Re: [Global Warming] Re:Perhaps a time to reflect.
-Sorry it took so long to answer your post. Thanks for pointing out
what a "brainless person" I am. Truly, I am in awe of your vast
knowledge! Yes, I was WRONG to point out the Arctic Ocean is open for
shipping......only a few sailboats can navigate those waters for a
-Some hubris, huh?
Sailing thru the Northwest passage is something Captain John Franklin
wanted to accomplish, but like ALL the explorers before him, failed to
make it. Yeah, that 0.4C of warming would have been welcomed by his
> Its important to remember that ice melting does not necessarily mean anything other than its warmer than when the ice formed.<-Uh, no Lloyd. It means is is ABOVE freezing. And if it has
previously been cold enough to freeze water for centuries and now it
is melting, well that simply means it is WARMER now that it was. But
oh......I forgot! 0.4C isn't significant.
So all of us "brainless" ones need to heed your message. There's
nothing to worry about. Lloyd's told us so! Sure, the pentagon likes
to waste time worrying about silly crap like global warming. So you
need to tell them to quit wasting their time and our dime......and
while you're at it tell Munich RE their wasting their shareholders
money too, worrying about a silly theory that has been proven wrong by
Exxon, BP, and Koch Industries......
To bad we can't have this conversation in person. I seriously doubt
you'd be doing that name calling to my face my friend.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM, lloydb <poitsplace@...> wrote:
> > davidwwalters72 wrote:
> > Yes, the reality of our present situation is melting
> > in the Arctic Ocean to where that sea is open for
> > shipping for the first time in recorded history.
> It's not "open" to shipping at all. They need hardened ships and ice breakers. Its hardly relevant that they didn't make the journey with the smaller, weaker ships they had in the past. Its still a terribly dangerous place for most vessels and the bulk of the people that try to make the trip in small boats get stuck there a season or two as a reward for their hubris.
> > Reality is glaciers disappearing in Glacier National
> > Park.
> Well for a start, Its important to remember that ice melting does not necessarily mean anything other than its warmer than when the ice formed. But the glaciers around the world have generally been receding since the late 1800s. Glaciers and sea ice are also impacted significantly by precipitation. As the moisture balance changes, so too will the amount of ice.
> Moisture balance is especially important to glaciers as many of them are in places that have summers well above freezing. Its easy to see how the changes of the (entirely natural) warm/cold cycles could impact them too. During the cold phase the polar vortex rolls whips wildly across the continents, forcing changes in the temperature gradient that forces the atmosphere to drop immense amounts of moisture...as snow...all over the place, including the mountains.
> Indeed, now that the cold phase has started it appears that a substantial number of glaciers are showing accumulation again, just like you'd expect if your hypothesis was that MOST of the changes observed in the modern warm period were of natural origin. Notice I said MOST. That doesn't mean the world isn't necessarily a little warmer, but .4C of warming since the 1940s isn't going to make most of the world's glaciers vanish.
> > Reality is the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense
> > Review and the Annual Threat Assessment given to the
> > Senate by the Director of National Intelligence
> > Dennis Blair, notes climate change's impact on
> > military operations and security. Oh, but the
> > pentagon is just a den of global warming idiots.
> LOL, but I'll wager a person such as yourself has used the term "military industrial complex" along with all the manipulative/corrupt stuff that usually goes with it. Let's be real here though...the military is simply doing what they're told. If there are a lot of people in the government (like the commander in chief) worried about global warming...the military must concern its self with that and all of the extra stuff expected by the people higher up.
> > Yes, our military takes climate change seriously but
> > Koch Industries/Exxon's well paid professional
> > deniers take an alternate view. I wonder why? Could
> > it be the industry's bottom line is a larger reality
> > than the serious studies of 98% of climate scientists?
> Look, I'm sorry if YOU are a brainless person that must take 100% of their opinion from others...but I'm actually quite capable of making up my own mind and even standing against consensus to call BS when I see it.
> I call BS because there is BS. CO2's bsorption is not and never has been the same thing as the greenhouse effect. 100% of the time when you bring this up, people such as yourself and even these "scientists" will restate it as if it was and then very quickly change the subject.
> These scientists...and people like you...CLAIM that the hypothesis of CO2 (increasing from current levels) causing a significant increase in the greenhouse effect has been proved...by models. But the models themselves are simply a more complicated version of the hypothesis. It is generally not physics reflected in the models but generalized parametrization of the physics...because the problem is simply too complex.
> They claim the models MUST be right because they can force-fit the model to the recent temperature record. However, they are actually using the uncertainties to do achieve a fit, plugging in whatever values work. This is not science. Worse still, each model actually uses different figures to achieve their fit...which means the models flat out DISAGREE with each other.
> Worse still, we know that there have been several warm periods in earth's fairly recent past (during the interglacial) which defy all explanation by the models. It is in fact the unusual stability of the Little Ice Age that makes it look like a reasonable hypothesis. Extending it back to the last warm period and the models would all fail completely. It is this natural variation, greater than the warming of the mid-range computer models, that needs explaining before we can say anything conclusive...especially since the warming seems to have started BEFORE significant CO2 increases.
> Also, the CO2 story just isn't a good fit, even in recent history. As stated in another post, the earth shows an incredible ability to fluctuate with the sun's variations. The relatively small changes in the sun are ale to force a .4C change in just a few years...while CO2 seems to have been unable to exert its forcing as much as climatologists claim it must...in over 100 years..even though currently CO2 absorption SHOULD (if it really were the same thing as the greenhouse effect) have about 50% more power. Again, there has only been .6C of warming since the warm period at the end of the 1800s...this is extremely low sensitivity for a world capable of .4C variations within 3-5 years.
> --- In email@example.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
> > Lets take a moment to reflect upon the fact that the sort of winter weather that was missing and considered proof of warming...has now returned as part of a natural cycle but now the cold winters that we used to have are treated as proof of warming.
> > We've not had any statistically significant warming in 16 years. At a mere .4C above 1940s temperatures there arguably may not have been any statistically significant temperature increase since the 1940s, the peak of the previous warm period.
> > The warming/cooling power and timing of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has been verified over and over again...stretching back sometimes for thousands of years. Most of the warming since the 1970s is likely due to the natural cycles. Some of the warming since the 1900s is likely because of the sun.
> > Its time to deal with reality people. The warming rate isn't .2C to .4C per decade as predicted. Its not even .1C per decade since the 1940s.
David W. Walters
- "Brainless" no, "Misguided" yes. Even discouraged environmentalist
reporters should not try to use numbers they don't comprehend. For 70
million years the temperature of the Arctic ocean has oscillated up and
down 5 or 10 degrees C. More recent diurnal variation is reported here
More to the politics, do you still believe "...Regional collaboration is
the only way forward, but the "me-first" ideology of many Americans
makes any such solution highly unlikely. Collaborative regional
planning is naively, and wrongly, equated with socialism, leaving
cities like Charlotte with inadequate mechanisms that can't cope with
growth. Individually, we understand some of the problems we face, but
collectively we're politically incapable of accepting the solutions. I
wish I could say that the more sophisticated planning and environmental
policies that are common in my English homeland were the product of
enlightened forethought, but they're not..." full text here
If not, why not?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Walters <davidwwalters@...>
> -Sorry it took so long to answer your post. Thanks for pointing out
> what a "brainless person" I am. Truly, I am in awe of your vast
> knowledge! Yes, I was WRONG to point out the Arctic Ocean is open for
> shipping......only a few sailboats can navigate those waters for a
> short period....
> -Some hubris, huh?mean anything other than its warmer than when the ice formed.<
> Sailing thru the Northwest passage is something Captain John Franklin
> wanted to accomplish, but like ALL the explorers before him, failed to
> make it. Yeah, that 0.4C of warming would have been welcomed by his
> > Its important to remember that ice melting does not necessarily
> -Uh, no Lloyd. It means is is ABOVE freezing. And if it has[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> previously been cold enough to freeze water for centuries and now it
> is melting, well that simply means it is WARMER now that it was. But
> oh......I forgot! 0.4C isn't significant...
- Yeah, because its no easier now that you can see where all the ice is on satellites, call for help with radio and satellite phones or know with certainty where you are to within a few feet.
There probably would have been some people doing it in the 40s too if they'd had these tools...since they've found the arctic warmed to these levels back then too (then cooled during the cold period).
--- In email@example.com, David Walters <davidwwalters@...> wrote:
> -Sorry it took so long to answer your post. Thanks for
> pointing out what a "brainless person" I am. Truly,
> I am in awe of your vast knowledge! Yes, I was WRONG
> to point out the Arctic Ocean is open for shipping....
> only a few sailboats can navigate those waters for a
> short period....
> -Some hubris, huh?
> Sailing thru the Northwest passage is something Captain
> John Franklin wanted to accomplish, but like ALL the
> explorers before him, failed to make it. Yeah, that
> 0.4C of warming would have been welcomed by his party.