Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

[croc]

(once again two large posts would make a huge post so it shall be compacteded 😉 )

I never said that Carbon dating could date back millions of years, croc did, I merely agreed without really taking it in. Since then I have said that nobody uses carbon dating on samples that are millions of years old. From three posts ago - 'Radiocarbon dating has no use for the study of events that occurred millions of years ago.' I'd hoped you accepted that, but it seems you haven't.

We don't use carbon dating on long extinct animals. For animals that have become extinct recently, up to about 50,000 years or so ago, as in your link, it's used. We can assume that the Earths bombardment of cosmic rays has been constant for tens of thousands if not millions or billions of years which is how we know that the Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been the same for millennia.

Minor point... I stated that most scientists considered carbon dating to be accurate, within limits, to about 500k years, not millions. The further back in time you go for your samples, the wider the margin of error. Think of it as a percentage... 10% of 5k years is +- 500 years. Same percentage of error at 500k years... You get the idea. C14 half life is a tad more than 5.7k years, so it is only recently with more accurate equipment that it can be pushed back to ~ 500k years. The further back in time, the more doubtful the accuracy.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Also, its well documented that mamoths lived 4000 yrs ago, so how old are the pyrimids?
If and when these asteroids hit, raising isotpoe levels immensely even for a short burst, its all it takes, besides the elimination of plant life, the accumulation of mans dumping for a year in a second, the heat created, etc.
Since carbon dating has been fowled since the 50s and because of our nuclear bomb testing, how certain are we that the various impact points, the asteroids themselves didnt also let loose radiation of these types within our atmosphere, and thus changed the carbon dating?
And it could have been several cosmic bombardments creating the extinction as well. We simply dont know, but we accept this and other things as fact, when all we know is, pollution isnt good for us, but CO2 is great for other living organisms.

 

[anonamouse77]

Also, its well documented that mamoths lived 4000 yrs ago, so how old are the pyrimids?
If and when these asteroids hit, raising isotpoe levels immensely even for a short burst, its all it takes, besides the elimination of plant life, the accumulation of mans dumping for a year in a second, the heat created, etc.
Since carbon dating has been fowled since the 50s and because of our nuclear bomb testing, how certain are we that the various impact points, the asteroids themselves didnt also let loose radiation of these types within our atmosphere, and thus changed the carbon dating?
And it could have been several cosmic bombardments creating the extinction as well. We simply dont know, but we accept this and other things as fact, when all we know is, pollution isnt good for us, but CO2 is great for other living organisms.

It is not well documented that mammoths lived until 4000 years ago, otherwise we'd have some idea about why they ceased to exist. The pyramids in Egypt are 4500 years old. But as I said recorded history is by definition recorded. Do we have written/pictorial records of mammoths going extinct? No, because by that time mammoths were being pushed further and further north, away from areas of civilisation.

Have we had any large asteroid impacts in the last 50,000 years? No, so i fail to see the relevance. Also, the asteroid impact at Chicxulub did not wipe out plants, and that's one of the largest impacts discovered.

We can be sure that Carbon dating has not been fouled going back 50,000 years because if they were fouled by asteroids then we'd have craters. We know the Chicxulub impact creat lots of CO2, but the rub is that we have created more - Chicxulubs 9 billion tonnes to humanities 500 billion tonnes.

We don't accept the Chicxulub impact as the only reason that dinosaurs went extinct but feel that it was mostly or at least partly to blame. A cosmic bombardment could have killed off the dinosaurs, whose large bodies may have absorbed more of the rays or the toxins produced by them (even so, smaller dinosaur existed), but the evidence that Chicxulub is 65 million years old goes some way to link it too the extinction of the dinosuars.

Pollution isn't good for anything. CO2 is neccesary in plant life and if you looked only at the small scale effect then CO2 is 'great for other living organisms'. But take in the larger picture and you've got the increase in temperature, which means that many plants, whom can't move, may go extinct, along with Island species who have no escape from the relentless march of warmth. Then you have to think about the possible loss of an entire habitat, i.e. the Arctic. Granted that this won't effect as many species as, say the rainforest, it'll effect scores of species, and it'll be the removal of an entire habitat.

 

[jonpaul37]

is it not easier to just have an imaginary friend named "God" that's what most humans do...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.newsrightnow.org/articles/2869/1/3017/37000-year-old-mammoth-carcass-arrives-in-Japan/Page1.html
Through the study, the researchers hope to shed new light on the internal structure of the ancient beast. Mammoths are believed to have lived from 4.8 million years ago to about 4,000 years ago and probably became extinct because of climate change.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-13610152.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n13_v143/ai_13610152/
'Dwarf' mammoths outlived last ice age
So, the last ice age didnt kill them off, they lived within recorded history, theres tons of links regarding this.
Asteroid impacts are very relevent, since they effect atmosphere/climate, carbon dating, and the natural cycle of climate changes.
What I find interesting is, it was always assumed that the Yucatan impact destroyed all the plants, or most, and only recently have a few people come forwards to disclaim this, and it revolves around climate change, and theyre connected to the GW phenomenom.
Just like which came first, heat or CO2 elevations in the atmosphere.
Even in the links I found, most claimed mear total plant destruction, and even the ones that did claim such things, said that for a huge majority of the planet, itd be broiling temps, which in and of itself is hot enough to kill the plants, and incenerate them.
So, the estimation about the amounts of CO2 is impact only related, and doesnt include the plant loss, plus the release of CO2 from all the fires.
If we cant determine the dates of activities, the effects of such activities, which are all tied together here, regarding climate, and we cant decide on whether temps raise causing CO2 amounts rising, as things have only changed regarding much of this to support another theory, whereas prior to that theory, results showed and still do otherwise.
Its amazing to me, how after so long we were told one thing, now all the sudden, they just dont know how it all happened, yet, we are certain about these changes supporting GW.
How did the dinosaurs die? Ice age? or asteroid?
Some dinos outlived all of this. The frogs survived, atmittedly the "canary" of life itself.Dinosaurs being larger would naturally die sooner than smaller animals, as pollutants would gather within them much quicker than smaller ones, as seen in our fish today.
Those pollutants are now considered to be minmized since the early 2000s, not before, and support the GW theory, but arent or werent generally accepted so loosely prior to it.
To me, it appears alot of people have gathered around this wagon, have gone where other wouldnt have scientifically before, disdaining past infos, changing them to their outlook, and demanding it as fact, where it was always theory about ice ages, asteroids , pollutants and climactic effects etc in the past.
The introduction of Al Gore, Margaret Thatcher et al elevated it to this level, the past known numbers have been fudged, the past theories changed to support GW, and are no lo0nger theory, but a demanded fact, and yet, this is supposed to be objectively true? When they hide their infos, communications etc?
Nope, not buying it, not 1 iota

 

[anonamouse77]

Through the study... not 1 iota

Point by point...

Maybe if you actually read my post rather than browsed through it and assumed I refuted the claim you'd know I never said that they didn't survive the last Glacial Maximum (it's not an ice age, we are in an Ice age but we are in an interglacial period of it.) Unlike you seem to do with my links I actually read yours, and they were at Wrangel Island off northeastern Russia 4000 years ago. Here, have the paragraph I wrote again - 'We do indeed have records of places that were inhabited by civilisations, such as Egypt, the Greek Islands, the Roman Empire and to a lesser extent the ranges of the Aztecs and the Mayans. However, Siberia wasn't populated in the manner that the Mediterranean, Western Europe or South and Central America was, with their infrastructures and evidence for populous cities. So these areas inhabited by Mammoths such as Siberia and Canada/Northern USA had no such civilisations and as such no such records of events. The last remnants survive until 4000 years ago, but on a remote island not only some 100 miles off the coast of mainland Russia, but also on the Northern side of the Easternmost part of Russia. Populations there were sparse and nowhere near as built up as in Europe and South/Central America, and I hardly feel that their main goal was creating a record but rather surviving in an incredibly unforgiving environment.' These mammoths existed at a time where records were produced, but not within recorded history. Otherwise we'd have records of them. As we don't they were not alive within recorded history because by definition recorded history is recorded and as we have no records it's not within recorded history.

But recently, in the last 50,000 years, when has an asteroid a kilometre or so wide struck the earth? It is not relevant to the task in hand.

It was never assumed the Chicxulub impact killed all the plants. Many species yes, but many survived. Can you show evidence that it was thought that it destroyed all plant life?

Incinerate the plants? Like spontaneous combustion? I'd like to mention we didn't become Venus for a few million years, there were never boiling temperatures over large areas of the planet since the Hadean and Archean Eons, and temperatures went down to around modern levels by 500 million years into the Earths formation (apparently) but definitely to sub-boiling point levels by then.

When I found the site I linked it, I said the impact, not the after effects, released 10 billion tonnes. But I doubt even that the destruction of all plant life would release a further 490Mt of Carbon into the atmosphere.

Please share the evidence that the results regarding temperature and CO2 used to show otherwise.
For ages we were told that we were the centre of the universe, but that turned out to be wrong. New discoveries, new techniques and new technologies mean that our knowledge of our surroundings is increasing in magnitude and accuracy.

Well done for reiterating a point I made about this and passing it off as your own. No really, bravo. To quote me - 'Cosmic bombardment could have killed off the dinosaurs, whose large bodies may have absorbed more of the rays or the toxins produced by them'. But I'll point out now as I did then, that there were small dinosaurs as well. I hope you have some evidence to back up your claim that some dinosaurs outlived this event by a significant margin. If so please share it.

Which pollutants have been minimised since the early 2000s? Sulphites? NOx? What pollutant?

You are correct to say that many of these things have only been theory, but things like the interior workings of the Sun are only theory, and yet we are sure of how it works.

Accusing scientists of 'fudging' numbers is a pretty major allegation to make, and I hope you also have evidence for this.

And as for your last point - So conversely, you are obviously on one side, quite the opposite from your previous 'I haven't taken camp on either side' comment.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

It is not well documented that mammoths lived until 4000 years ago, otherwise we'd have some idea about why they ceased to exist.

Im going by your first comment, which goes aginst the next.

The Wrangel finds may reignite debate over the reasons for the widespread mass extinctions of large mammals between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, Lister notes. Some researchers contend that the waning ice age produced abrupt environmental changes that doomed many creatures. Others argue that human hunters, at least in North America, rapidly killed off many large-bodied species (SN: 10/31/87, p.284).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n13_v143/ai_13610152/

OK, if the ice age killed them off, it was 4000 years ago in the northern climes where itd be felt the most, or man was here killing them, as Ive said, the cave paintings prove all this as well.
The staements about the plants are great in numbers, not all obviously, and nor did it kill all the dinos either, plus their rotting bodies on a massive scale.
Thats alot of carbon release, just as the oil is made from this very thing, imagine the majority of all life dying in a short period, the amounts accunulated?
Why isnt this given thought to the additions?
The burnings?
Even the seas? Something surely killed them off as well, in large quatities, as we find them buried in silt on a massive scale as well, where oceans sat, where land is now.

Read my earlier links, they all point to heat first, CO2 later, until the early 2000s where we see supporting theories for other theories.
They speculate about too many things, which puts holes in their own specualtions on GW, and by changing and discrediting, destroy their own argument, not just in theories or proofs, but by their very actions, as this is a known fact, so why are they when applied to GW?
And thats not the approach to take, and never has been, since weve learned along time ago, the world isnt flat, and theories are to be proven, not by altering other theories for convenience, but by breaking new ground.
So far, all the models weve been given have been duplicated in the past 1 ways or another, and this isnt an exclusive, given over to mans activities.
The only reason its a point at a time is because theyve had to interweave all these other theories, changing them, to make this work right, all the while, hiding their true imput vs findings, which now show them always taking the worse case scenario, which to me disqualifies them from the get go, while changing past theories as well.
Too many holes, to many demands standing on theories, and altered theories as well

 

[anonamouse77]

It is not well documented that mammoths lived until 4000 years ago, otherwise we'd have some idea about why they ceased to exist.

Im going by your first comment, which goes aginst the next.

The Wrangel finds may reignite debate over the reasons for the widespread mass extinctions of large mammals between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, Lister notes. Some researchers contend that the waning ice age produced abrupt environmental changes that doomed many creatures. Others argue that human hunters, at least in North America, rapidly killed off many large-bodied species (SN: 10/31/87, p.284).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n13_v143/ai_13610152/

OK, if the ice age killed them off, it was 4000 years ago in the northern climes where itd be felt the most, or man was here killing them, as Ive said, the cave paintings prove all this as well.
The staements about the plants are great in numbers, not all obviously, and nor did it kill all the dinos either, plus their rotting bodies on a massive scale.
Thats alot of carbon release, just as the oil is made from this very thing, imagine the majority of all life dying in a short period, the amounts accunulated?
Why isnt this given thought to the additions?
The burnings?
Even the seas? Something surely killed them off as well, in large quatities, as we find them buried in silt on a massive scale as well, where oceans sat, where land is now.

Read my earlier links, they all point to heat first, CO2 later, until the early 2000s where we see supporting theories for other theories.
They speculate about too many things, which puts holes in their own specualtions on GW, and by changing and discrediting, destroy their own argument, not just in theories or proofs, but by their very actions, as this is a known fact, so why are they when applied to GW?
And thats not the approach to take, and never has been, since weve learned along time ago, the world isnt flat, and theories are to be proven, not by altering other theories for convenience, but by breaking new ground.
So far, all the models weve been given have been duplicated in the past 1 ways or another, and this isnt an exclusive, given over to mans activities.
The only reason its a point at a time is because theyve had to interweave all these other theories, changing them, to make this work right, all the while, hiding their true imput vs findings, which now show them always taking the worse case scenario, which to me disqualifies them from the get go, while changing past theories as well.
Too many holes, to many demands standing on theories, and altered theories as well

I made one comment regarding mammoths in my last post and it was consistent with the comments from previous posts.

On cave walls in North America there are paintings, but let's remember this is an (even less) sparsely inhabited Northeastern Siberian island and sometime later than the paintings in North America.

I'm sorry if you can't except that 65 million years ago dinosaurs became extinct, but I am afraid it is so. Their rotting bodies? For about a year if that as all the micro-organisms and insects, and probably reptiles and mammals, had a feast. Reading more into the K-T Extinction it would appear amphibians survived by being able to shelter and/or breath underwater.

Oil is not made from released carbon. It is made from carbon that was trapped in dead animals (usually micro-organisms and small sea creatures) as such it is made from trapped carbon.

Yes something did kill them off, the same thing that took out dinosaurs, for example 60% of coral species were wiped out, however, the record for sea-creatures from this period isn't that good so it's hard to tell how many species were made extinct.

Speculation is a means to an end. Speculation brings forth new ideas which can be tested to see if they are accurate. The course of science, especially a science as complex as this, are unlikely to run smoothly.

This theory did break new ground. It was a new discovery, a new realisation. This theory has so far been proven, with the increase in CO2 melting the ice caps and warming the atmosphere, just because it has meant previous theories are incorrect doesn't mean that it altered them.

I'm sorry you feel that the overwhelming mass of evidence that it's humanities activities that are changing the climate aren't good enough for you. Perhaps if I could show you a parallel universe where fossil fuels are yet to be/ can't be burnt or humanity doesn't exist? If such a universe would show that this planet is warmer than it's equivalent in that universe would you accept that? I feel that even then you'd try to explain that evidence away.

They haven't had to interweave theories they created this one and the evidence lined up. I don't see how the worst-case scenario would disqualify them in your eyes. If they show a 'best case scenario' we'd probably think that we don't have to change as much and it would turn out much worse, then we'd be saying these people can't predict jack, why didn't they show the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a real possibility and as such it's meant to be a call to arms for the world to change.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The evidence has been altered to line up, heat first, is being changed to CO2 first now, and included in their projections.
Last ice age was 20000 yrs ago, it isnt just the mamoths that were here not long ago and are now extinctm but sloths and saber tooths etc.
Ignoring what killed them off, or overiding todays theory over what we do know, mass extinctions of various species not long ago.
The accumulation of CO2 from rotting corpses, if the plants didnt die, what killed them? Heat?
Or cold, brought on by a asteroid? And if so, doesnt this mean that a small amount of CO2 wasnt the catylist for the cold? But other things Ive tried to point to?
Doesnt this also fit, heat first CO2 later? CO2 didnt kill them, something else did.
If the dinos were killed by a small amount of CO2 release and a larger amount of heat, deforastation from it, debree in the atmosphere, etc, it shows CO2 came after plants died because of lowering temps, no food for the dinos, gradual colder til more gradual heating comes, and then, even more, releasing the trapped CO2 from the dead plants and animals? Heat first.
The tilting of earths core? Heat first. CO2 later.
But now, they discredit these beliefs, except for the earths tilt, not sure what defence they have for that one
While they discredit the older thoughts, they use the same scenarios to perpetuate their own beliefs, one which is man himself as a competitor against the mamoths sloths saber tooths etc, the other, the ice age.
I looked up channel depths around Wrangel Island, found them to be around 10 fathoms deep. 60 feet. The claims are, the mamoths traveled on foot to the island, as the sea levels were much lower, but I ask this, what happened to the end of the ice age? I mean, 60 feet, thats alot of ice, that apparently wasnt near the arctic ocean, but mustve been stacked amazingly high somewheres.
Later, they describe the mamoths as being pygmys beause of limitations of food stuffs and a lack of a larger genetic pool, this i think they got right.
Now, we move to the inaccuracies of carbon dating, the still to be discovered overall effects of CO2 in ice, its developemental procedures, its amounts in the then current atmospheres, and again, were guessing.
Yet, they maintain its that important, when they cant line up times in the past, they cant really say how much is detrimental, as previous life excelled with 20x the amounts we have today. Had to change their outlook to make CO2 more imortant compared to past history and beliefs.
They admit they cant talk about sea levels anymore, since theyre not to sure about the glacial activity in terms of exactness in timing, but they can thro thousands of years out to say CO2 first. Interesting.Glaciers are melting, but land bound ice takes time to reach the oceans.
So, if it fits, they pound their drum, when it doesnt, they back off, yet some are still sounding those misunderstandings, and are "credible" people within their eyes.
Sure, you can call Al Gore anything you want, he was/is one of those I just described, but hes always welcomed, yet those who have other evidence is shunned. Why is that?
This comes down to faith for me, and not where some may think. The earth has more resources than we know, which is little, and big numbers are just that, big numbers.
One of the "reasons" I saw while perusing all this, that "proves" CO2 is so bad for heat is, people use it in green houses.
Hmmm, that means a couple things to me. Yes, it heats things up some, but more importantly, its the plants food.
This brings us to lack of photosynthesis on earth.
Mega tons of food, not enough plants, Hmmm
Warmer weather causing more plantlife, longer growing seaons, more CO2 being used.
This is part of my faith in earth, and as its obviously happened on greater scales than we have now, if you account for plant and animal emmisions of rot, loss of plant life itself, etc, yet the primary most effected animals did fine, like frogs, all the animals werent killed off immediately, and yes, you can go almost anywheres and find where that layer is, where the exteinction point occured, yet, within that line of dust and debris, there not 1 spec of dinosaurs to be found, which is 1 of the latest theories as well.
Mass extinction. I have my own reasons to believe why this happened, but dont have any scientific evidence at all to explain it, but again, as loose as this is all being payed out, the ropes reaching their necks.
To me, its interesting, needs to be looked at, but even more important is openess, dont treat us aas stupid, or others with conflicting findings either.
If it turns out this is that important, then we shouldnt be spoonfed, with those inside "protecting " us from other thoughts.
We needed our new E=MC, we may have it, then again, we may have found out how litlle we actually know, and at this point, if its the latter, I want that lesson to be learned as painlessly as possible, but to not stop, and continue onwards in study and thought, before we throw in all our chips

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Is it a religion or a science?
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17016/1/

 

[anonamouse77]

Is it a religion or a science?
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17016/1/

Point by point to the previous one.

The Vostok link you showed me - http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html – states that 'at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.' The CO2 increase was in phase or lagged. Not 'the CO2 always lagged'.

The last Glacial Maximum was 20,000 years ago. There were extinctions of many species after this time, a time of warming and increased human activities. But which caused these extinctions is as yet inconclusive. It was probably a bit of both.

An increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will never cause it to the atmosphere to display a net cooling effect.

CO2 wouldn't kill them, you need concentrations of 10,000ppm to be highly toxic to humans. The effects of CO2 however, could easily have killed them through the warming and as such loss of habitat.

The tilting of the Earths core? Really? You think that the core tilts more than the planet around it? Could provide some evidence of this? Climatologists don't need a defence for the Earths tilt.

Why would climatologists discredit the idea that man became a competitor to these animals? I haven't come across that, not that in anything I've seen. Could you show this discrediting of predation by man?

The ice was upon the land. It melted from the land and into the sea. And yes it is a lot of ice, enough for 60 feet.

No, let's not move back to the 'inaccuracies of carbon dating'. Croc has this covered. The inaccurary regarding temperature and pressure are non-existent. Nuclear tests, as you said, have released a lot of radioactive isotopes, but were there ancient nuclear tests? No there weren't.

Previous life did excel in high CO2 atmospheres, but that was before 50 million years of adapting to gradually cooler temperatures. A return to high concentrations of CO2 and the higher temperature resulting from that would be catastrophic.

I don't know if Al Gore is always welcomed by climatologists, I haven't met one yet to ask them.

You feel that we could just continue destroying the Earth just because there are more resource left, or because you feel the Earth can take it? Why thank you for screwing up the planet for me JDJ, it's always welcomed that you're prepared to risk our future, not yours, just because you won't be around.

Yes people use it in large-scale greenhouses. Those same large-scale greenhouses have complete control over aspects of temperature, humidity and nutrient supply. So in greenhouse grown plants CO2 is good, because of the acute control applied. But for wild plants they have no such protection and they will pay the price with increased temperature. The net-results means more plant food for the now dead plants because of climate change.

Have you evidence to show that there is a lack of photosynthesis on earth?

Slightly warmer weather does cause earlier and more growth in some species, but many more are built for finely balanced environments, which would be lost if warmed. The rainforests would be replaced with scrub land, some alpine environments would cease to exist. You think crops would be able to remain in the same locations and have their yields increased? No, there'd be a reduction in yield or even a die-off of the field from higher temperatures or different weather patterns.

'This is part of my faith in earth, and as its obviously happened on greater scales than we have now, if you account for plant and animal emmisions of rot, loss of plant life itself, etc, yet the primary most effected animals did fine, like frogs, all the animals werent killed off immediately, and yes, you can go almost anywheres and find where that layer is, where the exteinction point occured, yet, within that line of dust and debris, there not 1 spec of dinosaurs to be found, which is 1 of the latest theories as well.'

- What the heck is all this about. Could you explain better please, with correct grammar and spelling?

I feel that people like you are exactly the reason that the scientific community treats the general public as morons. You have claimed to not be on one side when you clearly are a non-believer in global warming. You have repeatedly refuted evidence and patterns in data, you have refused to read my links when I have paid respect by reading yours, you are why scientists are concerned about releasing this to the public, because the voices of support are drowned out by minority voices of deniers.

It's too late for, 'maybe we should study it further', plus we already have a century or so of knowledge on CO2 and it's environmental effects. This theory never was going to be an E=MxCxC, it was never going to be, because that equation is one of the most famous equations for a reason, in that it explained so much about mass and relative speed and unified so much of our understanding of the small and large. I don' feel that you have a right to have a say in things that won't happen in your lifetime. Young deniers, by all means, but older generations should sit down and shut up whilst younger generations try to sort this mess out.

That's how it should be if you had any sense of decency for the future.

As for the post at the top of this. Wow. Now we can't even have satire. It's still science, just becuase people have no sense of humour, or they can't understand it, doesn't mean that they are wrong. They were showing how much needs to be done to stop this, just because they did it satirically doesn't mean it's now not a science.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2009/program/lectures/gore.shtml
Surely Al Gore wasnt asked to speak on his creation of the internet here

Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Flashback-April-2009-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Hmmm, not good to dispute a religion is it?

Theres more, but just to show the relationship of Al Gore and those who cling to GW.
To deny that hes sought after for proliferation of these beliefs is to live in denial.
To further impact this denial is the continued lack of other voices, and sorry, too many of my family have already died for their freedoms and rights to speak, think abd act as they wish, and not have only 1 POV shoved down their throats.
This could be the next Boston Tea Party.

I clearly stepped away from scientific explanations on my "faith" comment, and it wasnt backed by any scientific infos as said, its what we dont know which is the largest part of this faith, so of course there isnt any, and faith is a no no, I understand that, but so is not allowing for other voices, other facts, other theories, but there seems to be no problems from this POV, which again, I find interesting.
1 little thing you point out about the mamoths dont make sense at all, as the land they crossed wasnt ice covered at all, but dry, meaning massive unexplained sea level drops, or temps much higher than we know about, which also shows our lack of knowledge here.
If the water was solid ice, and they headed north to reach the Island, then its obvious the island was even colder, which would mean decent resources?

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

Now, we see an inclination to show that this, and this alone wont cause glacial effects, tho there are those who long ago and currently believe this to be so.

Warming oceans could cause Earth's axis to tilt in the coming century, a new study suggests. The effect was previously thought to be negligible, but researchers now say the shift will be large enough that it should be taken into account when interpreting how the Earth wobbles.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17657-global-warming-could-change-earths-tilt.html

But here, the GW folks have no problems adopting this theory to further their cause.
Theyve covered their tracks well, I have to admit, as these are things I find by a simple click looking into all this.

To deny it has become politicized, to deny the level of denying those in dissention is disingeguous at best, and to claim people like Al Gore arent sought after is the same.

This is my first truly comprehensive look into the "facts", and Im sure thats up for discredation, but again, Ive said I wasnt tainted by any views, wasnt brought up to the continual leeching of infos into my daily life as taken as fact, but just infos.

This is the first counter thought presented by fact from me, because the infos Id been looking at didnt line up, which is the current line, and to find the massive scale of denial going on here to me is astounding concerning opposing viewpoints.

The ease of adoption for things they sneak in of it being the opposite, the denial of those whove "invented global warming" , to to throw them under the bus, like Al Gore, when its convenient

Like I said, they adopt theories when it suits, change past belief to twist it to their uses, thus destroying their credibility.
Now, understand this. This isnt some pre known plan Ive done here, but just from our conversation here alone, I saw the holes, and the more I see, the more it happens.
Ive no agenda against GW, tho Ive never been a firm believer either. Ive always been skeptical concerning it, considering its main source here in the US, namely Al Gore.
I didnt know that the GW people adopted the earths tilt to their theory til now, as I looked it up for example, tho I did see controversial opinion regarding the balance and rythym of glacial periods, as 1 explanation is the tilting and earths orbit explains it, but is nicely denied in my first link on it, but wholly adopted in the other.

Canadas recent reaction to dissention on other voices doesnt surprise me either, as I know about Canada somewhat, lived there for awhile, knew its people, the political climate etc.
These actions too are recently found by me, and further fit into what I abhor in science, especially on this purported level of need.
Ive been thus labeled, asked to correct my spelling etc, and tho this is well known on the internets as a subtle thing, its also an obvious thing, which is unfortunate, as this is where we see our minds closing to other thoughts.
Ive learned much from you, and your links, tho Ive been told i didnt read them. I hope that you look into an alternate POV, not against GW, but being very skeptical about such a highly politicezed event such as this, and the costs those politicians are willing to lay at our feet, as the limitations of our fossil fuels loom ahead, and never taking that out of the equation

 

[anonamouse77]

Surely Al Gore out of the equation

Pont by point....

Lord Monckton is one of the most vocal critics of climate change. Like many other deniers he uses fear as a tactic, such as his suggestion to Barack Obama that Copenhagen would impose a 'communist world government'. Such uses of fear over fact are under hand. Also, looking at his qualifications, he has a Master of Arts in Classics Studies, hardly an ideal position to be talking about any of this. (Before you mention worse case scenarios - One of the reasons worse-case scenarios are used is that the prediction have been growing steadily worse and worse as new evidence comes to light.)

I never said that Al Gore wasn't widely liked, merely that I doubt all of the scientific community likes him.

Well now, too many of my family died for freedom as well, so what of it? If you think you can act as you wish, think you can deal drugs or murder people, or think you can say what you like, like shouting racist profanities at people of a different background, just because some of your family members fought for freedoms to act or speak, you want your head examining.

There are few problems with global warming, the main one being that while the predictions have gotten better and better, they can get better still (and this increased accuracy led to the re-forecast of the outlook as bleaker and bleaker, warmer and warmer). The reason there are so few problems with global warming is that it works well, just because you can't accept the facts doesn't mean that it drowns out other theories. Dominates incorrect theories, quite likely, but not allow for other voices? It allows for the voices because science knows that it has them surrounded. There is nowhere for deniers to turn to make arguments that can't be countered by valid explanations and data. So they sit surrounded and claim that the data is flawed, or just refute or ignore like you have done.

Mammoths were engineered for the cold. There way of life, the foods they ate, their hides, all adapted for cold conditions. This is why when the earth started warming some 20,000 years ago the were slowly pushed northwards. That's not saying that they went north immediately, or that all populations went northwards. Due to the lower sea levels of the glacials it's likely that there was simply a land bridge when the population crossed, a bridge that was lost when the remaining ice melted. It could also have been that there was already a population of mammoths there, and they were cut off by the rising water levels.

I too looked into the Milankovitch cycles regarding my last post, but they couldn't decide which way it would go. An older study said it would cool, but a newer one said it would keep the temperatures warm, and the earth interglacial for 50,000 years.

You know, that [new scientist] article never even mentioned Milankovitch cycles. It's just a study into whether the melting of the ice caps or warming of the oceans will effect the Earths orbit. Milankovitch cycle are well known, well studied and pretty unanimously agreed with. There was no denial in your first link on the subject (the montana one), in fact there was agreement that the cycle was responsible for the cyclical nature of periods of glaciation and inter-galcials.

I never denied it had become politicised. I also never said that Al Gore wasn't sought after, what I said was that I didn't think that everybody would welcome him, after you said that the scientific community always welcomed him

I'm afraid you clearly have an agenda against it, visible by your rebuttal of perfectly good data. Previously you said that you haven't taken sides, but you clearly have. If you have always been sceptical, you are a sceptic against global warming and have taken that side in the debate, it's as simple as that. If you didn't understand, were confused, could care either way, you have not taken sides. If you feel it's happening you are a believer in global warming.

What do you abhor in science? Satire? Well you must hate nearly all media then, what with it being highly satirised.

The reason you were asked to correct your spelling, grammar and punctuation was because it was becoming difficult for me to see what you were trying to say (hence why there were increasing numbers of question marks). If this situation were the other way round and I was the denier using good English I'd still ask you to use better grammar and spelling in your posts.

I'm always sceptical about politicians and anything political, since I was in my early teens when I developed a political identity and found that no party lined with it. I was brought up to be wary of politicians and the promises they make and break. But for me, as someone who holds a Chemistry qualification it's hard not to look at the way CO2 behaves and think that releasing loads of it wouldn't change the climate.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Your last statement has been agred upon by almost everyone, its the degree of temp change, and how all this occurs.

I do however take a reasonable opposing viewpoint on this:
It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

That to me is suggesting subtly that it doesnt cause glaciation. The effects of solar energy is the primary result of this tilting is it not?
As to the other link its self explanatory:
Warming oceans could cause Earth's axis to tilt in the coming century, a new study suggests. The effect was previously thought to be negligible, but researchers now say the shift will be large enough that it should be taken into account when interpreting how the Earth wobbles.

This is 1 of the threevariables of the Milankovitch theory

Axial Tilt

Axial tilt, the second of the three Milankovitch Cycles, is the inclination of the Earth's axis in relation to its plane of orbit around the Sun. Oscillations in the degree of Earth's axial tilt occur on a periodicity of 41,000 years from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees.



Today the Earth's axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees, which largely accounts for our seasons. Because of the periodic variations of this angle the severity of the Earth's seasons changes. With less axial tilt the Sun's solar radiation is more evenly distributed between winter and summer. However, less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.

One hypothesis for Earth's reaction to a smaller degree of axial tilt is that it would promote the growth of ice sheets. This response would be due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter's accumulation. At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range.

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

Now, it would seem the exact opposite of what youre saying here, if not clarify please?

As for Al Gore, he was invited as the special invited guest to the worlds largest general science conference, it would seem that this is no small matter, as was said earlier, and that such an honor isnt given lightly , and that it would seem suggestions of alot of scientists would shun him doesnt fit.
As to Lord M, so what? Does he hold a lower place to the honered Gore because of boths lack of credation within the science circles?
And Id like your comments on the Canadian stifling , and as it plays into the larger picture of what Ive been describing, stifle those opposed, make worse case scenario, hide and hold the infos founds, show only worst case etc.
All the above has no place in science, and further, in a free world with Liberty as well.
Its rather strange when I talked of my forefathers youd use extreme alternatives, and it doesnt apply, as you well know, but I can as easily point out, using the extreme seems to be very acceptable to you, and isnt where I was going about our liberties, but having such liberties, you took yours to the bank it appears.
Its funny, all Im doing is finding other infos, other sources, and Im labeled?
I went out of my way to describe my previous ventures and thoughts on this matter, yet to come to such a conclusion as you have, well, the way I work is, you need this form of scrutiny, or youll never reach the truth, and I will scrutinize this GW theory, and when Im done, itll be better for it, and for those I can relate my findings to.
If it turns out to be a farce, then it is just that, nothing more, if it turns out to be fact, same, and anywheres in between as well.
This is my position, sceptical, not committed, either way.
My earlier posts went against my other posts, to show no one is certain here, and that too is my point

I find it truly ironic Lord Monkton is to be held so low, like Al Gore, but yet Gore is held so high in congress and the AAA, where Gore is THE top voice for GW, so a dynamically opposing view is simply not allowed, and this is exactly all my points in 1 simple answer
Deny opposing POV, slander those who do have them, and adopt conflicting past views/theories to your system, using concealed worst case infos

PS Al Gore invented the internet , in his own mind

 

[anonamouse77]

Your last statement... in his own mind

Point by point...

I honestly don't know what I've apparently said. The first line of your should link clear things up a bit - 'The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun.' So the link is saying that the Milankovitch cycle did cause the cycle of glacials and interglacials. This is explained in the summary - 'At times when Northern Hemisphere summers are coolest (farthest from the Sun due to precession and greatest orbital eccentricity) and winters are warmest (minimum tilt), snow can accumulate on and cover broad areas of northern America and Europe' but it notes that 'Even when all of the orbital parameters favour glaciation, the increase in winter snowfall and decrease in summer melt would barely enough to trigger glaciation, not to grow large ice sheets. Ice sheet growth requires the support of positive feedback loops, the most obvious of which is that snow and ice have a much lower albedo than ground and vegetation, thus ice masses tend to reflect more radiation back into space, thus cooling the climate and allowing glaciers to expand.' That is to say that it only trigger the glaciation when there were feedback loops (which is why the peaks aren't at 23,000 year spacings).

Look, I never said that 'a lot of scientist would shun him', I merely said that it's not likely that not all would like him. That doesn't mean a lot, that doesn't mean most, that means not all.

Monckton probably does hold a lower place, but it also helps that Gore took a course in climate science which means he is more accredited and qualified to speak regarding this subject (but not by much).

The Canadian stifling is wrong. But if you feel that the Canadians were stifling deniers maybe you should re-read the article. The websites were satirical, and they had a disclaimer saying they were not affiliated with the government, but lazy journalists not checking. The websites were there to highlight the need for action. But even if they were against Climate change, I feel the shutting down of a satirical website is a bit harsh and probably a step too far.

You have been labelled, mainly because of your refusal to accept data, but also for the 'I've always been sceptical' comment. Don't take offence to this, but if you are sceptical of something you are a sceptic.

Yes, you need scrutiny, but don't forget all this data has already been scrutinised, with most of the studies and reports being peer-reviewed. You can scrutinise too far sometimes, like with religion, scrutinise that too much and what do you get? Atheists, and I hate atheists. Do you feel that scientists want this? These early discoveries regarding this must have been so thoroughly scrutinised, because who really wants this? I certainly don't, considering myself as a bit of a petrol head, and also enjoying aviation, in fact next year I'll be beginning my University course in Aeronautical Engineering. I don't want this change, but heck it's happening and we all need to make sacrifices regarding fossil fuels.

I still hold the consequences of sceptics being wrong are far more disastrous than the consequences for believers being wrong.

The thing is that sceptics are more prepared to use the fear card to influence the public. I have explained why the worst case scenario is chosen, because as prediction have got more accurate the predictions have steadily gotten worse. (And it's not my system)

 

[reconviperone1]

I wonder why Toms Hardware has not reported this story on their website under news. Last week, either a hacker broke into the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and uncovered very incriminating emails. The emails were by the members who talk about suppressing opposing views, opposing views being anti-global warming, by coercing journals to deny publishing articles that disprove global warming, emails saying that data has been deleted to thwart open information law inquiries, and just plain fudging of data so that their view that there is global warming won't be challenged. Seeing that this deals with technology, the hacking of email accounts, or the destruction of data on information systems,

I would think Tom's Hardware would be eager to report this but is strangely silent.

See http://www.climatedepot.com/ for the low down on this very major story.

Great, but we still have bee's dieing for unknown reasons(they pollinate), and bats also(help control insect mosquito population), not to mention our forest are being cut to make suburbs, but knowing the greenhouse effect was a hoax makes me feel better.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Point is, theyre taking a well known and accepted theory and making it their own again. Thats plain to see, GW causes the Milankovitch theory. One theory once again being bled into another for their own purposes.
Just another coicidence.
Now that its become front line, itd only do well to allow for more scrutiny, to put it to bed so to speak, but instead, they get caught submarining their peers, taking the worse case scenarios etc.
They dont allow for any openess, others have complained of this, and yes, they are more credited than Al Gore, and to that point, he is nothing at all in this whole thing as far as scientific contributions, but seems fine witholding them, on both sides.
Why do some say the temps have fallen for the last 7 years?
Wheres all the data?
Lets find someone to trust here, down the middle, more interested in fact finding than control, using complete openess, a team like this. Its not too late for this, and stopping major usage of our very finite resources wont happen, if we cut back by law and taxation, other countries will just continue its usage, uhless we go to war with them to stop them, so the problem wont change.
If people think otherwise, theyre truly not well versed in man being man.
Once again, Im labeled, and certainly not an alarmist, but the opposite.
I'll tell you now, once these sorta kinda tough restrictions hit home, itll hit x amount of times harder on the poorer countries, and guess what?
If there is a massive change in oil usage, the price will drop, and only compel those poorer countries to use it, and if it goes higher, theyll be using more coal.
So tho it all sounds like its all on us, it hasnt been proven, I want to see some top sceptics change their minds, openly, no buying, no pressure etc, but openly advocating for this, and even strill, we have the above scenario where it wont work.

So, I assume were in a feedback loop now? Or will this part just be overlooked to fit theory? Ive been saying all along, too many holes, too much hiding, not enough scrutiny, and even what there is is denied.

What I see here is a continuation from 1920, where we saw continual temps raising til another cooling period, where agin it starts and continues to pass those 1920s highs in 1935, lasting for 10 years until 1945, where agian we see a drop and leveling off for almost 30 years, or from 1950 til 1980, then once again raising at the same pace we saw prior.
Whats interesting thos is, from 1880 til 1940, it was getting colder than the mean temps, and since the new century the temps have fallen overall.
Now, we cant be too critical of temps of years gone by, without also stepping on any claims, 1 ways or the other, so, no one side playing against the other here.
If we continue to see the current scenario play out, temps will drive down to means temps.
So this is what were all worried about? And supposedly we have no time?
What made the temps raise just as quickly since around the mids twenties as they are today? Any theories on this? And dont say it was CO2, because this was one of mans low points in progress, and if its blamed on people using coal etc, it plays right into what Id said before, about the poorer countries.
So, one way or another were stuck with what happens, and no Al Gore, or someones favorite scientist will stop this, unless someone makes a cleaner power source, or its all hogwash, or both

 

[anonamouse77]

Point is... or both

Where has it said that Global Warming causes Milankovitch cycles? Nowhere, the New Scientist article was nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles. They didn't even mention Milankovitch cycles.

I have no idea why some sceptics claim that temperatures have fallen for the last seven years, all the evidence points to a rise in global temperatures. Now that rise, as with most natural cycles, doesn't come smoothly, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png this chart shows the issues with raw data. You can see that one winter (northern)/summer (southern) (2008) was particularly cold, but that in the last 7 years it would seem that the temperature anomaly remained similar, that is to say that the Earth was not cooling, but maintaining the same temperature over mean, however the trend shown shows a continued increase in temperature anomaly. (Although I'll mention I couldn't find the mean for it.)

The data is on servers in, notebooks, in reports and much is in released graphs. Many scientists, as I've explained before, feel that sceptics were trying to waste there time by making spurious claims for data, without intending to do anything with it. Some recording stations have limits placed on them by land-owners or governments regarding direct publication of data.

It's not too late for it, if we stop the use of fossil fuels within the next 5 years. But if you feel that we won't stop major use of fossil fuels then it is too late. I feel that your faith in other countries is a little saddening. The whole point of Copenhagen was to get world leaders together to sort this out as a planet rather than as individual countries. Perhaps some will continue their usage, but if we can get China and the US on board that behaviour can easily be sorted out, via sanctions. If for example the USA and China managed to switch completely to renewables and electric/hydrogen cars, but then they saw that another country, the UK for example, wasn't changing as much as it could or at all, the US and China could agree to not export to the UK or import UK goods.

You're point about poorer countries is another reason for Copenhagen. It would have set-up a fund of sorts, for poorer countries to change over. If the countries did not switch then they would loose access to the fund until they did.

We are not in a feedback loop yet, but it appears we are edging closer to one, known as a 'tipping point', where it would release further CO2 which would release further CO2 etc.

I'm afraid that your analysis of your graph may be flawed (might be, not saying it is) because you have failed to recognises the mean, where the anomaly is relative to. As a statistician my first thought in these anomalies graphs is too look for where the mean was taken from. This graph is similar to yours but without the ocean curve - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png – and looking at the data set - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt – the mean is taken from 1950-1980. As such the period from 1880 to 1940 was getting warmer, as the anomaly was shrinking, although the lack of data from earlier means it is hard to decipher whether this early period of warming is a trend or something else. Could you provide a link to your graph? A graph for more the more recent period is here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png – and it shows a upwards trend in temperature, but it stops at 2004 so we can't tell whether the levelling off lead to a downwards drop in anomaly. The mean is taken from 1961-90.

I can't say that your conclusion on the current scenario is provable or accurate. How do you know that temperatures will drop back to mean? The trends on other graphs and yours show an increase in temperature rather than a decrease.

It was still the use of fossil fuels, and indeed coal was heavily used in those days. So it probably was CO2 from the use of coal, but the poorer countries would receive some sort of aid to help them off fossil fuels and onto renewables as I said earlier.

There are plenty of clean power sources – wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric and to a certain extent nuclear power (the clean-up costs don't bode well for it though). Just because you feel that burning fossil fuels is the be all and end all on power generation doesn't mean there aren't clean sources of energy. The ITER project is investigating whether nuclear fusion is suitable for commercial power generation, but the work on fusion should have been done earlier, and they won't have a plant up and running until 2030.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
It appears the last 3 years have dropped in temps

Im refering to the ocean climates here, as it can be looked as a precursor, and isnt as differing as the land temps

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Notice the northern henisphere is cooling for the latest temps, while the southern temps raise

 

[anonamouse77]

Notice the northern henisphere is cooling for the latest temps, while the southern temps raise

I honestly don't see how you can see a trend of a fall in temperature anomaly in these graphs. For the first graph there is a rise in both land and sea temperatures. Just because there is variation doesn't mean it's trending downwards.

The second graph shows that the Northern hemisphere is rising quicker than the Southern hemisphere, but the first graph explains the reason for this. Note how quickly the temperature anomalies have been rising for Land, and then look at the Northern hemisphere plotting; they are very similar because more of the land mass of the world is in the Northern hemisphere.

Studying the 5-year mean we can see that only the Southern hemisphere's temperature anomaly fell, but picked up and began to rise right at the end, whereas for the Northern hemisphere, along with the Land and Sea curves, the trend was upwards.

You are correct to say that the temperature anomaly fell right at the end, maybe in a few months we could see whether that was a continuing trend rather than just a blip - as there were many in the curves of each graph - once the full 2009 data has been added. But the trend remains overwhelming upwards.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I said the last 3 years, and if it lasts 2 more, then it is a trend on a 5 year grid/mean.
Thats right, but whats interesting is, and correct me if Im wrong, water absorbs more heat or solar heat than land?

Oh, and Happy New years!!

 

[anonamouse77]

I said the last 3 years, and if it lasts 2 more, then it is a trend on a 5 year grid/mean.
Thats right, but whats interesting is, and correct me if Im wrong, water absorbs more heat or solar heat than land?

Oh, and Happy New years!!

I think you're correct to say that water absorbs more heat that land. But because it absorbs it quicker than the Land it also looses it quicker at night. Couple this with the fact that Oceans are driven by currents means that the heat is spread more. Theoretically oceans are darker so they absorb more thermal radiation, but they have a lot of volume to warm, and as the transfer to warm is quicker the transfer to cool is quicker. This is, however, all speculation as I've yet to find a study into thermal radiations effect on Lands and Oceans.

Living on the coast I find that on still summer days in the morning the land is warmer so the wind blows towards the sea, then the sea picks up and by mid-afternoon the wind direction has reversed. So if I cycle up somewhere in the morning and return in the evening I always seem to have a headwind.

And a happy New Years to you!

P.S. If it reduces the mean it doesn't mean it's now a downward trend. The trend for all plottings remains upwards (You can see on the curves were they have had a reduced temperature anomaly, then just continued rising after it). Also, it doesn't necessarily need 2 more years to start going down or up. If, for example you have 4 just above average years but one really cold year, then the mean would be downwards, and vice versa for a rising mean.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If I remember right, water heats slower and cools slower.
On land, rock heats quickly and cools quickly, whereas soils is slower to heat and cool.
Being porous, the air traps the heat, like they say, for absolute zero, a near perfect vacuum is desirable, and water actually has more oxygen in it than does out atmoshpere I believe, % wise.
So, water warms slower, but cools slower as well, and is why dark water tanks are desirable to keep the heat, whereas if it were empty, itd cool faster, even sealed.
Its why they use brine for so many things, its harder to cool, but retains the cold better.
And the salt contents of couirse prevents freezing for desirable use/temps
Or, your hot water heater, if insulated coreectly, its better to have the hot water heated and ready than use a hot water on demand, and they do have those units, and they do do well, but if they spent more money to do the same for regular hot water heaters, they too would gain some, or save some energy.
So, heres what Im thinking. If it takes the water more to cool, and the majority of the water on earth is in the southern hemisphere, its been cooler for some reason there, as seen here in the combined land/water graph

Now, we know the vast majority between the heispheres differences are land/water makeup, with the northen hemisphere having much more land than the southern hemisohere.
So, in this graph, we can somewhat deduce that the land is heating up moreso than the water, since we dont have hemispherecal graphs of water vs land for each hemisphere.

Now we know water heats and cools more slowly than land does, so something is effecting the land more than the oceans. Air temps dont have as large an impact on water as solar energy does, so even if the land temps are higher in the southern hemisphere, the lack of land is minimized as to effects on water.

Several things creep in, and are subtle, but there nonetheless. The raising of the water or sea levels creates a few subtle changes, as theres more surface area to the water/oceans itself, which is somewhat of a non solar insulator if you will, as air is much less effective heating the water than solar energy.
But, on the land, even when you have more water in the air, which is the largest particles other than oxygen in total makeup, having a larger water covered surface creates even more of this, and this isnt a heat producer per se in the atmosphere, as the water drolets absorb the solar energy, but also prevent it from reaching the earth, so an even tradeoff, or, theres simply no greater solar energy to go around, either way, and its effects (heating) are local, where it has most effect.
The water droplets become rain, and there being more of them, because of water surface area increases, wash and cleanse the air , sending it so the oceans mostly.
Now, these are subtleties no doubt, but are contributors for sure. What Id like to know is, what effects does rain have on CO2 in out atmosphere, because CO2 is absorbed by the water/oceans, and having more area covered in water increases this as well.
This is what I call my faith in all this, its all in balance, and yes, I know about our CO2 contributions, but there has been these amounts in the past, considering catastrophies weve previously discussed, and having the total contributions from those catastophies, not just say, the impact of the meteor, but the heating, the clouding, the solar catching, the rotting plants, animals etc, its burning more at once than we do in say months, and takes years to correct.
So, sense our contributions are more subtle than this, so to are the things Ive mentioned, water area , water droplets etc.

So, in the end, we have a greater amount of acid rain, which is absorbed by a larger water covered area, because, if life survived impacts, and the yellowstone park eruptions several times over in history, where we see several feet of dust from it 1000 miles away, buried in the ground, I believe itll adjust.
Im not advocating continued heavy fossile fuel usage, as its crazy to determine your entire livelyhood on a fast disappearing resource, But I am saying things will work out, even at our current pace, which we cant keep anyways, as we all know, production has peaked anyways, so, its impossible to have more, unless poorer countries turn to coal, and dirty coal at that.
No offense, but China is a filthy country. Wjile i havnt been there, I know someone who has, and the air there is terrible.
They use coal, and is why we see all the miners killed all the time, besides just for the lack of safety.
There is absolutely no way China can or will comply with this, their economy is even worse, as their assets is our purchases, and if we back off, whats that going to do?
Id also remind you of Japan and WWII, and the steel issue, amongst other things, that brought Japan to Pearl Harbor.
Im not trying to sound scary or threatening here, Im simply pointing out history, and how mans mind works. I said way back in this thread, man is basically evil, and history proves this.
So, we are temporarily upsetting the balance, and the earth is shifting to absorb and rebalance, we have people screaming the world will end if we dont, but they really arent being honest, as we will be running out of fossile fuels by the end of this century, and onyl will have less and less to use as we go forwards, abd is why I believe this is a politically motivated scheme, based loosely on a few facts, ignoring others, and somewhat hidden to view.
The motivation we are told is, the world has no balance, we will be doomed, but i believe the motivation is, we need to slow down long enough to make a energy use transformation, which I agree with, but I abhor being lied to

 

[anonamouse77]

If I remember right... lied to

Point by point...

Looking further into the specific heat capacities of water and soil, this analysis would be.... correct 😉 . This is why I always end up with a headwind on still summer days. The specific heat capacity of soil is 0.8 J/(g*K) or 0.8 joules of energy to heat a gram of it one degree. The specific heat capacity of water is higher, at 4.2J/(g*K).

I think you are, however, incorrect in your assertion that there is more oxygen in water than in the atmosphere, because dissolved oxygen is in the ppm area in water whereas it makes up 21% of the atmosphere

This warming differential could be explained by several other possibilities (plus some more I can't think of to produce a plausible explanation);
1) Much of the population an urban areas of the world are in the Northern Hemisphere, and the heat given of by city centres could be spreading into the environment when it wouldn't have before.
2) The populations in the southern hemisphere are developing countries, excepting Australia and New Zealand. As such amenities such as Air conditioning and central heating aren't generally available too them, which means means the heat wasted from these systems doesn't spread to the atmosphere (the effect of this should be small though)
3) Don't forget that the Antarctic is massive in comparison the the Arctic. The extra reflectivity from this could cool the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere. The ice sheet of Antarctica is made from snowfall, and contains no salt. As such it needs to be 2 degrees warmer to start to melt, which may not sound like much but on a continental scale 2 degree warmer is a huge ask. When the sea ice of the Arctic melts it is replaced by darker seas, which absorbs more heat than ice, but if a layer of Antarctic ice melts then more ice is uncovered, and the reflectivity remains similar.
4) The southern hemisphere is milder overall (apart from Antarctica which is a lot colder than the Arctic) so the changes would be less dramatic percentage wise compared to the Northern Hemisphere.
5) The Northern Hemisphere is more polluted than the Southern Hemisphere, more pollution more heat.

An increase in sea levels would be caused by high temperatures which would melt ice sheets. But if temperatures increased then there would be less ice cover, particularly over the Arctic and Greenland. As we know that ice is a better reflector of solar energy than the ocean more heat would be absorbed by the oceans that have replaced the ice cover, increasing temperatures

Water isn't the largest particle in the atmosphere, by content or molecular size. It's smaller than Nitrogen, Argon (over full atmosphere) and Oxygen in concentration, and molecularly, CO2, Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous Oxide and many others are larger than it. Water vapour is actually a greenhouse gas, and though it's up for debate whether they contribute to or mitigate warming, NASA feel that clouds mean it does the latter. Locally cloud cover at night means that the land remains warm in comparison to what it would have been if it were cloudless. A while back in the south of the UK we got sort of caught in a vicious cycle, were the days were clear but by night the clouds would roll in and keep the temperatures up, then clear away by morning and the cycle would repeat, increasing temperatures day on day.

Rainfall scrubs an amount of CO2, but then again it has been doing so since it first fell, and reached an equilibrium before we got involved. It's quite possible that the rain is scrubbing more from the atmosphere because there is more of it now. But when it gets to the Ocean? The seas can only absorb so much CO2, and it also acidifies it, weakening the exoskeletons and shells of sea creatures. The warmer the oceans get the less CO2 they can absorb.

Past catastrophes have nothing to do with this modern crisis. You can compare them all you want, by saying how much worse they were with regard to CO2 release, but then remember how bad there were. They were called catastrophes for a reason. This man-made warming is man-made, and is causing a warming affect. We should act as soon as we can (read – now), to reduce the effects of our releases of CO2. There have been no massive releases of CO2 by natural incidents, and certainly none in the region of asteroid impacts of the distant past.

I always knew the planet would adjust, I just feel humanity wouldn't fare as well.

I'll level with you about China. I like China (but I wish that their human rights record was better). I like how it's a major power that leans to the left. The air quality in their cities is terrible, but it was and sometimes still is terrible in other cities around the world. I doubt that air quality is awful all over China. In cities then of course, but it's still not exactly great in some cities in developed countries. Air quality is awful in their city centres, but the population in these centres is very densely packed so pollution with current technology is inevitable. Xuanwu district in Beijing has a population density of nearly 32,000 people per square kilometre, and central Beijing has a density of 6171 people per square km. The city centre of Shanghai has a density of 24,616 people per square km. These are huge figures for any city, let alone one in a developing country, where pollution is likely to be higher. I feel personally that people like to attack China because they're socialist (altogether now – they are not communist), India has large emissions yet they don't get attacked with the voracity that China is, even proportionally for their CO2 emissions they aren't attacked as much.

Miners have been killed throughout history. In Britain, the US and others there weren't these Health and Safety nets with modern mining back then (which themselves have failed tragically – such as with Sago in 2006). China has a heck of a lot of deaths, but it's a heck of a large country with a vast population. Not saying it's right, but I am saying that when developed nations mined there were these accidents and perhaps from a safety stance we should view China as 60 or more years behind western countries when it comes to mining.

Japan went to Pearl Harbour for oil reasons (….like with Iraq), and to stop the US Pacific fleet from involvement in Japans expansion into Asia. But I honestly don't know what Japan has to do with this, and it does seem like you are trying to use fear by bringing this up, even if you state otherwise.

We have people saying the world as we know it would end, and that human civilisation is unlikely to come out of this unscathed if we continue as we are. I doubt any serious scientist is going to say that the world will end due to this. They may claim that human civilisation will end, which is an outside chance, but not the world.

I don't know what motivation you are listening too, but for me the motivation is to make up for past mistakes that have put poorer nations in jeopardy, and to make sure that the world has not been changed towards a more difficult life for future generations. The world does have no balance, but no balance is good because it keeps things running, such as plate tectonics, ecosystems, energy transfers, the universe in general etc. Nature is imbalanced, it's never in a state of equilibrium, otherwise the universe would be dead and empty, or simply wouldn't exist as by it's creation it was imbalanced.