having your doubts about global warming? Cold enough for you?

Opinion or rabid belief? We are in fact emerging from an Ice age. That being the case then we could assume we would experience warming, am I getting ahead of you here?. They taught us about our past ice age back in grade school, before electricity (or was it Independence?). If in fact we are emerging from an ice age that means (ignoring for the moment all the armloads of scientific printouts and gigabytes of Datasets) we are in fact warming and have been for several thousand years deviations in the climate history charts due to Sunspots and solar flares notwithstanding. We even had the "Little Ice age" due to thermohaline ocean current anomalies in the 1300-1700 era, a natural function of desalinization due to glacial melting due to natural "warming," The Vostok Co2 ice core analyses and subsequent Tschumi-Stauffer climate studies show clearly we have cold hot cycles and their accompanying Co2 variations on 100,000 year intervals. Milankovich elliptical orbit effects are causing these Hot/Cold cycles. The integration of sunspot and solar flare contribution to climate change just adds more humps and bumps to the graphs and more snakes to the prediction barrel. Providing a climate OVERVIEW reaching back over 6 millions of years tells the real story, but we are now faced with arguments based on data going back less than 50,000 years, the Gore fraud, obscuring the long term picture exposed by old accepted scientific climate history methods. How can man have such a profound effect on the climate in only the past 300 years when normal climate cycles established 6 Million years ago are proceeding as scientifically predicted, the projected temperatures and Co2 values in the mean. That man may be contributing to this climate change is obvious, but the EXTENT to which he is contributing is most assuredly in question. No one to date has been able to address that issue with any degree of Certainty, just a lot of unfounded opinion and fear mongering. Several scientific sources sets the percentage of mans contribution to global greenhouse gas at less than 3%, casting some pretty serious doubts that any changes we make in our energy usage will cause any major change in existing Climate conditions, at least in the foreseeable future.

Anthropogenic global warming is a unique world climate response to a unique world-wide phenomena: the mining of the earth's crust for fossil fuels to harvest energy with the subsequent dumping of in excess of 31 billion metric tonnes of CO2 (that's more than 1 million kilograms per second) into the atmosphere. This has never happened before and is entirely man-made.

The earth solar energy balance is being shifted to a new equilibrium point at a higher surface temperature. Man is the sole source of this change.

Perhaps it's cold where you are, but where I am it's been quite pleasant. I played volleyball for two hours on the beach tonight. By your reasoning, I can infer that I should be confident about global warming because it's warm where I am. Can't you see how silly that is? It's just as silly if you have doubts about it because it's cold where you are.

I won't say I'm smarter than Crichton, but I will say that I know a good deal more about atmospheric and climate science than he did. He was correct, of course, that consensus is not science--but like so many others, you're confused about the difference between science and public policy--as he was too, if he was using that as an argument about global warming..

EDIT for Pat: What I said was that the guy in your link made statements that about the atmosphere that were blatantly false, and showed a lack of understanding--not surprising since he is completely out of his field, which is nuclear physics. Because he doesn't understand atmospheric science, he makes absurd simplifications that are unjustifiable. If he were really interested in modeling what happens, he would use Modtran in conjunction with global circulation models. It's typical of us physicists to want to simplify problems into problems that are conceptually tenable, but you have to be careful not to make approximations that miss the physics of the situation, which is what he does.

Pat, I've told you before that he lumps all clouds into one category and says that they all cool the planet. That's wrong, and he apparently doesn't know that. When someone has such a fundamental misunderstanding of a subject it is a waste of time to pore through their results and try to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't.

EDIT for Pat: You're wrong, and your buddy the nuclear physicist is wrong, some clouds make the planet cooler because they're here, some make it warmer. If the clouds are mostly transparent to visible, but opaque to IR, they warm the planet.

Well if you actually want to talk about regional weather, I'm in the southern hemisphere (Tasmania in fact) we had 32c here yesterday when our average max mean for March is usually ~20.7c

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_0...

Last year we had the warmest start to April on record

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/tas/ar...

But unlike you I don't link regional weather effect to AGW, but I guess I'll archive this question for the next time a denier claims alarmists do.

Not sure what this fetish deniers have with Crichton, he was not a scientist, he trained as a medical doctor 40 years ago but worked as a writer of fiction and movie scripts ever since. Only a denier would think that mention of Crichton would make anyone feel threatened or Insecure. Given that denial is based almost entirely on fiction it is hardly surprising he is quoted just as another denier the other day tried to use the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" as a reference.

There is sadly a reason deniers have to use references like these or, of course, their blogs, it's because there is not a single science group that supports the rot they spin, you know it and we know it.

Real science groups think AGW is happening

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/societal-impacts/

The only way to get a bunch of scientists to agree on anything is evidence.

Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fil...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Crichton was a science fiction writer even if Congressman James Inhofe, beneficiary of large fossil fuel industry campaign funding http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php... liked to pretend that Crichton was a scientist. The validity of the climate science in Crichton's fiction can be assessed by the judgements of top climate scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...

If you are interested in what REAL conservatives think about climate science, here is a good example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSrBO4_qPzo

I once bought into the idea that global warming could be happening. Then all the email between the scientist involved surfaced admitting that it did not exist but they did not want to lose all the government grant money they were receiving to convince the world it was true. Nothing but Hype and the people who are not capable of thinking for themselves believe every thing they are told. Our world is doomed alright but it is stupidity not global warming that will destroy us.

Most people are smarter than Chrichton. But at least he can spell his own name it's Crichton

Your opinion and his are worthless.

You're the one who is threatened insecure and attacking

I agree, but CO2 (and other GHGs) emitted by humans is the question. The fact is that CO2 increases do have an effect, but it is not to the extent that alarmists proclaim. It is minuscule. CO2 and other GHGs have limits on their warming capabilities.

Read here : http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bryce...

-------------------------------------

I doubt that any of the alarmists who answer your question can refute the mathematics and science of my link. I'll post it again : http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/bryce...

No one has yet. Pegminer tried, but he was denying it. Gotta love a denier!

------------------------------------

pegminer - He explains the physical limitations of CO2 quite simply. I like how you make unjustifiable comments like "completely out of his field". That's an arrogant statement. A more detailed analysis that refutes his paper would be helpful. I have yet to see anything in your "qualified" statement that refutes anything he says.

------------------------------------

pegminer - Clouds don't warm the planet. They keep heat in at night, but there's no way for them to warm the planet at night unless they are keeping the heat at lower levels. Warm fronts do that when the sun isn't shining. You said yourself that you measured the temperature at night and said it warmed up. How can this happen without a warm front helping the temperature climb? IR heats the planet. Clouds don't do this on their own. The only thing that clouds can do is cool.

a decade and temperature increased by O.8 % this does not sound drastic to me, global warming mania is alive and well in gore's mind only , oh and david suzuki's