Global Warming?

[/pine]

Fact. Natural causes have warmed and cooled the planet over the ages.

Fact. We are in an interglacial period.

Fact. The current warming is proceeding far faster than any records show for the past and is accelerating.

So it was "unnatural" causes that left buttercups in the mouths of grazing herds of woolly mammoths when they froze to death ?

 

[MikeFarm]

Buttercups in mammoth mouths
Again denialists using one or more facts about a "local" incident or situation to try and argue against what is a "global" phenomenon.
Read the recent James Hanson paper in its entirety. Yes it will be harder to read than your local climate-denier shock-jock disk jockey or newspaper!

Mike

 

[tcreeley]

Not a fact!
Michael Mann conveniently left this off his hockey stick graph, but the Medieval Warming was much greater and more rapid to onset than today's event.

Do you have a source for this, or a chart illustrating it? The rate is of interest. I don't think anyone disputes that there has been warming and cooling - it is always the rate of change that is pointed to.

 

[toppop52]

Buttercups in mammoth mouths
Again denialists using one or more facts about a "local" incident or situation to try and argue against what is a "global" phenomenon.
Read the recent James Hanson paper in its entirety. Yes it will be harder to read than your local climate-denier shock-jock disk jockey or newspaper!

Mike

Apparently you are unaware of the near instant freeze that left huge herds of animals frozen in the spring of what had been a more or less moderate climate for centuries and within weeks to months an ice age had ensued, it was called Younger Dryas. No matter which theory you choose to believe on what caused that period of extreme warming that preceded Younger Dryas, they were all natural events, that could in no way be caused by man. Perhaps it is you that should follow your advice and read real history, not some agenda following grant paid scientist.

 

[toppop52]

Ok, so arrogance prevents action? Or should it be inaction as No threat is perceived?

Just curious, why and when did all that precipitation fall that eventually turned into Glaciers?

I wasn't aware Johannesburg had glaciers.

 

[toppop52]

Do you have a source for this, or a chart illustrating it? The rate is of interest. I don't think anyone disputes that there has been warming and cooling - it is always the rate of change that is pointed to.

You pretty much have to read it all and there is quite a bit of what seems technical info to me, but the conclusions are obvious.
Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered | The Resilient Earth

 

[houstonscott]

I have just become aware of a new science looking at global climate change. It looks at the planets and their gravity and how it effects the heat coming off the sun. As the planets move into a line behind the earth their cumulative gravity draws more heat in their direction and heat the earth. The data lines up with historic changes almost perfectly. Much of the gas exchange science today can not be collaborated very far back do to lack of data. No one really knows what CO2 was doing, no one really knows what earth surface pressures were. Turns out that gravity may be the real controlling factor in earths climate change and the mixing of gases on the surface of the planet may have no real effect at all, the studies now trying to fit their data into a model that just doesn't fit may be just the wrong science and going down the wrong trail. Gravity and planetary science may hold the real answers not the study of surface gases.

HS

 

[Egon]

I wasn't aware Johannesburg had glaciers.

And I wasn't aware that any specific place in Africa was ever mentioned!:thumbsup:

 

[turnkey4099]

I have never denied anything on the issue. I think what I said amounts to an logical question about a claim being made here. I don't understand your behavior. You address the long running discussion by quoting me, yet my question was much more specific.

My fault. I did not intend to imply that you were a denialist. I should hve made that post as a reply to the thread not an individual.

Harry K

 

[chkntrktr]

I have just become aware of a new science looking at global climate change. It looks at the planets and their gravity and how it effects the heat coming off the sun. As the planets move into a line behind the earth their cumulative gravity draws more heat in their direction and heat the earth. The data lines up with historic changes almost perfectly. Much of the gas exchange science today can not be collaborated very far back do to lack of data. No one really knows what CO2 was doing, no one really knows what earth surface pressures were. Turns out that gravity may be the real controlling factor in earths climate change and the mixing of gases on the surface of the planet may have no real effect at all, the studies now trying to fit their data into a model that just doesn't fit may be just the wrong science and going down the wrong trail. Gravity and planetary science may hold the real answers not the study of surface gases.

HS

With the planets lining up this year that could explain a lot. Where can we find info on this research?

 

[Egon]

With the planets lining up this year that could explain a lot. Where can we find info on this research?

And then there is the magnetic pole shift to also consider.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Okay if "they" know what the effect of CO2 is, why is it so hard to find? How many know or suspected greenhouse factors are there. Of that number how many have been studied? That's where Design of Experiments comes into play. When dealing with a large number of unknowns proper DOE will make the unmanageable manageable. Genichi Taguchi is one of many authors that have written on the subject if you wish to read up.

I pretty much answered or alluded to possible answers in the post you incompletely quoted. Start with those and see if you can get past even them. ... And Im sure their are other multiply related influences that are impossible to quantize accurately. Ill stick with focusing on the correlation and exploring how well it hangs together.
larry

 

[Rainbody]

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
Here's the model in reference to movement of celestial bodies influencing earths temperature. Its really big on the cycle of the sun and how those cycles lineup to heating trends. Theres also several pages blasting the big climate model from IPCC. It's super dry. But has graphs that make it easier, at least for me.
Sample:

The 60-year cycle is particularly easy to observe in significant surface temperature maxima that occurred in 1880- 1881, 1940-1941, and 2000-2001. These momentarily warmer periods coincided with times when orbital positions of Jupiter and Saturn were relatively close to the Sun and Earth.

I'm sure there's plenty of other gems in the 60 page report.

 

[/pine]

And then there is the magnetic pole shift to also consider.

A good point...but the AGW advocates who can only see the "little picture" (based only on relatively recent data ) do not even want to consider other possibilities

from the same source that AGW advocates like to cite (NASA) NASA - 2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time

Earth's polarity is not a constant. Unlike a classic bar magnet, or the decorative magnets on your refrigerator, the matter governing Earth's magnetic field moves around. Geophysicists are pretty sure that the reason Earth has a magnetic field is because its solid iron core is surrounded by a fluid ocean of hot, liquid metal. This process can also be modeled with supercomputers. Ours is, without hyperbole, a dynamic planet. The flow of liquid iron in Earth's core creates electric currents, which in turn create the magnetic field. So while parts of Earth's outer core are too deep for scientists to measure directly, we can infer movement in the core by observing changes in the magnetic field. The magnetic north pole has been creeping northward by more than 600 miles (1,100 km) since the early 19th century, when explorers first located it precisely. It is moving faster now, actually, as scientists estimate the pole is migrating northward about 40 miles per year, as opposed to about 10 miles per year in the early 20th century.

to repaeat..."... a dynamic planet..."

The wingnuts that refuse to even consider alternative causes for the obvious "climate change" are going to be very disappointed when they (sooner or later) realize that it will be well past their lifetimes that any definitive data is available...in the interim they will continue to only be able to see the little picture...and rant away...typical

 

[chkntrktr]

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf
Here's the model in reference to movement of celestial bodies influencing earths temperature. Its really big on the cycle of the sun and how those cycles lineup to heating trends. Theres also several pages blasting the big climate model from IPCC. It's super dry. But has graphs that make it easier, at least for me.
Sample:

The 60-year cycle is particularly easy to observe in significant surface temperature maxima that occurred in 1880- 1881, 1940-1941, and 2000-2001. These momentarily warmer periods coincided with times when orbital positions of Jupiter and Saturn were relatively close to the Sun and Earth.

I'm sure there's plenty of other gems in the 60 page report.

Thanks for the link. The graphs do help. I know that astronomists have found planets orbiting stars by watching the shape of the star over time and can tell the orbit of the planet from that. A little change here or there could certainly have an effect on our planet.

 

[Tollster]

 

[houstonscott]

All those items were identified in the 1960's and with the leadership of a guy named Richard Nixon were done. All the hard work is done, time for the new generation to start solving something.

HS

 

[RobertBrown]

Here is a place to get lots of current un biased information regarding this topic. I just bought the book, I suggest you do to.
There will be a quiz in a few weeks.
Amazon.com: Global Weirdness: Severe Storms, Deadly Heat Waves, Relentless Drought, Rising Seas and the Weather of the Future (9780307907301): Climate Central: Books

 

[toppop52]

Here is a place to get lots of current un biased information regarding this topic. I just bought the book, I suggest you do to.
There will be a quiz in a few weeks.
Amazon.com: Global Weirdness: Severe Storms, Deadly Heat Waves, Relentless Drought, Rising Seas and the Weather of the Future (9780307907301): Climate Central: Books

Looks interesting but which of these "media partners", isn't a liberal leaning publication?

Climate Central has been featured in many of the nation's most respected news sources including the New York Times, The Associated Press, Reuters, NBC Nightly News, CBS News, CNN, ABC News, Nightline, Time, National Public Radio, PBS, Scientific American, National Geographic, Science, and The Washington Post

The we find out the President and CEO says this;

Climate Central is also working to bring social science into the arena of climate change communication. The group is doing surveys and experiments to determine what and why people feel as they do about global warming, and how to reach the unconvinced.

So sorry, doesn't pass the "unbiased" sniff test.