Your drive-by posting habits really show your character. You show up long enough to spread misinformation but not long enough to address the dozens of questions raised by members about the validity your posts. Regardless, I do enjoy steamrolling your posts to the point you cannot even begin to acknowledge it.
The only interesting part is you're peddling abnormal weather as a 'recovery'.
Further flawed, the website you quote believes we're heading to an ice age. The 'coming' ice age scare was scientific conjecture in the 1970's. The majority of scientists supported global warming then as they do now. Source.
If the 'ice age' scare was conjecture 43 years ago, I'd hate to think of what it is today.
The 2000's are warmer than the 1990's. The 1990's warmer than the 1980's. The 1980's warmer than the 1970's. Source.
Some ice age we're having.
The only reason climate change denier's are peddling an ice age is due to Michael Mann. When Mann spliced thermometer records onto his temperature reconstruction that took an obviously wrong turn downward- the ice age myth was born. For the criticism of Mann's conclusions to hold any water temperatures would actually have to be cooling. But we know they're not due to thermometer records. The thermometer records are more reliable than the proxy records. What the climate denial peddlers have done is convinced people that the thermometer records are wrong and Mann's graph without spliced thermometer records is actually correct.
Normally in a scientific environment you don't use less reliable data to attack reliable data. But this isn't a scientific environment, it's politics so any half baked nonsense works.
There's some unusual weather happening this summer in the Arctic. It's the long term trend we care about, not weather events: "Following rapid ice loss in the first half of July, the pace of seasonal ice retreat slowed the rest of the month partly due to the return of a stormy weather pattern over the central Arctic Ocean." Source.
The long term trend still clearly shows ice is being lost at a rate greater than the 30 year average. Despite cold temps in the Arctic, this year is still 1.25 million square kilometers below the 1981-2010 average. The Arctic is still melting away.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You can see that it is not quite back to 2010 levels, but it is in recovery.
No, it's not. It would be in recovery if ice was ABOVE the 30 year average. Despite a really cold Arctic summer the ice still didn't even climb above the 30 year average. It's still BELOW the 30 year average which means ice is still melting.
If you're looking to compare specific years, go back 10 years and a clear pattern emerges. There's less and less ice. Source.
How many times can climate denier's cry wolf over about a supposed Arctic 'recovery'? The climate change denier's did this last year too and got egg all over their face. 2012 ended up being the lowest melt season on record. This year it looks like cold weather came to their rescue and they're happily spreading misinformation with it.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: A couple of newly published papers could support the possibility that PDO/AMO drive climate...
That's not a scientific paper. It's an opinion report that was prepared for the Heartland Institute.
This report is so politically biased that on the front page of the report it attacks the climate science community: "HOW COULD THE WARMERS BE SO NAÏVE AS TO BELIEVE THAT CHANGES IN CO2 ARE THE DOMINANT CLIMATE FORCING MECHANISM?"
We have empirical evidence that clearly shows C02 is the dominate trace greenhouse gas warming our very thin atmosphere: Source. Note the calculations are with 360ppm CO2 levels, not the current 400ppm. Also note CO2 is way above methane (CH4)
C02 is higher than any time in the last 800,000 years: Source.
We know it's 'our' CO2 because it has a unique fingerprint called an isotope. Source.
The most rapid temperature change in the last 65,000,000 years was 6*C over 20,000 years during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Source.
We've warmed almost a full 1*C in the last 50 years (compare that to the 6*C/20,000 years above) Source.
The current rate of warming is completely unprecedented and racing out of control when considering geological time scales. Yet fierobear's cited report has the audacity to call the scientific community "naive". Ha. He has no authority to claim such things.
We have empirical scientific evidence on our side. The author has a radical lobbyist organization, the Heartland Institute. I'll stick with the scientific community, he can have his political nonsense.
The author of the paper cited by fierobear, William Gray, made a prediction in 2006 that there would be a global cooling trend by 2009-2010. Source. His prediction has failed to materialize. The last 12 years are among the 14 warmest years on record. Source.
Gray's climate papers have a lot of trouble passing peer review:
quote
Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, has been part of the anonymous peer review on several of Gray's National Science Foundation proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray's hurricane research be funded.
Gray's long time co-author thinks he is becoming a radical:
quote
Webster, who has co-authored other scientific papers with Gray, is also critical of Gray for his personal attacks on the scientists with whom he disagrees. "Bill, for some very good reasons, has been the go-to man on hurricanes for the last 35 years," says Webster. "All of a sudden there are a lot of people saying things Bill doesn't agree with. And they're getting a lot of press—more press than I like, actually. I like the ivory tower. But he's become more and more radical."
Originally posted by fierobear: New paper finds N. Atlantic ocean heat content & sea levels controlled by the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO] http://hockeyschtick.blogsp...ntic-ocean-heat.html
This paper does not attribute the rise in ocean heat content to AMO. AMO/PDO do not magically generate energy or ocean heat content like you're peddling. The only source of energy that matches the data is greenhouse gases.
Why did I have to click through 3 blogs to get to the actual paper? Seriously, you cited a blog, that cites a blog, that cites a blog, that cites the actual paper.
First, the study you cited doesn't even focus on determining climate sensitivity. It references other studies for it's data. Therefore this study didn't 'find' anything that contradicts the IPCC. This is just another example of climate change deniers taking something out of context and spreading misinformation with it.
Second, the study you cite clearly endorses the CO2 global warming theory. Ironically enough, the paper is titled "Permian and Triassic greenhouse crises." Source. I quote:
quote
Greenhouse crises of the Late and Middle Permian were the most severe known, and suggest a role for atmospheric pollution with CH4 and CO2 in those mass extinction events
quote
Large CO2 greenhouse spikes coincide with Late and Middle Permian mass extinctions.
Third, the IPCC isn't estimating climate sensitivity for 300 to 200 million years ago. The climate of today is not comparable to the climate during the Permian and Triassic. Life on this planet today is also not comparable to 200 or 300 million years ago. Today we have 7 continents. During the Permian and Triassic we had 1. Life on Earth is very different now. This is obvious when you look outside and don't see plateosaurus roaming around.
When it comes to estimating climate sensitivity and CO2 concentration, this study is by far the most robust and flat out disagrees with fierobear's source: "Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces a wide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results. Here we present a stricter approach, to improve intercomparison of palaeoclimate sensitivity estimates in a manner compatible with equilibrium projections for future climate change. Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W−1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates." Source. Published in Nature.
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: So...we are in agreement that higher CO2 causes warming, just less than what the IPCC predicted?
If you pin him down like that he will have to start being consistent. He knows this.
Yeah let's brag about an increase over the worst year on record as if it's meaningful when you've already admitted abnormal weather is responsible for this years 'limited' melt.
Bragging about a 'recovery' over the worst year on record is senseless. We're a little bit better than worst ever... GREAT.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Those Stubborn Facts: Per NOAA, U.S. Climate Cooling At Minus 2.4°F/Century Rate
Anyone notice how climate deniers have to be extremely selective in the information they present in order to even have a point to make?
Of course they pick 1999 as the starting point. Let's add two more years: Source.
Still warming, and at .17*F per decade. Let's subtract two years from 1999: Source.
Still warming, and at .39*F per decade! Obviously the conclusions of the questionable website cited by fierobear aren't robust at all. This seems to be a common theme.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: This guy is a believer in AGW, and even he recognizes how useless climate models are...
Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Climate Models as 'Close to Useless' & 'Can get any result one desires'
You continue to quote the worthless hockeyschtick blog that's dedicated to spreading misinformation. This is another perfect example of how questionable the sources of climate deniers are.
The blog is completely misrepresenting what he said. He isn't talking about climate models .
He's talking about Integrated Assessment Models. Models economists use, NOT climate scientists. He makes an economic argument, NOT a scientific one. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-15-2013).]
Ray, the term cherry picking does not apply. If you are following Arctic climate reports and the polar bear population trends, the evidence is pretty much overwhelming.
Arn
yes the ''evidence'' the bear cherry picks is overwhelming
he selects only nut-con anti-warming blogs
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Originally posted by NickD3.4: This is all anyone needs to know.
This half-hour TV segment is entertaining (you can always count on that from Penn & Teller), but as an effort to counter the anthropogenic explanation for global warming, it's 99.99 percent bulls**t.
Out of the entire 30 minutes, 25 minutes are devoted to Al Gore and an assortment of ecology-nuts, unscientific idealists and carbon credit scammers. Al Gore. What a surprise. I've looked up more than a handful of peer reviewed scientific papers online from climate scientists. I never saw Al Gore's name in any of those papers. Not once. As far as the eco-nuts, idealists and scammers that Penn & Teller scrutinize for most of this segment: They are about as relevant to the anthropogenic explanation for global warming as the TV hucksters for non-prescription dick performance enhancers are relevant to state-of-the-art medical research.
The carbon credit scammers that are lampooned by Penn & Teller have nothing to do with any of the carbon credit trading schemes that have been set up with government backing, involving the EU and certain Asian governments, and some state governments in the United States. Penn & Teller scrutinized two or three small scale, private, off-the-wall Internet scammers that have chiseled pocket change from some of the more gullible and easily manipulated folks around the country. There are some veiled references to Al Gore's involvement with Generation Investment Management LLP, which has been involved in some of the government-backed carbon trading schemes--but no real information.
There is only about one minute of the half-hour segment that resembles any kind of scientific investigation of AGW (anthropogenic global warming), and the resemblance is faint, at best. This is when Penn & Teller put retired meteorologist John Coleman (who founded the Weather Channel) on screen. Mr. Coleman talks briefly about this data graph:
Another party to these controversies, a John P. Reisman, has a question about the dubious provenance of this data: "Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it's relevance? Need source?"
The first question that comes to my mind is how and where did Mr. Coleman get accurate data for solar irradiance going all the way back to 1880..? But I'm not a scientist. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, or any other night in recent memory. So let me defer to another source on the relationship between solar activity and global warming:
quote
Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction.
A full reading of Tung 2008 finds a distinct 11 year solar signal in the global temperature record. However, this 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend. In fact, the authors go on to estimate climate sensitivity from their findings, calculate a value between 2.3 to 4.1°C. This confirms the IPCC (U.N. International Panel on Climate Change) estimate of climate sensitivity.
I'm sure that I can find other sources online with scientific credentials that say "The planet has been getting warmer, and it is not because of the sun."
This single, currently contested claim, about the primacy of solar activity over the anthropogenic explanation, is the closest that Penn & Teller ever come to a scientific moment. But the 60 seconds that Penn & Teller generously [sic] allow for this discussion should not be enough to convince any intelligent viewer of any particular validity to this AGW-contrarian argument from the former meteorologist. It's a total gloss-over. It's Penn & Teller's thoroughly misleading way of cherry picking the evidential data.
The only other person in this with a remote resemblance to luminary status is John Charles of the Cascade Policy Institute.
Mr. Charles starts with the tiresome AGW-contrarian bromide that we'd all freeze to death or starve to death if there were not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thank you very much, Mr. Charles, but we already knew that. Our concern is that there might be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We haven't suggested removing it all, or even reducing it to anywhere near as low as its pre-industrial baseline.
He then declares that only 3% of atmospheric CO2 is generated by human activities, attributing the other 97% to volcanos, forest fires and decaying plant material.
This needs some careful parsing.
We are in a geologic era of low volcanic activity. The best science that I have been able to find online estimates that year in and year out, despite the sporadic and often impressive looking volcanic eruptions that we see around the world, the CO2 from human activities is about 100 times more than the CO2 from volcanos:
quote
Scientists have used a variety of methods to determine the CO2 emissions from volcanos. A common method is to use a tracer gas, ie, a gas emitted from volcanos but which does not stay in the atmosphere for long. Determining the emissions rates of the tracer gas from volcanos, together with the concentration of those gases in the atmosphere allows the overall level of volcanic activity to be measured. Once that is measured, measurements determining average rates of CO2 emissions for a given amount of activity can be used to determine the global CO2 emissions from volcanos. Other techniques are used to measure CO2 emissions from volcanos, mid-ocean ridges and subduction zones under the sea. The emissions, from all volcanos, both on land and under sea, are about one hundredth of anthropogenic emissions. While there may be some error in the estimates, it is unlikely that the error would be large enough for volcanos to be emitting a sizable fraction of anthropogenic emissions. That strongly suggests [that] volcanic emissions are not the source of the increased CO2 concentration.
That definitely tends to eliminate volcanos from being a significant cause of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. What about forest fires? There's no question that a large forest fire or wildfire releases a lot of CO2. My quest for the best science online led me to this:
For the U.S., during 2009, the CO2 emitted by forest fires and wildfires was less than 5% of the CO2 emitted from using coal, natural gas and petroleum products. And that is further qualified:
quote
Fire is a natural ecosystem process and post-fire effects can include enhanced CO2 uptake, soil respiration, and above-ground and below-ground biomass growth. Therefore, even though fire releases CO2 into the atmosphere, our forests continue to be a net sink of CO2.
Source: Wildland Fire Emissions in the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009 National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Smoke Committee (SmoC)
I would say that this definitely suggests that all around the world, year in and year out, forest fires and wildfires are not contributing very much to atmospheric CO2, compared to the human reliance on fossil fuels. Volcanos. Forest fires.
What about decaying plant material? The fraction that is from farm waste or recent, uncultivated vegetation is a moot point, as far as CO2. That is just returning the same amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that the decaying vegetation recently absorbed from the atmosphere when it was alive. It's a net zero contribution to atmospheric CO2.
There is also a fossil source of decaying plant material, however. This is the material from long dead vegetation that has been buried in the permafrost of the subArctic and subAntarctic land masses. This carbon has been sequestered from the atmosphere, and to the extent that the permafrost continues to resist thawing, it will stay sequestered. There is concern on the part of the IPCC (and others) that as fossil fuels combustion continues to raise the planetary temperature, more and more of this permafrost will thaw and release this carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 or methane, in some combination of both: What the climate scientists call a positive feedback... global warming causing even more global warming... which is not good, from the human perspective.
None of these observations about decaying plant material has been lost on the IPCC: It's addressed in the periodic IPCC Climate Assessment Reports under the chapter title of Waste.
Volcanos. Forest fires. Decaying plant material. Not any of this can be scientifically weighed to diminish the significance of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, in the equations that lead to the anthropogenic explanation for global warming.
The only sensible way to interpret that statement about carbon dioxide from the Cascade Policy Institute's John Charles is to realize that at any given moment, only about 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere has the radioisotopic signature of fossil fuels combustion. This is because the CO2 molecules that are emitted from using fossil fuels are constantly being exchanged with the CO2 molecules in natural carbon sinks--soils, forests and other cultivated and natural vegetation, lakes, rivers and oceans. But since this is in large part just a one-for-one exchange of CO2 molecules, this is not a process that rapidly absorbs the carbon emissions from human reliance on fossil fuels.
I just paraphrased what a real scientist has already reported:
quote
... even though CO2 has risen by about 40% [above the pre-industrial baseline] due to anthropogenic emissions, only about 4% of atmospheric carbon is of directly anthropogenic origin (due to the effects of the large exchange fluxes replacing it with "natural" carbon).
Mr. Charles did make one thoughtful statement, however. He said that if the campaign to mitigate global warming by global efforts to reduce human CO2 emissions gains traction, the consequences are likely to translate into higher market prices for fossil fuels, as mining of coal and production of natural gas and petroleum products is curtailed around the world. He predicted that this would have a negative impact on food production and other human necessities and comforts that would be felt most severely by the world's already most impoverished populations. But this has to be weighed against the likely effects of continued global warming on the fresh water supplies and temperature regimes that are necessary for productive agriculture. What good is it to have plentiful and inexpensive fossil fuels, if you cannot use them in an over-warmed planet to cultivate a reliable and abundant food supply?
At the very end of this Penn & Teller segment, the two luminaries--just Penn, actually, because he does all the talking--lets slip the most "telling" (pun intended) statement of the entire 30 minutes: "We really don't know." You got that much right, Mr. Jillette. You really don't..!
So my thanks to the estimable NickD3.4, who provided this outstanding scientific investigation [sic] of global warming by Penn & Teller, with the introductory remark that "This is all anyone needs to know". It really was most entertaining. I would only amend that to "This is all anyone needs to know about Penn & Teller's combined expertise about the scientific controversies attending the anthropogenic explanation of global warming: Just about zero."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-15-2013).]
You don't even understand what I post and why it is significant. You are not qualified to question my comprehension.
I understand enough to know you don't think critically, don't accept conflicting viewpoints, and continually refuse to address points raised by others. Stop letting yourself be spoon-fed by others with an agenda.
69 pages in, nobody can figure out what exactly you believe. Is AGW completely false, or is it just "less bad" than predicted by the IPCC? You are flinging crap at the wall and trying to make it stick. You have no comprehensive theory.
With all the hot air and wordy explanations, these facts remain undisputed.
1. There are no drowning and starving polar bears. Their breed continues to thrive. 2. There are no inundated islands. The oceans continue to rise at much lower rates than the IPCC forecasted 3. There is no increase in hurricane frequency. The numbers of hurricanes are actually down 4. The Hockey stick graph is still just a computer projection that has been misproven.
And for all the exaggerated graphics, we are still talking about less than one degree in a century.
Roy Spencer, PhD : currently reading over this climate denier's propaganda.
In short the claim is :
quote
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
So far, because I'm trying to do more than just yell "Ah Ha!", I'm thumbing through his information and comparing it to others to see what he is including or excluding from his number to obtain a different conclusion.
However, it is obvious that he too credits nature with a refute of his peer's data. His data shows less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere. . . . Heidi Cullen : also reading over this climate Activist's propaganda.
In short the claim is :
quote
Global warming has accelerated during the past three decades, which have each been unusually warm. In fact, the most recent decade from 2001-2010 was the warmest since instrumental records began in 1850, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
While the rate of global warming has slowed in the past several years, possibly due to natural climate variability, the long-term temperature trend clearly shows that we’re living on a warming planet.
This one makes one of my points, While she acknowledges a slowing of global warming, She is not citing / crediting any efforts buy any or all governments, agencies or even private initiatives that have an impact. She credits nature with the change. After, mentioning a slowing of global warming and that nature was mostly responsible, She caps it off with The Long-term trend clearly shows the planet is warming...... Gees if you want to motivate everyone to rally around the cause, tell us about the numbers that show a human related effort that has slowed, reduced or had any positive change at all, to get excited about.
Hint: if it's gonna happen no matter we do, I'm investing in the enjoyment of what I have left. If you can show me how we can actually WIN this battle, I'll go all in for those who come after me........ chicken little is making it appear hopeless and that is killing the desire of many to fight.
And then I read stuff like this: A general explanation of heat transfer...
quote
Heat is transferred from one place to another by one of three mechanisms: conduction; convection and radiation. Conduction is the heat of contact, what you feel when you put your hand on a hot or cold surface. Convection is the heat of flow, a colder fluid like air or water takes the heat away from a surface, like wind chill. Radiation is the heat of the sun, photons of varying energies transfer their energy to target molecules of a surface like earth's landmass, a fluid like earth's ocean or a gas like earth's atmosphere. The human body is subject to all three types of heat transfer: conduction of heat according to the ambient temperature of the air and ground at all times, convection of heat if there is any movement of the air and radiation of heat if directly exposed to the sun. This net heat in or out must be balanced to maintain the body temperature in a relatively narrow range. The earth is subject to the same heat balance rules.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-15-2013).]
Yes and I appreciate the information. I am still reading much of it and following the rabbit trail, tunnel or hole this topic seems to run with out end, I found references to both of those (Experts) while searching. When I saw this topic and thread pop up again, I wanted to show the contrasts that keep showing up.
What I was showing here was, that despite their contrasting diagnosis of the problem, both agree that what gains we have, has more to do with nature than man. The other point I was trying to make is that if nobody (especially the skeptical) sees an improvement that is directly related to regulations and funding, they are not going to feel optimistic about increasing or maintaining our efforts.
His position, the heat is escaping at a hire rate than the alarmist are reporting. (it has nothing to do with human intervention)
Her position, the heat is accumulating when we look at the long-term projection and any short-term down trend is just a natural anomaly. (it has nothing to do with human intervention)
As for the information you posted, thank you but I can not just post a reply around here citing (rinselberg) you as my source. I'll leave that in your capable hands.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-15-2013).]
All of that has been debunked already. Repeating it like a broken record proves nothing.
Flying whoever you are, you did not "debunk" you simply denied it by trotting out the same IPCC and blogger garbage you have done repeatedly, and by posting exaggerated graphs from dubious sources.
The graph you posted from Arctic Sea Ice News actually proves my point. 2012 was a low point, and this year the ice is in recovery. What it does next year is anybody's guess.
There are no drowning and starving polar bears. There are at least 26,000 of them and the population is growing yearly. There is no increased frequency of hurricanes. Check the National Hurricane Center No islands have been inundated. Name just one. Sea level is rising about 3 mm a year. This past year we have had a cold winter and a cool summer so far in Canada.
This isn't rocket science. It doesn't require verbosity and manipulated data to explain. It is just plain old standard observation
The graph you posted from Arctic Sea Ice News actually proves my point. 2012 was a low point, and this year the ice is in recovery. What it does next year is anybody's guess.
2012 was an all-time low. Saying this year is a little bit better than that (which is still almost 2 standard deviations lower than the average) isn't saying much.
quote
There are no drowning and starving polar bears. There are at least 26,000 of them and the population is growing yearly.
From your own source they listed global warming as the biggest threat to polar bear populations. Not my words. Not even my source!
2. There are no inundated islands. The oceans continue to rise at much lower rates than the IPCC forecasted
Arn
true, although, what about the hundreds of submerged civilizations and cities that are under water today there were once thriving and above the oceans?
Mr. Charles did make one thoughtful statement, however. He said that if the campaign to mitigate global warming by global efforts to reduce human CO2 emissions gains traction, the consequences are likely to translate into higher market prices for fossil fuels, as mining of coal and production of natural gas and petroleum products is curtailed around the world. He predicted that this would have a negative impact on food production and other human necessities and comforts that would be felt most severely by the world's already most impoverished populations. But this has to be weighed against the likely effects of continued global warming on the fresh water supplies and temperature regimes that are necessary for productive agriculture. What good is it to have plentiful and inexpensive fossil fuels, if you cannot use them in an over-warmed planet to cultivate a reliable and abundant food supply?
At the very end of this Penn & Teller segment, the two luminaries--just Penn, actually, because he does all the talking--lets slip the most "telling" (pun intended) statement of the entire 30 minutes: "We really don't know." You got that much right, Mr. Jillette. You really don't..!
So my thanks to the estimable NickD3.4, who provided this outstanding scientific investigation [sic] of global warming by Penn & Teller, with the introductory remark that "This is all anyone needs to know". It really was most entertaining. I would only amend that to "This is all anyone needs to know about Penn & Teller's combined expertise about the scientific controversies attending the anthropogenic explanation of global warming: Just about zero."
Their introduction is good enough for me.....in the 1970's it was all BS about global cooling and doom and gloom predictions about the next ten years. When I was a kid growing up, I was preached to about the coming ice age and how we caused it. Then...one magical day, things starting warming and it shifted to global warming!
what a ****ing joke. They can't predict the weather a week from now and I am supposed to trust fallible models being built to predict decades out? As they say in the computer model world, junk in=junk out, and the fact people think they have these models as being "accurate" smacks of arrogance.
Good luck believing the bullshit. I have real issues to be worried about, not lining the pockets of climate change pimps to make another buck.
The thing I see about this thread is that both sides don't seem to be able to see anything but their own side. I don't think that it is a settled question at this point. We have to keep our eyes and ears open to whatever information might be coming down the line. With our super computers getting more powerful all the time and with scientists coming up with better programs I think that it might be possible to foresee the future before it is upon us. I'm skeptical about the deniers because there is an obvious desire for fossil fuel companies to wring every last bit of profit out of our resources before they are depleted no matter what the cost to our environment. That doesn't mean that I disbelieve everything that they publish, but I certainly don't trust them 100% either.
Originally posted by dratts: I'm skeptical about the deniers because there is an obvious desire for fossil fuel companies to wring every last bit of profit out of our resources before they are depleted no matter what the cost to our environment. That doesn't mean that I disbelieve everything that they publish, but I certainly don't trust them 100% either.
Yup, and I'm skeptical of politically backed climate activists/ "scientist" who keep changing the name of the phenomenon as they go dating back to the 70s
global cooling> global warming> climate change= bullshit
After all, why would scientists know any more about the climate system today than in 1970..? Same instruments (more or less). Same data (more or less). Same scientists (more or less).
In fact, if I didn't have a calendar nearby, I would probably think this was 1970.
Yup, and I'm skeptical of politically backed climate activists/ "scientist" who keep changing the name of the phenomenon as they go dating back to the 70s
global cooling> global warming> climate change= bullshit
The point of my post was I would like to see less arguing and more looking for areas where we can agree. That's where I think the truth most likely lies. If we can only see one side, I don't think we will be getting at the truth. This is an issue which has natural and man caused effects. We need to look at everything, try to decide what it is possible to do, what is necessary to do, and what is economically feasible.
After all, why would scientists know any more about the climate system today than in 1970..? Same instruments (more or less). Same data (more or less). Same scientists (more or less).
In fact, if I didn't have a calendar nearby, I would probably think this was 1970.
Yup, here, zoom in on the pic below, its from 1975, tell me this doesn't look like it was written yesterday. SAME RHETORIC, SAME SONG, SAME DANCE, NEW GENERATION AND GULLIBLE AUDIENCE. The time to cry wolf is over.......
for those of you who can't read the image, here is the text....
Newsweek ^ | April 28, 1975
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972. To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City. Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.” Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
1 posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:21:17 AM by presidio9 [ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies] ________________________________________ To: presidio9 Oh no, the sky is falling (again)!!
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 08-16-2013).]
All of that has been debunked already. Repeating it like a broken record proves nothing.
WOW, you don't say! How about you take your own advice? Oh wait, you are better than everyone else, and don't have to follow your own rules that you think you can impose on everyone else.
I can see where you are coming from with these posts and they do give us reason to look at the present predictions with a skeptical eye. We do have better instruments though. We have faster super computers and better programs. I will continue to examine both sides of the climate change topic. Neither side should be exempt from examination. The one point that I don't think is debatable is population explosion. If we don't get a handle on that nothing else matters.
I understand enough to know you don't think critically, don't accept conflicting viewpoints, and continually refuse to address points raised by others. Stop letting yourself be spoon-fed by others with an agenda.
69 pages in, nobody can figure out what exactly you believe. Is AGW completely false, or is it just "less bad" than predicted by the IPCC? You are flinging crap at the wall and trying to make it stick. You have no comprehensive theory.
I will explain it to you one more time. I post evidence that the things they predicted to be happening are not happening. I post alternate explanations to CO2 driving climate changes. I post some things from AGW believers when they are forced to admit evidence contrary to their beliefs. That doesn't make my posts in conflict.
I can only explain this stuff to you, I can't understand it for you.
I can see where you are coming from with these posts and they do give us reason to look at the present predictions with a skeptical eye. We do have better instruments though. We have faster super computers and better programs. I will continue to examine both sides of the climate change topic. Neither side should be exempt from examination. The one point that I don't think is debatable is population explosion. If we don't get a handle on that nothing else matters.
dont you think its a bit funny that the same "experts" barking now are the same ones from the 70's that were barking about global cooling?..come on man....
The same experts? Wouldn't you think that many of the scientists who published papers about climate in the 60's and 70's have retired by now? Not all, certainly, but quite a number--especially the ones that had achieved lead status by virtue of seniority and experience during that era. The leftovers from that time that are still active in the field today would have to have been just getting started as interns and recent graduates towards the middle and end of the 1970's. Dude, do the math..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2013).]
Here you go , proof that human activities are effecting the climate. The numbers bellow clearly show a Zionist conspiracy back by the WEST to Control Climate Change as a form of Environmental Weapon against Islamic Countries.......................
quote
10. Mexico: The North American nation has hot weather most of the year round, and has regular instances of very high temperatures reaching as high as 50°C.
9. Somalia: Hot temperatures are constant in Somalia all year round, and with little to no rain, Somalia experiences average temperatures of around 35°C.
8. India: India experiences a range of different climates, and temperatures, although the country often reaches temperatures exceeding 40°C. Also, India also experiences a lot of ran due to the Monsoon, but high temperates are persistant.
7. Sudan: Sudan is mostly desert land, but is a very hot country. It often exceed temperatures of 45°C, and has little to no rain year round.
6. Oman: This is a very hot country with very few instances of rain. Recorded temperatures of 54°C have been logged in Oman in the summer, and even in the mild winters, temperatures still reach 25°C. It is known to be on of the hottest countries in the world
5. Iran: This is a Middle Eastern Nation, and has quite a range of climate zones, with cold weather in the northern part of the country, yet hot temperatures everywhere else. In the summer, the temperatures often exceed 40°C, with little rain.
4. Algeria: Algeria is known for being on of the hottest countries in the world. Although Algeria is blessed with rain and cool lights, the temperatures in the day time often soar above 50°C in the summer time, and remains a hot 25°C during winter.
3. Iraq: With incredibly hot summers, Iraq’s temperatures often soar into the 50°C bracket, and is a very hot place to live. Even during winter, the temperatures remain in the 20-30°C region.
2. Saudi Arabia: This is known for being an incredible hot country, with its desert climate and very high temperatures. It is mostly desert, with a few valleys in between. There is barely any rainfall, and temperatures are often reaching 52°C.
1. Libya: Here we have it, the world hottest known country, Libya. It has extremely hot temperatures, and is a mass of desert, with erratic and inconsistent rainfall. Libya currently holds the record for the hottest recorded temperature, at an incredible 58°C, skin blistering temperatures.
The same experts? Wouldn't you think that many of the scientists who published papers about climate in the 60's and 70's have retired by now? Not all, certainly, but quite a number--especially the ones that had achieved lead status by virtue of seniority and experience during that era. The leftovers from that time that are still active in the field today would have to have been just getting started as interns and recent graduates towards the middle and end of the 1970's. Dude, do the math..
the major players that are pushing this are the same. Have some retired?..of course. Are their new ones?....of course. It however remains to be the same song and dance. Perhaps the drummer or guitar player is different, but its the same guy holding the mic.
From your own source they listed global warming as the biggest threat to polar bear populations. Not my words. Not even my source!
You have to separate the opinion from the facts. A perceived "threat" is not necessarily an actual threat. Remember that the polar bears survived the last ice age, and have been steadily growing in population in the past century. The "threat" is a big red herring. Those bears will survive irregardless of climate fluctuations.
I will explain it to you one more time. I post evidence that the things they predicted to be happening are not happening. I post alternate explanations to CO2 driving climate changes. I post some things from AGW believers when they are forced to admit evidence contrary to their beliefs. That doesn't make my posts in conflict.
I can only explain this stuff to you, I can't understand it for you.
Your alternate explanations to CO2-driven climate change are a patchwork of theories, none of which pass any level of scientific scrutiny.
Remember how you were trying to correlate "sunspot cycle length" to temperatures?
How about AMO/PDO as the primary driver? From your own graph in this thread from 2008, it shows that PDO should be causing signfiicant cooling. Where is the cooling?
Then there's volcanoes, etc etc
As I said, your alternate theories don't hold water. Or did I miss any?
Your alternate explanations to CO2-driven climate change are a patchwork of theories, none of which pass any level of scientific scrutiny.
Remember how you were trying to correlate "sunspot cycle length" to temperatures?
How about AMO/PDO as the primary driver? From your own graph in this thread from 2008, it shows that PDO should be causing signfiicant cooling. Where is the cooling?
Then there's volcanoes, etc etc
As I said, your alternate theories don't hold water. Or did I miss any?
Hmmm...previous response didn't work. Must have been doing it from my iPad. Sometimes it doesn't work.
Moving on for now...so much for all those predicted increasing hurricanes from global warming...yet another warming bust.
Slowest Start To A Hurricane Season On Record
Posted on August 24, 2013 by stevengoddard
Obama says that hurricanes are getting worse, based on some research done at the Choom Climatological Institute.
As we approach the end of August, there have been no Atlantic hurricanes. By this date in the year 1886, there had already been seven hurricanes – including three major hurricanes, one of which wiped the city of Indianola, Texas off the map.
Yes, if you check the US National Hurricane Center data, you see that hurricanes have been on a down swing since 2000, notwithstanding Al Gore's exaggerations.
And yes, where are all the dead polar bears? And yes, where are all the inundated islands?
While there is clear water north of Siberia right now, the Canadian side is still blocked up like most years. Still average ice retreat for this summer.
"
