Woops! 2001-2010 The Snowiest Decade

Anthony Watts catches an interesting study

Now that we have reached the end of the meteorological winter (December-February,) Rutgers University Global Snow Lab numbers (1967-2010) show that the just completed decade (2001-2010) had the snowiest Northern Hemisphere winters on record.  The just completed winter was also the second snowiest on record, exceeded only by 1978.  Average winter snow extent during the past decade was greater than 45,500,000 km2, beating out the 1960s by about 70,000 km2, and beating out the 1990s by nearly 1,000,000 km2.  The bar chart below shows average winter snow extent for each decade going back to the late 1960s.

I’m not sure I can agree that it is the snowiest on record, except as far as the study goes, since the record is only show back to 1967. That said, our alarmist friends are always saying that one snowstorm (we had snow again here in North Carolina yesterday and overnight) and one year do not a climate make. How about a decade that beats a time period when the major media was concerned that a new ice age was coming?

OK, let the head in the sand snow denial begin! We really need to help our alarmist friends get past that first stage of grief, move them into anger, so we can soon get them to acceptance.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “Woops! 2001-2010 The Snowiest Decade”

  1. Kevin says:

    Fact: Global warming causes increased snowfall in decades starting with 00, but causes decreased snowfall in decades starting with 90.

    I’ll tell you how global warming affects snowfall in decades starting with 10 in, say, 10 years or so.

    😉

  2. captainfish says:

    HI kevin… fancy meeting you here.

    Mr Pirate Sir…. the alarmists can’t get to the anger stage. They are too much of wussies to ever get there. Ever try and debate them? They clamp down harder than a colossal clam.

  3. Otter says:

    I’m sure the resident agw-Brayer will be along at some point to tell us about the severe droughts Australia has been experiencing, which are being proven to be….. Uhhh, Natural! And also cyclical.

    So maybe he won’t.

  4. Reasic says:

    So, forget about global temperature increases, CO2 concentration increases, rising sea levels, receding glaciers, disappearing Arctic sea ice, etc., etc., etc. You all would rather focus on precipitation during three months of the year, in the northern hemisphere? I think this really underscores the way that you deniers approach this subject. You’re not really looking for truth. You’re simply looking for literally anything and everything that remotely supports your preconceived notions about our planet.

    I found it funny, too, that captainfish would claim that “alarmists” clam up when you “try to debate them. Any time I bring up real scientific evidence, or start talking about feedbacks vs. forcings, natural carbon sinks, the subject ends up getting dropped. Seems to me that you all are the ones who continually clam up when pressed on the evidence supporting your specious claims.

  5. captainfish says:

    thank you Reasic. I apologize for the generalization, but that has been my experience.

    As for your “reasons” for AGW, I find them again laughable. Global temperature has only risen at a rate similar to past increases. And, as we are in between glaciations, our temperature would naturally be climbing. However, to claim that we KNOW what our global temperature is is even more laughable seeing that we do not have global coverage of our monitoring stations, that 90% of the US monitoring stations are ill-placed and no longer under proper install code, that most of the world is not being monitored for temperature, and that satellite monitoring covers only the most recent years.

    CO2 concentrations increasing? yeah. So? I would like to increase the yield of our agriculture so that we can feed an ever growing population using the ever shrinking farmlands we have. CO2 does not force global warming. It is such a small factor that this shows the ignorance of even scientists who believe such a thing. Cloud cover, cloud density, water vapor, solar and space radiation along with other elements of our atmosphere are the key forces that drive our global temperature. By man’s breath and his use of the carbon cycle, we can not. What we are burning now, was once IN the atmosphere.

    Rising sea levels? Where? Who has been inundated to the point that they had to move their cities away from the coast? Again, I will grant you that there is some rising. Again, I point you to the fact that we are in between glaciations and in a warming trend. Can you imagine what the sea levels would have been at during our last ice age? If you could have found land not covered by ice, the sea level would have been meters if not dozens of meters below where they are now. Are we to blame for the difference from then to now? How are we to blame for the continued receding of glaciers during their normal melt\freeze cycle?

    Now, could man be causing more soot to be in the atmosphere which lands on the glaciers making them more susceptible to melting? Sure. But that has nothing at all to do with CO2 increases. By the way, the polar sea ice are not melting away. They have actually been at average levels so far. Only 2007 was a low year. But then, like you say, one incident does not an answer make.

    And the reason we non-AGW’rs are focusing on this winter’s record setting snow fall amounts all over the Northern Hemisphere is because it was winter in the Northern Hemisphere. It is not winter in the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, we have had some of the largest snow extant in the US this winter since 1978 when people were thinking of another ice age.

    Also, another reason we focus on it is because AGW’rs focuses on some record summer-time heat records to point to “rampant global warming” proof.

    Turn about is fair play, isn’t it?

  6. Reasic says:

    captainfish,

    There’s a lot to respond to here, but I’ll do my best:

    Global temperature has only risen at a rate similar to past increases.

    No, actually one of the most concerning aspects of recent climate change is that the RATE of increase is greater than any time in the past. No other natural changes, such as transitions from glacial to inter-glacial periods have occurred at this fast of a pace.

    And, as we are in between glaciations, our temperature would naturally be climbing.

    Actually, inter-glacial periods are relatively flat. Once the transition is over, there isn’t generally anymore increase in temperature. It has reached a plateau. Look at the following graph:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    This shows the estimated global temperatures during the Holocene, which is the inter-glacial period we are currently in. You may notice that, judging by the running average, there is little change over the last 10,000 years. However, in the past 100 years, the temperature increase looks like a straight line up, about 0.7 degrees and counting.

    However, to claim that we KNOW what our global temperature is is even more laughable seeing that we do not have global coverage of our monitoring stations, that 90% of the US monitoring stations are ill-placed and no longer under proper install code, that most of the world is not being monitored for temperature, and that satellite monitoring covers only the most recent years.

    What I find to be laughable is that you would tell me about what global temperature trends look like compared to the past, and then in the same paragraph, tell me we don’t even know what the global temperature is.

    It seems that you are a surfacestations.org fan. Here’s the thing about surfacestations.org: They post pictures of temperature sensors. That’s it. They haven’t done any comprehensive analysis of the effect of the supposed conditions on the sensors, or shown that any unwanted anomalies are not later corrected in the temperature calculation. Now, we know why this hasn’t been done:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    A recent study has shown that there is actually a cool bias for the sites listed as “poor”.

    CO2 does not force global warming. It is such a small factor that this shows the ignorance of even scientists who believe such a thing.

    And what do you base this on, other than your personal assumptions? Are you going to pull out the “CO@ is 3.6% of 3.4% of 2%” argument on me, because I’ve already debunked that here:

    http://www.thepiratescove.us/2010/03/02/cst-guess-what-didnt-kill-the-golden-toad/

    Cloud cover, cloud density, water vapor, solar and space radiation along with other elements of our atmosphere are the key forces that drive our global temperature.

    First of all, clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere are feedbacks, so by definition, they cannot CAUSE a change in temperature — they only amplify a change caused by some other forcing. The planet receives quite a bit of solar radiation, but it is relatively constant, differing by only about 1 watt per meter squared over 11 year cycles. The only way this could result in a long-term change is by changes in those cycles, which would obviously have to equal much less than the total 1 W/m^2 fluctuation. This comes out to a very small percentage of total solar irradiance. CO2 alone, however, accounts for 1.6 W/m^2:

    http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/ar4forcing.PNG

    Rising sea levels? Where? Who has been inundated to the point that they had to move their cities away from the coast?

    People don’t have to need to move in order for us to know that the sea level is rising. The whole point here is to act before that happens. The sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 m.

    http://nihongo.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/ipcc2007_1850-2005.png

    Again, I point you to the fact that we are in between glaciations and in a warming trend.

    Again, I think you’re confusing the difference between “between glaciations” and “warming trend”. The past 10,000 years have been relatively flat, as far as temperature goes.

    By the way, the polar sea ice are not melting away. They have actually been at average levels so far. Only 2007 was a low year. But then, like you say, one incident does not an answer make.

    Do you have a graph or source of any kind to support this assertion? The truth of the matter is that average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. In addition, annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4% per decade.

    http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure2.png

    And the reason we non-AGW’rs are focusing on this winter’s record setting snow fall amounts all over the Northern Hemisphere is because it was winter in the Northern Hemisphere. It is not winter in the Southern Hemisphere.

    My problem with this post isn’t as much that it’s focusing on one half of the earth (although it WOULD be nice to see the other half as well), as much as it is that this is winter precipitation, which can occur at any temperature below freezing. How does this disprove warming? More precipitation does not mean less warming, and global warming does not mean that there will be no more winter. This proves nothing.

    In fact, we have had some of the largest snow extant in the US this winter since 1978 when people were thinking of another ice age.

    At least you said “people”, and not “scientists”, because I’m getting tired of explaining to deniers that climate scientists did not believe an ice age was imminent, and that research on the subject at the time still pointed to warming.

    Also, another reason we focus on it is because AGW’rs focuses on some record summer-time heat records to point to “rampant global warming” proof.

    Turn about is fair play, isn’t it?

    Turn about IS fair play, IF you use it correctly. Be sure you’re talking about actual climate scientists, and not some wacko that no one pays any attention to, or who didn’t know what he was talking about. That’s something Teach loves to do (highlight kooks, and use them to generalize about a larger group of people). Actual climate scientists have actually cautioned AGAINST using anecdotal evidence, such as heat waves, as proof of global warming. More substantial evidence must be available in order to establish trends.

  7. Reasic says:

    Teach, I believe my response got caught in your filter. Could you please release it?

  8. captainfish says:

    Thank you Reasic,
    I normally don’t post links because many links are just created for mass production and not for learned peer-review.

    As to your post I would like to focus on one aspect for now.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

    Ignoring the fact I really have no clue who created this graph, what the lines mean, or where the data came from, to me this graph shows that we warmed up from the last major ice age. This also shows temps were much hotter and colder than we are now.

    And, for your comment that our rate of warming is as never before seen (but then how are we at stagnant temperatures, Reasic??) please take a look at the 8,000 year mark. Look at the rate of warming seen there till about the year 7,500. Tell me that rate isn’t …. never before seen? And that rate is within about a 500 year period.

    Looking at the dip from year 0 to about year 1,000 previous shows us what could be the Little Ice Age. If you take that period as a whole, our current temps can be seen only as if we were “recovering” from that cold period. Without it, our temps would have been, as you say, flat, over the last millennia.

    And, according to this graph, one could say that we are just trying to return to a normalized pattern of temperatures. So, according to this graph you supplied, if we haven’t even approached normal yet, then what is up with all the whining and crying about AGW? Wouldn’t we want to get warmer to return to normal?

    So far, your initial rebuttal has fallen flat.

    Ok, one more… your NSIDC link to the sea ice extent. Doesn’t this show the sea ice in good shape? I don’t see it tanking off the scale?

  9. Reasic says:

    captainfish,

    I have three major points for you:

    1. The Holocene temperature graph shows that temperature were relatively stable throughout the interglacial period, and then ends with a spike in temperature (now). You have tried to compare the recent spike to temperature trends 8,000 years ago, but that was an increase of about 0.5 degree over 500 years. We are talking about 0.7 over 100 years, and counting. When you combine that with the fact that this warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature, you have a problem.

    2. The NSIDC link shows that sea ice extent is well below the average for 1979 to 2000. I also stated that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4% per decade. Why did you choose to interpret the graph the way you wanted and avoid my main point? You originally claimed that sea ice was not melting away, and that it has been average so far. The graph and data I supplied for you contradict that assertion.

    3. You can’t just try to spin two of my many points and then claim that my rebuttal has fallen flat. You have a lot more work to do to prove that.

    Do you have a reply for any of my other rebuttals?

  10. captainfish says:

    Do you have a reply for any of my other rebuttals?

    No, I don’t. I don’t have the time.

    1. The Holocene temperature graph shows that temperature were relatively stable throughout the interglacial period, and then ends with a spike in temperature (now). You have tried to compare the recent spike to temperature trends 8,000 years ago, but that was an increase of about 0.5 degree over 500 years. We are talking about 0.7 over 100 years, and counting. When you combine that with the fact that this warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature, you have a problem.

    “relatively stable”?!? That undocumented graph you presented as evidence shows WILDLY fluctuating temps. Especially coming out of the ice age. Were man’s activities for the rise in earth’s temps coming out of the ice age?

    0.7C over 100 years? Yeah, sorry. Aint buying that. From the recent research that I have seen, fixing CRU and NOAA biases, temps actually have decreased over last few decades and the overall increase seems to be in the range of 0.2C over last 100 years.

    2. The NSIDC link shows that sea ice extent is well below the average for 1979 to 2000. I also stated that annual average arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4% per decade. Why did you choose to interpret the graph the way you wanted and avoid my main point?

    Ok. Well below average? What is average my friend? Just because the data only covers 20 years does not make it a true average. Give me data covering the last 100-500 years and then we can talk average. When current ice extant is within 1 million of that “average” then to me that looks damn close to normal.

    Also, we melt more ice in the summer? Really? Hmm. Need to look in to that one.

    Comment by Reasic
    2010-03-04 09:29:09
    So, forget about global temperature increases, CO2 concentration increases, rising sea levels, receding glaciers, disappearing Arctic sea ice, etc., etc., etc.

    Based upon your own graph, the Arctic sea ice is not disappearing and is near the “average” over a 20 year period. That was your main point on that statement. I addressed it.

    3. You can’t just try to spin two of my many points and then claim that my rebuttal has fallen flat. You have a lot more work to do to prove that.

    Yes I can. When your first few points are either false or can be seen stating alternative explanations, then there is room for doubt and for designing an alternative hypothesis that better explains observations. One other than its all man’s fault.

  11. Reasic says:

    No, I don’t. I don’t have the time.

    Translation: “I picked the arguments I could provide an answer for, and ignored the ones I couldn’t.” Don’t worry. That’s typical denier behavior. I see it all the time.

    Were man’s activities for the rise in earth’s temps coming out of the ice age?

    No, the glacial periods occur in the reccurring Milankovitch Cycle, which is controlled by changes in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the planet’s orbit. As we are already in the inter-glacial period, these natural cycles are not causing the current increase in temperature.

    From the recent research that I have seen, fixing CRU and NOAA biases, temps actually have decreased over last few decades and the overall increase seems to be in the range of 0.2C over last 100 years.

    I would love to see that research. Where is it published? Do you have a link? NASA’s data:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Ok. Well below average? What is average my friend? Just because the data only covers 20 years does not make it a true average. Give me data covering the last 100-500 years and then we can talk average. When current ice extant is within 1 million of that “average” then to me that looks damn close to normal.

    Don’t make ludicrous demands for evidence that doesn’t exist. Measurements of sea ice extent from satellites began in 1979. Since that time, it has been on a steady decline. Scientists predict that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer by 2060 to 2080.

    Based upon your own graph, the Arctic sea ice is not disappearing and is near the “average” over a 20 year period. That was your main point on that statement. I addressed it.

    No, you attempted to spin it. There’s a difference. For the past several years, Arctic sea ice extent has been below two standard deviations of the average for two decades since measurements began. That means that it is a statistically significant decrease.

    One other than its all man’s fault.

    I don’t even know what your argument is anymore. You seem to be stating that there really isn’t global warming in the first place at times, but then you’ll comment that it’s not “all man’s fault” (an argument I haven’t made, by the way), which implies that you do think we’re warming.

  12. captainfish says:

    Oooo.. Is that a hockey stick I see?

    I have never denied there was warming. You even quoted me stating that there was warming. As most AGW skeptics will point out, we agree that there is a global warming on the grand scale of things, but what we are discussing and seeking further evidence on is the degree of warming and whether man is at fault or not.

    So far, research has still shown both sides of those coins.

    What we also try to point out, is that our world changes. Our climate changes. You even mention that our tilt and axis changes. Can we affect that? Can we have an impact similar to the tilt of the earth? No. Do we impact our weather locally? Our ecology? Yes. But, our Earth’s climate will continue on with how it wants to for as long as it has existed. There are counter-balances and countering effects that are built in. GOD has designed the perfect system to allow the sustainability of his creations.

    Let me say this about the sea ice graph and data. Yes, there is a difference. I have not said there isn’t. I suggest it is not warranted to say there is and that it is record setting.

    Let’s say that I operate an apple orchard that my father before me operated and his father before him operated. Now, no data has ever been kept as to the productivity of this orchard all these generations. But, I decide to start calculating average production per tree. I collect data over the years. I start seeing a trend that goes up.. ten goes down. Then goes up. Then goes way down.

    Where do I draw the line to signify normalcy? I can’t rely on the last 100 years because I have no data. I honestly can’t say that this year’s production is better or worse than 100 years ago, because I have no data. I can pull a small data set out, say 20 years, out of my 30 year data set and call that average. But is that honest?

    All you could ever honestly state is that this year’s productivity is XX compared to another year’s XX. You can’t say that this year’s productivity is unprecedentedly low due to man’s CO2 generation. You also can not say that the so-called 20 year average is… the norm. Maybe your time is being impacted by more warming? More cooling? Maybe your grandfather used more nutrients which increased yields? Maybe the orchard’s fields have run out of nutrients over these generations?

    Who is to say that the data from 1979 till NOW should be the average?

    And, I would appreciate you end the use of the word “denier”. That has complete negative and holocaust connotations involved that I would find it morally impossible to continue our discussions should you continue to use it to describe people who have a different opinion.

  13. Reasic says:

    Oooo.. Is that a hockey stick I see?

    lol. Are you serious? I asked you for some additional info on the research you referenced. Are you going to provide that or not?

    As most AGW skeptics will point out, we agree that there is a global warming on the grand scale of things, but what we are discussing and seeking further evidence on is the degree of warming and whether man is at fault or not.

    First of all, a “skeptic” you are not. You may be skeptical of AGW, but a true “skeptic” is skeptical of everything, not only that to which he or she is ideologically opposed. If you were remotely skeptical of some of the specious claims on your side of the debate, you’d side with me.

    Secondly, you’re not interested in evidence. There is a plethora of it available for you in the IPCC reports, but you write them, and all of the research they are based on, off as biased without ever looking at them.

    What we also try to point out, is that our world changes. Our climate changes. You even mention that our tilt and axis changes. Can we affect that? Can we have an impact similar to the tilt of the earth? No.

    And what I continually try to point out to you guys is that the fact that climate has changed naturally in the past (before industrial activity) does not prove that current changes are also natural (after industrial activity). You would have to prove that with some sort of evidence. Climate scientists have examined all possible natural phenomena, and they cannot account for most warming, much less all of it. Even skeptical climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer agree that carbon dioxide has been a major driver in recent climate change. They only disagree on the sensitivity of the climate system. You should call a climate scientist. Seriously.

    Let me say this about the sea ice graph and data. Yes, there is a difference. I have not said there isn’t. I suggest it is not warranted to say there is and that it is record setting.

    Decreases in sea ice extent are just one of many pieces of evidence, which point to a warming world. I take your most recent statement to mean that you agree that sea ice extent has been decreasing for the last three decades.

    Let’s say that I operate an apple orchard that my father before me operated and his father before him operated.

    No, let’s not. Our planet’s climate system is not an orchard. Sorry. I’ve had enough bad analogies from [whatever it is you want to be called, except skeptic or denier]. Besides, trying to claim that unknown data from decades ago could change the fact that the planet is warming. There are many other pieces of evidence. Do you have evidence to show that all evidence for warming, including temperatures, is untrustworthy before 1979? Otherwise, this effort is somewhat futile.

    Who is to say that the data from 1979 till NOW should be the average?

    I think you’re misunderstanding the use of the term “average”. No one ever said that the “average” on the graph was the “average” sea ice extent overall. The “average” line is the statistical average for 1979-2000. It is only meant to give a baseline from which to gage recent data. As I’ve also said, sea ice has continued to decrease by about 2.7% per decade since measurements began. The point is not that there is some mysterious “average” that we are straying from. The point being made with this data is that the planet is warming.

    And, I would appreciate you end the use of the word “denier”. That has complete negative and holocaust connotations involved that I would find it morally impossible to continue our discussions should you continue to use it to describe people who have a different opinion.

    You and I both know that I’m not calling you a Holocaust denier. I don’t believe I’ve ever used the terms “Nazi” or “Holocaust” here. However, if you want me to use another term, you tell me what you want me to use. Just don’t say “skeptic”, because that you are not (no offense).

  14. captainfish says:

    Ok. Let me get this straight. In order to be skeptical of AGW, I must also be skeptical of my beliefs?

    So, since you are skeptical of my beliefs, that means then that you are a skeptic and thus skeptical of your beliefs as well?

    If so, then what is the point of our discussion?

  15. Reasic says:

    Ok. Let me get this straight. In order to be skeptical of AGW, I must also be skeptical of my beliefs?

    lol. You must apply the same amount of skepticism to your beliefs, which basically means you objectively weigh the two, and honestly seek out the best information possible from both sides, rather than trying to spin everything to fit your beliefs. When I first approached this subject, that was my approach. I let the facts fall where they may, and then decided which was true.

    I’d love to see the research you mentioned earlier about only a 0.2 degree increase in the last century.

    I’d also like to see what rebuttal you have to any of the many other points I made.

    How about this. Let’s start over. Hi, I’m Reasic. 😛 Seriously, though. I’ll lay out for you my understanding of climate change in a simple syllogism, and you explain for me where your disagreement lies.

    1. The planet is warming.

    2. The vast majority of warming over the last 50 years has been due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of various greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), of which carbon dioxide has the greatest effect.

    3. Human activity is primarily responsible for the recent increases in greenhouse gases, through the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.

    4. Therefore, the planet is warming largely as a result of human activity.

    Which of these points do you disagree with? Simply state which numbers you disagree with, and why.

  16. captainfish says:

    Now I know that you are nothing but a spewer of recycled warming propaganda.

    2. The vast majority of warming over the last 50 years has been due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of various greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), of which carbon dioxide has the greatest effect.

    This despite the fact that our vast production of CO2 started nearly 200 years ago?!?!?

    Also, CO2 is not the greatest force in the greenhouse effect. Methane is 30x more potent than CO2 and most of that is natural. Then there is water vapor. Your statement that CO2 is the major force in the greenhouse effect shows a lack of education.

    Changes in land use also can’t lead to global warming. That is a near impossibility for man – for now at least.

    You must apply the same amount of skepticism to your beliefs, which basically means you objectively weigh the two, and honestly seek out the best information possible from both sides, rather than trying to spin everything to fit your beliefs.

    You claim that you are not a skeptic because you are firm in your belief, but that I am because I believe something different. Even though I too am firm in my belief. You think that because of what I believe, I have not searched the evidence and findings. You claim that since you are not a skeptic and are firm in your belief that your statements are beyond rebuke.

    You act like a Dark Ages Catholic missionary coming upon a tribe of indigenous peoples. You view them as savages and ignorant beasts because they do not believe what you believe. You shame their beliefs as blasphemy. Yet, as the liberals and greenies like to inform us now, we should now live like the indigenous peoples.

    It would seem, that for all of your bluster that people should be a skeptic, you yourself have failed the test.

  17. Reasic says:

    This despite the fact that our vast production of CO2 started nearly 200 years ago?!?!?

    The keyword there is “vast”. CO2 emissions grew rapidly over that time period, but scientists typically say that its effect was not a major force until several decades ago.

    Also, CO2 is not the greatest force in the greenhouse effect. Methane is 30x more potent than CO2 and most of that is natural.

    This is a GREAT example of what I was talking about earlier. A real skeptic (skeptical of all ideas), would have looked for the full truth. Here you have an international body of scientists whose research says that the effect of CO2 is greatest, and you think you can trump that with a simple fact about the potency of one molecule of methane?! C’mon, captainfish.

    Yes, ONE MOLECULE of methane is more potent than ONE MOLECULE of CO2, but what we are concerned about is the total effect of all gases in the atmosphere. As it turns out, CO2 exists in a much greater concentration in the atmosphere (387 ppm, vs. 1745 ppb). That’s about 220 times more concentrated. Now, if methane is 30 times more potent, but there is 220 times more CO2, which has the greater effect?

    Then there is water vapor.

    Ah, yes. Water vapor. What many “skeptics” can’t seem to understand about water vapor is that it has a very short atmospheric lifetime of about one week, compared to around 250 years for CO2. So, when CO2 is emitted, it stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. However, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly related to the temperature, because it quickly evaporates or condenses as a function of temperature. Therefore, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing, which means that it cannot CAUSE a change in temperature. It only amplifies the changes caused by other forcings.

    Your statement that CO2 is the major force in the greenhouse effect shows a lack of education.

    Really?

  18. Reasic says:

    Just caught this one, too:

    Methane is 30x more potent than CO2 and most of that is natural.

    Actually, no. The majority of methane emissions are the result of human activity, such as landfills, natrual gas systems, domestic livestock, and coal mining:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1.html#table-7-6

  19. captainfish says:

    And?
    Seems to me those are natural resources. Methane is produced or released from natural sinks or mechanisms.

    Again with the IPCC reports? I take it you have not seen recent revelations that the IPCC is nothing but an untrusted sham?

    What is your solution? Should we do away with coal mining\burning and petroleum usage? Should we do away with landfills and cows and rice? Should we do away with electricity?

    We can’t even go back to living in caves and cooking off of campfires because the EPA has outlawed open fires. PETA would throw a fit seeing families fight over and kill their food themselves. And, how easy would it be to find a cave that is not on protected federal or state lands that are off limits to humans? Or caves that are not protected due to some blind bat or albino gnat?

  20. Reasic says:

    Okay, so you have no specific rebuttal to my information about CO2 being the most important greenhouse gas, so you’re going to generalize about the IPCC report and change the subject to a straw man argument about proposed solutions? That’s not honest debating, captainfish. You said I was showing a “lack of education”, but didn’t follow up on my rebuttals.

    As to methane, you either have a specific reason why the table, which only summarizes data from various scientific studies, is incorrect, or you don’t. You can’t just ASSUME that this table on methane emissions is incorrect, based on a typo that was found in another IPCC report on Himalayan glaciers.

    I love how you want to skip to solutions when you don’t even understand the problem.

    Let’s go back to my syllogism. You seemed to be concerned only with number three. Does that mean you agree with all others? If you don’t think warming over the last 50 years was caused primarily by human activity, why not? Why is CO2 not the most important greenhouse gas? Let’s not stray from the subject.

  21. captainfish says:

    Might I also present this for your amusement.

    This is taken from the larger post here about CO2’s impacts upon the greenhouse effect.

    The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

    But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic.

    Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.

    And the kicker…

    The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones.

  22. captainfish says:

    Reasic, just because you throw up a UN document does not mean you have proved your case. On the contrary, you only show your bias. You are not going to win ANY arguments by posting on websites that fail to recognize the authority of the U.N. let alone the disproven science that they spew.

    I do not doubt your numbers on methane. That is proven science that can be found anywhere one looks. That can’t be said for the science of the UN.

    I also did not express doubts on your methane “table”. That was your assumption.

    I skipped to solutions only to ask a quipping question. If your arguments are for eliminating man’s impact on the greenhouse effect, then one would reason that we must return to a pre-industrial age. If we can not, then what purpose would it do to tax us back to that age based on some arbitrary ppm levels?

    And, you can not infer potency of an element based on the extent of its presence. In like manner, you can not assume a simple 1:1 relationship of its effects upon its surroundings. Such as the example I presented in my previous post above with CO2. The UN assumes a linear relationship. Whilst it is a logarithmic one. Thus, most of the CO2’s impact and relationship with the greenhouse effect has decreased with increasing density.

    Ok. Back to Number 3?

    3. Human activity is primarily responsible for the recent increases in greenhouse gases, through the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.

    Hmmm. Ok, can you provide actual physical evidence that man is responsible for GLOBAL scale warming? And just because it has been warming for the last 500 years, according to that temperature graph you presented earlier, does not mean man was responsible. We still have not reached the same temperature we were at when we started that last cold spell.

    So, if we were warmer 1,000 years ago, nay 4,000 years ago, than we are now, then how can our warmth today be caused by man?

    And, I ask this question again. What is average? What temperature is normal? Why are people arbitrarily selecting 1940’s as the average? As the point to get to? There are actually many people who like the warmer weather. Minnesnowtans for one. Just think of how much more farmable land we could access? Just think of the increased production of our crops?

    I find your need for documentary proof as your own statements have shown to be laughable and faulty.

    We may actually begin to see a 30-year global cooling trend that started 10 years ago.

  23. Reasic says:

    I do not doubt your numbers on methane. That is proven science that can be found anywhere one looks.

    So you agree that recent methane emissions have been mostly due to human activity?

    I also did not express doubts on your methane “table”. That was your assumption.

    Hmmmm… I post a link to a table in an IPCC report, and you respond “again with the IPCC reports?”, followed by the misconception that they have been disproved.

    And, you can not infer potency of an element based on the extent of its presence.

    Please share your source for this information.

    The UN assumes a linear relationship.

    Absolutely not. It is common knowledge among climate scientists that the relationship is logarithmic. That would be why they give a projected temperature increase to a “doubling of CO2”, rather than an amount of it.

    Ok, can you provide actual physical evidence that man is responsible for GLOBAL scale warming?

    If you read #3 again, you’ll see that it states that man is primarily responsible for increases in greenhouse gases, not warming.

    And then more diversions….

    Why can’t you “skeptics” ever stay on topic? Here’s my argument again:

    1. The planet is warming.

    2. The vast majority of warming over the last 50 years has been due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of various greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), of which carbon dioxide has the greatest effect.

    3. Human activity is primarily responsible for the recent increases in greenhouse gases, through the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.

    4. Therefore, the planet is warming largely as a result of human activity.

    We’ve already been through #2, but your rebuttal was flawed. Which of these points do you disagree with? Simply state which numbers you disagree with, and why. I really want to sort this out with you.

  24. captainfish says:

    So you agree that recent methane emissions have been mostly due to human activity?

    Nope, that is not what I said. I agree with your statements about concentration amounts. If you read above you will notice that I said Methane emissions were from natural sources or causes. I consider the release of methane from landfills and mining to be natural since that release is a natural process that would have occurred naturally even if man didn’t exacerbate the situation by either piling on extra trash and dirt, or by removing more rock than would have come through erosion or sloughing.

    Hmmmm… I post a link to a table in an IPCC report, and you respond “again with the IPCC reports?”, followed by the misconception that they have been disproved.

    Misconception? The IPCC has been made a fools folly. Can you not see that? Just because they use sound science as their basis for their insane findings does not make the insanity sane?

    And, you can not infer potency of an element based on the extent of its presence.

    Please share your source for this information.

    Ummmm… how about all of known science?

    Ok, can you provide actual physical evidence that man is responsible for GLOBAL scale warming?

    If you read #3 again, you’ll see that it states that man is primarily responsible for increases in greenhouse gases, not warming.

    AAhhhhh. The “Because I told you so” remark. So, we are to just take your word that since you said it, it must be true.

    Let’s ask some experts…

    A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

    INTERNATIONAL scientists, five US, British, German and Swiss climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – have called for the world’s peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months.

    31,000 Scientists disagree with you.

    From New Zealand:

    The paper published in Science magazine yesterday showed the Mt Cook glaciers advanced to their maximum length 6500 years ago, and have been smaller ever since.

    But glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced to their maximum only in the past 700 years – during the Northern Hemisphere’s “Little Ice Age”, which ended about 1860.

    Not due to human activity.

    And from the MET office. Data relied on by IPCC and others is flawed.

    Even the WMO disagrees with you.

    “…we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.”

    Warming in Alaska over last 50 years is due to PDO shift and not human activities (not many there anyway). Not due to human activity.

    Even if I allow the use of the IPCC data, here on page 242, again allowing that the data has not been found to be flawed, biased, massaged, rubbed, ripped, shredded and all around mangled, looking at the rise from last 50 years, I see no difference in the rise of the 60 years from 1880 to 1940. Care to explain why the cooling following the end of WW2? That lasted for 40 years? Not due to human activity.

    And yet, it is the scientists now screaming of warming that didn’t find a smidge of it even back to 1989.

    Page 6 of the IPCC report shows sea level rising at a steady rate since the beginning of their data in 1870, which again corroborates the notion that glaciers have been retreating since about 1860. Again, not due to human activity.

    Again, using your beloved data, Page 12 of that IPCC report again, states:

    “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. {1.2, 3.2}”

    0.2C per decade over a century is 2degrees C.

    Nuff said.

  25. Reasic says:

    Okay, captainfish. I’m going to respond to all of your misinformation, but I would like to make it clear that I want to return to my argument in favor of AGW, which you seem to want to avoid.

    I consider the release of methane from landfills and mining to be natural since that release is a natural process that would have occurred naturally even if man didn’t exacerbate the situation by either piling on extra trash and dirt, or by removing more rock than would have come through erosion or sloughing.

    You can’t just claim landfill emissions are natural because you want them to be. The FACT of the matter is that it is human products (domestic kitchen waste) that are decomposing to create much of the gases.

    Misconception? The IPCC has been made a fools folly. Can you not see that?

    Did you really just counter scientific findings with a partisan political party’s “report” on the subject? Yes, I’m well aware of these issues, only a couple of which are valid concerns. This is more a result of partisans trying to discredit the IPCC, than an honest effort to find truth. Each of these “complaints” have been examined, and all have been found to be either false or severely blown out of proportion.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

    And, you can not infer potency of an element based on the extent of its presence.

    Please share your source for this information.

    Ummmm… how about all of known science?

    I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I’m not claiming that the potency of methane or CO2 is somehow affected by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m telling you that you must also consider the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, versus methane (or any other GHG for that matter). If you want to get into the details of how determined that CO2 retains the most amount of heat, you need to look into detection and attribution studies, spectroscopy, and the bandwidths in which various GHGs are active. I don’t have time to explain it for you, but I encourage you to look it up.

    Ok, can you provide actual physical evidence that man is responsible for GLOBAL scale warming?

    If you read #3 again, you’ll see that it states that man is primarily responsible for increases in greenhouse gases, not warming.

    AAhhhhh. The “Because I told you so” remark. So, we are to just take your word that since you said it, it must be true.

    No, no, no. My #3 says that man is primarily responsible for recent increases in GHGs. In response, you asked for evidence that man was responsible for WARMING. That’s skipping a step. My #3 doesn’t get to warming yet. It’s only talking about GHGs. Do you agree that man is responsible for increases in GHGs, or not?

    Let’s ask some experts…

    lol. Here’s where the misinformation overload starts… Sure, whatever.

    Study attacking GCMs:

    A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

    Yes, many flaws were found in the data and the conclusions of this study:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

    INTERNATIONAL scientists, five US, British, German and Swiss climate scientists – all contributing or lead IPCC report authors – have called for the world’s peak climate change body to be revamped or scrapped after damaging controversies that have dogged the expert panel in recent months.

    Actually, two said they thought the IPCC was fine as is. Two others agree with the purpose, but would like to see it reorganized. The final, a “skeptic”, wanted to see it “dismantled” (not surprising). The sensationalist headline does not necessarily reflect the truth in the story. I won’t disagree, though, that the IPCC might could use some changes. Change can be good.

    31,000 Scientists disagree with you.

    LMAO!! That’s one of the most widely debunked “petitions” on the net. This is anything BUT a list of 31,000 scientists.

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/01/the_oregon_petition.php

    The paper published in Science magazine yesterday showed the Mt Cook glaciers advanced to their maximum length 6500 years ago, and have been smaller ever since.

    But glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced to their maximum only in the past 700 years – during the Northern Hemisphere’s “Little Ice Age”, which ended about 1860.

    Not due to human activity.

    How do you take an article about a study of glaciers in one small area of the world, which addresses the differences between northern and southern hemisphere glaciers, and claim it supports your argument that glacier retreat is “not due to human activity”? Did their study make that statement? Was that statement in the article? No. Glaciers continue to retreat due to increased warmth, which is mostly due to human activity. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past does not prove that, once human activity is introduced, the same will be true.

    And from the MET office. Data relied on by IPCC and others is flawed.

    lol. Errors are found constantly in science. That’s the beauty of it. There are corrections and more corrections. These corrections don’t mean that the process is flawed. On the contrary, they indicate that the scientists are approaching the truth. If errors are found and then corrected, the data set will be even better. By the way, do you have any idea how significant the error is and how it will affect the IPCC’s findings? THAT’S what I want to hear from you. Don’t just post some blog entry about an error in data, and insinuate that the entire process is flawed and should be scrapped.

    Even the WMO disagrees with you.

    “…we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic signals in past tropical cyclone data.”

    Um. I don’t recall taking a stand on tropical cyclone data. Did I make a statement on that issue here? My argument is about the primary cause of global warming.

    Warming in Alaska over last 50 years is due to PDO shift and not human activities (not many there anyway). Not due to human activity.

    That’s nice. Many areas are dominated by local weather patterns. What I’m concerned about is global warming.

    Care to explain why the cooling following the end of WW2? That lasted for 40 years? Not due to human activity.

    Do you really not know the reason for the cooling we experienced in the 60’s and 70’s? That was due to aerosols.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/

    Many of these were banned around that time, because they also happened to deteriorate the ozone layer. Once they were phased out, warming resumed.

    And yet, it is the scientists now screaming of warming that didn’t find a smidge of it even back to 1989.

    Ha! This report is about warming in the US. Let me quote for you a very important statement from this article:

    Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ”cast doubt” on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth’s surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.

    The US makes up about 1.5% of the earth’s surface.

    Page 6 of the IPCC report shows sea level rising at a steady rate since the beginning of their data in 1870, which again corroborates the notion that glaciers have been retreating since about 1860. Again, not due to human activity.

    First of all, the glacier report you referenced earlier only discussed glaciers in New Zealand and in the Swiss Alps. Don’t generalize about all glaciers. Also, you might want to look at that graph again. You sure that’s a “steady increase” throughout?

    Let’s just assume for a minute that the increase were steady. Does that really prove that human activity has not contributed? The proof for AGW exists primarily in detection and atrribution studies. The information in the IPCC reports about rising sea levels and retreating glaciers is simply to show that the earth is warming. That’s an important distinction to understand.

    0.2C per decade over a century is 2degrees C.

    So you’re assuming no more increases in GHG emissions over the next century (which is the only way a steady increase would occur), and that warming will stop after the century is over? Those are fairly hefty assumptions. Do you have anything to back them up?

  26. Reasic says:

    Back to my argument:

    1. The planet is warming.

    2. The vast majority of warming over the last 50 years has been due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of various greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), of which carbon dioxide has the greatest effect.

    3. Human activity is primarily responsible for the recent increases in greenhouse gases, through the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.

    4. Therefore, the planet is warming largely as a result of human activity.

    Which of these points do you disagree with? Simply state which numbers you disagree with, and why. I really want to sort this out with you.

    Let’s start with #1. Do you agree that the planet is warming?

  27. reasic says:

    Ever try and debate them? They clamp down harder than a colossal clam.

    lol.

  28. captainfish says:

    It is impossible to debate one who refuses to listen to criticism and sees his written word as law of science and nature. Just because you write a thing, does not make a thing true. However, I provided ample evidence that much of your “hypothesis” were incorrect. Or at least, called in to question. Thus, there is no consensus and your version of science is not settled.

    And, like I said before. Nuff said.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5899 access attempts in the last 7 days.