T
G
G
Guest
I kind of see where tracker is going here. It is true that we have been freezing up a little later than usual the last few years. However about 30 years there are pics of boats on the river on Christmas Day. Nowhere in all of Tracker's documentation is the angle of the sun mentioned. As long as the orbit of the earth stays the same regardless of the iron core moving around or magnetic fields or whatever - if the orbit stays the same we get cycles and our seasons. It is the angle of the sun more than anything. We have had very little sunlight here the last 3 months. Could it be something as simple as the cloud cover shielding us from lower temps? Of course it can. People read too much in to this whole global warming thing. It is just nature being nature. Nobody really knows. The polar ice cap seems to be melting. But we will never be able to determine if this would have happened with or without humans. It could well be a cycle humans have nothing to do with. We simply do not know. There is money in the argument so that is why we have 'experts' and rules and laws get made up. Money drives everything - haven't you guys figured that out yet? No disrespect to Tracker- he has dug up some new stuff for a change. Follow the money.
groomerdriver
New member
Humans do not now nor ever will have an effect on the climate. Mo 'Nature has her own plan and always has. The earth has warmed up and cooled for eons and we won't ever stop that from happening.
OK can any one answer this then
if the human body is a large percentage of WATER, and the earth has the same water on it as it has for ?? many yrs
how can less water on the surface NOT effect things? water going into humans has to be taken up from some where NO??
Humans don't give off water back into things as it would in other forms!
NEXT what about wildlife, hasn't anyone seen changes in them<
I have chipmunks running around now that SHOULD NOT be out this time of yr
I have geese flying south in mid to LATE Jan and then flying back in NORMAL times
which means there spending LESS time in there winter ranges or state of sleeping?
as I said, if you take JUST humans and out them in a room, the temp rises, more people in that room higher temps get!
water level and tables are WAY lower in MOST every place in the world than they have ever been recorded!
tilt, sun being ?? clouds? SURE I can buy that
BUT I also say humans are effecting things too
its a BIG combo of ALL maybe
but things are NOT the same and NOT just off by a few weeks or months of seasons happening at different points now, there just NOT the same period later or sooner!
much wider variations from day to day than ever IMO!
if the human body is a large percentage of WATER, and the earth has the same water on it as it has for ?? many yrs
how can less water on the surface NOT effect things? water going into humans has to be taken up from some where NO??
Humans don't give off water back into things as it would in other forms!
NEXT what about wildlife, hasn't anyone seen changes in them<
I have chipmunks running around now that SHOULD NOT be out this time of yr
I have geese flying south in mid to LATE Jan and then flying back in NORMAL times
which means there spending LESS time in there winter ranges or state of sleeping?
as I said, if you take JUST humans and out them in a room, the temp rises, more people in that room higher temps get!
water level and tables are WAY lower in MOST every place in the world than they have ever been recorded!
tilt, sun being ?? clouds? SURE I can buy that
BUT I also say humans are effecting things too
its a BIG combo of ALL maybe
but things are NOT the same and NOT just off by a few weeks or months of seasons happening at different points now, there just NOT the same period later or sooner!
much wider variations from day to day than ever IMO!
I think the only thing off is peoples perception. There have been good and poor winters as far as records go back. Only a couple years back it was very cold and snowy. Cant believe how quick people forget. Several good winters in lates 200x's. Plus 2012-2014 where good also. Have had late starts and late finishes a year or two as well. I do believe in climate change as far as it always changes. It will warm until the next ice age. We are floating on a rock in outer space with a burning star for heat and worring about 1-3 degree temp variation. Seems a bit ridiculous
The late 70's were the coldest timeframe in the past 50 years or so. Everyone calls those winters "normal" and as such everything since is warmer. There were magazine articles written then about the ice age. The trends will turn back.
My 8 year old thinks the winter two years ago is normal - here in Indianapolis we had snow on the ground the entire winter, which is unheard of. Last year I don't think I ever had to shovel.
Grub hit the nail on the head. There are no grants handed to the scientists whose research indicates the climate is cyclical.
My 8 year old thinks the winter two years ago is normal - here in Indianapolis we had snow on the ground the entire winter, which is unheard of. Last year I don't think I ever had to shovel.
Grub hit the nail on the head. There are no grants handed to the scientists whose research indicates the climate is cyclical.
I am NOT saying its just winters that are off, but ALL weather in general
we have lower water tables every where BUT the ocean now, and wild temp swings all yr, the NORM is NOT norm any more period!
the pure amount of LOSS of water in many regions is scary BAD, and that too HAS to be effecting things,
if the human body is about 50-70% made up of water and we ONLY have "X": amount of water on the planet, as MORE and more people exist, that HAS to relate to less water on the surface NO!
If salt water level is rising and fresh water levels are dropping, were in trouble, as salt water doesn't do LAND growing things(plants and such ) Much good, and almost every thing on land needs water to survive!
we have lower water tables every where BUT the ocean now, and wild temp swings all yr, the NORM is NOT norm any more period!
the pure amount of LOSS of water in many regions is scary BAD, and that too HAS to be effecting things,
if the human body is about 50-70% made up of water and we ONLY have "X": amount of water on the planet, as MORE and more people exist, that HAS to relate to less water on the surface NO!
If salt water level is rising and fresh water levels are dropping, were in trouble, as salt water doesn't do LAND growing things(plants and such ) Much good, and almost every thing on land needs water to survive!
Climatologist12
New member
Hey tracker,
I'm not here to bash on your forum, and I think it's great that you took the time to research global warming versus climate change. You are indeed correct that there are a few natural climate variations than enhance the positive feedback mechanisms to increase temperature, including obliquity. The aspects you didn't exactly take into account were precession and eccentricity. The eccentricity is the driving factor that influences precession (the wobble of the earths axis in relation to fixed stars in the galaxy), and obliquity, which you did a good job explaining in previous post. Eccentricity or in simple terms, how spherical or elliptical the earths orbit around the sun is. Currently, the earths orbit is becoming less eccentric or more spherical which acts to increase global mean temperatures. Obliquity and precession enhance this warming, but they only impact the amount of summer solar insolation. 15% for precession and 10% for obliquity. Other natural climate changing variables include sun spots, volcanic activity, climate modes such as the PDO and ENSO, and just natural uncertainty with paleoclimate data. Although the warming we see has been impacted some by these changes in natural variation, it can't even come close to accounting for the unique, exponential increase in temperatures that we see today. If you go back 65 million years and experience the meteors climate impacts on the earths temperatures, there was an evident cold period as the dust acted darken the earth and block solar radiation, but when that dust cleared, the greenhouse gases went to work rapidly because of the large amount of carbon dioxide that were released when the meteor boiled the ocean waters and evaporated out so much greenhouse gas. In turn, when the dust finally settled, temperature increased at rapid rate, similar to what we see today(not the extent because the GHG emissions then were released all at one time), and what more alarming is that the meteor was a natural process, not a human created problem. If you look at this GHG chart with temps, and the natural orbital patterns, you can see a direct correlation with GHG spikes and increased global mean temperatures, and from the impacts of the orbital patterns, but those periods were marked at times when humans weren't burning fossil fuels and deliberately pumping GHG's into the atmosphere at an extremely alarming rate.
View attachment 54707
[Figure 2. GHG concetrations, Orbital variations and Global Mean Temperatures on a time scale of thousands of years (100 on the chart is 100000 years) Retrieved from Dr. Ryan Fogts lecture slides.]
This is also evident to coral reefs dying off because the ocean, trees and other earth components act to absorb CO2 in the atmosphere but they can't absorb the remarkable amount we are forcing upon them. If you don't believe me look up "coral bleaching." View attachment 54708
[Figure 1. North American CO2 sources and sinks, retrieved from Dr. Ryan Fogts lecture slides.]
The grey represent the amount of carbon dioxide we are emitting per year in the united states, the green represents the natural sinks that absorb carbon dioxide. It's clear that we pump more than double the amount of CO2 than natural processes can handle each year. If you want me to be extremely technical with statistics, and to show you that the warming is unique, we can look back at temperatures throughout history to examine the periods where temperatures did rise due to natural variability and see the timescale the warming took place at and then look the last decade and last century of the warming to compare them. Its alarming how although there has been a warming since the 1900's for instrumental data, the last 30 years alone has increased the slope of that warming by nearly double. You can even test it yourself if you understand how to do offset functions in excel. Go to the cpc data archive and download the global average SST yearly and do a time series plot in excel and then do a linear trend line and examine the slopes. I could discuss plenty more processes but if the evidence isn't clear now, then you'll just have continue digging to disprove everything I've just said. I only want to educate people on the seriousness of climate change, because their is tipping points. The question is, will we experience a runaway greenhouse effect or will the earth do what has done in the past and repel the climate change to another extinction causing ice age. It obviously won't happen in our life times, but extreme impacts will be seen in our life times. If you don't buy into the problem now, you'll be in for an eye opener in the future, and will be leaving your kids and grand children to deal with the problem we caused. I was a skeptic just as anyone should be to a environmental catastrophe, and some people can think about it just like the people who thought the world will end in 2012 or Y2K. But i can assure you, as a student who is pursuing his masters degree in climatology, that my eyes were opened dramatically upon learning what chemical, physical and cosmic changes alter temperatures and and that the warming we are experiencing today only accounts for less than 10% natural variability, so we are more than 90% of the problem. I apologize if i offended anyone, but facts in front of your face such as what I have been working on, are much more compelling than what the media likes to make you believe, especially when corporations have the ability to pay off news stations and high end government officials to decline climate change. It's very frustrating being a person who works in the field and wants to share the truth with others, when people who have enormous amounts of power and wealth, who don't understand nor care, are disproving it with bogus evidence that has no statistical merit. I hope I was able to shed some light on the topic and if you don't want to believe me, then hope that you'll take it into your own hands to research and understand the topic better. Thanks for those who stuck with my ramblings and are actually interested in the matter.
I'm not here to bash on your forum, and I think it's great that you took the time to research global warming versus climate change. You are indeed correct that there are a few natural climate variations than enhance the positive feedback mechanisms to increase temperature, including obliquity. The aspects you didn't exactly take into account were precession and eccentricity. The eccentricity is the driving factor that influences precession (the wobble of the earths axis in relation to fixed stars in the galaxy), and obliquity, which you did a good job explaining in previous post. Eccentricity or in simple terms, how spherical or elliptical the earths orbit around the sun is. Currently, the earths orbit is becoming less eccentric or more spherical which acts to increase global mean temperatures. Obliquity and precession enhance this warming, but they only impact the amount of summer solar insolation. 15% for precession and 10% for obliquity. Other natural climate changing variables include sun spots, volcanic activity, climate modes such as the PDO and ENSO, and just natural uncertainty with paleoclimate data. Although the warming we see has been impacted some by these changes in natural variation, it can't even come close to accounting for the unique, exponential increase in temperatures that we see today. If you go back 65 million years and experience the meteors climate impacts on the earths temperatures, there was an evident cold period as the dust acted darken the earth and block solar radiation, but when that dust cleared, the greenhouse gases went to work rapidly because of the large amount of carbon dioxide that were released when the meteor boiled the ocean waters and evaporated out so much greenhouse gas. In turn, when the dust finally settled, temperature increased at rapid rate, similar to what we see today(not the extent because the GHG emissions then were released all at one time), and what more alarming is that the meteor was a natural process, not a human created problem. If you look at this GHG chart with temps, and the natural orbital patterns, you can see a direct correlation with GHG spikes and increased global mean temperatures, and from the impacts of the orbital patterns, but those periods were marked at times when humans weren't burning fossil fuels and deliberately pumping GHG's into the atmosphere at an extremely alarming rate.
View attachment 54707
[Figure 2. GHG concetrations, Orbital variations and Global Mean Temperatures on a time scale of thousands of years (100 on the chart is 100000 years) Retrieved from Dr. Ryan Fogts lecture slides.]
This is also evident to coral reefs dying off because the ocean, trees and other earth components act to absorb CO2 in the atmosphere but they can't absorb the remarkable amount we are forcing upon them. If you don't believe me look up "coral bleaching." View attachment 54708
[Figure 1. North American CO2 sources and sinks, retrieved from Dr. Ryan Fogts lecture slides.]
The grey represent the amount of carbon dioxide we are emitting per year in the united states, the green represents the natural sinks that absorb carbon dioxide. It's clear that we pump more than double the amount of CO2 than natural processes can handle each year. If you want me to be extremely technical with statistics, and to show you that the warming is unique, we can look back at temperatures throughout history to examine the periods where temperatures did rise due to natural variability and see the timescale the warming took place at and then look the last decade and last century of the warming to compare them. Its alarming how although there has been a warming since the 1900's for instrumental data, the last 30 years alone has increased the slope of that warming by nearly double. You can even test it yourself if you understand how to do offset functions in excel. Go to the cpc data archive and download the global average SST yearly and do a time series plot in excel and then do a linear trend line and examine the slopes. I could discuss plenty more processes but if the evidence isn't clear now, then you'll just have continue digging to disprove everything I've just said. I only want to educate people on the seriousness of climate change, because their is tipping points. The question is, will we experience a runaway greenhouse effect or will the earth do what has done in the past and repel the climate change to another extinction causing ice age. It obviously won't happen in our life times, but extreme impacts will be seen in our life times. If you don't buy into the problem now, you'll be in for an eye opener in the future, and will be leaving your kids and grand children to deal with the problem we caused. I was a skeptic just as anyone should be to a environmental catastrophe, and some people can think about it just like the people who thought the world will end in 2012 or Y2K. But i can assure you, as a student who is pursuing his masters degree in climatology, that my eyes were opened dramatically upon learning what chemical, physical and cosmic changes alter temperatures and and that the warming we are experiencing today only accounts for less than 10% natural variability, so we are more than 90% of the problem. I apologize if i offended anyone, but facts in front of your face such as what I have been working on, are much more compelling than what the media likes to make you believe, especially when corporations have the ability to pay off news stations and high end government officials to decline climate change. It's very frustrating being a person who works in the field and wants to share the truth with others, when people who have enormous amounts of power and wealth, who don't understand nor care, are disproving it with bogus evidence that has no statistical merit. I hope I was able to shed some light on the topic and if you don't want to believe me, then hope that you'll take it into your own hands to research and understand the topic better. Thanks for those who stuck with my ramblings and are actually interested in the matter.
If those are our choices, I'm hoping for "earth...repelling the climate change into another extinction causing ice age." I assume that means we'll get more snow.
What kind of sled do you ride C12?
Climatologist12
New member
Yamaha Viper 700 and yeah i'd choose for the ice age as well rather becoming a Venus like climate.
Welcome aboard, and thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
'Tis nice to hear from a would-be/aspiring/future professional climatologist.
As I've described it (some years ago):
"Global warming", or more precisely "Climate Change" has been occurring for millennia, cycling through a variety of "warm cycles" and "ice ages" even for millions of years, and those cycles will continue to the end of time.
These cycles have been enhanced to a very minor degree by occasional cataclysmic volcanic eruptions, which even for their monumental short-term contribution to periods of "global cooling", have been but minor "ripples" in the overall scheme of things.
But is any significant part of it due to "anthropogenic" climate change (due to some human activity)?
IMHO any human contribution to the entire equation is miniscule at best.
As is the chance of effecting the grand scheme of things by some of the extreme and costly efforts, such as restricting the use of "fossil fuels" and "carbon sequestration" which are being promoted by the most vocal wingnuts, have as much chance of ameliorating the situation as a "fart in an F5 (Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale) / EF5 (Enhanced Fujita Scale) hurricane", or moving beach sand with a million man army equipped with teaspoons.
To butcher a line from Bill Clinton: "It's the Sun, stupid!" — A complex set of inter-operative solar cycles, the effects of which are clearly revealed by geology and related disciplines such as Paleoclimatology and Dendroclimatology as well as other scientific means.
See also this "List of periods and events in climate history", for some pretty good graphic depictions of climate history including many well before the first humanoids crawled out of the caves and discovered fire.
Human influence? Yeah, like a snowball's chance in Phoenix!
From Global Warming.org, January 27, 2012: Coming Out of the Climate Change Closet, by Matt Patterson, quoted here in part:
Another article by Matt Patterson,
this from the Washington Examiner, January 25,2012 (?): A really inconvenient truth is Earth not melting after all, quoted here in part:
From Mail online (the Daily Mail, London), January 12,2012:
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again), quoted here in part:
From the National Geograpic News, February 28, 2007 (!): Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says, quoted here, in part:
"Scientists say they have never seen [the polar ice caps] melt in the summer like they did this year." [?]
Just for contrast, this from Wikipedia, Greenland: Geography and climate:
And for good measure, from Wikipedia, Jurassic (Jurassic Period: 199.6–145.5 million years ago):
Gee, I guess that was "Jurassic Global Warming"!?
Where did all that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] come from, burning coal? Internal combustion engines burning petroleum products?
No? Musta been Dinosaur farts!
Does any of the above sound a bit "old"? Naw, it's just a blink of an eye; remember we're dealing in terms of a Geologic time scale here!
See also: "Global Warming: Facts versus Faith, One Astronaut's Views" Copyright ©2010 by Walter Cunningham (PDF)
and "Comments on Global Warming" by John Coleman (PDF).
Although this isn't exactly an "academic journal", your "peer-review" is welcome!
Climatologist12
New member
Got any evidence that isn't older than 2012? In regards to both paleoclimate data, which i have looked at and shows the earth has been warmer than it is currently but not an increase in temps at the incredible rate we're seeing today, but why don't you open up your mind for few minutes and look at the last 30 years or the last 50 years. Yes, the climate is warming in the Holocene period from the previous ice age, but if you've studied any sort of historical data, the volcanic vents that release heat and the earth still warming from the "snowball earth period" is why the Jurassic period was so warm. The volcanic emissions of sulfur dioxide which are LARGE aerosols (act to warm the troposphere rather than small aerosols that actually act to cool the atmosphere because they don't absorb long wave radiation and act to reflect or scatter shortwave radiation (ash and dust are great examples like i said about the dust cloud during the TRIASSIC PERIOD NOT JURASSIC), the time periods you reference don't even have any significant reliability in the warming we're seeing because the atmospheric and oceanic chemical composition was so much different than what it is today. The earlier in earths history, the more change you see. The early earth was occupied by horrific ocean tides and erosion of land masses on a scale we can't even imagine due to the moon being that much closer to the earth. The boiling springs from those are what produced the first life forms. Yes, climate has always changed, but you're non anthropogenic argument is biased. I had the same thought due to articles telling me it isn't true, but you'll have have increased biased until you calculate the raw data. The 50 year spike in temps are in fact unique. If you want to argue over the earth being warmer than it is today, you're not wrong. But the fact that the warming then took several thousands of years to see a trend as large as the 100 years that we've seen the same rate, is completely ridiculous and you should rethink what you're trying to accomplish with refusing to look at raw data yourself and doing the calculations yourself. If you've done any work in the field, you could understand my point of view and being biased towards it as i once was, is the problem in seeing the trend. You have the natural variation mind set and I understand that, but statistics speak for them self. The rate at which warming is occurring is not natural. The natural processes take hundreds of thousands of year to accomplish without a catastrophic event to precursor the warming we see today. Your're articles all are irrelevant to a short time scale and to the increase of temperature that we see today. Even the orbital patterns which eccentricity operates on that effects obliquity and precession has a timescale of 100000 years for the crest peaks and trough minimum, but also another timescale of a 400000 year cycle for its overall minima and and maxima. The natural cause argument has some validity in that there is slight warming from those processes, but when we see a trend of 1.4 degrees centigrade in a matter of of two years since the PDO shifted from a negative to positive phase after people argued that the trend has decreased, we can see the correlation. Stats speak for themselves and you may have your points, but meteorology on the short timescale is much different than climatology. I actually will be getting my meteorology degree in the spring, but have been studying climate data for quite awhile. I might actually get some of my research published soon about the PDO and ENSO relationship and about the hiatus if you know what that is, but when it comes to climate processes, timescales are more important than certain periods that are warmer, because spikes this dramatic, aren't natural. As for the Greenland comment, you obviously don't understand continental drift. It's pretty simple my man, the tectonic plates move and over millions of years, they moved to there current position. You can argue that all day long but it's just not even close to relevant in the topic because you obviously don't understand or didn't consider that before the ridiculous understanding, and even more so you're using Wikipedia as you're source. They may have few FACTS, but the only dinosaur fart I'm hearing is coming from you. As for the NASA article, they've already shifted that stance. Sorry man. And also a one year comparison from 1998 when the PDO was in, yet again, a positive phase compared to a negative phase in 2011? Woooowwwww! Now that's what i call evidence. And it even came from the most reliable source, THE NEWS! LOL at the 2007 article. We have just recently passed the peak in sun spots and are still warming so go ahead and rule that out and it fluctuates on time scales of 11-12 years between max and mins. So that has 0 relevance and the orbital patterns don't even account for 5% of the rapid warming we see. Before you make dinosaur fart comments, maybe you should try running your own stats rather than pulling up ancient articles when climatologists were still figuring out impacts of certain processes. You're the type of person I would enjoy to debate the topic about about, but puling farts out of your *** isn't exactly a kind way to express your opinions. I hope we can debate KINDLY about the topic, but uncalled for comments like that aren't progressive to an educational debate.
It's going to take me some time to respond to that! (After I take it offline, hack it into readable paragraphs and give it the attention it truly deserves.)
1. As srt20 said:
Thank you srt20!
2. Climatologist12: I sincerely appreciate your interest in climatology as a career field, and the technical education you have undertaken. I am seriously interested in learning more from your perspective on the subject.
However, without trying to be rude, I would suggest that your writing would (look and) sound far more professional and credible if you would include in your studies a few classes in English composition, vocabulary and diction as well. Spelling, grammar, structure and organization and yes — paragraphs would do wonders in terms of readability; several iterations of proofreading and ruthless editing (both of which I acknowledge are tedious but worthwhile) would also serve you well. [English is a dying language!]
I will be kind and attribute your two "stream of consciousness/run-on mess postings" to your clear, passionate enthusiasm for the subject, and perhaps haste.
It is also unfortunate that the Attachments shown in your original post all suffer the following vBulletin Message:
If they are external files, perhaps a link (like the one shown in the vBulletin Message and the several in my previous post) would do the job.
G
G
Guest
In the end it doesn't matter one way or the other. It is just something to talk/argue about. There is nothing to be done about it. What will happen will happen and even if humans could effect a change - which is unlikely - there is no way to get the entire planet's population on board. What are you going to tell China and India ???? Say, would it bother you to disrupt your entire economy so we could maybe save a polar bear or two?? Species have been going extinct for all time and will continue to do so. Even if the DNR gets involved!!! Humans will be extinct someday also but I doubt if it will be because of global climate change. It will be because of over population or a big old space rock hits us or the whack job in North Korea decides to start blowing things up. Life is change. Get used to it. And if you have any oceanfront property you should maybe list it soon.
T
Tracker
Guest
the tilt I mentioned in 1st post IS THE ANGLE you speak of and it has changed and changes 47 minutes of a degree every century...very significant TO MAGNETICS effecting earth in different ways
the magnetics DRIVE THE WEATHER
the MAGNETICS DRIVE THE CORE
and as far as man not affecting it or not being around long enough....that's not set in stone either any more...there are 50,000 of these that say otherwise....and if you believe these are fake...as all people treat these things....your sadly mistaken...as usual...the evidence is there but refused to look at it again because someone did not want to believe or want change in their lives....same thing is why the Smithsonian wont allow some artifacts found in this country....they are real but not allowed in the scientific community because of an old archaic law...and stay focused...not about religion....were on climate change and if man effects it or has been around long to do it
Just a hasty, snarky, wise-аss passing comment (very busy here today):
That's some interesting sentence structure & punctuation (but at least no spelling errors) [insert grinning smiley here]!:
[English is a dying language.]