May 13, 2008: Here is a picture taken today by one of my company’s managers near Lower Lake Mary, just south of Flagstaff, Arizona (elevation about 6700 ft).
50 thoughts on “Global Warming Hits Arizona”
Comments are closed.
May 13, 2008: Here is a picture taken today by one of my company’s managers near Lower Lake Mary, just south of Flagstaff, Arizona (elevation about 6700 ft).
Comments are closed.
You apparently don’t realise that snow in Arizona tells us absolutely nothing at all about global warming, or that temperatures around freezing in Arizona in May are far from unusual.
Scientist lacks a sense of humor, I’ll remember that for future reference.
I can confirm the snow though, this is my backyard and I am in the same area.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2327/2489729128_0c21e3f2bc.jpg
The snow was a nice treat.
You apparently don’t realize that global warming tells us absolutely nothing at all about global warming.
In the Seattle area we had a very cold April – 2-3 degrees below the average and had 4 days in a row where some amount of snow fell. We sometimes don’t get 4 days of snow at sea level for the entire winter. I am an avid gardener and I have never seen such a cold spring as this one in the 23 years I have lived here. However, we are told that at the end of the week we will have 3 days in a row 80 or above. You just know that the global warming true believers will talk about global warming causing the wide temperature swings or some such nonsense.
And “Scientist” or whoever/whatever you are, get a life and stop trolling on websites just to spew your derision and spite.
Why is it that AGW true-believers are so quick to tell us that every hot spell, tornado outbreak, or hurricane is due to global warming, but snow in Arizona in May tells us absolutely nothing at all. Hmmm, curious. We had snow here in Prescott, AZ at 5200 feet, tho it didn’t last.
“Scientist” is sounding a little defensive, or more correctly, derisive. I suspect his first name might be “Wannabe”. For all those AGW followers who are finding it tough sledding these days, come to Arizona. We have snow in the middle of May!!
Well “scientist” got one thing right – snow in may is far from unusual. In fact it’s perfectly normal. Decades of dangerous global warming has resulted in perfect normality. Our “scientist” is nothing of the sort. The best climate experts are far more cautious in their language, even those who believe in CO2 caused warming.
Worse still for our pseudo-scientist, any real warming is almost certainly natural. Worse again, if we are causing any warming due to carbon dioxide emissions, it is probably minute or even undetectable. So even if the above photo had been of a drought, that proves nothing.
Amazingly, the media do actually assign every disaster to global warming, but they make one error – their typical statement is “worst cyclone since 1975” for example. Worst since 1975? This means there was a more severe cyclone in 1975. The media statement in quotes is uninformative, and far more devoid of information than it looks. It tells us nothing about trends.
It’s easy to have an emotional reaction when we hear “worst drought since 1982”, but I am unimpressed. It could even indicate an improving trend. I think this illustrates that the media are much to blame for creating unnecessary panic. The so-called “scientist” should try talking to a real scientist – because a genuinely good scientist questions everything, and assumes as little as possible.
“You apparently don’t realise that snow in Arizona tells us absolutely nothing at all about global warming, …”
Agreed. This is a weather event. But it’s also true that heat waves, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and changes in glacier mass are also weather events. Yet the alarmists and their media puppets never fail to claim that those tell us a lot about “global warming”.
” … or that temperatures around freezing in Arizona in May are far from unusual.”
Also agreed. Which kind of makes me wonder why so many people are predicting doom when all weather, everywhere on the planet could be accurately described as “far from unusual”. You just have to look at more than 50 years of weather history to realize this though.
I have seen snow in Alberta and Manitoba in late May, perfectly normal situations of course as Scientist would remind us. I have also seen mild weather in those months and some really warm weather too, all perfectly normal occurances, though I doubt that Scientist would concur.
Corn planting and corn crop emergence is way behind in the Midwest. Maybe Scientist can go find the data and publish it for all to see.
Didn’t you guys get the memo?
OK, here it is, please write this down:
1. No more “global warming”. It’s all “climate change” these days. “Global warming” doesn’t work any more. Whenever Gore goes somewhere to make a “global warming” speech and it’s a record snowfall, it’s in all the papers. Use “climate change” from now on.
2. Climate change is responsible for everything. Too warm, too cold, to much rain, drought, etc., etc. — that’s climate change. New England lost the Super Bowl? Climate change is to blame. Climate change caused the Myanmar cyclone, the China earthquake and is directly responsible for Anna Nichole Smith’s death. You just have to connect the dots to show how climate change causes anything and everything.
Hope that helps.
Why would I not concur? Is the best argument of deniers the baseless allegation that some people claim weather events as evidence of climate change? I imagine you love to hate Al Gore, but at least read what he actually says – he is very careful, as are climate scientists, to make clear that individual weather events can never be attributed to global warming. It’s the statistics of weather events that we are interested in, and that tell us something about climate change.
Out of interest I downloaded the GISS temperatures for Flagstaff. Plotting monthly averages temperatures for May from 1891-2004, I found a warming trend of 0.13 ± 0.05 °C/decade. From 1975-2004 the trend is larger at 0.7±0.3 °C/decade. All the years since 2000 have been in the top 25% of years ranked by May average temperature. I will try to find daily data; it will be interesting to do a check on whether freezing days in May are becoming more or less common.
W G Lockhart – you’re in a very advanced stage of denial. No evidence or physical theory supports your views.
Al Gore … is very careful, as are climate scientists, to make clear that individual weather events can never be attributed to global warming.
“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.” – Al Gore, 5/6/08 (http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080506160205.aspx)
“scientist” shifting the pea under the thimble:
“Out of interest I downloaded the GISS temperatures for Flagstaff. Plotting monthly averages temperatures for May from 1891-2004, I found a warming trend of 0.13 ± 0.05 °C/decade. From 1975-2004 the trend is larger at 0.7±0.3 °C/decade. All the years since 2000 have been in the top 25% of years ranked by May average temperature.”
Pretty slick. How about the TREND from 2000-2007? after all, you started with trends, then shifted to “top 25%”, when the trend became “inconvenient.” Cooling trend since 2000?
According to Bill Bellis, local weather dope, the hottest day in AZ in May was 114 degrees, I believe, in………1910.
“Out of interest I downloaded the GISS temperatures for Flagstaff.”
There’s a wonderful expression. “garbage in, garbage out”. Head on over to http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com and learn about why any conclusions drawn from GISS data are meaningless.
Oh yes, the credulous idiots are out in force. That quote from Al Gore was spliced together from two different parts of what he was saying. Listen to what he actually said here.
Dave B – the data available from GISS stops in 2004. Do you understand why a trend calculated over five years is not useful? Hint – the answer involves the error on the derived coefficients.
David – any peer-reviewed scientific publications which support your belief?
Wow. NSR. And AlGore. Both unimpeachable in their credibility. Phenomenal source quote.
It would be hard to choose which one is less credible….
Shut up, idiot.
Dave’s question is valid. Show me your trend, we’ll show you a different (probably statistically better) one illustrating the opposite of what you claim, you fraud.
Perhaps you’re employing truncation, like Briffa, the liar?
Reality check, “pseudo-scientist”:
If you did that in a financial markets/portfolio modeling context, you’d be laughed and/or kicked out of the room. Then you’d be fired.
Further, if you did that in a published investment performance analysis, the SEC would shut you down, fine you, and leave you open to additional private party damage litigation.
Maybe that’s what idiots like you need.
Go back to eating your lead paint chips, moron.
jep from Kansas said: Out of interest I downloaded the GISS temperatures for Flagstaff. Plotting monthly averages temperatures for May from 1891-2004, I found a warming trend of 0.13 ± 0.05 °C/decade. From 1975-2004 the trend is larger at 0.7±0.3 °C/decade. All the years since 2000 have been in the top 25% of years ranked by May average temperature. I will try to find daily data; it will be interesting to do a check on whether freezing days in May are becoming more or less common.
Jeb did you ever here about the PDO? Perhaps you should update and expand your info. Please explain whether these temperature increases are outside temperature variations that have occurred in the past.
No, it was this vacuous scientist turd
Out of interest I downloaded the GISS temperatures for Flagstaff. Plotting monthly averages temperatures for May from 1891-2004, I found a warming trend of 0.13 ± 0.05 °C/decade. From 1975-2004 the trend is larger at 0.7±0.3 °C/decade. All the years since 2000 have been in the top 25% of years ranked by May average temperature. I will try to find daily data; it will be interesting to do a check on whether freezing days in May are becoming more or less common.
W G Lockhart – you’re in a very advanced stage of denial. No evidence or physical theory supports your views.
Posted by: Scientist | May 14, 2008 at 01:08 PM
who was quoted by Dave B:
“scientist” shifting the pea under the thimble:
“Out of interest I downloaded the GISS temperatures for Flagstaff. Plotting monthly averages temperatures for May from 1891-2004, I found a warming trend of 0.13 ± 0.05 °C/decade. From 1975-2004 the trend is larger at 0.7±0.3 °C/decade. All the years since 2000 have been in the top 25% of years ranked by May average temperature.”
Pretty slick. How about the TREND from 2000-2007? after all, you started with trends, then shifted to “top 25%”, when the trend became “inconvenient.” Cooling trend since 2000?
Posted by: Dave B | May 14, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Do try to keep up kids.
I am equally annoyed by both false statistical claims AND inaccurate quotes, albeit in this case of inaccurate sources.
Global squidding is a far more plausible theory.
“David – any peer-reviewed scientific publications which support your belief?”
Not a single one.
“I found a warming trend of 0.13 ± 0.05 °C/decade. From 1975-2004 the trend is larger at 0.7±0.3 °C/decade. All the years since 2000 have been in the top 25% of years ranked by May average temperature.”
Was this peer-reviewed? If so, please provide a link to something that documents the process and identifies the people who reviewed it.
Yes, the GISS methodology has been described in a number of papers which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. A description and links are here. Your statement that any conclusions drawn from GISS data are meaningless is not valid.
“A description and links are here.”
LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Your attempt to defend the GISS data is to provide a link to the GISS website? That’s like Budweiser arguing that it has the best beer because it won first prize at the Budweiser beer festival.
Gee, “scientist”, that’s funny. You said the GISS data only goes to 2004. According to their website, they have data tthrough 2007, and the 10 year trend 1998-2007 is down.
I guess if you want to make cherry pie, it’s OK to cherry pick?
David – there are links there to peer-reviewed publications. That was what you asked for.
Dave B – We’re talking about data from Flagstaff, yes? Follow the GISS links to station data, look up Flagstaff and tell me what years the data is available for. And please point out the part of their website which says the 10 year trend 1998-2007 is down.
Don’t blame me! The format for the comments makes it hard to tell who posted a particular comment. The horizontal line under the comment visually breaks up the comment and the name of the poster. The poster names appears below the rule, but they appear to be the author of the following comment.
As a general rule, if it’s snide, it’s probably from “scientist”.
Good rule, jep. We can expand that to include “wrong,” “intellectually dishonest,” “vacuous,” “worthless,” and myriad other fun adjectives.
Quoting National Socialist Radio is another dead giveaway…..
PSIentist blurted:
“Yes, the GISS methodology has been described in a number of papers which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals. A description and links are here.”
Uhh PSIentist, has there been any peer reviewed papers on their methodology??
Answer from your paper link: “Some improvements in the analysis were made several years ago (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001)”
YOUR LINK lists a 2001 paper as the most recent!! Apparently all the peer reviewed papers in YOUR LINK were written by the GOD of AGW HIMSELF James Hansen, who, BTW, was SO SUPPRESSED by the Bush administration last year that he only got about 1500 write ups!! None of those papers listed would have had anything to do with the ADJUSTMENT regime that was created AFTER 2001!!
Has there been an independent audit of stations or their actual implementation of the DATA ADJUSTMENTS??
Answer: NO!!!
Boy PSIentist, you warmers are sure GULLIBLE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There’s one important thing I’ve learned recently. I’m a graduate physics student, and until recently I viewed professional academics with great esteem (I still want to be one myself). However I quickly realised that most scientists are mediocre. They sit on the shoulders of geniuses, and they use special technical terminology in order to get their paper published. In other words, if they support the consensus and/or use the right fancy words, the paper is accepted.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a science enthusiast, but very few scientists are truly capable, and very few make a significant contribution to their field. If you strip away the self-congratulatory terminology in most papers, often an empty shell remains. At most, the data will have been interpreted to align with pre-conceived biases. Think about it: we have more scientists than ever before, but you cannot alter the intelligence structure of society. Only about 1% of society are able to really push the boundaries of knowledge and tell us something we didn’t already know.
So we should be very careful even when we know a paper has been “peer reviewed”. Those peers themselves are not superhuman, they are probably professors who said the right things for so long that they now command a position of power in their research area. They may have a vested interest in making sure their ideas from 20 years ago are not derailed. To use peer review as a badge of approval invokes a number of fallacies. We should respect the work of scientist but we should also be very careful. True contributions to the advancement of science usually win nobel prizes (e.g density functional theory, 1998. Since then people just have used the theory, they have created virtually nothing in that field).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a science enthusiast, but very few scientists are truly capable, and very few make a significant contribution to their field. If you strip away the self-congratulatory terminology in most papers, often an empty shell remains. At most, the data will have been interpreted to align with pre-conceived biases.
Posted by: W G Lockhart
Very well said.
Quite a while ago, I had the opportunity to spend some time in the biomedical research field, even participating in peer-reviewed research papers. On numerous occasions, we shaded data to reflect what we thought the outcome should be, or simply rigged 1 or 2 procedures to “more accurately reflect” what we thought to be the underlying data pattern, effectively reaching the conclusion before we had fully analyzed the findings. So even scientists are subject to the afflictions your average Joe.
What was most remarkable about my experience was the world view of nearly all of the lead scientific authors (and the assistants, I should add) were identical, and extremely politically unsophisticated. There was little or no original thought challenging their preconceived notions of how things actually work, or considerations of contradictory evidence staring them in the face.
Are scientists dumb? Some of them, but myopic and lazy would be better adjectives. I’m positive that’s what we’re seeing in this pseudo-scientific field of global warming.
W G Lockhart – your rambling and unsubstantiated claims offer no support for your earlier suggestion that any real warming is almost certainly natural. Worse again, if we are causing any warming due to carbon dioxide emissions, it is probably minute or even undetectable. If you’re really a physics graduate student, then I’m amazed you’ve got so far with such backward and anti-scientific beliefs. I only hope that your approach to your own field is more grounded in reality.
Mesa Econoguy – the fact that you participated in some scientific fraud once tells us only that you are a scientific fraud. It doesn’t tell us that any other scientific work is somehow dubious.
Perhaps then, scientist, you could substantiate the claim that any real warming is man made. I make no claims of certainty, but just because I cannot prove that real warming is natural, it does not immediately follow that the warming is man made. This is like the claim of creationists who say, “you can’t prove god doesn’t exist, therefore he does exist”. I’m sorry I don’t buy it. My point is this: in the absence of hard evidence, it is more likely that any observed warming is natural than caused by man. I’ve yet to see a solid and utterly watertight proof that man is the cause of any observed warming, which is well within the range of what we can expect sue to natural variation (i.e. the “noise” of natural fluctuations can easily crowd out any supposed human warming – this is what I meant by undetectable.
In addition, I don’t think you’re in any position at all to pass comment on my abilities as a graduate student, since I have not made any statements about physics for you to cast your judgement on. I’ve spent a long time promoting the proper use of science on evolution/creation forums, and I certainly do not hold anti-scientific beliefs. Your ad hominiem attack is simply designed to divert attention away from your own arguments. In any case I am a capable physicist and I suggest you stay away from speculation about my abilities in my own field.
So, you think that critisicing climate skeptics is legitimate, but to challenge the status quo is “anti-science” in your words. That’s ridiculous. Science only moves forward by challenging the prevailing viewpoint; when it follows your method, it stagnates.
This scientist is stupid:
Mesa Econoguy – the fact that you participated in some scientific fraud once tells us only that you are a scientific fraud. It doesn’t tell us that any other scientific work is somehow dubious.
Posted by: Scientist | May 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM
It doesn’t tell us that it’s legit either, moron. Oh, but this isn’t “fraud,” it’s perfectly acceptable procedure in climate science.
Scientist makes unscientific and unsubstantiated statements all the time, such as
It’s been understood for a very long time that the Antarctic will respond much more slowly than the Arctic to climate forcing.
Posted by: Scientist | May 17, 2008 at 08:59 AM
And
…cutting CO2 emissions will not limit economic growth or increase poverty.
Posted by: Scientist | May 08, 2008 at 04:48 PM
These are non-scientific statements, and the latter is flatly false. Actual scientists don’t make openly false statements, at least not wittingly. [I think we’ll find shortly there are many false statements being made in this are of study.]
Because this pseudoscientist does make such statements, there are 2 possibilities:
1) Scientist is ignorant, or
2) Scientist is a liar.
To this point, I have thought it was #1. I now think it is #2, which is completely anti-scientific.
G W Lockhart, you’ve said plenty about physics and about science that I can judge you on. I’ve yet to see a solid and utterly watertight proof that man is the cause of any observed warming, you say. How about you pick your favourite scientific theory and show me solid and utterly watertight proof of it, and if you can do that, we’ll talk about climate science.
Mesa Econoguy, you’re a retard. Fuck off.
Nope, I’ve said nothing about physics at all, and even as far as climate science is concerned, I passed little comment, except, yes, to indicate that claims of certainty are stepping way over the line in this subject. On the other hand, a physics analogy can help – if you understand that searching for a radio signal spike smaller than or equal to random noise is a futile exercise, then you’ll see what I mean by undetectable.
In addition to this, trying to “prove” something is asking too much of science, we can only disprove things. The only genuine approach is to disprove my assertion than warming is natural. You haven’t yet handed over this “watertight” disproof, so the assertions of AGW supporters are still speculation, as well they admit. But whether we’re seeking proof or disprove (however wise), the burden of (dis)proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. I’m claiming nothing out of the ordinary – natural climate variation which has been happening for thousands of years. Fortunately, the owner of this site makes a valiant effort to present the other story, but the burden still lies with you.
I notice you’re still attempting to discredit my background. I still can’t see why you’d do this other than to divert attention away from yourself. Again this falls into the category of trying to shift the burden of proof onto myself, but if you really want to make an extraordinary claim such as AGW, you’d better have some damn good evidence. I see nothing that comes close, and plenty of eyebrow raising counter claims.
I think you’re also trying to say that other scientific theories are on as shaky ground as climate science. Not true. If you want my “favourite theory”, Quantum Electrodynamics is a good choice. This is just about the most successful theory in history, with particle properties verified to extraordinary degrees of accuracy. Don’t make the creationist mistake of equating “theory” with “unproven”. Theory means something very precise in science, and is a well tested construct which climate scientists can only dream about. The reason I think you don’t understand the word theory is because you used the expression “favourite theory” as though a theory is just an idea someone has over a hot cup of coffee. I’m afraid this description better suits the ideas of climate scientists, whose profession is still in its infancy. As for stalwarts such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, superb verification abounds, and a quick google search will show you this.
Is this the same guy?
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/16/scientist_smiling_can_hurt_your_health/2772/
W G Lockhart, yes, we’re talking about physics. If you don’t realise that, that should worry you.
In addition to this, trying to “prove” something is asking too much of science, we can only disprove things – and yet you demand a solid and utterly watertight proof that man is the cause of any observed warming. This ridiculous inconsistency betrays a dogmatic approach, not a scientific one.
Why did you mention that you are a physics graduate at all, if you think it is so irrelevant?
And it looks like you may have grasped the point about theories. QE makes predictions and thus far is very successful at explaining observations. None the less, there is no ‘solid and utterly watertight proof’ of it. So why would you demand one in any field of science?
From the way you talk, you seem to be totally ignorant of the mountains of evidence that warming is happening and that it is due to the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. We know it is happening, we know that CO2 concentrations have risen by 40%, we know that they are now far higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years, we know that the extra greenhouse gases are due exclusively to human activity, we know the effect this has on the radiative balance of the atmosphere and we observe the results. No other forcing is in operation that can explain the 0.2°C/decade rise in temperatures over the last thirty years. Which of these points do you dispute?
One particular question I’d like you to answer is why you think the stratosphere is cooling?
Climate science is not physics – it is the study of complex systems which emerge from physical principles, but the fundamental laws themselves are little help in understanding emergent phenomena. Up to that point, I has mentioned nothing about the laws of physics. If you can’t tell the difference between climate science and physics, that should worry you.
I mentioned I was a physics graduate student and that I wanted to be an scientist so that people would not mistake my distaste for mediocrity for anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately, you keep going on and on about a minor aspect of my post. Have I hit a nerve? Why does it bother you so much?
I certainly don’t need reminding by you that I understand what a theory is. As for proof of QED, its about as solid as you can get. This doesn’t mean that no physics exists beyond the standard model, but it does mean that QED and the weak theory pass the vast majority of tests to a very high degree of accuracy. An example is the measurement of the fine structure constants and magentic moments of particles. Theories vary in glory, and your climate science cannot hope to compete with QED. You know this, which is why your only option is to try to attack the solidity of quantum physics. Sorry, but your onto a losing path if you want to try that one.
It may surprise you to know that I agree on certain points. Yes, CO2 is higher than ever (so what?). Yes, this is the result of human caused emissions (your point?). Yes, greenhouse gases correlate well with warming (but correlation is not causation). Yes, the planet has been warming for the past few decades (except this one). But NO, what makes you think that CO2 emissions are the only explanation? As you can see, it’s your last point I dispute, not the others.
Here’s how I view your position: The past few months are hotter than ever. The sun warms the garden, my hot forehead warms the garden. There are more foreheads in the garden than ever before. Therefore, it is hot forehead warming. Worse still, the hot weather leads to more people going out there to warm the garden further. This paragraph is so ridiculous that I’m a little embarrassed posting it.
But you’re saying the same thing about CO2. Sure, it contributes to the greenhouse affect, we wouldn’t be alive otherwise, but it does not follow that CO2 caused all of the recent warming, it does not even follow that it caused a significant fraction of it. As for you last point, I never said that so I’m not sure how to answer.
I agree with W G Lockhart’s view about correlation of facts not equally causation.
I disagree with Scientist on No other forcing is in operation that can explain the 0.2°C/decade rise in temperatures over the last thirty years.
Of course, I’m still curious why Scientist is so adamant about the pro-man-made global warming position. If man made global warming is proved 100%, will this change anything? In other words, if warming the climate is wrong, then why would it be right to change our behavior and in effect, change the climate again? Mankind has existed for barely a spec of time in Earth’s life, where do we garner the right (and have the knowledge) to decide the optimal climate and then control subsequent warming/cooling?
what makes you think that CO2 emissions are the only explanation? – well, W G, this is where we are talking about physics. What do you think the effect of the extra CO2 will be on the radiative balance of the atmosphere?
Evidently you missed the point of the last question. The lower troposphere is warming but the stratosphere is cooling. That is an observed fact. My question is, how do you explain that observation, or what theory do you believe explains that observation?
I disagree with Scientist on No other forcing is in operation that can explain the 0.2°C/decade rise in temperatures over the last thirty years. – so tell us what other forcing is causing it.
Scientist,
Of course, I’m still curious why Scientist is so adamant about the pro-man-made global warming position. If man made global warming is proved 100%, will this change anything? In other words, if warming the climate is wrong, then why would it be right to change our behavior and in effect, change the climate again? Mankind has existed for barely a spec of time in Earth’s life, where do we garner the right (and have the knowledge) to decide the optimal climate and then control subsequent warming/cooling?
I have your answer, but I’m curious about your answer to my question first?
You seem to think of this as a moral question. It’s a scientific one and a practical one. Practically speaking, times of rapid climate change in the Earth’s history generally coincide with mass extinctions (for example, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). In more recent history, climate change has caused the downfall of civilizations. Therefore, if we are causing rapid climate change, then we should probably change the behaviour that is causing it.
Now, why not adopt a more sensible approach to scientific discussion and give reasons and evidence rather than just making pointless unsubstantiated statements, and then childishly saying “I’m not telling you!” when asked for the evidence.
Scientist,
[i]for example, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum[/i]
1. Didn’t that take thousands of years? It is not a rapid mass extinction. This doesn’t seem like a “practical” problem. And when it comes down to it, mass extinction is probably the best solution.
2a. Anyway, since we can’t being “practical”, let’s be “scientific”. If you want to look at percentages of increases, and possible causes for ETM1, look no further than methane. I don’t believe I’ve seen you mention this in your posts (although I haven’t read all). This is surprising because increasing CO2 has been attributed to the release of methane from the ocean. As we stand now, methane is up at a higher percentage.
2b. What about clouds and water vapor in general?
Did I mention that I’m a fan of future Dr. Lockhart?
And wrong, retardo Scientist, you’re the one who thinks of this as a moral question “You shitheads, can’t you see we must save the planet?1?!?!?”
Unfortunately, you lack empirical evidence to even identify the problem.
Tell you what, “Scientist.”
You give me $1,500,000 of the UN IPCC budget (a pittance) and 1 year, and I will hire 1) morganovich, 2) coyote, 3) Stevo, 4) Methinks, and 5) Dr. Lockhart, and his interns.
We will destroy your current climate models, AND build you new ones based on open data sets and architecture, with testable statistical bases, unlike your current “models,” which fail every laugh test.
You in?
Mesa,
Hehe, of course it is a moral question, it is obviously not practical to rapidly change our behavior for a problem which takes centuries to occur. I’d rather advance technology and adapt mankind to handle changing climate, then try to change the actual climate itself (for warm or cool). That’s why man made global warming will have to be billed as ‘catastrophic and fast’ in order to even be considered worthwhile.
I better finish my Phd so that I can ‘peer review’ your models. I wonder if I can get a chunk of that IPCC (aka “Big Warming”) money too? Oh wait… they don’t fund skepticism… and yet we can’t question the IPCC’s intentions based on all the pro-warming money they give out…
Well, the fact that people stand to make money from both sides of this argument hardly surprises me. Which basically brings us back to square one, and back to the real issues.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas for sure, and therefore has an effect on the greenhouse effect, but let’s lay the facts on the table. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas relative to the others, with diminishing returns as you add more and more of the stuff. It makes up less that 0.06% of the atmosphere. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans, and animals produce a greater quantity than that again. Decaying plants produce more CO2 (again) than animals do. And the oceans release more than the whole lot put together – this is part of the natural carbon cycle, and is surprisingly self regulating (i.e there are negative feedback loops in addition to the positive ones, which the IPCC report conveniently ignored).
So yes, the CO2 emitted by humans will have an effect, but only in the same way that my stomping feet cause the planet to recoil according to Newton’s third law. The science of Newton’s laws is sound, but in practice the effect is negligible. So, just how in god’s name are we supposed to prove (read = detect) the effect of human CO2 emissions when the other effects are so much more substantial? Al Gore tried to explain away the little jumps and zig zags in the graphs. How did he accomplish this? By ignoring all the other sources of natural temperature variation. That includes the 5 sources of CO2 i mentioned, and it also includes methane, water vapour, solar activity, the precession of the earth’s axis, and variation in the shape of the earth’s orbit around the sun. Plenty of scope for graph wiggles and huge variability. The anthropogenic greenhouse warming hypothesis is impossible to falsify either way, so is needless scaremongering.
“Mesa econoguy” – i>We will destroy your current climate models – I’d love to see what you five morons would come up with.
WG Lockhart – your understanding is extremely inaccurate. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant when discussing its effect. No other source of CO2 is comparable to mankind’s input – all of the increase from ~280ppm to ~387ppm is due to human activities. Oceans are a net sink of CO2, not a source. Honestly, have you never even seen the Keeling curve? From all you’ve demonstrated of your scientific insight here, I really hope you never get a job in science.