Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Kudos to you F8L, for the civil discourse. I won't compliment you for continuing the discussion though, which I consider a waste of time and frankly counter-productive at this point. Take a step back, and consider the larger political stratagem of denialists: the first two decades they screamed GW was a lie; the last decade they screamed that it could not be human induced; now they accept the hypothesis worthy of study, so long as the study never ends because they are not YET convinced. F them.

I am not a violent person, so I simply ignore denialists. If I were the more active type I would smash their knee caps if they even hinted at attempting to impede progress in tackling AGW. It actually took climategate for me to realize that I have joined the ranks of those scientists who are willing to shut disinformation and propaganda up.

I was in Boston with my daughter a couple of months ago, and visited Fanueil (sp?) Hall, a fascinating place and the birthplace of american democracy. No doubt the attendees yelled and argued with each other passionately, but I'm willing to bet that Tories were not invited -- to put a gentle phrase on the reality.

 

Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site

140 climate scientists challenge the U. N. to provide proof for its claims.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

 

More data that denialists won't believe or rationalize:

A picture that’s worth a thousand stolen emails (Paul Krugman)



"Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment."

<global climate statement 2009>

 

Who are the denialists now? Ignorance abounds. I too, am relieved that you are not active, but I do not agree that you are not violent. Your thoughts betray you.

 

I understand my friend. I was really getting tired of the same old crap being posted over an over again by new members (an endless cycle) but I also came to realize that in some cases the replies caused me to think more and in cases like Tim's I had to research to ensure I was either correct in my assumption or to obtain the citations I needed. That is a good thing, for me anyway. I like to learn and despite feeling like I'm talking to a wall (only some of the members who are now on ignore) I am still getting something useful out of this. I can reasonably assume the anti-AGW crowd in here feels much like we do due to their worldview and opinions. So there is no need for me to continue bashing them just because we don't agree on something. So the total idiots though a little bashing can be fun. *evil grin* I know I'm bad for that.

-Back on topic -

Can radioprius or Tim explain the current heat budget and where the extra incoming energy (heat) is going since we know it is not leaving the atmosphere?

I'm referring specifically to studies that show a reduction in outgoing longwave radiation in the specific bands that correspond to CO2 and methane.
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data
between 1970 and present

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006

 

A.L.R.I.C., nothing in that copy-paste was new. Thank you for posting a graph that starts in 1850 showing us coming out of the LIA, and a graph that is cut off at the year 2000, hiding our decline (ha) in temperature for the last 9 years.

 

Resorting to violence solves nothing. The proper way to discuss things is to present and analyze the evidence. It's not to resort to violence. Resorting to violence is done by the party who has ran out of facts.

 

I strongly disagree. The average person knows nothing about climate, weather, or the history of the earth. If they didn't take courses specific for that in college most people wouldn't have a clue.

The GISS data supports an 8 year cooling trend. See my attached graph. I suspect it's data was a little more influenced by the El Nino than Hadley's data. So Hadley supports a 9 year cooling trend, and GISS an 8 year.

These are all just ideas. They can't quantify that CO2 drops caused X amount of cooling, and solar minimums may have caused X amount of cooling, etc. It's all just guesses and ideas. The science, as we both agree, is not settled.

Agree. But, I was not trying to disprove AGW with a single graph. I'm merely showing that we are experiencing a cooling trend. This is despite all the hype that we are in the middle of the warmest decade since we've come out of the LIA.

A brief analogy, if you accelerate over the speed limit and let off the gas, you are still speeding, despite the fact you are decelerating.

Sorry I have to be so brief, my fiance wants me to go exercise. I really am a fat tittied zilch.

 

I'm referring to people in this thread which I assume are comprised of a higher educational background than the average Joe Plumber.

I could post graphs with very short time spans and try to prove cooling or warming but that is useless. You are getting dangerously close to weather and not climate at those short timespans. So again, an 8yr period doesn't tell us anything. Lag periods and global adjustments are still reacting to inputs and outputs.

Do not belittle science in such a way. Many of these are quantifiable and fall well within the realm of the laws and theories of physics, physical geography and chemistry. Just because we can't create an earth system in the lab doesn't mean all of the science behind AGW is moot.
[/QUOTE]

 

You don't get it -- I have no more desire to discuss with you whether AGW is true, than if the Earth is flat.

Violence begets violence. Every day that AGW is not confronted will lead to more misery, more starvation, more death, more limited resource wars. You, and people like you, are accumulating future blood on your hands.

 

Regardless of the facts. True Believer all the way. Impressive!

Not ONE of the following statements is corroborated by empirical evidence, not one.

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

 

Ah, I thought we were talking about all the "warmest decade ever" stuff in the media being advertised to the general public. If I was wrong or if there was a misunderstanding I apologize.

Sensationalist nonsense.

 

Global warming is not stoppable even if it is occuring. Anthropogenic? No! Anthropocentric? Yes!

The earth cycles warm and cool like the seats in your Prius 5. Unlike your seats the earth has no on/off button.

 

I only have a Prius II

 

I don't recall anyone linking to all the emails and other documents from CRU.

This is a searchable database.

East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - Searchable

I doubt if all the damning revelations have been discovered. Maybe someone here will find an interesting tidbit?

 

Big Brother is hot on my tail. Note the edit on post #275.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=972&filename=1241415427.txt

Al Gore is under the impression that the last email was from 10 years ago. Anyone accessing the database above or clicking the above link can learn differently. The emails discuss scientific fraud. These are facts. THis is not a political comment.

 

I wanted to talk more about this.

If solar minimums contribute to cooling, then solar maximums have to contribute to warming.

The Maunder Minimum is a period of time when sunspots became exceedingly rare. This means a decrease in the solar irradiance. The Maunder Minimum coincides with the coolest period in the LIA. So, if we have increased numbers of sunspots, then we know that solar irradiance would increase. If a decrease in solar irradiance contributes to cooling the earth, then an increase in solar irradiance would contribute to warming the earth.

So we must look to see if we have an increasing number of sunspots in periods of time that coincide (or slightly precede, due to lag) with warming.

The image below is a graph you posted. It shows a maximum of sunspots during periods we experience warming. (In the interest of being fair, it also shows increasing sunspots when we experienced a vast period of cooling - 1934-1980)



Also consider these:



And (the next image has a reverse x axis)



These graphs all show an increase in the number of sunspots since the LIA. These coincide with the steady increase in temperature since the LIA.

My point is that we if we contribute natural factors to the cooling of the earth, we must contribute natural factors to the warming of the earth. No, this does not rule out CO2 as a contributor, but it shows that CO2 is not the only reason we have increasing temperatures.

With everything I see now, and the more I keep finding out, I can not arrive at any other conclusion and political outlook than this: "The earth undergoes natural changes over periods of time. CO2 may contribute some to warming, but its effects are minimal. We should invest in alternative energy but not pass legislation on CO2 production."

The science is not settled.

 

OOPS! "A Prius 5"

 

What an coincidence. I just came across this posting:

Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' - Telegraph

In no way am I saying the warming that we are experiencing is due to wholly to the sun, but I think we can all agree that it is indeed a contributor.