However Tattersall shows that in many vernacular works in 12th- and 13th-century French texts the Earth was considered "round like a table" rather than "round like an apple". "In virtually all the examples quoted...from epics and from non-'historical' romances (that is, works of a less learned character) the actual form of words used suggests strongly a circle rather than a sphere.[110] Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth.
That passage does not even address scientific understanding at the time. Rather, it discusses popular ("vernacular"), literary, and ecclesiastical opinion. Remember, Church dogma dominated published literature ... scientific or otherwise ... clear into the 17th century. In fact, in Europe until the mid 15th century the Church controlled virtually all publication, by virtue of maintaining a near-monopoly on the duplication of texts.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-14-2013).]
The disgraced lobbyist organization, Heartland Institute, is up their old political tricks again. They mailed out marketing packets containing global warming denial material that was manipulated to appear as if it came from authentic scientific sources. This poor attempt to brainwash students in the classroom with their politics is a historic new low.
"Around Halloween, thousands of science teachers, science professors, and graduate students received copies of a slick packet attacking climate science. A prominent climate change denial group sent teachers a booklet which mimics a real scientific report, and a cover letter slyly urging recipients to "use that work to inform your thinking—and your students—on this important issue. NCSE is tracking this mailing and working to ensure it doesn't harm science education, but we need your help." Source.
The children are there to learn what the science says is true. If you take issue with the science then fight it out in peer reviewed journals and get a consensus. Don't take matters into your own hands when you lack any evidence to support your position and start brainwashing students with politics. The Scopes trial is over. Modern science is taught in the classroom. Accept it.
ONE scientist can publish a new paper that makes the other 2499 wrong, even if they maintain their consensus. THATS how science works.
No. A "new paper" cannot do that. Only new and compelling evidence will prevail. A "paper" may propose a new idea, but evidence is required for it to become widely accepted as fact. The concept of "proof" that you continually demand simply does not exist in the scientific method.
I do, however, acknowledge your general contempt for learning and actual knowledge vs. politically-based opinion.
The children are there to learn what the science says is true. If you take issue with the science then fight it out in peer reviewed journals and get a consensus. Don't take matters into your own hands when you lack any evidence to support your position and start brainwashing students with politics. The Scopes trial is over. Modern science is taught in the classroom. Accept it.
The disgraced lobbyist organization, Heartland Institute, is up their old political tricks again. They mailed out marketing packets containing global warming denial material that was manipulated to appear as if it came from authentic scientific sources. This poor attempt to brainwash students in the classroom with their politics is a historic new low.
"Around Halloween, thousands of science teachers, science professors, and graduate students received copies of a slick packet attacking climate science. A prominent climate change denial group sent teachers a booklet which mimics a real scientific report, and a cover letter slyly urging recipients to "use that work to inform your thinking—and your students—on this important issue. NCSE is tracking this mailing and working to ensure it doesn't harm science education, but we need your help." Source.
The children are there to learn what the science says is true. If you take issue with the science then fight it out in peer reviewed journals and get a consensus. Don't take matters into your own hands when you lack any evidence to support your position and start brainwashing students with politics. The Scopes trial is over. Modern science is taught in the classroom. Accept it.
Honestly if this is true it's ridiculous.
They even appear to be using the acronym 'N'IPCC.....
quote
The Heartland Institute, whose denial efforts have been funded by Big Tobacco and Big Oil, aim to cast doubt on scientific consensus on climate change. They even use the acronym "NIPCC" to mimic the name of the IPCC, which produces widely-respected reports on the consensus of climate change science. Through this pseudoscholarly report, they hope to misinform teachers about the science, and lead them to see it as too controversial, too scary, to bother teaching.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-14-2013).]
That passage does not even address scientific understanding at the time. Rather, it discusses popular ("vernacular"), literary, and ecclesiastical opinion. Remember, Church dogma dominated published literature ... scientific or otherwise ... clear into the 17th century. In fact, in Europe until the mid 15th century the Church controlled virtually all publication, by virtue of maintaining a near-monopoly on the duplication of texts.
Marvin, your lack of understanding of history is showing. Most of the science community up until the 17 th century was centered in religious institutions. More particularly Augustine was part of that community when he surmised that the earth was a sphere. The two sides of the discussion had been at it for a millennium and the consensus of the scientific community was that the earth was a round disk with a small group of dissidents. This had nothing to do with the separation of ecclesiastical opinion and literary opinion. It was the consensus of the principle thinkers of the day. This is the reason Columbus had to go to Queen Isabella to get financing. Everybody else thought he was just like fierobear and myself. Kooks. The truth was not confirmed until the two events, the voyage of Columbus and the voyage of Magellan.
The proof of what I am saying about anthropogenic global warming is the fact that the earth has not warmed at all in the past 17 years, the polar ice cap has not disappeared, there have not been increased hurricanes and tornados, the islands have not been inundated, and the oceans are rising much much less than predicted by the Suzuki's of this world.
The jig is up. If you just can't accept it you are a denier of the facts.
New study on sea level rise finds considerable implications for 180,000 islands worldwide: "Although sea level rise is one of the most certain consequences of global warming, yet it remains one of the least studied. Several studies strongly suggested that sea level rise will accelerate in the future with a potentially rise from 0.5 to 2 m at the end of the century. However, currently island conservation programs do not take into account the potential effects of sea level rise. Therefore, we investigated the potential consequences of sea level rise for 1,269 French islands worldwide, by assessing the total number of island that will be totally submerged for three different scenarios (1, 2 and 3 m). Under the worst scenario, up to 12% of all islands could be entirely submerged… Given that French islands covers all latitudes in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans and in the Mediterranean, our results suggested that the implications for the 180 000 islands around the world should be consider- able. Therefore, decision makers are required to define island conservation priorities that will suffer of the future sea level rise." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-14-2013).]
Once again the facts are different than the speculation and estimates which are based on computer modelling
Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[5]
From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated
I won't even bother responding to Marvin's latest ad homenim. Instead, we will prove him AND tbone wrong at the same time while learning something...and notice that the words consensus and majority are nowhere to be found:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.
A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.
When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.
There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.
In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).
A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.
There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument , cited by some creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.
No. A "new paper" cannot do that. Only new and compelling evidence will prevail. A "paper" may propose a new idea, but evidence is required for it to become widely accepted as fact. The concept of "proof" that you continually demand simply does not exist in the scientific method.
I do, however, acknowledge your general contempt for learning and actual knowledge vs. politically-based opinion.
On second thought...we were having a decent discussion, but you just can't resist, can you?
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-15-2013).]
Global Warming: "The pause that refreshes" is under critical reexamination.
Did the rate of global warming level off to almost nothing, about 16 years ago, as many have been saying? I already posted that I was skeptical about the reality of any recent hiatus in global warming, and here's a new report from some researchers that are also skeptical about it.
"A new study [published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] ... shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed 'warming pause' has virtually disappeared."
There's a data plot, superimposed on an image of the earth, that portrays the difference between the baseline and the readjusted temperature data sets.
The study itself is behind a paywall, but this links to an abstract: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends http://onlinelibrary.wiley....002/qj.2297/abstract
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-15-2013).]
The most widely cited models for understanding scientific reasoning are induction and deduction. Induction is the process of generalizing from specific examples. If I see 100 swans and they are all white, I might conclude that all swans are white. If I saw 1,000 white swans or 10,000, I would surely think that all swans were white, yet a black one might still be lurking somewhere. As David Hume famously put it, even though the sun has risen thousands of times before, we have no way to prove that it will rise again tomorrow. Nevertheless, common sense tells us that the sun is extremely likely to rise again tomorrow, even if we can’t logically prove that it’s so. Common sense similarly tells us that if we had seen ten thousand white swans, then our conclusion that all swans were white would be more robust than if we had seen only ten. Other things being equal, the more we know about a subject, and the longer we have studied it, the more likely our conclusions about it are to be true.
Originally posted by fierobear: On second thought...we were having a decent discussion, bit you just can't resist, can you?
Decent discussion..but you decided to add this....
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Awright! ALL the morons are chiming on!
I won't even bother responding to Marvin's latest ad homenim. Instead, we will prove him AND tbone wrong at the same time while learning something...and notice that the words consensus and majority are nowhere to be found:
As a holder of the minority view on climate change you think you would be used to people disagreeing with your opinions on the subject but for some reason you seem so desperate and upset when faced with the consensus by pretty much every major scientific body.
Global Warming: "The pause that refreshes" is under critical reexamination. There's a data plot, superimposed on an image of the earth, that portrays the difference between the baseline and the readjusted temperature data sets.
The study itself is behind a paywall, but this links to an abstract: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends
If these reports were true, the following hard data could not be.
Notice that last year was outside the normal variations of ice records, and this year is greatly different. The question is that if the Arctic temperatures were actually warmer, how could the ice bound back? This makes no sense at all.
As for the accuracy of the ice data, the National Snow and Ice Data Center is funded by NASA,the NSF, and NOAA, It is based on not just ground sensors which are monitored by the Inuit, but on satellite data. To try to screw around with the data to prove something it does not represent is just plain dumb.
Remember, if the predictions of 2006 were true, we would not be seeing the return of the ice level at all. We would have had open water this year.
If these reports were true, the following hard data could not be.
Notice that last year was outside the normal variations of ice records, and this year is greatly different. The question is that if the Arctic temperatures were actually warmer, how could the ice bound back? This makes no sense at all.
As for the accuracy of the ice data, the National Snow and Ice Data Center is funded by NASA,the NSF, and NOAA, It is based on not just ground sensors which are monitored by the Inuit, but on satellite data. To try to screw around with the data to prove something it does not represent is just plain dumb.
Remember, if the predictions of 2006 were true, we would not be seeing the return of the ice level at all. We would have had open water this year.
Arn why would anyone take your interpretation of the data over the scientists and experts?
Edit....Don't get me wrong, feel free to share your opinion but don't expect me or anyone else to buy it over actual experts in the field of Climate Change>
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-15-2013).]
Originally posted by newf: Honestly if this is true it's ridiculous.
Seriously.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Once again the facts are different than the speculation and estimates which are based on computer modelling
Actually your entire post is evidence supporting my position. Not yours.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year,
Yep, then it accelerates:
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated
According to YOUR post in the last 20 years the rate of sea level rise has doubled.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Several studies strongly suggested that sea level rise will accelerate in the future with a potentially rise from 0.5 to 2 m at the end of the century.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This is a record of the facts, not an estimation
Hey, we agree on something. Unfortunately for you these facts support my position. Thanks for doing my research though.
From YOUR link "FAQ: What is Sea Level?" "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report estimates that the global sea level rise was approximately 1.7-1.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) over the past century (IPCC, 2007), based on tide station measurements around the world, with projected increased trends in sea level in the 20th Century based on global climate models."
From YOUR link: "Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that support the view that the climate has recently warmed.[11] The global community of climate scientists confirms that it is very likely that human-induced (anthropogenic) warming contributed to the sea level rise observed in the latter half of the 20th century."
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It doesn't matter how many scientists agree or disagree.
Sure it does.
Your position is akin to questioning whether or not you would die if you removed your head despite a super majority of experts saying you will because "it doesn't matter how many agree."
There's a reason students start with something like the standard model instead of being left alone to discover the entire field of physics from scratch on their own. What we've already discovered and evidence already on the table bares precedence. Holding on to faith alone that a single paper is going to overturn an entire body of scientific evidence at this point is just a pipe dream. The Earth is warming. Humans emissions are responsible. Now lets move on to what to do about it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: As for the accuracy of the ice data, the National Snow and Ice Data Center is funded by NASA,the NSF, and NOAA, It is based on not just ground sensors which are monitored by the Inuit, but on satellite data. To try to screw around with the data to prove something it does not represent is just plain dumb.
I agree it is just plain dumb. Ignoring 30 years of data because of a single year is just plain dumb. That's why the experts who are study these areas as a profession should be trusted and not your whimsical and entirely faulty interpretations.
The experts from your own source, the National Snow and Ice Data Center, disagree with you entirely.
Here's what your source says: "NSIDC scientists said this year’s higher extent is a temporary reprieve for the sea ice. “While this is a very welcome recovery from last year’s record low, the overall trend is still decidedly downwards,” said NSIDC director Mark Serreze.
“The pattern we’ve seen so far is an overall downward trend in summer ice extent, punctuated by ups and downs due to natural variability in weather patterns and ocean conditions,” Serreze said. “We could be looking at summers with essentially no sea ice on the Arctic Ocean only a few decades from now.”
Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. The region’s sea ice extent—defined by NSIDC as the total area covered by at least 15 percent of ice—has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years.
“No single year’s turnaround can erase that,” said NSIDC lead scientist Ted Scambos. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that 2013 is a very low extent year, despite the increase from last September.”" Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-15-2013).]
Global Warming: "The pause that refreshes" is under critical reexamination.
Did the rate of global warming level off to almost nothing, about 16 years ago, as many have been saying? I already posted that I was skeptical about the reality of any recent hiatus in global warming, and here's a new report from some researchers that are also skeptical about it.
"A new study [published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society] ... shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed 'warming pause' has virtually disappeared."
There's a data plot, superimposed on an image of the earth, that portrays the difference between the baseline and the readjusted temperature data sets.
The study itself is behind a paywall, but this links to an abstract: Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends http://onlinelibrary.wiley....002/qj.2297/abstract
There they go again. When they don't get the results they want, they simply "readjust" yet again!
New paper finds Pacific cyclone activity is at the lowest levels of the past 5,000 years
quote
The changes in tropical cyclone activity we observe in the South Pacific and across other basins may be related to ENSO as well as precession driven changes in ocean-atmosphere thermal gradients.
So what is it you are going with this time? The Climate is not changing and the cyclone activity shouldn't be changing or it is changing causing a difference in activity?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-15-2013).]
Originally posted by fierobear: New paper finds Pacific cyclone activity is at the lowest levels of the past 5,000 years
So the predicted increase in severe cyclones brought about by human emissions warming the ocean and atmosphere is being fought by long term natural variation that is trending in the complete opposite direction?
That's certainly convenient.
Although it's a little unnerving the study points the finger at increasing temperatures as the culprit of the severe activity with "changes in ocean-atmosphere thermal gradients."
How long will natural variation work in our favor?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-18-2013).]
As usual, Flyinfieros posts partial truth, out of context statements and opinions, and very little facts.
He is defending the undefendable.
He wants to know the reason for climate change, and he should start with the degrading angle of axis of the earth
The earth's axis angle to the sun is 23.439281°. However that angle is degrading each year by 47". This means that the equator should be getting a little more consistantly warmer and the northern and southern polar regions should be getting a ittle warmer longer.
Is this happening?
Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for his scientific work and publicly proclaimed in 2007 that there would be no arctic ice in the summer in 2013,
Moreover the antarctic got colder as the arctic warmed. NASA announced on 22 October this year that there was a record increase in Antarctic ice. The highest since 1979. That is 34 years
This was widely reported and you can look it up.
As for the Arctic, Arctic Sea Ice and News which reports the Satellite and ground monitoring says this, this month
quote
The year 2013 marks the first October with an extent above 8 million square kilometers (3.09 million square miles) since 2009 and only the second since 2006. From 1979 to 2006, average October extent was never below 8 million square kilometers, and several years had October extents above 9 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles). The lowest October extent, less than 7 million square kilometers (2.7 million square miles), was observed in 2007. The linear trend in October ice extent is –7.1 % per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 mean, or –63,400 square kilometers per year (–24,500 square miles per year).
This acknowledges ice loss but points out the lowest October was in 2007 and the rate of decline was -7.1% per decade. Way off the predictions of the Global Warming cheerleader, Al Gore. And remember the decline average is less than 1% per year.
Moreover the predictions now over 100 years old, made by Arrhenius of Sweden on 28 Jan 1913, that the whole world temperature would rise 8-9 degrees celcius (because of CO2 )have not come true either.
This discussion is essentially about the extreme predictions made by people who claim that we humans are causing catastrophic planetary heating.
Sure the earth's axis is changing, and sure the ice age is behind us for now and the earth has gone through some centuries of warming, but no, there is no catastrophy waiting due to mankind's activities.
And the guys who want your money, (and believe me, they want it bad,) are wanting to impose new taxes, artificially and unnecessarily drive up the cost of fuel to heat our homes and cook our meals, and the want to pocket the profits.
The weak minded Global Warming sheep can deny the science and the facts all they like, twist statements out of context, use statements made by self serving civil servants who want to keep their jobs, but........ it does not change the fact that the polar ice cap is not gone, the Antarctic ice field is growing, and the sea is rising at its usual pace , and no, the islands of the world are not being inundated. And oh yeah, the Polar Bears are not extinct at all, and not endangered.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-15-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The earth's axis angle to the sun is 23.439281°. However that angle is degrading each year by 47". This means that the equator should be getting a little more consistantly warmer and the northern and southern polar regions should be getting a ittle warmer longer.
I think that the number that you are talking about is 0.47" (arc seconds) per year.
If you worked out the relationship that connects this orbital parameter with current temperature observations all by yourself--well, that's impressive!
But it would help the rest of us if you could provide at least one link to an explanatory page about this (from a climate perspective) on the Internet.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-15-2013).]
Another year, another gathering of the UN climate crazies, called COP 19. Let's take a look at what came out last year and this, showing us what the REAL purpose of this is...redistribution of wealth, NOT the climate.
UN redistribution follies
The United Nations’ climate change meeting began Monday in Warsaw, Poland, to discuss “global warming,” but when the globe stopped warming 16 years ago, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was forced to reveal its real agenda.
Last year in Doha, Qatar, the treaty’s Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres told the world that the purpose of the UNFCCC is a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.” The scheme is to use the eternally unpredictable weather that affects everyone to manipulate a transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations, which in turn degrades every nation’s standard of living.
Rather than serving as a warning to Americans, President Obama’s delegation in Warsaw is steadfastly supporting the development of funding mechanisms for the transfer of wealth scheme through the Green Climate Fund, although it is somewhat reluctant to support its proposed new mechanism for “loss and damages.” A new treaty to replace the redistributionist Kyoto Protocol is in the works and set for completion in 2015 in Paris, France, to go into affect in 2020.
Americans are paying for the rope to hang ourselves. We pay nearly $567 million a year while two dozen countries of the 193 UN members pay only about $1000 or less, yet have the same voting privileges as the U.S. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/us-should-challenge-huge-un-funding-disparities).
Worse than one nation, one vote is that voting rarely happens at the UN. Instead, consensus is the UN’s preferred process. Consensus is unilaterally determined by a facilitator leading a meeting. It lacks transparency and allows the UN to manipulate for predetermined outcomes. Former Prime Minister of the UK Margaret Thatcher defined consensus stating, “To me, consensus seems to be: the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that need to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?”
Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. That is until the United Natipns started talking about it. Their talks started with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. They have since convinced the world they can not only predict the weather but can control it. These talks continue in Warsaw, Poland for the next two weeks, November 11-22, 2013, as the Conference of the Parties COP19 meet with country delegates, non-government organizations NGO’s, and media to discuss not the weather but the climate. The climate is what you expect. The weather is what you get and the UN is certainly getting something much different than what they predicted.
The U.N. persists in its quest to convince the world that human activity is causing global warming and global warming will lead to the devastation of the earth. The earth has not warmed since 1998 but the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC continues to issue reports claiming global warming not only exists but is getting worse.
Their claims are based on pseudo science and totally unreliable computer models used to predict future weather patterns. The latest report issued just before COP19 claims that projected warming will likely raise temperatures 0.5 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the late 21st century if carbon emissions are not reduced. The report responds to the lack of warming since 1998 as probably linked to natural swings in the climate. In other words, they can’t explain why their computer models have been so wrong.
The talks are about blame. To blame is to make someone responsible for the supposed wrong doing and if someone has done wrong they should pay a penalty. The U.N. has made the case that developed nations such as the U.S. are to blame because we’ve enjoyed the fruits of the industrial revolution in our lifestyles. These lifestyles have polluted a finite atmosphere causing global warming. Having used up this finite atmosphere cheats developing nations from achieving similar lifestyles. This is referred to as “historical responsibility.” The penalty to be paid by developed nations, according to the U.N., is reparations (money) and technology.
Since global warming isn’t really occurring now, the IPCC claims it’s the cause of all the extreme weather patterns that have occurred in the past few years. The most recent tragic events of typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines has given the perfect fuel for developing nations at COP19. The tragedy the Philippine people have suffered is incomprehensible to most of us, but to think the human activity of developed nations caused the event should be beyond the realm of any intelligent person’s thinking. Not so at COP19.
The first day of the conference, the Climate Change Commissioner from the Philippines, Nadrev Sano, gave a speech in the main plenary blaming this on developed nations. He began crying and said he would, in solidarity with his people, voluntarily fast until the COP reaches a meaningful outcome and delivers on climate action. Translated this means “Let me see the money.”
In a press conference, another Philippine delegate made similar remarks, saying the tragedy was “an abomination which is not our doing” and “we have to get support from someone else’s pocket.” Yet nobody mentioned the U.S. Marines went in immediately to the worst hit areas bringing water, generators and other critical supplies. The U.S. military also offered aircraft and manpower for search and rescue. Private groups from the U. S. have sent in medicines, food, blankets, etc. U.S. AID sent 55 metric tons of food. So how much is enough?
This redistribution of wealth for the perceived “moral and ethical injustice” of climate change was first tried by the U.N. through Clean Development Mechanisms CDM’s. This was a way to get money and technology to developing nations through investments and loans for new infrastructure or just anything green. But as with most U. N. programs there was abuse. Most investments and loans went to China, India and Brazil and almost nothing went to the very small countries.
When CDM’s didn’t work, the Green Climate Fund GCF was introduced at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. It was proposed $30 billion be given by developed countries over three years until 2012 as fast-start funding. Then additionally, none other than Hillary Clinton proposed that developed countries collectively pledge $100 billion per year until 2020. This sounded good but the pledges have been far short of anything close to $100 billion. The U.S. claims to has given $32 billion from 2010-2012 and it is calculated, according to a U.S. delegate, the 2013 contribution will be $2.7 billion.
If the U.N. bureaucrats and the developing countries can’t get concrete funding for the GCF at COP19, then the next trick up their sleeves is something called a “loss and damage” mechanism. Loss and damage are insurance terms. Legally loss means “the value placed on injury or damages due to an accident caused by another’s negligence, a breach of contract or other wrongdoing.” Damage can mean “injury or harm impairing the function or condition of a person or thing.” Damages can also be ordered to be paid as compensation for injury or loss.
Defining and developing a loss and damage mechanism at COP19 is a top priority. Whatever form this mechanism takes, it can only be seen as having one function and that is developed countries being responsible for insuring developing countries against natural disasters. Again, the typhoon tragedy in the Philippines happened at an opportune time for COP19. This will be used as a driving force to get loss and damage pushed through.
One nation is taking issue with the consensus process by demanding that it be defined. Russia, not America, balked at the unilateral decision-making consensus process and is demanding transparency. The reason for the Russians demands is that at last year’s meeting in Doha, Qatar, the UN took away its greenhouse gas credits accrued before the fall of communism. That means that Russia would “supposedly” be on an even playing field in this proposed new economic order being built under the treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.
The U.S. is a party to the UNFCCC, but not its Kyoto Protocol that was ratified by 192 of the UNFCCC Parties. The U.S. declined to be one of the 37 nations to be legally bound to Kyoto’s emission limitation and reduction commitments. In Doha in 2012, a second commitment period was created for the Kyoto Protocol, with the U.S. remaining out. However, the U.S. is looking favorably at joining the 2015 treaty. More than 100 Heads of State of the 195 Parties to the treaty are scheduled to attend the high-level segment of the meeting, which concludes on November 22.
As COP 19 participants continued haggling over the meaning of “consensus” and which pockets were the best ones to pick for the “Green Climate Fund,” 150 or so officials delegates and representatives from NGO’s and media crammed into a side event sponsored by the always entertaining Gaia Foundation.
Based in UK and named in honor of the personified goddess of the Earth, the Gaia devotees put forth a panel of “experts” denouncing everything from meat consumption and private land ownership to “agribusiness” and, of course, any fuel dug out of the earth.
With an ominous clock about to strike midnight and the motto “Time to Act” hovering between Powerpoint presentations, the chief Gaia priestess, er, spokeswomen, lamented that “there’s been slow progress, to put it mildly” on climate negotiations. She then cheerfully opined that while many fear they’ll be “cold, hungry and miserable” if we cut greenhouse emissions, life can actually be more abundant, cheerful, and an Edenic state of bliss if only we assiduously implement the various steps of the Green utopia.
The first presenter waxed poetic about how “transition towns” need to be developed because we will soon be running out of oil, food prices will skyrocket, and therefore towns need to be become self-sufficient with their food and other resources, and stop pursuing “mal-development.” She also attacked so-called carbon trading, saying that “money is a perverse incentive” and noting that if one flies to a COP meeting in Poland, he or she has already “spent the carbon” and “unless it remains in the soil” where the carbon credit is purchased, then the carbon savings wasn’t permanent, and someone needs to be responsible for that carbon double dipping.
The Global Forest Coalition was up next and recommended reducing levels of “production and consumption” across the board: For agricultural commodities, mining, infrastructure, and agricultural commodities. How we provide needed goods and services for the world’s people was not addressed, but hey, why get caught up on details. One detail not overlooked, however, was making sure to recommend that funding be channeled into the “most effective and equitable places” to achieve these goals (a.k.a. the Green groups spouting these notions).
Genetically modified crops did not escape attack during the presentations, with the presenter noting that out-of-control global warming is going to increase drought in Africa, increase floods in Bangladesh, increase typhoons in the Philippines, and that the local seeds in the pockets of village grandmothers hold the key to “seed diversity” that will save the world from radically changing and unpredictable climate.
Saving the best for last were the energy prophets of doom. The first frightfully warned that due to climate feedbacks and tipping points, we face the “unraveling of the climate system within 10 years” and that if we lose the rainforest due to biomass demand, we will lose the planet’s rainfall cycle and throw Earth into famines of Biblical proportions. The second declared that mankind’s rapid transition from “muscle and firewood” to dreaded fossil fuels must be followed by a decline “as steep as we went up,” and that when it comes to fossil fuels, the prime objective must be to “keep it in the ground.”
So the predicted increase in severe cyclones brought about by human emissions warming the ocean and atmosphere is being fought by long term natural variation that is trending in the complete opposite direction?
That's certainly convenient.
Although it's a little unnerving the study points the finger at increasing temperatures as the culprit of the severe activity with "changes in ocean-atmosphere thermal gradients."
How long will natural variation work in our favor?
Don't expect an answer.... I see his usual tactic of ignoring and then flooding the thread with copy and pastes to try and deflect and distract has begun.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: He is defending the undefendable.
He wants to know the reason for climate change, and he should start with the degrading angle of axis of the earth
The earth's axis angle to the sun is 23.439281°. However that angle is degrading each year by 47". This means that the equator should be getting a little more consistantly warmer and the northern and southern polar regions should be getting a ittle warmer longer.
If the axis tilt is becoming smaller, that would make the seasons more mild at the polar regions, summer and winter. It wouldn't make them consistently warmer.
quote
Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for his scientific work and publicly proclaimed in 2007 that there would be no arctic ice in the summer in 2013,
Who cares about Al Gore? He is full of sh*t, but that doesn't mean the science is any less valid. Seems like grasping for straws.
quote
Moreover the antarctic got colder as the arctic warmed. NASA announced on 22 October this year that there was a record increase in Antarctic ice. The highest since 1979. That is 34 years
This was widely reported and you can look it up.
Sea ice has increased, land ice has decreased. The science shows land ice to be a much better measure of climate trends, and how is land ice doing?
quote
This acknowledges ice loss but points out the lowest October was in 2007 and the rate of decline was -7.1% per decade. Way off the predictions of the Global Warming cheerleader, Al Gore. And remember the decline average is less than 1% per year.
Again, nobody cares about Al Gore, and mentioning him makes you sound desperate.
quote
This discussion is essentially about the extreme predictions made by people who claim that we humans are causing catastrophic planetary heating.
Sure the earth's axis is changing, and sure the ice age is behind us for now and the earth has gone through some centuries of warming, but no, there is no catastrophy waiting due to mankind's activities.
So is it the solar cycle? the AMO/PDO cycles? Sunspots? Or the Earth's axis? Volcanoes?
Deniers have no credibility because they don't have a comprehensive theory. Again, throwing sh*t at the wall and hoping something sticks.
quote
And the guys who want your money, (and believe me, they want it bad,) are wanting to impose new taxes, artificially and unnecessarily drive up the cost of fuel to heat our homes and cook our meals, and the want to pocket the profits.
All those evil scientists and researchers...out to get your money.
Seriously, most of these guys are independent and desire credibility, and propagating a huge lie is not the way to do that.
In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record. Sea ice extended over 19.47 million square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) of the Southern Ocean. The previous record of 19.44 million square kilometers was set in September 2012. The map above shows sea ice extent around Antarctica on September 22, 2013, when ice covered more of the Southern Ocean than at any other time in the satellite record.
Washington University in St. Louis reported this on 3 Oct.
quote
One of the last big unknowns in the global climate equation is Antarctica. How stable is the Antarctic ice sheet? More than a mile thick, on average, it locks up 70 percent of the Earth’s fresh water.
If it melted entirely, global sea levels would rise nearly 200 feet. So understanding how the ice sheet is affected by global climate change is extremely important.
But it is also very difficult both because the ice’s response to warming is inherently complex and because there is little data to go on. Temperature records exist for only a few locations along the perimeter of the continent, and even those go back only 50 or 60 years.
and
quote
To reach further back in time and provide a long-term record that can inform global climate models, scientists are turning to other means of measuring ice mass.
One of these is post-glacial rebound. At the end of the last glacial maximum, when ice sheets reached their maximum extent 20,000 to 25,000 years ago, the ice covering Antarctica was even thicker than it is today. As the cold eased and some of the ice melted, the land mass began to rebound, flexing slowly upward.
And as for the chart showing an area in West Antarctica warming, this
quote
“In some places in West Antarctica, such as Marie Byrd land, there are volcanoes and high heat flow from below, so it looks to be very different geologically, and that would mean it would respond over a shorter period of time.”
Notice this is a localized area and has nothing to do with the current "global warming" debate
However they do indicate the possibility of the West Antarctic ice sheet melting as it has done before.
The other parts of Antarctica are not affected, being out of the influence of the ocean flows affecting West Antarctica, their volcanoes, and being higher in elevation.
So showing charts about the melting in Antarctica are bogus arguments.
In the meanwhile the British newspaper the Herald reported this scary scenario on 16 November
quote
Vast swathes of the Westcountry would be swamped by rising seas if all the Earth's ice was to melt, new interactive maps show.
The Doomsday scenario, albeit in 5,000 years' time, was painted by National Geographic in a series of interactive maps demonstrating the catastrophic effect of a mass ice melt.
It is estimated that the loss of some five million cubic miles of ice – 80 per cent of which is in the East Antarctica ice sheet alone – would lead to a sea level rise of about 216 feet.
Of course one thing they say is true today. West Antarctica is only about 20% of the ice, (and only about 1/3rd of it is actually affected by the volcano)
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-16-2013).]
This may have been addressed in this thread one way or another before, but I'll be honest: I'm not going to check all 79 pages I was driving home today and noticed a lot of smoke coming out of the back of a house. It took me a second to realize it was from a chimney (duh). This got me thinking: During the times when homes were heated with fireplaces as a regular occurrence, so much so that "chimney sweep" was a valid profession, would there be a greater or lesser effect on the environment than today? I understand there are more people in the world today than then, but the combustion process was much less green than it is now.
Your observation is very valid. The whole world was run on burning wood and coal up until roughly the 20th Century.
the extreme polution in Chinese cities today was rivalled by the smoke coming off London, New York, Paris and all metropolititan cities in the 19th century.
This was complicated by coal fired trains, and ships, as well as every housewife in the whole world cooking meals every day
There was no measurement of this pollution but we have descriptions in contemporary literature of the day
Current GW's discount this because they can't quantify it or read about it
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Your observation is very valid. The whole world was run on burning wood and coal up until roughly the 20th Century. The extreme polution in Chinese cities today was rivalled by the smoke coming off London, New York, Paris and all metropolititan cities in the 19th century.This was complicated by coal fired trains, and ships, as well as every housewife in the whole world cooking meals every day. There was no measurement of this pollution but we have descriptions in contemporary literature of the day
Current GW's discount this because they can't quantify it or read about it.
You really had me going for a second or two, until I remembered that scientists have access to data from ice cores, marine sediments, and other organic and inorganic artifacts to reconstruct global temperatures and atmospheres over thousands of years of history. So they know how much CO2 and smoke was in the air during these earlier times.
Bwahaha..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-18-2013).]
Arn, there's a big difference between CO2 emissions and other pollutants such as soot, carbon, sulfur, etc etc.
CO2 emissions are (almost) directly related to the amount of fuel burned - a gallon of gasoline, for example, will always release the same amount of CO2. I say almost because a little bit becomes carbon monoxide, but this is trivial. There is a lot more fuel being burned today than in the 19th century.
Some good news...some countries are waking up to this scam and saying "hell no". But Obama, democrats and liberals are insisting on plowing ahead. Can't let a good scam...er...crisis go to waste.
COP 19: Realism dawns as nations pull back CO2 targets
As the Obama administration utilizes any excuse available to throttle down American energy production, other countries are headed in the opposite direction.
On Monday, Poland will host an international coal conference which will coincide with the UN global warming summit. This has many global warming pressure groups calling COP 19 “the coal COP.” The coal conference prompted climate campaigners to give Poland their “fossil of the day award.”
Greenpeace projected slogans onto Polish coal plants such as, “storms start here.” Apparently Greenpeace hasn’t checked the scientific records and is unaware that extreme storm activity is occurring at a historically normal rate. See, Climate Depot’s extreme storm report.
In 2012 Poland, which generates nearly 90% of its electricity from coal, blocked an EU global warming agreement which would have called for an 80 percent cut in European emissions by 2050. In September, Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared that, “the future of Polish energy is in brown and black coal, as well as shale gas. Some wanted coal to be dispensed with, but energy independence requires not only the diversification of energy resources, but also the maximum use of one’s own resources.”
Poland is not alone.
As COP 19 week one drew to a close, Japan announced that it will slash its CO2 emissions reduction target from 25% to 3.8%. Japan shut down its nuclear reactors after a tidal wave damaged its Fukushima nuclear plant. Reuters quotes Japanese environment minister Nobuteru Ishihara as saying that “given that none of the nuclear reactors is operating, this is unavoidable.” Apparently Japan has figured out that while wind and solar may be good for public relations, they are no substitute for nuclear power. Japan even tried to make its cut seem less dramatic by switching the base year from which it will calculate reductions from the generally accepted 1990, to 2005, a year in which Japan concedes it emitted 3% more CO2.
Australia decided to demote the level of its delegation and sent a rank and file bureaucrat to the COP in place of a cabinet minister. Australia made a sharp U-turn on climate when Tony Abbot was elected Prime Minister in September. Abbot’s platform prominently featured a pledge to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. The Australian reports that Australia’s cabinet has decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism. Australia has instructed its delegation to COP 19 to “not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes,” and “rules out Australia playing any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions.”
Canada announced that it will be unable to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals. In 2011, Canada, along with Russia and Japan announced their withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol.
As week two of COP 19 begins, the increasing willingness of countries to buck the established global warming trend presents strong challenges to those seeking short-term climate redistribution and a full-blown global warming treaty by COP 21 in 2015, in Paris.
The truth was not confirmed until the two events, the voyage of Columbus and the voyage of Magellan. 
