Global Warming Thread XII

[Ed Edwards]

On this page:

http://www.suite101.com/content/investo ... fi-a335451

it is told that vast new gas & oil fields have been found that will last China for 250 years.

// As Dr. Peiser indicates, 2011 is set to leave a substantial dent to the theory that says humans are fast using up the natural gas and oil reserves of the planet. \\

This is an unproven nightmare. The longer... it takes longer to use all the petroleum, natural gas, and coal on the face of the earth -- the more uncontroled AGW can mess the earth up. We just cannot use 800 Million Years of Fossil fuel in less than 200 years or 200 Millennia (200,000 years) -- not with out harming the earth. We need renewalble energy soon.See More

[David Flick]

[Ed Edwards]

David: // Neither you nor anyone else knows how much fossil fuel remains. \\

Exactly. But burning it up riding around town in an SUV when people are starving in 'china'? Your parents did tell you about the children starving in China -- did they not?

I also remember in the 1950s when the Southern Bapatist Church I was in taught that we aught to go to Africa and theach the heathen.
I do not remember the SBC telling me that in 1976 Africa had more Christians than North America. I have even had some Black Missionaries from Africa come by and try to recuit missionaries for heathen American


-

[David Flick]

[Ed Edwards]

Elder Brother David: // I am not aware of a single instance where the prophesy of a global catastrophe has come to pass. Not one. I'm sure you remember the Y2K scare that occurred back in 1999. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to calm the fears of several members of my church in Dewey over that false scare. The wide spread fear over the Y2K bug was nothing short of ridiculous. \\

Yes, your sentences are correct save -- the Y2K bug, however, was not ridiculous. I was working as an Electrical &/or Computer Engineering for an Aircraft Repair Facility. I spent some 70% of 1992 through 1998 (six years) earning some 200K$US analyzing computer software, computer hardware, support systems, firmware, imbedded system, accounting systems, etc for Y2K impact and/or mitigating the Y2K problem. The Y2K alarmists found a willing group in the US Military and (so called) Military Industrial Complex. Those organizations are capable of destroying all life on earth (not that they want to or will, just that they can) within an hour of the "go" signal. Never was there a period when they could not deliver their product witin an hour.

The solution to the "Y2K computer(s) problems was
1. detected
2. sold by Y2K Alarmists
3. mitigated by responsible parties

[Ed Edwards]

Sorry for all the problems, I blame it on the phpBB folk lousy editor

Global Warming alarmists suggest the following steps in the solution:

1. the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) problem has been detected
2. The AGW alarmists are trying to 'sell' the problem to all
3. the world leaders should mitigate the problem

[Ed Edwards]

Elder Brother David: // I am not aware of a single instance where the prophesy of a global catastrophe has come to pass. Not one. I'm sure you remember the Y2K scare that occurred back in 1999. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to calm the fears of several members of my church in Dewey over that false scare. The wide spread fear over the Y2K bug was nothing short of ridiculous. \\

Another example
I am not aware of a single instance where the prophesy of a global catastrophe has come to pass. Not one. I'm sure you remember the Nuclear Winter scare that occurred 1964 to present. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to calm the fears of several members of my church in Ada, Pauls Vally, and Norman (all OKlahoma OK places) over that false scare. The wide spread fear over the premature cancelation of the life on the surface of the earth was ( NOT nothing short of ridiculous but ) very serious.

The steps taken by the Leaders of USA, USSR, and Red China:

1. the Nuclear Winter thread was detected
2. The ANW (Anthropogenic Nuclear Winter) alarmists 'sold' the proplem to the leaders
3. the world leaders mitigates the problem

Another Global catastrophe mitigated afater detection by alarmists.
"Alarmist" is not a pleasant job, but somebody has to do it

this is the last possible line? -- test --

[Ed Edwards]

Elder Brother David: // Alarmism of any sort is needless fear mongering. \\

As I showed in your example (Y2K) and my example (Nuclear Winter): your point is in error

Elder Brother David: // Fear of a peak oil catastrophe is a needless waste of time and energy. \\

Uh, did you know that peak oil catastrophe is already happening?
It is called variously:

1. Moscow Town is burning down
2. Oklahoma is parched
3. The world is slipping into depression (not enough money, not enough jobs)
4. The Maldives are sinking into the sea
5. The polar bears eating place is disappearing
etc, etc -- all the signs of GW including the signs of AGW.

[Ed Edwards]

BTW, "Alarmism" is very Biblical

Joe 2:1 (KJV1769-ish family of editions, e-sword.com edition):
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion,
and in my holy mountain:
let all the inhabitants of the land tremble:
for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

[David Flick]

[Ed Edwards]

Sen. Kerry was wrong. 850 is just not the same as zero.
x = the numbr of peer reviewed climate articles
3%ofX = 850
...
x = 28,333
with 850 doubting the "A" in AGW
with 24,477 supporting the "A" in AGW.

I guess if you show < 24,477 "A" supporting (yet peer reviewed)
-- that would show there is less than 97% supporting AGW

[David Flick]

[Ed Edwards]

TeeHee! Easy to explain the data:
Weather measure persons had nothing to do in the 1930s other than 'make new records'
in the 1940s, the weather measure persons were helping the war effort
In the 2000s, the weather measure persons were helping 'fudge' the data to prove Global Warming

[David Flick]

[Ed Edwards]

I had some good reasons that destroyed your concept: There is no significant global warming going on 2000 through 2010.

Once you figure out what GLOBAL WARMING is , you might have a different view of it.

[Ed Edwards]

denialsphere

There is a thought called EMPIRE-ism where we build our chunk of government
into a World Empire. Too bad if one's chunk turns out to be part
of the denialsphere denying such things as:

human rights
holocast
7th column in the anti-climate war
AGW
all other country, state, county, city, local, etc governments

AGW = anthropogenic (human) Global (the surface of the ± 2-10 miles) Warming

Global Warming FACT:
// For January–September 2010, the global combined land
and ocean surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°C)
above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F)
and tied with 1998 as the warmest January–September
period on record. \\

that is according to:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/9

That is the FACT of global warming - it is not debatable.
What AGW means in times after this is a matter of opinion
(I have two or three myself). Opinion is debatable.
Prophecy is dificult & scary, especially when it pertains to the future

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[Samuel]

My active in the global warming scientific community brother-in-law got his PhD on that very topic back in the 1960's and is still w/UoFL working on this very subject for the feds.

His take is mundane and claims it is cyclic.

I tend to fall into the camp of solar folks. The sun is now out of its 11 yr cycle for the first time ever and flares every getting farther out into space and even knocking out power. The Bible points and describes some pretty wild dry times ahead or so one may think. I suspect the book of REV sheds light on this subject.

[Ed Edwards]

David: // One meteorologist in Oklahoma City declared that temperatures here in Oklahoma haven't been this cold in more than 30 years, stretching back to 1980. \\

Yep, I had a 4-cyl Desiel German-made Volkswagen Rabbit. Seems Deseil1 fuel jellifies at 15°F (get some deseil 2 fuel).
At work I had to run out every hour to run my engine 5 or 6 minutes.

Strangly the weather at one spot on the earth and/or the jellification temperature of Deseil 1 fuel makes no difference to Global Warming.

Right now the temperature 4" outside my house is 12°F (minus 8°C) 3" inside my window is 62°F (16°C) (left of my keyboard) and 68°F (+19°C) at the right side of my keyboard. This variation is due to MAN-MADE-CAUSES. My house is heated by Wonderful Oklahoma Natural Gas. The temperature difference from the left side of my keyboard and the right side is 3.0°C difference. This is FIVE TIMES the difference in earth temperature in Jan-June 2010 compared to the 20th Century (1901-2000). FACT: the average temperature of all places on the surface of earth in Jan-June 2010 (compared to the 20th century) is 0.65°C higher. OPINIONS: like Baptists - everybody has several opinions about Global Warming in the future. The past is fact; the future is pretty guessy and a matter of opinion.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

You are as technically dumb as they come David. It is patently fraudalent to connect select points in such as noisy plot to estimate a trend line. One must use least squares fits (linear is fine for this data although quadratic trend shows a slight acceleration). Look at the green "trend" line on your first plot.
Most of the monthly data in the 1979-1997 period is below that horizontal line. After that time, most of the monthly data is above that line. That indicates a long term rise my friend. The ups and owns in all the plots represent transient effects (El Ninos/La Ninas/volcanoes). Least squares fits establish the long term slopes taking out those transients. When one does that, the MSU/AMSU data (Spencer's) slope is confirmed by direct surface measurements (GISS or CRU/Hadley data reductions) and confirmed by the Remote Sensing System (RSS) data reduction of the MSU/AMSU data. Mutually supporting information all with positive slopes (i.e. warming) that you deny.


And the data before 1979 (before Spencer's MSU/AMSU data) also shows quite a rise (especially before 1940). Overall there has been about a 0.8C (from -0.25C circa 1880 and +0.55C circa 2005) rise since the industrial revolution when you use the 5 year averages (red line in plot below) to take out the transient effects. Those transient effects (that you highlight the upward transients on in your second plot in post above) are are not evidence for GW (nor are the equivalent short term drop periods like the last 4 months evidence against GW). GW is assessed over longer periods lke 30-100 years ( the more years the better).



BTW, one must look at both the x-axis and the y-axis to quantify slopes - it is not per initial appearance. I can make any increase appear small if I stretch the x-axis out enough or make it look large if I scrunch the x-axis. You simply must get quantitative.

Also BTW, GISS came out with their Jan figures today and it also showed about a 0.2 deg drop in Jan from that in Dec (just like Spencer's data showed).

Scroll to the bottom to see 2010/2011 data and read the instructions given at the bottom to interpret the numbers (actually I believe you are probably incapable of understanding these points, but give it a try).

Why I waste my time with such a neophyte who only reads and believes the well-funded, media-hyped denialist crowd is the real question. Are any other BLers reading this stuff? Please speak up.

[KeithE]