Archives

"It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming." (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx)

Lorne Gunter - National Post - October 20, 2008

Found this while actually cruising around for 'Mike Brown' on Google... - Ed.

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies...http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx



Second note: It's about 30 degrees here tonight, well below the typical normal low. It was this way yesterday. Last May was cold, too, indeed, the winter went on forever. This summer was mild at best and it is shaping up to be a very cold winter. :(

We're having an unusually warm fall so far in my part of California. High 80s-low 90s for the last week. I don't like the GW term personally, but there is something up with the weather here. Only time will tell and that's the thing a lot of people don't want to hear -- by the time we know for sure, it won't matter.

Its funny how quickly peopler forget that even 2/3 years ago, scientists talking about, and believing in, global warming were also announcing that we were entering into a cooling cycle that should last less than 10 years where we might see yearly averages falling. However that cooling cycle would normally be more severe that we will see, and that when its over, temperatures will go up much more quickly.

So all these scientists now saying "your wrong...temperatures are going down", are ignoring the fact that most models which support global warming also supported this short term trend. I guess this is their last show to get people to stop believing, so they are going to milk it for all its worth.

As far as historical trends seen in trees and ice records...well sure the earth has large natural swings, but we really don't want to start those extremes, nor do we want to enhance them any. One day, we will be heading for a world wide melt (maybe now), and one day we will probably head for another ice age, but I suspect we are going to want to influence our enviroment just enought to keep those from killing a measurable percentage of the human population.

Well, it's not possible for man to change the long term, natural weather cycles. When they said that it might cool and then go right back up it was their way of being right either way. They have a lot of time and money invested in trying to get us to buy into their GW theories. They can control us politically and economically if they can get us to look to them for salvation.

It makes sense to me to cut energy consumption because it costs me less money to do so. If there were really man made GW don't you think that our energy suppliers and the government would reward us for conserving? They don't reward us though - they keep trying to get us to consume more - GW is a hoax!

I really have no idea if it is a hoax... but do we really want to pollute our environment? Can any good honestly come of that? If not, it seems to me that "corrective" measures are attractive for reasons other than "GW/GCC" and should be pursued regardless.

Combined with the capable argument of "What if we are wrong about it not existing?" we have a good case to clean up our act whether or not the phenomenon exists.

We had a really bad summer, rainy and cool. I pretty much installed the window units for nothing. It was 23 here this morning, it's not looking good for FE, but at least I enjoy winter sports.

Regarding the article, the trend line on the graph at the end is HIGHLY misleading. The person who made it conveniently went for a high order polynomial trend line. That is playing with the data and it should cast a serious doubt on the integrity of the author. What has been happening in recent years is not outside of normal past year to year variations.

AFAIK global warming is a theory, and it does not matter whether it's happening or not. What is important IMHO is to reduce our footprint on earth as much as we can, regardless of what is going on with the weather.

I really have no idea if it is a hoax... but do we really want to pollute our environment? Can any good honestly come of that? If not, it seems to me that "corrective" measures are attractive for reasons other than "GW/GCC" and should be pursued regardless.

Combined with the capable argument of "What if we are wrong about it not existing?" we have a good case to clean up our act whether or not the phenomenon exists.

The subject is GW (I'm not trying to be a smart alek). GW and pollution are 2 separate issues. I don't think we should pollute. CO2 is not pollution. Plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen.

I don't want to be governed by a hoax.

The subject is GW (I'm not trying to be a smart alek). GW and pollution are 2 separate issues. I don't think we should pollute. CO2 is not pollution. Plants take in CO2 and emit oxygen.

I don't want to be governed by a hoax.

I would consider pollution anything that either adds something that doesn't exist to the environment or which changes the balance of things in nature. If CO2 levels are higher (and I haven't heard anyone say that the current CO2 levels are fakes, nor that these levels of CO2 existed before), then CO2 would qualify as a pollutant. Now if you want to say that agency X doesn't say substance Y is a pollutant, therefore it isn't, you can, but it doesn't change what is happening.

Its a bit like saying, here is a sandwich....everything in it is natural; Cyanide occurs naturally, but I wouldn't eat it for lunch & wouldn't want it making up even one percent of the air;


Back to the scientist covering their butts by saying temps might go up or down. They didn't say they might. They said they it would. They show a clear graph of exactly what they expect to happen, and so far they are right. That's not covering their butts, that's putting their data on the line. I'd challange anyone with conflicting view to put a model up that predicts as well as these have so far. And don't forget, we can test a model without waiting for the future. By pluggin in parameters from the past & letting it run, you can see if the model's future matches today's present. If it doesn't, the models are wrong.

I beg to differ with you. CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the earth has been warmer at times in the past. We are in part of a natural cycle - that's all.

If you want to believe in this hoax that's up to you. Just don't try to push your beliefs off on me. It is a hoax perpetrated to gain control over people.

I beg to differ with you. CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the earth has been warmer at times in the past. We are in part of a natural cycle - that's all.

If you want to believe in this hoax that's up to you. Just don't try to push your beliefs off on me. It is a hoax perpetrated to gain control over people.

Then you will never change your mind on anything. Why shouldn't we question what you "believe"?


Off-topic... do you associate yourself with any organized religion?

I beg to differ with you. CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the earth has been warmer at times in the past. ...

Very true. And climate and atmospheric conditions were completely incompatible with most life forms that we are familiar with. Mass extinctions wiped out most existing life, allowing completely new flora and fauna to take over.

I don't know what the weather is doing and I don't know my role in it. All I know is that hypermiling has put green in a place where I can observe it and measure it without any doubt - my wallet.

Off-topic... do you associate yourself with any organized religion?Let's not go there...yesterday we just dealt with some political discussions going out of control and this is just a variation likely to lead to insultive and personal exchanges. Besides, you could find any kind of belief on either side of the Global Warming issue so it's unhelpful.

I will agree with Sulfuric and others that topics like Global Warming have people forming a belief, then look after facts and that's a problem. It would be better to research, then form a belief. Very unhelpful is the way Global Warming has been twisted into a Red State - Blue State topic...seems like jstol3 may be influenced by this.

It's my hope economic forces will get America and the West off of fossil fuels so we stop lending from the Chinese to buy OPEC oil...it would at least largly make this topic mute as Sean suggested.

Related topic, I hope when our great-great grandkids see Dorothy exclaim "Lions! Tigers! and (Polar)Bears!" they don't go the way of the unicorn - maybe a handful in zoos. Habitat destruction from overconsumption of resources will elimate all of these and other species in the wild in a few decades. :(

Mod-cap on: Let's keep out of religion... stay on global warming, thanks.



but do we really want to pollute our environment? Can any good honestly come of that? If not, it seems to me that "corrective" measures are attractive for reasons other than "GW/GCC" and should be pursued regardless.

I agree with this and smog is an ugly sight to behold (not to mention the related air quality problems!) and we should work on cleaner technology. My problem begins when people use the supposed "scientific consensus" about global warming to legislate our freedoms out of existence.





Edit: Here's the graph of temperatures since the 1980's. The drop since 2005 (and incidentally enough, since An Inconvenient Truth came out):

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/893554.jpeg

jstol3, you are completely correct -- my statement was intended as a response to those who do believe that man made pollution is the cause of GW. From my standpoint, the question of whether or not GW is man made is moot if we already want to reduce it for other reasons.

Restated, lack of belief in either GW or its cause by human activities is not sufficient reason to resist efforts to reduce pollution.

Active and direct climate management is a completely different story.

Since the graph just got posted I feel like I need to repost my earlier comment.

The trend line on the graph is HIGHLY misleading. The person who made it conveniently went for a high order polynomial trend line. That is playing with the data and it should cast a serious doubt on the integrity of the author. What has been happening in recent years is not outside of normal past year to year variations.

I didn't say that you can't question what I believe. I said don't try to push your beliefs off on me (by making me pay a tax on emissions, for instance). What part of what I said leads you to belive that I wouldn't change my mind on any thing? Check your scientific facts. The earth has been warmer at times in the past and CO2 levels have been higher at times in the past. The scientific evidence is there - all you have to do is study it.

In short the article is worthless. It has nothing to say for GW, and what it says against GW is easily discredited. We should look elsewhere for answers....I prefer to look at raw data & draw my own conclusions.

Let's not go there...yesterday we just dealt with some political discussions going out of control and this is just a variation likely to lead to insultive and personal exchanges. Besides, you could find any kind of belief on either side of the Global Warming issue so it's unhelpful.

I will agree with Sulfuric and others that topics like Global Warming have people forming a belief, then look after facts and that's a problem. It would be better to research, then form a belief. Very unhelpful is the way Global Warming has been twisted into a Red State - Blue State topic...seems like jstol3 may be influenced by this.

It's my hope economic forces will get America and the West off of fossil fuels so we stop lending from the Chinese to buy OPEC oil...it would at least largly make this topic mute as Sean suggested.

Related topic, I hope when our great-great grandkids see Dorothy exclaim "Lions! Tigers! and (Polar)Bears!" they don't go the way of the unicorn - maybe a handful in zoos. Habitat destruction from overconsumption of resources will elimate all of these and other species in the wild in a few decades. :(
I am not stating an unsubstantiated belief. It is a scientific fact that there have been naturally occurring warm - cold cycles here on earth since the beginning. The levels of all gasses including CO2 have also fluctuated over time. I agree regarding alternative fuels. I would like for us to keep our money here at home. The environmentalists and I come to some of the same conclusions for different reasons.

I agree on the part that the level of CO2, oxygen and other gases has naturally varied over time.

How the CO2 has increased so much recently is another story...

I have concluded one good thing about the warming of the climate. I won't have to move to Florida when I retire. Now if this "cooling trend" continues, it is going to throw a wrench into my plans.

:Banane27: or:Banane49:

Check your scientific facts. The earth has been warmer at times in the past and CO2 levels have been higher at times in the past. The scientific evidence is there - all you have to do is study it.
Sure the Earth has been warmer at times in the past and CO2 levels have been higher in the past. That doesn't mean the current trend is not influenced by humans. CO2 levels and temperatures were rising much faster than they did in the past until the recent temperature shift, and much of that increase in CO2 has been shown to be from anthropogenic sources.

...Edit: Here's the graph of temperatures since the 1980's...

Here are many more temperature graphs over several different time scales:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

This site contains lots more images, with enough variety to be inconvenient to just about everybody.

--Dean

Sure the Earth has been warmer at times in the past and CO2 levels have been higher in the past. That doesn't mean the current trend is not influenced by humans. CO2 levels and temperatures were rising much faster than they did in the past until the recent temperature shift, and much of that increase in CO2 has been shown to be from anthropogenic sources.

And it also doesn't mean that they are. These "bogeyman" studies are driven by a desire for political control. Man wasn't around when they occurred in the past. GW and CO2 levels are a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Maybe a better direction of this thread would be more links with a note of their source...i.e. Sen Inhofe's blog POV is totally different than Sen Boxer's for instance.

And it also doesn't mean that they are.
Of course not, but studies have shown that the increase in CO2 is mainly driven by human activities. Unless you have chosen to ignore those studies or have seen others that refute them?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Maybe a better direction of this thread would be more links with a note of their source...i.e. Sen Inhofe's blog POV is totally different than Sen Boxer's for instance.

Sen. Inhofe? (wrong thread?)


And it also doesn't mean that they are. These "bogeyman" studies are driven by a desire for political control. Man wasn't around when they occurred in the past. GW and CO2 levels are a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Remember, the same people were talking about global cooling 30 years ago. :rolleyes:

Well, DF I tend to agree with you but this is a subject with a vast number of opinions and scientific "conclusions". I will simply invite any interested readers to google up the subjects of "global warming" and "global cooling". They will find enough info to support either theory. They can draw their own conclusions.

I am one of those who was for it before I was against it (political blogs that is) on this site. I believe that we should stick to the subject of hypermiling.

The Fox affiliates have blog site much better suited to political and other blogs. I blog regularly on www.myfoxkc.com. Fox has sites in Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Tampa and a host of other cities. I am jstol3 on those sites as well but I am most frequently found on myfoxkc.

With that having been said I will try to avoid political discussions on this site from now on.

Happy Hypermiling!

Sen. Inhofe? (wrong thread?)Yes it was a different thread, but absolutely relavant to this one by suggesting members use links and we have a collection from people of Sen Inhofe's POV and Sen Boxer's POV....both sides.

..... These "bogeyman" studies are driven by a desire for political control. ....

Yep, I'm sure all those people who wrote down lilac blossom dates (http://www.springerlink.com/content/y2l68rj2j8268p5b/) in their diaries over the centuries are part of a big international conspiracy to deprive you of everything you hold dear. The motives of the GW deniers certainly must be much purer.

Personally I find it ironic when GW deniers use past epochs when CO2 was high and much of the Earth would've been too hot for habitation as a justification for increased CO2 emissions.

I'll repeat it agains more explicitly: back up your opinions with links. Sorry guys - I see little benefit of this going back and forth with the potential of things getting personal. Let's attempt to open up more resources instead of:


Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!
Yes, it is!
No, it's not!

... Remember, the same people were talking about global cooling 30 years ago.

Only a few were. Many more were talking about GW.

Today's snail mail brings this, from Science News: "Cooling climate 'consensus' of the 1970s never was." Fortunately, it is also available online:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/title/Cooling_climate_%E2%80%98consensus%E2%80%99_of_1970s_never_was

...
Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures. ...

This chart shows the Medieval Warm Period as cooler than late-20th- and 21st-century temperatures:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

...
Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- ...

This current solar minimum is very quiet, but not THAT remarkable. It is the quietest of the past 50 years, but not of the past hundred or more:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
http://www.spaceweather.com/ (sunspot counter on left-hand edge)

A year ago, the climate scientists/weather forecasters in the local ski club forecast a good cold snowy winter in part because of La Nina / PDO effects on the Pacific Northwest, and the solar minimum. They were right, skiing was great. But midway through the winter, they claimed that for that combination, our winter was not as cold as it should have been in the absence of GW.

It's going to snow tomorrow night, so dress warm.

It's going to snow tomorrow night, so dress warm.

Coming home from class it was about thirty degrees and I saw flurries bouncing off my windshield.

This time last year it was over 90 degrees.

Hey jstol3, your "myfoxkc" site doesn't work. You can reproduce
this: turn off scripting, clear your cache, and try it again.
Then view-page-source to see what the problem is.
.
_H*

I think that regardless of whether or not temperatures go up or down, we DO have an effect on our climate. I'll use my favorite spot in my house as an example....my gas fireplace. If I light the fireplace, natural gas is consumed, sending CO and warming the air. If I don't light it, no CO is sent into the air.

And I think that those who are saying that there is no global warming have inhaled a little too much CO. They're not thinking straight.

Coming home from class it was about thirty degrees and I saw flurries bouncing off my windshield.

This time last year it was over 90 degrees.

Anecdotal evidence is rarely a basis for intelligent discussion. Systematic observations over a long period is what is needed. Unfortunately, weather records are not available to cover a long enough period to warrant any conclusion. For the people with agenda's there is more then enough evidence to leap to conclusions.

I think that regardless of whether or not temperatures go up or down, we DO have an effect on our climate. I'll use my favorite spot in my house as an example....my gas fireplace. If I light the fireplace, natural gas is consumed, sending CO and warming the air. If I don't light it, no CO is sent into the air.

And I think that those who are saying that there is no global warming have inhaled a little too much CO. They're not thinking straight.

HI PTDixieGal

Do you mean CO or CO2.

Hey jstol3, your "myfoxkc" site doesn't work. You can reproduce
this: turn off scripting, clear your cache, and try it again.
Then view-page-source to see what the problem is.
.
_H*

hobbit - www.myfoxkc.com then click on the "blogs" tab.

I think that regardless of whether or not temperatures go up or down, we DO have an effect on our climate. I'll use my favorite spot in my house as an example....my gas fireplace. If I light the fireplace, natural gas is consumed, sending CO and warming the air. If I don't light it, no CO is sent into the air.

And I think that those who are saying that there is no global warming have inhaled a little too much CO. They're not thinking straight.

O2 is oxygen and good for all of us (we would die without it). CO is carbon monoxide - bad for us . CO2 is carbon dioxide - plants need this like we need O2. It is the CO2 that some say is causing global warming.

It is not the CO that warms the room. The release of energy from the burning natural gas warms the room. Without warmth most of us would die.

O2 is oxygen and good for all of us (we would die without it). CO is carbon monoxide - bad for us . CO2 is carbon dioxide - plants need this like we need O2. It is the CO2 that some say is causing global warming.

It is not the CO that warms the room. The release of energy from the burning natural gas warms the room. Without warmth most of us would die.

I think you misread what I'm saying. The point is that CO is a gas. When we burn something-petroleum, paper, wood...gases and pollutants are released into the atmosphere. Some of these gases are good for us, like oxygen. Other gases are bad for us, like CO and CO2.

Who knows? Everyone should live cleaner.

Who knows? Everyone should live cleaner.

Agreed. Everyone should.