Is Inhofe correct?

Post Reply New Topic

Global cooling brings temporary peace to Syria.

What is not to believe? AGW is real, recent, and far smaller than the decline since Roman times. The world has been getting colder. While the last hundred years has been warmer, the base line was the 1800s, which had 1815, the year without summer, and the worldwide cooling caused by Krakatoa, 1883, several degrees, over several years. So yea, the 1900s were warmer than the 1800s.

No period in the last 1500 years has been as warm as Roman times. No period since has been as warm as the Medieval warm period, which was cooler than Rome. We are currently as cold as it got during the Holocene and the larger Holocene Warm Period may be ending.

AGW has not been enough to correct the cooling trend. We need to warm up about two degrees just to get to the Holocene baseline. We will run out of coal and oil and so far we have managed a 1.2 degree increase in 120 years. That is not enough. A good deal of that is just because the 1800s were cooler than the 1900s.

If anything is correct, the Holocene Base Climate is what we should strive for. To get there we need to get two to three degrees warmer. At the same time history and the Malankovic Cycle says we are cooling, so we have to offset that also.

I do not understand why you are against AGW, it is small, but it reaches in the right direction. The only other thing we can do is trench across the Darian Gap, and release warm tropical waters, like they were before we had ice ages.

“A good deal of that is just because the 1800s were cooler than the 1900s.”
Inventor
Agreed. There was more CO2 released ( by man) in the 1900s . Therefore the 1900s were warmer.
“I do not understand why you are against AGW, it is small, but it reaches in the right direction.”
Inventor
Ok, now your position is that AGW is real. However, it should be more so that we can avoid another ice age. You are claiming that the warming up of the last 200 years is not fast enough.
Perhaps you are willing to make humanity suffer today to save future generations from an ice age. * I am not.
“The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions and an increase in the number, duration and intensity of tropical storms.”
FROM
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/?Print=Yes
There are other articles about the drastic effects of AGW from other legitimate sites. I hope that you think NASA is not part of a conspiracy!
* That proposition (that global warming will prevent a future ice age) is debatable. However, let’s temporarily agree with that.

No matter which side of the issue you are on, one thing is clear -- anyone who claims that the warming as we left the "Little Ice Age" is AGW is seriously deluded.

“We spoke to Jeffrey Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, to find out whether he agrees with this interpretation of his work. He calls such interpretations a "red herring" *, saying that whilst the warming since 1850 is "in part due to the recovery from the Little Ice Age", that doesn't hold true for warming of the last 50 years, which is a "very different animal" from the warming of the last 160 years.”
FROM
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/05 ... le-ice-age

“And despite media claims in recent days that global cooling is imminent, experts don't expect a repeat of the little ice age anytime soon.”
….
Foukal believes that the effect of a solar minimum could help mitigate some of the global warming we are experiencing, though he warns that eventually the minimum will end. "It could mitigate partially if the sun does cool things a little bit, but it's a matter of time before the sun comes back to life again [and] you will roast," Foukal
FROM
http://www.livescience.com/14693-climat ... nimum.html

* Your post is a Red herring! http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

I added the [ you believe] and the [ intense] so my point would be clearer. I also separated the quotes from my writing to avoid confusion

Your own post clearly shows you are delusional. After all, you were claiming that the warming of at least the last 100 years is man-made:



It is quite clear that was not the case.

In fact, there were public concerns through the 1970s that we were cooling rather than warming. So only the warming is actually from the last 30 years might have a large component of AGW.

Most here can read well, no need to change texts. You still lack a storyline, as most global warming scares do use the last 130 years, and due to Krakatoa in 1883, the mid 1880s were several degrees colder. This is a well known event, the abnormal cooling was documented at the time, more than two degrees.

Now comes Global warming claiming it has warmed up 1.2 degrees, since 1880. It has, and that puts us one degree below the 1800s baseline, it is getting colder. It is easy to have the hottest years in the last 130, if you start from a climate depressed time like the 1880s.

Condeming humans to suffering just happens. Warmer does mean rising sea level, a continuation of the foot every hundred years of recent times, and 450 foot since 15,000 years ago. There will be more water vapor in the air, stronger storms, shifting weather patterns, just like there always have been.

Cooler means smaller crops, a smaller growing area, the discharge of cubic miles of water from the air, most likely as snow, flooding rains, the possible 1815 year without summer becoming common, or even sliding into snow and ice that does not melt over the summer, and builds from one year to the next.

Cooling will lead to famine, population rises, food supply shrinks. Weakened over populated people will see mass disease. The demand for fuel will rise rapidly as the world cools. The world economy will decline.

Combining factors that are not related. CO2 has been rising, since the population went up and more land was plowed. Farming blocks the return of CO2 to the Earth. While coal and oil can only account for recent increases, the curve of CO2 has been rising for four hundred years. It is considered a Greenhouse Gas, but so is Methane, from cow farts. Water Vapor is still the main one. Farming and grazing are the main cause.

The planet has been warming since 15,000 years ago, and the Little Ice Age was but a dip. Over time, the planet has been warming, before oil, gas, farming. So we have results without todays cause?

It has been colder since Rome, and Rome was the mean of the Holocene climate. Almost all of the last 15,000 years has been warmer. Only a dip 8,200 year ago, and the Little Ice Age till now have been colder.

The differance between an ice age and an interglacial is said to be five degrees. We are two and a half degrees below the mean of the last interglacial, and declining.

I can only hope that all of science is right about global warming.

Farmers in Central Mexico can grow two wheat crops a year. That is one reason why Normal Borlaug was doing research on wheat in Mexico in the 1940s.

If it warms up enough, we should be able to grow two wheat crops a year.

Those days could soon be over due to global cooling. Mexicans are freezing to death as we speak.

Anyway, I give up. Fanatics can never be convinced of anything. I have shown that EVERY scientific organization in the world endorses AGW.* Go ahead and believe that NASA, American Meteorological Society... are clueless and you and a few bloggers with no credentials know better.
Go ahead and believe that global warming is a good thing and that blizzards, droughts, more intense and more frequent hurricanes are a good thing. Believe that science is a vast conspiracy lead by Elvis, Bigfoot or whatever.
Luckily, most ( see poll at the top of this thread) know that that is crazy! And by a margin of over 5 to 1. That would be considered a landslide in any election. The purpose of this thread was fulfilled. I was reassured that a majority still believe in the scientific method and are not conspiracy enthusiasts. ( seriously, to believe that EVERY scientific organization in the world is falsifying data and part of a conspiracy is silly! Besides, if all the scientific data is falsified from EVERY scientific organization in the world , there cannot be true data to support any position, even the anti-AGW cult's contentions.)
* I have also provided their data that proves that AGW is real and is not a good thing.

“In fact, there were public concerns through the 1970s that we were cooling rather than warming.”
Eric 76
Perhaps among the public but not the scientific community.
“A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming”
FROM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... ediate.htm
…………………………….
“Your own post clearly shows you are delusional. After all, you were claiming that the warming of at least the last 100 years is man-made:”
Eric 76
Read that quote again!! ! It said “in part”.
…………………………………….
“There was more CO2 released ( by man) in the 1900s . Therefore the 1900s were warmer.”
ME
“It is quite clear that was not the case.”
Eric 76
“1960
=>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm.
1800-1870
290 ppm (parts per million).

FROM
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
………………….
Anyway, I am thru with responding to all the fake graphs (and ones that have nothing to do with the topic ie; red herrings) and all the “info” dispensed as knowledge, but is in fact simply made up. I am also tired of having to explain what a quote is actually saying (the words “in part” make a huge difference!)!

Sure, as a hypothesis. Some consider it falsified, but most scientists are skeptics. Nobody knows how the climate works. It is still a mystery. Maybe the sun could play a yet unrecognized role? Who knows? Nobody. That's a fact.

It's really funny how people who are in a panic about Global Warming look at what they imagine will happen instead of actually looking at evidence from the past about what really happened.

For example, higher temperatures don't mean more deserts. In the past, higher temperatures helped turn desert areas green. Now that it is cooler, they are deserts.

During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Sahara Desert was green, the Gobi Desert was a forest, and northern Mexico was substantially wetter than today. If higher temperatures meant more deserts, then those areas would have surely been even worse than they are today.

The magazine "Fortune" is biased. It is for international business men etc. It is about how to make a fortune, not about the environment. many advertisers and subscribers are part of the petrol-chemical industry. The magazine caters to their client's opinions. The Wiki site I gave gives the sites of the organizations where they say themselves that AGW is true. Really "Fortune" why not give Rush Limbaugh's site?
PS; to say that "most scientists are skeptics" is an outright lie and easily verified as a lie. Simply, go to the scientific journals themselves!! !
Anyway, I know that I said I would no longer respond to such rubbish ( I have realized that when I have refuted one lie another one pops up and then after 10 or so posts the old lies come back that I already refuted.) however, that was such a whopper and outrageously and obviously not true that I had to respond.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 15 Jan 2015, 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As I said previously, you are free to disagree with the world's scientific community.