Is this what Warmists mean when they yammer on about the dangers of “climate change”
(Accuweather) The next blast of brutal cold will grip most of the eastern two-thirds of the United States early this week and could yield the lowest temperatures so far this winter in many communities.
While harsh cold is returning to the Midwest and Northeast this weekend, it will pale in comparison to what will follow for Monday through Wednesday.
The impending polar plunge will rival the frigid days from earlier this January for the coldest daytime highs and nighttime lows so far this winter. This does not include South Florida.
The arctic air first plunged into the Upper Midwest, northern Plains and northern Rockies on Sunday and is expected to continue pressing to the south and east through Tuesday.
There is a big concern about frozen pipes, outdoor pets and livestock, and frostbite. And there will be plenty of snow in places
While Detroit already set a January snow record, the clipper may cause other Midwestern cities to follow suit. Once the cold takes up residence, the lake-effect snow machine will be cranked up across the Great Lakes.
Wasn’t snow supposed to be a thing of the past? Chicago has seen its snowiest January on record, and more snow than normal for winter. Indianapolis is looking at the same boat, as are many, many Midwest towns and states.
Here in Raleigh, it is supposed to be 29 on Tuesday. If so, it will only be the 4th time since 1950 where January had 4 days of sub 30F highs. Of course, the Warmists will trot out the talking points about greenhouse gases “causing more extremes. Hotter in the summer and colder in the winter”. Which only makes sense once we realize this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. Oh, and that Warmists are non-thinking anti-science fools who’ll buy any-old snake oil.
Pirate,
You should view these cold snaps as a scientist would: as another piece of data that makes up the whole. Thermometers are non-partisan and record both cold and hot temperatures. Cold days over 1% of the Earth’s surface do not trump the temperature recorded over the rest of the Earth, the rest of the year. You wouldn’t understand, it’s a science thing.
Remember, weather is not the same as climate.
Simply, the Earth continues to warm rapidly from the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from man’s adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The important debate is what to do about it, and when.
But I recognize your tactic of wanting to divert attention from the facts.
The earth has warmed in the past 4billion years without CO2, what would make you think now is any different? Proof, please. And again, define “rapidly warming.” If you can’t define it, you can’t say it’s happening. Do rapidly warming periods have 15 or so years where there’s no warming? That’s a funny kind of “rapidly warming”.
J, you should view heatwaves and tornados as another piece of data that makes up the whole. Thermometers are non-partisan and record both cold and hot temperatures. HOT days over 1% of the Earth’s surface do not trump the temperature recorded over the rest of the Earth, the rest of the year. You wouldn’t understand, it’s a science thing.
Hmmm, but I do recall reading that thermometers, while recording actual temperature measurements, are either 1) located in extra hot locations, or 2) adjusted so as to fit the current political meme.
BTW, are we now going to start seeing cold alarmism from the media? So far, this cold front is nothing compared to what hit US last week.
“danger from frozen pipes” ???? really? As if they weren’t in danger since December?
From what I’ve read on their website, Accuweather is getting as nearly wacko as Weather.com is.
jl,
What makes you think the Earth warmed without CO2 previously? In any event, what does that have to do with now? The Earth’s climate warms and cools significantly by physical causes, not by magic. The current rapid warming is being caused by the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You know, and I know, that there is no proof that would satisfy you, so why do you ask? Humor us: To you, what would constitute proof that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?
Why do deniers keep repeating that the Earth hasn’t warmed for 15 (or 17) years? It’s not true.
Gumballs,
Are you really denying that the Earth is warming? You still deny the temperature record? Even the Pirate and Anthony Watts concede the temperature record.
Noted former skeptic Professor Richard Muller conclusively demonstrated that the Earth is warming constructing his BEST database at Berkeley.
Only the most backward of flat-Earthers would contend that the Earth has not warmed significantly.
J-“what makes you think the earth warmed previously without Co2?” Really? Because it did. “What does that have to do with now?” Because what warmed it then is warming it now. Rather, the question you haven’t answered, is again: what makes you think (hint:evidence)what warmed it before (for 4 billion years on and off)isn’t doing it now?
J, neither Teach nor Watts claim a continued warming. Nor do I deny that the earth is warming. I deny a continued warming. Especially over the last 17 years. The fact that you can’t, STILL CAN”T, accept science fact is proof enough of your cult beliefs.
Richard Muller was never a skeptic and his dataset has been shown to be flawed, corrupted and biased.
And, yes, the earth has warmed significantly since the last ice age. It has also warmed quite a bit since the little ice age period. Neither occurred due to man.
If the Earth can warm and cool without man, and man has only a very pico-effect upon a pico-trace gas in our vast expansive recycling atmosphere, then our current temps are not significantly impacted by our actions today.
I think it is time for you to recognize that science is based upon facts and our world and lives are based upon facts. Until you do, you will forever live in the dark cult of man.
jl,
So magic causes the Earth’s climate to change? Thanks for clearing that up.
Gumballs,
Just because the climate changed before without man, it doesn’t logically follow that man can have no impact on climate. That logical flaw is called a non sequitur.
Yet you are basing your religion that since man is around now, that as the climate is warming since the little ice age, that man must be responsible.
That logical flaw is called a non sequitur.
Gumballs,
You are mistaken about what climate scientists claim.
Man is not directly causing the Earth to warm – but rather it’s the CO2 emissions from man’s burning of fossil fuels. CO2 absorbs infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth, reducing the re-radiation from the Earth back into space, hence, warming.
So, even if the increased CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) came from natural sources, the Earth would be warming as now. If you could prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from a source other than burning fossil fuels, you could absolutely and completely falsify the theory of AGW!
It’s not religion or magic, just science.
Jeff,
You still have not answered the two questions that I consider critical to your concepts of CO2 causing global warming. Answer the questions or don’t comment about trash.
Wait, you want me to prove that CO2 comes from some place other than man???????
J, you’ve really gone off the deep end.
We are at the lowest point in earth’s history of CO2 levels. And yet you want me to prove that man is the sole reason for CO2?
J- “So magic caused the earth’s climate to change?” Who ever said that? Try a reading comprehension class, J. It will do you some good. And still waiting for the definition of “rapidly warming”. I think it will take some magic for you to answer the question.
david,
I’ve answered your silly questions. I do not care what you consider critical.
I will stop commenting when I decide or when the Pirate bans me.
Just remember this: The Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.
What you prefer to discuss is trash.
Just because only you and your ignorant cult followers are saying it, does not make it true.
In the real world, we follow observable facts. We understand science and numbers are hard for you, as well as women’s rights, but you could at least try and look at the pictures.
Gumballs,
We are clearly NOT at the lowest point in Earth’s history regarding CO2 levels. It’s currently at 400 ppm and was only 200 ppm 20,000 years ago. CO2 is at its HIGHEST for at least 500,000 years.
I did not ask you to prove that man was the sole cause of atmospheric CO2. I asked you to prove that the INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 (from 280 ppm to 400 ppm) was from natural causes, i.e., not from man’s burning of fossil fuels. If you prove that, you have falsified the theory of AGW.
Get to work!
Again, you want to only look at 500K years ago. Why stop there J? Why not go back further? Why not go back to a time when CO2 was upwards of 7,000ppm? Times when animal and plant life flourished. but, that would mean having to think hard. And that is tough for you.
And comparing our current measly 395ppm CO2 to 7,000ppm does make us at the lowest in history. a small rise of 100ppm is nothing NOTHING to cry or run and hide in caves about. But yet, your cult is insistent that man should.
And, can you prove that the increase of 100ppm CO2 is NOT due to natural sources?
Our side has evidence and papers that suggest man’s input is only at most 3% of the CO2 emitted. Mind you, that is 3% of a 0.04% mix of our atmosphere. So, please tell me why any child like yourself should worry about a 3% of 0.04% amount?
We’re waiting on you to prove that the science is wrong first.
ignorant_gumballs,
I typed: The Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.
What makes it true is the overwhelming evidence.
What observable facts, science and numbers do you have to falsify the theory?
Falsify any of these steps and you have beaten the theory of AGW.
Man is burning megatons of fossil fuels. True!
Fossil fuel derived CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. True!
Fossil fuel derived CO2 is accumulating in the oceans lowering the pH. True, true and true!
CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and does not reflect solar rays. True and true!
The upper atmosphere is cooling because CO2 is trapping heat. True!
The Earth is warming. True!
There is solid evidence to the contrary. False!
There is a sound alternate hypothesis. False!
Gumballs,
Yes, it has been proven that the added CO2 is from fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil.
Your “side” is wrong. Please cite your “evidence and papers” showing that man’s input is 3% of CO2 emitted, and I’ll explain why they’re wrong. I suspect you have been misled. And aren’t we all on the same “side”, the side of truth?
You ask why we should worry about CO2 added to atmosphere? Because it causes warming as has been explained time and again. Human civilizations developed and thrived over the past 10,000 yrs or so in a fairly narrow climate window. We are blasting past that narrow climate window on the high side.
Human civilization has not existed except with the atmospheric CO2 near 280 ppm (until the past 100 years when it jumped to 400 ppm by our burning of fossil fuels). There is no doubt that the Earth does well with atmospheric CO2 of 7000 ppm, but it is a different planet than the one where human civilizations developed. And that’s my point. Even at 400 ppm we see changes in our climate that impacts humans. On our current emissions path we will see further changes that will change human life, sea level rise, some extinctions, melting glaciers, climate refugees, changing growing seasons, changes in sealife, changes in weather patterns. Yes, humans, plants and animals will adjust, but it will not be easy. It’s incredibly selfish for climate scientists to worry most about their own species but we humans are like that.
Your concerns about the climate tens of millions of years ago are laudable but is not relevant to the impact of the current rapid warming period on human civilizations.
jl,
As I have typed on more than one occasion: An increase in the global mean surface temperature of 0.1C/decade sustained for a hundred years satisfies my definition. Live with it.
To the science deniers:
You know, and I know, that there is no proof that would satisfy you, so why do you ask? Humor us: To you, what would constitute proof that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?
The correct spelling of that is “caused”, not causing.
this refers to the fact that almost all of the warming that CO2 can absorb from the sun’s rays and re-radiate back to our atmosphere as heat has already occurred and is at maximum levels.
Adding more CO2 won’t increase the amount of heat radiated to the atmosphere. It is at saturation.
The proof is that science has shown this to be true. Not your cult’s man-centric beliefs.
Again though, I have to ask why y’all refer to yourselves as “we”? Is it your multiple personalities?
regarding comment:
Comment by Jeffery
2014-01-28 12:07:01
oh sweet jesus.
this cult is a mental disorder. j proves it. 
Jeff,
Your statements are without foundation. You have not answered the basic question of what the concentration of carbonic acid is in the oceans, its comparison to other acids and its progression in accumulation. You have only given speculation. Then, you have not answered the mechanism where by CO2 gets to the upper atmosphere. So, you have no science.
J-“0.1C/decade for a hundred years satisfies my definition.” And who are you to make the definition? Wouldn’t that come from one of the high priests like Mann or Hansen? Anyway, I knew you’d make a stupid comment like you did-big surprise. The detailed temperatures you’re talking about have only been recorded for about 130 years. So when you and the astrologers say 0.1C/decade for a hundred years, and that that is “rapid”, what are you comparing it to? The records of those kind are only for 130 years. You’re saying something is rapid when you have no data for other 100 year periods to compare it to. And there’s 40 million other 100 year periods. I knew you were incapable of simple logic-I just didn’t know you were this bad.
Gumballs, jl, david et al,
I realize that science is difficult and you prefer to wallow in your aphorisms and name-calling.
Gumballs: I’ve asked for citations is support of the wackadoodle pseudoscience you spout and you refuse. Why?
david: You may as well be a child-molester as far as I’m concerned. I have no respect for your anti-American, racist and hateful positions and concerns. Please go back to StormFront.
jl: You are wrong on almost everything. As has been pointed out, one can “dope” the databases with significant, false 100 year warming periods and they are detectable. Hence, it is very unlikely that the Earth has warmed 1C in a century before. I didn’t claim that anyone else agreed with my definition of rapid – I claimed it satisfied my definition. Which is what you asked. If the Earth has had 1C excursions over 100 yr periods in the past, it does not show up in the proxies. Does it seem reasonable to you that these excursions in temperature and CO2 would ALWAYS occur BETWEEN the samplings???
It is possible that the Earth rapidly warms 1C every 100 yrs and cools 1C the next 100 yrs, but there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim. Do you have a scientific citation to support your claim?
CO2 accounts for 3-4% of total atmospheric gaseous content:
Monte Heib, “Global Warming: A Closer
Look at the Numbers,†Plant Fossils of West Virginia (Web
site), January 10, 2003, table 3; available at http://www.geocraft.
com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. Also see Steven Milloy,
“Coconuts in Wyoming?†FOXNews.com, June 17, 2004.
Available at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.
html
Human contribution @3-4% of total CO2. That is lately, it was much less early on.
“Atmosphere: Components and Characteristics of the
Earth’s Atmosphere,†Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2007, published on Factmonster.com. Available at http://www.
factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0856758.html
That’s ok, we are only now worried about a fraction of a degree warming. So killing our economy for a fraction of a degree of cooling maybe in 40 years will mean a heck of a lot.
Jeffery,
I am curious……
Jl wrote addressed you and said:
You responded with:
An increase in the global mean surface temperature of 0.1C/decade sustained for a hundred years satisfies my definition.
Jl picks up on the obvious and notes that all you have done is say what YOU think. Yet you are trying to convince people that the earth is rapidly warming (as you have said on many times) and that is the “scientific consensus.”
So the question has to be, are you making up definitions to fit your beliefs? Or are you making statements that are outside of scientific definitions?
True. But, the thing is, the argument is not about warming, but the causation. You claim it is solely caused by Mankind, skeptics like myself contend it is mostly natural. Some will claim it is solely natural. Regardless, the very fact that so few Warmists, including you, Jeff, refuse to take the simple steps you advocate for Everyone Else should highlight that this is not about science, but politics.
J- As I suspected, you can’t prove that there were not other 100 year periods with similar temperature swings, because we don’t have the same kind of data, contrary to your BS about “proxies”. Nice try, though. Tell me, though, what the proxies say about temp swings, say, 3 billion years ago. What, you mean you don’t have that data? So we’re still stuck with Jeff proclaiming “100 years of rapid warming” and he still can’t answer the very logical question “rapid compared to what?”
gitar,
He asked for my definition of rapid warming and I neither hemmed nor hawed and I gave it. His goal, of course, was to play some sort of gotcha to change the subject, as is common for those losing an argument. I suspect most climate scientists would agree with me calling this episode “rapid warming”. Please ask them. I know of no evidence that supports previous warming episodes similar to this one.
Pirate,
That my behavior you fantasize about, or that of anyone else for that matter, does not satisfy your peculiar standard is irrelevant to the argument. But of course, that is your objective – to distract others.
You must not read your own posts or your loyal commenters if you think the argument here is about causation. The evidence that fossil fuel-derived CO2 is causing the Earth to warm for the past century is overwhelming. The evidence that the warming is “natural” is scant.
Please present your evidence that the current warming is “natural”. Most evidence points the other way.
No jl, you see, it is rapid because it went up. The temperature went up from this point, to this point over about 100 years or so, based upon some idea he had. So, that’s rapid. Now, when you compare the time period for satellite based data, that starts at one point and goes to another point that is also a bit higher. That is rapid warming as well. Because it’s higher than before.
And, since we can’t compare the past to present, that means what is now, is not like the past. So, even 100 years ago can’t be compared to now. Nor 20 years ago. Cuz, that’s the past, right?
But, because I only stop at 500,000 years, then I don’t to pay attention to those pesky longer term proxies that people (some people, but I don’t call them real scientists) just agreed that they were relevant to something. But the 500,000 year proxies are golden. Swearsies!!!
So, now all of the warming of Earth is due to “fossil fuel-derived CO2? And very little of the warming from the 97% naturally created CO2 does not warm the planet?
So, the warming knows which source of CO2 to attach to?
Warming likes man-produced CO2 better?
jl,
You’re right for once, I don’t know what happened 3 billion years ago. But why do you ask?
Why do you pursue this line of inquiry at all, except to change the subject. Even if you could prove previous rapid temperature excursions (you can’t), it would be irrelevant to the current rapid rise in temperature. Again, what is causing the Earth to warm now, magic? God? Allah? Mother Nature? Unknown space rays?
You prefer to argue the minutiae of semantics rather than address issues.
And thus you’ve again agreed on the crux of the matter. You nor anyone can reliably know what happened many eons ago. We do have some proxy data but it is only as a reference not a standard.
Thus, your blind insistence that our current warming since we came out of the Last Ice Age, and the last Little Ice Age, is “rapid” is without a comparator. You have nothing to compare it to. You have no idea (based on the statement above) to know if our last few centuries of warming is rapid or normal. Or if it is even below normal rate.
However, you have been shown how the most recent “trends” in warming compared the recent past’s warming. Is our warming in the 80’s similar to the warming in the 30’s? Yes. Therefore, our latest output of CO2 has no impact upon the rate of warming when compared to a time when there was little CO2 due to man (30’s) being produced.
It is called natural cycles. You really should study some. Read up on what scientists and lay-people call “Ice Ages” and “warm periods”. You will find that our planet cycles from unbearably cold periods to relatively warm periods off and on over the eons. Meaning, after a warm period, there follows a cold period and then a period where much of the planet is covered in ice. Then there is a warming period to where much of the ice melts away. Then the cycle repeats.
The fact that you are incapable of realizing and accepting that the world changes on its own is ignorance and now malice upon your part. You’ve been told this time and time again yet you refuse to “get you some knowledge”.
Your attempts to obfuscate and belittle people who have a differing theory on hard to explain processes shows your weakness of character. Your insistence that since man is alive now, that we are responsible for a changing climate and that man, and only man, can change the climate back to some point in time that you decide upon is insane hubris.