Har Har Har Global warming crap

[Tero]

That would all need a formula to calculate. Or a lab study. I'm sure it's been done but it will be in ag science journal.

[mistermack]

Sorry Macdoc. Bit of a fail there.
This graph clearly shows that global warming happened before, from about nine thousand years ago to seven and a half thousand.
No manmade CO2 back then. No CFCs. And the final temperatures were only 0.2 of a degree hotter than today.

Seems macdoc can't even understand his own posts. Again.

[macdoc]

Your ignorance is hilarious....of course global warming has happened before - it's called Milankovich Cycles - and as the physics dictate the planet was slowly edging towards another ice age until we came along.

And changed the course in 300 years.....you're not that stupid that we hope that you actually want us to take your dunderhead comment seriously
We're well above the Holocene Optimum.....welcome to the Anthropocene.

[mistermack]

Your ignorance is hilarious....of course global warming has happened before - it's called Milankovich Cycles - and as the physics dictate the planet was slowly edging towards another ice age until we came along.

And changed the course in 300 years.....you're not that stupid that we hope that you actually want us to take your dunderhead comment seriously
We're well above the Holocene Optimum.....welcome to the Anthropocene.

You really need to do some reading. The Milankovich cycles DON'T explain the previous cycles. They are seriously at odds with the climate record in many places, and it's generally agreed that the tiny and gradual change in insolation couldn't possibly cause the climate swings that are evident.
That's why they invented all of the so-called feeback mechanisms, and doctored them to fit what they wanted them to fit.
However, none of it stands up to even the lightest scrutiny.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by '' until we came along ''.
I take that kind of thing as meaning '' till we substantially raised CO2 levels ''
Which began in earnest about 1950. Well, we weren't edging towards an ice-age before 1950. The graphs that you and others have posted all show substantial warming for about 80 years before that. You've never addressed that fact.
Why not I wonder? Is it because you HAVE no answer?

If you do, please, take this opportunity to enlighten me as to what led to the warming, up to 1950?
And why claim that we had been slipping into an ice-age, when the earth had been warming?

[macdoc]

They began when the industrial age began some 300 years ago not in the 1950 - they accelerated as both population and industrial activity accelerated.



You haven't a clue about M cycles....either read the science or continue to look foolish.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... ediate.htm

C02 in that case is a feedback not a driver.
NOW it's a primary driver offsetting the M cycle cooling as we have altered the carbon cycle by putting sequestered fossil carbon back into the atmosphere.

The record is very clear about the gradual drift towards cooler after the Holocene optimum and we reversed it by mining and burning fossil carbon. How much fucking simpler could it get.
The physics of AGW are correct
The temperature record supports it from a myriad of different fields.

you are wrong...move on.

Meanwhile the consequences unfold...

Heatwave and wildfires worsened Colorado flooding

* 18:49 17 September 2013 by Alyssa A. Botelho
* For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

A truly ferocious and exceptional event. That is how Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, describes the storm that pummelled his state last week.

"This was a once-in-1000-year rainfall," he says, meaning that the storm was of such an intensity and duration that it had a 1-in-1000 chance of occurring in any given year in Colorado.

The rains and subsequent floods have so far killed eight people, displaced 11,750 and destroyed close to 18,000 homes. The city of Boulder received a year's rainfall in less than a week, says Daniel Leszcynski at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That huge volume was due in part to a lingering heatwave that for months blocked tropical moisture from the Gulf of Mexico from reaching the Rocky Mountains, he says. When that heatwave began to move east last week, weak winds allowed the growing storm system to sit above the Colorado peaks for days.
Fire and flood

Once that deluge hit the ground, more trouble awaited. Because of Colorado's mountainous terrain, the region is flood-prone anyway but recent wildfires exacerbated things near Boulder and Fort Collins, two areas hardest hit by floodwaters. The fires had cleared land of vegetation that would normally absorb rainwater, says Trenberth.

Urban areas were also hit hard because of their abundance of impenetrable surfaces, says Matthew Kelsch from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Cities have drainage systems designed to move water off streets and into streams as quickly as possible," he says.

Though natural disasters are difficult to attribute to climate change, Trenberth says that the 1 ˚C rise in ocean temperature since the 1970s accounts for 5 per cent more moisture in today's atmosphere. That's enough to invigorate already powerful storms such as last week's, he says. "There's natural variability to these events, but maybe there was a little more rain because of climate change," he says. "With weather, small differences can actually result in big effects in terms of damage done."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... oding.html

[mistermack]

God, you talk about looking foolish, but you just demonstrate complete ignorance.
The whole tenet of AGW is warming in response to CO2 levels, so all that crap about industrial activity is totally irrelevant.
You don't have the slightest understanding of the stuff you are posting. It's funny.

The ONLY relevant thing is the CO2 level in the atmosphere, and that didn't take off till 1950. You clearly have no answer to that, hence all the bullshit. But you're not alone. Hence all the bullshit from '' climate science '' about feedback mechanisms, because they KNOW that the facts don't support their case. So they insert feedback to make it hotter, feedback to make it colder, wherever it went hotter and colder in the past. Magic.

[Tero]

We've been burning shit for a couple hundred years now. Coal.

You forgot tomention "your grandna." Well, your grandma burned stuff to keep warm.

[Tero]

http://also.kottke.org/misc/images/11000-years-temp.gif

Sorry Macdoc. Bit of a fail there.
This graph clearly shows that global warming happened before, from about nine thousand years ago to seven and a half thousand.
No manmade CO2 back then. No CFCs. And the final temperatures were only 0.2 of a degree hotter than today.

Seems macdoc can't even understand his own posts. Again.

Has anyone claimed global warming did not happen numerous times? The red part of that graph shown the RATE of warming is unlike any in the past few thousand years. The range of temperature change is about 10C, but even 3C is a drastic change on the life on the planet.

[mistermack]

Has anyone claimed global warming did not happen numerous times? The red part of that graph shown the RATE of warming is unlike any in the past few thousand years. The range of temperature change is about 10C, but even 3C is a drastic change on the life on the planet.

Yes, the graph gives the IMPRESSION that today's warming is far more rapid than any before.
But there's a fundamental difference. The temperatures for the last few hundred years are MEASUREMENTS.
Those for the earlier warming are inferred temperatures, worked out from various clues.

The rises could have been just as sudden nine thousand years ago. You wouldn't be able to tell, because the age of the climate clues average it all out.
Instead of a steady warming over a thousand years, you could have had multiple episodes of violent warming and rapid cooling, which could not be detected now, except as an overall trend.

[Tero]

So it's back to grandma.

Sorry about your inability to read graphs, but it's very common. More than half the population has no idea about graphs. That is why USA Today uses bar graphs: here us this big bar, here is a smaller one.

[mistermack]

So it's back to grandma.

Sorry about your inability to read graphs, but it's very common. More than half the population has no idea about graphs. That is why USA Today uses bar graphs: here us this big bar, here is a smaller one.

That post makes no sense, gives no argument, and provides no evidence.

You're beginning to convince me.

[mistermack]

Going back to my original post on this thread, the Arctic sea-ice is now at it's minimum extent for the year.
Here is the latest extent :


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

My OP was about the ludicrous claims that are regularly made by the media about the speed and extent of warming.
To recap, the BBC documentary, broadcast on BBC4 called the Arctic.
I originally thought that it was made a few years ago, because they had just said that " some models project that the arctic will be COMPLETELY CLEAR OF ICE IN THE SUMMERS BY 2013 !!!!
I checked, and found that it was first broadcast in 2008, just five years ago.

So that's the type of claim they felt justified in making, only five years ago. And what is the reality, today?
The minimum for this year is TWO MILLION square miles of ice. Which has actually grown from last years level.

So it's not disputing that the ice levels are down on long-term levels, That's a fact, and it's not surprising for many reasons.
It's about how much bollocks we have constantly been fed by the media.

[Tero]

BBC claims of 2013 are not "science." It's journalism. It sells news.

Nowhere in this thread have you demonstrated that you understand the things you are attempting to refute. Such as the title of the thread.

Pretty much every statement you made is "why are there still monkeys" level of misunderstanding.

I did not start the thread so I do not need to lecture or prove. You need proof that the 2013 ice has some meaning.

[Tero]

For those still reading the thread, here is the NASA posting on the 2013 sea ice
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arc ... ard-trend/

For the record, I never made any "the sky is falling" predictions. But it's pretty stupid to deny science that is very well explained and whose predictions have a large margin of error, indicated on most graphs.

[mistermack]

For those still reading the thread, here is the NASA posting on the 2013 sea ice
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arc ... ard-trend/

For the record, I never made any "the sky is falling" predictions. But it's pretty stupid to deny science that is very well explained and whose predictions have a large margin of error, indicated on most graphs.

That nasa page is in line with what was in my post.
What it DOESN'T say, is that ANTARCTIC sea ice has been increasing, and is at a long-term record extent.
So apparently, global warming isn't actually global.

As ice extent approaches its summer minimum in the Arctic, the winter maximum is near for Antarctica. This year, as was the case in 2012, Antarctic sea ice extent is very high. As of September 16, the current extent is 19.45 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles), a record for this date with respect to the 1979 to 2012 satellite era. This is about 3.9% above the average maximum extent for the 30-year comparison period 1981 to 2010. In contrast, this year’s Arctic summer minimum ice extent is approximately 30% below the 30-year period average, and the 2012 record low extent was nearly 60% below the average. This helps to highlight why scientists are more concerned by Arctic ice shrinkage than by Antarctic ice expansion.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/