------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Paradox

It is as though progress is being thwarted rather than simply contested. I just cannot imagine a system in which able bodied individuals, that are critical thinkers, support such shenanigans, but that is the case. They ease their conscience in some manner...IMO herd mentality is not an excuse for selling out humanity.

Yes, GCR's, THC, THE SUN, Magnetic Fields, Albedo, The Heat Island Effect, Co2, Water Vapor... etc. etc. have an effect on climate. Among about a thousand other factors. Rather than doom oneself to failure and remain forever on the defensive, why not pick a worthy starting point from which to expand on? It's an absolute joke what we have allowed to happen. Strength must be restored to science and this strength will come from purging the system of the global warming powers that be...not by allowing them to slither away into another fraudulent scientific endeavor.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Hi Spot1234,

I don't think I was talking about 'ice-ages' but rather commenting on the paper related to glaciation in the northern hemishere 3MYA. If you are referring to the Theory related to the Panama Isthmus, my take is that it is being more swept under the rug than ignored. It remains an issue that would uproot too many scientists if allowed to mature. The simplicity of the concept makes it a threat. Think about it. We are locked into a predictable cycle stemming from the formation of a land-bridge which cut off the flow of water between the Atlantic and Pacific. This fact has broad-reaching implications for many areas of science. In my opinion it is coming down to money and as a by-the-way, politics. Science has joined the ranks of our corporations...they are a franchise which looks at broadening their scope (as opposed to being mandated to increase profits) as a priority. This is where my comments about this being a dark-age for science come in... however it doesn't apply to all sciences.

The formation of the Panama Isthmus is not the end-all-be-all solution here but it is a fantastic base from which to expand upon. It is as though progress is being thwarted rather than simply contested. I just cannot imagine a system in which able bodied individuals, that are critical thinkers, support such shenanigans, but that is the case. They ease their conscience in some manner...IMO herd mentality is not an excuse for selling out humanity.

Yes, GCR's, THC, THE SUN, Magnetic Fields, Albedo, The Heat Island Effect, Co2, Water Vapor... etc. etc. have an effect on climate. Among about a thousand other factors. Rather than doom oneself to failure and remain forever on the defensive, why not pick a worthy starting point from which to expand on? It's an absolute joke what we have allowed to happen. Strength must be restored to science and this strength will come from purging the system of the global warming powers that be...not by allowing them to slither away into another fraudulent scientific endeavor.

Personally, I just want to see our nations, our media and our scientists focus on propagating the truth. While this is a tall order, I think it is necessary and this is why I speak out. I started out as a global warming activist. The collapsing icebergs, methane cathrates, peat-bogs, etc. etc. were once my call-to-arms. I just wised up because my focus remains on discovery, not ideology, my job or a political agenda. There are many scientists out there searching for truth, I applaud them.

Global warming is toast. It'll be 20-30 years before we warm -- if we're lucky enough to see a warming trend in the next few generations. This is a great opportunity for scientists to position themselves for the future.

This is what I don't get about the whole skeptic argument, I used to take the position that global warming might just be mass psychology gone wrong. And I can see where your coming from. Its the end of the world for atheists, an environmental rapture if you will, except nobody gets uplifted or whatever is supposed to happen to church-going gun-loving patriotic republicans.

But as I looked into it I became more and more convinced that the sceptics arguments are fundamentally flawed. Sure sunspots and cowfarts and the rest need to be taken into account but not at the expense of what is known and understood. The fact that CO2 can effect the climate is not a newfangled idea. it has been known since the 19th centrury and the fact that man is effecting is was pretty much proved in the 1950s with the Keeling curve. When a skeptic brings up sunspots and cowfarts he is not trying to expand knowledge, he is trying to draw attention away from the main factor like a magician using misdirection. Its like a budget, sure paperclips and pencils are a factor in a company's finances, but you ain't going understand whats going on ignoring wages.

Also although skeptics are quick to call their opponents unthinking sheep who don't understand science but they very rarely use scientific sources to back up what they say, and if they do they often fail to understand the source. I have also found that skeptics although on certain points their knowledge is often deep it is not broad at all, often their ignorance of basic highschool science is shocking. When confronted Instead of going away and reading a book they conclude that the reason why so much main stream science contradicts them is due to a vast conspiracy.

Also The most intelligent skeptics argue as lawyers, they know they don't have a case and they aren't interested in what is going on in the natural world they are just out to confuse the issue, This strikes me as dishonest.

[Robert Northup]

Paradox, I give you credit for recognizing something that usually doesn't come up in climate discussion. The last few million years have seen unprecedented low carbon dioxide, compared to any other period that we know of in earth's history. An entirely different metabolic pathway for fixing carbon dioxide during photosynthesis (C-4 metabolism) has been favored, giving the plants who have it a new advantage. This includes corn, sugar cane, and bamboo, among others. The predominant (classic) C-3 methabolism became somewhat of a disadvantage as the carbon dioxide levels dropped so low. C-3 plants lose more than 20% of the carbon/energy they fix to photorespiration, where oxygen is mistakenly taken up by RUBISCO, rather than carbon dioxide. Until a few million years ago, this wasn't as much of a problem because carbon dioxide levels were high enough to way out compete oxygen for the carbon-dioxide-selective RUBISCO. C-4 plants now have a competitive advantage over C-3 plants that didn't have before. However, while our 380 ppm (and rising) CO2 level today may be exceptionally low in the long geologic record, it is about 50% higher now than it had been for 99.99% of the last three million years.

By sealing off the global current, the closing of the Isthmus of Panama made it possible for ice ages to happen. The relatively small circular currents trapped separately in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans could not distribute the heat away from the tropics effectively enough to keep the big freezes from happening when the various long oscillation cycles (axis wobble, etc.) brought the perfect storm together. A new cycle for life on earth had begun. But NOW, we've jacked up the carbon dioxide another 50%. This is irrefutably causing more heat to be trapped near the surface, but it is complicated by tons of other variables, such as our massive alteration of the hydrologic cycle, primarily through activities such as deforestation. None of the old long-term patterns, established over three million years of carbon dioxide concentrations that were only two thirds what they are today, apply in the same predictable way anymore.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

That is name calling X 1000.

No fair.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

Paradox, I give you credit for recognizing something that usually doesn't come up in climate discussion. The last few million years have seen unprecedented low carbon dioxide, compared to any other period that we know of in earth's history. An entirely different metabolic pathway for fixing carbon dioxide during photosynthesis (C-4 metabolism) has been favored, giving the plants who have it a new advantage. This includes corn, sugar cane, and bamboo, among others. The predominant (classic) C-3 methabolism became somewhat of a disadvantage as the carbon dioxide levels dropped so low. C-3 plants lose more than 20% of the carbon/energy they fix to photorespiration, where oxygen is mistakenly taken up by RUBISCO, rather than carbon dioxide. Until a few million years ago, this wasn't as much of a problem because carbon dioxide levels were high enough to way out compete oxygen for the carbon-dioxide-selective RUBISCO. C-4 plants now have a competitive advantage over C-3 plants that didn't have before. However, while our 380 ppm (and rising) CO2 level today may be exceptionally low in the long geologic record, it is about 50% higher now than it had been for 99.99% of the last three million years.

By sealing off the global current, the closing of the Isthmus of Panama made it possible for ice ages to happen. The relatively small circular currents trapped separately in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans could not distribute the heat away from the tropics effectively enough to keep the big freezes from happening when the various long oscillation cycles (axis wobble, etc.) brought the perfect storm together. A new cycle for life on earth had begun. But NOW, we've jacked up the carbon dioxide another 50%. This is irrefutably causing more heat to be trapped near the surface, but it is complicated by tons of other variables, such as our massive alteration of the hydrologic cycle, primarily through activities such as deforestation. None of the old long-term patterns, established over three million years of carbon dioxide concentrations that were only two thirds what they are today, apply in the same predictable way anymore.

Hi Robert,

Thank you. I think we got off on the wrong foot. Your comments give rise to the question of whether or not C02 is that bad after all. Given the unfolding data which suggests we are cooling while C02 is rising, one must postulate the question of whether or not C02 is a 'primary' driver of heat after all. Your studies related to plant-life and it's adaptation to Earth-Changes is fascinating. Are c-3 plants responding favorably to the increase in C02 (whether anthropogenic or otherwise)? Another question I have is whether or not (especially in your line of study) C02 increases could have a net benefit. I know these are hard questions to answer given the current climate (pun intended).

I also agree with your assessment. The Panama Isthmus was irrefutably (IMO) responsible for our current glacial/interglacial cycle AND it is difficult to ascertain an outcome based on C02 increases alone, and the other factors involved cover such a wide spectrum that we need much more research/data/understanding before any policy would be worth the paper it is written on... and I am not trying to put words in your mouth. My interpretation of your comments may be off (and some of my biased inferred in my responses).

This discussion (as a whole) is outside of your realm of expertise but I welcome your input, and even better, your professional opinions.

Best regards,

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by spot1234

This is what I don't get about the whole skeptic argument, I used to take the position that global warming might just be mass psychology gone wrong. And I can see where your coming from. Its the end of the world for atheists, an environmental rapture if you will, except nobody gets uplifted or whatever is supposed to happen to church-going gun-loving patriotic republicans.

Hi Spot1234,

Well, I am more of a follower of quantum-physics and metaphysics related to spirituality (based on scientific study) and do not relate to bible-beating-conservatives except in respect to constitutional constraints over corrupt and ambitious governments. Most people here realize I do not fall into the stereotypical 'skeptic' category...that is assuming you are directing your post to me.

But as I looked into it I became more and more convinced that the sceptics arguments are fundamentally flawed. Sure sunspots and cowfarts and the rest need to be taken into account but not at the expense of what is known and understood. The fact that CO2 can effect the climate is not a newfangled idea. it has been known since the 19th centrury and the fact that man is effecting is was pretty much proved in the 1950s with the Keeling curve. When a skeptic brings up sunspots and cowfarts he is not trying to expand knowledge, he is trying to draw attention away from the main factor like a magician using misdirection. Its like a budget, sure paperclips and pencils are a factor in a company's finances, but you ain't going understand whats going on ignoring wages.

I completely disagree with you here. Coupling Solar Activity with 'Cowfarts' for illustration purposed is not the same as listing forcing which are important and not fully understood such as: Solar Activity, Galactic Cosmic Rays, Thermal-Haline Circulation, The Panama Isthmus, Albedo, Anthropogenic C02, Natural C02, Water Vapor, Aerosals, Volcanism, Magnetic Field fluctuation, Tidal fluctuations due to planetary orbits... get the picture yet or shall I continue.

Also although skeptics are quick to call their opponents unthinking sheep who don't understand science but they very rarely use scientific sources to back up what they say, and if they do they often fail to understand the source. I have also found that skeptics although on certain points their knowledge is often deep it is not broad at all, often their ignorance of basic highschool science is shocking. When confronted Instead of going away and reading a book they conclude that the reason why so much main stream science contradicts them is due to a vast conspiracy.

My experience is that 'name calling' and marginalization via brute intellectual force has been an unsavory yet very successful (to date) practice of Global Warming pundits. So-called skeptics are not at the helm driving this ship by any stretch -- other than they are supported by a lack of belief in the GW theory. There is still a tremendous amount of unwinding to happen related to the status-quo. Those in power and whom have devoted their careers to this failing endeavor are not throwing in the towel without a fight...they know that nature may deal them a trump card...but I seriously doubt it... and I am sure they do at this point as well.

Also The most intelligent skeptics argue as lawyers, they know they don't have a case and they aren't interested in what is going on in the natural world they are just out to confuse the issue, This strikes me as dishonest.

To imply skeptic do not have a case is to admit a complete disconnect from the battle that is being waged related to this subject. The reason we are not shelling out pennies each time we fart is because the GW science is not convincing. <--period Furthermore, there are extensive studies currently underway which will further call the theory into question and will most likely result in a complete re-write of the current climate-change book. I'm shooting you straight, skeptics are not the enemy and they are not all oil-backed dupes either. In my case, I am an alarmist while at the same time being seen as a skeptic, hence the tagline Paradox. I believe we are headed for sever and potentially cataclysmic disaster, and soon. Smell some roses...

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

...Sensitivity analysis is performed on the imperfectly known parameters, which provides a range of possible climate sensitivity estimates - and so it is known that imperfections in the models are not an excessive source of error in this calculation.

Thanks for the clarification... Do you actually see a reassuring answer in your post? We, uhhh .. estimate based on imperfect parameters and uhhhh come up with some estimates -- so we know, uhhhh that ummmm imperfections are not excessive. YEAH !! That's it -- put that on the blog for people to use.

[Robert Northup]

Originally Posted by Paradox

Wow, a REAL SCIENTIST -- HURRAY!!! What a privilege!

Oh, sir, we wouldn't expect you to 'play' on the internet. No No NO. You are much too important for such things. Just like Hansen who refused to 'spar with jesters' just before having the greatest disgrace of his career exposed by an (Ah-hem) non-scientist - and adjusted by NASA accordingly. Bow out with grace, not like a pretentious elitist reprobate. Discussion is what we need to right things. You provided nothing more than the same drivel that has gotten us nowhere... good riddance.

While there is indeed fierce debate among geologists about the Panama Isthmus closing (or not), there is NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER among climatologists about whether or not its getting warmer. If Oleg ("top Russian scientist") is all you have, you've got nothing. If you truly believe that scientists are "jumping ship" from global warming, or that there is anything that can even be construed as "evidence", let alone "overwhelming evidence" of cooling, you are simply delusional. Tell the coral reefs that its getting cooler, they will be relieved to know they aren't really dying.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

While there is indeed fierce debate among geologists about the Panama Isthmus closing (or not), there is NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER among climatologists about whether or not its getting warmer. If Oleg ("top Russian scientist") is all you have, you've got nothing. If you truly believe that scientists are "jumping ship" from global warming, or that there is anything that can even be construed as "evidence", let alone "overwhelming evidence" of cooling, you are simply delusional. Tell the coral reefs that its getting cooler, they will be relieved to know they aren't really dying.

Hi Robert,

Fair enough, maybe you could help me understand the following then:

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

or

January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months

January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.

January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.

Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics - 3 of four show a flat trendline.

Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:

[Paradox]

or

A look at temperature anomalies for all 4 global metrics: Part 1





and of course smoothed for BW