Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[TimG]

Weather network and actual news show different pictures. The real ones.

They show absolute temperatures. The maps climate scientists use show the difference between temperatures and the average temperatures.

On a weather map: -40degC would be dark purple. On a climate map of antarctic (average temp -60C): -40C would bright red.

Same temp - different colours.

[The_Squid]

Not this week where I am. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

So when there is warmer than "normal" weather where you live, you believe in climate change? Or is it just convenient when it is cold outside to use it as an excuse to say there is no warming?

I suppose we need another reminder for the less educated among us. People who know this stuff are "intellectual elites" I guess...

http://www.torontosun.com/life/greenplanet/2009/04/11/9080981-sun.html

Consider it a service, nay a public service announcement, that I am performing in teaching everyone that there is a significant, nay, monumental difference between weather and climate.

The same goes for those who attribute stretches of heat waves in the summer to climate change -- it's just inaccurate.

I turn to the always loquacious and perhaps most passionate climatologist in Canada, David Phillips, for clarification. He expresses relief at my endeavour.

"Often the public blurs the distinction between the two," says the Environment Canada spokesman. "But they're very different and at times it's frustrating."

Weather is what happens outside your window, he explains. "You can see weather but you can't see climate."

When scientists use the term "climate," they're referring to long-term averages of weather patterns, measured not in years but decades.

Climatologists most often use 30-year record periods to measure weather patterns in broad regional scales.

"I'm a little bit like an historian and a futurist," Phillips says. "I'm interested in what the situation will be like 100 years from now, but I'm also interested in what the climate was like 100 years ago, for our ancestors."

Have you heard of the Pine Beetle?

http://www.livesmartbc.ca/learn/effects.html

•Warmer winters have resulted in the mountain pine beetle epidemic, which has destroyed an area of pine forest equivalent to four times the size of Vancouver Island.

•The pine beetle has infested 13 million hectares of B.C.'s forests. By 2013, it is predicted that 80% of BC's pine forest will be "red and dead".

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/

[Saipan]

So when there is warmer than "normal" weather where you live, you believe in climate change?

Climate is ALWAYS changing. Always did, always will. If it didn't we would still have ice age, which btw, is normal state of this planet. We are lucky to live in (very short) interglacial period.

Why is the "global warm up" call now just climate change?

[TimG]

So when there is warmer than "normal" weather where you live, you believe in climate change? Or is it just convenient when it is cold outside to use it as an excuse to say there is no warming?

These kinds jabs are a direct result of alarmists who run around claiming that events like the Russia heatwave or the Pakistan floods are evidence of climate change. The weather is not climate mantra only works if it is not ignored when convenient.

[Michael Hardner]

Climate is ALWAYS changing. Always did, always will.

Trite, and not helpful.

Humans cause warming. That's what the science says.

[TimG]

Humans cause warming. That's what the science says.

Also trite and not helpful. The science says humans affect the climate in a many ways and at different scales (local, continental and global). The net human effect appears to be about about 0.3-0.5 degC increase in GMST since 1800 (50-75% of the increase since 1950), however, this nothing but a best guess based on computer modelling studies. The other 0.5-0.7degC of warming in 1800 was caused by natural factors. Edited December 9, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Of course, local in North America, local in Asia and local in Europe.

What else is global?

Not what you listed, Europe, Asia, and North America take up a small part of the globe. Hence my link with temperature maps of the globe.

[Michael Hardner]

Also trite and not helpful. The science says humans affect the climate in a many ways and at different scales (local, continental and global). The net human effect appears to be about about 0.3-0.5 degC increase in GMST since 1800 (50-75% of the increase since 1950), however, this nothing but a best guess based on computer modelling studies. The other 0.5-0.7degC of warming in 1800 was caused by natural factors.

Not sure where you got your numbers from, but isn't it odd that humans and some unknown factor starting affecting the earth at the same time ?

In any case, you concede that humans are causing warming, and I'm not surprised. There's another thread, I believe, to address what if anything we can do about it.

My statement was not trite, and therefore helpful. You disagree with it by 25-50% since 1950 is all.

[TimG]

Not sure where you got your numbers from, but isn't it odd that humans and some unknown factor starting affecting the earth at the same time?

Perhaps you have cause and effect backwards: warmer climate = higher plant productivity = more food = more humans.

My numbers are guesses based on the IPCC statement:

that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid twentieth century is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

My statement was not trite, and therefore helpful.

It was unhelpful because you left out the context and uncertainty which meant your statement implied things that are not true. Most importantly, you left out the fact that 50% or more of the warming since 1800 is purely natural and that the attribution to humans is a hypothetical exercise which could easily turn out to be wrong because of flaws in the computer models.

I know it is a pain but reducing complex science to slogans hinders communication because the 'slogans' are invariably wrong. This is a criticism that applies to both sides.

Edited December 9, 2010 by TimG

[Jack Weber]

I can't decode your point here.

They used the same word in a sentence,therefore,they must the same person!!!

I really don't understand how you can't see that???

[Shady]

Not sure where you got your numbers from, but isn't it odd that humans and some unknown factor starting affecting the earth at the same time ?

And what unknown factor caused the medieval warming? Don't you think that's important to know? Or do you just want to ignore the previous 6 million years and take a snap shot of a hundred and pretend that it encompasses history?

[Guest TrueMetis]

And what unknown factor caused the medieval warming? Don't you think that's important to know? Or do you just want to ignore the previous 6 million years and take a snap shot of a hundred and pretend that it encompasses history?

How about you learn what the MWP actually was instead? First off there is no proof that it encompassed the globe second current evidence shows that even if it was it was still cooler than today.

Perhaps you have cause and effect backwards: warmer climate = higher plant productivity = more food = more humans.

Except as I have already shown increased temperature is often bad for plant productivity.

At this point you guys are creationists, using the same old arguments that have been debunked hundreds of times.

Edited December 9, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

How about you learn what the MWP actually was instead? First off there is no proof that it encompassed the globe second current evidence shows that even if it was it was still cooler than today.

Actually you're wrong on both counts. Why does the MWP have to encompass the globe? We're told that current climate change doesn't mean that everywhere in the world will see it's temperatures rise. And even Phil Jones acknowledges that the WMP could have been warmer than any warming seen currently.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now

Link

[Bonam]

Aside from the fact that I don't think you should sell yourself short--you're as smart as Waldo, which is no insult to either of you--I agree that maintaining the ruse for so long would be a real feat.

The only obvious faker I've seen here--the one who was unquestionably a faker--was the guy who pretended to be a hardcore Muslim fanatic, preaching jihad, and boasting about "my three strong sons," and so on. He was a right-wing troll hoping to "prove" how rotten Muslims really are.

And some people here believed the lie, of course.

Probably the same ones confused about separate posters with entirely different styles.

That is, all their opinions--on every subject, without exception--are thoroughly motivated by their deeply-rooted politicization. Too bad.

Haha, that guy was hilarious.

Also, naomi, bud, and dub are quite possibly all the same one individual poster.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Bonam

[TimG]

Except as I have already shown increased temperature is often bad for plant productivity.

Cold temperatures are worse. Plants have a optimal temperature where productivity is at the max. If current temperatures are below that max then rising temperatures increase productivity. In practice - all warming does is change the type of crops that can be optimally grown in a given latitude band.

Also - your "current evidence" against the MWP depends entirely on the assumption that tree growth does not decrease at higher temperatures. If it does decrease as you claim then that renders your evidence of a cool MWP irrelevant.

Edited December 9, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

Cold temperatures are worse. Plants have a optimal temperature where productivity is at the max. If current temperatures are below that max then rising temperatures increase productivity. In practice - all warming does is change the type of crops that can be optimally grown in a given latitude band.

It can also have an impact on desertification of some areas, greatly reducing their fertility.

[TimG]

It can also have an impact on desertification of some areas, greatly reducing their fertility.

But increased CO2 reduces plant water requirements which mitigates these effects. More warming also increases rainfall in other areas which increases productivity.

Lastly, many dry places already depend on fossilized water for agriculture which means they will be screwed no matter what happens to the climate. Of course, that won't stop the alarmists from falsly blaming the inevitable collapse of water supplies on climate change.

http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/The_Ogallala_Aquifer_and_Its_Role_as_a_Threatened_American_Resource

Edited December 9, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I know it is a pain but reducing complex science to slogans hinders communication because the 'slogans' are invariably wrong. This is a criticism that applies to both sides.

You actually sidestepped the point: another factor started causing Global Warming at the same time humans did, which seems pretty coincidental.

I didn't use any slogans.

[Michael Hardner]

And what unknown factor caused the medieval warming? Don't you think that's important to know? Or do you just want to ignore the previous 6 million years and take a snap shot of a hundred and pretend that it encompasses history?

It is important to know that. But as you point out the cause is unknown. That doesn't mean that current warming, which is correlated to CO2 rise, is caused by something else.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually you're wrong on both counts. Why does the MWP have to encompass the globe? We're told that current climate change doesn't mean that everywhere in the world will see it's temperatures rise. And even Phil Jones acknowledges that the WMP could have been warmer than any warming seen currently.

Why? Because if it only encompassed the tiny area we currently know it encompassed then its effect on global temperatures would be tiny. And current evidence shows that the MWP wouldn't have been warmer today, even if it was global. So if you really want to play this game first show 1) the MWP was global in effect and then 2) that it was warmer than today. I look forward to your paper published on the subject.

Cold temperatures are worse. Plants have a optimal temperature where productivity is at the max. If current temperatures are below that max then rising temperatures increase productivity. In practice - all warming does is change the type of crops that can be optimally grown in a given latitude band.

Problem with that is different latitudes have different soil quality. Even once Arctic tundra isn't constantly covered in perma-frost the soil will not support much crop growth, it will require massive amounts of fertilizer.

Also - your "current evidence" against the MWP depends entirely on the assumption that tree growth does not decrease at higher temperatures. If it does decrease as you claim then that renders your evidence of a cool MWP irrelevant.

Your right, if you ignore box cores, ice cores, and any of the other dozen or so sampling methods. But then you would have to be honest to include all that. And increased temperatures have already decreased crop yields I've posted this before.

But increased CO2 reduces plant water requirements which mitigates these effects. More warming also increases rainfall in other areas which increases productivity.

Lastly, many dry places already depend on fossilized water for agriculture which means they will be screwed no matter what happens to the climate. Of course, that won't stop the alarmists from falsly blaming the inevitable collapse of water supplies on climate change.

http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/The_Ogallala_Aquifer_and_Its_Role_as_a_Threatened_American_Resource

You know what I'm just going to make a quick pros vs cons list of increased CO2 and crop growth, maybe you be able to figure it out then.

Pros

Increased growth

Less water requirement

Cons

Decreased crop yields

Pests grow faster

Weeds crow faster

Pesticides don't work as well

Less nutritious (IE you have to eat more to get the same amount of vitamins)

I think I may be missing a couple on both sides.

[blueblood]

Why? Because if it only encompassed the tiny area we currently know it encompassed then its effect on global temperatures would be tiny. And current evidence shows that the MWP wouldn't have been warmer today, even if it was global. So if you really want to play this game first show 1) the MWP was global in effect and then 2) that it was warmer than today. I look forward to your paper published on the subject.

CO2 levels on Earth have fluctuated for the past 4.5 billion years. Earth was Earth then, and will still be earth in the future.

Problem with that is different latitudes have different soil quality. Even once Arctic tundra isn't constantly covered in perma-frost the soil will not support much crop growth, it will require massive amounts of fertilizer.

And then there is the problem with the vast amounts of rock.

Your right, if you ignore box cores, ice cores, and any of the other dozen or so sampling methods. But then you would have to be honest to include all that. And increased temperatures have already decreased crop yields I've posted this before.

Yet crop yields continue to improve.

You know what I'm just going to make a quick pros vs cons list of increased CO2 and crop growth, maybe you be able to figure it out then.

Pros

Increased growth

Less water requirement

Cons

Decreased crop yields

Pests grow faster

Weeds crow faster

Pesticides don't work as well

Less nutritious (IE you have to eat more to get the same amount of vitamins)

I think I may be missing a couple on both sides.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Pesticides work at temps above 15C. Unless you think the world is going to warm up to 45C. Weeds and pests are a non issue as herbicides and insecticides take care of them. Depending on crop variety, more growth = more yields. Crop nutrition has been steadily improving over time in spite of "Global Warming", same goes with crop yields. Most Plant breeders I talk to say that more CO2 is a good thing.

But keep continue pretending you know what you are talking about when it comes to ag production...

[Saipan]

Except as I have already shown increased temperature is often bad for plant productivity.

As seen in a jungle. They need a frost.

[jbg]

I envy these hard working vacationers hard workers for the planet. They seem to sachet from one tropical paradise to another on behalf of global salvation. Bali, Cancun....

[BubberMiley]

Strike-throughs are hilarious. I too only have four jokes that I use over and over.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yet crop yields continue to improve.

Yes and no crop yields in many places have fallen.

My link

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Pesticides work at temps above 15C. Unless you think the world is going to warm up to 45C. Weeds and pests are a non issue as herbicides and insecticides take care of them.

I said they aren't as effective not that they will not work at all, combine less effective with increased growth due to more warmth and either there will be more pests or a lot more pesticides and herbicides will need to be used. Neither is a desirable option.

Depending on crop variety, more growth = more yields.

More growth in this case means that the crop grows faster not that more of it grows.

Crop nutrition has been steadily improving over time in spite of "Global Warming", same goes with crop yields. Most Plant breeders I talk to say that more CO2 is a good thing.

To bad this plan just isn't true.

Now I need to to place special attention on this because it turns out that more CO2 = faster plant growth may not be true.

My link

But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.

So new pros and cons list.

Pros

Less water requirement

Cons

Decreased crop yields

Pests grow faster

Weeds crow faster

Pesticides don't work as well

Less nutritious (IE you have to eat more to get the same amount of vitamins)

Edited December 9, 2010 by TrueMetis