Mt. Shasta glaciers keep growing, despite warming

[Labrat]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice one Captain! Ouch!
Let's see how a little slap of reality in the face feels.

Huh? I don't see how any of this even qualifies as reality. This experiment hasn't played out yet. When all of the data roll in, we will be dead along with our descendents. It might take a thousand years, but geologically that is just a shrug for the earth. I still think that all of this "nay saying" is an excuse to lay back and do nothing.

[mememine69]

Labrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh? I don't see how any of this even qualifies as reality. This experiment hasn't played out yet. When all of the data roll in, we will be dead along with our descendents. It might take a thousand years, but geologically that is just a shrug for the earth. I still think that all of this "nay saying" is an excuse to lay back and do nothing.

The reality is that if we still believe in this aging theory after 25 years of predictions, it is convincingly just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Labrat]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
The reality is that if we still believe in this aging theory after 25 years of predictions, it is convincingly just a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That doesn't make any sense. If we are incapable of causing our own ruination, no prophecy can self fulfill. You may have unknowingly conceded my point.

[mememine69]

Labrat wrote:

<quoted text>
That doesn't make any sense. If we are incapable of causing our own ruination, no prophecy can self fulfill. You may have unknowingly conceded my point.

I’ll play along you arguementive self-fulfilling troll. How much simpler does self-fulfilling have to be demonstrated for you?
This self-fulfilling prophecy predicts everything, as you know, from floods, to droughts, to cold to warm. So it can't go wrong, as in self-fulfilling.

[Labrat]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
I’ll play along you arguementive self-fulfilling troll. How much simpler does self-fulfilling have to be demonstrated for you?
This self-fulfilling prophecy predicts everything, as you know, from floods, to droughts, to cold to warm. So it can't go wrong, as in self-fulfilling.

Name calling always works so well when you run out of stuff to say. Bye.

[mememine69]

Labrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Name calling always works so well when you run out of stuff to say. Bye.

Yes good point. I agree. Sorry.

[Labrat]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes good point. I agree. Sorry.

I was on Mt Whitney (another California 14er)last week, and was amazed how much snow and ice was still on the mountain. On the way up, we went through Death Valley, and at sea level the temperature was 120 degrees. By the time we got to 10,000 feet there were plenty of snowfields to cross. In Colorado, most ice and snow is gone from the mountains by the 4th of July. I don't know what this is exactly, or why I mention it, but at that altitude, all you need is moisture, and you'll have ice and snow. Shasta is close enough to the ocean to get plenty of moisture too, so it seems a simple explanation for the situation there. Anyway, Mt Whitney sent me scurrying back down when I saw wildfires on the next mountain when I was at 13,000 ft.Maybe next year.

[Fun Facts]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm, so you're quoting findings from Steve Mcintyre, a consultant for CGX Energy (an oil and petroleum exploration company)? Funny how these skeptic guys all seem to be connected with oil companies...must just be some crazy coincidence.
Science-wise, the link I posted was already based on the corrected temperatures from NCDC. If you read your own link carefully, you'll find that it was referring to US temperatures. You may be surprised to learn that the world does not consist solely of the USA.
<quoted text>
Right. Of the 8 hottest years on record, the years 2001-2007 were 7 of them. What's the problem?

I agree with Reality Check. But the two of you were looking at different info. The US has not shown any significant global warming. And yes the first half of the century had as many warm days as the second.

This information is critically revelant as it is the most complete record and the record correlates with the known climate systems and solar variability. There is no part of the US record that needs to be "constructed".

World constructed temperatures records are the only place you can see global warming. In this record first "they" determined the average temperature of the world. Not a small feat even if they had had all of the information, but they didn't.

Many places throughout the world did not have temperature records to use. Some had temperature records but because of altitude those records were deemed not revelant. So any place that had a non existent record or a record deemed "not valuable" had a constructed temperature assigned to it.

Then they decided that the average temperature of the world was represented by the 30 year period from 1960 to 1990. What if they had chosen 1860 to 1890? or any other 30 year period, wouldn't their chart look different with every different 30 year period used?

This is how the average temperature of the world was determined. Only by using the constructed value and the anomaly chart can any one show you an increase in global temperatures.

To view temperatures from mechanically recorded sites throughout the world look here:

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen3/ghosts3.h...

Look at the individual charts. Nothing is "constructed" if real temperature were not recorded they are not represented. Some charts are for long periods of time some only 30 years. So don't just look at the first page, find a city near you and look at the temperatures.

[Fun Facts]

As to the NCDC, I look every month. I have a question.

How is it that the northern hemisphere is the "5th warmest June" and the southern hemisphere is the "23rd warmest June" but the globe had the "4th warmest June"?

Isn't the northern hemisphere 1/2 of the globe and the southern hemisphre 1/2 of the globe? Why are they weighting the northern hemisphere?

Why is this only shown in the constructed temperature anomaly chart, which is shown first. And the actual measured satellite information which is at the bottom shows a much different picture?

Why can't anyone decide which year was the warmest? You would think if there really was a warmest year, it would be easy to see.

[mememine69]

Labrat wrote:

<quoted text>
I was on Mt Whitney (another California 14er)last week, and was amazed how much snow and ice was still on the mountain. On the way up, we went through Death Valley, and at sea level the temperature was 120 degrees. By the time we got to 10,000 feet there were plenty of snowfields to cross. In Colorado, most ice and snow is gone from the mountains by the 4th of July. I don't know what this is exactly, or why I mention it, but at that altitude, all you need is moisture, and you'll have ice and snow. Shasta is close enough to the ocean to get plenty of moisture too, so it seems a simple explanation for the situation there. Anyway, Mt Whitney sent me scurrying back down when I saw wildfires on the next mountain when I was at 13,000 ft.Maybe next year.

It’s like when cave men saw their first eclipse, they would sacrifice a goat or a virgin to please the gods. Nothing has changed my friend. We know what an eclipse is, we know what climate is, we know climate is variable but we don’t understand it obviously. Imagine what the world would be like if we really did understand climate?
For anyone to suggest that after billions of years, humans are going to bring mother nature to it’s knees with it’s own elements is cave man thinking all over again.
Humans have always feared and demonized the unknown in the natural world.
I don’t see any crisis, unless we consider how oil affects world peace.
Again I say let’s work together to preserve, not save our environment from a non-existent crisis with ignorance and mass fear.
Climate change is just a contemporary word for weather and history will laugh at the very suggestion that upright monkeys can dictate temperatures of planets.

[Red Ryder]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Except that we are CAUSING this change, and the world's top scientific academies tell us it will result in disaster.
Just because your house may burn down accidentally doesn't mean you should burn it down deliberately.

unless you're burning it down to get the insurance in a scam(think Algore and his "green" company stocks)

[Labrat]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
It’s like when cave men saw their first eclipse, they would sacrifice a goat or a virgin to please the gods. Nothing has changed my friend. We know what an eclipse is, we know what climate is, we know climate is variable but we don’t understand it obviously. Imagine what the world would be like if we really did understand climate?
For anyone to suggest that after billions of years, humans are going to bring mother nature to it’s knees with it’s own elements is cave man thinking all over again.
Humans have always feared and demonized the unknown in the natural world.
I don’t see any crisis, unless we consider how oil affects world peace.
Again I say let’s work together to preserve, not save our environment from a non-existent crisis with ignorance and mass fear.
Climate change is just a contemporary word for weather and history will laugh at the very suggestion that upright monkeys can dictate temperatures of planets.

Good point. I knew that we weren't that far apart.

[Mr Giblets]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Except that we are CAUSING this change, and the world's top scientific academies tell us it will result in disaster.
Just because your house may burn down accidentally doesn't mean you should burn it down deliberately.

so why isn't it getting any hotter now? Does that mean we are cooling it down? You have no proof for this theory. It is just a scam by Gore and some other crooks and payrolled pseudoscientists. One day you may have to account for the damage you are doing to the world economy.

[AstroMike]

Fun Facts wrote:

Why can't anyone decide which year was the warmest? You would think if there really was a warmest year, it would be easy to see.

It's not easy to see because the warmest and second warmest year differ by one one-hundredth of a degree. Quick statistics lesson: the point is not rank order, but trend.

One year that is a statistical outlier is not a big deal, as it can be produced by periodic ocean currents, or in the case of the US in 1934, dust bowl conditions. However, two decades of warm years all in a row is a big deal and suggests a larger trend.

Consider the analogy of the Super Bowl. You probably wouldn't call the Giants "the best team in history" just because they won this year. However, you might do so if they had made it to the Super Bowl the past 20 years running.

Fun Facts wrote:

The US has not shown any significant global warming.

Well, that's just not true:

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/inc...

On the left is world temperature, on the right is the US temperature.

Yes, the US had some warm years in the 30's due to local dust bowl conditions, but global changes are superimposed on this local phenomenon. The trend is still the same - to dumb it down, both the world and the US graph go up and to the right.

Moreover, you're concentrating on the US, which accounts for not quite 2% of the land area of the entire globe. It's like trying to determine if you have pneumonia by examining your pinky finger.

Fun Facts wrote:

There is no part of the US record that needs to be "constructed". World constructed temperatures records are the only place you can see global warming.

Again, your last statement there is simply not true. You seem to be fixated on long-running temperature records for single locales. Fine,(even though it's using the same specious statistical reasoning that invalidates examining just the US temperature record), here's the longest running contiguous temperature record, Central England:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressof...

Yup, recent global warming there, too.

Fun Facts wrote:

Then they decided that the average temperature of the world was represented by the 30 year period from 1960 to 1990. What if they had chosen 1860 to 1890? or any other 30 year period, wouldn't their chart look different with every different 30 year period used?

No, it wouldn't matter. It would only amount to a vertical shift in all the data equally (the equivalent of a DC bias)...the trend would still be exactly the same.

[AstroMike]

Mr Giblets wrote:

<quoted text>so why isn't it getting any hotter now? Does that mean we are cooling it down? You have no proof for this theory. It is just a scam by Gore and some other crooks and payrolled pseudoscientists. One day you may have to account for the damage you are doing to the world economy.

Yes, let's consider the possibilities here:

Hypothesis 1: We know for a fact the world temperature has increased recently, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased recently, too...that much is indisputable. Physics that has been in place since 1824 tells us that CO2 will warm a planet above its equilibrium temperature, and we've seen it occur on other terrestrial planets. Therefore, it seems likely that the current warming trend is caused by increased CO2.

Hypothesis 2: There is a world-wide conspiracy perpetrated by the top climatologists across the globe to steal our tax dollars, have us all drive sh!tty 3-cylinder compact cars, and live backwards anti-technology lives, simply because they hate both us and the science that spawned their miserable jobs.

Now, which one seems more likely?

[Reality Check]

Al Gore claims that CO2 is going to essentially destroy the earth as we know it. He has made $100M preaching this gospel. While his lifestyle is extremely 'carbon rich', he buys 'carbon offsets' so that he can be 'carbon neutral'. But if he really believes that CO2 is the enemy, why stop at neutral? Why not be carbon negative, especially when you have so many resources (aka dollars), with those dollars made in the name of global warming? CO2 stays in the atmosphere for years - should there be no atonement for past sins?

Hypothesis 1: Bygones are bygones, and we should only look to the present and future. The past, and our individual abilities to 'do something' are irrelevant.

Hypothesis 2:'Carbon neutral' is great marketing - it gives an attainable,(dubiously) measurable goal. Carbon negative, well that just won't sell, and the goal here is to sell, not to save the planet. Besides, why should Gore spend $100M on carbon offsets when China is just pumping the air full of CO2? Besides, much more is to be made trading in carbon offsets (via GIM) than buying them.

Which one is more likely?

[Reality Check]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
.... Physics that has been in place since 1824 tells us that CO2 will warm a planet above its equilibrium temperature, and we've seen it occur on other terrestrial planets...

Were physics different before 1824?

We've seen CO2 warm other planets? Do tell.

[Red Ryder]

**Dissecting Al Gore's $5 Trillion Energy Plan**

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/...

In a speech yesterday here in Washington, Al Gore challenged the United States to "produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun, and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable, and transformative." (Well, the goal is at least one of those things.) Gore compared the zero-carbon effort to the Apollo program. And the comparison would be economically apt if, rather than putting a man on the moon—which costs about $100 billion in today's dollars—President Kennedy's goal had been to build a massive lunar colony, complete with a casino where the Rat Pack could perform.

Gore's fantastic—in the truest sense of the word—proposal is almost unfathomably pricey and makes sense only if you think that not doing so almost immediately would result in an uninhabitable planet.

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens recently came out with a plan to generate 20 percent of America's power through wind. His estimate was that it would cost $1 trillion to build that capacity and another $200 billion to update our electrical grid to transmit that energy around the country.

(And what would be the environmental impact of all those windmills dotting the countryside? Or solar panels covering our pristine deserts?)

By my math, using Pickens's numbers, converting the whole economy to renewable energy in a short period of time might cost $5 trillion—and that is if you assume that government-led projects come in on budget.

(Remember, the current U.S. gross domestic product is $12 trillion.) That would be like creating another Japan. Or fighting World War II all over again. The latter analogy is especially apt since the Gore Plan would effectively transform our free-market economy into a command-and-control war economy full of rationing and scarcity. Of course, there are many folks like Gore who view global warming as the moral equivalent of war. But Gore would extend the concept into the economic equivalent of war. Again, all this makes sense if you think we are doomed otherwise.

This isn't the first time Gore has made a proposal with jaw-dropping economic consequences. Environmental economist William Nordhaus ran the numbers on Gore's idea to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus found that while such a plan would indeed reduce the maximum increase in global temperatures to between 1.3 and 1.6 degrees Celsius, it did so "at very high cost" of between $17 trillion and $22 trillion over the long term, as opposed to doing nothing.(Again, just for comparative purposes, the entire global economy is about $50 trillion.)

You know, when she was running for president, Hillary Clinton gave a speech in which she stated that climate change would make a "great organizing principle" for the economy. What Clinton and Gore miss is the opportunity cost of doing something else—anything else—with all that dough.

----------

Will this $5 Trillion plan be paid for before or after Barack’s $13 Trillion Global Poverty plan (S. 2433)?

[AstroMike]

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Were physics different before 1824?
We've seen CO2 warm other planets? Do tell.

Sure...in 1824 it was Joseph Fourier - as in "Fourier Transform" - who first determined that gases in the atmosphere opaque to infrared radiation (then known as "dark heat") could increase the temperature of a planet. It's not that the laws of physics were different, simply that no one knew about the greenhouse effect until then.

As for other planets, take Venus and Mars. They both have atmospheric compositions consisting of approximately 95% CO2. However, Venus' atmosphere is about 100 times thicker than Earth's, and Mars' atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than Earth's.

As a result of the vastly differing amounts of atmosphere, Mars' CO2 warms it about 5 degrees above its equilibrium temperature, while CO2 warms Venus more that 500 degrees above its equilibrium temperature.

[Reality Check]

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
...It's not that the laws of physics were different, simply that no one knew about the greenhouse effect until then...

That's a bit more clear. Thanks.

AstroMike wrote:

<quoted text>
As for other planets, take Venus and Mars. They both have atmospheric compositions consisting of approximately 95% CO2. However, Venus' atmosphere is about 100 times thicker than Earth's, and Mars' atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than Earth's.
As a result of the vastly differing amounts of atmosphere, Mars' CO2 warms it about 5 degrees above its equilibrium temperature, while CO2 warms Venus more that 500 degrees above its equilibrium temperature.

1. You don't think being a whole lot closer to the sun has anything to do with Venus being warmer??
2. If they're both 95% CO2, and one is warmer than the other, then the percentage of CO2 is not a factor, no?
3. You speak of being above equilibrium temperature, but without reference. Under what conditions would the equilibrium temp be lower? Without CO2? With some lower concentration of CO2? What causes the atmosphere to be thicker? How do you model the absence of a substance which makes up 95% of the atmosphere?