October - 3rd coldest on record for nation

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Remember Koko... you're trying to reverse the thinking that have been existence since 1960s... if not earlier.

And you can thanks your own Republican Nixon for starting the political trend.

 

[kokonut]

When IPCC says, "caused by humans with 95% confidence" then no unequivocal proof exists.

You on the other hand sound like it's 100%!

Problem is what they are saying is correlation proves causation, then that's bad science to even suggest that.

Secondly, about that "95% confidence" becomes ludicrous because the question again goes back to the Medieval warm period as being warmer back then than it is today. How can you have or even justify that "95% confidence" interval?

 

[kokonut]

Remember Koko... you're trying to reverse the thinking that have been existence since 1960s... if not earlier.

And you can thanks your own Republican Nixon for starting the political trend.

Let's not babble.

 

[Jiro]

Less Talk, More Action.

the more you babble, the less your credibility is. you wanna end it and silence those disbelievers? show them the proof that they demand for

 

[netrox]

Problem is what they are saying is correlation proves causation, then that's bad science to even suggest that.

Secondly, about that "95% confidence" becomes ludicrous because the question again goes back to the Medieval warm period as being warmer back then than it is today. How can you have or even justify that "95% confidence" interval?

Are you 95% confident that the Medieval warming period ACTUALLY happened?

 

[kokonut]

Are you 95% confident that the Medieval warming period ACTUALLY happened?

100% confident. It actually happened over a period of 300 years. Historical, archaelogical, and biological examples and evidences so numerous they point to a very warm Medieval period from 1000 to 1300 AD.And that temps were estimated as high as 4 degrees Celsius warmer than today. Crops cultivated were done further north in Europe. Tree lines in the Alps were found to have grown 2000 meters higher than today's tree line elevation. Vikings were able to live on Greenland and even grow crops there before the cold climate returned and they had to abandoned their established settlements (this is true in northern parts of Norway). Grapes were grown for wine as far north as southern Norway. Citrus fruits were grown much further north in Asia than today. All points to a very warm period of time. All documented. The list goes on.

Be sure to check out the references.
Beispiellose Erwärmung oder beispiellose Datenmanipulation? - Science Skeptical Blog

 

[Jiro]

Be sure to check out the references.
Beispiellose Erwärmung oder beispiellose Datenmanipulation? - Science Skeptical Blog

you speak German? anybody in here can read German?

 

[kokonut]

Now, if you want to talk about correlation then tell me which of the two graphs show a better corrlelation with global temperature change on Earth.

Picture graphs of correlation of Arctic Temperatures With Solar Irradiance (left) and CO2 (right).

This is from a 2005 study of the effects of solar irradiance on Arctic temperatures (Soon, W.H., "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005 ( http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf ) where you can see that there is a much stronger correlation between temperatures and solar irradiance than with increasing CO2 concentration over time.

Now, there are studies that show the same thing in the lower latitudes as well and elsewhere. I can get that to next but look what I have now. If you are going to go by correlation alone to justify your position, Netrox, then certainly you'd be choosing the wrong one here. First off, the effects we know is directly coming from the sun and not from Earth to sun since it'd be ridiculous to say that increasing temperature on Earth caused the Sun to increase it's irradiance. You, however, cannot say the same thing about the CO2 and increase in temperature because it's either temperature went up and then CO2 followed, or that CO2 went up and then temperature followed which would imply some sort of causality here.

Make up your mind.

Addendum: Corrected the link to the paper since you have to be a member to enter AGU to see the full article. But Harvard has a copy of it.

 

[Jiro]

Now, if you want to talk about correlation then tell me which of the two graphs show a better corrlelation with global temperature change on Earth.

Picture graphs of correlation of Arctic Temperatures With Solar Irradiance (left) and CO2 (right).

This is from a 2005 study of the effects of solar irradiance on Arctic temperatures (Soon, W.H., "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005 [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml] where you can see that there is a much stronger correlation between temperatures and solar irradiance than with increasing CO2 concentration over time.

Now, there are studies that show the same thing in the lower latitudes as well and elsewhere. I can get that to next but look what I have now. If you are going to go by correlation alone to justify your position, Netrox, then certainly you'd be choosing the wrong one here. First off, the effects we know is directly coming from the sun and not from Earth to sun since it'd be ridiculous to say that increasing temperature on Earth caused the Sun to increase it's irradiance. You, however, cannot say the same thing about the CO2 and increase in temperature because it's either temperature went up and then CO2 followed, or that CO2 went up and then temperature followed which would imply some sort of causality here.

Make up your mind.

huh? using an abstract as your source? no wonder these people are not convinced :roll:

 

[kokonut]

I forgot. I guess some here aren't as tech/internet savvy as I thought.

Use the Google translator if you can't understand German.

Google Translate

 

[kokonut]

Now, if you want to talk about correlation then tell me which of the two graphs show a better corrlelation with global temperature change on Earth.

Picture graphs of correlation of Arctic Temperatures With Solar Irradiance (left) and CO2 (right).

This is from a 2005 study of the effects of solar irradiance on Arctic temperatures (Soon, W.H., "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005 ( http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soon05-SolarArcticTempGRLfinal.pdf ) where you can see that there is a much stronger correlation between temperatures and solar irradiance than with increasing CO2 concentration over time.

Now, there are studies that show the same thing in the lower latitudes as well and elsewhere. I can get that to next but look what I have now. If you are going to go by correlation alone to justify your position, Netrox, then certainly you'd be choosing the wrong one here. First off, the effects we know is directly coming from the sun and not from Earth to sun since it'd be ridiculous to say that increasing temperature on Earth caused the Sun to increase it's irradiance. You, however, cannot say the same thing about the CO2 and increase in temperature because it's either temperature went up and then CO2 followed, or that CO2 went up and then temperature followed which would imply some sort of causality here.

Make up your mind.

Addendum: Corrected the link to the paper since you have to be a member to enter AGU to see the full article. But Harvard has a copy of it.

Changed link addy to paper ya'll can access.

 

[kokonut]

It's the sun.

4. Conclusions
[16] Two main results highlight the need for further
research towards the proper quantitative evaluation of the
hypothesis that multi-decadal- and longer-term variations
of solar irradiance may provide significant forcing of
Arctic-wide SATs through modulations on the operation
regimes of the large-scale atmospheric circulation, ocean
and sea ice over the Arctic. These results are the
following:
[17] (1) Solar forcing explains well over 75% of the
variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic annual-mean
or spring SATs, and
[18] (2) Time-frequency characteristics for the annualmean
or seasonally-averaged Arctic SATs are consistent
with similar wavelet structures derived for the TSI forcing.
[19] In contrast, a CO2-dominated forcing of Arctic SATs
is inconsistent with both the large multidecadal warming
and cooling signals and the similar amplitude of warming
trends between cold (winter) and relatively warmer (spring
and autumn) seasons found in the Arctic-wide SAT records.

 

[jillio]

Problem is what they are saying is correlation proves causation, then that's bad science to even suggest that.

Secondly, about that "95% confidence" becomes ludicrous because the question again goes back to the Medieval warm period as being warmer back then than it is today. How can you have or even justify that "95% confidence" interval?

They are not saying that correlation proves causation at all. Read again. And that is a 95% confidence level, which can be supported statistically.

 

[flip]

Two small and quick debunkers.

The medieval warming period isn't even 100% verifiable, and even if it was true, it don't tell us much. It's a vast difference between earlier average temperatures and the magnitude of warming in the 20th century.

Second, it's funny how you make "Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature" into "global temperatures".

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Two small and quick debunkers.

The medieval warming period isn't even 100% verifiable, and even if it was true, it don't tell us much. It's a vast difference between earlier average temperatures and the magnitude of warming in the 20th century.

Second, it's funny how you make "Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature" into "global temperatures".

Heeeeeeeere's flip!

Even if the Medieval warming period is true, it only takes into account of what could had happened during that time period. It doesn't take into account of greenhouse gasses. If what happened during that time period, combined with burning every resources we have had, happens again-- it could be far far worse than people could predict.

 

[kokonut]

Two small and quick debunkers.

The medieval warming period isn't even 100% verifiable, and even if it was true, it don't tell us much. It's a vast difference between earlier average temperatures and the magnitude of warming in the 20th century.

Second, it's funny how you make "Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature" into "global temperatures".

So, the arctic region isn't considered as part of the whole "global temperature" equation in various latitudes parts of the world? Why you say that?

The "Medieval warm period" of Europe is verifiable and evidenced in many, many cases. Sorry to disappoint. This is just as legitimate as the "Little Ice Age" that has occurred from 1600–1850 and was recorded as part of our human history along with reams of scientific data in support of this.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/lamb.ppp.1965.pdf

SpringerLink - Journal Article

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/1159/2008/cpd-4-1159-2008.pdf

Not only from scientific findings but from agriculture records and other recorded events to describe periods.Vikings lived in settlements dotted across southern Greenland and Iceland. And had to abandon once the cold and ice returned blocking ship routes and increasing glaciation.
Vikings During the Medieval Warm Period - Influence of Dramatic Climate Shifts on European Civilizations: The Rise and Fall of the Vikings and the Little Ice Age
http://www.jhu.edu/~thaine1/Haine_Weather_08.pdf

If not that then you have to explain the Holocene period 8000 to 9500 years ago where studies have found trees grew few hundred miles more north or that they found trees growing 1500 to 2400 feet higher in elevation in mountainous areas than today. All at a time when CO2 concentration was much, much lower, of course. Then, again, go further back in time you had CO2 concentrations in the 1000 to 2000 ppm range where both plant and animal species thrived on land.

Now, CO2 gases do play a role in all things consider when we're dealing with climate changes over time but it's a very, very minor role rather than it being a major player in global warming as the primary source for the reason of the rise. Not so.

I challenge each and every one of you guys to display your arguments and findings with the same approach as I have done here instead of belittling or make mocking comments. And if you cannot then that tells us something about your own arguments.

 

[saywhatkid]

What if the non-global warming people are wrong? It is all theory from both sides of the debate. Should we just go about our business without making any changes? Make everything from plastics with a lifespan of 20,000 years? Keep making cars that get under 20 mpg? Burning garbage to save space, while making things more convenient with "use once" containers? Are we really that selfish that we would place our personal concerns ahead of how we leave our planet?

 

[Jiro]

saywhatkid - what we should do is come up with several different ways to burn styrofoam. I mean c'mon... have you ever burn styrofoam? it's amusing!

 

[saywhatkid]

saywhatkid - what we should do is come up with several different ways to burn styrofoam. I mean c'mon... have you ever burn styrofoam? it's amusing!

Yeah, we did that in Boy Scouts, 1968. I still have a scar on back of my left hand from idiot kid that swung his burning cup on a stick.

 

[kokonut]

What if the non-global warming people are wrong? It is all theory from both sides of the debate. Should we just go about our business without making any changes? Make everything from plastics with a lifespan of 20,000 years? Keep making cars that get under 20 mpg? Burning garbage to save space, while making things more convenient with "use once" containers? Are we really that selfish that we would place our personal concerns ahead of how we leave our planet?

Local and regional pollution are a worry but that has nothing to do with global warming since we put out very little CO2 compared to what Earth can pump out (and absorb).

Who says we go about business not making any changes? Of course we can and are doing the changes. But this cap and trade business will certainly not help us. It's a feel good strategy as a way to somehow help asuage people's own guilt about the environent while at the same time stab them in the back by foisting higher costs on them in the process. Science is certainly not settle, especially in light of Climategate.