2011's Global Cooling

[CADsortaGUY]

What is this "normal" you are talking about? What humans want is less climate change so it's close to what it is at now, as this is what we are used and have built around. And when the climate does change we want it to be very slowly so we can deal with it without huge problems. If the climate changes massively in 50 or 100 years we might have big problems dealing with it.

Without a "normal" how do we know which way to go and thus what to do about it to "fix" it? What are the trigger points at which we act? And at those trigger points what can/can't be done?

Current assumptions on "cause" aren't solid as the data seems narrow and based on other assumptions. I don't doubt we affect our climate but the degree and lenght(of "change") has not even come close to being proven. So your earlier post is meaningless in the context of what I am talking about. If we assume your post is correct - why the narrow focus? How did past changes happen without humans present? You see, the problem with the believers is they make causation their goal when at this point it's merely a very loose correlation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Beware of the prophet seeking profits.

but but but you are a denier!!! How dare you question their motives?

 

[boomerang]

Funny how they recognize Harold Camping for the nut that he is but Al Gore is a fucking genius. They've both predicted the end of life as we know it and both have been proven wrong - multiple times. Both too, have profited handsomely.

It's fanaticism on a religious level in both cases. Camping keeps coming up with dates as does Gore. Camping's have come and gone, so have Gore's.

Beware of the prophet seeking profits.

WSJ's Taranto: Harold Camping Is "The Christian Al Gore"

Something else bothers us about the media mockery of Harold Camping, as justifiable as it may be. Why are only religious doomsday cultists subjected to such ridicule? Reuters notes that "Camping previously made a failed prediction Jesus Christ would return to Earth in 1994." Ha ha, you can't believe anything this guy says! But who jeered at the U.N.'s false prediction that there would be 50 million "climate refugees" by 2010? We did, but not Reuters.

 

[desy]

No matter there are less and less high profile deniers as time goes on
Now they no longer argue that its happening which they did before but have changed their tack to how much is mans impact.
Whatever I certainly believe man has an impact, are we liley to do anything ? no, are we heading to catastrosphy? who knows.

 

[Paratus]

I think the only reason there are even deniers is they don't like any of the proposed remedies.

 

[Brigandier]

I accept MMCC.

I do not accept it's a big deal.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well as long as over paid under worked government subsadized researchers keep saying what gobberment wants they will keep getting paid . Rock the boat and your starving. Ya I trust MAN . NOT! How about all the scientist who are now saying our sun may be binary are these scientist less than those who say its a mono sun. Your all looking for reasons. Why aren't ancient semerian accounts as good as any . The reason for climate change IS the brown midget NEMESIS. Not long to see whos right at all 4 short months befor life as we know it changes forever . Religion gets burried were it belongs After hiding the record of man in fairy tales. Thats not to say I don't believe In God almighty because I do. I also believe that Aliens of the Bible are real . I think mostly they are called angles . and they have differant ranks , God being the highest rank. SO its likely true the GOD almighty didn't clone us . But the aliens did . But that means nothing in the scope of the universe. It was part of the true God plan.

 

[NeoV]

oh great, Nemesis is posting in this thread....


back to the OP - would you please stop bringing up the PDO...how many times do I have to post this to shoot you down?

"Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which is not the case.

These results are expected. The long term warming trend is a result of an energy imbalance caused primarily by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In contrast, the PDO is an internal process and does not increase or decrease the total energy in the climate system."

 

[Throckmorton]

What really pisses me off is the parroting of the fallacy that because climate change occurs naturally, humans can't force climate change. It's so fucking clear that it should be blatantly obvious to the dumbest internet troll.


I hope one day CAD gets prosecuted for murder and uses the defense "But Your Honor, people have died of natural causes for the past 10,000 years, I could not possibly have killed this man".

 

[Jaskalas]

back to the OP - would you please stop bringing up the PDO...how many times do I have to post this to shoot you down?

"Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which is not the case.

I think you'll find that while I spoke of the PDO, I used ESNO to display the difference in the ocean. Last time it was negative we had significant cooling, enough to cause a global cooling scare.

Hence the notion that we're in for cooling in the next decade or two. I welcome you to deny this outcome.

First, I’d like to point out the flip in the pacific as shown by ESNO.

 

[Jaskalas]

What really pisses me off is the parroting of the fallacy that because climate change occurs naturally, humans can't force climate change. It's so fucking clear that it should be blatantly obvious to the dumbest internet troll.

So tell me Throckmorton, do you recognize this year's tornadoes are a result of this year's colder temperatures? That's pretty much all I'm asking for.

 

[Throckmorton]

So tell me Throckmorton, do you recognize this year's tornadoes are a result of this year's colder temperatures? That's pretty much all I'm asking for.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to make a joke or something?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Man made global cooling eh

 

[dmcowen674]

Man made or not the weather has been pretty fucked up.

I have still been wearing my winter coat as it has been in the low 40's here still. Today it's pouring rain and still in the low 50's and a heat warning has been issued for tomorrow and Monday as it will jump into the 90's and near 100.


To the west they have 25 foot snowfall. To the south and east monster Tornadoes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I think the only reason there are even deniers is they don't like any of the proposed remedies.

And the fact that the believers can't point to actual causes. correlations? sure, but not causes. Also the degree of correlation/causation is far from decided as well. THEN, you get to the whole "remedies" issue which loads the question of "normal".

 

[Nemesis 1]

What really pisses me off is the parroting of the fallacy that because climate change occurs naturally, humans can't force climate change. It's so fucking clear that it should be blatantly obvious to the dumbest internet troll.


I hope one day CAD gets prosecuted for murder and uses the defense "But Your Honor, people have died of natural causes for the past 10,000 years, I could not possibly have killed this man".

Ya I feel the same as you. This link is from a post I made March 6 2011. Listen carefully from 1:40 on ward although it pretty much tells the whole story. Also does anyone know what word in hebrew mean Like lighting from above did appear , I know just putting it out their for Ya . He only last 31/2 years befor killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHpGXOGurj0&feature=related

 

[Slew Foot]

This year sucks, Its practically June and its 50 degrees and raining here in CA.

 

[Paul98]

And the fact that the believers can't point to actual causes. correlations? sure, but not causes. Also the degree of correlation/causation is far from decided as well. THEN, you get to the whole "remedies" issue which loads the question of "normal".

So you don't believe that a large increase in greenhouse gasses is a cause of global warming?

 

[monovillage]

So you don't believe that a large increase in greenhouse gasses is a cause of global warming?

No one is disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Instead it's the catastrophic climate clowns that say things like "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
or we'll have 50 million climate refugees by 2010
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/
or some parts of New York will be under water due to sea level rising.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
or global warming caused by CO2 destroyed the snows of Kilimanjaro.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001773

Science is one thing, but unfounded and unrealistic scare tactics designed to drive people into idiotic political decisions is another.

 

[Paul98]

No one is disputing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Instead it's the catastrophic climate clowns that say things like "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
or we'll have 50 million climate refugees by 2010
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/
or some parts of New York will be under water due to sea level rising.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
or global warming caused by CO2 destroyed the snows of Kilimanjaro.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001773

Science is one thing, but unfounded and unrealistic scare tactics designed to drive people into idiotic political decisions is another.

Looks to me like they are. I didn't see any mention of those things till you just mentioned them here. I know I sure as hell wouldn't support any of those comments, but I do know that MMGW is real due to some of the reasons I talked about here. I am not going to defend stupid comments some people make. But I am going to defend the science behind climate change.

Really those type of comment that have been made should be ignored, or at least said by both sides that it is just a stupid comment and shouldn't be brought up again. There are tons of these comments on both sides. Bringing these and other idiotic comments up just takes away from the actual discussion, and trying to show what is really going on.

I am just trying to show the very basics of MMGW. So I agree that those comments are stupid now lets move forward.

 

[disappoint]

So you are comparing 2011, of which there are at most 5 months of data right now, to 2010's full year of data? Are you off your meds? Not to mention even if the comparison was for the same months, fluctuations from 1 year to the next mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[shira]

You don't seem to be able to read. I am not a denier, I know the climate changes.

<-laughing once again

No, it's you who are stupid and arrogant, and you're a MMCC-denier to boot. How else would you describe someone who in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus that states the MMCC is real and dangerous says he doesn't believe it's true AND characterizes anyone who believes what science is telling us as arrogant?

Just two week ago, in response to a Republican request asking the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to write a special report on the current science on MMCC, the NRC wrote back (in part):

http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Americas-Climate-Choices/12781

Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. In the judgment of this report's authoring committee, the environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks posed by climate change indicate a pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare for adapting to its impacts.

Although there is some uncertainty about future risk, there are many reasons why it is prudent to act now. The sooner that serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions proceed, the lower the risks posed by climate change, and the less pressure there will be to make larger, more rapid, and potentially more expensive reductions later. In addition, every day around the world, crucial investment decisions are made about equipment and infrastructure that can "lock in" commitments to greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come. Most actions taken to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts are also common sense investments that will offer protection against natural climate variations and extreme events. Finally, while it may be possible to scale back or reverse many responses to climate change (if they somehow proved to be more stringent than actually needed), it is difficult or impossible to "undo" climate change, once manifested.

But you claim it's "arrogant" to believe such reports. And you think it's not arrogant to confidently pronounce that such reports are false. Why don't you define the word "arrogant" for us so we can understand CAD-speak?

Edit: Link added.

 

[shira]

What really pisses me off is the parroting of the fallacy that because climate change occurs naturally, humans can't force climate change. It's so fucking clear that it should be blatantly obvious to the dumbest internet troll.

I hope one day CAD gets prosecuted for murder and uses the defense "But Your Honor, people have died of natural causes for the past 10,000 years, I could not possibly have killed this man".

I'm learning a lot from right-wing trolls. In fact, I've been practicing my reasoning based on right-wing-troll arguments:

Clearly, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I know this is true because lung cancer occurs naturally in non-smokers.

Dieting doesn't cause weight loss, because there are many people who lose weight without dieting.

Drunken driving doesn't cause traffic accidents because there are tons of accidents that occur that don't involve drinking.

 

[monovillage]

France, Russia, Canada, Japan will not join the second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. never signed the Kyoto Treaty.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...al-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html

seems like lots of people think it's throwing money down a black hole, not just.....oooohh big bad evil deniers.

 

[shira]

France, Russia, Canada, Japan will not join the second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. never signed the Kyoto Treaty.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...al-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html

seems like lots of people think it's throwing money down a black hole, not just.....oooohh big bad evil deniers.

Your conclusion is fallacious. Governments often don't implement policies that they know will result in long-term net benefits if the short-term costs are too unpopular politically.

Example: It's been obvious for a very long time that several changes to Social Security are needed in order to guarantee SS's solvency far into the future. But none of those changes have been implemented because it's been far too dangerous politically to do so.