people—far from it. I’m just using a national problem to illustrate my point.

I just wanted to comment on this a little more, even though this part is off topic. While I'm not going to argue the over-consuming by some, it is my opinion that is not so much the quantity of food people are consuming but the quality of the food. So much of it is nutrient-devoid. Plain, white breads that are bleached and processed until they have to "enrich" it with vitamins. Which brings me to another point. Have you ever listened to those "nutritionists" on TV? They actually tell people that they don't need to take vitamins, because their food already has it in it? WTF? The sodium in foods are sky-high, fiber practically non-existent, fats and especially saturated fats are in crazy amounts. So, I don't think it's so much that we eat too much, but that what we do eat is just pure crap.


Sorry to get so off topic, but food is a topic that burns my ass.