Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

[tommyturtle]

I was not aware of that. That warrants further research. Thanks.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

If you read the study itself, rather than the breathless Forbes article, with it's constant references to "alarmism", you come away with a very different headline.

Kimiko I didn't really have to read any further than this.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer

He's been one of the most fathful deniers for decades and is right up at the top of Inhofe's discredited list of 400 scientists who deny global warming.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...sts-46011008-4

I see the deniers cite his debunked global warming science all the time. But you know what I don't see. What an expert he also is on denying evolution.

“Roy Spencer is an evolution science denier who believes that "the theory of creation actually [has] a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution [4] in addition to his believing that God will protect us from global warming.

Do Dr. Roy Spencer's religious beliefs influence his "scientifi*c" assessment*s?

We report, you decide.

----------*------
[1] http://tam*ino.wordpr*ess.com/20*11/07/13/b*ob-carter-*does-his-b*usiness/

[2] http://www*.cornwalla*lliance.or*g/about/bo*ard-of-adv*isors/

[3] http://www*.cornwalla*lliance.or*g/docs/a-r*enewed-cal*l-to-truth*-prudence-*and-protec*tion-of-th*e-poor.pdf

[4] http://en.*wikipedia.*org/wiki/R*oy_Spencer*_(scientist*)”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social..._99625308.html

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by knoxvillainswife

Actually, we do, with Ice cores. We've been studying them for the last several years, coming up with the result of we are undergoing rapid extreme weather changes. This one is supposed to reach 100,000 years back.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0202114955.htm

Actually I think they have ice core samples going back 600,000 years and in the time I've been following the research on global warming/climate change that's been one of the most amazing and evolving things I've seen.

I think they've even identified specific volcanoes and just about every other huge event for the past half million years. Including a record of just how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at any given time and how it got there.

It also seems to me that the ice cores have resulted in almost as many geological discoveries as climate discoveries.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by easttexasbadboy32

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

Satellite Findings Support Surface Warming Record

New View of Data Supports Human Link to Global Warming

Dr. Christy and Dr. Roy W. Spencer, at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, pioneered efforts to sift weather-satellite data for clues to longer-term temperature trends.



The data are notoriously difficult to deal with because they were gathered by a dozen satellites launched over several decades with different kinds of instruments. In a number of cases, one satellite sometimes overlapped with its predecessor for only a short time, preventing adequate cross-checking of their readings.


Adjustments to calculations had to be made for all manner of variables, including the tendency of the satellites to tip and drift up and down and east and west, distorting readings.


Initially, Dr. Christy and his group found that the lower troposphere was actually cooling, and not warming, drawing strong interest in their work from companies and elected officials questioning whether global warming was happening.


More recently, as Dr. Christy and his team took into account factors that could distort the readings, they concluded that there had been a slight, but inconsequential warming.



The new analysis was begun several years ago by Remote Sensing Systems and the two groups have increasingly shared data over the past year. The rate of warming calculated by the new group is higher than the old analysis by just a sixth of a degree per decade.


But that adds up over time to a trend that is consistent with what some computer simulations say would occur under the influence of building greenhouse-gas concentrations, Dr. Wentz said.


Dr. Christy says his work matches up much better with readings taken by an independent method, instrument-laden balloons launched from hundreds of weather stations.


But other scientists said the balloon-gathered data were spotty and inconsistent as well, and did not provide a useful yardstick.

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...rd&Cache=False

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Kimiko I didn't really have to read any further than this.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer

He's been one of the most fathful deniers for decades and is right up at the top of Inhofe's discredited list of 400 scientists who deny global warming.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...sts-46011008-4

I see the deniers cite his debunked global warming science all the time. But you know what I don't see. What an expert he also is on denying evolution.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social..._99625308.html

Thanks, Stumbler...I should have seen it coming.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Thanks, Stumbler...I should have seen it coming.

You're welcome sweetie. And besides its just been me and the dog for the past week because my wife was with our new grandchild and daughter. So between the heat and misquotes, and medical restrictions its not like I haven't had the time.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You're welcome sweetie. And besides its just been me and the dog for the past week because my wife was with our new grandchild and daughter. So between the heat and misquotes, and medical restrictions its not like I haven't had the time.

You get an A+, and you get to stay after class and clean the white boards.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You get an A+, and you get to stay after class and clean the white boards.

I will gladly do that. And put chalk prints on your ass if I get my chance.

psst remember the young turk we were talking about on that TV Channel? Did you see what he got replaced with? You don't have to say in public if you don't want to.

[Whitey44]

I thought schools were using more whiteboards/markers than chalk these days?

[knoxvillainswife]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Actually I think they have ice core samples going back 600,000 years and in the time I've been following the research on global warming/climate change that's been one of the most amazing and evolving things I've seen.

I think they've even identified specific volcanoes and just about every other huge event for the past half million years. Including a record of just how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at any given time and how it got there.

It also seems to me that the ice cores have resulted in almost as many geological discoveries as climate discoveries.

That was just the one I happened to find with bing...now that I'm out of Canada bounds, my bing and google pull up different results, the news focuses on other things, and the learning channels even have different shows. None of the 4 AM surprise expose' s of theories.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

I thought schools were using more whiteboards/markers than chalk these days?

That's why I said "white board". But Stumbler has trouble getting over some of the erotic fantasies from his youth.

[Whitey44]

Asian chalkboard action video...


http://video.xnxx.com/video875257/be...eacher_yayoi_1

[Whitey44]

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5124/arcti...n-resume-again


Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again

August 11, 2011

BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.



Sea ice off the Alaskan coast. (©UCAR, Photo by Carlye Calvin. This image is freely available for media use. For more information, see Media & nonprofit use.*)


“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.
Kay and her colleagues also ran computer simulations to answer a fundamental question: why did Arctic sea ice melt far more rapidly in the late 20th century than projected by computer models? By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.
These findings point to climate change and variability working together equally to accelerate the observed sea ice loss during the late 20th century.
The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Rapid melt

Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third. The ice returns each winter, but the extent shrank to a record low in September 2007 and is again extremely low this year, already setting a monthly record low for July. Whereas scientists warned just a few years ago that the Arctic could lose its summertime ice cover by the end of the century, some research has indicated that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free within the next several decades.
To simulate what is happening with the ice, the NCAR team used a newly updated version of one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models. The software, known as the Community Climate System Model, was developed at NCAR in collaboration with scientists at multiple organizations and with funding by NSF and the Department of Energy.
The research team first evaluated whether the model was a credible tool for the study. By comparing the computer results with Arctic observations, they verified that, though the model has certain biases, it can capture observed late 20th century sea ice trends and the observed thickness and seasonal variations in the extent of the ice.
Kay and her colleagues then conducted a series of future simulations that looked at how Arctic sea ice was affected both by natural conditions and by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The computer studies indicated that the year-to-year and decade-to-decade trends in the extent of sea ice are likely to fluctuate increasingly as temperatures warm and the ice thins.
“Over periods up to a decade, both positive and negative trends become more pronounced in a warming world,” says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.
The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.
The authors note that it is also difficult to disentangle the variability of weather systems and sea ice patterns from the ongoing impacts of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
“The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters,” Kay says. “We can’t measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural.”
About the article
Title: Interannual to multidecadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world
Authors: Jennifer Kay, Marika Holland, and Alexandra Jahn
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Asian chalkboard action video...


http://video.xnxx.com/video875257/be...eacher_yayoi_1

It ended just as it was getting to the best part!

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/5124/arcti...n-resume-again


Arctic ice melt could pause in near future, then resume again

August 11, 2011

BOULDER—Although Arctic sea ice appears fated to melt away as the climate continues to warm, the ice may temporarily stabilize or somewhat expand at times over the next few decades, new research indicates.
The computer modeling study, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, reinforces previous findings by other research teams that the level of Arctic sea ice loss observed in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes alone, and that the ice will eventually disappear during summer if climate change continues.
But in an unexpected new result, the NCAR research team found that Arctic ice under current climate conditions is as likely to expand as it is to contract for periods of up to about a decade.



Sea ice off the Alaskan coast. (©UCAR, Photo by Carlye Calvin. This image is freely available for media use. For more information, see Media & nonprofit use.*)


“One of the results that surprised us all was the number of computer simulations that indicated a temporary halt to the loss of the ice,” says NCAR scientist Jennifer Kay, the lead author. “The computer simulations suggest that we could see a 10-year period of stable ice or even a slight increase in the extent of the ice. Even though the observed ice loss has accelerated over the last decade, the fate of sea ice over the next decade depends not only on human activity but also on climate variability that cannot be predicted.”
Kay explains that variations in atmospheric conditions such as wind patterns could, for example, temporarily halt the sea ice loss. Still, the ultimate fate of the ice in a warming world is clear.
“When you start looking at longer-term trends, 50 or 60 years, there’s no escaping the loss of ice in the summer,” Kay says.
Kay and her colleagues also ran computer simulations to answer a fundamental question: why did Arctic sea ice melt far more rapidly in the late 20th century than projected by computer models? By analyzing multiple realizations of the 20th century from a single climate model, they attribute approximately half the observed decline to human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the other half to climate variability.
These findings point to climate change and variability working together equally to accelerate the observed sea ice loss during the late 20th century.
The study appears this week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
Rapid melt

Since accurate satellite measurements became available in 1979, the extent of summertime Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about one third. The ice returns each winter, but the extent shrank to a record low in September 2007 and is again extremely low this year, already setting a monthly record low for July. Whereas scientists warned just a few years ago that the Arctic could lose its summertime ice cover by the end of the century, some research has indicated that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free within the next several decades.
To simulate what is happening with the ice, the NCAR team used a newly updated version of one of the world’s most powerful computer climate models. The software, known as the Community Climate System Model, was developed at NCAR in collaboration with scientists at multiple organizations and with funding by NSF and the Department of Energy.
The research team first evaluated whether the model was a credible tool for the study. By comparing the computer results with Arctic observations, they verified that, though the model has certain biases, it can capture observed late 20th century sea ice trends and the observed thickness and seasonal variations in the extent of the ice.
Kay and her colleagues then conducted a series of future simulations that looked at how Arctic sea ice was affected both by natural conditions and by the increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The computer studies indicated that the year-to-year and decade-to-decade trends in the extent of sea ice are likely to fluctuate increasingly as temperatures warm and the ice thins.
“Over periods up to a decade, both positive and negative trends become more pronounced in a warming world,” says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.
The simulations also indicated that Arctic sea ice is equally likely to expand or contract over short time periods under the climate conditions of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Although the Community Climate System Model simulations provide new insights, the paper cautions that more modeling studies and longer-term observations are needed to better understand the impacts of climate change and weather variability on Arctic ice.
The authors note that it is also difficult to disentangle the variability of weather systems and sea ice patterns from the ongoing impacts of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
“The changing Arctic climate is complicating matters,” Kay says. “We can’t measure natural variability now because, when temperatures warm and the ice thins, the ice variability changes and is not entirely natural.”
About the article
Title: Interannual to multidecadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world
Authors: Jennifer Kay, Marika Holland, and Alexandra Jahn
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters

I notice that the authors also conclude that half of the Arctic ice melt can be attributed to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I notice that the authors also conclude that half of the Arctic ice melt can be attributed to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

You know this is the kind of thing I've been seeing since I first started looking at global warming/climate change and it proves at least one thing the global warming deniers claims which is when it comes to our climate its incredibly complex and no one at this point really understands it all. Consequently there are lots of disagreements, and things just like this where their models become more sophisticated and actually predict the anomalies.

That should give us more confidence that both our scientists and scientific methods are successfully working on the problem and increasing their knowledge and understanding all the time.

That being said I'm actually more concerned with what's happening to glaciers right now. For instance the billion people who depend on glacial melt in the Himalayas. Or the fact that Lake Mead is going dry. That worries me because out here I think more people actually killed each over water than stock rustling. Hell, farmers out here still occasionally go after each other with shovels over irrigation water.

A thirsty world is a scary thing to me.

[stumbler]

I also think its very timely for Tim Pawlenty to get caught lying about global warming/climate change trying to make the bogus claim there is no consensus among scientists.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lobal-warming/

When will these fools ever learn?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I also think its very timely for Tim Pawlenty to get caught lying about global warming/climate change trying to make the bogus claim there is no consensus among scientists.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lobal-warming/

When will these fools ever learn?

When the water is lapping at their ankles, maybe...

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

When the water is lapping at their ankles, maybe...

Kimiko here's another development that I can't necessarily prove but am convinced of none the less and that is if nothing else kind of a default acceptance of the reality of global warming/climate change by the vast majority of Americans. Something I did not think was the case even a two or three years ago.

And what I mean by that is we still have a sizable number of let's say activists global warming/climate change deniers they are getting to be a lot fewer and further between while in most people's mind global warming/climate change have become something both real and something we should do something about.

I think that's actually the biggest battle and the majority is now beyond denial and open to suggestions.

We're down to the last few hysterics it looks like to me.

[CFH420]

People are so fucking stupid, it does not take science to figure out the Earth has been getting warmer since the DAWN OF TIME.

The earth will never stay the same, it is not yours to change, you do not own it, nor can you tell it what to do, so when natural disasters happen that is normal, its fucking nature.

Its not global warming, its not going green, its none of that bullshit, its simply nature and there is nothing you can do to stop it. End of story.

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by CFH420

People are so fucking stupid, it does not take science to figure out the Earth has been getting warmer since the DAWN OF TIME.

[Rixer]

If it is changing, it's actually cooler in Northern Ca and we had above normal rainfall last Winter. It's odd because so much of the nation is experiencing heat waves. It' very nice here. I guess I should feel guilty..

[clarise]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Kimiko here's another development that I can't necessarily prove but am convinced of none the less and that is if nothing else kind of a default acceptance of the reality of global warming/climate change by the vast majority of Americans. Something I did not think was the case even a two or three years ago.

And what I mean by that is we still have a sizable number of let's say activists global warming/climate change deniers they are getting to be a lot fewer and further between while in most people's mind global warming/climate change have become something both real and something we should do something about.

I think that's actually the biggest battle and the majority is now beyond denial and open to suggestions.

We're down to the last few hysterics it looks like to me.

Either that, or the majority are done arguing about it. The same way they are done arguing about Intelligent Design, and wood fairies, and Atlantis, and unicorns. Maybe the majority have had it with indulging liberal moronitude and are ready to get down to brass tacks, and the business of doing business, again. Maybe the fact that it was colder than usual just about everywhere on earth last year is a wake-up call to get serious again. Maybe the fact that Great Britain looks like the stage set for a remake of A Clockwork Orange is a wake-up call that it is time to grow up, weld the spigot of the Great Society shut, and make people earn their keep or starve, again. Maybe the boy in Norway who got mauled to death by one of those near-extinct polar bears is a wake-up call that if people with common sense stop dignifying nonsense with a response, the nonsense just might go away. Maybe the silence you are hearing is dismissal.

Bummer, huh?

I'm back! Aren't you happy to see me again?

[stumbler]

And I was saying earlier while we've still got some die hard deniers those not lost in their own self inflated little bubble are moving on.

Ken Salazar: Offshore Wind Farms Will Rise In Rhode Island

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Wednesday announced the federal government will move forward with plans to accept applications to develop wind facilities off the coast of Rhode Island.


By 2012, Salazar predicted, "the first offshore leases for wind power in the federal waters off Rhode Island will in fact be signed by the United States of America and those developers of offshore wind."


The secretary boasted that the National Renewable Energy Lab has estimated Rhode Island's offshore wind farms could generate 1,000 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power most of the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_929426.html

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by CFH420

People are so fucking stupid, it does not take science to figure out the Earth has been getting warmer since the DAWN OF TIME.

Really? First of all, it isn't true. Second, what method did you use to figure it out, since you obviously didn't use science. Did you read it in the bible?

The earth will never stay the same, it is not yours to change, you do not own it, nor can you tell it what to do, so when natural disasters happen that is normal, its fucking nature.

You're wrong again...as usual. We can fuck it up, and we are. We have eradicated thousands of animal species, and we're fully capable of eradicating ourselves, too. What do you think would happen, for example, if we were to detonate every nuclear weapon we have in our arsenal?

Its not global warming, its not going green, its none of that bullshit, its simply nature and there is nothing you can do to stop it. End of story.

One seldom sees such obstinate ignorance. You don't WANT to know the truth. End of story.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And I was saying earlier while we've still got some die hard deniers those not lost in their own self inflated little bubble are moving on.

Ken Salazar: Offshore Wind Farms Will Rise In Rhode Island





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_929426.html

A terawatt? Off the coast of Rhode Island? From wind? Rhode Island and how many other states?

Hell. They should build it east of the Carribean. The facility would have enough blades to stop hurricanes in their tracks.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Really? First of all, it isn't true. Second, what method did you use to figure it out, since you obviously didn't use science. Did you read it in the bible?



You're wrong again...as usual. We can fuck it up, and we are. We have eradicated thousands of animal species, and we're fully capable of eradicating ourselves, too. What do you think would happen, for example, if we were to detonate every nuclear weapon we have in our arsenal?



One seldom sees such obstinate ignorance. You don't WANT to know the truth. End of story.

Actually he can't handle the truth but he's not the only one around here that's for sure.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by clarise

I'm back! Aren't you happy to see me again?

I am! I enjoy reading your posts...

[clarise]

I read a cool book a few years back, by a dude named Peter F. Hamilton. In this book, engineers moved the planet to align with the solar equatorial plane, and adjusted its orbital distance and velocity to reduce the elliptical to a perfect circle, so as to eliminate seasons. Then they tilted the planet's axis to be perpendicular to the equatorial, so that the entire planet would have the same length of day. Then they adjusted the inclination and spin of the core, to align the magnetic and rotational axes. Then adjusted the moon's orbit and mass to eliminate the tides. Then, and only then, did they achieve an equitable and stable climactic environment for virtually all of the planetary surface.

So, yes. CFH420 is assuredly wrong. The climate can be fixed. It is merely an engineering problem.

c.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

I am! I enjoy reading your posts...

I missed you, CS!!! We hominids have to stick together!

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by clarise

I missed you, CS!!! We hominids have to stick together!

Indeed!

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I notice that the authors also conclude that half of the Arctic ice melt can be attributed to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Yes, in many papers that show somthing else at play, the CO2 greenhouse effect is always still a dominant effect.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by clarise

Either that, or the majority are done arguing about it. The same way they are done arguing about Intelligent Design, and wood fairies, and Atlantis, and unicorns. Maybe the majority have had it with indulging liberal moronitude and are ready to get down to brass tacks, and the business of doing business, again. Maybe the fact that it was colder than usual just about everywhere on earth last year is a wake-up call to get serious again. Maybe the fact that Great Britain looks like the stage set for a remake of A Clockwork Orange is a wake-up call that it is time to grow up, weld the spigot of the Great Society shut, and make people earn their keep or starve, again. Maybe the boy in Norway who got mauled to death by one of those near-extinct polar bears is a wake-up call that if people with common sense stop dignifying nonsense with a response, the nonsense just might go away. Maybe the silence you are hearing is dismissal.

Bummer, huh?

I'm back! Aren't you happy to see me again?

Clarise,
The majority that are done arguing about it is the public. In the mean time, scientists are not arguing about it, except with a few outspoken skeptical scientific deniers. Instead, scientists are trying to make the the predictions more accurate because they realize and admit that the models they have are imperfect.

According to NOAA, last year was not "colder than usual".


=======================================================
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

January 12, 2011
According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

[stumbler]

Let's have what I firmly believe is a little political reality check.

See this?

Rick Perry: ‘Substantial number’ of climate scientists ‘manipulating’ data

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...pulating-data/

I believe that statement and stance means Rick Perry is unelectable on a national scale. I honestly believe that so much of the nation has moved past global warming/climate change denial that those few left are automatically written off in most people's minds as raving nut cases.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Yes, in many papers that show somthing else at play, the CO2 greenhouse effect is always still a dominant effect.

Actually, it amazes me that they would conclude that other variables could account for even so much as half of such a rapid change. But it still confirms the prime importance of greenhouse gas emissions.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Clarise,
The majority that are done arguing about it is the public. In the mean time, scientists are not arguing about it, except with a few outspoken skeptical scientific deniers. Instead, scientists are trying to make the the predictions more accurate because they realize and admit that the models they have are imperfect.

According to NOAA, last year was not "colder than usual".


=======================================================
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record

...

I have tried, many times, to read articles on the NOAA site. And while I do not ascribe to dismissing data on account of its venue, I do admit that I have extreme difficulty with NOAA. I mean, they are so agenda-driven. They are a shill for the Department of Commerce. They are still working on their mission statement. Citing NOAA in defense of Global Warming is sort of like making a case against Obama's record using source information solely from the Heritage Foundation.

That said, I have conceded many times that the world is warming, and that CO2 is part of the cause.

My comments about the cold weather last year are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because a couple weeks ago, before I flitted off on vacation, some of us were needling each other about anecdotal accounts of the weather.

The big problem that I have with the prevailing models is that they do not prove out, at any scale. You know what this means, Whitey, but I'll state it plainly: most of mathematics is reversible. 3x6=18 is the opposite of 18/3=6. The climate models do not reverse. One cannot plug parameters for 1890 (the year of the first global survey for temperature, according to the NOAA) into the models and extrapolate features for that era, such as CO2 levels or temperature's delta. One cannot plug parameters for 1950, and extrapolate features for 1950.

And yet, the politics of climate change assume (1) that measurement of global temperature, atmospheric conditions, and ice levels for 1890 were as rigorous as they are today; and (2) that reliable inferences can be drawn with respect to the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the results of the surveys, and (3) that the models are reliable extrapolating forward, even though they clearly do not work, going backward.

The most troubling aspect, as I have also said, is that the politics of climate change is completely entrenched. Especially in Europe. Emissions-based levies are in place and critical to tax revenue generation in many parts of Europe. Thus, the prima facie assumption of the models' validity is taken as dogma, beyond question, despite the flaws.

That is why the term, denier, rankles.

c.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by clarise

I have tried, many times, to read articles on the NOAA site. And while I do not ascribe to dismissing data on account of its venue, I do admit that I have extreme difficulty with NOAA. I mean, they are so agenda-driven. They are a shill for the Department of Commerce. They are still working on their mission statement. Citing NOAA in defense of Global Warming is sort of like making a case against Obama's record using source information solely from the Heritage Foundation.

That said, I have conceded many times that the world is warming, and that CO2 is part of the cause.

My comments about the cold weather last year are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because a couple weeks ago, before I flitted off on vacation, some of us were needling each other about anecdotal accounts of the weather.

The big problem that I have with the prevailing models is that they do not prove out, at any scale. You know what this means, Whitey, but I'll state it plainly: most of mathematics is reversible. 3x6=18 is the opposite of 18/3=6. The climate models do not reverse. One cannot plug parameters for 1890 (the year of the first global survey for temperature, according to the NOAA) into the models and extrapolate features for that era, such as CO2 levels or temperature's delta. One cannot plug parameters for 1950, and extrapolate features for 1950.

And yet, the politics of climate change assume (1) that measurement of global temperature, atmospheric conditions, and ice levels for 1890 were as rigorous as they are today; and (2) that reliable inferences can be drawn with respect to the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the results of the surveys, and (3) that the models are reliable extrapolating forward, even though they clearly do not work, going backward.

The most troubling aspect, as I have also said, is that the politics of climate change is completely entrenched. Especially in Europe. Emissions-based levies are in place and critical to tax revenue generation in many parts of Europe. Thus, the prima facie assumption of the models' validity is taken as dogma, beyond question, despite the flaws.

That is why the term, denier, rankles.

c.

What you're talking about is known in the trade as "backcasting", and you're wrong...current climate models have been quite successful in reproducing historical climate trends. All models are validated this way.

[LORCO]

Global Warming is real, period! If you don't "believe it", then I'm sorry, but you've been brainwashed! You may not like science, you may not like some of the suggestions of what we should do about it, you may not like environmentalists, but Global Warming is happening.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by clarise

I have tried, many times, to read articles on the NOAA site. And while I do not ascribe to dismissing data on account of its venue, I do admit that I have extreme difficulty with NOAA. I mean, they are so agenda-driven. They are a shill for the Department of Commerce. They are still working on their mission statement. Citing NOAA in defense of Global Warming is sort of like making a case against Obama's record using source information solely from the Heritage Foundation.

That said, I have conceded many times that the world is warming, and that CO2 is part of the cause.

My comments about the cold weather last year are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because a couple weeks ago, before I flitted off on vacation, some of us were needling each other about anecdotal accounts of the weather.

The big problem that I have with the prevailing models is that they do not prove out, at any scale. You know what this means, Whitey, but I'll state it plainly: most of mathematics is reversible. 3x6=18 is the opposite of 18/3=6. The climate models do not reverse. One cannot plug parameters for 1890 (the year of the first global survey for temperature, according to the NOAA) into the models and extrapolate features for that era, such as CO2 levels or temperature's delta. One cannot plug parameters for 1950, and extrapolate features for 1950.

And yet, the politics of climate change assume (1) that measurement of global temperature, atmospheric conditions, and ice levels for 1890 were as rigorous as they are today; and (2) that reliable inferences can be drawn with respect to the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on the results of the surveys, and (3) that the models are reliable extrapolating forward, even though they clearly do not work, going backward.

The most troubling aspect, as I have also said, is that the politics of climate change is completely entrenched. Especially in Europe. Emissions-based levies are in place and critical to tax revenue generation in many parts of Europe. Thus, the prima facie assumption of the models' validity is taken as dogma, beyond question, despite the flaws.

That is why the term, denier, rankles.

c.

Actually, I think NOAA is a good source of information. Below is a graph showing how 4 independent temperature data sources compare, including NOAA temperature data. They all show the same trend.




From New York Times, Andrew Revkin DOT Earth, Nov. 30, 2009 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/




Actually, past records show good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature data back to 1880. Even the ice core data from 400,000 shows good correlation.





If the models didn't predict previous climate change, there would be no reason to trust predictions about the future. But, they do.

PS: I used to listen to NOAA on my weather radio before hitting the ice and snow. Lots of reports about avalanche conditions and such.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Actually, I think NOAA is a good source of information. Below is a graph showing how 4 independent temperature data sources compare, including NOAA temperature data. They all show the same trend.




From New York Times, Andrew Revkin DOT Earth, Nov. 30, 2009 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/




Actually, past records show good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature data back to 1880. Even the ice core data from 400,000 shows good correlation.





If the models didn't predict previous climate change, there would be no reason to trust predictions about the future. But, they do.

PS: I used to listen to NOAA on my weather radio before hitting the ice and snow. Lots of reports about avalanche conditions and such.

The last time it was the UN report Clarise couldn't trust which is the same eloquent kind of ad hominem logical fallacy as she issued this time.

I mean really the only other alternative is trying to picture Clarise buried in climate models it took decades for the scientists to construct working diligently on her climate change hobby mumbling to herself that she can't make the models work in reverse so the science behind global warming must be wrong.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

What you're talking about is known in the trade as "backcasting", and you're wrong...current climate models have been quite successful in reproducing historical climate trends. All models are validated this way.

Arggh. No, they have not. Even the East Anglia group behind the IPCC report admits they have not. It is a persistent and vexing problem for them.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Actually, I think NOAA is a good source of information. Below is a graph showing how 4 independent temperature data sources compare, including NOAA temperature data. They all show the same trend.




From New York Times, Andrew Revkin DOT Earth, Nov. 30, 2009 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/




Actually, past records show good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature data back to 1880. Even the ice core data from 400,000 shows good correlation.





If the models didn't predict previous climate change, there would be no reason to trust predictions about the future. But, they do.

PS: I used to listen to NOAA on my weather radio before hitting the ice and snow. Lots of reports about avalanche conditions and such.

Much of their information is good. That is why I try not to dismiss it. But so is most of the Heritage Foundation's information. Both are slanted.

For every two graphs showing good correlation, there are three that do not.

And somewhere below, Stumbler is trying to make the same point you are trying to make, which I believe is that NOAA's information is even better than the crap he dredges up out of Rawstory, all of which, to me, merely amounts to deflection. As I said, the world is warming, and we are partly the cause. I agree, already.

And somewhere above, Stumbler and several others cite all kinds of anecdotal nonsense, such as receding Arctic ice (which may actually increase for decades, due to warming), and diminishing glaciation in the Himalayan range (debunked, and some nations in the effected regions, including India, have repeatedly told the propagandists to stop harping about it). Somewhere up there I am sure there is also talk about the rising sea levels (infinitesimal, and a megameteor is likely to slam into the earth long before punitive taxation does anything to solve it). And schoolkids in America and Europe are still trying to save the poor near-extinct, drowning polar bears (newsflash: polar bears are great swimmers), and Al Gore still won't shut the fuck up about them, while in the news a near-extinct polar bear in Norway has mauled a 17 year old boy to death and maimed several others, most likely due to habitat overcrowding (translation: too many polar bears).

This is what I mean about my contention for the reasons why the public have given up. The public has not accepted AGW. They have just become fatigued by all the nonsense. None of this politically driven propaganda has anything to do with the science. The science I am cool with, and I agree, for the umpteenth time. It is all the other crap, the "hockey-stick graph" and every other PR-driven, jery-rigged graph out there, and the cockamamie inferences and assumptions, that drive reasonable skeptics batty.

Heck. Most of the "believers" are so drunk on the koolaid that they have no idea what they have signed onto, or what they believe in, or what it means. If I had to choose, I suppose I would take "denier" over them anyday.

Yet, I do believe, within what I consider to be a narrow, reasonable scope. There's the irony. Weird. Oh, well. It's late. More next time, if this thread doesn't drop to page two (as if).

[clarise]

Originally Posted by LORCO

Global Warming is real, period! If you don't "believe it", then I'm sorry, but you've been brainwashed! You may not like science, you may not like some of the suggestions of what we should do about it, you may not like environmentalists, but Global Warming is happening.

It's not called Global Warming anymore. It is called Climate Change. Because it is cold, all over the place, most of the time. Sheesh.

And I do believe it. As I've said. So chill.

[CFH420]

Originally Posted by LORCO

Global Warming is real, period! If you don't "believe it", then I'm sorry, but you've been brainwashed! You may not like science, you may not like some of the suggestions of what we should do about it, you may not like environmentalists, but Global Warming is happening.

Brainwashed by what? There is no such thing as global warming, the earth has been getting warmer since the dawn of time, remember the ice age? DERRRRP

Also, explain why Mars has increased in temperature and there are is no ethanol on Mars. DERRRRRP.

The sun is getting hotter, therefore the Earth gets hotter, its not global warming, its day 1 shit.

Funny how suckers like you will fall for it though, these go green companies are making a killing off of you. Go by an electric car (which is powered by coal) and think your saving the Earth, your not, because the battery comes from African slave children, just like diamonds.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by CFH420

Funny how suckers like you will fall for it though, these go green companies are making a killing off of you. Go by an electric car (which is powered by coal) and think your saving the Earth, your not, because the battery comes from African slave children, just like diamonds.

Whoa. A jewel in the mire.

I didn't know that, CFH. Is that really true? NiCad and Lithium sure as hell aren't mined here, with all those federal regulations the pinko moonbat scum love so much. But are the metals really mined with African slaves? What parts? the nickel? the lithium?

Just asking.

[CFH420]

Originally Posted by clarise

Whoa. A jewel in the mire.

I didn't know that, CFH. Is that really true? NiCad and Lithium sure as hell aren't mined here, with all those federal regulations the pinko moonbat scum love so much. But are the metals really mined with African slaves? What parts? the nickel? the lithium?

Just asking.

Indeed, basically they have AK-47s held to their faces and are told to dig until they cant dig anymore, same goes for diamonds.

But go green eh?

[clarise]

Okay.

So I've had it up to here with this crap about 2010 being one of the warmest years on record. I'm so fed up with it, that I've Googled it myself, and done a little digging to find out where Huffington, Rawstory, and every other pinko looney-left yellow press lifted it from, and why everyone keeps raving about it.

Because 2010 was fricking FREEZING!!! EVERYWHERE!!!!

Now I am back, and I have much to report. And I can also give examples of why NOAA is so slanted as to have effectively zero credibility in the climate change debate.

First of all, no fricking graphs. Yeah, I could paste in graphs from RealClimate.com, and places like it, to rebut every graph I've found at NOAA. But two wrongs don't make a right. I can't stand NOAA's graphs, because NOAA has an agenda. So does RealClimate. Very few sources on the subject of Anthro Climate Change are on the level. The topic is too politicized. So, NO GRAPHS.

Now, then. Where did Huffington, RawStory, et. al. get the "Coldest Year" scoop? Pinchy Sulzberger, of course. That's right. The New York Times. And where did Pinchy get the scoop? The NOAA, of course. And where did NOAA get the scoop (Little known fact, NOAA is a shill for the U.S. Department of Commerce and does little- if any- of its own climate research...)???? (drum roll....) NASA. That's right, NASA. The walking-dead U.S. Space Agency that has been gutted to the bone and has one remaining mission in life: to prove that Mankind has been warming the world, by measuring ambient temperatures from space, and feeding NOAA with longitudinal studies that are about 70 years longer than Mankind has been in space.

We have only had the ability to measure the world's temperature in comprehensive space-based surveys for about two decades, yet NASA is feeding NOAA, which is feeding Sulzberger, the bullshit that the world is warmer than it has been since 1850.

Now then, before the five or six reasonable people on this board start laughing their butts off, some cold water:

NOAA is probably right. 2010 is likely one of the warmest years in the past one hundred.

But here's the thing:

We knew that 2010 would likely be a warm year in late 2009.

We were almost absolutely sure. Why? Not carbon emissions. El Nino.

That's right. 2010 was expected to be a big El Nino year. So the enviro-psychos were hyping 2010 as a warm year in January 2010.

Now, Winter 2010 is also Summer in the southern hemisphere, so El Nino did break a few records. The enviro-wackos were touting 2010 as a warm year in December 2010, before 2010 even ended, because the results for summer in the South Pacific were already in.

And yes, 2010 was, indeed, a warm year. Almost as warm as 2005, which was also a warm year, and also had singular events that have nothing to do with Mankind's carbon footprint.

So NOAA and The Times reported the story. They had no choice, really. They had already gone out on a limb with the prediction, a year before.

There's just one little teensy problem, though. A little detail that NASA probably confided to NOAA, but which NOAA neglected to pass on to The New York Times:

The rise in global temperature for 2010 was smaller than the margin of error for NASA's measurement systems.

Here's another inconvenient truth:

The reported temperature fluctuations from 1998 to the present are all within NASA's margin of error.

That's right. After correcting for margin of error, world temperatures from 1998 to the present are flat.

So, in a nutshell, if you thought you were freezing your baquettes off in 2010, you are probably right. And yet NOAA is also probably right. 2010 might have been one of the warmest years in the past 100. Hell, let's give them the doubt: it probably was one of the warmest years.

But, most of the relative warmth was recorded in the poles, and in the southern Pacific.

It was cold, just about everywhere else.

That is, where the people are.


Okay. Now the five or six reasonable people on this board can start laughing.

c.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CFH420

.

Funny how suckers like you will fall for it though, these go green companies are making a killing off of you. Go by an electric car (which is powered by coal) and think your saving the Earth, your not, because the battery comes from African slave children, just like diamonds.

Only about 45% of the electric power generated from coal, in the USA. Much power also comes from methane, nuclear, and other sources. As power companies use more renewable energy like wind, solar, and nuclear, the emissions will be far less. Even with power companies generating emissions with 45% coal, it is much easier to regulate the emissions of a few power companies than to regulate each individual vehicle that burns gasoline. Moreover, the use of electric vehicles will make us independent of oil.

All of a sudden you pretend to care about African people working in the mines. If slaves are really mining lithium and nickel, this is certainly a problem that has to be dealt with. But, lithium and nickel have been used for years to make other things besides batteries for electric cars. Blaming slavery on new electric cars is an exaggeration. Children working the coal mines was also a problem in the USA at one time.

[Whitey44]

From Dr. Bob Brown's blog at the Seattle PI...


The Deniers of Global Warming are Winning


The House of Representatives voted 240-184 this spring to defeat a resolution that said that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed the Environmental Protection Agency that “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced recently that melting of sea ice “will result in more shipping, fishing and tourism, and the possibility to develop newly accessible oil and gas reserves.”
Apparently these politicians know something that the scientists don’t?
The data of the past few years has shifted the paradigm for GW. What was forecast six years ago to happen in 2050 now is projected for 2020 (some of it is here in 2011).
Freak weather has become the norm: Deadly tornados in Joplin, Mo., and Tuscaloosa, Ala.; wildfires have engulfed large tracts in California, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas; severe droughts in the Southwest, parts of China and the Amazon; increased moisture in the air leading to huge snowpacks in some areas — which melt quickly in the summer; massive flooding along the Mississippi as well as in Australia, New Zealand, China and Pakistan; unprecedented heat waves in Russia, Eastern US, Europe and Asia; the fish stocks in the oceans are dying; the glaciers & polar ice caps are disappearing; etc. Not to mention the endless effects of steadily rising sea levels.
All of this is happening with only one degree of global warming. All numerical models that evaluate the effect of increased CO2 predict another degree warming is already in the pipeline, and several more degrees if CO2 continues to increase as it has the past decades. The fingerprints of fossil fuel burning are on the measured CO2.
So what’s the solution? It’s all around you, not in your green home, hybrid car or solar panels — that’s symbolic to show you’re aware — but it’s in the myriad trucks, SUVs, coal-firing plants & other burners of fossil fuels that continue to be built.
Some people won’t believe it is human caused and could be stopped (or at this point “alleviated”). They’ll sit back and say it’s “natural” and/or it’s “god’s wrath” (Possibly. Punishing us for being so stupid?). The term “deniers” is probably appropriate. And it should be applied to our political leaders.



Share0
Posted by Bob Brown on August 28, 2011 at 11:39 am| Permalink| Leave a comment1 Comment4 Comments

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Only about 45% of the electric power generated from coal, in the USA. Much power also comes from methane, nuclear, and other sources. As power companies use more renewable energy like wind, solar, and nuclear, the emissions will be far less. Even with power companies generating emissions with 45% coal, it is much easier to regulate the emissions of a few power companies than to regulate each individual vehicle that burns gasoline. Moreover, the use of electric vehicles will make us independent of oil.

All of a sudden you pretend to care about African people working in the mines. If slaves are really mining lithium and nickel, this is certainly a problem that has to be dealt with. But, lithium and nickel have been used for years to make other things besides batteries for electric cars. Blaming slavery on new electric cars is an exaggeration. Children working the coal mines was also a problem in the USA at one time.

I am largely in agreement with you here, Whitey.

But whatever CFH's motivations for his post, he has a point, too. The situation in the Congo is horrific. At least as horrifying as any anecdotal accounts of agrarian slavery in the U.S., and arguably much worse. And it is happening today: 25% of living women in the Congo are estimated to have been raped; people are thrown naked into mine-shafts with literally no hope of escape; food and water are lowered down to them only if they meet their quotas... and the Congo mines are not extracting diamonds. Those slaves are mining tin, lead, rare earth metals- materials that eventually make their way into laptop batteries, video game chips, and other consumer electronics.

Congo is hell on earth.