Global Warming Thread IX

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Pettibone » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:36 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.

Selected paragraphs:
“Global warming” is rapidly increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as it does every summer, but alarmists in the media are doing their best to make it seem like summer heat waves never occurred before. They are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures.

[...]

Federal mortality statistics show 800 more people die every day in December, January, and February than occurs on an average day during the rest of the year. The winter months kill 72,000 more U.S. citizens than the spring-summer-autumn average.

The three months with the lowest mortality are the hot-weather summer months of June, July, and August.

[...]

According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were prevalent the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today. The warming that has occurred (much of it overstated by placing temperature stations on asphalt, next to buildings, etc.) has primarily been during the winter and at night. High temperatures are not getting hotter, but rather the much more deadly extreme low temperatures are becoming more moderate.



Ed: David, in general I agree with you on the hysteria of GW but what are your sources for the statements in this post? They are not in my opinion a good as most of the anti GW stuff you post. Take the third one for example It really does not make sense to me to compare three seasons (Spring, Summer and Autumn) to just the winter season. Do you have figures for the hottest and the coldest? And how about fires on people who died at home and people who died in a hospital or nursing home? figures for those who died of illnesses and those died accidentally? There are many variables from season to season in the cause of death, other than just outdoor temperature.
ie; In the winter people often delay too long to go out on ice and snow to seek medical attention. It is not the cold that kills them. Whereas it is not as difficult to get to medical attention in the summer and fewer die. 72,000 deaths plus or minus nation wide over any three months is statistically, hardly significant. Yes each one of those persons are probably significant to a number of people.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:35 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.

Selected paragraphs:
“Global warming” is rapidly increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as it does every summer, but alarmists in the media are doing their best to make it seem like summer heat waves never occurred before. They are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures.

[...]

Federal mortality statistics show 800 more people die every day in December, January, and February than occurs on an average day during the rest of the year. The winter months kill 72,000 more U.S. citizens than the spring-summer-autumn average.

The three months with the lowest mortality are the hot-weather summer months of June, July, and August.


[...]

According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were prevalent the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today. The warming that has occurred (much of it overstated by placing temperature stations on asphalt, next to buildings, etc.) has primarily been during the winter and at night. High temperatures are not getting hotter, but rather the much more deadly extreme low temperatures are becoming more moderate.



David, "warmists" (as you call them in your politer moments) are not saying hot/warm weather kills more people than cold weather. That is not the issue. They are merely saying, temperatures are going up and there are ill-effects now and they are growing.

Besides the denialist article you quoted is not very careful about their backup to the claim that:
"They (alarmists) are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures"
.
Their backup was that:
"An article in the Tuesday, July 27 Washington Post claims “High temperatures claim more lives in the United States than tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined – about 700 a year, according to official estimates.”"

Nothing about cold weather which does in fact kill a lot of people.

As far as temperature extremes in the US, there have been only 3 "coldest" record months/seasons set since Jan 2007 compared to 61 "warmest" or "hottest" record months/seasons according to the records given below.
ExtremeWeatherGuide Records

Read this for discussion of other weather extremes exasperated by global warming.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8766
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:39 pm

David Flick wrote:.
.

Selected paragraphs:
“Global warming” is rapidly increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as it does every summer, but alarmists in the media are doing their best to make it seem like summer heat waves never occurred before. They are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures.

[...]

Federal mortality statistics show 800 more people die every day in December, January, and February than occurs on an average day during the rest of the year. The winter months kill 72,000 more U.S. citizens than the spring-summer-autumn average.

The three months with the lowest mortality are the hot-weather summer months of June, July, and August.

[...]

According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were prevalent the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today. The warming that has occurred (much of it overstated by placing temperature stations on asphalt, next to buildings, etc.) has primarily been during the winter and at night. High temperatures are not getting hotter, but rather the much more deadly extreme low temperatures are becoming more moderate.

    Ed Pettibone wrote:Ed: David, in general I agree with you on the hysteria of GW but 1what are your sources for the statements in this post? They are not in my opinion a good as most of the anti GW stuff you post. 2Take the third one for example It really does not make sense to me to compare three seasons (Spring, Summer and Autumn) to just the winter season. Do you have figures for the hottest and the coldest? And how about fires on people who died at home and people who died in a hospital or nursing home? figures for those who died of illnesses and those died accidentally? There are many variables from season to season in the cause of death, other than just outdoor temperature.
    ie; In the winter people often delay too long to go out on ice and snow to seek medical attention. It is not the cold that kills them. Whereas it is not as difficult to get to medical attention in the summer and fewer die. 72,000 deaths plus or minus nation wide over any three months is statistically, hardly significant. Yes each one of those persons are probably significant to a number of people.
1) Ed, the source of the the three paragraphs is the link I posted above. The author of the article is James Taylor, who is one of 141 global warming experts who writes for the Heartland Institute website. Some of the most prominent skeptic climate scientists and experts in the world are part of that line up. The list includes people such as Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Christopher Monckton, Timothy Ball, Robert Balling, Bob Carter, John Christy, Ian Clark, John Coleman, Joseph D'Aleo, William Gray, Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke, Nir Shaviv, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, and others.

2) If you will reread the article and focus on the first paragraph, you'll see that the author (James Taylor) is refuting the the alarmist media spin that the summer heat waves which are occuring now have never happened before. They couple the spin with the notion that hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures do. Taylor pointed out the fallacy of that sort of spin.

First, citing the National Weather Service data, he debunks the notion that current heat waves are hotter than anything previously experienced in history. ("According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were [more] prevalent [in] the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today.")

Secondly, he cites data that shows that more people die in cold weather than hot weather. (Federal mortality statistics show 800 more people die every day in December, January, and February than occurs on an average day during the rest of the year. The winter months kill 72,000 more U.S. citizens than the spring-summer-autumn average.)

I don't make this stuff up, Ed. The AGW hysteria is at a fever pitch these days. (Pardon the pun) The alarmists are backed against the wall and are running out of soap for their propaganda. Roy Spencer was correct. (cf. my tagline)
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Sat Aug 07, 2010 6:30 am

KeithE wrote:David, "warmists" (as you call them in your politer moments) are not saying hot/warm weather kills more people than cold weather. That is not the issue. They are merely saying, temperatures are going up and there are ill-effects now and they are growing.

The warmists may be "merely saying" that temperatures are going up and there are ill-effects now and they are growing, but that's completely false. It's propaganda to suggest that ill effects to rising temperatures are somehow unusual or that they are growing at a rate previously not seen. The warmists are unwilling acknowledge that there have been warmer periods with greater ill effect in the past than currently observed. Here's what Taylor wrote in the article:
    "According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were [more] prevalent [in] the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today."
Translation: It's documented fact, based on National Weather Service data, that record high temperatures were more prevalent in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today. Warmists would have you to believe that record temperatures today have never been seen prior to the last decade. But that's alarmist propaganda.

KeithE wrote:Besides the denialist article you quoted is not very careful about their backup to the claim that:
"They (alarmists) are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures"
.
Their backup was that:
"An article in the Tuesday, July 27 Washington Post claims “High temperatures claim more lives in the United States than tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined – about 700 a year, according to official estimates.”"

Nothing about cold weather which does in fact kill a lot of people.

You missed Taylor's point. You need to read the entire first paragraph, specifically the underlined clause in the first sentence.
    “Global warming” is rapidly increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as it does every summer, but alarmists in the media are doing their best to make it seem like summer heat waves never occurred before. They are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures.
It gets warm, even hot, every summer. The record temperatures which have been recently cited in various locations around the globe are not unusual. Record temperatures occur somewhere on the globe virtually every summer. There have been record temperatures since man began keeping records. There isn't anything unusual about record warm temperatures anywhere on the globe. The alarmists would lead you to believe that record temperatures are occurring with alarmingly increasing frequency. But again, that's part of the warmist propaganda. Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick graph is fodder for the warmists who somehow think that the earth has reach a warming period that has been previously unseen in the past millenium. But that also is propaganda because Mann completely omitted the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) from his graph. It's common knowledge that the a MWP was much warmer on average than the hottest temperatures of the last two decades.

KeithE wrote:As far as temperature extremes in the US, there have been only 3 "coldest" record months/seasons set since Jan 2007 compared to 61 "warmest" or "hottest" record months/seasons according to the records given below.
ExtremeWeatherGuide Records

You don't read the data very well, Keith. At least not in this case. Go back and compare all warm weather (summer) records as compared to all cold weather (winter) records. I did a quick count and found 112 winter records, which included *record snow falls, *record snowiest winters, *record snowiest months, etc. When you compare the winter records to the summer records on the extreme weather list, the winter records beat the summer records by a factor of 2 to 1. You can spin the data all you want, but the extreme weather records on that page clearly show that cold weather records blow the warm weather records out of the water... As such, your extreme weather page supports my argument way better than it does yours. :D

KeithE wrote:Read this for discussion of other weather extremes exasperated by global warming.

You can expect the EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) to speak alarmist global warming propaganda. The EDF claims to be a non-partisan environmental advocacy group. That's how Wikipedia describes the organization. To true believing AGWers, the EDF is the "cat's meow." The truth is, however, that EDF is a radical environmental advocacy group. It's in the tank with global warming alarmism. I don't trust the EDF when it comes to correct information about global warming and climate change...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:07 am

David Flick wrote:
KeithE wrote:David, "warmists" (as you call them in your politer moments) are not saying hot/warm weather kills more people than cold weather. That is not the issue. They are merely saying, temperatures are going up and there are ill-effects now and they are growing.

The warmists may be "merely saying" that temperatures are going up and there are ill-effects now and they are growing, but that's completely false. It's propaganda to suggest that ill effects to rising temperatures are somehow unusual or that they are growing at a rate previously not seen. The warmists are unwilling acknowledge that there have been warmer periods with greater ill effect in the past than currently observed. Here's what Taylor wrote in the article:
    "According to National Weather Service data, however, record high temperatures were [more] prevalent [in] the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today."
Translation: It's documented fact, based on National Weather Service data, that record high temperatures were more prevalent in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s than they are today. Warmists would have you to believe that record temperatures today have never been seen prior to the last decade. But that's alarmist propaganda.

KeithE wrote:Besides the denialist article you quoted is not very careful about their backup to the claim that:
"They (alarmists) are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures"
.
Their backup was that:
"An article in the Tuesday, July 27 Washington Post claims “High temperatures claim more lives in the United States than tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and lightning combined – about 700 a year, according to official estimates.”"

Nothing about cold weather which does in fact kill a lot of people.

You missed Taylor's point. You need to read the entire first paragraph, specifically the underlined clause in the first sentence.
    “Global warming” is rapidly increasing Northern Hemisphere temperatures, as it does every summer, but alarmists in the media are doing their best to make it seem like summer heat waves never occurred before. They are also misleading people into believing hot temperatures kill more people than cold temperatures.

No David you have missed the point. Taylor is saying the media has said there have never been summer heat waves before. Huh?? Show me where the media says this. And Tayor is also saying the media says 'hot temps kill more than cold temps'. Again show me where they say that. Certainly not in the evidence Taylor brought forward.

Taylor is trying to cast the media as claiming something it does not even claim. Strawman argumentation to say the least. The evidence Taylor cites is from the Washington Post article (his quote of that is above) which does not say anything of the sort to buttress either claim. He then claims the Atlanta Constitution said 'there have never been summer heat waves before', or 'hot temps kill more than cold temps'. It says nothing of the sort. What it said (in an editorial) was (assuming Taylor quote is correct and taken in context):
“We’d better get used to miserable, scorching summers. We can stop using the term ‘heat wave’ to describe what will become a routine pattern of high temperatures, overtaxed electricity grids and epidemics of heat strokes. According to NASA, all but one of the ten hottest years on record were since 1999,” writes Cynthia Tucker.

Again nothing about Taylor's thesis that the media is ballyhooing that 'there ahve never been summer haet waves before' or 'hot temps kill more than cold temps'. Tucker's advice to be prepared for hot weather is appropriate - knowing her general viewpoints, she probably advocates for providing warmth/shelter to the poor during cold snaps. She is also right about the hottest 9 of 10 hottest years have been since 1999.

Hottest Years in order with temp anomaly:
2005 0.77C
2007 0.74C
2009 0.71C
1998 0.71C
2002 0.68C
2003 0.65C
2006 0.64C
2004 0.59C
2001 0.56C
2008 0.56C

So 9 of the hottest years have been from 1999 on, just as Cyhthnia Ticker says. In fact 10 of 10 of the hottest has been since 1998 and 9 of 10 hottest has been since 2001. Tucker is quite conservative in her statement actually.

BTW, for the year June 2009-May 2010 the anomaly is 0.82C

And BTW, the hottest year in the 1930's was 1938 with a temp anomaly of 0.15C.
NASA Data here Look at the year column and the J-D column.

Read closely with rationality and check the DATA, not your emotions David.

David wrote:It gets warm, even hot, every summer. The record temperatures which have been recently cited in various locations around the globe are not unusual. Record temperatures occur somewhere on the globe virtually every summer. There have been record temperatures since man began keeping records. There isn't anything unusual about record warm temperatures anywhere on the globe. The alarmists would lead you to believe that record temperatures are occurring with alarmingly increasing frequency. But again, that's part of the warmist propaganda.

What is unusual is the diffrence in numbers of hottest records vs number of coldest records. That is consistent with the fact that the mean has increased. In my book "Extreme Weather" by Chrtsopher Burt (who keeps tabs at the site extremeweatherguide.com), there is a plot that shows how many hot and cold records there have been in each decade based on painstaken review ofthe National Weather Service Data of 303 sites:
Image
The 30's did see a lot of high temps across the USA (162) but it also had a lot of cold records (101). It was a violent period of weather with dust bowls, etc. The period 2000-2006 (which Burt updates at extremeweatherguide.com) has 74 hottest and 1 coldest record by Dec 2006. By my count, there are 61 additional high temps thru July 2010 (making 135 high temps in the 2000s) and 3 new low temps (making 4 in the 2000's). Taylor makes a valid point about the 30's having more high temp records. But not the 40s and 50's as Taylor claims the NWS says - but provides no references - why would he? it woudl prove him wrong; besides he is preying on the already duped so why bother with facts. Pretty much demonstrates your "translation" in blue above is false.

Again David, check the facts behind your articles - they are often vacuous and they seldom give references.

But what Taylor and you (David) miss is the ratio of high temp vs low temp records. That ratio is 1.6 for the 30's and 36 for the 2000's. That is most unusual and buttresses teh well known fact that (for the US at least) the mean temp has risen. Other data shows the US has not seen as much GW as has the world as a whole.

David wrote: Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick graph is fodder for the warmists who somehow think that the earth has reach a warming period that has been previously unseen in the past millenium. But that also is propaganda because Mann completely omitted the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) from his graph. It's common knowledge that the a MWP was much warmer on average than the hottest temperatures of the last two decades.

We are now well above the MWP (temp anomaly of +0.1C even with the highest reconstruction):
Image
This plot if updated would show a value of +0.82C for the year June 2009- May 2010. Data here at bottom of page.
And most scientists believe that the MWP was only local to Europe. From David's favorite source Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period :
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) occurred from about AD 950–1250, during the European Middle Ages.[10] Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented. It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global.[14] However, this view has been questioned; the IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarises this research, saying "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[15] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.[16] Crowley and Lowery (2000) [17] note that "there is insufficient documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

Note that Wiki references stuff with papers that have data in them.

So what is fraudalent is all the denialists' wild claims that the MWP was hotter than today (or even the avergae of the last 2 decades as the denialists try to sneak into the discussion since they know the last decade has been the hottest - stuck on high). But they are wrong even with that deception. The MWP was at most 0.1C temp anomaly (actual the mean of all reconstructions is below 0C). Average for the 90's and 00's is about +0.3C.
Image

David wrote:
KeithE wrote:As far as temperature extremes in the US, there have been only 3 "coldest" record months/seasons set since Jan 2007 compared to 61 "warmest" or "hottest" record months/seasons according to the records given below.
ExtremeWeatherGuide Records

You don't read the data very well, Keith. At least not in this case. Go back and compare all warm weather (summer) records as compared to all cold weather (winter) records. I did a quick count and found 112 winter records, which included *record snow falls, *record snowiest winters, *record snowiest months, etc. When you compare the winter records to the summer records on the extreme weather list, the winter records beat the summer records by a factor of 2 to 1. You can spin the data all you want, but the extreme weather records on that page clearly show that cold weather records blow the warm weather records out of the water... As such, your extreme weather page supports my argument way better than it does yours. :D

I almost pre-empted that discusion about snowiest records. I did read all the records, but snow amount records does not equate to extreme cold temp records. Thought even you would concede that. Snow requires relatively cold temps - below ~32F (that is obvious). But it does not serve well as an indicator of extreme cold temperatures (which usually are below 0 F). BTW, GW is also often correlated with greater precipitation (floods and snow fall) and greater droughts. But these are only correlations that do not have an agreed-to theory behind them. I know that drives you wild, that alarmists will claim any new data supports their cause. But you cannot use the snow records as indicators of Global Cooling - no way. Likewise GWist's should stick to science (data + supporting theory) and there is a plethora of data indicated global warming plus well founded Greenhouse theory (to all reasonable, non-ideologued scientists that is). So I'll retract the EDF link not because I know they are wrong but because I'm not certain that GW has caused more floods/drought/hurricane occurences without theory to buttress the observations. But the correlations are there. As for AGW that is UNDENIALABLE SCIENCE - data + theory (only 3% of scientists who study/write on GW the most, object to AGW).
Last edited by KeithE on Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:25 am, edited 4 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8766
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:33 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... obin-mckie

// In this way, scientists' warnings – that without action the world will get at least two degrees hotter this century – have been obscured by a small group of ideologues who believe individual liberties are more important than any other cause. Our planet may burn, millions may die, and cities such as Moscow and New York may smoulder, but at least we will be free of petty regulation and bureaucracy. It seems a stiff price to pay. //
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:46 pm

// Secondly, he cites data that shows that more people die in cold weather than hot weather.\\

And your point is? You should know that most of the 'warming' is taking place in the winter.

Are you who live in Enid enjoying our COLD spell ;-) Central Oklahoma weather cooled down from 103ºF (39ºC) to 98 ºF (36ºC) (for a few days. Also, in the summer, we generally call the front a 'cool' front, 'cold' it is NOT :-) But at least most of us have air conditioning. Meanwhile in this period in Moscow, Russia the weather was up to 37ºC (100ºF) without air conditioning for most people, without power for 1/3 of the population. Their were bog (you, know, 'plant rot oil') fires going on - heavy pollution. (Catch up on your reading of the book of Jonah - he thought it was really cool that God was going to zap Ninivah. Jonah went on a Mediterranian Cruise instead :-)
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:22 am

.
.
Keith, here's the latest on the sea-level rise myths of Hansen and Gore. According to the experts, it's highly likely that the sea-level rise might only be 0.2 meters (about 8 inches) by 2100. Considering that it's a full nine decades until the year 2100, the sea will rise less than an inch a decade over the next 90 years. Neither of us will be around at that point in time...

Sea Experts Do A Smackdown on NASA's James Hansen: Potential Sea Level Rise Is Only Fraction Of Hansen's Ludicrous Prediction

Read here. James Hansen, and his creepy friend A. Gore, have crisscrossed the world claiming sea levels will rise by some 20 meters due to global warming. It's a nice scary story designed to frighten the clueless, MSM reporters and Hollywood celebrities, but unfortunately it is told by two non-experts regarding sea levels. As a result of their non-expertise, it happens their scary story has zero connection with current reality or the ancient/historical past.

So, what do the real sea-level experts say? The latest peer-reviewed report from the world expert PALSEA team indicates a worst-case scenario of 0.59 meter to 1.4 meters by 2100. Hellooooo....the experts say it's not even going to be close to the 'teens' let alone a rise 20 meters.

And carefully note, that's the worst-case scenario. If the actual present trends of sea-level rise continue, it's highly likely that the sea-level rise might only be 0.2 meters by 2100. How scary is that? It's only a tiny fraction of the mythical scariness. Source...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:40 am

Ed Edwards wrote:// Secondly, he cites data that shows that more people die in cold weather than hot weather.\\

1And your point is? You should know that most of the 'warming' is taking place in the winter.

2Are you who live in Enid enjoying our COLD spell ;-) 3Central Oklahoma weather cooled down from 103ºF (39ºC) to 98 ºF (36ºC) (for a few days. Also, in the summer, we generally call the front a 'cool' front, 'cold' it is NOT :-) But at least most of us have air conditioning. 4Meanwhile in this period in Moscow, Russia the weather was up to 37ºC (100ºF) without air conditioning for most people, without power for 1/3 of the population. Their were bog (you, know, 'plant rot oil') fires going on - heavy pollution. (5Catch up on your reading of the book of Jonah - he thought it was really cool that God was going to zap Ninivah. Jonah went on a Mediterranian Cruise instead :-)

1) Say what?? Most of the "warming" taking place in the winter?? You must not be paying very close attention to the weather. Have you forgotten all those massive ice storms that occurred over the past several winters here in Oklahoma? Have you forgotten that huge ice storm that occurred right there in your home town in January of this year? Here, permit me to refresh your memory about that event. Watch this YouTube video. I suppose you'll probably blame that ice storm on global warming... :lol:

2) I wouldn't exactly call it a cold spell, but it is cooler in these parts this summer than last year. Based on the information that appeared in the article I posted, during the month of June of this year, the temperature was was 10 t 20 degrees cooler this this year than last.
Roger Don Gribble, area agronomist for Garfield County Oklahoma State University Extension Office, said temperatures during pollination, which usually is around the second and third week of June, were between 85 and 95 degrees.

The temperatures during pollination last year averaged around 105 degrees.

“Last year was pretty bad,” Gribble said. “We got into a hot stretch in June a year ago (when) we just didn’t pollinate well. As a result, we had a poor yield.

3) Cooling down from 103ºF to 98 ºF is, I suppose, a good thing. But neither 103º nor 98º are unusual for this time of year in Oklahoma. Guess what, we're smack dab in the middle of the warm season of the year. You can expect temperatures like that during Oklahoma summers. It has been my experience that people will always complain about the weather, no matter what time of the year it is. With the rise of global warming alarmism over the last couple of decades, people have gone bonkers complaining about the weather.

4) Yes, I saw several articles about that heat wave in Moscow. Rather severe. No doubt about that. According to one account I read, it's the worst heat wave in that part of the globe in 130 years. But virtually ever year in some locale around the globe there are record busting weather extremes. But that's not unusual. Since man has been keeping weather records, there have been extreme weather events somewhere on the globe. Let me clue you in on something. Man has never in history been able to cause an extreme weather event. And man isn't capable of preventing an extreme weather event. Extreme weather events happens.

5) I don't remember ever reading about Jonah thinking that it might be "cool" if God zapped Nineveh. Yes, according to the account, Jonah did go on a Mediterranian cruise. Personally, I have some doubts about some of the facts about the Jonah event. But that's another discussion for another day. I don't see that it relates much to global warming...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:18 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
Keith, here's the latest on the sea-level rise myths of Hansen and Gore. According to the experts, it's highly likely that the sea-level rise might only be 0.2 meters (about 8 inches) by 2100. Considering that it's a full nine decades until the year 2100, the sea will rise less than an inch a decade over the next 90 years. Neither of us will be around at that point in time...

Sea Experts Do A Smackdown on NASA's James Hansen: Potential Sea Level Rise Is Only Fraction Of Hansen's Ludicrous Prediction

Read here. James Hansen, and his creepy friend A. Gore, have crisscrossed the world claiming sea levels will rise by some 20 meters due to global warming. It's a nice scary story designed to frighten the clueless, MSM reporters and Hollywood celebrities, but unfortunately it is told by two non-experts regarding sea levels. As a result of their non-expertise, it happens their scary story has zero connection with current reality or the ancient/historical past.

So, what do the real sea-level experts say? The latest peer-reviewed report from the world expert PALSEA team indicates a worst-case scenario of 0.59 meter to 1.4 meters by 2100. Hellooooo....the experts say it's not even going to be close to the 'teens' let alone a rise 20 meters.

And carefully note, that's the worst-case scenario. If the actual present trends of sea-level rise continue, it's highly likely that the sea-level rise might only be 0.2 meters by 2100. How scary is that? It's only a tiny fraction of the mythical scariness. Source...


Truth is that Gore did not say the sea level would rise 20 meters by 2100. What he did say, is that if Greenland's glacier totally melted into water (or is Antarctica's ice all melted), the sea level would rise about 18-20 feet - not meters. And he said nothing about when that would occur. To quote what he said in An Inconvient Truth on page 196 after talking about Greenlnad and Antarctica glacier retreat:

If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea - or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctuca melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase between 18-20 feet.


And volumetrically he is is absolutely right in those assertions!

Truth is also that James Hansen does not study sea level rise and I cannot find where he has ever made the pronouncements that this article claimed he did - BUT DID NOT REFERENCE - Again why would they, it would disprove their point and their audiences are easy prey.

In short the article you linked in full of misrepresentations (probably deliberate).

It does however have some good DATA showing sea level rise.
Image
And this is consistent with all other data I've seen and posted that you poohed-poohed (e.g.
Image

2mm/year over the last century is about right; but 3 mm/year for the last decade or two based on sea level altimetry data that is a better estimate of the current rate of increase (black line in your plot)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

So 90 years from now (if no positive or negative feedbacks occur), the sea level would be about 0.27 meters (the IPCC pegged it as 0.18 -0.59 meters depending on scenario - see WG 1 Chapter 10 Executive Summary ). I could not verify your article's source PALSEA's projection of 0.59-1.4 meters (and I certainly do not trust your article given its track record on units recognition). Heck it might be 0.59-1.4 feet ~ 0.18-0.43 meters which is line with the 2007 IPCC's projections). Or it may be a genuine update from the 2007 IPCC, I do not know - at the PALSEA site it did not have the paper your article referenced. Truth is all these projections could be worse if feedbacks accelerate the sea level rise (as many/most scientists predict).

BTW Greenland just had a major piece of ice break lose (way faster that scientists thought would happen just a few years ago).
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/giant-ice-island-breaks-off-from-greenland/19584793
Not saying Greenland or Antarctica will melt by 2100, just that sea level rise could accelerate and warrants continued glacier measurements and sea level altimetry monitoring.

But another fallacy in David's article comes in saying 0.2 m rise would mean nothing. False, even at that reatively low level of rise, several islands would have to be evacuated and places like Bangladesh would be flooded causing millions of refugees.
Read about effects here.
Last edited by KeithE on Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8766
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:54 am

Elder Brother David Flick: // Say what?? Most of the "warming" taking place in the winter?? You must not be paying very close attention to the weather. Have you forgotten all those massive ice storms that occurred over the past several winters here in Oklahoma? \\

Tee Hee, of course i pay close attention to the weather :-) Yes, most of the warming Jan-June 2010 took place Jan-Mar 2010 -- when the south hemisphere was in Summer. Oklahoma had a very average temperature Jan. In fact, more snow will fall at 32ºF (0ºC) the transition temperature of water to ice (cooling) and ice to water (heating). If the temps had been cooler than usual, the Jan 12" (where I was it was 12 inches) snow would have fallen further south, probably as rain and probably flooding Houston Texas. Go over to facebook and friend (yes, 'friend' is a verb - whole new Paradigm Shift, and "facebook" is a verb as well). As the new bumper sticker reads:

HONK IF YOU LOVE JESUS
FACEBOOK WHILE DRIVING IF YOU WANT TO GO MEET JESUS

Anyway, facebook Edward Edwards (that is me, other friends are also there. Do not get caught up in secular on-line entertainment :-).
Look at my pictures. I have pictures of the Jan 2010 cool front that stalled over Enid & Norman Oklahoma and snowed and snowed and snowed. This was a "warmer than average" event.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:18 am

Brother Elder David: // I wouldn't exactly call it a cold spell, but it is cooler in these parts this summer than last year. Based on the information that appeared in the article I posted, during the month of June of this year, the temperature was was 10 t 20 degrees cooler this this year than last. \\

Yes, this is true. In fact, June 2009 in Central Oklahoma was 10 to 20 degrees warmer than average June 1880-2008. This raised the average almost half a degree. Then June 2010 was 10 to 20 degrees cooler than average June 1880-2009. The average changed.

I was trained in Secular Secondary Education. The students can be on the average smarter than they were last year; but some still may flunk. It is what 'average' is all about.

BTW, the average daily High Temperature in Moscow for August is 75ºF (23ºC) Already it has been over 100ºF (38ºC) every day in August (the 7-day forecast for Moscow is to melt Saturday morning :-) For Oklahoma to average with Moscow to be 'average', instead of 90ºF high each day Exciting Central Oklahoma could only get up to 65ºF each afternoon. Don't think it will happen that way -- the earth's temperature is rising and it is due to the New World Order's promiscuous use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Read my trailer.
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:34 am

Brother Elder David: // I don't remember ever reading about Jonah thinking that it might be "cool" if God zapped Nineveh. \\

When Jonah prayed to God he said: Jonah 2:9 (KJV1769ish edition; e-sword.com edition):
But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving;
I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.

According to Strong's (source e-sword.com edition) the word translated "Salvation" here is the name of our Wonderful Lord and Savior: Messiah (title)
Yeshua -- Century [0001-0100] Greek
Iesus - 17th Century English [1601-1700] English
Jesus - 21st Century [2001-2100] English:

H3444
ישׁוּעה
yeshû‛âh
yesh-oo'-aw

Feminine passive participle of H3467; something saved, that is, (abstractly) deliverance; hence aid, victory, prosperity: - deliverance, health, help (-ing), salvation, save, saving (health), welfare.
Last edited by Ed Edwards on Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:43 am

Sorry, that last post had to be posted. This BL editor &/or my editor things I should write short messages. But you know me: I only limit myself to 3 point sermons during baptism :-)

Brother Elder David: // I don't remember ever reading about Jonah thinking that it might be "cool" if God zapped Nineveh. \\

This time maybe I can get to that :-) But it will be the next post were I show
that Jonah is practicly a prophecy of Global Warming :-)


Chase a rabbit:
Proof text for:
1. Jonah's first name was CHARLES
2. The Lord talks to fish. (it is alright to pray in the Lord's name for good success while fishing :-)

Jonah 2:10 (KJV1769):
And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

Bold part can be translated "Up CHUCK Jonah". Of course, one has to know that 'Chuck' is a common nickname for "Charles"
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Haruo » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:11 pm

I suppose the male-dominion folks may have a bone to pick with Strong for saying that Jesus is a feminine passive participle. Sounds almost like Sophia-worship, which may have made sense in the sixties, but now Ms. Loren is showing her age.

Oh, and sorry about the thread drift.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12129
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:54 pm

No fair derailing my rabbit chase :-(
Ah well, 9PM and still 97ºF outside. A dreamy 80ºF at my computer desk :-)
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:45 pm

Just a note to show that volumetrically Gore is correct about Greenland ice melting causes at least 18-20 feet of sea level rise.

Greenland facts
Greenland's area is 840,000 sq miles = 2,175,600 sq km. 85% of it is ice capped and that ice cap is between 0 and 3 km thick (I'll use 1.5 km average).
That means the volume of ice is 2,773,890 cu km.
Earth facts
The earth's surafce area is 510,065,600 sq km (70.8% of which is ocean) = 361,126,445 sq km.

If 2,773,890 cu km is to be spread over 361,126,445 sq km, there would .00768 km shell of water over the oceans = 7.68 m = 25.2 feet which is actually more than Gore said in his An Inconvenient Truth.

Why did Gore (or more likely his scientists) underplay this? Well they is truthful enough to realise that (1) ice is less dense than water and (2) the water would actually spread over coastal areas (meaning that 70.8% ocean is really more). To estmate (1) look at H20 densities
The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm³ at 0°C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4°C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals[2] of ice as the freezing point is reached.

So approximately we can reduce that 25.2 feet to 23.1 feet.
Elevation distributions
To estimate (2) the percent of land under 23 feet altitude is approx 3.3% of the earth's land area (while ~ 6.7% of the world's population live under 20 feet elevation). Thus you can lower the 23.2 feet to 22.3 feet. So we find Gore being quite conservative in his claim. Now again, Gore did not say when Greenland would melt.

For a discussion of the effects of thw West Antarctica Ice sheet melting, read here with conclusions below:
"The net effect of all of these processes is that if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, the rise in sea levels around many coastal regions will be as much as 25 percent more than expected, for a total of between 6 and 7 meters [20 to 23 feet] if the whole ice sheet melts," Mitrovica said. "That's a lot of additional water, particularly around such highly populated areas as Washington, D.C., New York City, and the California coastline."

Submerging threat

Six meters of sea level rise would eventually inundate the nation's capital, because even though it doesn't have an extensive coastline, it was originally a low-lying, swampy area connected to the Chesapeake Bay.

It would also put virtually all of south Florida and southern Louisiana underwater. The West Coast of North America, Europe and coastal areas around the Indian Ocean would all be inundated more than previously expected.

"We aren't suggesting that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is imminent," said study co-author Peter Clark of Oregon State University. "But these findings do suggest that if you are planning for sea level rise, you had better plan a little higher."

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the U.S. National Science Foundation.


And you know what, I don't care if no one is reading this. I'm learning and I care about my grandkids and future generations. It is true people can move away from the coasts and the UN says world population will decline after 2050, but the disruption will be tremendous. We can ease that disruption if we care to try.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8766
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:25 am

.
.
Font size reduced to facilitate easier reading:
KeithE wrote:1Just a note to show that volumetrically Gore is correct about Greenland ice melting causes at least 18-20 feet of sea level rise.

2Greenland facts
Greenland's area is 840,000 sq miles = 2,175,600 sq km. 85% of it is ice capped and that ice cap is between 0 and 3 km thick (I'll use 1.5 km average).
That means the volume of ice is 2,773,890 cu km.
Earth facts
The earth's surafce area is 510,065,600 sq km (70.8% of which is ocean) = 361,126,445 sq km.

If 2,773,890 cu km is to be spread over 361,126,445 sq km, there would .00768 km shell of water over the oceans = 7.68 m = 25.2 feet which is actually more than Gore said in his An Inconvenient Truth.

Why did Gore (or more likely his scientists) underplay this? Well they is truthful enough to realise that (1) ice is less dense than water and (2) the water would actually spread over coastal areas (meaning that 70.8% ocean is really more). To estmate (1) look at H20 densities
The density of ice is 0.9167 g/cm³ at 0°C, whereas water has a density of 0.9998 g/cm³ at the same temperature. Liquid water is densest, essentially 1.00 g/cm³, at 4°C and becomes less dense as the water molecules begin to form the hexagonal crystals[2] of ice as the freezing point is reached.

So approximately we can reduce that 25.2 feet to 23.1 feet.
Elevation distributions
To estimate (2) the percent of land under 23 feet altitude is approx 3.3% of the earth's land area (while ~ 6.7% of the world's population live under 20 feet elevation). Thus you can lower the 23.2 feet to 22.3 feet. So we find Gore being quite conservative in his claim. Now again, Gore did not say when Greenland would melt.

For a discussion of the effects of thw West Antarctica Ice sheet melting, read here with conclusions below:
"The net effect of all of these processes is that if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, the rise in sea levels around many coastal regions will be as much as 25 percent more than expected, for a total of between 6 and 7 meters [20 to 23 feet] if the whole ice sheet melts," Mitrovica said. "That's a lot of additional water, particularly around such highly populated areas as Washington, D.C., New York City, and the California coastline."

Submerging threat

Six meters of sea level rise would eventually inundate the nation's capital, because even though it doesn't have an extensive coastline, it was originally a low-lying, swampy area connected to the Chesapeake Bay.

It would also put virtually all of south Florida and southern Louisiana underwater. The West Coast of North America, Europe and coastal areas around the Indian Ocean would all be inundated more than previously expected.

"We aren't suggesting that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is imminent," said study co-author Peter Clark of Oregon State University. "But these findings do suggest that if you are planning for sea level rise, you had better plan a little higher."

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

1) Keith, neither Gore nor his band or merry alarmist climate scientists have ever been correct on anything, much less the wild claims about Greenland. The only people on planet earth who give an ounce of credibility to him are AGW alarmists. Both his book & movie (An Inconvenient Truth) have been widely debunked and are considered by credible climate scientists to be complete frauds. Here's an older (and I might add, sane) YouTube video by John Stossel, with John Christy, Roy Spencer, and others that does a nice job of giving the truth.

2) Greenland is not a problem. If you'll read even a brief history of Greenland, you'll know that the climate of the region between 900-1100 A.D. was very warm, much wamer than it is today. Crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinking, but because it was a climatic fact at that time. And guess what, during that time there was much less ice cover on on the land and surrounding area than it is today. Where, between 900 -1100 AD, was all the water that comprises the ice sheet that covers Greenland today? It was somewhere in the sea. If all the ice on just Greenland were to melt and run into the sea, you wouldn't see a significant rise in sea levels.

I'm sure you're aware of the recent calving of a huge piece of ice from Greenland that occurred several days ago. The alarmists are having conniption fits and about the event. They are crediting global warming (and by illogical conclusion AGW) for the potential of an immediate rise in sea levels. Here, written by a skeptic, is a brief article about the event.
    08 August 2010
    Not even half as big, the second-largest ice island in 48 years calves from Greenland glacier

    Written by Thomas Richard

    1962: Chunk of Greenland ice shelf calves into 230 square-mile island.

    2010: Second-largest Greenland glacier calves into 100 square-mile island.

    With climate change being blamed for, gasp!, a hot summer, shouldn't these "islands of ice" be increasing in a so-called warming world? Sadly for alarmists (and CNN), this glacier is actually growing which causes increased calving! That's because the Petermann Glacier, from which the latest ice island broke off, has been getting larger over the last 8 years, is the primary cause for the creation of these floating islands of ice. They literally snap off under their own enormous weight. Just ask Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren. Source...
KeithE wrote:1And you know what, I don't care if no one is reading this. I'm learning and 2I care about my grandkids and future generations. It is true people can move away from the coasts and the UN says world population will decline after 2050, but the disruption will be tremendous. 3We can ease that disruption if we care to try.

1) I'm reading everything you write. I suspect there are several people now reading what we both write these days. Comparing the hottest topics at the moment, the Arizona gets tough on ILLEGAL immigrants thread (which currently has 535 page views) and the Texas textbook war thread (which currently has 409 page views), this thread is being read quite frequently. It currently has 350 page views. Folks may not read every word of what we write but at least they're spending some time looking at what we write.

2) Your grandkids and future generations are going to be okay wrt global climate. In the history of mankind, there had never been a single prophet of doom who has been correct. Not one. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fabricated scenario of climate gloom and doom. I challenge you to name a single person who has ever successfully predicted a catastrophic global event of any sort. AGW, as Oklahoma Senator Inhofe has stated, is a grand hoax. Roy Spencer wrote the following sentence in his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: I predict that at some point in the future we will realize that the fear of catastrophic climate change was the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known. Neither you, your grandkids, nor future generations will ever see or experience physical harm as the result of global warming. The only harm I see coming from the the scam is that the warmists true believers will lose a lot of sleep and energy fighting something that doesn't exist...

3) There will be no disruption of life on a global scale due to global warming. It just won't happen. Enjoy your grandkids. Give them the best you have to offer and quit worrying about something that doesn't exist and won't happen...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:28 am

David, are you going to admit that the article
Sea Experts Do A Smackdown on NASA's James Hansen: Potential Sea Level Rise Is Only Fraction Of Hansen's Ludicrous Prediction

Read here. James Hansen, and his creepy friend A. Gore, have crisscrossed the world claiming sea levels will rise by some 20 meters due to global warming. It's a nice scary story designed to frighten the clueless, MSM reporters and Hollywood celebrities, but unfortunately it is told by two non-experts regarding sea levels. As a result of their non-expertise, it happens their scary story has zero connection with current reality or the ancient/historical past.

So, what do the real sea-level experts say? The latest peer-reviewed report from the world expert PALSEA team indicates a worst-case scenario of 0.59 meter to 1.4 meters by 2100. Hellooooo....the experts say it's not even going to be close to the 'teens' let alone a rise 20 meters.

And carefully note, that's the worst-case scenario. If the actual present trends of sea-level rise continue, it's highly likely that the sea-level rise might only be 0.2 meters by 2100. How scary is that? It's only a tiny fraction of the mythical scariness. Source...
you linked approvingly is full of misrespresenations like changing Gore's claim of 18-20 feet sometime in the future to 20 meters by 2100? Or that Hansen "criss-crosses the globe" talking about sea level rise (hint: Hansen talks authoritatively on temp rise and increasingly on policy recommendations, not "ludicrous predictions" of sea level rise, which the article puts in his mouth w/o reference)

To quote what Gore said in An Inconvenient Truth on page 196 after talking about Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet retreat:

If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea - or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctuia melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase between 18-20 feet.


Your really have egg on your face when sarcasm is used like Hellooooo....the experts say it's not even going to be close to the 'teens' let alone a rise 20 meters when your source (1) gets the units wrong and (2) puts a date on the projection when none was given. Recommend you never trust "worldclimatereport" again, without digging critically into their claims.

I notice you have a penchant for changing the subject when you are proven wrong. Admit your error, brother.

Gore may be creepy (given the charges lodged against him and his recent separation) but his claim is volumetrically correct scientifically as I have shown.

BTW, I do not doubt the PALSEA current projection is 0.59-1.4m by 2100 (but could not locate their recent J of Geophysics article at their site). That is much higher (~ 3 times higher) than the IPCC claimed (0.18-0.59m) back in just 2007. The threat of sea level rise has been raised considerably since 2007 by the scientific community with increased calving incidences and greater understanding of glacier/ice sheet crevising mechanisms. Far from being "alarmist", the 2007 IPCC was an understatement on this important factor. But neither IPCC 2007 or PALSEA are claiming Greenland or Antartica are melting by 2100 (fortunately) and your article falsely accuses Gore and Hansen of saying so.

Don't have time this morning (or until at least Friday night) to correct all your continued false propaganda or ridiculously overstated opinions like
neither Gore nor his band or merry alarmist climate scientists have ever been correct on anything
.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8766
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:45 pm

.
.
            Image

Tis the season of global warming. It's called Summer. Global temperatures always, without fail, rise during the summer season. Happens every year with exact frequency. Tis also the season when prophets of gloom and doom come out of the wood work bearing DATA charts, graphs, computer models, and every manner of wild anecdotal story about catastrophic weather events. These include stories about rising seas, drowning polar bears, disappearing Amazon forests, melting polar icecaps, melting glaciers, bleaching coral reefs, and, "tipping points" of every sort under the sun.

The current hottest topic among global warmists is rising sea-levels. Believe it or not, some warmists say that the recent calving of the Petermann Glacier in Greenland is evidence beyond doubt that global sea-levels are rapidly on the rise. One warmist scientist recently prophesied that the Greenland ice sheet faces a 'tipping point in 10 years'. Recently at a Congressional briefing, Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University, stated, "Sometime in the next decade we may pass that tipping point which would put us warmer than temperatures that Greenland can survive." He said that a rise in the range of 2C to 7C would mean the obliteration of Greenland's ice sheet. The fall-out would be felt thousands of miles away from the Arctic, unleashing a global sea level rise of 23ft (7 metres).

There's another more realistic side to the alarming story. Nils-Axel Morner, a sea-level expert (who is not recognized as being a "real" sea-level expert by our friend KeithE) debunks Professor Alley's wild claim about sea-level rises. Morner says that Prof. Alley's claim must be classified as shear nonsense.

So on another hot day in summer, which BTW isn't at all unusual for this season of the year, GW alarmists are all hot and bothered while GW skeptics stay close to their air conditioners and wait for the cooler weather to arrive. And cooler weather is just around the corner. Sixty days from now the hot temperatures we're experiencing will be only a memory. :D
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby KeithE » Sat Aug 14, 2010 10:46 pm

David, are you going to admit that article you linked approvingly was full of misrepresentations like:

(1) Gore said 18-20 feet not 20 meters
(2) Gore (and his "band of merry alarmist climate scientists") did not claim this would happen by 2100 and in fact they never gave a date for when Greenland (or Antartica) Ice Sheets would completely dissolve.
(I clearly quoted for you what was said in An Inconvenient Truth - see above)
(3) That James Hansen has been crisscrossing the globe claiming sea levels would rise to 20 meters by 2100.

Or your own whopper:
neither Gore nor his band or merry alarmist climate scientists have ever been correct on anything
+

You have been caught and you should admit it; but why should I expect that since you have never admitted to error on tens (maybe hundreds) of links that I have often taken the time to show their falsity with DATA or quotes.

Or are you (when cornered) going to continue to change the subject to such uninformative claims that 'its summer so the temp is always high'? Btw it is winter in the south hemisphere but nontheless June / July/ August has always been higher temp months when globally averaged. Such appeals may appeal to the public and those eager to absolved themselves of future responsbilities, but it is badly mistaken to say this is just another typical summer year. Actually laughable. You would know this if you ever plotted the DATA at Spencer's AMSU DATA site (as I have repeatedly asked but you totally ignore!) that proves that this year (includng this summer) has been hotter globally than ever before (~0.3C average exceedance dtae by date since Jan 2010, unheard of increases). Note that for the most important layer ("near surface air", channel 04), this year is again over 0.4C warmer on 8/13 than any year since the AMSU data has started in 1979 - see plot below or plot it yourself at AMSU satellite DATA to enlarge it (I cannot figure out how to do that!). It is true that July 2010 started to get down closer to those hottest years since 1979 (as Spencer trumpeted back in early July as indication that the second half of 2010 would be cooler) but it has gone up beginning on 8/3 to as high as an exceedance as ever (0.75F=0.42C) by 8/13.
Image

David, I counter as many of your many denialist links (and your own overstated sarcasm) as I have time to do on an vitally important matter. However, you seldom show me you have even delved into what I argue and link. Just change to subject to the latest denialist deception.

In short, you don't debate fair.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8766
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Howard V » Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:01 am

David:

I'm taking your warning of coming global cooling [called fall and winter] seriously. I'm starting to grow my winter beard. It should be nice and warm by the time the cold weather arrives. Every year the color of my beard gets closer and closer to that of the fat guy in the red suit who comes by in December.

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:14 am

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:48 pm

Yes, Howard V, I know your concern with the Christmas Eve Guy. I watched ads for "Abs (Abdominal muscles) of Steel". I determined a happy place for me: I have ABS OF JELLY - Just like "that of the fat guy in the red suit who comes by in December". Ho! Ho! Ho!.

I also had a good time at church. My Church Choir Dude (C-CD, also known here as "Gary") was about to sing a song "Life's Greatest Joy". He asked several to define "Joy". I made (to me) a new acronym:


Jesus
Only.
YES!


Of course, when I said it, I did the "Yes" motion: Lower left fist, raise left leg; Raise right hand streched out, lower right foot (ok, just keep it on the floow - do not want to get both feet off the floor in A Baptist Church - looks too Pentacostal :-). You know, the way that earth people expresssing Joy on TV (like i hear ).
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby Ed Edwards » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:02 pm

Everybody does know that NASA & other Climate Charts either map or graph using "Surface Temperature Anomaly" compartd to similiar time periods in the past. In otherwords, my JUNE 2010 was AVERAGE - cause they compared the Central Oklahoma Junes 1880 through 2009 to the June 2010 temp. This means that arguments like "well it does get hot in the summer" look very silly when rendered on-line. Climate Change data is usually expressed in "off average" = anomaly numbers.

I see the Moscow Russia anomaly from a July 2010 map is in the color of +5.0ºC to +5.8ºC.
My Central Oklahoma USA color is that of -2.0ºC to +2.0ºC - in other words AVERAGE.
I noticed from my July 2010 Electric Air Conditioner bill of $200 that July Temps were average.
I will notice from my August 2010 Electric A/C bill is Aug was normally hot $225, hot hot $275, or "oh good grief!" hot $350. The rest of the earth i read the NASA and other weather/climate figures.

Global warming is real - just as real as hell's fires (just hoping there is no connection :-)
Keep the Planet Cool :angel:
( for the physical Millennial Messianic Reign of Jesus )


Image

-- Ed Edwards, AGW Dude
(AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming)
Ed Edwards
 
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Exciting Central Oklahoma

Re: Global Warming Thread IX

Postby David Flick » Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:57 pm

Ed Edwards wrote:Everybody does know that NASA & other Climate Charts either map or graph using "Surface Temperature Anomaly" compartd to similiar time periods in the past. In otherwords, my JUNE 2010 was AVERAGE - cause they compared the Central Oklahoma Junes 1880 through 2009 to the June 2010 temp. This means that arguments like "well it does get hot in the summer" look very silly when rendered on-line. Climate Change data is usually expressed in "off average" = anomaly numbers.

1I see the Moscow Russia anomaly from a July 2010 map is in the color of +5.0ºC to +5.8ºC.
My Central Oklahoma USA color is that of -2.0ºC to +2.0ºC - in other words AVERAGE.
I noticed from my July 2010 Electric Air Conditioner bill of $200 that July Temps were average.
I will notice from my August 2010 Electric A/C bill is Aug was normally hot $225, hot hot $275, or "oh good grief!" hot $350. The rest of the earth i read the NASA and other weather/climate figures.

2Global warming is real - just as real as hell's fires (just hoping there is no connection :-)

1) So you're concluding that global warming is "real" based on an anomaly in Moscow, Russia even though the temperature in exciting Norman, Oklahoma has been pretty much average from the June of 1880 through the June 2009? And you say that your A/C bill for August is $75 to $125 buck$? So now would you say that your A/C bill is the deternining factor of whether or not global warming it "real?" Interesting... Mighty interesting...

2) Ed, do you have conclusive proof that hell's fires are "real" (I mean as in literally "real")? If so, what color are the flames? Red? Orange? Yellow? White? Blue? Green? Purple? Or some combination of all the above?
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8429
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron