Drought?

[jdmidwest]

Sunspots.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Many of you want to ignore the debate about how much influence man is having and how much is a natural event. Man made or not there's been little to show for the efforts that effects the average person. Al Gore becoming a billionaire using the debate doesn't help humanity. Sooner or later, for richer or poorer, the attention is going to have to turn to survival in a warmer environment.

[ness]

I've been trying to stay out of this, but figure what the hay...

Here's the way I understand it. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Recent analyses of temperature trends in the lower and mid- troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analyses reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data (see previous figure), but is larger in the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors in the radiosonde data. Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.

There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.

Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data agree substantially with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations. The records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher altitudes than weather stations, allowing scientists more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.

Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that September Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 2007 at a rate of about -10% +/- 0.3% per decade. Sea ice extent for September for 2007 was by far the lowest on record at 4.28 million square kilometers, eclipsing the previous record low sea ice extent by 23%. Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.

OK, I didn't write that. It's from http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/FAQs.html#faq11 . There's a lot of good info there, and if you think it's propaganda, you're probably a lost cause. Where these and many other conversations go off the rails is when you stake out one extreme or the other and start name calling.

[Wayne SW/MO]

If you take a look at these figures for both global and Mauna Loa CO2 data you don't see the smooth upward swing that many try to point out as proof positive. I see an erratic lift with some decreases that need to be explained if man is the cause. If there is any consistency it is that man's output doesn't waver that much from year to year.

[ness]

YOU'RE WRONG A-HOLE.

[ness]

Sorry, I lost my head.

[Smalliebigs]

we have only been measuring the Polar sea ice for like 25 years......not long enough to know dung or make any legit hypothesis. In the 20's and 30's there was hardly any ice up there and we were able to navigate virtually everywhere up there in ships. There is an eb and flow to the Polar ice cap it grows and shrinks . The Anarctic ice is as deep as it has ever been which is not very long.

My scientist are smarter than yours....or at least the grants they get will make will make them prove what we want them to prove......give me a break!!!!!!

and for some of you to say you wouldn't fish with someone because of what side of the climate change discussion they are on is proof positive in my book you are a tool......man I am so lucky I fish with dudes who talk about their kids becoming potty trained and their families. I'm sooo glad we don't argue about this stupid dung or he won't fish with me because of what side of the political fence I'm on

[ozark trout fisher]

I am more than willing to go fishing and be friendly with people who are on the other side of this debate, and often do...but to say it's not something that will come up is a bit naive I think. The reality is, many of us, including myself, believe that this is something that is effecting our lives now, and will be much more so in the decades to come. And moreover, if you are among the people who believe that climate change has contributed to the nearly nationwide drought, you'll even think it effects your fishing. So yeah, discussions about this are bound to arise, sometimes on the water. Not to say that I'd think about kicking someone out of my boat for it, but after awhile it can become a point of contention. That said, my best friend and the guy I may spend more time fishing with than anyone else is a 100% climate change denier.

[Haris122]

and for some of you to say you wouldn't fish with someone because of what side of the climate change discussion they are on is proof positive in my book you are a tool......man I am so lucky I fish with dudes who talk about their kids becoming potty trained and their families. I'm sooo glad we don't argue about this stupid dung or he won't fish with me because of what side of the political fence I'm on

I agree that shouldn't be something that should matter, but I don't think Jerry would be as mild mannered and helpful of a guy to fish with, once this pops back up (and going by the posts something tells me he'd be the one to bring it up again as well) as he makes it seem to be. Not to mention the whole bit about putting a worm on Tim's hook seems a bit patronizing and probably was intended to be, as if Tim is too inept to do it himself, simply because of his "sciency" responses/background. Of course I'm pretty sure you knew that as well, you just liked to ignore the "tool" that's on your side of the discussion.

[Tim Smith]

and for some of you to say you wouldn't fish with someone because of what side of the climate change discussion they are on is proof positive in my book you are a tool

Actually, I fish with people who disagree with me on this topic all the time. But they're not name callers and they do their best to be accurate. A good debate can be a pleasure, but I'd rather not listen to nonsense when I can help it.

Where these and many other conversations go off the rails is when you stake out one extreme or the other and start name calling.

Extreme positions like...

1. Thinking the entire scientific community has invented all this data and is lying to us?

2. Framing small disagreements in the degree of warming to come as a complete unraveling of a strong scientific consensus?

3. Pointing out single weather events as some kind of evidence that the climate is not changing?

If that's what one side has to work with, they don't have any option but to push the discussion off the rails because it's about to run over them like a 300 foot tall Colorado wildfire..

...or at least that's what us chicken little tools think.