Climate continues to change.

[Kitty]

2003 was my last Christmas in the NYC area. I remember lots of snow-less Christmases. So does the National Weather Service.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/Christmas.html

Did you just google some chart? Good for you. I still don't remember a holiday season without it snowing. This year, it was a slight flurry for like one day and that was a week or two ago here. And NYC doesn't have the same weather throughout every borough. Hurricane Sandy ravaged so much of the city in Manhattan, the BX and parts of Brooklyn towards the southern end, but where I live, in Central Brooklyn, it was just some rain and wind.

So how long are we gonna do this for?

 

[Que]

Read the article next time.

..and what about the lack of warming prior to that?

What about all the buffalo flatulence before they were wiped out?

 

[phrodeau]

..and what about the lack of warming prior to that?

What about all the buffalo flatulence before they were wiped out?

They weren't burning fossil fuels then, dumbass.

 

[Que]

They weren't burning fossil fuels then, dumbass.

What exactly do you suppose fueled the trains that carried the buffalo hunters? Flux capacitors?

What do you suppose heated homes and factories of the industrial age? And before you say, "wood" consider that burning a tree both releases carbon and removes a carbon recovery device.

What about the lack of a precipitous drop in temperatures when they already were burning fossil fuels and in a short period of time wiped them out?

 

[phrodeau]

What exactly do you suppose fueled the trains that carried the buffalo hunters? Flux capacitors?

What do you suppose heated homes and factories of the industrial age? And before you say, "wood" consider that burning a tree both releases carbon and removes a carbon recovery device.

What about the lack of a precipitous drop in temperatures when they already were burning fossil fuels and in a short period of time wiped them out?

It was a short period of time, as you say.

Burning a tree makes room for other trees to grow. How many more trees grow because of coal mining?

 

[Que]

It was a short period of time, as you say.

Burning a tree makes room for other trees to grow. How many more trees grow because of coal mining?

Depends on whether it is underground or strip mining. Strip mining requires it all be put back eventually.

All fossil fuel is stored solar energy and carbon capture. The whole reason that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide is because you are releasing energy stored in the once-living matter. That energy was captured from the sun and stored using life-essential carbon in various carbon chains. Every molecule of carbon dioxide we release now, was once part of the atmosphere and was captured by plants through photosynthesis.

Assuming your most dire fears are realized, mankind will be extinct and the planet will simply go on, as it is now, capturing carbon and storing it as fossil fuels.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Depends on whether it is underground or strip mining. Strip mining requires it all be put back eventually.

So the answer is no trees.

When wood is burned, the carbon that's released gets recaptured in another tree in a matter of decades.

When coal is burned, the carbon doesn't get recaptured as coal for hundreds of thousands of years. Some of it gets recaptured in trees, but the mines sure aren't creating more tree-bearing land.

 

[Que]

(edited) So the answer is whatever I wish to edit it to.

The amount of carbon a tree can capture is not dependent on where the carbon was released from. When a tree falls in the forest it is still carbon. It isn't released again until it is burned. It doesn't matter if the carbon re-captured as wood has not yet become coal.

A reclaimed mine has the same area of tree-bearing land as it had before. A slash and burn rain forest, not so much. It isn't just trees. Even a slash and burn rain-forest farm captures carbon.

Your argument should be that we are releasing more carbon from all sources than the planet can currently absorb. No one knows what mechanism the planet will employ to balance that again. Killing off humans would work, if the planet cares.

Lots of things that people think we know has been wrong. It has long been assumed that the Sahara is a desert from over-grazing when the opposite is true. Large herds of livestock are now reclaiming desert land. Their hooves till the soil and their waste fertilizes and spreads seeds.

From a survival of species standpoint it matters not at all whether New Orleans is even further underwater than it already always was. Assuming seal levels rise significantly, that provides more surface area, more evaporation, more precipitation. Flooding also creates river deltas and bottom land rich with life.

More precipitation means more plant life especially in higher Co2 concentration atmospheres.

And the part you always miss is that none of this happens in 100 years or even 500 years.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

More precipitation means more plant life especially in higher Co2 concentration atmospheres.

Plants cannot absorb CO2 without sunshine. When it's raining and cloudy, they need oxygen, not CO2.

And the part you always miss is that none of this happens in 100 years or even 500 years.

You must have a reliable global temperature record to back up that claim.

 

[Que]

"More precipitation" does not mean the sun never shines. Last time I was in Tacoma, the plants seem to manage photosynthesis.

Your spurious claims don't seem to require an accurate historical record.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know how you hate science that spoils your narrative...so here you go:

“We know beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the main cause of the warming of the earth’s climate that has been measured over the past few decades. The warming is unequivocal.

“While the climate of the earth has changed over the millennia as a result of natural factors – principally changes in the tilt and orientation of the earth’s axis and rotation, and in the shape of its orbit around the sun – those changes occur far too gradually to have noticeable effects over a period of mere decades. In their current phases, moreover, they would be gradually cooling the earth – taking us to another ice age – if they weren’t being more than offset by human-caused warming.”

OOPS! I guess we better not shatter the entire greenhouse.

 

[hornydesibitch]

Yes..itz getting colder...but it does not stop me from bein naked!!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Questions for Frodo to answer:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/cause_of_pause_in_global_warming.html#ixzz3NHlF9dnx

Conclusion

Regardless of any unsettled science details, it seems sure that current climate models cannot represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere -- and therefore one should not rely on predictions from such unvalidated models that are based simply on increases of carbon dioxide. It should be obvious that this discussion has important policy consequences since so many politicians are wedded to the idea that CO2 needs to be controlled in order to avoid “dangerous changes of the global climate.”

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

 

[richard_daily]

Questions for Frodo to answer:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/cause_of_pause_in_global_warming.html#ixzz3NHlF9dnx



S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

There aren't any actual questions there, just copy pasta.

 

[thør]

Portnov's Complaint

This can be extrapolated to all oceans.

 

[phrodeau]

There aren't any actual questions there, just copy pasta.

First sentence: "There has been essentially no global warming since 1998."

Wrong. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

The planet is heated by the sun. It is heated different amounts depending on the level of the greenhouse effect. For the past 18 years, the earth has been heated to higher temperatures than average. If global temps return to an average range, then one could claim that the warming has paused.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Frodo, your article says the exact same thing that my article did.

It's true that Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused. Yet the fact remains that average surface temperatures worldwide have not increased since around the turn of the century.

To the casual observer, the lack of warming at the Earth's surface, contrasted to climate scientists' insistence that the planet is still warming, might seem like a conundrum.

As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.

Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?
"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

In other words, it is hiding in a deep dark place place where we cannot find it, that means, like God, it must be real...



"The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise..."

Science you can "believe" in.

Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another prominent critic of climate models, said the recent slowdown in surface warming demonstrates how climate models fail to simulate natural variability.

"The longer [the pause] goes on, the more significant it becomes," Lindzen said. At some point, he continued, models will be so clearly wrong that the public will reject them.

Facts that the rest of us can rely upon.

 

[Que]

Frodo, your article says the exact same thing that my article did.



In other words, it is hiding in a deep dark place place where we cannot find it, that means, like God, it must be real...



"The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise..."

Science you can "believe" in.



Facts that the rest of us can rely upon.

STFU. The word "globe" a guy named "Al" and the word "warming" ALL appeared in those articles!!!

Let us chant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4q6eaLn2mY

 

[phrodeau]

For the comprehension-challenged, I will repeat.

The surface of the earth is constantly being heated by the sun while it rotates like a roast on a spit. The temperature of that oven has gone up since last century. The rate of increase of the temperature on the surface has slowed, but it's still hotter than it was, even on the surface. The oven temperature has not dropped one bit.

 

[trysail]

...quack...

HORSESHIT.



You're a fucking dope. It's universally acknowledged that there has been no significant global warming for more than eighteen (18+) years.

It's a fact that's agreed upon by Nature:
"The Missing Heat" and "The Pause"
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525




It's a fact that's agreed upon by the people who measure global temperatures:
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures



It's agreed upon by everybody except fucking morons like you.

In fact, it's so universally accepted that even the promoters of the great CAGW conjecture have moved on to compiling lists of guesses as to why there hasn't been any significant warming.

An updated list of excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming, including recent scientific papers, media quotes, blogs, and related debunkings:
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

​

​

 

[phrodeau]

How convenient of you to title your post.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

For the comprehension-challenged, I will repeat.

The surface of the earth is constantly being heated by the sun while it rotates like a roast on a spit. The temperature of that oven has gone up since last century. The rate of increase of the temperature on the surface has slowed, but it's still hotter than it was, even on the surface. The oven temperature has not dropped one bit.

Your own link says that is not true.

You seem to be the most comprehension-challenged person in this conversation.

What was your degree in again?

 

[trysail]

Flat-lined.




http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif





​

 

[domroger]

If you think that's a flat line you need your eyesight checked .

 

[trysail]

If you think that's a flat line you need your eyesight checked .

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

It's a planetary emergency— all statistically insignificant 0.2° C over 35 years.

0.2° C over that period of time is white noise.



​

 

[cabin69]

just went out... yeah, damn cold today.

going to stay in and read this