What happened to Global Warming?

That's true humanity wasn't tracking these storms for long, but they have brains, and memory, they would remember if one place was frequently visited by powerful storms many times in a year, or would they forget such things? Or tornadoes in Europe? These are not things that makes people say, meh, who cares, it's just a tornado, tomorrow i will forget it (though it destroyed my house, and I have never seen such thing in decades, or my older relatives never mention this thing can happen here..)

This is almost entirely a function of the current state of media.

There were 70 tornado related fatalities last year in the US. There are over 300 million people in the US. I can remember various massively destructive storms that were on the news, vaguely. I've never been privy to one myself. My older relatives do remember the ice storm in the late 80's down here in southern Oklahoma that left them without power for weeks. To expect your elders to remember as much weather activity as you will is to expect them to have been up on the happenings of distant places they never heard of. Oklahoma City is a few hundred miles away, 80 years ago, when the weather was much the same in this area, that was a distant city you maybe heard something about on the radio. Today you watch the storm in real time on tv. You see the mile wide path through civilization, and it sticks.

The more limited one's horizons, the less terrifying the weather appears, should they be in the 99+% of the population that hasn't been through a tornado. With a 24 hour news cycle, you hear about everyone's local weather all the time. If you'd lived through the Great Depression, that would be one of very few things you'd remember about the state of the world at the time. How many violent storms even your own area had, and whether they were more severe or less than now, would have been way down the list. Storms in other areas wouldn't even come up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Pizentu,

reply 49

Many times Alarmists/Atheists (Strangely always connected)

'always'?

'always' is an absolute.

Absolutes are never correct.

'never' is an absolute...

...ad nauseum....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Couple facts:

Global mean temperature in 2012 was less than it was in 2001 when the IPCC report came out.

In 2001 the predicted "best guess" temperature was supposed to be 0.60C higher by 2011.

i don't understand why we have these debates still as they've now gone on long enough that he predictions can now be compared with the actual measured global temperatures.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Brad, because the failure of evidentiary data in accordance with fallible 'predictions' blindsides people into complacency.

The fact it hasn't happened yet does not mean it isn't happening [that sounds contradictory but it's about present-continuous vs past tense]...

Earth's ecosystem is tough...but as mortal as anything 'living' on the planet. When I first was aware of global population numbers it was something like 3 billion. In my lifetime that's doubled. Before I snuff it it will likely be double again. There's a limit to sustainability....and likely a lot closer than most even dream.

It's simle urban pressures that sees America's love affair with the 'gun' [and other pestilence as well]. Social disparity drives violence and crime....and war [man's attempt at self-limiting through cull]. Mankind will either over-populate into its own extinction or good old Mother Nature will say 'OK, guys...enough is enough....either you lot go...or I do' ...

Man's arrogance will see him 'triumph' over nature....it'll be the latter that capitulates.

Tom Lehrer said 'we'll all go together when we go' ....but that was the 60's....and he figured it'd be a nuke.

Sadly it's likely to be slower and more painful...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Leave it to Jafo to bring guns into the discussion... lol.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Pizentu,

reply 49

The ruling elite today, just as anytime in history, dont want you to question them

How is the current elite involved in this: man causes global warming to be more severe? They want people to think there is no real problem so don't worry we can destroy our planet without consequences...

Quoting Pizentu,

reply 49

Also, I dont understand why Alarmist/atheists are so afraid of the temperature going up a fraction of a degree over a decade.

I may be an alarmist (though I don't even know what that means), but you guessed wrong, I am Roman Catholic.. This word, alarmist is funny. It's like we shouldn't be worried about the changes our planet is facing nowadays, like these are not harmful. Do you really think this? Well, if yes, there are some problems with your attitude.

Noone knows at what temperature will the next ice age come, when will the North Atlantic current stop and completely change Europe's climate, warmer temperature means huge problems for agriculture, many species will die because they can't adapt with a parasit on their ecosystem (humans). If you think these are not problematic, well, good for you.

IMPORTANT THING: how will civilization handle the increased level of the oceans? Ice is melting (who denies it, is blind), and it will raise average level of the water. Several hundreds of millions people live in the big cities next to the oceans, you can't just simply build barrages (barriers? dams? the things that keep rivers in their watercourses) everywhere, or if this will become a solution, who will defend the cities of poor countries? And the salty water of the sea will spoil the ground water in large areas next to the sea.

Quoting Pizentu,

reply 49

evolve

Evolution is a very slow process, it does not happen in decades, but the warming will happen in the time of decades and centuries, there is not enough time to adapt well.

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 53

Global mean temperature in 2012 was less than it was in 2001 when the IPCC report came out.

Climate is full of smaller fluctuations, you should watch the tendency, not just numbers from a small interval. If you only take into consideration the temperatures around 1945 you could say Earth will freeze in decades.

These smaller fluctuations shouldn't make you calm, I guess if humans wouldn't have emitted so much CO2 in the air, this decrease would have been like the one around 1945 (but it's just an un-scientific guess of my own )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg/320px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg.png

You can see here the tendencies and minor fluctuations, and that it is strange that it began increasing at a larger pace when people began using cars much first in the USA then in Europe, and after 1980 around the time when several countries began to rise.

http://www.google.hu/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png&h=402&w=555&sz=17&tbnid=-zjn3LrPqN8P9M:&tbnh=87&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__Bqw5S6WIcL-DFaPsvyajMEB7hCg=&docid=kUKV_P5IZn6diM&sa=X&ei=JLXGUaDDGsXV4gTtxoGgBg&ved=0CG0Q9QEwBQ&dur=315

I don't think temperature rise and the emission change of CO2 are two completely different things that have no correlations. If you check, after 1910 there was an increase in both, and after 1945, there is also a jump, after some delay, it needs time to accumulate heat and have measurable effects.

It is an interesting thing what would have happened to the temperature if humans have not emitted CO2? as it seems there was a cooling near 1900 and 1945, but how can you separate human activity from natural things when humans changed almost everything on the planet...

Quoting Jafo,

reply 54

There's a limit to sustainability....and likely a lot closer than most even dream.

It is said to be 10 billion, but I don't think Earth will be at the state to handle population. Americans use too much resources (if everyone used that much resources than an American, they would need 2+ Earths) (Europeans also), and China and many other states are developing and want to reach US standard. So there will be problems.

To make it clear, not the change in temperature is the problem, the rate of it, and the effect of humanity on nature. If you are constantly being killed you can't adapt to these changes, and thousands of species will die, habitats will disappear, and mankind digs it's own graves.

In the history of Earth when such increase in temperature happened, it was soon followed by major extinctions, and an Ice age due to the lack of polar ice sheets. (sounds contradictory, but if you do some research, you will see it is the cause of it). It must be stopped, if we want our children and grandchildren to have a planet to live on...

OK, I must admit, many things are questionable around global warming (and the impact of humans in it), BUT DO YOU REALLY WANT TO FIND IT OUT, WHAT'S THE TRUTH? I mean, what if it's true, what alarmist say? What if really an ice age is coming, and it will happen in 50 years? ISN'T IT ENOUGH TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST IT? I mean, like hey, we should decrease the amount of CO2 we emit drastically, because we are not sure what will be the consequences. When the next ice age hits, it will be too late to say, hey, you were right, sorry. Thanks man, but it doesn't really matter now, as our civilization is currently collapsing.. NOONE KNOWS what is the limit of CO2 in the atmosphere when Earth's climate will break, or what temperature will cause another Ice age. The risks are too high, yet leading countries doesn't really give a f***, they aren't doing anything bigger against it, only speak about this, but noone is willing to do anything, because money is so damn important it even worths destroying our future. Capitalism is one of the worst thing that happened to mankind. But I don't understand, how comes that capitalism seeks the most profitable things, yet they do not care about the future, WHY? They are currently wasting uncountable trillions of dollars of income that would happen in the future just because they are not paying attention to nature, and overexploiting this planet. It will be too late when there will be no forests and lands for agriculture, no places for tourism, etc.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Turchany,

reply 56

I mean, like hey, we should decrease the amount of CO2 we emit drastically, because we are not sure what will be the consequences.

I do my bit....as a carnivore.....one steak at a time....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Jafo,

reply 54

Before I snuff it it will likely be double again. There's a limit to sustainability....and likely a lot closer than most even dream.

Apparently not.

http://globalconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/world-population-is-stabilizing/

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh, good....a bunch of graphs.....now it's all clear and indisputable.

Wow....so it's gone from 3 to 6 in 50 years or so...and it's gonna get to 9 in 37 more.

We're safe then....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Where's a good plague when we really need one?

About the only thing which will decrease the petrochemical consumption.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Jafo,

reply 59

Oh, good....a bunch of graphs.....now it's all clear and indisputable.

Wow....so it's gone from 3 to 6 in 50 years or so...and it's gonna get to 9 in 37 more.

We're safe then....

I think the key piece of info is that the rate of growth is in fact "deccelerating" and the total number will peak at 9 or 10 billions.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Where's a good plague when we really need one?

I'm hoping for nuclear war. It will thin out the population and the nuclear winter will put an end to global warming.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Zombie apocalypse would be preferred.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Fuzzy Logic,

reply 62

Where's a good plague when we really need one?

I'm hoping for nuclear war. It will thin out the population and the nuclear winter will put an end to global warming.

Not to mention the inner and outer glow.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Jafo,

reply 57

I do my bit....as a carnivore.....one steak at a time....

LOL, thats good, maybe I will do it too to save the planet

Quoting Timmaigh,

reply 58

Apparently not.

It is stabilizing, yet it is unsure where it will stop, so eventually it may double again , but the real problem is noone knows what is enough, what number of people can Mother Earth support, some said 2 billion (some decades before), some say 6 billion, some say 9-10 billion, but these are all guesses, and population is constantly growing...

Quoting DrJBHL,

reply 60

Where's a good plague when we really need one?

Quoting Fuzzy Logic,

reply 62

I'm hoping for nuclear war.

Quoting ZombiesRus5,

reply 63

Zombie apocalypse would be preferred.

I am hoping for a more peaceful solution, man, I don't want to live most of my life in crappy conditions fearing the incoming death that can occur any time.. I am only 21, so I hope I can have a peaceful life..

Better not to think about it, there are people, scientists, statemen, etc to solve it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Rather than try to cull the population, we're probably better off looking at colonizing other planets. In addition to helping alleviate the burden on Earth, it could prove to be a new source of resources and spur more technological advancements.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Lavo_2,

reply 66

Rather than try to cull the population, we're probably better off looking at colonizing other planets. In addition to helping alleviate the burden on Earth, it could prove to be a new source of resources and spur more technological advancements.

It is one solution, but it would need our homeplanet stabilized first I think, as it would be a huge project, so while humanity would need to pay for armies and for restoring our planet, it would be a questionable megaproject.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Geez, I leave for a day and everything turns into a mess.

Yeah you do come off as more than "a bit condescending". As I stated above, anytime someone doesnt agree with the alarmists, they try to demonize you or tell you that you are too ignorant to understand whats happening. Sounds to me like you are the intolerant one. Or is your intolerance ok?[/quote]

I don't agree with you, but I did state that I'm still open to facts. The only 'skeptic' in here that has posted anything factual has been Frogboy, and even then those temperature numbers are singular data points in a larger trend. Everything else posted so far has been hot air. Link to some studies, back up your claims. I'm not going to demonize you, I'm just going to tell you that you're wrong. We'll go down the list here.

True or false:

- The Earth has frozen over and melted many times in its entire history ::: True

[/quote]

True. This is basic fact. What you don't seem to realize that every single climate scientist also knows this. The whole point of AGW is that the earth has natural cycles but humans are accelerating the natural process. This has always befuddled me as a logical response to AGW. If the earth is melting, but is doing so naturally and is not being caused by humans, shouldn't we, uhh, take steps to ensure that we survive said melting?

- Other planets are also facing extremities in weather ::: True

False. This claim usually comes from a paper in which a NASA scientist attempted to compare a picture of Mars in 1999 and a picture of that same spot in 1977 and then correlate that a brighter picture in 1999 meant that Mars was on a warming trend of .65 degrees C. Even if you can accurately take the temperature on Mars from two points in time, we have no data inbetween them to make any kind of rational judgement. Otherwise we could say it was 0 degrees C in January and now it's 22 C today 6 months later, we'll all be baking in just a few months! I've heard Jupiter used as an example quite a bit too. Keep in mind that Jupiter generates more heat inside it's atmosphere than what it gets from the sun... increased storm activity on Jupiter has no relation to our weather here on Earth. Almost all contrarian arguments lead back to this next point:

- During the past years heat waves, many coincided with increased Solar activities ::: True

False. The sun is actually on a cooling cycle. Naturally, as the sun is the primary source of our energy, we are sensitive to the sun's output. However, since the solar energy we receive has been decreasing for a while now, and global temperature still continues to rise, we can conclude that something else is at work here. Yes, the sun's energy has accounted for a little but not all of our current warming trend.

Don't believe me? The sun is not the primary cause of climate change right now. We are.

- "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown" ::: True

False. There's no slowdown to explain, in fact (probably why they're "struggling" to explain the slowdown, as there really isn't one). Here's a handy graph:

One of the most basic tenets of AGW is that there is a huge difference between "weather" and "climate". You can set cold temperature records in certain places on earth while the rest of the planet is warming up. This is of course not even getting to the fact that our atmosphere and land temperature readings are nowhere representative of the whole earth... you have to look into the oceans for that. And the oceans are warming. As water heats up, it expands. Bad news for us.

- Climate scientists were caught fudging data to show more of a warming trend than there actually was ::: True

A little of both. Ah yes, much like Solyndra being blamed for the green stimulus being a complete failiure (it wasn't, look it up), these guys are routinely used as the posterchild for "AGW is a hoax". Did you also know that there were many investigations of the so called "Climategate" scientists and they were cleared of any wrongdoing? Most of what was reported was taken out of context and the media ran with it to sell more papers (or in this day and age) generate more clicks. What really caused the situation to snowball was the refusal of the scientists to disclose their data to FoI requests. In the bigger picture, the team at the CRU was only presenting a small amount of evidence to the IPCC, and slight exaggerations of tree ring data does not discredit an entire theory.

With this, as well as much more evidence that leads to doubt about this alarmist nature, doubting the hysteria seems hardly "ignorant and intolerant" to me. You say "Skepticism is healthy". I guess it is only healthy until it disagrees with your perspective. Then, again, you go into your demonization of people who disagree with you by calling them "Flat Earthers"... flat earth.... flat earth... earth is flat...

...No different than the politicians of today.

If you'll actually read what I wrote I said that skepticism allowed us a species to move past "Earth is Flat". I in no way insinuated that climate denialists are modern "Earth is flat" thinkers. I actually praised people who have a guts to challenge their preconceived notions about the world and go against the grain (in this day and age, that would be arguing against climate change). If I thought anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, I'd be right there with you, but I haven't seen any convincing data that suggests otherwise. If you have some, please share it (as I've asked all along). That's how debates are formed, and I welcome any scientific data you can bring to the table.

Many times Alarmists/Atheists (Strangely always connected) claim "the magical ghost believers" hate science and are "probably just too dumb to understand the complexities so they reject it". They could never come to an understanding of how intelligent your mind is. Well, the problem with people who think they know so much, is that sometimes they know so little. I believe I, as well as everything in existence, is here only through creation yet I also am pretty interested in science. I think we can learn and understand so much through science. The problem is, science isnt always absolute truth. Much of it is "Theory". Hell, scientist cant even figure out if a particular food/drink item is good/bad for me to eat. One day X food/drink is good for your health than the next day that same very food/drink item is going to kill you. Anyone that will think for themselves will easily come to the understanding that if used in moderation, you likely have absolutely NOTHING to be worried about.

Also, I dont understand why Alarmist/atheists are so afraid of the temperature going up a fraction of a degree over a decade. You believe in evolution right? Wont we just evolve to a point where we have adjusted to this miniscule change in temperature? I am perfectly ok with having a GW discussion. If the alarmist could answer the questions I have and explain the issues where people were caught cheating the data, maybe you could convince me that man made global warming is real. BUT to tell me "the science is settled. No further discussion needs to be had" And demonize me if I disagree, is NO WAY to have a debate.

It seems you have a prejudice against people who have their own personal belief systems that choose not to follow organized religion. Hopefully it has not colored your judgement enough to reject ideas simply because it comes from someone who does not follow your chosen beliefs. Science and religion can co-exist in the same sphere. Heck, check out John Cook's website on climate change sometime. He's a devout Christian and has is one of the best sites out there for cold, hard facts about climate change.

Also, a "minuscule change in temperature" will affect the earth and humans as a species. We might be able to "evolve" out of it using technology, but the plants and animals we share the planet with won't be so lucky. If you look back through the geological record, you'll find that a drastic change in the atmosphere and climate always usually ends with mass extinctions of all kinds of plant and animal life.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="26" id="3373836"]I'm still waiting for the "Northwest passage" that they predicted would clear of ice by the year 2010.

Don't worry, we'll get there soon enough.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Agenda 21

Successfully updated karma reason!

Don't worry, we'll get there soon enough.

As they like to say -- "weather isn't climate".

Since the worldwide mean temperature hasn't materially changed since 2001 but, according to the animated video shown the ice camps are melting, that would indicate some other cause (everything from a slight change in the earth's tilt to warmer winters to who knows what.

I see a lot of passion in these climate change debates but not a lot of willingness (or recognition) of what would be required to avoid it or even really any acknowledgement that the scary predictions that were made never occurred.

There is no justification for feeling morally or intellectually superior for having a belief.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 70

There is no justification for feeling morally or intellectually superior for having a belief.

Amen.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 70

Since the worldwide mean temperature hasn't materially changed since 2001 but, according to the animated video shown the ice camps are melting, that would indicate some other cause (everything from a slight change in the earth's tilt to warmer winters to who knows what.

Despite all his flaws and fallacies, there is one thing Al Gore got right...if the average temperature goes up at all, it is felt most by the poles and least by the equator...

To put numbers to that, if the average temperature of the world went up 1 degree, the average temperature in Greenland may go up 5 degrees...just made those numbers up but they illustrate the point...

Not sure if that's the cause, but it is a possibility...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Seleuceia,

reply 72

just made those numbers up

Al Gore (Manbearpig) does a lot of that

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lol yes he does...

He's right about the mechanism...the question is how strong is the mechanism, and that I have no idea...neither does Al Gore, but I'm sure he'd beg to differ....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 70

As they like to say -- "weather isn't climate".

Since the worldwide mean temperature hasn't materially changed since 2001 but, according to the animated video shown the ice camps are melting, that would indicate some other cause (everything from a slight change in the earth's tilt to warmer winters to who knows what.

The reason that your conclusions differ substantially from the vast majority of scientists is because your analysis is simplistic.

For example, take your ice cap argument. Even if we assume that worldwide temperatures have remained about the same since 2001, your argument doesn't work The reason is simple: the entire planet doesn't experience temperature fluctuations in the same way. It is well known, from both theory and actual observation, that the Arctic feels climate change much worse than the rest of the planet.

For example, here is the temperature anomaly from last year:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719354main_NOAA%20NASA%20Climate%20Briefing.pdf

Notice that the Arctic is all red.

If you look at many year averages, the Arctic has seen about 3x as large a temperature change as the rest of the world has on average:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic

That's why the ice is melting. More exotic explanations can easily be dismissed. For example, a change in axial tilt would be incredibly easy to measure (every astronomical observatory on the planet would see it right away).

In any case, you are also badly cherry picking data with the 2001 nonsense (hint: if you include 2000 in your data set instead of randomly cutting off in 2001, the trend shows up again roughly as predicted by models ahead of time). As somebody pointed out above, even with a clear rising trend in data, you can make it seem like there is no growth by cherry picking starting and ending points for segments. But this doesn't show anything meaningful - it is just a classic exercise in data manipulation.

The meaningful part is that global temperatures have, indisputably, increased by about a degree since the mid 20th century, and by 1.5-2 degrees since the late 19th century. That is approximately what is predicted by models, and that is bad.

Models will never be able to do a good job with year by year fluctuations (modeling a chaotic system is, by definition, hard), so getting caught up on that stuff is just a sign of poor data analysis.

Responsible analyses of the predictions that don't cherry pick points conclude that the models have been EXTREMELY accurate:

Forecasts of global temperature rises over the past 15 years have proved remarkably accurate, new analysis of scientists’ modelling of climate change shows.

The debate around the accuracy of climate modelling and forecasting has been especially intense recently, due to suggestions that forecasts have exaggerated the warming observed so far – and therefore also the level warming that can be expected in the future. But the new research casts serious doubts on these claims, and should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change.

The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree.

The forecast, published in 1999 by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, was one of the first to combine complex computer simulations of the climate system with adjustments based on historical observations to produce both a most likely global mean warming and a range of uncertainty. It predicted that the decade ending in December 2012 would be a quarter of degree warmer than the decade ending in August 1996 – and this proved almost precisely correct.

The study is the first of its kind because reviewing a climate forecast meaningfully requires at least 15 years of observations to compare against. Assessments based on shorter periods are prone to being misleading due to natural short-term variability in the climate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/

Since the predicted temperature changes over a decade are so small (roughly a quarter degree), of course you can cherry pick start and end dates to wipe it out.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

ZombiesRus5