So there's no global warmer...err climate change?

[bigfatjerk]

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

The hits just keep on coming for Al Gore.

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://www.filehurricane.com/photos/8102008115329PM_globalwarming.jpg

[mgsooner]

I like pizza.

[sooner59]

What kinda pizza? I love the Boz at Hideaway. The last I had was the Truffle Shuffle at The Wedge. Good stuff.

[pphilfran]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

The hits just keep on coming for Al Gore.

Oh, boy! 140 years of data...a pimple on Rosanne Barr's azz...

[BajaOklahoma]

I think that's the first article I read that didn't slam Dallas/Arlington/Fort Worth for the way they handled the storm.

[Whet]

The new term from our Great Leader is "climate disruption."


From the administration that brought you "man-caused disaster" and "overseas contingency operation," another terminology change is in the pipeline.

The White House wants the public to start using the term "global climate disruption" in place of "global warming" -- fearing the latter term oversimplifies the problem and makes it sound less dangerous than it really is.

White House science adviser John Holdren urged people to start using the phrase during a speech last week in Oslo, echoing a plea he made three years earlier. Holdren said global warming is a "dangerous misnomer" for a problem far more complicated than a rise in temperature.

[Sooner5030]

just another example of OKC>tulsa

[texaspokieokie]

What kinda pizza? I love the Boz at Hideaway. The last I had was the Truffle Shuffle at The Wedge. Good stuff.

i like the "golden hurricane" @ the hideaway.

[Breadburner]

just another example of OKC>tulsa

You are dyslexic.....

[mgsooner]

i like the "golden hurricane" @ the hideaway.

The Sooner Schooner and the Mob Boss are pretty solid too.

[bigfatjerk]

Oh, boy! 140 years of data...a pimple on Rosanne Barr's azz...

It still hurts the theory that the addition of CO2 over the last 100 years makes the climate change. I agree we can't judge any of the climate data we have right now because it's over too little time.

[diverdog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

The hits just keep on coming for Al Gore.

Uh no. This is an op ed piece and one woman's opinion.

For the record I do think the climate is getting warmer but I am not sure of man's involvement in the change.

[soonercruiser]

Welcome back dogman!
http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/DiverDog.jpg

[GrapevineSooner]

Uh no. This is an op ed piece and one woman's opinion.

For the record I do think the climate is getting warmer but I am not sure of man's involvement in the change.

It is an Op-Ed piece.

But it does have this supporting quote from one of the researchers on the project.


As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

[sooner59]

i like the "golden hurricane" @ the hideaway.

That's my 2nd favorite. :D

[bigfatjerk]

Uh no. This is an op ed piece and one woman's opinion.

For the record I do think the climate is getting warmer but I am not sure of man's involvement in the change.

There's a reason I didn't post the entire peice. I posted the part that had the actual fact in it.

"In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.""

How is that an opinion? So 140 years isn't enough for you? Wait isn't that when we basically started using CO2? Actually it wasn't till about the 1900s when we really started using them and it wasn't till the 20s or 30s when cars were in big use all over the world. So if the climate theory is right shouldn't he be saying "So we weren't surprised to see major climate variables changing constantly since 1871"? Or did he just misspeak and say an opinion?

[Ike]

Interesting. I have no idea what their methods of determining volatility are, but I'd be curious to know. I'd also be curious to know exactly what the climate models say those indicies should be.

It's at this point that I throw my criticism of the print media out there. When you cite a study, provide a link. If there is one area that bloggers are killing the print and TV media on, it's this. Its not that hard to do.

Yes, there are reasons not to do so (many journals are behind a paywall for instance), but this is not an unsolvable problem for a big media company. It would help them a lot.

[Jacie]

So 140 years isn't enough for you? Wait isn't that when we basically started using CO2? Actually it wasn't till about the 1900s when we really started using them and it wasn't till the 20s or 30s when cars were in big use all over the world. So if the climate theory is right shouldn't he be saying "So we weren't surprised to see major climate variables changing constantly since 1871"? Or did he just misspeak and say an opinion?

About the CO2, since humans figured out how to make and use fire, they have been using CO2, if by that you mean releasing it into the atmosphere. The value you throw out there, 140 years, corresponds roughly to when people began burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) in earnest, around the 1880's at an ever increasing rate. World population has also exploded during that time period so what has changed is that overall, humans are liberating a lot of CO2 that previously was buried underground. A not insignificant amount of this released CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans but if other lines of research are correct, that process may have reached it's limit.

The thing about it is, while CO2 comprises less than 1% of the atmospheric gasses, it happens to be the one that absorbs solar radiation and converts it into heat. So even a statistically small change represents a lot of heat capacity being added to the atmosphere.

I don't see how anyone can look at the actions of humans now numbering in excess of 6 billion, all of them contributing to the release of CO2, as not having an affect on the atmosphere.

[bigfatjerk]

I think the thing is we've only been around a short amount of time. Too short to really make a difference in anything in the grand scheme of things. I think we have too much of an ego to think we cause things on this planet or in the universe. It won't be long before we hear about how gravity is somehow stronger on earth, because of all the trash we throw away, or something stupid like that. In reality we don't really have that much pull in the grand scheme of things.

[Fraggle145]

I think that its funny that since this set of models supports the prevailing opinion around here they are facts. But when anyone of a differing opinion cites the dozens-hundreds of other models out there that show more increased climate events with increased temps/CO2 etc... those "just models."

Carry on.

[SCOUT]

I think they are both just models. I find it interesting that this type of study keeps coming out regarding a matter that is supposedly settled science.

[Fraggle145]

I think they are both just models. I find it interesting that this type of study keeps coming out regarding a matter that is supposedly settled science.

The things that are settled are that CO2 is definitely higher than at any other time in the existence of humans (likely caused by humans) and that the Temperature is going up.

The thing that I think everyone keeps arguing about is the magnitude of the change, which can only really be modeled since we are essentially trying to predict the future. I think there is some evidence for more extreme weather events and shifts in where precipitation has been falling. Which were predicted in the IPCC report from several years ago.

[Jacie]

I think the thing is we've only been around a short amount of time. Too short to really make a difference in anything in the grand scheme of things. I think we have too much of an ego to think we cause things on this planet or in the universe. It won't be long before we hear about how gravity is somehow stronger on earth, because of all the trash we throw away, or something stupid like that. In reality we don't really have that much pull in the grand scheme of things.

Have yet to hear about any suggestions that humans have changed anything on a universal scale, just planetary scale. Unfortunately, the planet happens to be the only one we know we can live on and if you don't think what we collectively are doing doesn't have an effect, you have been grossly misinformed.

[soonercruiser]

I asked Al Gore the same question.
But, he got "stuck" answering...

http://members.cox.net/franklipsinic/Other/Gore's%20tongue.jpg

[sappstuf]

The things that are settled are that CO2 is definitely higher than at any other time in the existence of humans (likely caused by humans) and that the Temperature is going up.

The thing that I think everyone keeps arguing about is the magnitude of the change, which can only really be modeled since we are essentially trying to predict the future. I think there is some evidence for more extreme weather events and shifts in where precipitation has been falling. Which were predicted in the IPCC report from several years ago.

All because of 0.8 degrees in 140 years? Who knew the earth was so fickle..

How do you classify "extreme weather events" and how would you know how many have happened in the past?

[Fraggle145]

All because of 0.8 degrees in 140 years? Who knew the earth was so fickle..

How do you classify "extreme weather events" and how would you know how many have happened in the past?

0.8 in a 140 years is a gross mischaracterization. When did the increase start and how long has the trend been in the same direction with out going the other way.

BTW please everyone who wants to talk climate change if you have nothing else to add besides "Al Gore suckz0rz!" then just save it we've heard it all before. And climate scientists (and other scientists, and pretty much everyone else) could give two ****s less about him.

[CrimsonJim]

Is it weird that I have a boner right now? :confused:

[sappstuf]

0.8 in a 140 years is a gross mischaracterization. When did the increase start and how long has the trend been in the same direction with out going the other way.

BTW please everyone who wants to talk climate change if you have nothing else to add besides "Al Gore suckz0rz!" then just save it we've heard it all before. And climate scientists (and other scientists, and pretty much everyone else) could give two ****s less about him.

It is not a gross mischaracterization. It is pretty much accepted fact on both sides of the isle in this debate. It is certainly the number that the IPCC came up with in their report.

But to answer your question.. For about 10K years since we came out of the last ice age...

[Fraggle145]

It is not a gross mischaracterization. It is pretty much accepted fact on both sides of the isle in this debate. It is certainly the number that the IPCC came up with in their report.

But to answer your question.. For about 10K years since we came out of the last ice age...

Well then color me stupid. I thought the time period was much quicker and if you look on the graphs from the IPCC report it looks like it really starts ~1910.

Regardless, 0.8 C in 140 years is not insignificant. Compared to thinking about the other 9,860 years that humans have been alive if you want to think about it that way. I'm just saying that happened in just about double the lifetime of an average human being. Whereas previous changes in temperature have taken a lot longer geologically speaking.

[sooner59]

Yeah I was thinking more along the lines of the last century as well.

[Fraggle145]

How do you classify "extreme weather events" and how would you know how many have happened in the past?

I didnt mean to say just extreme weather events, but changes in weather and precipitation would have probably been more accurate.

Feebly attempting to use OK as an example (I am not a climate scientist), I would say Oklahoma on average in the last 20 years has for the most part been on the high side of the precipitation scale (save for the one drought period for two years).

However, we have had more low temperatures and blizzards than we have had in recent history. We've also had more hot days and extended periods without rain.

We were predicted by the IPCC to have increases in our annual runoff and so far I havent seen anything that would make me say that the IPCC is wrong.

[Fraggle145]

Is it weird that I have a boner right now? :confused:

Boners are never weird. Nor should they be ignored. :D

[Aldebaran]

The environment is too big to break.

[Ike]

The environment is too big to break.

Much like the economy...Oh wait.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's not climate change any more, it's called Mike's Nature Trick. Of which much of the IPCC scam is based. Eric

[Aldebaran]

NewsCorp will save us from this insanity!!!

[soonercruiser]

0.8 in a 140 years is a gross mischaracterization. When did the increase start and how long has the trend been in the same direction with out going the other way.

BTW please everyone who wants to talk climate change if you have nothing else to add besides "Al Gore suckz0rz!" then just save it we've heard it all before. And climate scientists (and other scientists, and pretty much everyone else) could give two ****s less about him.

BTW - Please contact Al Gord and have him return the Nobel Prize, the monetary award, and make a public statement of appology for scamming the world!
(Only then will I stop making fun of the idiot! Sorry - It's a free country.)

[pphilfran]

Well then color me stupid. I thought the time period was much quicker and if you look on the graphs from the IPCC report it looks like it really starts ~1910.

Regardless, 0.8 C in 140 years is not insignificant. Compared to thinking about the other 9,860 years that humans have been alive if you want to think about it that way. I'm just saying that happened in just about double the lifetime of an average human being. Whereas previous changes in temperature have taken a lot longer geologically speaking.

I am sure I could go through the data and find extended periods of time where there was a consistent drop in temp...

Overall temps have been climbing for 15k years are thereabouts...

Chart data is from the 'massaged' data that is from Arctic core samples...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/c02tempcorrect.jpg

[pphilfran]

I didnt mean to say just extreme weather events, but changes in weather and precipitation would have probably been more accurate.

Feebly attempting to use OK as an example (I am not a climate scientist), I would say Oklahoma on average in the last 20 years has for the most part been on the high side of the precipitation scale (save for the one drought period for two years).

However, we have had more low temperatures and blizzards than we have had in recent history. We've also had more hot days and extended periods without rain.

We were predicted by the IPCC to have increases in our annual runoff and so far I havent seen anything that would make me say that the IPCC is wrong.

Any further back than about 50 years and we don't have a clue on actual climate extremes...

Prior to sat images there was no easy way to track storm intensity in the oceans...other than the sea captain that rode out a storm and said it was a hell of a storm so it must have been a Cat 5...

We are pizzing in the wind if we think we can glean any useful info from 50 or 100 years of data...

[bigfatjerk]

Overall temps have been climbing for 15k years are thereabouts...


Temps 150k years ago according your chart started getting much warmer than today if your chart is right. Yet man kind was nearly extinct at this time. We were basically down to a few small tribes around this time if I'm not mistaken. I guess we caused that somehow.