1998 was not the hottest year in US history. It was 1934.

[J. J.]

Is anyone on this board a climatologist?  Didn't think so.

Therefore, no one here is qualified to try to draw their own conclusions.  The only option is to listen to the climatologists, who have nearly unanimously said that global warming is real, caused by human release of CO2, and is the major threat to humanity this century.

Would these be the same experts who were talking about global cooling in the 1970's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling



Seriously, since 1850 there has been a long trend of global warming.  Human activity accounts for something between none or all of that.  One thing that experts note, however, is that greenhouse gas that has risen the most is not CO2; it is methane.   Methane is largely a byproduct of food production.

We need to ask several hard questions about global warning.

1.  How much of it is due to human activities?

2.  How much of it is due to increased CO2?

3.  How moch of it due to methane production?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

None of the 928 peer reviewed papers looked at disagreed with the scientific consensus on global warming.  While Lindzen is a rare climcatologist who has personal views that differ from the consensus position, he still believes that global warming is occurring.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Believing in global warming and believing that it is due to anthropogenic CO2 are two entirely different things. Most, if not all, scientists agree that there is warming but they don't all agree that it s due to CO2.

BTW here is a list of 60 other scientists who don't believe in CO2 induced warming.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta

They didn't exactly limit that list to climatoligists with a PhD.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[7,052,770]

Is anyone on this board a climatologist?  Didn't think so.

Therefore, no one here is qualified to try to draw their own conclusions.  The only option is to listen to the climatologists, who have nearly unanimously said that global warming is real, caused by human release of CO2, and is the major threat to humanity this century.

Would these be the same experts who were talking about global cooling in the 1970's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Goddammit, yes, some scientists thought the Earth was cooling in the 1970's.  It never got to the level of scientific acceptance of global warming though.  It's a ridiculous point for you to bring up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scientists have asked and examined these questions thoroughly for decades.  Global warming from human-emitted CO2 was first postulated over 100 years ago and has risen in acceptance by scientists ever since based on more and more data.  Do you honestly believe that you are posing questions that people who actually know what they're talking about never have?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Global Cooling being proposed was because we didn't know as much about climatology back then. End of story.

[David S]

Where is the list of the 2500 who support the anthropogenic warming theory?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Well, this is the current data for the U.S for annual average temperature from 1895-2006.  It puts 1998 at 1st, 2006 at 2nd, and 1934 at 3rd warmest.  Even if 1934 was indeed warmer than 1998, the trend still points in a dangerous direction.



Go ahead, dispute the weather data.  But then you don't have much of an argument. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

And for those of you in Mississippi that bitch about the heat:  Your grandparents had it worse.



Though I must say our high of 66*F today with a stiff wind out of the east was much preferable to the sticky hell the south has been living through this summer.

[David S]

Well, this is the current data for the U.S for annual average temperature from 1895-2006.  It puts 1998 at 1st, 2006 at 2nd, and 1934 at 3rd warmest.  Even if 1934 was indeed warmer than 1998, the trend still points in a dangerous direction.



Go ahead, dispute the weather data.  But then you don't have much of an argument. 

Snowguy your data is obsolete. The data I posted is the latest info.
1934 is now the hottest year in US history. And it got that way without high CO2 levels. (i.e it wasn't due to burning fossil fuels.)

[Ban my account ffs!]

Hmm.. really?

I was always under the impression that fossil fuels had a lot to do with it, but that despite our addiction to fossil fuels, the way we burn them has changed.

THrough the late 19th century, carbon dioxide emissions exploded along side sulfur dioxide emissions.  In the early 20th century, oil started gaining ground on coal and SO2 emissions began to drop while lower sulfur coal was being burned leading to further drops, especially in the 20s and 30s.

As SO2 emissions dropped, temperatures spiked upwards through the 1930s.  During and after WWII, SO2 emissions skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, and temperatures on a global level stagnated and began to fall very slowly.  During this period, solar intensity increased, and yet the planet continued to cool.

During the 1960s and into the '70s, acid rain started to fall, killing forests and a public outcry ensued and industrialized nations made efforts to reduce pollution, of which SO2 was a main one.  At this time carbon dioxide was not considered a pollutant, so its emissions were not regulated.

During the 70s, 80s, and especially the '90s, SO2 emissions plummeted.

Coincidentally (or not), the global temperature started heating up at very fast rates, pushing into record territory by 1981.

SO2, by its nature, is much larger than CO2 and it is heavier, and thus falls out of the atmosphere faster.  The climatic effects of SO2 are well documented because one of hte main emissions of volcanic eruptions are large amounts of SO2 which have had dramatic and obvious effects (though relatively short term) on our planet.  Mt. Pinatubo blew in 1991, and not surprisingly, the summer of 1992 was the coldest summer on record for us in northern Minnesota.  The So2 cloud surrounded the globe and mixed well into the atmosphere at northern climes, reducing sun intensity on the planet.

Unfortunately for us, Co2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries.. so something we emitted in 1990 will likely still be there in 2090 whereas the So2 emitted in 1990 was likely back into the ground by 1997 or so.  The sulfur cycle is much shorter than the carbon cycle.  Especially since we're not only emitting more carbon into the atmosphere but we're reducing the planet's ability to absorb it back and store it by deforesting massive sections of hte planet.

Why is it that conservatives try to disprove climate science and theory by pretending its a lot more complicated than it really is?

Trust me, David, I'm no idiot when it comes to this and while I don't jump on the Al Gore bandwagon, I am convinced that our massive carbon emissions are leading to a warmer planet.  If you take a greenhouse and completely shut it off to the world and plant tons of plants in there, they'll keep growing until the Co2 is depleted.  The temperature will cool down and the O2 levels will go up.  The plants will become starved of Co2 and die.  Then some of hte plants will rot and some survivors will begin to grow again as carbon is released back into the air.

Throw us into the equation.  Drop a match on the dead brush.  All of it will burn and all that stored carbon will go into the air.  The greenhouse will get hotter given the same amount of sunlight.  It's pretty simple.  Give it a try.

[??????????]

So at what point will the global warming slow down the Gulf stream enough so that global cooling will begin?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So at what point will the global warming slow down the Gulf stream enough so that global cooling will begin?

Huh? The Gulf Stream slowing down would just keep the Gulf of Mexico warmer. Of course the situation is more complicated, but generally moving temperature around won't affect the global mean temperature.

In any case, with global warming, and the Gulf stream slowing down, you can expect a lot of hurricanes where you live.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Gabu go to the map at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/> then click anywhere in Antarctica. You will get a list of the closest weather stations. The list shows the years those stations were in operation. See how many were operating in the 30's.
Maybe I'm wrong but I count zero. There is a similar situation in the Arctic. Although there I find some sites that were operating in the 30's most are not operating now. So where does the data come from? Also how about the oceans which cover 70% of the earths surface?
According to this site http://www.uscg.mil/History/webcutters/rpdinsmore_oceanstations.html
there were ocean weather ships operating in the Atlantic and Pacific from 1940 to 1980. Ten were in the Atlantic and three in the Pacific. That's pretty sparce coverage for the Oceans. But even those ships weren't there in the 30's. BTW about half of the weather ships were operated by the US.

The point of all that is that outside the US and parts of europe there aren't many places where continuous data exists from the 30's to today. So how can you judge if the US data is an anomoly if you don't have comparable data from large portions of the rest of the world.

Antarctica has a lot of something called ice.  This ice, the frozen form of water, is very cold, and it is no pleasant task to fix thermometers into a place that has dangerously cold and windy conditions when you don't really have the technology to do so safely.

Luckily for us, ice does more than just be frozen water.  It stores things in it like bubbles.  In these bubbles are things like oxygen and carbon dioxide.  Scientists can figure out temperatures by checking these bubbles and seeing how many there are, since different temperatures create more or less bubbles.

Even more lucky for us, this ice forms into distinct layers each year as the snow falls and compacts downward.  Scientists can actually drill cores out of hte ice and study the layers, some of which go back several hundred thousand years...  so we not only have good data from Antarctica from the 1930s, but also the 19,930s B.C.

I don't understnad what you're tryiing to say David:

Do you actually think that scientists don't take into consideration the fact that there weren't as many weather stations in the 1930s?

The graphs I posted take into account things like the urban heat island effect and other effects in order to show more accurate climatic conditions.  If they did not alter the data, the trend would be warming much faster as our cities have been paved over and they retain heat longer.

[Ban my account ffs!]

So at what point will the global warming slow down the Gulf stream enough so that global cooling will begin?

Huh? The Gulf Stream slowing down would just keep the Gulf of Mexico warmer. Of course the situation is more complicated, but generally moving temperature around won't affect the global mean temperature.

In any case, with global warming, and the Gulf stream slowing down, you can expect a lot of hurricanes where you live.

No.  Everybody knows it's God who's mad at the libruls and the Yankee Democrats that keep sending hurricanes to the south.  Luckily they've learned and elected George Dubyah Bush to save them.

[David S]

Gabu go to the map at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/> then click anywhere in Antarctica. You will get a list of the closest weather stations. The list shows the years those stations were in operation. See how many were operating in the 30's.
Maybe I'm wrong but I count zero. There is a similar situation in the Arctic. Although there I find some sites that were operating in the 30's most are not operating now. So where does the data come from? Also how about the oceans which cover 70% of the earths surface?
According to this site http://www.uscg.mil/History/webcutters/rpdinsmore_oceanstations.html
there were ocean weather ships operating in the Atlantic and Pacific from 1940 to 1980. Ten were in the Atlantic and three in the Pacific. That's pretty sparce coverage for the Oceans. But even those ships weren't there in the 30's. BTW about half of the weather ships were operated by the US.

The point of all that is that outside the US and parts of europe there aren't many places where continuous data exists from the 30's to today. So how can you judge if the US data is an anomoly if you don't have comparable data from large portions of the rest of the world.

Antarctica has a lot of something called ice.  This ice, the frozen form of water, is very cold, and it is no pleasant task to fix thermometers into a place that has dangerously cold and windy conditions when you don't really have the technology to do so safely.

Luckily for us, ice does more than just be frozen water.  It stores things in it like bubbles.  In these bubbles are things like oxygen and carbon dioxide.  Scientists can figure out temperatures by checking these bubbles and seeing how many there are, since different temperatures create more or less bubbles.

Even more lucky for us, this ice forms into distinct layers each year as the snow falls and compacts downward.  Scientists can actually drill cores out of hte ice and study the layers, some of which go back several hundred thousand years...  so we not only have good data from Antarctica from the 1930s, but also the 19,930s B.C.

I don't understnad what you're tryiing to say David:

Do you actually think that scientists don't take into consideration the fact that there weren't as many weather stations in the 1930s?

The graphs I posted take into account things like the urban heat island effect and other effects in order to show more accurate climatic conditions.  If they did not alter the data, the trend would be warming much faster as our cities have been paved over and they retain heat longer.

Ice core data is not as accurate as data from a precision thermometer. But if the ice core data is to be believed then there have been warmer periods than now even though CO2 levels were lower. Look up the Vostok data yourself if you don't believe it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I never said there weren't warmer periods with lower Co2.  There are more variables in our climate than just Co2.  But what I will say is that increased Co2 is a variable that does lead to warmer temperatures.

For example, Co2 was higher in the 1960s and '70s, but the planet was slightly warmer in the 1930s and '40s.  There as a different variable causing the climate to cool.  That variable has now been all but removed and the planet is warming again.

I look at it like a saucepan on the stove.  Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like putting the cover on the pot, keeping heat trapped in.  The temp rises even though the amount of heat coming from the burner hasn't increased.  Adding So2 to the atmosphere would be like putting an ice cube on the burner underneath the pot.  The same amount of heat is still coming out of the burner, but some of it is getting deflected before it can reach the pot, thus the rate of warming in the pot slows down.

We have removed the "ice cube" and now it's getting hotter.  Sometimes my metaphors are more complicated than the actual explanation.  I'm sorry.

[??????????]

Thanks for answering nothing Snowguy!

[Ban my account ffs!]

My pleasure.

[??????????]

My pleasure.

Idiot, go jump off a bridge...my bad.

[David S]

I never said there weren't warmer periods with lower Co2.  There are more variables in our climate than just Co2.  But what I will say is that increased Co2 is a variable that does lead to warmer temperatures.

For example, Co2 was higher in the 1960s and '70s, but the planet was slightly warmer in the 1930s and '40s.  There as a different variable causing the climate to cool.  That variable has now been all but removed and the planet is warming again.

I look at it like a saucepan on the stove.  Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like putting the cover on the pot, keeping heat trapped in.  The temp rises even though the amount of heat coming from the burner hasn't increased.  Adding So2 to the atmosphere would be like putting an ice cube on the burner underneath the pot.  The same amount of heat is still coming out of the burner, but some of it is getting deflected before it can reach the pot, thus the rate of warming in the pot slows down.

We have removed the "ice cube" and now it's getting hotter.  Sometimes my metaphors are more complicated than the actual explanation.  I'm sorry.

No doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas and potentially could raise earth's temperature but the question is how much? Is it ten degrees or 1 or .1 ? In an earlier post you said its simple, but I think that is a huge over simplification. Earths climate is anything but simple. Consider the effects of water vapor alone: Water vapor has a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2 so in that respect it has a warming effect. But when that water condenses into fine droplets it forms clouds. Clouds can reflect sunlight which produces a cooling effect, but they also block infrared so they can produce a warming effect too. Water can also act like a heat conveyor. When it evaporates from the ocean's suface it carries with it huge quantities of heat, about 1000 btus per pound. Being less dense than air it rises. When it gets high in the atmosphere it can condense and liberate that latent heat above much of the greenhouse blanket where it can radiate into space.

From what I understand the climate models don't handle water very well, especially clouds. So how accurate are they? Also the models all predict warming high in the troposphere, but weather ballon data shows no such warming.