Must Be All That Carbon....

WooHooo!....

No, it's an Alberta clipper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and has nothing to do with that FACT that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

Carbon, or no carbon, that facts are still the facts no matter how vehemently fools in Congress, and elsewhere, deny them.

Air travel will be affected for days, if not longer.

Maybe it's just some bored geoengineers having fun. That's former member kramarat's opinion, I'll bet.

Where is Kramarat when you need him?!?!

I'll go with 38% before I'll say that climate change is not a fact. That is both heating and cooling. Global warning? The term has been prostituted and bastardized to suit whatever the cause is.

Mankind has generated terawatts of heat since the 1800's. I don't know of any mechanical work that doesn't generate some heat. Even endothermic reactions require heat, sometime in the form of electricity, coal, gasoline and sometimes even solar. No heat added, no reaction.

Lot's of that activity has produced CO2. To say this all has had no effect on climate over the last 150 years is just not possible.

lyn, you're thinking mankind is too big.

The Earth is a tiny speck in the Universe. Mankind isn't that significant to affect the laws of nature and the balance of physics.

You think this about changing the laws of physics. Talk about misguided delusions. Go drink your Kool-Aid.

"The term has been prostituted and bastardized to suit whatever the cause is"

Best single comment I've seen re global warming in a long time. GA

Well statically it could be proven that there is a 38% chance that moneys are flying out of our butts right now but I personally have yet to observe it so that just leaves my word against the statisticians.

So who wants to believe the observers and who wants to believe the math? Chose carefully.

"...has nothing to do with that FACT that 2014 was the hottest year on record."

"Or was it? NASA is only 38 percent sure"

As always, the climate skeptics, this time at the Daily Mail, are taking a clear finding and trying to obfuscate it. What NASA failed to say is that (gasp!) there is a margin of error around that figure.

There were margins of error around the earlier records, too. All of the temperature measurements are only approximations of the actual temperature, and are certainly off by an arbitrarily small amount either higher or lower. Maybe 2014 was actually a lot hotter than the previous years and not a virtual tie.

What is clearly true is that this is the highest measurement of the Earth's temperature so far. In addition, what worries climate scientists (but of course not the people at the Daily Mail) is that 2014 was not an El Nino year, and it still set a record. El Nino years are hotter than La Nina years and hotter than years when neither is happening.

Note the 3 trends.

El Nino years are getting hotter (red). Every El Nino year is hotter than the previous one, with 1 exception, since 1966.

La Nina years are getting hotter (blue). Every La Nina year is hotter than the previous one, with 2 exceptions, since 1956.

Years without either El Nino or La Nina are getting hotter (gray). Seeing them without the El Nino and La Nina years makes it a lot clearer.

Some more to read:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140808163453.htm

Looks like the La Nina and El Nino cycles have had their up and downs too.

Your plot is on the up.

Nough said!

Channeling ghost of Kram....

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/air-force-bombshell-admits-they-can-control-weather-haarp/

Well, that's all very interesting since there is no weather happening in the Ionosphere.

Communications do occur there, but why would the military and the University of Alaska be interested in that when they can make it rain, and do the Vulcan Mind Meld with Earthly subjects?

Weather occurs in the Troposphere where all the air is.

I'm perfectly happy to be ignorant of all these fantastic conspiracies that many, including the Grasshopper, like to titter about.

I'm a lot more concerned about the bankers, lawyers, lobbyists and politicians who conspire every day to take more of our money.

There do seem to be a lot of variables....

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

I found this: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1966PASP...78..254A/0000255.000.html

an interesting read.

Basically I want to understand what the atmosphere really means for our Earth.

Looking at the facts http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html

The Moon with almost no atmosphere is undergoing huge temperature cycles.

So the Earth atmosphere is maintaing a moderate temperature balance.

And then in the article you linked above it says:

Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earth's distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.

So where are we with this?

To see a runawaway increase in surface temperature, look at Venus. Here is a link and a snippet from an article in Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-runaway-greenhouse/

"Studies in the 1980s and '90s suggested the present-day Earth was safe against a runaway, but a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience argues that "the runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought." Indeed, the study suggests that without the cooling effects of certain types of clouds, modern Earth would already be well on its way to broiling like Venus."

. . .

"The old answer was that a runaway on Earth right now was theoretically impossible," Goldblatt says. "Even if you evaporated a big chunk of ocean it would just rain back out, because the water vapor would radiate away more thermal energy than it absorbed through sunlight. Our new calculations show that a water vapor-rich atmosphere absorbs more sunlight and lets out less heat than previously thought, enough to put the Earth into a runaway from which there would be no return."

"The upside of the new study is that even though a climate runaway may be possible in theory, it remains very difficult to cause in practice through human greenhouse gas emissions. "We've estimated how much carbon dioxide would be required to get this steamy atmosphere, and the answer is about 30,000 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is actually good news in terms of anthropogenic climate change," Goldblatt says. Thirty thousand ppm is about 10 times more carbon dioxide than most experts estimate could be released from burning all available fossil fuels, he notes, although such high values could in theory be reached by releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide from the Earth's vast deposits of limestone and other carbonate rocks."

So science agrees ones more that the runaway greenhouse effect is not possible. We can safely say that CO2 at least has no potential to cause this!

It also proves that Water vapour is the most potent greenhouse gas.

Now we should discuss if a little bit more CO2 can cause in imbalance in the cloud distribution. I am waiting for the Global Cloud development predictions since the very beginning of the "Global Warming" discussion.

But all I get on Clouds is: its not save to store anything of value in it. Go figure!

I will check your source later!

Yes, we seem all to contribute to these emissions . . .

it all boils down to this: "Follow The Money". Just like the Freon deal when Dupont patent rights ran out and prices fell. Then Dupont came up with alternatives that they of course had patents on.

I can get the notorious North Dakota tire burner making light of climate change, but 10 years does not a trend make.

Have it your way.

I can't believe that any credible "professor" would make such an ignorant statement, even in Georgia.

You might want to try googling a source before you cite it. Here is a typical description of Global Research.ca, this one from rationalwiki:

"Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky.

"While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from sources such as Russia Today. Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

"Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

"What it thinks it is

"The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch considers itself to be a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization."

"[edit] What it really is

"Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, Globalresearch mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order.^[2] Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11,^[3] vaccines,^[4] genetic modification,^[5] Zionism,^[6][7] HAARP,^[8] global warming,^[9][10] Bosnian genocide denialism^[11] chemtrails,^[12] and David Kelly.^[13]

"Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi,^[14] reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader. In the 2014 Ukrainian crisis the site is taking the standard "anti-globalisation" stance against the Western side and falling into the ranks of imperial Russian propaganda instead.

"Globalresearch also has published numerous articles written by contributors to New Eastern Outlook, a Moscow-based Russian Government propaganda site. It has published the same articles on the same day as Oriental Review, a Moscow-based site that is also almost certainly a Russian Government site.

"It's no surprise then that the site has long become a magnet for radicals, fringe figures and whacko elements from the left in general.edi"

I hope you realize you are shooting the messenger(s).

When the messenger distorts a message to the point that it is useless I say shooting is an option.

Models do not change measured data. A model fits to data. The closer it fits to data the more likely it will continue to fit to future data. Similarly, a well fitted model will make more likely predictions of the future. The key to model fitting is statistical analysis. The key to statistical analysis is the standard deviation. No where in all of the pro versus con posturing have I seen here on global warming has anybody shown the least bit of understanding of statistical analysis, let alone how it applies to planetary predictions. A cold day in Bilbao does not refute global warming. A hot day in Novosibirsk does not prove global warming. Making either claim just supports shooting the messenger.

You are welcome to get the same data from a more scientific site.

Hey now! With the price of il dropping so fast things are getting to the point where I can almost afford to start dumping raw crude in the yard and lighting that on fire to keep my house warm and skip the burning tires in the boiler concept all together!

So how many climate scientists do you need cited on the opposing view before you decide that one person's opinion is not actually a data point? If I cite just one, then we're even, right?

I think this is a statistical problem so I would not ask a climate scientist at all.

I take it you understand what that means. Further above you quote some exemptions in your trends. Well, if you can explain those we could have a proper discussion here.

The exceptions refer to the graphs that I posted. You can see for yourself that the red bars are rising dramatically, with only one bar that is lower than the previous bar. If you need an explanation for why that particular bar dropped instead of rose, then I'll have to explain all of statistics to you. Try drawing a line through the tops of the red bars, as near as your eye can fit it, and see what direction that line goes.

Hold on now. I just drew a line through the tips of all the blue bars and got a similar line but trending in the opposite direction.

Does that mean that its getting colder and warmer at the same time or that I can just ignore the bar that does not fit my personal agenda?

I think it is getting colder and warmer, but not at the "same time". (I hope you are making a joke. If not, you must be looking at different blue bars than me.) For the red bars they are getting warmer because they are going forward in time. For the blue bars the trend is the opposite because they are going backward in time. That's the only way I can see the trends going in opposite directions, to have time going in opposite directions.

(If you are actually being serious, would you post a screen shot or a photo of the lines you are talking about? I would have to see this to understand what you are saying.)

Well here is what I see in the bottom picture of post 17.

If I take any blue point before 1880 and draw a line from its peak to the ~1880 peak I get a steady decreasing line slope.

Now however if I take any red peak from before the ~1950 peak I get a steadily increasing red line.

No matter how I choose either side red is showing a steady upward trend and cold is showing a steady downward one thusly its getting warmer and colder at the same time.

Anyone else seeing that?

Now I suspect that no one wants to hear that if I superimpose the red and blue line over each other I get a green line that goes right down the middle showing basically nothing and who wants that?

I am talking about post #18, not #17.

I prefer my climate data sources to cover at least several centuries if not a couple millennium at minimal.

Me too. But there is also reason to study what is happening right now, because you can actually measure it while it is happening instead of trying to reconstruct it from proxy measures like tree rings.

My point about the graph in #18 is that lumping all years together hides the trends that are happening with each component of the data. All of them are rising, but lumping them together makes it look like there is a bigger pause in the warming than there really is.

Oh please explain all the statistics to me!

I can see what you see, but I think it needs some really good explanation of what we see. Lets say you draw a trend line through the graph in post 17. How statistical significant is your statement "rising dramatically" in this context?

In laymen terms what goes up comes down again and to add a statistical phrase: In an alternating world everything finds an equilibrium at any point in time which could be higher or lower than the old one.

Lets ask ourself: is it even possible that the equilibrium stays the same for ex amount of time?

I await your response and an explanation of the exceptions in your otherwise flawless upwarding trendline.

My comments referred to the graph in my post, #18.

With regard to #17, everyone knows climate changes over time. I don't happen to think the chart in post #17 is accurate, because I have seen charts that incorporate more data, and more accurate data, and the end point is far higher than the one in #17. Do you trust it more because you agree with it? But regardless, the fact that climate changes by itself does not mean that humans cannot also change climate. The fact that forest fires have a long history does not mean that a human cannot start a forest fire and destroy his own region and his own house. Just because the CO2 levels may have been higher in the past does not mean we cannot destroy our own civilization. The Earth will go on, and humans are likely to go on, but our fragile institutions and social structures may break.

Just because climate changed in the past does not mean that humans did not destroy the Fertile Crescent and create the Ozone Hole. If we change the climate here and now, it is we who suffer, here and now.

May I ask what your point is?

If you seen more accurate charts then post them. I requested information of why you easily disregard exceptions in the data set you used to make your cause. You now grip into the box of fear mongering which we have seen so often in the past.

Could we please stay on topic? Its all about Carbon and more Carbon ... Dioxide which Fredski pointed out (pun intended).

Sure mankind is able to destroy this world. But while you seem to say lets do something, we also should tackle the real threads in this world. While burning fossil fuel seems a big thread we seem to forget that this made this civilisation, its also will not go away for a long time unless you are aiming for a big bang.

If you want to point out that disastrous weather can lead to a shift in our civilisation if it is a global one - sure this is almost unavoidable. But please don't come here with your political rumble of "global warming" "climate change" or even "man made" as this still has to be proven.

Don't make some fools agenda your own or you will end up being a fool. How about some real engagement to save the rain forrest? Would that make you feel better?

Here's the link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

In this graph, Easterbrook's data is shown back to 8500 years BC, and the two blue crosses show the actual temperatures at the end of the series. There is a long discussion about this data at the link showing how he got to the end without actually showing any global warming, because he ended his series in 1855, not 2009 as he claimed.

I disregarded your request to explain the exceptions because you were looking at the wrong chart, the one in post #17. The one I was looking at in post #18 was so clear as to not require any explanation. Do you really need me to explain that there is noise in data, and it does not always go smoothly up or down? I was commenting on the fact that this data was actually so smooth that there were only a few places where the trend went down instead of up. One trend has only a single point where it reverses over most of its length, and the second only had two.

Describing danger is not the same as fear mongering. If you disagree with my description of the consequences of global warming, then tell me what you think are more likely consequences. For the record, the Pentagon has warned that Global Warming is a threat to national security.

Data gathering isn't scientific fact. Politics behind this idea of a progressive global heat increase serves a political ideological agenda only.

I'd prefer my science based on data gathering and actual measurements. What do you base yours on?

And yet I agree that the politics of global warming serves a political agenda, just not an ideological one. It is firmly based on the profits that fossil fuel companies make, and their desire to keep making those profits even if it destroys civilization. Profits are not ideological, but the fossil fuel companies are very good at wrapping them up in a cloak of ideology.

I agree. It is being used as a distraction. It is controversial and keeps us divided so the powers that be can do as they please.

Look at GMO's. All kinds of opposition to it, however none of the politicians are doing anything about it to oppose GMO's, they are 100% behind it. While we were arguing over Sequester and Fiscal Cliff, they passed a Farm Bill that is labeled the Monsanto Protection ACT because it has a clause in there that protects GMO producers from being sued. That bill was unanimously passed.

Another source is the CEO of the Weather Channel stated that Global Warming is a hoax.

Yes, Climate change exists, it is the natural order of things and we are not going to alter it, we still need to cook food, keep warm and do what it takes to survive.

IT was not the CEO, but the ex-CEO who was one of the founders of the

Weather Channel. The current CEO then stated that he was wrong and that the Weather Channel believed that global warming was man-made.

Why is this one guy so important to cite. He's just one guy, not an expert in any way.

No. Dr. Hans Seuss measured the increase in non-radioactive Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere back in the fifties. This phenomena is called the Seuss effect. It shows that our fossil fuel waste is overwhelming the biomass to absorb CO2.

We know that humans affect the planet. Just look at the Fertile Crescent, the Gobi Desert, the Sahara desert, and all of Australia. And that was when there were only a few of us.

The Ozone Hole was created by humans, and it is still there, but because humans stopped releasing CFC's it has just started to shrink in the past year or so.

Is your belief that humans can't affect the planet based on religion? How do you know the Universe was made to withstand man's impact? Does that belief extend to increasing the amount of O2 in Earth's atmosphere? Because simple math says otherwise, as Arrhenius discovered 150 years ago.

Something can be used as a distraction and still be a true danger. Just look at how 9/11 was used as an excuse to go invade Iraq. That doesn't mean that 9/11 was not a real danger.

Correction. It should read:

"Does that belief extend to increasing the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere"

" Natural events like volcanoes, oil seepage in the oceans, lightning starting forest fires, etc. all have more impact than man could ever have."

Math please. Just some simple arithmetic will do. Just add up all the CO2 released by those things and compare it to the amount released by humans. Easy to do. I know you wouldn't trust me to do it. Please show your work.

Simply saying there is no scientific evidence that mankind affects the temperature of the earth ignores many hundreds of thousands of scientific papers saying the opposite. All of those things you mention have been studied at great length.

Are you saying Kram is gone?

For good?

Did the Black Helicopter get him in the end?

Oh dear! Thats . . . news!

Lets see if that drops the temperature this year a bit!

They're predicting 5,000 flight cancellations tomorrow.

This MiseryMap at Flight Aware shows how the storms affect airports elsewhere.

66% of all incoming traffic has already been cancelled at LaGuardia.

We're ready here! Plow truck is on the charger (had a minor battery problem), gensets have been fueled and tested, wood box is full, stove is going and I'm going to sit back and watch it snow!

Just another typical New England "Nor-Easter". We get one or two every year or so. It just seems that lately (in the last 15 years) whenever we get more than two snow flakes on a given day, the news media is treating it like the "storm of the century"

Now that I have my official "Old Timer Card" [Medicare] I am able to say; "Now, I remember back when we had real snow storms. Storms when the snow covered my bedroom window, and my bedroom was on the second floor of my house."

Yeah, if we could just stall that low pressure system off the coast of Massachusetts, we could have another '78.

I lived in Hingham at the time, was 15 years old and quickly learned how to drive my older brother's C10 dumptruck with the five speed and split rear-axle. We pushed that blade around for about 36 hours straight in the World's End part of town, barely keeping one lane open on the roads. We took turns napping in the shotgun seat bouncing along the roads.

Whoo-hoo. No greater fun for a teen-aged boy. You couldn't 'crash' because the snowbanks were so high and deep, you could just as well been driving bumper cars at Paragon Park.

That's not carbon. That's snow. It's winter.

Disruption begets stability O

Disruption begets disruption O

Stability begets stability O

Stability begets disruption O

Pick any two, Fredski.

Heavy snowstorms in Northeastern U.S. further affirm climate change science

study

Oh, every time I have that discussion with my wife she says its getting less frequent but will be more super.

Gosh this hits me in the back big times!

I dont want her to be right.

And what if it is not super all the times. Surely we are missing something . . .

Been there - done that - for the last 35 winters.

Yeah, the South American rain forest has finally figured out how to decay compost.

Would you just look at that red fishy over there. It proves that our boat cannot sink.

"#1 source for CO2 production into the atmosphere is from compost in the South American Rain Forest floor"

Sorry Jan, but that is a constant. It was already accounted for, in the steady state pre man with his 'civilisation'.

No apparently it wasn't. I learned about that from an article that was about a satellite that was recently sent up for the purpose of reading CO2 production into the atmosphere and that was their findings. They may have already knew about the rain forest being a source but they recently found it to be the primary source. They didn't dismiss our own production, we are up there.

Good thing that satellite taught the rain forest how to digest a compost. Just imagine how clogged the Amazon would be if they never learned.

What are you talking about?

Compost is all the decaying vegetation that is already there. The Satellite took an actual reading.

You implied this carbon was not entering the atmosphere prior to being measured by the satellite. I and Stuart21 tried to show you the absurdity in your implication but instead of clarifying you insisted in your statement.

"When no one listens..."

Irrelevant, Jan.

Just because something is discovered, or read, does not change the real situation; it only changes our understanding of it.

According to your reality, we need not be worried about all the species going extinct; (white rhinos - soon - fairy penguins - already - etc, etc,) because we are still discovering new ones, at about the same rate.

The extinct fairy penguin is only known by man through fossil records. So it is a little off of your point. Closer to the point that humanity can really screw up the "natural" order of things then the bird you want is the passenger pigeon. This beautiful bird was believed to be at one time one quarter of all birds in North America.

How do you even know its a constant? How would the destruction of the rain forrest contribute to your "constant"?

How do you even even know what was taken into consideration when it seems the facts just got out, like some decades after we first started talking about "global warming"?

How is the Winter in Thailand this year?

Would you provide a link to the research?

Thanks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266747/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-satellite-launched/

http://www.livescience.com/49196-nasa-satellite-oco2-carbon-maps.html

I can't find the specific article that mentioned compost on the rain forest floor. So I'll stop repeating it. I did find some other articles that do support my assertion and explains more of why that is.

2014 was a cooker you say? have a look for yourself and decide if the temp is running away and just how much hotter various areas around the globe got.I'm a man of science, satellites are in their infancy compared to other measuring instruments. so look at the sat data and form your opinion on just how 2014 stacks up to the record over a 30 year average

I couldn't be more in agreement with those that say current data is no way to decide a trend or a change in trend but for the Chicken Littles claiming the end of human existence because 2014 was a RECORD...I invite you to further you base of knowledge

http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf

you'll get your record and it will be fractional