Jon Snow: blah blah blah

You know nothing.

/can't believe I'm the first

numbone: What on earth could be causing this?

[www.answersingenesis.org image 550x288]

Bartleby the Scrivener: [i.imgur.com image 527x259]

Oh yes, I see! Nice picture. But did someone of you ever heard about scale?
Try this, scroll down and note the vertical scrollbar until you hit earth...

...and even a farking huge CME is a small thingie compared to the sun-earth distance

It really isn't warmer. Thermometers are much more accurate these days, and placed to close to hot asphalt parking lots, air conditioner exhausts.

gtfan92: Jon Snow: If you don't know what the terms radiative forcing, energy balance, Milankovitch cycles, teleconnection, or aerosol dimming mean, then you've got a little bit of reading to do before you're going to be able to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

Exhibit A on why this conversation is so hard to have: you've got douchebags like this guy who are ego-maniacal, act like they have all the answers, and then demean people who disagree.

That was demeaning? I'd hate to hear what else makes you clutch your pearls.

Jon Snow: hdhale: All you've told me is that we were coming out a long term cold snap that affected the Earth for several hundred years, the same one that drove the Vikings out of Greenland. Maybe. We could also be preparing to enter another global snap. The longer term trends suggest that the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling that have nothing whatsoever to with humans.

If that's what you took away from what I wrote, then you are (I'm sorry to say) functionally illiterate.

If you don't know what the terms radiative forcing, energy balance, Milankovitch cycles, teleconnection, or aerosol dimming mean, then you've got a little bit of reading to do before you're going to be able to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

Intellectual dismissal is the purest example of stupidity. Someone who understands the topic should be only too glad to explain what they know. Instead you are throwing out talking points and when challenged you're telling others they need to go read things before you can be understood. You know who else acts like this?

Religious nuts.

LSinLV: Jon Snow: LSinLV: records go back to 1895.

so approximately 120 years of statistical data on a planet that is approximately 4 billion years old....so...you base your "trend" of data on a statistical model that represents less than 0.00000000001 % of all possible data.

yeah.....I believe that "Global Warming" is here.

/facepalm

Mearen: Key words being "on record". And just how far back do these "records" go?

I'm curious as to why people think this is a remotely serious counterargument.

It has unquestionably been hotter than present in the climate's history. What does that have to do with the fact that climate wouldn't be warming now without our influence, and that unchecked emissions growth is likely to have significant negative consequences for the society that exists now?

We have billions of people that depend on sea levels and agriculture predicated on a relatively narrow range of variability from the late Holocene. We're changing this at geologically rapid rates. We can stop changing it if we decide to do so.

The fact that it was warmer during previous periods in Earth's history has no more relevance to this problem than the fact that forest fires predate human evolution means none can be started by arson.

because statistics.

no one is arguing that there is a trend currently, and that it is getting hotter.

but trying to base something on such a small data set is statistically wrong, and not accurate in any way.

it's like trying to say that the the US is primarily a Jewish nation, based upon a poll taken in Miami Beach on saturday near a Synagouge.

It's like how Nielsen measures all 300 million Americans that watch TV so they can accurately project a TV audience because if they used smaller, statistically relevant sample sizes their numbers would be horribly inaccurate

Alright, since reading comprehension is apparently lacking among you few, I'll point it out again.

Jon Snow: If you don't know what the terms radiative forcing, energy balance, Milankovitch cycles, teleconnection, or aerosol dimming mean, then you've got a little bit of reading to do before you're going to be able to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

Like, could you be anymore condescending with this statement? You could have easily avoided that last statement, or said something along the lines of "hey, maybe you should check out these journals/studies/graphs, they maybe useful." Essentially, you're coming off as a jerk. Just because you know the different degrees of forcing caused by CO2 and aerosols doesn't mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that you can't have an intelligent discussion without this knowledge.

gtfan92: Like, could you be anymore condescending with this statement? You could have easily avoided that last statement, or said something along the lines of "hey, maybe you should check out these journals/studies/graphs, they maybe useful." Essentially, you're coming off as a jerk. Just because you know the different degrees of forcing caused by CO2 and aerosols doesn't mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that you can't have an intelligent discussion without this knowledge.

More importantly, I find truly smart people are only too glad to explain what they believe they know from first principles. When I find people who are not willing to explain things from first principles, it's usually a big clue that they themselves do not understand it from first principles.

Pinner: Demonrats: I hate winter with a greater passion than anyone can imagine. Every year my fingers get blisters on them that begin to weep from late November until April. This has been the first tolerable year in quite some time due to the very warm winter. I would just like to say, "I LOVE YOU GLOBAL WARMING!!"

Ever thought of relocating so you're not such a miserable douche almost half of your waking hours?

I am an advanced and resourceful being. Why move to Florida type temperatures when I can make them come to me. Does your dog throw the stick and you go and get it? Such is Mango!

JRoo:
So you're perfect and persecuted for it and everybody else should shut up.
Got it.
I don't know why anyone would have a hard time conversing with you.

(I was on a plane once in the past 8 years because my mom bought me a ticket to visit her, I bike most everywhere and have no kids and live as minimally as possible yet I don't feel I'm a better person than those with different lifestyles. I believe systemic change starts with changes in human consciousness and that technological problems have technological solutions.)

Yet when presented with an argument about global warming, you will attack even someone with fundamentally similar views in the most personal manner possible. I don't know how far that goes towards disproving my point that the argument is fundamentally retarded, but it certainly puts an end to the 'discussion'. You win, I guess.

HotIgneous Intruder: TheMysticS: Wow, look at all the new trolls!
Aw, they're so cute when they're brand new.

/stomp them, Jon

Ah yes.
Invoke Jon the Irrefutable!

/Go ahead, prove that this entire argument is just a pointless academic rhetorical exercise.

lol.

I'd like to request a graph.

I'd like to see a before and after of the effect on AGW of: US continues current CO2 output vs US ceases all CO2 output. I'm sure some honest climate scientist has punched go on those awesomely complex models to see what would happen if the US went to the absolute extreme for mother earth.

How about just a 50% decrease to put it in the realm of science fiction? Surely some enterprising climate scientist has done this already.

Jon Snow: Chimperror2: lol. if you go to noaa.org, the press release right under USA record heat is global temp for March coolest since 1999 despite record USA temps. Local. Weather. ENSO. La Nina.

This is not a bad point.

We should absolutely discriminate between local/regional weather and global climate. We should absolutely discriminate between internal variability in the climate system and external drivers. We should absolutely discriminate between interannual variability and multidecadal trends.

ENSO is hugely important regionally and globally as a source of interannual variability. It has essentially no impact on multidecadal trends (provided you're vigilant about not letting start and end periods affect your results). ENSO is a phenomenon that reflects natural variation in the climate system by redistributing heat between the ocean and atmosphere. It does not result in and is not caused by a change in energy in the system.

Increasing the amount of energy in the system by adding GHGs to the atmosphere (or cranking up the sun) will result in an energy imbalance, that will eventually result in a warming to a higher equilibrium on multidecadal timescales. However, there is a delay between the forcing and the full response due to the thermal inertia of the ocean. And the existence of an external forcing does not magically wipe out internal variability- processes like ENSO will still continue to drive temps up and down on interannual timescales, superimposed on the longterm, externally-driven trend.

So with these delayed type of responses, are there predictive models that we will have to wait for, or are still waiting for, to determine what is going on, or have we already run most scenarios to get a clearer picture of what is coming up in the next 20 - 50 years.

dognose4: Fact: the world is cooler than it was in 1998, and the recent trend is in a decline of GLOBAL temperatures.

Wrong. "From 1998" is an insufficiently long period to make claims about trends. You need ~20-30 years of globally-averaged temp data to make climatologically meaningful statements about trends.

The longterm trend remains one of increase.



GISTEMP with the last 100 year vs. last 30 year trends.

But here's "from 1998" anyway, just for giggles.





Fact: The NH sea ice is now near normal over the last 30 years.

Wrong. The longterm trend remains one of decline.

Volume remains near all time lows:

Extent is declining from its seasonal maximum as it does most years:

September ice (i.e. the summer minimum) is not just declining, it's declining at an accelerating rate:

Fact: Global sea ice is now ABOVE the normal over the last 30 years.

The longterm trend remains one of decline.



Choice data points are local fluxes, like US land based temperatures, especially those tied to long term cycles.

I have no idea what you think you are saying here. It's word salad.

James Scameron: jehovahs witness protection: The planet is overpopulated anyway.
knocking off around 6.5 billion humans would be a great improvement.

SOOO MUCH THIS

Please lead by example

ItsThisThreadAgain.jpg

numbone: What on earth could be causing this?

[www.answersingenesis.org image 550x288]

You're right. The sun has never been there before. In fact, it was the distinct lack of a sun that caused the last Ice Age.

gtfan92: Like, could you be anymore condescending with this statement? You could have easily avoided that last statement, or said something along the lines of "hey, maybe you should check out these journals/studies/graphs, they maybe useful."

Big Man On Campus: Intellectual dismissal is the purest example of stupidity. Someone who understands the topic should be only too glad to explain what they know.

Like I've done in dozens, maybe hundreds of threads on Fark?

Big Man On Campus: Instead you are throwing out talking points and when challenged you're telling others they need to go read things before you can be understood.

I wrote something that was relatively straightforward.

He responded with a mishmash of things that were completely irrelevant to what I wrote- beyond irrelevant. Writing them meant that he had to actively ignore what I wrote.

Do you not see the problem here?

If you explained that plate tectonics consisted of X, and we could tell it was happening because of Y, and furthermore Z, and then I wrote back to you saying what I took your information to mean was a hodgepodge of Flat Earth nonsense, you think it's condescending to point out that the person is ignorant?

gtfan92: Essentially, you're coming off as a jerk. Just because you know the different degrees of forcing caused by CO2 and aerosols doesn't mean that everyone else does, nor does it mean that you can't have an intelligent discussion without this knowledge.

I have plenty of intelligent conversations with people on this subject who don't start with a deep background in it.

But they also don't pretend to know what they're talking about, and vomit a stream of talking points at me that they clearly don't understand.

Do you not understand the difference between having a civil conversation with someone and someone taking a crap on your kitchen floor?

thesloppy: JRoo:
So you're perfect and persecuted for it and everybody else should shut up.
Got it.
I don't know why anyone would have a hard time conversing with you.

(I was on a plane once in the past 8 years because my mom bought me a ticket to visit her, I bike most everywhere and have no kids and live as minimally as possible yet I don't feel I'm a better person than those with different lifestyles. I believe systemic change starts with changes in human consciousness and that technological problems have technological solutions.)

Yet when presented with an argument about global warming, you will attack even someone with fundamentally similar views in the most personal manner possible. I don't know how far that goes towards disproving my point that the argument is fundamentally retarded, but it certainly puts an end to the 'discussion'. You win, I guess.


I attacked you? Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "argument" but if you think it's retarded to even discuss things with people who don't agree with you wholeheartedly then thanks for not wasting my time.

gtfan92: Exhibit A on why this conversation is so hard to have: you've got douchebags like this guy who are ego-maniacal, act like they have all the answers, and then demean people who disagree.

Your anti-intellectualism is showing....

Pinner: So with these delayed type of responses, are there predictive models that we will have to wait for, or are still waiting for, to determine what is going on, or have we already run most scenarios to get a clearer picture of what is coming up in the next 20 - 50 years.

The problem with saying "what is coming up in the next 20 - 50 years" is that we don't have any idea what we're going to do in terms of agreeing to reign in greenhouse gas emissions or not.

Much like with ozone depletion, we can use illustrative scenarios (this is what will happen if we do something, this is what will happen if we do it half-assed, this is what will happen if we do nothing).

Does that make sense?

Model projections are available for a number of different potential radiative forcing futures. Which future we decide to actually have is up to us.

We also have paleoclimatic data from times in the recent geological past (and therefore other variables are kept more or less the same) with GHG levels like our own. The mid-Pliocene, for example.

If you're asking purely in terms of model validation, we can hindcast, use out of sample data (e.g. newly available records that extend the instrumental record back), and model paleoclimates and compare them to proxy data.

Jon Snow: numbone: What on earth could be causing this?

[image of the sun]

Bartleby the Scrivener: [i.imgur.com image 527x259]

If only we had some method of observing the behavior of the sun, to see whether or not it's behavior was causing the observed climatic trends. If only we had some way to discriminate between warming caused by increasing solar irradiance vs. enhanced greenhouse warming.

If only those stupid scientists hadn't forgotten about the sun. Man, what idiots!

Co2 is the problem. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. opps bad example, sorry.

- First you have to show the earth is warming
- then you have to show not only is it warming but this is a significant trend w/r/t to the timeline that is the earth's life
- then you have to show that this significant trend is caused in a significant way by human activity, such that detering this human activity will have a positive affect on the desired outcome
- then you have to be able to particularize the negative effects of the warming in relation to the % of it caused by human activity. Saying there will be more droughts and more floods is not particularized. Particularized would be warming will cause vegetation growth in area X to decline by n% and this decline will not be able to be compensated by a increase in growth elsewhere, or the set off b/w the increase and decrease will come at a cost of $Y.
- then you have to justify the costs (protective/prohibitory measures) to the benefits (decreasing the effects of warming).
- depending on the "solution" which depending on which global warming scare monger you talk to could be a ban on burning fossil fuels to simply increasing subsidies to alternative fuels. The costs would have to include not just the $ increase in fuel costs but the affects of this increase cost on every industry in the world.

The debate is retarded bc the warmists keep moving the goalposts on every single one of their arguments and have never give an actual "solution" because 1. they can't particularize the injury and 2. they can't justify the costs. Some act like "proof" of warming justifies any and all of the ideas they have for fixing it, a conclusion in ignorance of epic proportions. Small sample sizes of evidence are not to be used as proof until it agrees with the warming argument. Many suggest every weather event witnessed be it rain, snow, drought, hurricane, tornado, etc is caused by global warming, an argument that 5th grader could see through. In their analysis the warmists refuse to even acknowledge any benefits of global warming, much less take them into consideration through a cost/benefit analysis.

In other words, warmists rationalize the same way fundi-religionists do. Instead of stating a complete hypothesis and then proving it wrong/right, they state a bunch of hypothesis that we are suppose to believe are related and interdependent and then claim that all the evidence supports them regardless of what there predictions were.

Jon Snow: If you explained that plate tectonics consisted of X, and we could tell it was happening because of Y, and furthermore Z, and then I wrote back to you saying what I took your information to mean was a hodgepodge of Flat Earth nonsense, you think it's condescending to point out that the person is ignorant?

If I ask you how you know that it is happening because of Y or what unknowns exist in your appraisal of X, or how no other explanation of Z is allowed, that's worthy of an answer, not a referral to go read up on other terms. To give less than an explanation in such a situation is to call your knowledge of the situation into serious question.

Challenges to your understanding are a normal part of science, not an opportunity to call people stupid.

Ooohh graphs!

Big Man On Campus: If I ask you how you know that it is happening because of Y or what unknowns exist in your appraisal of X, or how no other explanation of Z is allowed, that's worthy of an answer

Except, that's not at all what he did.

To give less than an explanation in such a situation is to call your knowledge of the situation into serious question.

What are you talking about? He didn't ask for an explanation. He completely ignored what I said and used it as a chance to regurgitate a bunch of talking points that had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Challenges to your understanding are a normal part of science, not an opportunity to call people stupid.

I didn't call anyone stupid. I pointed out someone was out of their depth. It's a non-trivial distinction.

You're acting like I called someone a retard for asking a legitimate question. That's not even remotely what took place.

LSinLV: records go back to 1895.

so approximately 120 years of statistical data on a planet that is approximately 4 billion years old....so...you base your "trend" of data on a statistical model that represents less than 0.00000000001 % of all possible data.

yeah.....I believe that "Global Warming" is here.

/facepalm

Good thing you facepalmed there... It's actually 0.00000003%

wearetheworld: If someone could tell me the high/low temp of Des Moines on May 9, 1345 AD, to the hundredth of a degree, I would like to add that to my data. That way we can have accurate data to compare with today's temperature instrumentation. Actually, get me all points on the globe we are measuring today, for the last 1500 years, to the hundredth of a degree. Because that's what we are talking about here. Anyone?

Didn't you read the comment up higher in the thread? They take the temperature by satellite. That makes it valid - the graphs make it indisputable. ;)

On a more serious note? The image that is always posted... Always... What harm can it do if the scientists are wrong? Well, how about irreparable damage to the reputation of science in general which has many untold possible outcomes. How about that there are so many models that someone can reasonably claim, "That's what we predicted!" This only leads to smart people shaking their heads and actually respecting the crazy "profit" with the billboard more than the do "climatologists."

The idea that a consensus is either quantifiable in a meaningful way or is a valid form of evidence is gibberish at best. It is NOT how science works and ruining the name of science for your pet project is an abuse that shouldn't be tolerated. There is no politics in science, unfortunately we have 'scientists' who engage in politics.

What I find damned amusing is that they'll tout tree rings and ice as valid means of measurement for things other than how deep the ice was or how old the tree was. So you have something that is theoretical (at best) being used as evidence to support a theory which is then compiled as data to support the theory of global climate change.

I am not in denial. I believe that the climate is changing and I believe that we have an impact on it. Don't get me wrong, I believe both of those things are true. How about some honesty though? Is that too difficult? I admit that I'm NOT a scientist, I'm not an expert in the field, and that I do wish there was a reset button so that we could do it all again. However, is honesty that difficult?

Science isn't about what you believe. It doesn't matter what you believe. It doesn't matter if you believe in the theory of gravitation - you're still going to have the ball come back down no matter how many times you try throwing it. Science doesn't care and the people bastardizing the name of science are potentially doing more harm to humans than global warming ever will. Just because you wear a lab coat doesn't mean you get to be the new religion, we will not listen unquestioningly. We will not obey, we will not do as we're told by our 'betters,' we will not accept things just because you believe it will be true.

I want a better, cleaner, sustainable life for myself and my children and their heirs beyond that. Before any of that can, or will, happen we're going to need to get down to some basic human principles and start with honesty. Looking for evidence is not how science is done, science is looking AT evidence. All of it... None of it made up. None of it assumed. None of it guessing. If I want predictions I'll call a psychic.

/rant off
//not really directed AT you
/just seemed as good a spot as any to put it

plasticuser: gtfan92: Exhibit A on why this conversation is so hard to have: you've got douchebags like this guy who are ego-maniacal, act like they have all the answers, and then demean people who disagree.

Your anti-intellectualism is showing....

You're adorable.

Jon Snow, maybe being a little less condescending you help in the facilitation of conversations? If you are really speaking with people that don't know what they are talking about, maybe not acting like the superior god of all knowledge would make it easier for you to get your point across.

Hey everyone, welcome to fark!

/mommy! Someone was insufficiently respectful to my lack of knowledge on the internet!

Why do most of the posters in this thread sound like him?

Dusk-You-n-Me: gtfan92: Jon Snow, maybe being a little less condescending you help in the facilitation of conversations? If you are really speaking with people that don't know what they are talking about, maybe not acting like the superior god of all knowledge would make it easier for you to get your point across.

He was more polite than most on Fark. He knows the subject, cites his sources, and patiently converses with those who disagree. Get off your cross.

More than polite than most on Fark isn't exactly something I'd put on my tombstone.

I still stand by my original point; I think this conversation would be a lot simpler if their wasn't a superiority complex that surrounded one's argument. Get off your high-horse.

gtfan92: Jon Snow, maybe being a little less condescending you help in the facilitation of conversations?

I agree it would be, if the goal of the conversation is to exchange information in good faith. Do you understand why the conversation you and "Big Man On Campus" are criticizing me for does not appear to be one of good faith?

If you are really speaking with people that don't know what they are talking about, maybe not acting like the superior god of all knowledge would make it easier for you to get your point across.

I have replied to several different commentors in this thread, and have participated in dozens if not hundreds of threads on this topic on Fark. Please do not attempt to judge my discussion style on the basis of one conversation. I encourage you to reread the exchange, and tell me if you still feel what I said was as bad as you think it is.

lecavalier: I just want people to take the George Carlin approach and quit saying "Save the Planet!"

I say "Pave the Planet!"

scalpod: lecavalier: I just want people to take the George Carlin approach and quit saying "Save the Planet!"

I say "Pave the Planet!"

Or at the very least my backyard. I am so sick of mowing that shiat.

Jon Snow: gtfan92: Jon Snow, maybe being a little less condescending you help in the facilitation of conversations?

I agree it would be, if the goal of the conversation is to exchange information in good faith. Do you understand why the conversation you and "Big Man On Campus" are criticizing me for does not appear to be one of good faith?

If you are really speaking with people that don't know what they are talking about, maybe not acting like the superior god of all knowledge would make it easier for you to get your point across.

I have replied to several different commentors in this thread, and have participated in dozens if not hundreds of threads on this topic on Fark. Please do not attempt to judge my discussion style on the basis of one conversation. I encourage you to reread the exchange, and tell me if you still feel what I said was as bad as you think it is.

I still think it is. Sorry about that? It just seems like the equivalent of telling someone, "Sorry, the adults are talking right now." Just seems a bit rude and distasteful, but alas, my original reply was too.

JRoo:
I attacked you? Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "argument" but if you think it's retarded to even discuss things with people who don't agree with you wholeheartedly then thanks for not wasting my time.

You clearly want to build an argument out of a topic on which we fundamentally agree, and make it as personal as you possibly can. I don't want none. I don't think I'm perfect, and I don't think I'm better than you, and I'm sorry if that was the point that I expressed to you. I am glad you are doing much more than most in terms of personal conservation, and you have my appreciation, whatever little that is worth to you.

Dusk-You-n-Me: gtfan92: I still stand by my original point; I think this conversation would be a lot simpler if their wasn't a superiority complex that surrounded one's argument.

If by superiority complex you mean knows the subject and cites his sources, then yes, Jon Snow is rubbing his superiority in all of our faces. Jesus christ dude.

I get it, you want to be adorable, too. Calm down.

gtfan92: Jon Snow, maybe being a little less condescending you help in the facilitation of conversations? If you are really speaking with people that don't know what they are talking about, maybe not acting like the superior god of all knowledge would make it easier for you to get your point across.

I notice that you're concerned about this, but not by the steady parade of people who know jack and shiat throwing their opinion around as if everyone else is stupid.

I don't wander into hockey threads and start telling people what the players should be doing. This is because I know jack and shiat about hockey, so on the topic of strategy, I don't have an opinion.

In this thread, Jon Snow is regularly citing primary data sources, backing up his claims with evidence, and explaining things in sufficient detail that anyone who gives a crap can either:

1) Follow him.
2) Know where to read up on a topic.

So when some nincompoop wanders in and spews out "Ha! You dummies forgot about the Sun! Look! I am pasting in a badly scaled picture of the Sun and Earth." why should anyone treat that with delicate reverence?

gtfan92: Wait, did you just take the argument that the rest of the world cares about climate change? LOL

Oh. You want to make inaccurate douchebag comments (climate change denialism is a distinctly American phenomenon, and many industrialized countries are way ahead of the US on alternative energy), but other people need to treat your dumb ass in a special way.

Get mad at the idiots, not the people who call idiots idiots. "LOL"

CasperImproved: Jon Snow: numbone: What on earth could be causing this?

[image of the sun]

Bartleby the Scrivener: [i.imgur.com image 527x259]

If only we had some method of observing the behavior of the sun, to see whether or not it's behavior was causing the observed climatic trends. If only we had some way to discriminate between warming caused by increasing solar irradiance vs. enhanced greenhouse warming.

If only those stupid scientists hadn't forgotten about the sun. Man, what idiots!

And if we only had a time machine that could wisk said scientists back a few hundred thousand years to start monitoring the details for trending, they might have more credibility today. Instead, they use data from only the last couple of centuries, and shazam! They have have specific, undeniable knowledge about what the planet will be like in 30 years... I am soooo impressed.

To be fair, you seem awfully certain of your position BASED ON THE EXACT SAME EVIDENCE.

I think the argument isn't that we don't believe in, sure, we have an effect on global warming, and yes there's a carbon footprint, but who the fark cares?

Let's be honest, we're more likely to become Thunderdome or Waterworld based on our politics than we are the earth. And even if it was because of the earth, we'd still find a way to survive it.

Besides, I hate the heat and I have a husky. I'm prepared.

Jon Snow: The continental US != the globe. The fact that the US is experiencing a warm year in and of itself is nothing remarkable.

However, as subby points out (though in an exaggerated manner), this isn't just an isolated year[1].

[i.imgur.com image 500x371]

The US is experiencing demonstrable long term warming, and that warming is consistent with the global trend of warming as well[2].

[i.imgur.com image 640x416]

And obviously, we know what is causing that warming trend- increasing radiative forcing (largely through increasing GHGs) resulting in an energy imbalance, necessitating a warming to a higher equilibrium[3].

[i48.tinypic.com image 500x410]
[i47.tinypic.com image 500x412]
[i50.tinypic.com image 500x558]

[1] Image from NCDC/NOAA, year to date temp anomalies relative to a 1951-1980 baseline.
[2] Temp anomalies for US and globe with a LOWESS smooth.
[3] Huber, M., and R. Knutti (2011): Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance. Nature Geoscience, 5, 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeo1327.

So, those graphs are suggesting that, in order to combat higher temperatures, we need to flood the atmosphere with delicious aerosols?

Joe Blowme: Co2 is the problem.

It's the largest contributor to the present climatic change. It's not the only one, and it's not inherently a problem.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.

This is simply not true. There are numerous time periods in the past that were colder today and colder than the bulk of the Carboniferious and Ordovician. Moreover, neither were episodes of uniform temperature, the Late Ordovician especially was a period of dramatic climatic change.

the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.

There was significantly less solar irradiance during the Ordovician, and a number of other climatically-important variables were different than today.

But most importantly, the Late Ordovician glaciation was caused by a drawdown in CO2[1][2][3][4]. It's hardly the best example someone should be using to claim CO2 doesn't drive climatic change.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today.

There is no such thing as "greenhouse theory". There is only climate dynamics, paleoclimate, etc. And nothing about the Late Ordovician glaciation presents a refutation of climate science or the reality of present anthropogenic warming.

opps bad example, sorry.

This is yet another example of acting in bad faith. Your initial comment was completely disingenuous. You are only talking about the Ordovician because you think it presents a problem for climate science, not because you actually understand what was happening then.

[1]Lenton, T. M., M. Crouch, M. Johnson, N. Pires, and L. Dolan (2012), First plants cooled the Ordovician, Nature Geoscience, 5(2), 86-89, doi:10.1038/ngeo1390.
[2] Saltzman, M. R., and S. A. Young (2005), Long-Lived Glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and Sequence-Stratigraphic Evidence from Western Laurentia, Geology, 33(2), 109-112, doi:10.1130/G21219.1.
[2] Young, S. A., M. R. Saltzman, K. A. Foland, J. S. Linder, and L. R. Kump (2009), A Major Drop in Seawater 87Sr/86Sr During the Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian): Links to Volcanism and Climate?, Geology, 37(10), 951-954, doi:10.1130/G30152A.1.
[4] Young, S. A., M. R. Saltzman, W. I. Ausich, A. Desrochers, and D. Kaljo (2010), Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial-interglacial cycles?, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 296(3-4), 376-388, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.02.033.