Texas Drought Continues, Massive Strain On Electrical Grid Will Produce Rolling Blackouts. Can We Talk About Climate Change Now?

[GamerGal]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/texas-drought-continues-massive-strai


So will Texans still chant the right-wing "no such thing as global warming" mantra, or will they finally wise up and start demanding their officials do something to save what's left of our ability to survive on the planet? Oh, and grow crops, too:

Electricity officials in heatwave-hit Texas have warned of impending rolling blackouts from power shortages as the U.S. state struggles to cope with the relentless scorching temperatures.

Texans have turned to air conditioners in huge numbers in a bid to beat one of the hottest summers on record in America's second most populous state.

But bosses for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) say the soaring power demand in the face of the brutal heatwave has left the state one power plant shut-down away from rolling blackouts.


But when a single snowflake lands in the middle of winter they will all shout that global isn't real, after thousands died from global climate change in the summer.

[JenaS62]

You are one smart cookie. Yes Texas had climate change. Winter and then summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/us/05storm.html

"Snow fell in Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, and an ice storm paralyzed the Rio Grande Valley as far south as the usually balmy city of Brownsville.

Parts of Houston were also hit with sleet and ice, snarling traffic. In the west, El Paso suffered through a fourth day of arctic weather that has caused blackouts and natural gas shortages. "

[Traveler]

Well there are going to be power outages. The power stations are being taken off line because they burn coal. But with all those miners out of work who needs the power anyway.

[Reef Badlaw]

let's talk about it

Chilean Desert blitzed by snow and rain;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43982706/ns/weather/#.Tj-lM2FuCk8

climate-change is a 'world' thing... not a regional phobia

[James Random]

let's talk about it

Chilean Desert blitzed by snow and rain;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43982706/ns/weather/#.Tj-lM2FuCk8

climate-change is a 'world' thing... not a regional phobia

You forget GG doesn't think globally, he can only just find America on a map of America.


New Drought does not necessarily equate to global climate change. That is all.

[Vuall]

Are there seriously people out there that deny climate change?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Blu-ray]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/images/FET_doomsday_150_1.jpg

[Bob]

I'm not worried, the climate change issue will solve itself when the planet can no longer support 8 billion human beings. No food, no fish, no air, and no money, throw in a lethal virus and we'll be toast before you know it.

[GamerGal]

Are there seriously people out there that deny climate change?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Yes!

James Random, Reef Badlaw, Jena, Pico, Anarch, Dick Cheney, Boner, Mitt, Bachmann, every Republican.

And when they post an article about a desert getting more snow than it had in 1,000 years, they don't realize they are pointing out global climate change fucking shit up. because they are fucking retarded.

No joke, Reef Badlaw just said like three posts ago "Global Climate Change isn't real! See! It snowed more in a desert than it had in over 1,000 years!" Not realizing that is proof of global climate change.

[Vuall]

To point out cold snaps as evidence climate change is not occurring is pure ignorance. Extremes both hot AND cold are evidence of climate change. I don't think anyone ever said it is going to get slowly warmer and warmer. Everyone in the scientific community agree extremes of weather: drought, flash flooding, extended periods of snow and ice, retreating ice fields, rise in sea level...are all indications of climate change. There is no doubt about this, there is plenty of evidence.

[Blu-ray]

To point out cold snaps as evidence climate change is not occurring is pure ignorance. Extremes both hot AND cold are evidence of climate change. I don't think anyone ever said it is going to get slowly warmer and warmer. Everyone in the scientific community agree extremes of weather: drought, flash flooding, extended periods of snow and ice, retreating ice fields, rise in sea level...are all indications of climate change. There is no doubt about this, there is plenty of evidence.


Neither one drought nor one freak cold snap does climate change make. HOWEVER, repeated occurrences of such is an indication of such.

[Vuall]

Just out of interest, this denial of climate change, is it based on information from people who are qualified to judge, or is it based on politics.

I ask because I've never met anyone that seriously deny's climate change is a reality.

[GamerGal]

It is all politics.

If you are a Republican then science is the bane of your existence. The GOP bans/blocks the teaching of evolution in schools. They have cut any scientific funding towards global climate change, going so far as to mothball a multi million dollar satellite that NASA built. The GOP blocks/bans the testing/research of stem cells which could/would cure countless diseases.

[Blu-ray]

Just out of interest, this denial of climate change, is it based on information from people who are qualified to judge, or is it based on politics.

I ask because I've never met anyone that seriously deny's climate change is a reality.

Who are you asking this of? I don't deny climate change is happening. I do however feel that one freak act of nature is not indicative of a whole.

[Zer0th]

Are there seriously people out there that deny climate change?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
No sane person denies climate change... its done so for about 4 billion years.

Your link shows 0.5 million years... try 600
http://i54.tinypic.com/2ihvxci.jpg

[Vuall]

You are right Zer0th, however going back before 0.5 million years takes us way before man. What the climate and atmosphere was like then is irrelevant to us today. Life was different then.
And I'm not convinced of the accuracy of your graph in any case. It shows a drop of 5 degrees in the last 1/2 million years.

[JenaS62]

I do not deny climate change. It's cyclical. We have had ice ages and periods of extreme heat forever.

[Vuall]

It is all politics.

If you are a Republican then science is the bane of your existence. The GOP bans/blocks the teaching of evolution in schools. They have cut any scientific funding towards global climate change, going so far as to mothball a multi million dollar satellite that NASA built. The GOP blocks/bans the testing/research of stem cells which could/would cure countless diseases.

If 1/2 of that is true then it's insanity.


Who are you asking this of? I don't deny climate change is happening. I do however feel that one freak act of nature is not indicative of a whole.

I was just throwing that out there generally BR, not specifically at you.
And yes I would agree one instance does not indicate climate change, but how many instances would?......
Because there are many many instances during the last 20 years or so, increasing in frequency and severity.

[Vuall]

I do not deny climate change. It's cyclical. We have had ice ages and periods of extreme heat forever.

I'm glad to hear that Jena LOL

But I will say the prospect of an ice age or the opposite worries me, and if we are contributing to hastening the advent, that worries me too.

In any event, it's happening, and we should be making preparation for it.

[GamerGal]

If 1/2 of that is true then it's insanity.



I was just throwing that out there generally BR, not specifically at you.
And yes I would agree one instance does not indicate climate change, but how many instances would?......
Because there are many many instances during the last 20 years or so, increasing in frequency and severity.

100% true.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE? DO WE HIT THEM ACROSS THE FACE WITH A 2 X 4 OR WATER-BOARD THEM? THE GOP DENIES EVOLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THEY ALSO DENY THEY SCREWED UP THE ECONOMY
http://trickledownbs.blogspot.com/2011/02/denying-evolution-something-gop-does.html?zx=482c43d0290bd431


Evolution is just a theory and so is the big bang, and you can't disprove creationism, therefore, you're full of nonsense" as they say. No, science is observable fact and documented by countless experiments that are conducted by scientists. Evolution is a fact, the big bang "theory" is a fact just like gravitational "theory" is a fact (are you going to deny gravity now too, republicans?), and climate change is a fact. Countless scientists and engineers have proven by scientific experiments and mathematical modeling that climate change is real, and yet republicans continue to deny them, just like they do evolution and the big bang?

Why do republicans hate science?

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) repeatedly denies evolution in front of Bill Maher’s live television audience:
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002808/

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002808/
Republican Party Platform Calls for Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[Zer0th]

You are right Zer0th, however going back before 0.5 million years takes us way before man. What the climate and atmosphere was like then is irrelevant to us today. Life was different then.
Monkeys initially evolved with CO2 80% higher than today
Mammals initially evolved with CO2 600% higher than today
Plants initially evolved with CO2 2,000% higher than today

Ideal for plant growth is CO2 at 300% of today. Plants are the base of the food chain.


And I'm not convinced of the accuracy of your graph in any case. It shows a drop of 5 degrees in the last 1/2 million years.
It isn't controversial. A half million years is 1/1,200 of the X axis... you wouldn't be able to see it.

My major point is that you're being fed a fraction of the story as supports the narrative... and that goes for each of the bullets at the NASA link. Take your pick and I'll quickly demonstrate that vital facts are conveniently omitted.

[JenaS62]

Well I don't believe that we are hastening it. Not that we should not do all possible to protect the environment but if it was caused by us - the polar caps on Mars would not be melting too.

[James Random]

Yes!

James Random, Reef Badlaw, Jena, Pico, Anarch, Dick Cheney, Boner, Mitt, Bachmann, every Republican.


I didn't deny climate change, I said that draught does not necessarily equate to global climate change. Learn to read before making yourself look silly.


As for climate change and the environment: The earth is doing fine. Never better, in fact. It's perfectly okay. The people living on it are the ones that are fucked.

The arithmatic: earth been here 4 billion or so years. Humans been here for 1-200,000 years and only industrialised for 200 of that.

Now in that 4 billion years the earth has had to deal with much worse than us and our plastic. Earthquakes, volcanoes, it's own formation, tectonic shifts, solar flares, the ice age, the great flood, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic polar reversal, impacts by comets, asteroids, meteors over millions of millions of years, the moon coming into orbit, tidal waves, tsunamis, cosmic rays, erosion, global fires....and yet somehow you think that within 200 years humans and their activities have become a threat to this planet? Haha.

This earth is staying where it is, it's you that's under threat. The planet will be here when the sun expands but humans will be a long distant memory, it having shrugged us off like a horse flicks a fly off its arse with its tail.

The trouble with you folk is you don't really give a crap about the environment at all. What you care about is not being inconvenienced by having lava on your £1300 January Sale Carpets.

[Vuall]

Monkeys initially evolved with CO2 80% higher than today
Mammals initially evolved with CO2 600% higher than today
Plants initially evolved with CO2 2,000% higher than today

Ideal for plant growth is CO2 at 300% of today. Plants are the base of the food chain.


It isn't controversial. A half million years is 1/1,200 of the X axis... you wouldn't be able to see it.

My major point is that you're being fed a fraction of the story as supports the narrative... and that goes for each of the bullets at the NASA link. Take your pick and I'll quickly demonstrate that vital facts are conveniently omitted.

I don't doubt any of that Zer0th, and I apologise for misreading the x axis, my mistake.

However my point is, the changes going back millions of years were on a totally different earth. The volcanic action was vastly greater than today. The way the different composition of the atmosphere reacted to the sun was different. Is this relevant to the changes we are experiencing now?

I'm not dismissing your input, just questioning it's relevance.

[Vuall]

I didn't deny climate change, I said that draught does not necessarily equate to global climate change. Learn to read before making yourself look silly.


As for climate change and the environment: The earth is doing fine. Never better, in fact. It's perfectly okay. The people living on it are the ones that are fucked.

The arithmatic: earth been here 4 billion or so years. Humans been here for 1-200,000 years and only industrialised for 200 of that.

Now in that 4 billion years the earth has had to deal with much worse than us and our plastic. Earthquakes, volcanoes, it's own formation, tectonic shifts, solar flares, the ice age, the great flood, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic polar reversal, impacts by comets, asteroids, meteors over millions of millions of years, the moon coming into orbit, tidal waves, tsunamis, cosmic rays, erosion, global fires....and yet somehow you think that within 200 years humans and their activities have become a threat to this planet? Haha.

You didnt cite George Carlin LOL

[James Random]

You didnt cite George Carlin LOL

Oh I did. I so did.

[Vuall]

Oh I did. I so did.

No you didn't. Do you know what cite means?

[James Random]

No you didn't. Do you know what cite means?

Yes indeedy do. but you cited it for me so all is well. <3

But you are displaying a fine point on why nobody acheieves anything.
Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what is being said, they argue
over the semantics instead.

[Vuall]

Yes indeedy do. but you cited it for me so all is well. <3

But you are displaying a fine point on why nobody acheieves anything.
Instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what is being said, they argue
over the semantics instead.

It was well intentioned, I just didn't want you to get dinged for flouting copy rite.

[Reef Badlaw]

Yes!

James Random, Reef Badlaw, Jena, Pico, Anarch, Dick Cheney, Boner, Mitt, Bachmann, every Republican.

And when they post an article about a desert getting more snow than it had in 1,000 years, they don't realize they are pointing out global climate change fucking shit up. because they are fucking retarded.

No joke, Reef Badlaw just said like three posts ago "Global Climate Change isn't real! See! It snowed more in a desert than it had in over 1,000 years!" Not realizing that is proof of global climate change.

Did I say that? Show me where I said it.

*crickets*

[Reef Badlaw]

after thousands died from global climate change in the summer.

Show me proof that 'thousands' have died of heat-stroke or water-deprivation in Texas this Summer.

[James Random]

It was well intentioned, I just didn't want you to get dinged for flouting copy rite.

George Carlin would say 'take copyright and shove it up your ass'. He didn't say all the things he said to have it copyrighted and restricted, etc.

[Vuall]

George Carlin would say 'take copyright and shove it up your ass'. He didn't say all the things he said to have it copyrighted and restricted, etc.

Fair do's LOL

[Reef Badlaw]

It is all politics.

If you are a Republican then science is the bane of your existence. The GOP bans/blocks the teaching of evolution in schools. They have cut any scientific funding towards global climate change, going so far as to mothball a multi million dollar satellite that NASA built. The GOP blocks/bans the testing/research of stem cells which could/would cure countless diseases.

Now, we get to it, don't we... ?

Your fear-and-loathing of Texas. The reaching... the straining... the desperate grasping of old stereotypes and Hollywoodian mythos-shards. The fear of the Lone Star Republic. How narrowly discriminatory.

Time for some current newspaper-headlines. Let's try far west, in Lubbock...
http://lubbockonline.com/

hmmm, nothing there... let's stay west, in Amarillo...
http://amarillo.com/

high-school bands practicing in heat... citizens being cautious with water... nothing apocalyptic... let's try Austin, the Capitol...

http://www.statesman.com/
still no panic

It rarely gets more Leftist than the Houston Chronicle...
http://www.chron.com/

darn... nothing there... human-interest tidbits again.

Dallas-Fort Worth;
http://www.dallasnews.com/
Finally, a headline... heat advisories, but no death-notices.

It's the Republicans' fault, right GG? -You want people to die, so Repubs get the blame? -So you can gleam demonically gleeful, like Cap'n Ahab... with a screamingly self-righteous " HE BREACHES... !!!! " before Moby Dick thrashes 'im with unutterable reality.

[Reef Badlaw]

Are there seriously people out there that deny climate change?

If GG, in all her blitheringly scurrilous, Salem Witch-trial/Cotton Matherist plasticene-piety had placed this thread in AO's Climate Change section where it belongs, you'd notice that nobody thinks 'climate change' isn't happening. Our disagreements come from man-made vs. natural changes. I give very little credence to man-made climate change.

[Waymarker]

Why don't the Texans simply turn down their air-conditioning a few notches so as not to overload the grid?
And surely there's plenty of water, not all the rivers and lakes have dried up have they?

[Beatnik Bob]

Of course there is "climate change."

But suggesting humans are the culprit is an assumption that's rather ill-founded.

Are there humans living on Mars? And a massive scene of industrialization? Not that I know of. Yet, Mars is experiencing climate change. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece)

NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer has done significant research on this.

Global warming is, more than any other factor, directly attributed to cloud osscilations. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/)



LINK: (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/)It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

Carbon isn't quite as influential as its given credit for. The real culprit is water vapor. Water vapor, compounded with Sun cycles. As water vapor helps dictate how much radiation enters or does not enter the atmosphere, and the Sun is, indeed the source of this radiation.
Check out this previous thread on the subject: http://forums.armageddononline.org/water-vapor-and-t27282.html?t=27282


Indeed, what's interesting to note is that the world was actually hotter in the 9th century than it was in the 20th century, in the middle of a World War and massive industrialism.

If you're going to suggest that a correlation of CO2 to temperature is indicative of all causation, you are incorrect given the facts.

http://blogs.mbs.edu/fishing-in-the-bay/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg

This whole to-do about Greenland melting is just history repeating itself. It was because of a warmer Greenland that Vikings could partially settle there in the first place. Yet there were no major factories in the Middle Ages...

What the Earth is currently doing is recovering from the "Little Ice Age." :vbroll:

[Waymarker]

Surely nobody can doubt that modern massive pollution is messing with our planet?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/factory.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/stink.jpg

[Beatnik Bob]

Surely nobody can doubt that modern massive pollution is messing with our planet?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/factory.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/stink.jpg
Pollution creates smog, acid rain, and awful air--among a host of other negative things.

A few of my friends went to Beijing a couple years ago. They weren't used to the air, so they coughed often from the particulate matter, and were coughing even when they got back to the States.

There are thousands of reasons to eliminate emissions.
However, as it is, climate change isn't one of those reasons.
As the climate is significantly independent of (carbon) pollution.

Just observe some the facts in my previous post.

[Zer0th]

You should see the air pollution and bubbling toxic lakes in China due to the industrial separation of rare-earths. Specifically neodymium for super-powerful magnets, as used by the ton in each of your "green" wind turbines.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2a9vddy.jpg

Not to mention, oops, that wind power has to be backed by conventional capacity for when it doesn't blow. Here in the UK that means gas-powered stations that produce more pollution running on idle than when generating. Genius.

[Zer0th]

NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer

former NASA scientist... but still connected via the University of Alabama as Science Team leader for the AMSR on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

[Demian]

Global warming is man made. Roy Spencer is not a legitimate scientist in my mind as he is a creationist (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php). Spencer is a Phd. in meteorology, not a climate scientist. 99% of scientists are in agreement that global warming is occuring and it is driven by the use of fossil fuels. I don't feel the need to support that statement with a source because its such a widely accepted fact in the scientific community but if you wish to challenge me on it I'm sure I won't have to look far to find one. Also I think that the fact that this subject is still up for debate in this country is a testament to the strength of the corporate propaganda system in the U.S.

Also unusual extreme weather conditions this summer have caused countless deaths around the world. Floods in Queensland Australia and Thailand, droughts in Africa and a large amount of suffering in North America. Deaths in North America are kept to a minimum because for the most part because the U.S. is not a third world country(yet)and there are systems to off set the chance of casualties. The brunt of people that suffer from climate change are those in the third world, ironically the people who are the least to blame for the problem. (Link to pertinent information http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/) (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36783&Cr=climate+change&Cr1

Although there is no scientific proof that an individual instance of extreme weather can be linked directly to climate change, over all increase in temperatures and precipitaion can be.http://www.pewclimate.org/publications/extreme-weather-and-climate-change

If any of you who deny would like to argue the fact further I am very prepared to do so.

[Nu Kua]

You should see the air pollution and bubbling toxic lakes in China due to the industrial separation of rare-earths. Specifically neodymium for super-powerful magnets, as used by the ton in each of your "green" wind turbines.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2a9vddy.jpg

Not to mention, oops, that wind power has to be backed by conventional capacity for when it doesn't blow. Here in the UK that means gas-powered stations that produce more pollution running on idle than when generating. Genius.

Thank you for sharing that about the neodymium and the pollution, and the wind turbines.

:(

Aw, fuck everything.

[Beatnik Bob]

Global warming is man made. Roy Spencer is not a legitimate scientist in my mind as he is a creationist
You don't have to like him, or respect him. But you should ackowledge the facts.

-Mars is experiencing warming, and it has warmed by roughly the same amount as the Earth has since the 1970s.

-There are 39 particles of CO2 for every 100,000 particles of air. It will take 5 years of emissions to raise this ratio to 40 particles of CO2 for every 100,000 particles of air.

-For this reason, cloud oscillations predict warming trends, and water vapor is the most influential contributor and the premier factor in the greenhouse effect.

-It was warmer in 9th century than it was in 1940. Find me the "carbon emisions" from 800 AD.
Likewise it was cooler in the 16th century than it was in 800 AD. Find me the "lack" of factories. (As a correlation is being drawn between carbon emissions and climate change).



You simply must address the simple fact, whether you like Dr. Spencer or not, that it was much hotter in much of the Middle Ages.


99% of scientists are in agreement that global warming is occuring and it is driven by the use of fossil fuels.
False.
Moreover, an increasing number of scientists are beginning to acknowledge the fact that not only is global warming not real (THUS, why it is now referred to as "climate change" because many areas of the globe have had some of their most severe winters in decades).

But scientists are also, in growing numbers, recognizing the role of water vapor in the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is as effective as carbon (or other particles), it moves in cloud formations, and it comprises the largest segment of the composition of particulate matter in air.

Talk to me about carbon-induced global warming/man-made global warming when, instead of clouds of water, you see clouds of CO2. Needless to say, when that day comes (which, based on the rate of emissions, this would take literally thousands of years), humanity wouldn't exist anyway. And the Earth could just as easily cool as it does "warm."
(Clouds of any particulate matter are just as capable of blocking sunlight/radiation out as they are of trapping it in).

Volcanoes have caused more damage (over millions of years) to the Earth's atmosphere than humans have in 200 years of industrialization.
This is a fact. The biggest contributor of Carbon for the existence of planet Earth has been volcanoes.

Moreover, I failed to mention that CO2 clouds covering the Earth (to the same capacity that water vapor covers the Earth today) is completely unrealistic. CO2 is not guaranteed to stay in the atmosphere for eternity. Whereas the Sun will evaporate water into the atmosphere regularly.
It happens gradually after a volcanic eruption.
It may take a couple centuries for complete dissipation, (as we actually still have some CO2 in the air from previous major volcanic eruptions), but it will.

And unless the Earth, or humans, emit more of it, the Sun simply will not bring more into the atmosphere as it does water.
A scenario in which CO2 (specifically) dictates climate change is illogical. If you believe it's logical, then try your hand at reason.


I don't feel the need to support that statement with a source
Then your assertion isn't valuable.


because its such a widely accepted fact in the scientific community
Because you say it is?


Although there is no scientific proof that an individual instance of extreme weather can be linked directly to climate change, over all increase in temperatures and precipitaion can be.
Pointing out that climate change exists and that it contributes to extreme weather does not prove, in any sense of the word, that carbon emitted by humans is the direct cause of this climate change.

Moreover, to suggest that "carbon" is 'the' culprit of temperature change stands in direct defiance of the water vapor effect, and the effect of cloud oscillation--at a quantifiable level.

Join the discourse: http://forums.armageddononline.org/water-vapor-and-t27282.html?t=27282

[calliope]

Your fear-and-loathing of Texas. The reaching... the straining... the desperate grasping of old stereotypes and Hollywoodian mythos-shards. The fear of the Lone Star Republic. How narrowly discriminatory.



Lol.....I just happened to come across these quotes today.

"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas."
- Mark Twain

"Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock


Funny, eh?

[Reef Badlaw]

Lol.....I just happened to come across these quotes today.

"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas."
- Mark Twain

"Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock


Funny, eh?

hehe... eclectically smile-vocative... and mood-brighteningly giggle-inductive. :thumbs:

[Demian]

Roy Spencer is a fraud and charlatan. Its amazing to me that people take this person seriously especialy since he has admited to making serious errors in his work as reported by the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?ei=5090&en=2588a631b8c5cc5d&ex=1281499200&adxnnl=1&%C2%ADemc=rss&%C2%AD%C2%ADpartner=r%C2%ADs%C2%ADsuserlan%C2%ADd&adxnnlx=1312866819-SBX3fYKUmVUMj5nY2RV1eQ

I quote from the article

("Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.

A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

"Our view hasn't changed," Dr. Christy said. "We still have this modest warming.")

Even with the his blunders exposed he can still not admit that anthropogenic global warming is occuring much like the fact he cannot admit evolution is a fact.

I found several articles about Spencer writen by Barry Bickmore a republican Morman climate scientist ( I know it sounds like an oxymoron)at the university Brigam young in Utah. Here are some links I think that will probably shed light on this ridiculous fraud Spencer.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-2/

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/


As far as Mars goes the primary empirical evidence for long term, global warming on Mars comes from Fenton 2007. Fenton compared a composite snapshot of Mars from 1977 taken by the Voyager spacecraft to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor (referencing work from Geissler 2005). The 1977 snapshot showed a brighter planet. In 1999, the planet had a lower albedo, with prominent darker regions in the southern mid and high latitudes. Using the albedo changes in a general circulation model, Fenton calculated a 22 year global warming trend of 0.65°C.


Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo. Martian dust plays a major role in the planet's climate (Kahn 1992). Solar variations are not the main driver of Martian climate. This being said there is still no consensus as to weather or not there is actual warming on Mars. In fact there may be no warming at all.

To put these results in proper perspective, an understanding of what drives Martian climate is required. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Within a year after a dust storm, various wind systems remove the dust and Mars returns to a normal, lower albedo.

The 1977 snapshot was taken after a global dust storm had deposited dust over the southern latitudes, lightening the planet surface. Before the storm, the planet had albedo comparable to recent measurements (Szwast 2006).

Fenton drew conclusions about long term climate by comparing two end points. This led to the classic error of mistaking weather for climate (similar to the recent global cooling argument). When you look at the broader data, there is no discernable long term trend in albedo.

The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.

Now as far as the being a 99% consensus I was wrong its actually 97% consensus as demonstrated here. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
I quote the paper.
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

There are other articles refuting this fraud on Dr Bickmores web page here and in several other places on the internet. http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Now for the water vapor argument.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So you are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What you don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Now for the argument that is was warmer or as warm in the ninth century.

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period(800-1200) was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Now for your volcano argument.

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, way more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

Volcanoes can and do influence the global climate over time periods of a few years but this is achieved through the injection of sulfate aerosols into the high reaches of the atmosphere during the very large volcanic eruptions that occur sporadically each century.

Global warming is real and it is caused by the actions of humans. There is a scientific consensus that if carbon emissions are not curtailed it will spell disaster for the human species. In fact it may now be too late. Once it begins to warm so much that methane is released from the permafrost in Sibera it will have gone past the point of no return.

I know that I will not convince hard core AGW deniers with my argument. Prehaps someone who is on the ropes will see this debate and and be able to see the facts. Unless something is done quickly about the situation we will be able to see the effects much more than we are now in the next ten to twenty years and it will be too late to do anything.

[Beatnik Bob]

Roy Spencer is a fraud and charlatan. Its amazing to me that people take this person seriously especialy since he has admited to making serious errors in his work as reported by the New York Times.
I'm not sure any scientist anywhere is completely free of error.

But, at least his graphs and data are accurate. Whether or not you choose to accept his conclusions.


Even with the his blunders exposed he can still not admit that anthropogenic global warming is occuring much like the fact he cannot admit evolution is a fact.
His views on evolution hardly factor into the statistics on air.

You are acting as if he is the only/premier scientist who acknowledges the role of water vapor in warming.

There simply is not enough carbon. Humans might emit carbon, but it simply cannot compete with the water vapor weather system. Carbon doesn't create a greenhouse effect anywhere near the level that water vapor does.

Because, simply, there is much more water vapor in the air, and there always will be. All CO2 just isn't guaranteed to stay in the atmosphere forever. And you haven't exactly disproved the point that the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor.


I found several articles about Spencer writen by Barry Bickmore a republican Morman climate scientist ( I know it sounds like an oxymoron)at the university Brigam young in Utah. Here are some links I think that will probably shed light on this ridiculous fraud Spencer.
Discrediting Spencer, hardly discredits the facts, or other scientists.

I merely sited him. He doesn't represent all scientists who recognize this basic truth: that water vapor is the largest contributor toward the greenhouse effect and temperature change.


As far as Mars goes the primary empirical evidence for long term, global warming on Mars comes from Fenton 2007.
"The primary empirical evidence."

I'm afraid that doesn't appear to be true..


Fenton compared a composite snapshot of Mars from 1977 taken by the Voyager spacecraft to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor (referencing work from Geissler 2005). The 1977 snapshot showed a brighter planet. In 1999, the planet had a lower albedo, with prominent darker regions in the southern mid and high latitudes. Using the albedo changes in a general circulation model, Fenton calculated a 22 year global warming trend of 0.65°C.


Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo. Martian dust plays a major role in the planet's climate (Kahn 1992). Solar variations are not the main driver of Martian climate. This being said there is still no consensus as to weather or not there is actual warming on Mars. In fact there may be no warming at all.
Ok.
But the Martian ice caps are melting. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)

And...

Nat'l Geographic: (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.


...Your other assertion that "99%" of scientists are ignorant of all other temperature factors--which have been changing the Earth's climate for millions of years, just aren't accurate. Neither would 97% appear to be the case.


So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.
The effect of dust is essentially their equivalent of our own cloud/water vapor effect.
Needless to say, both work alongside solar activity.

So suggesting that climate change immediately points to carbon emissions is quite naive.
You disprove this position anyway with your explanation of the causes of Middle Age "global warming."



The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature.
...And you do realize what the main source of heat is for the Earth? (The Sun).


If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa.
Exactly.


So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels),
Show me the statistics where CO2 in and of itself actually raises the global temperature.
I'm not saying "show me where the greenhouse effect [which is mostly water vapor] raises global temperature"

I said "show me where CO2 emissions directly heat the Earth like the Sun does." And show me how it's anything but negligible in comparison to the Sun, and its various cycles of increased activity (which, as it happens, the Sun is on a cycle of increased activity...)

...Because you just made a huge jump in logic. CO2 is as capable of cooling the Earth as it is of heating it. The heat produced by factories themselves "DO NOT CAUSE TEMPERATURE CHANGE."

At no point is the heat generated by factories a major factor in this:
http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/AbdelUpload/Temperature_USA_mesoscale_analysis.png

Do you think that this map indicates that there are more factories in the South than there are in the North? For example.

Or that negligible factory heat produced only since the Industrial revolution is really the cause for rises in temperature for these places?


How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2.
What studies.


So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2,CO2 doesn't change temperature in and of itself.
Animals may breath out hot air, but it's hot because the body is very hot. :vbroll:


So you are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What you don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.
That is, assuming, that heat from the various forms of industrialization actually directly evaporates water.

The problem is, there is, again, only 39 particles of CO2 in 100,000 particles of air. There just isn't enough of it.
Compounded with the fact that the kind of heat you're referencing has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. By your own assertions, if our factories produced heat via STEAM they would still produce the same amount of heat that, you say, "evaporates water."

CO2 is thus in and of itself inconsequential. You could, using your model, garner the same effect from high levels of steam output.

What you're complaining about obviously isn't carbon, it's heat produced by humans. Which may or may not require carbon.

Thus the entire argument of "man-made global warming" is fundamentally flawed.


Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period(800-1200) was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.
That's rather innaccurate.

These studies have taken into account everything from ice cores to tree rings. It describes the global "average," not the temperature of a locality.

However, even if you were correct, it means that the very argument you made could easily be used on today's climate model, where the Earth has only warmed in some places.


Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe.
"Global temperatures"?

How is that even accurate?


Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming).
Thus warming isn't dependent on CO2.

However, you never addressed the point. I mentioned that it was warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in 1940.
Would you agree there was more industry in 1940 than there was in the Middle Ages?
If so, then reasons for why it was warmer in the Middle Ages aside, how can you claim that industrialization is so influential on the climate when it has been warmer without industrialization.


New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
See above: Same reasoning applies.


The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.
You didn't address what I said.

I said that over the course of millions of years, volcanoes have done more to pump CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have in a mere two centuries.


Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.
This is also based on volcanic activity, which has been more active in other periods of the Earth's history.
I would hardly suggest the Earth is experiencing significant volcanic activity now. But suggesting volcanoes have always produced a stagnant amount of CO2 in a per-year flat-rate, isn't really reasonable.

The rate, like solar activity, fluctuates.


Global warming is real and it is caused by the actions of humans.
Maybe, maybe not.

If I only went on the evidence you just posted, I wouldn't be able to draw that conclusion.


There is a scientific consensus that if carbon emissions are not curtailed it will spell disaster for the human species.
You mean an Al-Gore consensus. Where few people anywhere believed it until Gore made a book and documentary and money started trading hands. (Putting aside the fact that "The Convenient Profit" is actually highly erroneous...).

We live in a capitalist society. More evidence is going to have to be produced. As what currently is available isn't nominally convincing--from a scientific basis.


In fact it may now be too late.
The Earth was hotter only a millennium ago (and hotter still in other periods throughout the millions of years of Earth's existence), and you're saying it's too late, even though it isn't even relatively hot right now. (I'm referring to past temperatures of Earth. You seem to believe that Earth's temperatures will stagnate).


Once it begins to warm so much that methane is released from the permafrost in Sibera it will have gone past the point of no return.
Even if all human emissions stopped 100 years ago... There's no reason to believe the Sun wouldn't go into a more active cycle. The Sun is still the primary cause of temperature on planet Earth--not heat from people.


Prehaps someone who is on the ropes will see this debate and and be able to see the facts.
I haven't said warming isn't happening. 97% of scientists (as you suggested) recognize climate change. Of course Earth is warming. Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years, and it's not going to stop warming and cooling even if humans cease to exist as a species.

[Vuall]

The way I see it is:

1. No one can deny water vapour has a greenhouse effect.

2. No one can deny CO2 has a greenhouse effect.

3. No one can deny the sun affects our planets temperature.

All these things are contributory. To dismiss one because you think the other is more important is very small minded.

A little analogy: A bonfire is burning out of control. We know it's due to the excess of fuel and the fact someone lit it. The question is do you throw a gallon of water on it in an attempt to bring it under control, or a gallon of petrol on it.

The fact is, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is contributory. There is no denying that. Do we as some people seem to advocate, ignore this because even though it is making things worse, it's not the original cause?

[BravoZuner]

Here in Oklahoma the heat wave was intense. The asphalt buckle in different areas in Oklahoma City. Try roofing in this sh*t. It was impossible. Yeah something is going on and never seen it like this before. Like solar flare or something messing with the planet. I'm just quessing here....

[Max]

I want it down on record, that this topic has persuaded me that "global warming caused by man" is a myth, and I now lean towards it is a natural cycle.

Also, I think the "green movement" and "man made global warming" movement are just nice ways for governments to create new regulations, have new taxes and create new markets.

[RhymnRzn]

I want it down on record, that this topic has persuaded me that "global warming caused by man" is a myth, and I now lean towards it is a natural cycle.

Also, I think the "green movement" and "man made global warming" movement are just nice ways for governments to create new regulations, have new taxes and create new markets....because after all, it is a small thing to eat up the good pasture, and drink from the deep waters, and foul the residue with your feet: then the flocks must come after and eat and drink from that which is fouled with your feet. It is hard to deny the stink, while it is coming straight out of your own camp.

[Beatnik Bob]

The way I see it is:

1. No one can deny water vapour has a greenhouse effect.

2. No one can deny CO2 has a greenhouse effect.

3. No one can deny the sun affects our planets temperature.

All these things are contributory. To dismiss one because you think the other is more important is very small minded.

A little analogy: A bonfire is burning out of control. We know it's due to the excess of fuel and the fact someone lit it. The question is do you throw a gallon of water on it in an attempt to bring it under control, or a gallon of petrol on it.

The fact is, the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere is contributory. There is no denying that. Do we as some people seem to advocate, ignore this because even though it is making things worse, it's not the original cause?
Sure, CO2 could conceivably be influential at some point (in literally thousands of years, as it takes approximately 5 years to raise the ratio of CO2 to 100,000 particles of air by 1), when it is more than negligible.
Neither Earth, Mars, or any planet has warmed specifically from CO2.

I'm sure CO2 could be a player in the greenhouse effect, if there was more of it.

Do you realize that CO2 would have to be produced at a rate faster than water rises into the atmosphere?



But, there's some slight truth to what you say.
If you want my opinion, the deforestation of the world is a much larger problem. It isn't the production of CO2 that matters (the Earth has been through geologically active periods before, and has experienced times of high volcanic activity throughout its life) but the loss of equilibrium within the system that matters.

You can produce as much CO2 as you want (as long as you only care about climate change and not pollution--it's still a pollutant), but if you destroy the world-system that exists to recycle it, (into oxygen) then you have a problem. If we cut down more trees than we plant, now that's the real problem.

If I'm not mistaken, approximately every minute, 10 acres of Rain Forest is destroyed. In the time I've spent making this post, we've statistically lost 20 acres of rain forest.

This whole Al Gore Hype (who, as it is, rides a CO2 producing private jet around everywhere. He can go die for all I care) exists, in my opinion, as a proxy to cover up a much more significant issue. The Earth can take care of itself. If we don't make carbon, it will make it for us, and it's done it in larger quantities. But what humans have been doing is cutting down a rather unnerving number of trees. That really has to stop, because trees help regulate climate in many ways.
Here's a study on urban trees... (http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits/Effects%20of%20Urban%20Trees%20on%20Air%20Quality. pdf)

[JenaS62]

Also, I think the "green movement" and "man made global warming" movement are just nice ways for governments to create new regulations, have new taxes and create new markets.


That's exactly right Max. :thumbs:

[RhymnRzn]

The Earth can take care of itself.
yeah, by spewing the people out of it: then the land will enjoy her sabbaths, when there are no people to dwell in it.

[Sirius]

The fact that the power grid is strained in the south is not a sign of global warming, just a sign of an exodus from the north.

[Reef Badlaw]

Show Proof, GG. I'm still waiting for evidence that thousands of Texans are dying this Summer, due-to water-deprivation and heat-prostration.

Let's talk about climate-change.

[Ningishiddza]

Are there seriously people out there that deny climate change?

There is no climate change. It is a lie.

There is nothing happening now that has not already happened thousands of time in Earth's history. Stop thinking you're special.


Just out of interest, this denial of climate change, is it based on information from people who are qualified to judge, or is it based on politics.

I ask because I've never met anyone that seriously deny's climate change is a reality.

I deny climate change.

This is one of the many, many things I base it on:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.24190.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.23751.png


If you people are so pathetic that you can't handle the truth, then might I suggest a glass of Chianti, Mr. Bubble bubble bath and some Silver Blues.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/100-Gillette-Silver-Blue-Double-Edge-Razor-Blades-/00/$(KGrHqV,!g0E2eSqt+S8BNphL-2V4!~~_3.JPG


You are right Zer0th, however going back before 0.5 million years takes us way before man.

No, it doesn't. That's just before Neanderthal.


What the climate and atmosphere was like then is irrelevant to us today.

No, you don't get it. Here, look closely, this your home, this your Earth:

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i134/ningishiddza/Glaciers.gif

That is how Earth is normally. Earth has been that way ever since South America moved up and collided with the Panamanian Isthmus to close off the gap and prevent water from circulating from the South Atlantic into the South Pacific (and vice versa).

And that is how the Earth will be until South America separates from the isthmus, assuming it ever will (and I don't know that it will or won't), or until North America/South American close up the Atlantic Ocean (which may happen 4 Billion or 5 Billion years from now after both collide with Asia).

Apart from the normal snowy glacier covered Earth, there are small inter-glacial periods, where it warms up.

Get over it already.


Life was different then.

No, life was exactly the same.


And I'm not convinced of the accuracy of your graph in any case. It shows a drop of 5 degrees in the last 1/2 million years.

Yes, that is absolutely right.

Ever since South America close the gap with Panama 4 Million years ago, Earth has been in one of four states:

1) Maximum Glaciation
2) Intermediate Glaciation
3) Minimum Glaciation
4) Inter-Glacial Period

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/waterworld/images/neurope118.jpeg

This is your Earth.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/waterworld/images/ecoast118.jpeg

This is your Earth.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/waterworld/images/fla118.jpeg

This is your Earth.

Is that what you want?

You're worried about rising sea levels? You ought be worried about falling sea levels. Falling sea levels would create an environmental catastrophe like you never could possibly imagine.

Colder planet

The researchers speculate that the glacier period has become longer in the last million years because the Earth has gotten slightly colder - the upshot being that every once in a while the planet misses a chance to thaw out.

The glacial cycles can be measured indirectly in the ratio of heavy to light oxygen in ocean sediments. Simply put, the more ice there is on Earth, the less light oxygen there is in the ocean. The oxygen ratio is recorded in the fossils of small organisms - called foraminifera, or forams for short - that make shells out of the available oxygen in the ocean.

The Earth is getting colder, not warmer.


However my point is, the changes going back millions of years were on a totally different earth.

Who cares? It isn't relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the Milankovitch Cycles.

We're nearing the end of the ~100,000 year eccentricity. That will happen in about 15 months. We're in the middle of axial tilt cycle and who knows where we are in the precessional cycle. When you look at oxygen isotope ratios in core samples and run Fourier Analysis, you get 100,000 years, 41,000 years and 23,000 years.

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/milankovitch.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oCZySTsBjoI/TizxrjwKPnI/AAAAAAAAAYY/vwRwqtO_-mU/s1600/Ice+Age+cycles.jpg

There's a distinct possibility that this Inter-Glacial Period may be an aberration, and not part of the normal cycle. It's entirely possibility that the Inter-Glacial Period started earlier than normal, and that if it had not, we would be entering the Inter-Glacial Period about now, coinciding with Earth's apogee.

But assume for a moment that Global Warming is real. You can even assume it's man-made. Given the alternative, what does it matter?

I've shown you the alternative. Look at time images. The alternative to Global Warming, man-made or not, is far worse for mankind that Global Warming could ever hope to be.

You and the other Global Warming kooks are making a mountain out of a molehill. You ought to be thankful you're living in an Inter-Glacial Period and not engaging in cannibalism like people did 15,000 years ago because there was no food on your very normal Earth.

On the subject of droughts:

From June 1595 through June 1604 there was a major drought in the Southeast US. That drought was responsible for the collapse of all 3 of the Roanoke (Virginia) Colonies.

Man-made Global Warming? Wrong.

From May 1679 through May 1688 a mini Ice-Age resulted in near famine conditions in the New England Colonies and Atlantic Coast Colonies. The ground was frozen solid from about August through June, leaving only 6 weeks to till the soil, plant crops and harvest them. Below what would now be Interstate 80, the growing season was a little longer, about 10 weeks.

Man-made Global Warming? Man-made Global Cooling? Wrong.

From April 1763 through April 1772 a drought in the Atlantic Coast Colonies resulted in near-famine conditions. The drought, in combination with rolling recessions in many European kingdoms precipitated by the collapse of the British East India Trading Company brought trade to a virtual halt between Britain and its American Colonies. The recession and lack of trade led Britain to enact various tax acts, including the Stamp Tax Act (leading to the creation of the Stamp Tax Congress), the Tea Tax (leading to the Boston Tea Party) and other acts. That in turn led to the War of Colonial Independence. Cash-strapped farmers nearing bankruptcy during the drought were all too glad to sell their crops to the Continental Congress on credit. The Congress promptly defaulted on debts leaving the farmers high and dry. The new government under the Articles of Confederation levied taxes on the farmers leading to the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion and many other rebellions most of you never heard of in your life. That in turn led to the creation of the Constitutional government.

Man-made Global Warming? Wrong.

From March 1847 through June 1855 a drought in the Southeastern US resulted in economic distress for the Southern States. The Northern States all too gladly price-gouged the South on food-crops. When the South negotiated a deal with Britain to trade cotton for food, the Northern States promptly enacted a tariff to force the South to continue to buy price-gouged food-crops. That, in part, influenced many southern States later to secede from the Union. In response, Lincoln created the Department of Agriculture in 1862 to help alleviate problems caused by food shortages due to droughts.

Man-made Global Warming? Wrong.

From June 1930 through June 1939, a major drought affected the Central Plain States from Montana/the Dakotas south to Texas. It's commonly referred to as the Dust Bowl. More than 2.5 Million people were forced to permanently flee their homes due to advancing dust which destroyed towns. There was a medical condition called "dust pneumonia" which killed thousands of people. Dust storms were large and wide-spread, causing people in Chicago, Cincinnati and Washington, DC to drive with their head-lights on during the day so that they could see. In Texas and Oklahoma, dust storms engulfed whole towns for hours turning day into night and causing massive damage.

Man-made Global Warming? Wrong.

There's a big clue in all of that and it has nothing to do with humans or Global Warming.

[Cartesiantheater]

I do not deny climate change. It's cyclical. We have had ice ages and periods of extreme heat forever.

SOME of it is cyclical, but there will never be, on the long term, a perfectly repeating cycle forever, because the inevitable increase in entropy would prevent it. A top cannot spin on it's tip eternally. There were features in this planet's climate millions of years ago that will likely never occur again on this planet.

This "political catchphrase" of "climate change is cyclical" is not very precise, nor is it accurate if you get detailed enough. There are events that follow a pattern that are approximately similar to past events of the same pattern, but there isn't some cycle that's infinite going on here. There will be a general trend that ends at a different place than where it started. This is mandated by the laws of thermodynamics.

[DaKat]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/texas-drought-continues-massive-strai



But when a single snowflake lands in the middle of winter they will all shout that global isn't real, after thousands died from global climate change in the summer.

Climate change is real. Human-CAUSED climate change is still highly debatable.

CO2 levels have been MUCH HIGHER in the past, when there were NO humans on the planet, and temps were NOT higher at that time, while temps HAVE been higher at times of LOWER CO2 levels.

Add in that higher temps have been observed on other planets in our solar system, and suddenly the equation changes GREATLY!

Based on historic models, we should now be entering a cooling period, but that is based on factors we understand, while there are obviously many MORE factors we don't yet understand.

[Cartesiantheater]

[..]

CO2 levels have been MUCH HIGHER in the past, when there were NO humans on the planet,

That is entirely irrelevant. I've never understood why this is always part of the "humans have no part in it" argument.




and temps were NOT higher at that time, while temps HAVE been higher at times of LOWER CO2 levels.

That is more relevant, but you would have to examine all the other details (most people on your side of the debate do not, and are content to stop there, but then many on the other side just accept the general consensus).




Add in that higher temps have been observed on other planets in our solar system, and suddenly the equation changes GREATLY!

And this is more relevant, but you would have to examine all the other details (most people on your side of the debate do not, and are content to stop there, but then many on the other side just accept the general consensus).

More interesting is that the sun has been relatively inactive during this time.



Based on historic models, we should now be entering a cooling period, but that is based on factors we understand, while there are obviously many MORE factors we don't yet understand.

There's a lot that we don't understand. There's a lot we do. But this is dealing with non-linear systems (using the term mathematically, not as in "a line"), which puts us a long way off from being able to predict details and determine the degree to which each factor contributes.

But I'd wager large sums of money that every factor contributes at least some- from farting cows to erupting volcanoes to changes in the sun.

[Blu-ray]

Thought I would share this slide show with you. It's images of the ravages of this drought in Texas...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/texasparkswildlife/sets/72157627429641925/show/