October - 3rd coldest on record for nation

souggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL.

That would be scary yeah. I would have nothing against living in a fresh and green MWP era :)
 
kokonut said:
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?
Click to expand...
First you claimed it was "global temperature", now it's "the whole global temperature equation in various latitudes parts of the world". Nice attempt to get away :)

kokonut said:
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
Click to expand...
In those links you have posted here, we nowhere find any "evidence" on MWP. All we can find is suggestions and some long threads on wether those findings tell us anything at all or not. But the main point, like I and some posters here already have tried to tell you, is that you fail to understand the limits of any MWP to prove something about the climate.

kokonut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Using words like "evidence" and posting quick links when we are talking climate is illogical. It's not possible to accept your challenge, even if I wanted to.
 
saywhatkid said:
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?
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
kokonut said:
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.
Click to expand...

:roll:

By the way, Climategate is almost done, it's getting debunked every day. Sorry.
 
:lol:

I won't deny global warming is happening, but the thing is... we are moving at an incredibly fast rate that is unprecedent in written history. And humans tend to screw up when they try to fix things later rather than trying to prevent things.

I means... flooding the ocean with algae... or installing shields to reduce sun exposure are dumb ideas that could potentially do more harm than good. Why not just take steps to reduce waste and emissions?

There are other factors than just greenhouse gasses that explain the warming and cooling, but everyone keep looking at things in short-term and they haven't accounted for additional variables for the events in the past, not in thousands or millions of years.

Is global warming happening? Seems like it. Is there more extremity? Well, ask anyone-- your grandparents don't even remember the weather acting strangely as it is today. Am I worried about it? No. However... the backpacker's policy of "leave no trace" comes to mind because then keep things untouched as much as possible for future generations to enjoy it as well.
 
souggy said:
:lol:

I won't deny global warming is happening, but the thing is... we are moving at an incredibly fast rate that is unprecedent in written history. And humans tend to screw up when they try to fix things later rather than trying to prevent things.

I means... flooding the ocean with algae... or installing shields to reduce sun exposure are dumb ideas that could potentially do more harm than good. Why not just take steps to reduce waste and emissions?

There are other factors than just greenhouse gasses that explain the warming and cooling, but everyone keep looking at things in short-term and they haven't accounted for additional variables for the events in the past, not in thousands or millions of years.

Is global warming happening? Seems like it. Is there more extremity? Well, ask anyone-- your grandparents don't even remember the weather acting strangely as it is today. Am I worried about it? No. However... the backpacker's policy of "leave no trace" comes to mind because then keep things untouched as much as possible for future generations to enjoy it as well.
Click to expand...

Well said. My backpacking motto was "Take only pictures; Leave only footprints."
 
souggy said:
:lol:

I won't deny global warming is happening, but the thing is... we are moving at an incredibly fast rate that is unprecedent in written history. And humans tend to screw up when they try to fix things later rather than trying to prevent things.

I means... flooding the ocean with algae... or installing shields to reduce sun exposure are dumb ideas that could potentially do more harm than good. Why not just take steps to reduce waste and emissions?

There are other factors than just greenhouse gasses that explain the warming and cooling, but everyone keep looking at things in short-term and they haven't accounted for additional variables for the events in the past, not in thousands or millions of years.

Is global warming happening? Seems like it. Is there more extremity? Well, ask anyone-- your grandparents don't even remember the weather acting strangely as it is today. Am I worried about it? No. However... the backpacker's policy of "leave no trace" comes to mind because then keep things untouched as much as possible for future generations to enjoy it as well.
Click to expand...

Global warming has happened, and is happening. So is cooling. We have warmed up since the last ice age when glaciers began retreating from all across our, geographically speaking, northern U.S. states some 12,000 years ago. Geologically speaking that was a very short time ago. But since then we've had our much warmer climes during the Holene period that were much warmer than today, and much colder climes that were globally much cooler than we have today.

This is all tied into the cap and trade business in the effort to find other ways to tax people which would hurt mostly the lower income families with higher energy costs. A bill that would do nothing except continue to hurt America while it wouldn't make an impact on the increasing CO2 concentration. And secondly because a volume ratio of .038 percent containing CO2 hardly have any impact compared to the rest of the 99.96 percent volume of atmospheric gases and water vapor. That's like a 10 x 10 x 10 cubic ft of room with air where CO2 volume wise when extracted would "fill" an 8 inch by 8 inch by 8 inch box in the gaseous form. A 1000 ppm CO2 in the 10x10x10 room would be the equivalent of 12 inch by 12 inch by 12 iinch box taking up only .1 percent of total volume space.

Is it any wonder that there are numerous studies on oxygen isotope studies using sea bed cores that showed time lags is involved in with the rising CO2 concentration? Temperature would rise first several hundred years (300 to 800 years) first before CO2 concentration begin to respond upward. This makes sense because the ocean is one of the biggest source of CO2 sink and when the water gets warmer it is unable to absorb more CO2 and the rest of the absorbed CO2 gets outgassed. Same idea with soda in a cup when cold it stays bubblier longer versus a warmed soda that quickly outgasses it's CO2.

It just goes on and on why this global warming as caused by man doesn't make any sense and purely all bunk. The Climategate thing certainly shows why this is the case.
 
kokonut said:
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.

image023.gif
image024.gif

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.
Click to expand...

Both graphs show the same degree of positive correlation. However, to be exact, you need to statistically determine the correlation co-efficient.:roll: Someone with a research background should know that.
 
Aww...how sweet. Seems like frigid Gore just cannot get any satisfaction nowdays.

Below is a partial list of various events over the last five years in which the Gore Effect was in full force:

January 15, 2004 – A global warming rally held in New York is subdued by one of the coldest days in New York City history. Gore tells the audience it was caused by global warming.

November, 2006 – Al Gore visits Australia two weeks before the start of summer. Ski resort operators are caught off guard by the snowfall.

February, 2007 – A hearing in the House of Representatives on global warming is cancelled after a snow and ice storm strike DC.

April, 2007 – Two feet of snow arrive on Itaca, NY in time for an Earth Day rally.

April, 2007 – A rally in Reno, Nevada held by the Northern Nevada Coalition for Climate Change is cut short by heavy rain and sleet.

March, 2007 – A media briefing on the Senate’s climate bill is cancelled due to a snowstorm.

December 5, 2007 – Washington DC receives its first snow of the season as the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee debates global warming legislation.

January, 2008 – A global warming rally in Baltimore, Maryland is held amidst falling snow.

October 22, 2008 – Al Gore appears at Harvard amidst temperatures that approached 125 year old low temperature records.

October 28, 2008 – The House of Commons debates a climate change bill as London gets its first October snow since 1922.

October 28, 2008 – John McCain and Barack Obama campaign in Pennsylvania. A wet, wintry mix causes McCain to cancel a rally while Obama goes forward. He teases people holding ‘stop global warming’ signs saying, "This is probably not the weather to hold up those signs. I'm not into global warming either but it's a little chilly today."

November, 2008 – The “People’s Power for the Climate” protest in Newcastle, Australia is canceled after one day due to rain and cold. Participants had been told to bring sunscreen and hats.

December, 2008 – The former vice president speaks to an audience in Milan, Italy about global warming. Outside it is snowing, a rare event in the area. Snow and freezing rain also strike Rome, Naples, Palermo and Sicily.

January 17, 2009 – President-elect Obama on his train tour to the capital stops in Philadelphia. He tells those gathered, “A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil." Temperatures were 18 degrees with a wind chill below 10 degrees.

January 28, 2009 – Al Gore is set to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about global warming. A winter storm arrives at the nation’s capital.

February 5, 2009 – Temperatures down to -6 degrees freeze a major global warming conference in Buffalo.

March 2, 2009 – A major global warming rally billed as “the nation’s largest act of civil disobedience” sees low turnout after a blizzard blanketed the nation’s capital with snow. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cancels an appearance at the event after her flight was delayed due to the storm.

July, 2009 – Leading up to a visit from Al Gore to launch Safe Climate Australia, Melbourne suffers through temperatures approaching zero degrees.

October 9, 2009 – Al Gore is in Madison, Wisconsin for a convention of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Record cold temperatures arrive with him.
Click to expand...
The Gore Effect strikes as the UN climate summit begins

Pretty funny, actually.
 
flip said:
Even glaciers covering mount everest in himalaya is melting at a rapid rate. But it's all okay according to Koknut. Even when natural diasters becomes the norm, Koknut will stay out there in his raincoat, tied to his house with a rope, and tell us to calm down, it's all normal, nature have allways been like this, it's just some minor activities at the sun, lol.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast'
Click to expand...

About that Himalayan glaciers "melting fast" might want to check here first.
chron.Commons Blog | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Don't worry, glaciers will be around.
 
Today, it's 71 degrees outside which is one of the warmest on record. The average is actually 10 degrees colder - which means it should have been 61 here today!

Too bad, it's too hot to use a fireplace.
 
Here in St. Louis we are to get our first snow on Christmas. Weird, huh?
 
Beowulf said:
Here in St. Louis we are to get our first snow on Christmas. Weird, huh?
Click to expand...

Ditto here. I have not had a white Christmas since I was 3 months old and it looks like we will have a white Christmas in VA this year even though the snow is melting a bit.
 
I noticed all the squirrels shopping at Goodwill, buying wool socks to use as jackets.
 
It was quite a rainy Christmas day yesterday and today. Although our Christmas couldn't had been any better.
 
flip said:
Even glaciers covering mount everest in himalaya is melting at a rapid rate. But it's all okay according to Koknut. Even when natural diasters becomes the norm, Koknut will stay out there in his raincoat, tied to his house with a rope, and tell us to calm down, it's all normal, nature have allways been like this, it's just some minor activities at the sun, lol.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast'
Click to expand...

Oops. IPCC to withdraw claim that Anthropogenic Global Warming will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
Click to expand...

Seems like the IPCC has some reading-comprehension problems, too:

The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

“Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”
Click to expand...
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online
 
Back
Top