PDA

View Full Version : Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air



Cigar
12-13-2012, 02:36 PM
I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking (http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart). His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/10/climatedenierspapers.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original

Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?


Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scien tific_papers.html?wpisrc=most_viral

Chris
12-13-2012, 02:42 PM
So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change alarmism is purely, 100 percent made-up political crap.



BTW, science is not a matter of popular opinion or subjective analysis.

GrassrootsConservative
12-13-2012, 02:53 PM
It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

:rofl: such emotion, are you a woman, Cigar?

This place is for serious discussion, not emotion-fuelled propaganda.

RightWingHomosexual
12-22-2012, 04:39 PM
Cigar,

I will be the first tell you that "peer reviewed" anything doesn't necessarily make it true.

I was one of the first HIV/AIDS educators in Texas (along with hundreds of physicians and epidemiologists) who stood up and declared that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. HIV, like climate change is now politically reviewed, which makes its beginning premise false and therefore inconclusive. Any peer reviewed case of anything must be made blind then peer reviewed from independent scientists who are not paid or accept money from the peer committee (which the majority do in Climate Change).

HIV turned out to be nothing more than a harmless retrovirus that all human beings possess.

Though I do agree that there is a *slight* bit of man-made climate change for the same reason that HIV in a person who is immune-suppressed (after the application of the Western Blot confirming HIV positivity) I doubt the specifics since Climate Change is politically peer-reviewed, like HIV.

Case in point.

See the video below about HIV.

The Nobel Prize winning physician who discovered HIV in 1982 (Dr. Luc Montagnier) states here that HIV is not deadly and that "it comes into your body during oxidative stress and then leaves." Forever destroying the myth of "The Killer Virus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsT4GrimfLQ

Red Green
12-23-2012, 08:32 AM
this place is for serious discussion, not emotion-fuelled propaganda.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Carygrant
12-23-2012, 09:09 AM
Do you actually mix with anybody who denies Climate Change?
That's like being in the company of Holocaust deniers or Flat Earthers .
By all means debate causes of the change , but being contrary for the sake of it , and now being stupid restricts productive discussion .

Agravan
12-23-2012, 09:37 AM
Climate change is cyclical and natural. Not caused nor preventable by man. You leftists just use hysteria to increase taxes. It's a scam.

Chris
12-23-2012, 10:03 AM
Do you actually mix with anybody who denies Climate Change?
That's like being in the company of Holocaust deniers or Flat Earthers .
By all means debate causes of the change , but being contrary for the sake of it , and now being stupid restricts productive discussion .


Do you actually mix with anybody who denies Climate Change?

Same should be said of climate alarmists.


By all means debate causes of the change , but being contrary for the sake of it , and now being stupid restricts productive discussion .

By all means, cary, join in the discussion. Aren't you there just being contrary and restricting productive discussion?

Chris
12-23-2012, 10:06 AM
:rofl: such emotion, are you a woman, Cigar?

This place is for serious discussion, not emotion-fuelled propaganda.

One, I think cigar made a good point: "It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense". Just as climate alarmism.

Two, once upon a time there was a rule said "Other Discussions are for more serious discussion and stricter moderation. The rules apply but, on the positive side, we will also require that all posts make a contribution be it information, question or argumentation, and on the negative side we will not allow trolling, inflammatory remarks, personal attacks, or off-topic comments." Hey, it's still there. But I haven't seen enforcement of it for some time.

Chris
12-23-2012, 10:12 AM
Cigar,

I will be the first tell you that "peer reviewed" anything doesn't necessarily make it true.

I was one of the first HIV/AIDS educators in Texas (along with hundreds of physicians and epidemiologists) who stood up and declared that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. HIV, like climate change is now politically reviewed, which makes its beginning premise false and therefore inconclusive. Any peer reviewed case of anything must be made blind then peer reviewed from independent scientists who are not paid or accept money from the peer committee (which the majority do in Climate Change).

HIV turned out to be nothing more than a harmless retrovirus that all human beings possess.

Though I do agree that there is a *slight* bit of man-made climate change for the same reason that HIV in a person who is immune-suppressed (after the application of the Western Blot confirming HIV positivity) I doubt the specifics since Climate Change is politically peer-reviewed, like HIV.

Case in point.

See the video below about HIV.

The Nobel Prize winning physician who discovered HIV in 1982 (Dr. Luc Montagnier) states here that HIV is not deadly and that "it comes into your body during oxidative stress and then leaves." Forever destroying the myth of "The Killer Virus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsT4GrimfLQ

Very good point. I think Kuhn pointed this out, that peer review is somewhat political in that it will tend to maintain the status quo and prevent new scientific explanations from emerging.

The thing many seem to misunderstand about science is that it somehow provides proven truths. Far from it, it is incomplete, tentative, and probabilistic. It is changing all the time. This is as true of evolutionary theory as it is climate science.

Carygrant
12-23-2012, 01:02 PM
Climate change is cyclical and natural. Not caused nor preventable by man. You leftists just use hysteria to increase taxes. It's a scam.


You missed the key word entirely .
Change .
It may be cyclical or " natural" . But that is an admission in itself of Change . Nobody sensibly denies that . The debate is -- as I first remarked -- about the possible cause or several causes .

You introduced the notions of "man" (one possible cause) , and " scam" ( another type of man made "cause" ) . Not me .
And I am not a Lefty , but definitely not a Right Wing Extremist as most Republicans are here .
Conservative , yes .

Carygrant
12-23-2012, 01:03 PM
Same should be said of climate alarmists.



By all means, cary, join in the discussion. Aren't you there just being contrary and restricting productive discussion?


You are Trolling again , Chris .
I guess old habits die hard .

Chris
12-23-2012, 01:10 PM
You are Trolling again , Chris .
I guess old habits die hard .

Was that supposed to be a contribution to the discussion of climate change?

"Change ."

Can you explain why alarmists deny over 15 years of virtually flat temps? What are "the possible cause or several causes" of that?

Carygrant
12-23-2012, 01:42 PM
Was that supposed to be a contribution to the discussion of climate change?

"Change ."

Can you explain why alarmists deny over 15 years of virtually flat temps? What are "the possible cause or several causes" of that?


Why would you want me to be a spokesman for those you quaintly label , alarmists ? As usual you are inventing something . Why not include American Football if you consider me a bit of a Renaissance type ?
I think we all know that statistically a time period like 15 years is not a base from which anybody would sensibly wish to draw any conclusions . However major temperature changes occur frequently and in climate time terms there have been several recent major changes -- the mini ice age of the 17 th century is an obvious recent example , though those arguing for no temperature changes deliberately falsified all of their information by " forgetting" that happening completely .The smell of huge major fraud embraces every action of the IPCC and its crooked Chairman plus the equally dishonest Michael Mann

Chris
12-23-2012, 02:02 PM
Why would you want me to be a spokesman for those you quaintly label , alarmists ? As usual you are inventing something . Why not include American Football if you consider me a bit of a Renaissance type ?
I think we all know that statistically a time period like 15 years is not a base from which anybody would sensibly wish to draw any conclusions . However major temperature changes occur frequently and in climate time terms there have been several recent major changes -- the mini ice age of the 17 th century is an obvious recent example , though those arguing for no temperature changes deliberately falsified all of their information by " forgetting" that happening completely .The smell of huge major fraud embraces every action of the IPCC and its crooked Chairman plus the equally dishonest Michael Mann


Why would you want me to be a spokesman for those you quaintly label , alarmists ?

No, this is what I asked: "Can you explain why alarmists deny over 15 years of virtually flat temps? What are "the possible cause or several causes" of that?"

Oops.


As usual you are inventing something .

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

http://i.snag.gy/1Ze2A.jpg

Oops.



I think we all know that statistically a time period like 15 years is not a base from which anybody would sensibly wish to draw any conclusions .

Actually, a few years back when Judith Curry reported that, based on BEST data, we'd seen over 10 years of flat temps, the scientific community acknowledged that but requested waiting for at least 15 years worth of data because their trend formulas are based on that. Guess what, 15 years have now past with virtually flat temps.

Oops.

Peter1469
12-23-2012, 04:24 PM
You missed the key word entirely .
Change .
It may be cyclical or " natural" . But that is an admission in itself of Change . Nobody sensibly denies that . The debate is -- as I first remarked -- about the possible cause or several causes .

You introduced the notions of "man" (one possible cause) , and " scam" ( another type of man made "cause" ) . Not me .
And I am not a Lefty , but definitely not a Right Wing Extremist as most Republicans are here .
Conservative , yes .

That is the point. I don't think that anyone really believes that the climate is static.

The real question is what causes the change, and what if anything man can do to stop or help change. I know that I don't want 1 mile of ice over my head.

Carygrant
12-23-2012, 07:22 PM
That is the point. I don't think that anyone really believes that the climate is static.

The real question is what causes the change, and what if anything man can do to stop or help change. I know that I don't want 1 mile of ice over my head.


My stance is similar but nothing I have read convinces me that human activity in terms of carbon emissions is of even small significance as a major factor behind the present position .
In fact I would go as far as to guess that there is a deliberate policy of disinformation to show otherwise from our Met Office and the IPPC ( a political organisation from inception) .
But that is another strand to the subject and one which is far from black and white and probably can only be unraveled by climate , scientific methodology and statistic experts .
With the IPCC and the Met Office implicated in considerable fraud , and beyond the level of any reasonable doubt , one needs to be very careful of accepting anything published by them or the EU .
There appears to be an enormous political sub text .
My guess is that Solar flares / rays are contributing most to the present situation . These have bombarded the polar regions producing completely new and fast moving wind vortices which have radically changed precipitation in terms of location and intensity . I gather there is increasing research becoming available which makes this view quite likely in the scientific sense .

Chris
12-23-2012, 07:36 PM
With the IPCC and the Met Office implicated in considerable fraud

I'll leave you to your ad hom, but it doesn't matter who reports it, what matters is what the data say...


In the IPCC climate models, there’s only one direction projected for the future development of global temperature, namely a steady and strong increase....

However, the quality of projections have to be tested using the hard data of reality. One of the most important datasets comes from the Hadley Centre of the British Met Office in cooperation with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. While the Hadley Centre is responsible for the sea surface temperatures, the CRU takes care of the land temperatures. Together they form the so-called HadCRUT dataset.

Recently the newest HadCRUT numbers were released; they extended up to August 2012. It turns out that everything that had been suspected was confirmed: The global temperature hasn’t risen in 16 years (see Figure below). This is a completely unexpected development when one considers how all the boldly confident forecasts from the IPCC predicted more warming.

http://i.snag.gy/BuaUv.jpg

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 04:15 AM
My stance is similar but nothing I have read convinces me that human activity in terms of carbon emissions is of even small significance as a major factor behind the present position .
In fact I would go as far as to guess that there is a deliberate policy of disinformation to show otherwise from our Met Office and the IPPC ( a political organisation from inception) .
But that is another strand to the subject and one which is far from black and white and probably can only be unraveled by climate , scientific methodology and statistic experts .
With the IPCC and the Met Office implicated in considerable fraud , and beyond the level of any reasonable doubt , one needs to be very careful of accepting anything published by them or the EU .
There appears to be an enormous political sub text .
My guess is that Solar flares / rays are contributing most to the present situation . These have bombarded the polar regions producing completely new and fast moving wind vortices which have radically changed precipitation in terms of location and intensity . I gather there is increasing research becoming available which makes this view quite likely in the scientific sense .

Correct. Great points. And yes, it is a fact that the IPCC and the Met Office have been implicated in fraud with regards to their published data.

Chris
12-24-2012, 11:14 AM
Yes, the climate change debate has been politicized by deniers and alarmists alike while the scientist and skeptic still asks questions from, as you said, peter, how much does man effect it to how much can man do about it.

oceanloverOH
12-24-2012, 03:22 PM
My conclusions exactly, Peter and Chris. Climate change is a fact. Climate change has been a fact throughout recorded history. IMO, humankind hasn't had much effect on global climate, one way or another. What a shrewd opportunist Al Gore is, to get awarded the Nobel Prize for slanting climate change the way he wanted to slant it (well, if Obama could be awarded a Nobel just for merely breathing......)

Chris
12-24-2012, 04:21 PM
My conclusions exactly, Peter and Chris. Climate change is a fact. Climate change has been a fact throughout recorded history. IMO, humankind hasn't had much effect on global climate, one way or another. What a shrewd opportunist Al Gore is, to get awarded the Nobel Prize for slanting climate change the way he wanted to slant it (well, if Obama could be awarded a Nobel just for merely breathing......)

Exactly, once you get past the sky is falling argument and its denial, you start to ask meaningful questions. You start with how much is man affecting climate change. Recent historical data shows a rise in temps only half that predicted by climate models, a rate that is actually beneficial to man--I posted this somewhere and will find it if need be. Then you have the data posted about from BEST data and HadCRUT data, again, actual historical data, not projections from models, and we find 16 years of flats temp rates. (I'm reminded how actual historical data compares with government projections for stimuli!)

Then we get into questions about how much man can do to turn around effects that have been building up throughout his history especially since the Industrial Age. Whether we can reverse that and whether we want to is addressed here--oops, haven't posted that yet! But in general the very things that gave rise to these problems--science, technology, free market, liberty--are also the things that allowed us to escape the Malthusian Trap and live lives of comparative luxury. And we can't simply turn that around. Thus, perhaps, if climate is worsening to the point of threatening our existence, the solution is not to undo those accomplishments, but to adapt to the changes. We recently had a good long discussion of practical ways to go about this, if I could only find the thread.

Peter1469
12-24-2012, 09:44 PM
We also have to remember that there is not a climate model, but rather models. The Warmists and the MSM hype the extreme models. Other models do show very little warming, something like 1 degree C per 100 years. That is a long term problem, not a short term problem, and something that will like be made moot with technological advances.

But there is no research money in those models.... And they don't allow for political change (i.e. more power to the State to save us from ourselves).

Chris
12-24-2012, 09:57 PM
And that models are mere metaphors.

---

Here's the "oops, haven't posted that yet" piece:


For most of its existence, mankind’s wellbeing was dictated by disease, the elements and other natural factors, and the occasional conflict. Virtually everything it needed — food, fuel, clothing, medicine, transport, mechanical power — was the direct or indirect product of living nature.

Good harvests reduced hunger, improved health, and increased life expectancy and population — until the next inevitable epidemic, crop failure, natural disaster, or conflict. These Malthusian checks ensured little or no sustained growth in population or well-being.

Then mankind began to develop technologies to augment or displace living nature’s uncertain bounty. Gradually food supplies and nutrition improved and population, living standards, and human well-being advanced haltingly. The Industrial Revolution accelerated these trends. Mankind broke its Malthusian bonds. Growth became the norm. Population exploded, along with living standards and well-being.

Technologies dependent on cheap fossil fuels enabled these improving trends. Nothing can be made, transported, or used without energy, and fossil fuels provide 80 percent of mankind’s energy and 60 percent of its food and clothing. Thus, absent fossil fuels, global cropland would have to increase by 150 percent to meet current food demand, but conversion of habitat to cropland is already the greatest threat to biodiversity. By lowering humanity’s reliance on living nature, fossil fuels not only saved humanity from nature’s whims, but nature from humanity’s demands.

@ Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/humanity-unbound-how-fossil-fuels-saved-humanity-nature-nature-humanity)

Captain Obvious
12-25-2012, 07:21 PM
Unfortunately climate change is highly politicized. Science and politics do not mix.

Chris
12-25-2012, 08:09 PM
Last DOHA the politicians dropped the climate ball. Failing economies are too pressing.

Peter1469
12-25-2012, 09:15 PM
Right. But also, recall that of those that signed Kyoto, most nations didn't meet the standards to reduce CO2.

Chris
12-26-2012, 10:29 AM
Another case, you may have seen the headlines recently, but here's the rest of the story:


... a study published in the journal Science states that higher temperatures over the past two decades have contributed to a nearly half-inch rise in global sea levels since 1992, attributing about 30% of that increase to melting of polar ice sheets. The study estimates that roughly half of that 0.43 inch rise was caused by thermal expansion of the oceans (as water warms, it becomes less dense and expands), some from from runoff from melting glaciers, and the rest from melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets.

And by the way, it also points out that Greenland has been a bigger contributor to all of that because Northern Hemisphere ocean currents are warmer (yup, it’s called the” North Atlantic Oscillation”…a natural cycle that shifts about every 60-70 years), while “Antarctica is so cold that even if warming occurs it won’t melt” at the rate seen in Greenland (according to the study co-author). The study also admitted that it’s a tricky question whether or not the overall accelerated melting of polar ice sheets can be linked to man-made climate change influences; that current climate-change models predict that some parts of the Antarctic ice sheets will grow, while others will melt; that Antarctica is not losing ice as rapidly as suggested by many recent studies; and that “The signals suggest there is no immediate threat” from rising sea levels.

But there's more...


...another recent study posted in Science, concluded that polar ice sheet melting has been massively overestimated. That analysis is based upon new methods that filter out “noise” from “Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment” (GRACE) satellite data. As researcher Frederik Simons of Princeton explains, “Our technique learns enough about the noise to effectively recover the signal, and at much finer spatial scales than was possible before.”

Simons and his colleague Christopher Haig directed particular attention to the Greenland ice sheet, noting that the Antarctic ice cap is actually getting bigger. While they found that Greenland’s ice loss did consistently increase between 2003 and 2010, the change was very patchy from region to region. In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed them to estimate that the annual loss acceleration was much lower than previous research suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons annually, Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

Such rates of Greenland ice loss were barely larger than the margin of error in their readings, making it difficult to discern any difference between a supposed loss curve on a graph from a straight line. At the current rate, it will cause sea levels to rise about 2.4 inches over the next century. And according to the authors: “At current melt rates, the Greenland ice sheet would take about 13,000 years to melt completely, which would result in a global sea level rise of more than 21 feet (6.5 meters).”

The good news is that we are scheduled for the next Ice Age long before that.

@ Man The Lifeboats! Global Warming Has Oceans Rising At Alarming Rate! (Or Maybe not) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/12/25/man-the-lifeboats-global-warming-has-oceans-rising-at-alarming-rate-or-maybe-not/)

Chris
12-26-2012, 01:50 PM
Earlier I showed based on BEST and other data that temps had been virtually flat for over 15 years.

Cary, responded "I think we all know that statistically a time period like 15 years is not a base from which anybody would sensibly wish to draw any conclusions ."

However, as I next explained, when ten years of flat temps were first reported, scientists argued they needed to wait 15 years for greater significance.

Now we have 34 Years of Satellite Temperature Data Show Global Warming Is on a Plateau (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/12/26/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-show-global-warming-is-on-a-plateau/):


University of Alabama climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer have released their monthly statistics on global warming trends detected by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency satellites. In the press release accompanying the data, Christy notes that the rise in global average temperatures has been largely stalled since the big El Nino event in 1998:


The lowest level of the global atmosphere has warmed almost one half of a degree Celsius (0.48 C or 0.86 degrees Fahrenheit) during the 34 years since instruments aboard NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. While the atmosphere has warmed over the full 34-year time span, it has not warmed noticeably since the major El Niño of 1997-98 — giving us about a decade and a half of generally stable temperatures.

Since 2002, there has been a plateau of relatively warmer temperatures with only 12 months when the global average temperature was cooler than the long-term seasonal norm. In fact, compared to the 30-year temperature baseline, the most recent five years (12/07-11/12) averaged only 0.003 C (0.173 to 0.176 above seasonal norms) warmer than the preceding five years (12/02-11/07). ...

The long term 0.14 C per decade warming trend measured by microwave sounding units on a series of satellites is consistent with the low-end of global climate change predictions made by some climate models; it is also within the potential range of natural climate variability, especially since most of the warming happened over such a short period of time.

Based on the empirical data gathered by the NOAA satellites, Christy remains skeptical of climate models that predict future catastrophic warming...

TheRevBytes
01-06-2013, 04:35 AM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I do not deny climate change is occurring and has occurred all throughout earths recordable history that is about half a billion years plus or minus a few hundred milliuon years. Yep, (I had to look at my notes etc), looking at the graph of average global temp, atmospheric CO2 saturation and related data over a period of 400 million years (from sea core analysis etc) the ‘wave pattern’ looks like a repetitive almost perfect smooth repetitive oscillation in sine wave fashion for hundreds of millions of years. Despite unbelievably active volcanic outgassing, ‘natural’ methane production, and other non-anthropogenic contributors to climate change, the rise and fall in avg. temps occur with comforting regularity all through the 400m time frame.

So I as much as I would like to be popular I simply can not agree that the recent and projected climate change is exclusively caused by anthropogenic influence. Speaking of not being popular, allow me time to don my body armor and climb in an armored vehicle before I say; "Maybe’ climate change is not even moderately influenced by homo sapien sapien‘s deeds, any more than Neanderthal‘s camp fires and slash and burn hunting techniques (lol) altered earths climate". A better claim would be to say I can not rule out modern man contributes a minor amount to Climate change/Global Warming/cooling. RevB

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 10:16 AM
The Warmists are a deceptive bunch. They try to paint their opposition as being of the position that the climate isn't changing. That is a silly assertion. Nobody believes that. But the less intelligent of the masses accept that, and "think" that the non-Warmists are wrong.

Cigar
01-07-2013, 01:58 PM
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/201201-201210.gif?w=470&h=331

Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/



On a lighter side ... :grin:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/37076_539546442723005_1393464995_n.jpg



BTW ... it's been over a year since I bought my new kick-ass Snow - blower, that I've never used. :(

hanger4
01-07-2013, 02:22 PM
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/



On a lighter side ... :grin:





BTW ... it's been over a year since I bought my new kick-ass Snow - blower, that I've never used. :(

Philip Bump, now there's a non-biased blogger.

Hey Cigar, why don't ya just post some bloggers rant from the KosKids ??

Be about as believable.

Cigar
01-07-2013, 02:39 PM
Philip Bump, now there's a non-biased blogger.

Hey Cigar, why don't ya just post some bloggers rant from the KosKids ??

Be about as believable.



Naa ... considering I live in the Mid-West / Illinois, I'll just go with first hand accounts. :)

It's the first week of January and I'm already looking for Tee-times :)

Peter1469
01-07-2013, 02:42 PM
You Warmists are going to be covered by a mile high pack of ice long before man heats up this planet.

Follow the money. And notice that the Warmists are corrupt people.

Chris
01-07-2013, 07:45 PM
...

Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing.

http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-younger-youve-never-experienced-a-colder-than-average-month/



...



BTW ... it's been over a year since I bought my new kick-ass Snow - blower, that I've never used. :(


I think you're confusing weather with climate.

Besides, the latest scientific data debunks your blogger's claim:

http://i.snag.gy/4TpG5.jpg

@ Global warming stopped 16 years ago (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html)

Cigar
01-08-2013, 07:39 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/underwatercarsbrooklyn-shutterstock-615x345.jpg

New climate change projections surpass previous estimates and threaten 187 million
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, January 7, 2013 14:58 EST

A new study published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change estimates that at its worst, sea level rise attributed to the melting of Earth’s polar ice caps and glaciers may displace up to 187 million people within the next 100 years.

An assessment of expert opinion published Sunday finds that most leading climate scientists are divided on how rapidly the planet’s glaciers and ice caps will deteriorate, leading to a wide divergence of opinion on how much that melting will contribute to sea levels between present day and 2100.

After charting detailed responses from 26 leading experts, researchers came back with a median estimate of projected sea level rise at just 29 centimeters. The worst estimate is 84 centimeters.

The results are significantly worse than the last projection (PDF) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, which suggested that at best the world would see 18 centimeters of sea level rise, and at worst 59 centimeters.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/07/new-climate-change-projections-surpass-previous-estimates-and-threaten-187-million/

hanger4
01-08-2013, 07:56 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/underwatercarsbrooklyn-shutterstock-615x345.jpg

New climate change projections surpass previous estimates and threaten 187 million
By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, January 7, 2013 14:58 EST

A new study published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change estimates that at its worst, sea level rise attributed to the melting of Earth’s polar ice caps and glaciers may displace up to 187 million people within the next 100 years.

An assessment of expert opinion published Sunday finds that most leading climate scientists are divided on how rapidly the planet’s glaciers and ice caps will deteriorate, leading to a wide divergence of opinion on how much that melting will contribute to sea levels between present day and 2100.

After charting detailed responses from 26 leading experts, researchers came back with a median estimate of projected sea level rise at just 29 centimeters. The worst estimate is 84 centimeters.

The results are significantly worse than the last projection (PDF) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, which suggested that at best the world would see 18 centimeters of sea level rise, and at worst 59 centimeters.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/07/new-climate-change-projections-surpass-previous-estimates-and-threaten-187-million/

When the temperatures start rising why don't ya get back to us Cigar,

right now you and these "reports" look foolish in the light of NO increase in temperatures.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 08:04 AM
When the temperatures start rising why don't ya get back to us Cigar,

right now you and these "reports" look foolish in the light of NO increase in temperatures.



This week in The Midwest (the second week of January), temperatures are expected to be between 58 and 75 degrees.

hanger4
01-08-2013, 08:09 AM
This week in The Midwest (the second week of January), temperatures are expected to be between 58 and 75 degrees.

Stop with the weather reports and show some evidence, a graph or something, from the global warmists

that indicate a temp. increase over a sustained period of time ??

Cigar
01-08-2013, 08:10 AM
Stop with the weather reports and show some evidence, a graph or something, from the global warmists

that indicate a temp. increase over a sustained period of time ??


Why ... you'll just deny it or whine to the authorities

hanger4
01-08-2013, 08:13 AM
Why ... you'll just deny it or whine to the authorities

Actually this (your) post is the denial Cigar.

You can't find anything to indicate a temp. increase so you accuse me of denial.

Your projecting kid.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 08:55 AM
I believe what I see and feel ... it's proof enough for me.

Chris
01-08-2013, 09:16 AM
New climate change projections surpass previous estimates and threaten 187 million

Do you see the word "projections" there. Projections aren't facts, like nearly 16 years of flat temps. Projections are based on models.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 01:31 PM
Do you see the word "projections" there. Projections aren't facts, like nearly 16 years of flat temps. Projections are based on models.


NOAA: 2012 was warmest year ever for US, second most 'extreme'

If you found yourself bundling up in scarves, hats, and long underwear less than usual last year, you weren't alone: 2012 was the warmest year on record in the contiguous United States, according to scientists with The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3 degrees Farenheit, 3.2 degrees above normal and a full degree higher than the previous warmest year recorded -- 1998 -- NOAA said in its report Tuesday. All 48 states in the contiguous U.S. had above-average annual temperatures last year, including 19 that broke annual records, from Connecticut through Utah.

It was also a historic year for "extreme" weather, scientists with the federal agency said. With 11 disasters that surpassed $1 billion in losses, including Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Isaac, and tornadoes across the Great Plains, Texas, and the Southeast and Ohio Valley, NOAA said 2012 was second only to 1998 in the agency's "extreme" weather index.

A long-term warming trend for the U.S., combined with drought and a northerly jet stream, led to the record heat, explained one of NOAA's scientists.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/08/16413805-noaa-2012-was-warmest-year-ever-for-us-second-most-extreme?lite

Chris
01-08-2013, 01:37 PM
Thanks for yet another weather report, cigar, the science says virtually flat temps, no trend toward warmer temps, for over 16 years now.

http://i.snag.gy/4TpG5.jpg

Cigar
01-08-2013, 02:11 PM
Thanks for yet another weather report, cigar, the science says virtually flat temps, no trend toward warmer temps, for over 16 years now.

http://i.snag.gy/4TpG5.jpg



Looks like you got some software for Christmas

hanger4
01-08-2013, 02:19 PM
Looks like you got some software for Christmas

Deny, deny, deny, ain't them your words Cigar ??

The graph is showing 16 years of flat temps. no rise in temps.

and you post a one year weather report.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 02:21 PM
Deny, deny, deny, ain't them your words Cigar ??

The graph is showing 16 years of flat temps. no rise in temps.

and you post a one year weather report.


Not where I live ... :)

hanger4
01-08-2013, 02:33 PM
Not where I live ... :)

Your little space ain't but a small blip in world of climate change.

Chris
01-08-2013, 02:40 PM
Not where I live ... :)

Science is objective, not subjective. It's facts are true or false regardless who verifies or falsifies them. If you're talking global warming local doesn't count.

Cigar
01-08-2013, 02:43 PM
Science is objective, not subjective. It's facts are true or false regardless who verifies or falsifies them. If you're talking global warming local doesn't count.



Good ... so you agree the Arctic isn't in multiple places. :)

Chris
01-08-2013, 02:44 PM
Good ... so you agree the Arctic isn't in multiple places. :)

Explain the elipses.

hanger4
01-08-2013, 02:50 PM
Explain the elipses.

For Cigar;


Ellipses and how to use them. A definition.


http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaEllipses.htm

Chris
01-08-2013, 04:47 PM
Indeed, cigar's ellipses are eclipses obscuring the light of meaning.

lynn
01-20-2013, 12:32 PM
No one can deny that climate changes over time but whether or not man is currently the cause of it. It is all life combined in their daily activities that interact with the environment that causes many of the changes throughout history. Humans are currently to blame for the changes in climate simply because we dominate the entire globe right now and our interactions with the environmental in volume is creating those changes to occur.

Chris
01-20-2013, 01:14 PM
No one can deny that climate changes over time but whether or not man is currently the cause of it. It is all life combined in their daily activities that interact with the environment that causes many of the changes throughout history. Humans are currently to blame for the changes in climate simply because we dominate the entire globe right now and our interactions with the environmental in volume is creating those changes to occur.

To me the question is not even whether man contributes, of course he does, the question is how much...does it matter...if so, how much can he do about it, what should he do about it?

Peter1469
01-20-2013, 02:57 PM
To me the question is not even whether man contributes, of course he does, the question is how much...does it matter...if so, how much can he do about it, what should he do about it?


I suspect that man does contribute to warming, but at a rate that makes it a long term issue, not a sort term issue. Technology should advance and make the long term issue moot. Let's focus on more pressing pollution issues.

RightWingExtremist
01-20-2013, 07:38 PM
The climate itself does change. What doesn't change it are the actions of the human race. See the difference?

Peter1469
01-20-2013, 08:59 PM
The climate itself does change. What doesn't change it are the actions of the human race. See the difference?

What was the Industrial Revolution?

RightWingExtremist
01-20-2013, 09:15 PM
What was the Industrial Revolution?

Industrial?

Chloe
01-20-2013, 09:23 PM
The climate itself does change. What doesn't change it are the actions of the human race. See the difference?

I think it's kind of naive and dangerous to think that humans can't have a negative affect on the environment. Ignore everything else and just look at the cars on the road and all of the harmful gas it puts into the sky every single day across the face of the Earth. We can and do affect and harm our planet.

RightWingExtremist
01-20-2013, 09:34 PM
What was the Industrial Revolution?

I can debate climate change too. And since you seem like a civilized person, why not?

The Vostok and Dome C ice cores seem to indicate the Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. None of which were affected by the Industrial Revolution. In order to have a catastrophic warming of the kind AGW proponents suggest, you would have to have every active volcano on Earth go off at once and continue erupting and to produce enough CO2 for a long enough time to affect the overall global temperature. The revolution itself began in or around 1760, surely you cannot say that in 300 years (give or take) we are responsible for altering the climate in such a drastic way? It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a climate to change. Especially the one on a planet.

Looking forward to your response.

Peter1469
01-20-2013, 09:36 PM
I can debate climate change too. And since you seem like a civilized person, why not?

The Vostok and Dome C ice cores seem to indicate the Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. None of which were affected by the Industrial Revolution. In order to have a catastrophic warming of the kind AGW proponents suggest, you would have to have every active volcano on Earth go off at once and continue erupting and to produce enough CO2 for a long enough time to affect the overall global temperature. The revolution itself began in or around 1760, surely you cannot say that in 300 years (give or take) we are responsible for altering the climate in such a drastic way? It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a climate to change. Especially the one on a planet.

Looking forward to your response.

I agree with you largely.

As I said before, any effect humans have is minor and not a concern except over the long term; but technology advances will make that moot.

RightWingExtremist
01-20-2013, 09:41 PM
I think it's kind of naive and dangerous to think that humans can't have a negative affect on the environment. Ignore everything else and just look at the cars on the road and all of the harmful gas it puts into the sky every single day across the face of the Earth. We can and do affect and harm out planet.

Same goes for you, Chloe. How in 300 years or so can we drastically change the climate of our planet, when such changes take hundreds of thousands of years to complete on their own? How can I be so naive when each and every day I breathe the same oxygen I have been breathing for decades past? Unless I am mistaken, the chemicals for global warming existed on this planet for millions of years, way before humans came into being. They have peaking and receding for over 400,000 years as per this chart:

1283

Chloe
01-20-2013, 09:46 PM
Same goes for you, Chloe. How in 300 years or so can we drastically change the climate of our planet, when such changes take hundreds of thousands of years to complete on their own? How can I be so naive when each and every day I breathe the same oxygen I have been breathing for decades past? Unless I am mistaken, the chemicals for global warming existed on this planet for millions of years, way before humans came into being. They have peaking and receding for over 400,000 years as per this chart:

1283

Well yes naturally those gases exist but what I am saying is that when we pump millions of excess tons of those same greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it is more than what the Earth would have handled naturally from regular cycles which causes warming to occur faster.

RightWingExtremist
01-20-2013, 09:49 PM
Well yes naturally those gases exist but what I am saying is that when we pump millions of excess tons of those same greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it is more than what the Earth would have handled naturally from regular cycles which causes warming to occur faster.

Alright I was being facetious with the volcano example:

Let me be serious for real this time

A study was released in the middle of last year in the journal Nature Climate Change, by Professor Jan Esper, and later a more reader friendly version republished by Mainz University, that spoke of a cooling trend, not a warming trend as alarmists are so easily willing to point out.

http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

Chris
01-20-2013, 09:52 PM
What was the Industrial Revolution?

That certainly accelerated man's changing his environment, probably exponentially, along with the generation of wealth.

Chloe
01-20-2013, 09:57 PM
Tell that to a volcano:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

those are natural though. I realize they have a big affect on the earth when they erupt but that still doesn't dismiss all of the excess greenhouse gas that we pump into the sky.

RightWingExtremist
01-20-2013, 10:07 PM
those are natural though. I realize they have a big affect on the earth when they erupt but that still doesn't dismiss all of the excess greenhouse gas that we pump into the sky.

Check my edition. Volcanoes are bad examples on so many levels. But Human CO2 emissions (26 billion metric tons) aren't warming the planet at all, in fact if anything they are responsible for cooling it.

Chloe
01-20-2013, 10:23 PM
Check my edition. Volcanoes are bad examples on so many levels. But Human CO2 emissions (26 billion metric tons) aren't warming the planet at all, in fact if anything they are responsible for cooling it.

I don't see how our emissions could be cooling the planet though when all of those excess gases work to block gas from escaping the atmosphere which would cool the planet if allowed to escape faster.

Chris
01-20-2013, 10:33 PM
It's been years since I studied how all that words but it's a complex, dynamic system with all sorts of feedbacks that are, I think, too complicated to model, and most of the alarmism is and has been based on oversimplified models that don't explain the data, first warning, then cooling, and now over 16 years of virtually flat temps. Deniers are just as bad, so don't get me wrong please.

Peter1469
01-20-2013, 11:44 PM
Ice ages on earth come in a regular pattern. It would be good if we could warm the place up. We are coming due for the next ice age.

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=by+ice+not+by+fire&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=18556479677&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=19551077541089765910&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_24tfvztm6t_b

RightWingExtremist
01-21-2013, 01:03 AM
I don't see how our emissions could be cooling the planet though when all of those excess gases work to block gas from escaping the atmosphere which would cool the planet if allowed to escape faster.

In that sense, they have no impact on the temperature of the planet.

Chris
01-22-2013, 01:45 PM
Interesting question...


I'm spending a large part of my day writing a book review of Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson's Why Nations Fail. Given the main theme of the book, which I like to focus on in reviews, I can't find a way to fit an interesting section they wrote on global warming. But it's important enough not to ignore. So here's the relevant excerpt, taken from a section sub-titled "The Long Summer":


About 15,000 BC, the Ice Age came to an end as the Earth's climate warmed up. Evidence from the Greenland ice cores suggests that average temperatures rose by as much as fifteen degrees Celsius in a short span of time. This warming seems to have coincided with rapid increases in human populations as the global warming led to expanding animal populations and much greater availability of wild plants and foods. This process was put into rapid reverse at about 14,000 BC, by a period of cooling known as the Younger Dryas, but after 9600 BC, global temperatures rose again, by seven degrees Celsius in less than a decade, and have since stayed high. Archaeologist Brian Fagan calls it the Long Summer. The warming-up of the climate was a huge critical juncture that formed the background to the Neolithic Revolution, where human societies made the transition to sedentary life, farming, and herding. This and the rest of subsequent human history have played out basking in this Long Summer.

That excerpt got me wondering: If this huge increase--15 degrees Celsius is 27 degrees Fahrenheit--was good for mankind, what degree of certainty can we put on the idea that another 2 or so degrees Celsius is really bad for mankind? I understand that you can't extrapolate and I understand that past some point, there's likely increasing marginal damage due to an extra degree. But a lot of damage? I'm skeptical.

@ Acemoglu and Robinson on Global Warming (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/acemoglu_and_ro.html)

spunkloaf
04-04-2013, 04:26 AM
Climate change is cyclical and natural. Not caused nor preventable by man. You leftists just use hysteria to increase taxes. It's a scam.

Yes. We leftists want you to believe in man-made global warming because we want to pay more taxes. :rollseyes:

That was sarcasm, son.

Here's the beef. Climate change is indeed cyclical and natural. Evidence will prove that Antarctica has melted and re-froze at least 60 times in the planet's history, likely raising and lowering the ocean levels by the meters. We are on the cusp of another climate change, human influence be damned.

http://www.c2es.org/publications/current-understanding-antarctic-climate-change

http://www.asoc.org/issues-and-advocacy/climate-change-and-the-antarctic

Is that something you'd like to address, putting politics aside? Or is it an issue you'd rather shun in order to promote your disdain of leftists? I disagree with your priorities on this matter.

Chris
04-04-2013, 09:34 AM
There are few things sadder than the “climate denier.” He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality. He can’t recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he’s a denier.

The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.

“Over the past 15 years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,” The Economist magazine writes. “The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, no more warming.

The Economist has been decidedly alarmist on global warming through the years, so it deserves credit for pausing to consider why the warming trend it expected to continue has mysteriously stalled out....

@ New climate deniers miss simple truth (http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/rich-lowry-new-climate-deniers-miss-simple-truth/article_df58d366-9ca3-11e2-b42d-001a4bcf887a.html?comment_form=true)

hanger4
04-04-2013, 09:51 AM
“Over the past 15 years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.

The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.

Yet, no more warming."



What part of this can't we understand ??

Peter1469
04-04-2013, 09:53 AM
I bet the trees love it.

spunkloaf
04-04-2013, 11:36 AM
I think it was really a win-lose situation for all that the left has brought environmental issues into politics. It's a win because it brings more attention to the matters, but it's a lose because it polarizes that attention. There's bullshit on both sides. The left is bullshit for possessing the audacity to think that a carbon credit system would stem the issue without pissing other people off. The right is bullshit for seeing the carbon credit system as the ONLY motivation for the left's alarm on global warming, and putting it off altogether as a result.

nic34
04-04-2013, 01:41 PM
Is that something you'd like to address, putting politics aside? Or is it an issue you'd rather shun in order to promote your disdain of leftists?

There's a real bargain for land in Alaska... get it before it's gone and piss off your favorite lefty!

http://firststewards.org/w/2012/07/alaskans-see-the-land-beneath-their-feet-disappearing/

Chris
04-04-2013, 01:44 PM
I think it was really a win-lose situation for all that the left has brought environmental issues into politics. It's a win because it brings more attention to the matters, but it's a lose because it polarizes that attention. There's bullshit on both sides. The left is bullshit for possessing the audacity to think that a carbon credit system would stem the issue without pissing other people off. The right is bullshit for seeing the carbon credit system as the ONLY motivation for the left's alarm on global warming, and putting it off altogether as a result.

Problem is there are alarmists and there are deniers and there are skeptics. Science itself is a skeptical endeavor and should never have been politicized for left or right agendas.

spunkloaf
04-04-2013, 01:56 PM
Problem is there are alarmists and there are deniers and there are skeptics. Science itself is a skeptical endeavor and should never have been politicized for left or right agendas.

That's why people with good heads on their shoulders will take a cautious approach to all information they encounter.

spunkloaf
04-04-2013, 01:59 PM
There's a real bargain for land in Alaska... get it before it's gone and piss off your favorite lefty!

http://firststewards.org/w/2012/07/alaskans-see-the-land-beneath-their-feet-disappearing/

I'm sorry, this escapes me...but the article is interesting.

Newpublius
04-05-2013, 02:35 PM
Problem is the pro global warming camp takes their data and scales it onto temperature graphs where the slope of change looks rather dire.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And THEN look at the y-axis.

Oldest statistical trick in the book.

Where I live in North Jersey, glaciers extended right to where I live, they melted leaving behind a glacial lake, the runoff from this creating the relatively sandy Pine Barrens in NJ.

Fossil ferns, glacial lakes. In neither case was man a contributing factor.

Ok, why is it that I should be worried about a .2 C deviation from the scientific mean, or a .8C rise from the -.4C we had during the Little Ice Age.

Common
04-06-2013, 12:44 AM
Problem is the pro global warming camp takes their data and scales it onto temperature graphs where the slope of change looks rather dire.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And THEN look at the y-axis.

Oldest statistical trick in the book.

Where I live in North Jersey, glaciers extended right to where I live, they melted leaving behind a glacial lake, the runoff from this creating the relatively sandy Pine Barrens in NJ.

Fossil ferns, glacial lakes. In neither case was man a contributing factor.

Ok, why is it that I should be worried about a .2 C deviation from the scientific mean, or a .8C rise from the -.4C we had during the Little Ice Age.

So youre saying glaciers made newark ? :)