How did they stop Global Warming so quickly?

[BrownOut]

QUOTE BY HARVEYH42: From what has been taught in schools, since I was a youngster, the planet was much warmer before the last great ice age. It would make sense that the planet would eventual return to that temperature, as it recovers.

That doesn't account for the speedup in warming that corresponds with the accumulaiton of green house gases in the atmosphere. None of the alternarive explainations I see for the recent warming coorelate as well as anthropogenic CO2 rise, which began near the start of the industrial revolution, where the burning of fossile fuels began. The temperature rise has been pretty rapid, and could rise even faster. Besides, how do you know what part of the cycle we are in presently, and so the temp should rise. The last ice age ended 11,000 years ago, and recovery may be over with. If you look at temperatures during most interglacials, the temp doesn't just keep rising. It hits a peak early in the cycle, and either levels off or changes very slowly.

Water has a much larger role in all this, than anything else on the planet, in can exist in three different states, depending on temperature and pressure, and has a lot of influence on how everything else interacts. It is the most abundant compound on the planet

I believe that models already account for that. It may have a mitigation effect, but still not cancel warming.

Climate Change based on man-made CO2, is shaky proof, at best. Everything else is too quickly rejected, to have been considered carefully. This battle has little to do with saving the planet, its an agenda, for political power, and financial gain.

There is much more power and financial gain to be realized by trying to counter global warming science.

 

[tcmtech]

In past discussions, those who can't refute my facts ***** about my typing.

Yes and you have yet to ever refute any claims that if someone is too lazy to click on a spell check button for basic stuff it could be assumed that they are not so diligent in their research and data collection methods either.

I am probably wrong in many things I think and understand but then I dont proclaim myself an expert in them either. but I do at least give people the common courtesy to use the spell check!

And for those who may be unsure of the definition of Refute and why it fairly accurately invalidates both sides of this argument.

Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈfyüt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
Date: 1545
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
— re·fut·able \-ˈfyü-tə-bəl\ adjective
— re·fut·ably \-blē\ adverb
— re·fut·er noun

By definition 1 several times your information has been proven wrong or inaccurate. You however denied it. So in a way you have been refuted on multiple occasions. Just because you wont accept it docent mean it hasn't been proven as others see it.
By definition 2 your denying that they refuted your claims has counter balanced those claims as well. So basically its a stalemate. You cant prove global warming is real by the definitions and science many people follow and believe to be true but then again you dont follow that science anyway which mutes the whole argument.

You may claim your using that science but I suspect a few could refute your claim about that as well.

Is anyone feeling dizzy yet? Or should we spin around in pointless circles some more?

Perhaps if you need something to do for the rest of your unemployed time writing up a full and accurate thesis on global warming and all of your research that you claim you used to predict tornado's would be time well spent. If it really is that accurate and all encompassing I suspect that some research agencys will happily review it and if it does add up your likely to get full employment for many years as well.

But at least use the spell check before you submit it along with your resume because well.... see my opening comments to this post.

 

[kchriste]

Whether you believe that anthropogenic release of CO2 is the cause of global warming or not, I think we can all agree that this thread is going exactly where previous threads on this subject have gone.
Nowhere.

 

[BrownOut]

Yes and you have yet to ever refute any claims that if someone is too lazy to click on a spell check button for basic stuff it could be assumed that they are not so diligent in their research and data collection methods either.

You're hardly one to speak of errors in spelling or in research, as you've been wrong many times, and you’re spelling and grammatical mistakes show you're not the most diligent poster either, rather just a hypocritical one.

I am probably wrong in many things I think and understand but then I dont proclaim myself an expert in them either. but I do at least give people the common courtesy to use the spell check!

In an earlier post, you wondered if I "waisted" my afternoon. You can’t give people the common courtesy of a proofread: From post #52:

So did you waist your whole afternoon working on those replies just because of me?

Since your grammar/spelling/proofreading is lacking, you're criticism of other's work is just a little too hypocritical. You're whole purpose for being here seems to be to just demonstrate your own foolishness.

By definition 1 several times your information has been proven wrong or inaccurate. You however denied it. So in a way you have been refuted on multiple occasions. Just because you wont accept it docent mean it hasn't been proven as others see it.

You have yet to prove anything. Your criticisms of my data have been shot down repeatedly.

You may claim your using that science but I suspect a few could refute your claim about that as well.

Suspicion isn't proof or anything worth mentioning.

Is anyone feeling dizzy yet? Or should we spin around in pointless circles some more?

Why stop now? Spinning around in pointless circles is just about all you ever do.

Perhaps if you need something to do for the rest of your unemployed time writing up a full and accurate thesis on global warming and all of your research that you claim you used to predict tornado's would be time well spent. If it really is that accurate and all encompassing I suspect that some research agencys will happily review it and if it does add up your likely to get full employment for many years as well.

I find ways to stay busy, but thanks for your concern.

But at least use the spell check before you submit it along with your resume because well.... see my opening comments to this post.

And for you: learn to proofread, or learn to write more clearly. You're awkward writing leave much, much more to be desired.

NOTE: When I spell checked this posting, most of the errors were in your text that I quoted!

 

[Hero999]

And so what does that tell you? I've said all along that climate science isn't concerned with sesonal forcasts.

You still cannot ignore the fact that, the climate models are used by forecasters.

Long term seasonal forecasts aren't the same as weather forecasts, they're more like climate forecasts in that they try to predict the average temperature and precipitation level over the next three months.

If the models are so accurate then why is it that they frequently fail?

What makes you think the temperature was inaccurate for 150 years? Even mercury thermos were pretty accurate. Proxies have been subjected to rigorous statistical analysis, correlated amongst otherr proxies, tested by observation of fossile recored, etc. Pretty good statics, IMO.

That still doesn't get away from the fact that the climate over the last 99,800 years is nothing more than an educated guess which can't be proven right or wrong.

 

[BrownOut]

You still cannot ignore the fact that, the climate models are used by forecasters.

I never said otherwise. I said climate is not weather. Climate predictions are long term, what's so hard to understand about that?

Models are tools, and nothing more. Part of using tools is understanding which jobs the tools are designed for. Weather models can predict the weather accurately for a few days in the future, but become inaccurate the further out they are used. Climate models, wether integrated with weather models or not, are not intended to predict the weather, and should never be expected to do so.

Long term seasonal forecasts aren't the same as weather forecasts, they're more like climate forecasts in that they try to predict the average temperature and precipitation level over the next three months.

Not even close. Climate forcasts are in terms of decades, not months. (see posts #71 & 72)

If the models are so accurate then why is it that they frequently fail?

Think I already covered that.

That still doesn't get away from the fact that the climate over the last 99,800 years is nothing more than an educated guess which can't be proven right or wrong.

The key word is EDUCATED. In fact, we have a pretty good record of the climate during that interval. It's not a guess; it's a reconstruction of the vast data that's been collected and analyzed. That's part of what science does.

 

[tcmtech]

NOTE: When I spell checked this posting, most of the errors were in your text that I quoted!

So which spell check system you using?
I re ran everything and my spell check programs didn't find anything suspicious (again).
I use the ieSpell that is part of the green ABC check mark we have available here on the site. I would like to know which words its missing or skipping in referance to what spell check system you use? This way I can update it to have a more accurate database.

Can you give exact examples of which words its overlooking since you seem to be a spelling and grammar expert or at least feel that you have a superior spell check program.

As far as I know I personally have never had much problem with the grammar allowances. I realize that language structure is naturally variable from region to region.

 

[BrownOut]

Can you give exact examples of which words its overlooking since you seem to be a spelling and grammar expert or at least feel that you have a superior spell check program.

You seem to be the one who thinks he is the spelling and grammer expert, as you're the first to start bitching about someone else's posts. I only point out the hyprocasy of anyone who would complain about other people's work, when he is at least as sloppy as as the those he complains about.

Here are some examples:

wont SB won't
dont SB don't
agencys SB agencies

You have fragments and errors in just basic mechanics. Even as you chide other for their errors, you're writing contains as just as many errors.

 

[Hero999]

The problem is you need to know how to spell to use a spell checker.

Most spell checkers don't take context into account so words such as waist and waste can easily be confused, then there's the difference between British and US English which I won't even go into here.

My spelling is often so bad I can't find corrections either a spell checker or even Google. I do find it weird how there are some long words I have no problem spelling but shorter words often trip me up., for example I can easily spell anthropogenic but I find weird hard to spell because I keep forgetting the I and E the wrong way wrong.

Back on topic:
I don't see the point in discussing this any more because I sense that it's just going to turn into petty name calling.

The bottom line is that supporters of anthropogenic climate change supporters should accept that people are going to be sceptical when they start telling them how they should live their lives and that it's for the greater good.

The problem with climate change science is that it's a prediction about the future and many have failed to predict the future before.

I personally won't be backing climate change fully until scientists prove to me that they can make accurate predictions which they have failed so far to.

 

[BrownOut]

The problem is you need to know how to spell to use a spell checker.

Most spell checkers don't take context into account so words such as waist and waste can easily be confused, then there's the difference between British and US English which I won't even go into here.

I already know how to use a spell checker. But the bottom line is some of our members think they are so much better because they press the spell check button and others don't. But if they don't bother to do some proof reading or else learn the difference between words that are pronounced the same but have different meanings, then they have no business getting all self-ritghteous about who is being sloppy or not diligent.

 

[tcmtech]

You have fragments and errors in just basic mechanics. Even as you chide other for their errors, you're writing contains as just as many errors.

I dont recall ever getting anything higher than a C- in school for my English classes so thats my reasonings and I failed every punctuation test I was ever given until around my senior year as well.
So if you think I am a hypocrite then consider who is reviewing your work and still manages to find faults with it.

When someone like me who openly admits he might be the village idiot of English can find problems with your work ...

Brownout there is a reason you make me smile and feel confident about what I do understand.

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout

And so what does that tell you? I've said all along that climate science isn't concerned with sesonal forcasts. The time line is much longer when speaking about climate change from a decade to many decaded. In fact, you can't make a statement about seasonal forcasts from climate science, because it makes no such kind of forcast. You have to look at how long term trends match up with the climate models.

This is a convenient bullet proof shield for people such as yourself to hide behind. Nothing you say can be tested directly, and the data is at best indeterminate as it can't be used for long term forecasts within the lifetime of human beings. So as I've said multiple times now, there is no way to attack your statements because you won't even be alive when they're proven inadequate to explain what's really going on.

And I personally don't believe there is such a thing as 'some truth' there are two ways to look at truth. Evidence sufficient enough to prove a theory true which currently does not exist for any side in the climate debate, and evidence sufficient enough to cause people to believe it is true. I don't believe the definition of causing someone to believe something is true is sufficient enough for such a weighty subject, and people have believed wrong things before. This isn't to say global warming isn't occurring but the specific reasons for it occuring are currently unknown.

 

[BrownOut]

The bottom line is that supporters of anthropogenic climate change supporters should accept that people are going to be sceptical when they start telling them how they should live their lives and that it's for the greater good.

It's a two-way street, my friend. The skeptical sect should also accept that when they come on bashing the science and those who support it, some of the supporters will speak up.

 

[HarveyH42]

Climate models predict decades into the future, but written 10 years ago (most likely less), so how can they be taken as accurate? Not enough time has passed, to test and see if they are even in the ballpark, and yet we are all suppose to jump around in a panic. I do believe that the measurements are relatively accurate, for the past 100 years ago, a reasonable guess for couple of hundred more. Will even buy into some of the proxies (not ice cores), but I am highly skeptical of the models, and people manipulating the good data. Seems like they are taking reputable work, doing strange things to the data, to make more 'hockey-stick' like, then claiming it came directly from scientists with good reputations, although its been transformed. I took enough math in college to know that you can construct a graph to represent pretty much any point you wish to illustrate, with the same data set.

Who really cares about typing skills? This is just a casual diversion, we all usually can get what was meant, without nit-picking it to death. I use Firefox, spell-checking is automatic, underlines my mistakes, mostly typos, right mouse click on the word, and it suggests several replacements, click one and done. I'm not such a good typist, maybe 3 or 4 fingers worth, pretty good vocabulary though.

Remember a comment about the global temperature started to rise, about the same time as the industrial revolution. Seems like kind of a quick atmospheric/climate response, to relatively small increase in CO2, since cars and plane weren't invented yet. We are pumping out a lot more CO2 now, but still only a small rise in over 100 years since it started? Wouldn't logically and rationally prove that CO2 isn't the answer. If the climate change started so rapidly with the start of the Industrial Revolution, the impact of a little extra CO2 would have to be huge, and we likely contribute 1,000 times or more now, but not the incredible rise in temperature that should go with it, except for the models forecast.

The inconvenient truth, is that the crisis is generated by a computer model, which can't be tested or verified for several decades. If Microsoft had a hand in writing the code, or it runs under Windows, I'd imagine there are a few bugs and security issues...

 

[BrownOut]

the climate change started so rapidly with the start of the Industrial Revolution, the impact of a little extra CO2 would have to be huge, and we likely contribute 1,000 times or more now

I agree:

**broken link removed**

 

[BrownOut]

you won't even be alive when they're proven inadequate to explain what's really going on.

We'll be alive when my points are proved, but the world will be a different place.

 

[ghostman11]

and so the debate rages on..............and on....................................... and on.................................................................. and then eventualy it will get so over heated the thread will be locked/killed and things will die down for a couple of weeks untill someone posts about global warming, then the debate will go on............................. and on............................................... and on..................................................................................., but nothing will be different except everyone will be that little bit older and there keyboards a little bit closer to knackered.

 

[tcmtech]

I found this as an interesting read.
They gotts sum purrdy graftises in theres too.

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[shortbus=]

I agree:

**broken link removed**

OMG Now CO2 caused the Dust Bowl

(graph courtesy of AlGore.com)

 

[HarveyH42]

I found this as an interesting read.
They gotts sum purrdy graftises in theres too.

Past Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Now that was a nicely presented report, much more believable, and pretty much the same information as Team Gore presented, but then again it doesn't do anything to motivate or panic. Surprising that the oceans are such huge CO2 emitters, wonder how we are going to control them. Still believe that what is happening is mostly a natural event, and will continue to do it's thing, regardless of the tax and cap proposals. Pretty sure the environmental changes won't be near as bad, as the economic ones AGW will inflict on us this summer, or next time it warms up...

You should try Firefox browser, really helps with spelling and typos...