BBC: Globe Not Warming, Maybe Cooling

[questionmark]

any thoughts?

Ehm...yes...if there is no warming why are all glaciers and polar caps melting?

Why do we believe NASA when they tell us that to warm up Mars one needs to blow CO₂ into its atmosphere (does it somehow work in any other way there?)

Why do the ice core studies show that the warming model correlates to the actual CO₂ content of the atmosphere?

Why do these "climate change is all bunk" stories always appear about 3 months before the next climate change conference?

[preacherman76]

That simply shows you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

1998 is an anomalously hot year, with or with out it though the trend is still increasing heat and as has been shown 2006 is the hottest year globally. No one expects to see a steady straight increase, it is a trend increase that is expected and what we are seeing.

Once again you stand on the side of folks who stand to make a fortune in myths, While I stand on the side of common sence. There are LOTS of scientists who disagree with global warming. I guess they dont know what the hell they are talking about either right? You say the hottest year ever on this earth was 2006, but this earth has been here for billions of years. We have been recording earth temps for how long? 200 years at most? Let me guess, you think its a good idea to destroy the American economy and throw us all into poverty to "save the planet".

[ExpandMyMind]

Ehm...yes...if there is no warming why are all glaciers and polar caps melting?

Why do we believe NASA when they tell us that to warm up Mars one needs to blow CO₂ into its atmosphere (does it somehow work in any other way there?)

Why do the ice core studies show that the warming model correlates to the actual CO₂ content of the atmosphere?

Why do these "climate change is all bunk" stories always appear about 3 months before the next climate change conference?

i've not spent nearly enough time researching this to go into passionate debate (as i would like to do), so unfortunately i'm not able to reply to all of your post. but i'll give a couple of points a go.

all polar caps are melting? antartica is getting cooler, bar the tiny (in comparison to the rest) penninsula.

all glaciers are melting? what about the glaciers in norway? leaving norway aside, how can we know this is true when scientists aren't even able to monitor all glaciers? and of those that we can monitor, there are very few that we have any long term data on. if you look at an example of this, with Mt. Kilimanjaro, of which there is long term data, the data shows that it has been reducing for the past 100 years!

it is true though that 90% of the glaciers that we can monitor do seem to be reducing in size. but as it is with many aspects of global warming, we just don't have enough data to come to a true 'scientific' (by science's own definition) conclusion as to whether this is just part of a bigger, so far unknown, trend

you mention the warming model. did the warming model happen to pick up the lackluster decade we've just had? does it predict the now expected cooling trend we have been told we could expect? the problem with models is that they're just that - models. pure theory.

about C02. of the estimated 5000 active volcanoes underwater that are constantly spewing CO2 from the earth's core, how many are closely monitored? and what about unknown active volcanoes?

now, i'm not a science guy or anything, but i do expect to be bedazzled with almighty graphs and statistics that i'm pretty sure for every one shown, there exists a 'skeptic' scientist who could produce data to counter. otherwise there would be no scientists who were skeptical of this theory. and therein lies the problem. as i stated before. for almost every aspect of the theory of global warming, we have nowhere near enough data or knowledge to make a scientific conclusion, at this moment in time... by science's own standards.

Edited October 12, 2009 by expandmymind

[itsnotoutthere]

Ehm...yes...if there is no warming why are all glaciers and polar caps melting?

Why do we believe NASA when they tell us that to warm up Mars one needs to blow CO₂ into its atmosphere (does it somehow work in any other way there?)

Why do the ice core studies show that the warming model correlates to the actual CO₂ content of the atmosphere?

Why do these "climate change is all bunk" stories always appear about 3 months before the next climate change conference?

You mean those conferences that thousands of 'enviromental delegates' go to after hopping on jet liners to places like Hawaii & Barbados.

[questionmark]

You mean those conferences that thousands of 'enviromental delegates' go to after hopping on jet liners to places like Hawaii & Barbados.

No, I mean the successor of Kyoto, to be negotiated in December in Denmark.

[questionmark]

all glaciers are melting? what about the glaciers in norway? .

http://www.physorg.com/news63617437.html

[stevewinn]

Ehm...yes...if there is no warming why are all glaciers and polar caps melting?

Q, as you will be aware but fail to mention. it is actually more common for earth to have no ice caps at all. meaning it is uncommon to have ice caps.

The earth warms the earth cools. nothing new, been going on since the dawn of time, why do you want to stop it now, and why do you think you can stop it?

Why do we believe NASA when they tell us that to warm up Mars one needs to blow CO₂ into its atmosphere (does it somehow work in any other way there?)

You would think with Mars having 95% CO2 in its atmosphere compared to 0.0383% here on Earth, you would think Mars would already be a hot house.

Why do the ice core studies show that the warming model correlates to the actual CO₂ content of the atmosphere?

Why do these "climate change is all bunk" stories always appear about 3 months before the next climate change conference?

[questionmark]

You would think with Mars having 95% CO2 in its atmosphere compared to 0.0383% here on Earth, you would think Mars would already be a hot house.

ehm...yes...but did you miss this part when you looked up the CO₂ content of Mars:

Terraforming Mars would entail two major interlaced changes: building up the atmosphere and keeping it warm. The atmosphere of Mars is relatively thin and thus has a very low surface pressure of 0.6 kPa, compared to Earth's 101.3 kPa. The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide (CO2), 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and contains only traces of oxygen, water, and methane. Since its atmosphere consists mainly of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, once the planet begins to heat, more CO2 enters the atmosphere from the frozen reserves on the poles, adding to the greenhouse effect. This means that the two processes of building the atmosphere and heating it would augment one another, favoring terraforming. However, on a large scale, controlled application of certain techniques (explained below) over enough time to achieve sustainable changes would be required to make this theory a reality.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070915152013/http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfm

[ExpandMyMind]

http://www.physorg.com/news63617437.html

that is a prediction that they could melt in the next 100 years if there is a 2.5 degree incease in temperature. something tells me this 'science' is using the theory of global warming to predict certain outcomes. personally, to me, it looks like a scare tactic. especially when you consider what how effective such a tactic would be in a country that relies heavily upon their glaciers.

but as far as i know, right now the glaciers aren't decreasing in size. i know for sure that very recently they were increasing in size.

even if it's true. greenland's getting cooler and their glaciers are slightly increasing and there are others, too, i could have used as an example.

Edited October 12, 2009 by expandmymind

[Pseudo Intellectual]

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/01/uk-glaciologists-greenlands-glaciers.html

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html

[questionmark]

that is a prediction that they could melt in the next 100 years if there is a 2.5 degree incease in temperature. something tells me this 'science' is using the theory of global warming to predict certain outcomes. personally, to me, it looks like a scare tactic.

but as far as i know, right now the glaciers aren't decreasing in size. i know for sure that very recently they were increasing in size.

even if it's true. greenland's getting cooler and their glaciers are slightly increasing and there are others too i could have used as an example.

Yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

http://glaciology.suite101.com/article.cfm/shrinking_glaciers

http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/global_change/switzerland.php

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-effects-of-melting-ice-glaciers.html

http://www.igsoc.org/annals/50/50/t50A011.pdf

http://www.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/risknat/projets/climchalp_wp5/pages/etudes/paul_2004.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/

and yes, considering that the Gulf Stream is weakening one would expect Greenland, Iceland and Scotland to get colder, in fact as cold as the Russian Tundra or the Western Canadian provinces. But that is due to the seawater temperature rise disrupting the natural water circulation.

The underlying problem is still a temperature increase. Both in increasing the ice in Greenland as melting it in Switzerland...or Patagonia for the case.

[ExpandMyMind]

this is what i mean and it's why these global warming debates become so pointless. for every bit of info i give you, and vice versa, there is info out there that could counter the first argument. tit for tat.

do you think we have enough info to take the theory as scientific fact? if you had to hold yourself to the same standards that, say, rocket science does?

in my opinion. no chance. there are far too many unknowns.

[questionmark]

do you think we have enough info to take the theory as scientific fact? if you had to hold yourself to the same standards that, say, rocket science does?

in my opinion. no chance. there are far too many unknowns.

Absolutely, the Vostok ice core analysis, that can trace the wold's climate for at least 10.000 years shows a correlation of CO₂ and temperature. It also has circumstantial evidence, like the little ice age following the plague pandemic at the end of the middle ages, with considerably less CO₂ in the atmosphere.

There are unknowns? Yes, but it does not take away the evidence we already have, and that evidence is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the more it is in the atmosphere, the more the planet heats up.

Edited October 12, 2009 by questionmark

[ExpandMyMind]

well i'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this subject Q.

the sad thing is that none of us alive now and debating will ever live to see the outcome.

[acidhead]

well i'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this subject Q.

the sad thing is that none of us alive now and debating will ever live to see the outcome.

AGW could be the last chapter of the bible... an easy comparison to a new religion for atheists... it holds all the characteristics of faith based ideology.

***********

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

---Michael Creighton

Edited October 12, 2009 by acidhead

[Startraveler]

Let me guess, you think its a good idea to destroy the American economy and throw us all into poverty to "save the planet".

From CBO's report last month on the effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), if implemented, would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ percent to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest. In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP. Projected GDP impacts include declines in investment, which only gradually translate into reduced household consumption. Also, the effect on households’ well-being of the reduction in output as measured by GDP (which reflects the market value of goods and services) would be offset in part by the effect of more time spent in nonmarket activities, such as childrearing, caring for the home, and leisure. Moreover, these measures of potential costs imposed by the policy do not include any benefits of averting climate change.

That's your idea of destroying the economy?

You would think with Mars having 95% CO2 in its atmosphere compared to 0.0383% here on Earth, you would think Mars would already be a hot house.

The thinking is so muddled here sometimes that I often can't tell what it is that people are arguing. Are you now questioning the effect a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide has on a planet's energy balance?

this is what i mean and it's why these global warming debates become so pointless. for every bit of info i give you, and vice versa, there is info out there that could counter the first argument. tit for tat.

That's more an artifact of having a scientific debate between groups of people that don't actually have a handle on the underlying science than anything else. You could do this for any subject in the physical sciences, provided some proportion of the debaters have more exposure to Google than a relevant science class.

[Caesar]

Such as?

I only ask because 35 degrees is a HUGE number.

Unbeliveable infact.

My friend in Colorado told me about it. he said that its normal was about 70 and it snowed out this weekend

source

[preacherman76]

Temperature is soaring here, worst drought in ages, worst bushfire season in ages this year. My anecdotal evidence trumps yours.

Not really, we just had the coolest summer I can remember. We hit 90 like 3 times the whole damn summer. We are well below temp average and have been for awhile.

[Caesar]

Not really, we just had the coolest summer I can remember. We hit 90 like 3 times the whole damn summer. We are well below temp average and have been for awhile.

This trend has been in most parts of North America. New England had a very short summer.

[Admiral Danger]

its doing both you fools!!!

sometimes the average tempurature is higher, sometimes its lower.

[acidhead]

This trend has been in most parts of North America. New England had a very short summer.

Same here in Victoria, BC Canada.... summer was short... one warm period ....

Today woke up to the first -1 degree celsius morning..(first frost)

[preacherman76]

From CBO's report last month on the effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), if implemented, would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ percent to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest. In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP. Projected GDP impacts include declines in investment, which only gradually translate into reduced household consumption. Also, the effect on households’ well-being of the reduction in output as measured by GDP (which reflects the market value of goods and services) would be offset in part by the effect of more time spent in nonmarket activities, such as childrearing, caring for the home, and leisure. Moreover, these measures of potential costs imposed by the policy do not include any benefits of averting climate change.

That's your idea of destroying the economy?

Maybe the CBO should listen to the direct words of our president, who said and I quote " cap and trade will SKYROCKET the cost of energy". THATS what I call destroying the economy. Maybe they should listen to him even further when he said he wanted to "BANKRUPT the coal industry", which represents HALF of our energy consumption. Listen to your own boy star, he WANTS to destroy the economy. The cap and trade bill which was rushed through in the middle of the night with out a single member of congress having read it, calls people who houses are not up to par trespasser's, in thier own homes. Forcing people to be homeless will also help to destroying the economy. And you already know damn well everything Im saying here. So for you to back this crap, mmm never mind.

Edited October 12, 2009 by preacherman76

[Engulf]

Absolutely, the Vostok ice core analysis, that can trace the wold's climate for at least 10.000 years shows a correlation of CO₂ and temperature. It also has circumstantial evidence, like the little ice age following the plague pandemic at the end of the middle ages, with considerably less CO₂ in the atmosphere.

There are unknowns? Yes, but it does not take away the evidence we already have, and that evidence is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the more it is in the atmosphere, the more the planet heats up.

First of all, in terms of correlation analysis, it really depends on how far your scope is while analysing the climate graphs. If you take the past 100 years, or more specifically since the advent of modern industrialization during the early 1900s up till 1990 for instance, the CO2 graph does NOT correlate with the temperature graph. While CO2 was being thrown into the atmosphere in huge quantities during 1930s-1950s, the mean temperature has been decreasing with that increase in CO2. Since then, the temperature has been oscillating up and down slightly before taking a serious plunge during the 1960s-1980s period (which was associated with global cooling instead of warming). I've worked with climate records for a number of weather station data during that period last year, so I understand where the news headlines were going during the 1970s.

As for your explanation that CO2 is a GHG agent and increase in that would bring about a warmer planet is at the very least premature. How do we really know how much does it take to start a serious warming trend of the planet? How come the increase does not correlate with the upper tropospheric analysis made by satellites that the mean tropopause line should be increasing in elevation because of the warming? More importantly, in comparison with a similar warming trend in our history (Medieval Warming Period where temperatures were higher than what we have today, but we have too little microscopic data for analysis yet), how significant is our contribution to the CO2 scenario? Why does the planet seem to cool when there is a huge amount of CO2 being discharge into the atmosphere? How do you tie that in with the oscillation of the planet's mean temperature trend for the past 100 years? 200 years? 500 years? What about 5,000 years? There are just too many unsolved questions to conclude that global warming is real.

It depends on how you see the material as evidence. If you take a 5 year observation period where it shows an increasing temperature trend does not lead to a global warming conclusion. What about 50 years? It sure is fairer now, but how fair is it? Did we have the appropriate technology or methods to deduce a global warming claim?

In my humble opinion, global warming is a statistical mess-up, where everybody is using all kinds of data input and wishful programming to conjure a runaway warming scenario. I'm against people polluting the atmosphere or depleting forests for greedy purposes, but based on my background on atmospheric science, I don't buy this while it's being served on a plate for me.

[Caesar]

Same here in Victoria, BC Canada.... summer was short... one warm period ....

Today woke up to the first -1 degree celsius morning..(first frost)

Yeah I bet, that Canadian cold front eh

This trend has been going on for the last four years with this year being one of the coldest. many Americans don't buy into this man made global warming for this reason I believe. how can people make this claim when it seems to be getting cooler. I don't think many here in America would be happy if they had to pay higher energy prices and higher electric bills for this cap and trade. this will backfire.

[Startraveler]

Maybe the CBO should listen to the direct words of our president

Yeah, if only the independent analysts listened to politicians more instead of describing the economic effects things would actually have.

A bill exists. A team of policy analysts has quantified the likely economic effects of that bill. They don't match your doom-and-gloom outlook (and that's without the analysis taking into account any possible benefit of the legislation).

The cap and trade bill which was rushed through in the midle of the night with out a single member of congress having read it

Waxman-Markey was introduced on May 15 (an earlier discussion draft had been available since the end of March). The floor vote was on June 26. Anyone who didn't read it didn't want to. It's that simple.

And you already know damn well everything Im saying here. So for you to back this crap, mmm never mind.

You're wrong. Nothing that's been proposed "destroys the economy." The fact that you think the opposite isn't particularly relevant in the world of facts.