Global cooling

[Hachima]

Originally Posted by Lusiphur

Tea on Tuesday pretty much spanked you in public, which if you had referred to the previous thread you would have realised would have happened.

Look, this always devolves into idelogical warfare which is why I didn't want a 5th thread on causes. So you think its a bad idea, doesn't mean you have to get on your hobby horse about it.



Got a source for that ? Not arguing with you but its contrary to common perception and I would like to investigate it more.

ethanallen.com mentions it and her source if you want to get started with just some simple light reading. There are 100 page documents out there by various forestry groups with their research too such as http://www.unece.org/timber/docs/dp/dp-31.pdf with all the boring details.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by Itzena

The funniest thing about these threads is you could pretty much go "[Citation required]" to every single post made by the deniers, and they'll either link to a fossil fuel shill, a random looney with no genuine science backing him up, or just flat out ignore the request.

That's a good idea... that'd be a good forum feature for user's to take advantage of. Give everyone the ability to put [citation required] after any sentance someone makes.

[earthfell]

Originally Posted by Tuco

sentance.

So... what went wrong there?

[Lusiphur]

Originally Posted by Hachima

ethanallen.com mentions it and her source if you want to get started with just some simple light reading. There are 100 page documents out there by various forestry groups with their research too such as http://www.unece.org/timber/docs/dp/dp-31.pdf with all the boring details.

Thanks man. Interesting stuff. Will digest at boring work day tomorrow

[Gilgamel]

Let me clear this up for you. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. They can guess, they can try to extrapolate with historical records, or use computer models. But they don't fucking know. If you're a reasonable person you should want to improve how clean our energy is no matter what. We should want to become more efficient no matter what. We shouldn't need a bunch of jackasses changing their course every 10 years trying to scare us into it. And that's exactly what they've done. Every ten years it goes from warming to cooling and they always say there were right. We should become more ecofriendly because it's the intelligent thing to do, not because Al Gore says if we don't the world will end. Now THAT is the politics of fear.

[JeydaX]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Let me clear this up for you. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. They can guess, they can try to extrapolate with historical records, or use computer models. But they don't fucking know. If you're a reasonable person you should want to improve how clean our energy is no matter what. We should want to become more efficient no matter what. We shouldn't need a bunch of jackasses changing their course every 10 years trying to scare us into it. And that's exactly what they've done. Every ten years it goes from warming to cooling and they always say there were right. We should become more ecofriendly because it's the intelligent thing to do, not because Al Gore says if we don't the world will end. Now THAT is the politics of fear.

A true American hero. Could not have said it better myself.

[Scientologist]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Let me clear this up for you. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. They can guess, they can try to extrapolate with historical records, or use computer models. But they don't fucking know. If you're a reasonable person you should want to improve how clean our energy is no matter what. We should want to become more efficient no matter what. We shouldn't need a bunch of jackasses changing their course every 10 years trying to scare us into it. And that's exactly what they've done. Every ten years it goes from warming to cooling and they always say there were right. We should become more ecofriendly because it's the intelligent thing to do, not because Al Gore says if we don't the world will end. Now THAT is the politics of fear.

My thoughts exactly. Good show sir.

[MrSpitz]

Originally Posted by Lusiphur

Tea on Tuesday pretty much spanked you in public, which if you had referred to the previous thread you would have realised would have happened.

Look, this always devolves into idelogical warfare which is why I didn't want a 5th thread on causes. So you think its a bad idea, doesn't mean you have to get on your hobby horse about it.



Got a source for that ? Not arguing with you but its contrary to common perception and I would like to investigate it more.

The data from Vostok shows a drastic CO2 spike every 100,000 years for over the past 400,000 years. According to the figures, this spike is usually around 300-320ppm CO2 just roughly looking. I would give you the exact numbers but the Supplmentary Information for the paper, which is supposed to contain the numerical values, has the values corresponding to CO2 levels blank on the nature.com website.

In same said nature paper, they allude to global warming being man made by saying current atmospheric CO2 levels are around 360-357ppm. I have issues with this.

1. On their own figures and figure legend, year 0, which I'm assuming is the most recent year they can have sampled, also appears around 300-320ppm just looking at the graph.
2. They ignore the trend of cycles of drastically increasing then sharp decreases of CO2 that they found over time, before industrialization or even much civilization.
3. When they refer to the current atmospheric levels of CO2, they fail to cite if this is from ice core samples OR from direct atmospheric measurement. Hence, the question I was driving home earlier, do ice core samples of the most recent years from glaciers truly estimate atmospheric CO2 at 360 to 375, if so why does this not appear to be the case in Figures 3 and Figures 5 of said 1999 Nature paper, and where is the paper or evidence showing that the most contemporary ice coring samples have strict agreement with direct atmospheric CO2 levels.


You guys want to talk about the science, do it. Show me how stupid I am. I don't care about IPCC reports, popular media reports, anecdotal trends, this whole man made global warming hypothesis is based on ice coring data and atmoshperic gas measurements. I accept climate theory outside of man made global warming, and I am not even entirely sure I reject global warming, but show mw the Figures/Papers or correct my interpretation of said data (Specifically Figure 3, it's a big one).

[Tea on tuesday]

Just to be clear we're talking about Indermuhle et al, yes?

Which papers are you referencing?

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Let me clear this up for you. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. They can guess, they can try to extrapolate with historical records, or use computer models. But they don't fucking know. If you're a reasonable person you should want to improve how clean our energy is no matter what. We should want to become more efficient no matter what. We shouldn't need a bunch of jackasses changing their course every 10 years trying to scare us into it. And that's exactly what they've done. Every ten years it goes from warming to cooling and they always say there were right. We should become more ecofriendly because it's the intelligent thing to do, not because Al Gore says if we don't the world will end. Now THAT is the politics of fear.

good post for a crunchy ranger

[MrSpitz]

No I'm talking Petit's 1999 paper, also published in Nature, about the Vostok samples.


Edit: I forgot in my first post, going by the cycles they found in Vostok, and if year 0 is either current time or the last 50 years or so, a spike to a minimum of 300-320ppm CO2 would be considered 'normal' as it would follow the trend almost exactly of the preceding 3 spikes over the last 300,000 years.

[MrSpitz]

Anyway, if any of you want to actually look at the primary data from Vostok and get back to me that would be wonderful.

If not, no big deal. But I would reconsider if I were you if opposition to your theory automatically makes one a 'creationist' or 'idelogical' and maybe try and get your hands on the actual primary data.

I mean it's right fucking there in their figures, these large cyclical spikes over 300ppm CO2. And we are right on schedule to have one of these. There is room for argument about the extra 40ppm CO2, a significant increase to be sure, but like I said it's unclear if that is currently accurate or based on two different methodologies of measurement.

[Gauss]

Seems previous reports of a "hottest October on record" were due to a blunder.

The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate • The Register

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.

Could this be the first nail in the coffin for global warming? It was freakishly cold for sure. There was snow in the mountains of Georgia and Tennessee in October, which as far as I know hasn't happened in a very long time. I believe it also snowed in Spain with the same system that hit the UK.

[ziggyholiday]

No but funny, I remember in 2006 Gore was scheduled to have a speaking engagement about Global Warming in New England and it was cancelled due to snow.

That's also around the time it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Gilgamel

Let me clear this up for you. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. They can guess, they can try to extrapolate with historical records, or use computer models. But they don't fucking know. If you're a reasonable person you should want to improve how clean our energy is no matter what. We should want to become more efficient no matter what. We shouldn't need a bunch of jackasses changing their course every 10 years trying to scare us into it. And that's exactly what they've done. Every ten years it goes from warming to cooling and they always say there were right. We should become more ecofriendly because it's the intelligent thing to do, not because Al Gore says if we don't the world will end. Now THAT is the politics of fear.

The whole argument kind of reminds me of that commercial with the fireman officiating Congress. "Lotta paper to tell us we need cheap energy..."

The average person NEEDS to be scared into changing, though.