Rediscovery of Technology

OTOH, it was freakishly cold (down to the -20 C range) right until March here in Southern Ontario. In fact there is still a thick layer of ice on the water since the temperature now (mid March) is only a bit above 0 C.

I'm skeptical of claiming that because the weather outside your window is "x" is is a sign of global anything. A much more reliable determinant is something which affects the entire planet, like the Sun, which has been showing some similarities to the Maunder Minimum of the "Little Ice Age". Add that to the recorded fact that global average temperatures have not risen since the end of the 1990's, and large scale events like the Great Lakes icing over earlier than ever for the last several years and I think we DO have something to worry about, just not what is being sold to us by politicians and other rent seekers.....

We arent really showing maunder minimum signs. Maunder minimum had 50 sunspots in 30 years, or 1.666 sunspsots/year. Last year we had about 70. this year NASA expects 50 odd. Problem with linking the maunder minimum to the little ice age is that the ice age started 50 years or so before the maunder minimum.

As for the global temperature average change, your off by about 15 years according to NOAA. Try 2005/2006 ish before the temperature change levels off at 0.6 Celsius above the average between 1901-2000, and 0.4 above the late 90's, even when the temp has been growing since the 70's. The IAEA even floats the possibility of increased green tech and improved efficiency as a brake on temp rises. However a study suggests that the reason this 'hiatus'has occured is due to the temp measurement being surface temp, and the current ocean cycle burying the heat, so it about 15 years, its going to come back and bite us bad. the 30's look to be a bad decade for temperatures....





http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=sunspots


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hathaway_Cycle_24_Prediction.png

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2013/03/01/shortfall.jpg

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png


http://www.iea.org/ebc/files/impact.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/860.full.pdf

Thucydides wrote:OTOH, it was freakishly cold (down to the -20 C range) right until March here in Southern Ontario. In fact there is still a thick layer of ice on the water since the temperature now (mid March) is only a bit above 0 C.

I'm skeptical of claiming that because the weather outside your window is "x" it is a sign of global anything. A much more reliable determinant is something which affects the entire planet, like the Sun, which has been showing some similarities to the Maunder Minimum of the "Little Ice Age". Add that to the recorded fact that global average temperatures have not risen since the end of the 1990's, and large scale events like the Great Lakes icing over earlier than ever for the last several years and I think we DO have something to worry about, just not what is being sold to us by politicians and other rent seekers.....

Thucydides wrote:Add that to the recorded fact that global average temperatures have not risen since the end of the 1990's

That is the effect of the chemical cleanup started in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a big chunk of it, as always it´s impossible to say exactly how much something affects matters.

Thucydides wrote:and large scale events like the Great Lakes icing over earlier than ever for the last several years

And here, we have had the 5 warmest winters since mid 19th century for certain and possibly since as far back as the 14th century, during the last decade. This year, almost half the country had spring by scientific measure, before the end of February. Unprecedented.

The glacier on Kebnkaise has melted more in the last 20 years than in the previous 20000 years.

Thucydides wrote:OTOH, it was freakishly cold (down to the -20 C range) right until March here in Southern Ontario. In fact there is still a thick layer of ice on the water since the temperature now (mid March) is only a bit above 0 C.

And here, we´ve had +15C in February.

Thucydides wrote:I'm skeptical of claiming that because the weather outside your window is "x" is is a sign of global anything.

Exactly. But what is the global average showing then do you think?

And include effects from El Nino/La Nina and all the other additional determinants known.
And also take note on how heatcycles in the last 2 decades have focused on those cycles that stashes heat away in the oceans, rather than balanced exchange.

Thucydides wrote:and I think we DO have something to worry about, just not what is being sold to us by politicians and other rent seekers.....

Ah yes because politicians make up their own data and noone else can verify it at all...

Thucydides wrote:A much more reliable determinant is something which affects the entire planet, like the Sun, which has been showing some similarities to the Maunder Minimum of the "Little Ice Age".

As i have repeatedly noted before, the sun is currently in such part of its known cycles that the earth should have cooled considerably in the last ~decade.

And no, we´re not anywhere remotely close to something like the Maunder minimum.
If we were, well maybe you should look up what effect that has on radio waves? We would notice it VERY quickly because radio ranges outside of line of sight would become drastically affected when the radiowaves reflects too poorly against the jonosphere/atmosphere.

I do know that daily weather is not an indicator of climate or climatic trends, but many also can't relate to the mountains of data that conclusively show the planet's weather patterns are getting more energetic (need a scientific nerdish mind), so I'll drop a few intermediate real world samples.

Over recent years our southern hemisphere country has had an ongoing rise in maximum temperature records. Every night the weather girl does her usual trick of telling us what the weather will be tomorrow, but now she then goes through the list of new high temperature records by location. We used to expect about one new cyclone a year, but in the past week there have been three (one - Nathan has now reformed and is coming back tonight for another pass), this follows on from several others in the past couple of months.

While traveling in Europe 20 months ago, each major city we visited had their all time record maximum temperature on each day we visited. Athens, Rome, Venice and such all over 40 degrees. Yet in the following winters we read here of the USA having record blizzards in both intensity and cold.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then odds on it is a duck.

wastedfly wrote:== CLIP ==

PS. Large portions of India are home to most of the worlds Thorium...

I don't know if above statement is technically correct or not, but it is meaningless.
There is so very much Thorium around that having the MOST of it does not matter.





.

A good read. If you reply with an ad hominem attack against me for posting or Patric Moore for what he is saying, then I know you are not serious and have not the least interest in looking at the facts or trying to refute the argument.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... ge-skeptic

If I may, I need to break his arguement down to refute several of his points, as they sound reasonable, but contain flaws of data or logic. This is not an attack on him or you, only on the faulty argument. And sorry for the very long post.


Point 1 he makes is that the earth has been warming for the last 300 years, so it cant be humans. While the temperature has risen over that period, that is due to the temperature between 1000 ad and 1650 or so slowly decreasing, due to two interesting events throwing the average pattern out of whack, and allowing him to use an outlier as claim to normality. While factually true, the arguement is based on the wrong facts. A better pattern to look at is the average temperature levels of the last 5 to 10,000 years, and determine a pattern from that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png#/media/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png#/media/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png


Note that for the last 5000 years, past the previous ice age, temperatures have actually been trending reasonably flat between -0.2 to -0.3 degrees below the average of 1900 to 2000, ignoring the slight blips of 1000ad and 1500 ad.

The third data set is the most interesting, as it zooms in on 1850-2014, and is the averaged data of the other measurements, but more readable by year. this shows that from the large graph, the black line shoots from where it stops on the 12,000 year graph to above the arrow on the side pointing to 2004, and almost to 0.6 celsius above the global norm. To reach close to that temp again, we need to go back 8,000 years in this data, and even then, that's still too low, at about 0.2 to 0.3 above the norm.

Therefore, his argument that it cant be humans due to previous temp changes is invalid, as while the temp did increase, it did so at a slow speed, taking approximately 300 years (16-1900) to raise about .3 of a degree, but post 1900, the temp has raised almost 0.9 of a degree, or a rate of increase 9 times faster than the correction from the ice age, which the graph shows was a rather rapid correction from nature. So between 1900 and 2000, something changed, allowing an even more rapid change, almost 10 times faster than an already fast correction.



Point 2 he makes about the civilizations is covered by point 1, as he talks about the vikings and romans living in warmer times. Yes they were warmer, but only in relation to the little ice-age, which was an aberration, but which he has structured his argument around. Individual data points do not a trend make.

Point 3 he makes about the IPCC is a loaded question fallacy because the IPCC was set up to do exactly what he accuses it of: figure out the impact of humans on climate change. HE calls this a conflict of interest, but it's actually the reason the IPCC was set up: to work out the effect of humans vs nature in the different parts of climate change, through reviews of scientific literature.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a compre
hensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information
relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors releva
nt to the application of particular policies.

His attempted point was: "they're doing their job!", and that they should expand to cover what they already cover.

Point 4 he makes about climate change being political is a logical fallacy of appealing to emotion and a strawman fallacy. He claims that the fuss about climate change is politically driven, and a narrative. These may be true, however, he makes the false cause fallacy of assuming that the fuss and climate change narrative has been created due to politics, instead of considering the possibility that the political argument has been created due to climate change.

POint 5 he makes about the use of toxic and pollutant being curtailed when applied to CO2 is also a fallacy of appealing to nature. CO2 may be necessary for plants, however, the words toxic and pollutant can still be used, as the words can be attributed to something if the quantity is sufficient. Nitrogen is also colourless, odourless and tasteless, but breathing in 100% N2 will kill you just like breathing in 100% CO2. as for plants needing CO2, research suggests that plants may be sicker, and have different carb/protein balances to today, as well as affecting the graowth and maturation rates of herbivores/omnivores. Co2 may be needed for plants, but its heading for a level at which plants can get too much of it....

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/3/424.full

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/18412.pdf

http://sciencepubs.com/content/257/5077/1672.abstract




Point 6 he makes about co2 levels may be true, but only if you consider time spans of 50 million years plus, as CO2 levels were reasonably constant for the neogene (22-2 million years ago), at around 280 to 370 ppm of CO2, or still below current, as with the quartenary(2 million years ago to current). Given that timespan, it wouldnt be a problem until a very very long time has passed.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377839895000674


point 7 about plants needing 1600 ppm of co2 is also wrong. It is not the co2 levels that help the plan, but the flow on effect of improved water retention. It would also modify the worlds current ecological balance of plants, depending on the type of plant they are, due to some plants hacving a positive, and some a negative response, to co2 levels of 800 ppm, or half what he suggests. this plus point 5 means a potential future of sick plants, with far less variety than we have now, not the luxurious eden he imagines.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1942097?sid=21106248901163&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3738776

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00377272#page-1


He closing point of insignificant warming while large amounts of co2 have been emitted, is eminently false, as proved before. And the IPCC doesnt forecast a dead world, only a sick one, with the severity of the illness/hangover up to how much we drink/emit co2.....

Thucydides wrote:A good read. If you reply with an ad hominem attack against me for posting or Patric Moore for what he is saying, then I know you are not serious and have not the least interest in looking at the facts or trying to refute the argument.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... ge-skeptic

The reason people have problems with global warming/climate chnage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/27/new-ap-stylebook-entry-on-global-warming-climate-change-doesnt-go-over-well-with-many-so-full-of-bull/

Also, the global warming / climate change community committed fraud by altering climate records in the US, England, Canada, and Australia.

Now, I just want the complete truth not this fiction we have been sold. I believe in resource restraints and being a good steward to the land.

SO, becasue a journalistic company decided that better known names sell more news, climate change is false?

from your link:

The terms global warming and climate change can be used interchangeably. Climate change is more accurate scientifically to describe the various effects of greenhouse gases on the world because it includes extreme weather, storms and changes in rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and sea level. But global warming as a term is more common and understandable to the public.

And yes, a SMALL group has been accused of changing the records, but they were found to be cleared of wrongdoing, as opponents seized on the word 'trick', when pertaining to a statistical method to match data. had they been on the other side, the fuss would have been the same, but about altering data to show the world was cooler than it actually is. 7 investigations by both the US and UK governments, and private institutions. All the panels found statements had been taken out of context or misquoted, and used the ambiguity between scientific meanings and general meanings to enable sensationalism and to attempt to discredit the involved scientists, and by proxy, their work, and others work on establishing the extent of anthropogenic climate change.

smr wrote:The reason people have problems with global warming/climate chnage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/27/new-ap-stylebook-entry-on-global-warming-climate-change-doesnt-go-over-well-with-many-so-full-of-bull/

Also, the global warming / climate change community committed fraud by altering climate records in the US, England, Canada, and Australia.

Now, I just want the complete truth not this fiction we have been sold. I believe in resource restraints and being a good steward to the land.

Thucydides wrote:A good read. If you reply with an ad hominem attack against me for posting or Patric Moore for what he is saying, then I know you are not serious and have not the least interest in looking at the facts or trying to refute the argument.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... ge-skeptic

Wow, that´s an amazingly dishonest attempt at debate control. By you. I didn´t really bother with the link because Spacekiwi may have the patience to debunk it, i don´t.

I´m very interested in facts. Not interested in scams. And that´s what his argumentation amounts to. Good job on allowing yourself to get tricked.