Global warming attacks Idaho and Colorado [Archive]

View Full Version : Global warming attacks Idaho and Colorado

DarrinS

10-07-2009, 04:29 PM

Some Idaho kids enjoy an early snow day (http://www.ktvb.com/news/nearyou/woodriver/ktvbn-oct0509-wood_river_power.1e96b181a.html)

Colorado ski resort has earliest opening in 40 years. (http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13501797)

hope4dopes

10-07-2009, 04:30 PM

Come spring the trout season should be great then.

fyatuk

10-07-2009, 04:32 PM

So the next time we have 90+ in January, we should post that it's proof of global warming?

I don't believe in the extreme man-caused climate change theories either, but these kind of things are rather pathetic to keep bringing up. Outliers mean nothing. Single occurances mean nothing.

At least show an elongated pattern.

clambake

10-07-2009, 04:36 PM

meet darrins

DarrinS

10-07-2009, 04:37 PM

This is going to be an unusually cold winter.

clambake

10-07-2009, 04:42 PM

it might rain.

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 05:02 PM

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 05:25 PM

Spurminator

10-07-2009, 05:34 PM

I guess it's another Fall and Winter of these threads. Fun.

DarrinS

10-07-2009, 06:06 PM

I didn't see you saying shit when San Antonio had the hottest month in its history this July.

And that was going on while the northern part of the country was having one of it's coldest summers ever.

I've lived here most of my life. It's always hot as shit here in the summer.

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 06:28 PM

And that was going on while the northern part of the country was having one of it's coldest summers ever.

I've lived here most of my life. It's always hot as shit here in the summer.

Not as hot as it was this July, you ignorant fuck.

balli

10-07-2009, 06:31 PM

I hope you die.

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 06:37 PM

Hey, let's use DarrinS's retarded logic in some other contexts.

I'll start of with:
Matt Bonner scored 25 on 11-14 shooting against Golden State. Therefore, he's an all-star caliber forward.

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 07:04 PM

I didn't see you saying shit when San Antonio had the hottest month in its history this July.
Funny how as a city grows bigger and bigger, more concrete, more asphalt, less trees and other vegetation...

That it gets hotter!

Who would have guessed...

angrydude

10-07-2009, 07:09 PM

last year was pretty friggin cold too. So I guess that means 2 outliers in a row??

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 07:21 PM

Funny how as a city grows bigger and bigger, more concrete, more asphalt, less trees and other vegetation...

That it gets hotter!

Who would have guessed...

Are you seriously trying to defend this guy? He doesn't even know what battle he's trying to fight. Global warming is obvious by looking at glacier recession over the last 150 years from the Sierras to the Rockies to Greenland, etc. To say man isn't responsible and that it's part of a natural cycle is one thing, but to throw crap like this out and act like there's no such thing is beyond stupidity. He completely sidesteps the major issue to disagree with something obvious that isn't in the least bit controversial, backing it with anecdotal evidence about two early snowfalls.

Twisted_Dawg

10-07-2009, 07:46 PM

Not as hot as it was this July, you ignorant fuck.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 07:52 PM

Global warming is obvious by looking at glacier recession over the last 150 years from the Sierras to the Rockies to Greenland, etc. To say man isn't responsible and that it's part of a natural cycle is one thing, but to throw crap like this out and act like there's no such thing is beyond stupidity.
Who's saying there's no such thing?

Besides, Glaciers have been receding for the last 11,000 years. Why is there something so special about the last 150? Is it because we have had cameras about that long?

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 08:03 PM

Who's saying there's no such thing?

Don't play stupid. What else would DarrinS be implying?

Besides, Glaciers have been receding for the last 11,000 years. Why is there something so special about the last 150? Is it because we have had cameras about that long?

Temperatures were lower, at least in North America, from about 1250 to 1850.

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 08:33 PM

Don't play stupid. What else would DarrinS be implying?

That the Global Warming we experienced is back to a Global Cooling trend.

Just a part of nature's cyclical nature!

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 08:41 PM

That the Global Warming we experienced is back to a Global Cooling trend.

Just a part of nature's cyclical nature!

So you're one of those kind of deniers.

jack sommerset

10-07-2009, 08:48 PM

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 08:52 PM

So you're one of those kind of deniers.
We will be experiencing Global Warming as a long term trend for the next 26,000 years due to the Earths eccentricity getting smaller until then. However, that effect is very small in the short span, but should be rather pronounced in another 10,000 years. Meanwhile, there will still be shorter solar cycles of 11 and 19 years amplifying and canceling each other each other about every 120 years. The Bond events of approximately 1500 years. El Niño, La Niña, and so many other natural patterns.

Thing is, climate is always changing. Anthropogenic Warming is a hoax in that we cannot possibly compete with nature. CO2, at best, accounts for 1/3rd of the warming we experienced since 1700. It is more likely under 1/5th. The temperature island of urban sprawl are insignificant to the size of the planet.

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 08:57 PM

Every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere.
LOL...

If the candle burns four hours, then that's 161 tons if I did my math right. Our CO2 output is something like 28 giga-tons annually. (28,000,000,000)

Who said that?

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 09:03 PM

We will be experiencing Global Warming as a long term trend for the next 26,000 years due to the Earths eccentricity getting smaller until then.

You're going to have to show your work for full credit.

jack sommerset

10-07-2009, 09:11 PM

LOL...

If the candle burns four hours, then that's 161 tons if I did my math right. Our CO2 output is something like 28 giga-tons annually. (28,000,000,000)

Who said that?

Israeli environmental groups. They wanted the people to burn one less candle durning the holidays. LOL

Wild Cobra

10-07-2009, 09:12 PM

You're going to have to show your work for full credit.
No I don't. It won't convince you anyway. Study Kepler's Orbital Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion).

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/keppler2ndlaw.jpg

Notice with a higher eccentricity, the earth will spend more time away from the sun than near it. As eccentricity approaches zero (a circle,) it is equal distance. Since it's an inverse square function in math, an orbit with a lower eccentricity equals more annual solar radiation than an orbit with a higher eccentricity.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Mywireeccentricity8806457.jpg

baseline bum

10-07-2009, 11:08 PM

No I don't. It won't convince you anyway. Study Kepler's Orbital Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion).

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/keppler2ndlaw.jpg

Notice with a higher eccentricity, the earth will spend more time away from the sun than near it. As eccentricity approaches zero (a circle,) it is equal distance. Since it's an inverse square function in math, an orbit with a lower eccentricity equals more annual solar radiation than an orbit with a higher eccentricity.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Mywireeccentricity8806457.jpg

Yes, I know Kepler's Laws (they're easy to prove from the conservation of angular momentum, since we assume the universe's mass is equally distributed in all directions, thus creating no external torque on the sun-earth system). None of that explains why the sun's gravity is going to pull the earth into a more circular orbit. Newton's inverse square law does not show that.

Wild Cobra

10-08-2009, 12:19 AM

None of that explains why the sun's gravity is going to pull the earth into a more circular orbit. Newton's inverse square law does not show that.
It has to do with the influence of other planets in the solar system.

There is no question about the earths changing orbit or why. Do you agree a more circular orbit exposes the earth to more annual heat from the sun or not? You see, it is happening. Scientists don't doubt it. The Milankovitch cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) is known and real, changes in eccentricity being one of the three planetary changes.

sabar

10-08-2009, 01:49 AM

Pointless "debate". People will use fossil fuels until there isn't a drop left.
Adapt or die. Whether or not we warm the Earth means nothing unless you have cash to lose or gain (hello energy companies).

The Earth will warm/cool/die in the short term regardless of what laws we pass (meet impact event, supervolcano, nuclear war, 3rd world countries needing fuel, solar variance, etc).

If species go extinct, then so be it; they were not fit to live. This includes humans if it comes to that.

Go directly to jail, do not pass go, and pick something to debate (a party line to spout off) that actually matters. Perhaps the government could put money into researching nuclear fusion instead of waging war and socializing mindless drones. Solve the impending energy crisis and alleged global warming with one tool.

Here's a graph of energy usage in terawatts from different sources to show how nothing is going to change, regardless of petty debate. Maybe in 23,000 years when we have enough data to actually make a conclusion your decedents 372 generations from now can say "I told you so" in your name.

Science for politics is just another religion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/World_Energy_consumption.png/800px-World_Energy_consumption.png

MiamiHeat

10-08-2009, 04:16 AM

Isn't this included in global warming?

It makes the weather patterns erratic and go to both extremes?

hope4dopes

10-08-2009, 10:07 AM

Every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide. If an estimated one million Israeli households light for eight days, they said, it would do significant damage to the atmosphere. AAAAH...HAAAA that must be the REAL reason the muslims want to erradicate the Jews.

NoOptionB

10-08-2009, 10:09 AM

I hereby declare a war on Humidity.

I will do whatever it takes to eradicate this nemesis from the face of the Planet.

rjv

10-08-2009, 10:19 AM

this thread should be retitled : " the end of the scientific method and logical deduction".

possessed

10-08-2009, 10:32 AM

friggin nipply as Hell out here in Idaho.

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 10:40 AM

this thread should be retitled : " the end of the scientific method and logical deduction".

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

MiamiHeat

10-08-2009, 10:42 AM

you are quoting the author of jurassic park?

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 10:50 AM

you are quoting the author of jurassic park?

What's your point?

rjv

10-08-2009, 11:04 AM

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 11:44 AM

i am not sure what darrins is attempting to prove.

one-he uses some one else's speech as a point.

two, he does not place the point in the context of an argument or explain in any way how the comments support the original premise of this thread.

three, seems to act as if crichton is the gospel when it comes to global warming. keep in mind that crichton also waged a verbal war against those who fought against second hand smoke.

In the 1970's, there was a "concensus" that we were in a period of global cooling.

EDIT> I never said Chrichton was "the gospel" when it comes to global warming, but he has written a book on the subject and has been invited to numerous debates on the subject. Strangely enough, when he's being debated by, say, Gavin Schmidt, Dr. Schmidt doesn't point out "Hey, aren't you the dude who wrote Jurassic Park?".

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 11:48 AM

By the way, there was a debate called "Global Warming is Not a Crisis" back in 2007.

The skeptical side won the debate easily.

admiralsnackbar

10-08-2009, 11:52 AM

Consensus may be the first refuge of scoundrels, but Bullshit is their permanent residence. I agree with Crichton that science is about proof, which is precisely why I can't understand why he's mistaking the convergent data from all manner of disparate scientific disciplines (which, taken together, vividly shows the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming) with some kind of passive, unquestioning assent.

If Keplerian laws regarding our orbit's relationship to temperature applied, why haven't we been planning for the melting of the ice-caps for a century? Why are so many scientists surprised? After all, astrophysics are much easier to compute than weather prediction algorhythms. And it's not like planning to prevent the inundation of our coastal cities wouldn't save us a fortune.

Yet we didn't do anything... hmmm.

rjv

10-08-2009, 12:03 PM

the thing about crichton as well is that he makes these grand statements about science as if he doesn't understand its methods. not all of science is based on repeatedly verifiable experiments. much of it is also theory, observation, making predictions based on observations, and predictability. in my own profession , there is a great deal of science based on the latter.

George Gervin's Afro

10-08-2009, 12:57 PM

No, the fact is that if we were in a "Global Warming," we should no longer see record cold patterns. At least not as many as we do!

so that's an abnormal climate change? got it.

whottt

10-08-2009, 01:10 PM

I say fuck the glaciers, they're assholes. You guys ever see what a glacier can to do a piece of land? Put it this way...what 911 did to the WTC aint shit compared to what a glacier can do.

IMO they've likely completely fucked the historical record as well...

I for one am glad those bitches are melting, not only that but we can use the fresh water with the huge global population we have....I mean for every person born on this planet, there is less fresh water, and we sure could use some of that the glaciers are hoarding.

So what if it gets a little hotter, turn on the fucking ac, that's what it's there for.

And I'll tell you this too...somewhere the dead of the Titanic are saying scoreboard bitches!

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 01:14 PM

whottt

10-08-2009, 01:25 PM

The other thing is...these are the same scientists that tout evolution and natural selection, they study generic variance...if it gets hotter, then obviously we'll adapt to the hotter environment. Much ado about nothing and at the root of it is money...whether it's short term economic boost in getting everyone to buy new "green" stuff, or donate money to the cause, or invest in solar and wind...or paying for cow farts. I can't believe how many supposedly educated scientists go hysterical over this...then again, they probably get a lot of grants from governments and donations from concerned citizens to research this problem

And ultimately it's this...if we fuck this planet beyond our ability to survive on it...that's just natural selection at work there, right? The scientists should be proud, it's not going to mean shit to the planet(which fits every definition of the word god that there is from our POV).

It's all bullshit...it really is.

What gets me is I know the alarmists contribute just as much if not more to global warming as anyone else does...I'd like to know what you alarmists do differently than rest of the world.

If I hear one more story absout some climatologist jetting around the country to give lectures on how carbon fuels are contributing to global warming, I am going to puke.

I know, I know...it's different when they do it...they have to jet around the country to lecture and speak, they can't just record it on a video and get their message out that way or upload it to the internet...or some shit like that. Got to jet around the country, and deliver that speech in person, and speak in auditoriums that use tons of electricity and fuel to cool them, and people drive(usuing those awful petroleum fuels) to see them speak...and sell refreshments and shit like that.

Natural selection indeed....

admiralsnackbar

10-08-2009, 01:26 PM

By the way, there was a debate called "Global Warming is Not a Crisis" back in 2007.

The skeptical side won the debate easily.

Didn't you just quote a speech (from this debate) which poo-pooed consensus and favored facts? Well the means by which this debate was "won" were that an audience we know nothing about (Were they scientists? Average Joes?) was polled prior to the debate on their beliefs regarding global warming, and then again afterwards. While the "not a big deal" side persuaded more people away from their original position and constitutes a victory in terms of debate, the net result is that the audience was basically split down the middle -- in other words the "not a big deal" team may have shuffled some uncertain people around, but they didn't present evidence powerful enough to sway their whole audience by any real margin.

The first problem is, again, that science isn't a popularity contest. But if it were, the "GW is not a crisis" people are no more popular than their opposition.

admiralsnackbar

10-08-2009, 01:33 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/64uqp.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

:lol I'm sure nobody's had the insight to apply a Stat 101 principle. You should email this to climatologists the world over and save us all this arguing.

jack sommerset

10-08-2009, 01:36 PM

You have to laugh at the amount of money we spend to "save the planet", the amount of money that Al Gore made to get this fantasy kicked in to high gear again, the idiots who cry and cry and cry and cry when people question their logic, Van Jones for saying "white people posion black communities". It's crazy ridiculous. The planet is billions of years old but some waste most peoples time because they believe. Some admitted they lied to the people to get them emotionally involved so they would give money and scare them. The planet is fine people. Quit wasting our time.

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 01:40 PM

The first problem is, again, that science isn't a popularity contest. But if it were, the "GW is not a crisis" people are no more popular than their opposition.

The reason why there is so much talk about "concensus" and that the debate continues (dispite Al Gore's objections) is because the science behind AGW is so WEAK.

lefty

10-08-2009, 01:40 PM

Who cares about Idaho

admiralsnackbar

10-08-2009, 01:46 PM

The reason why there is so much talk about "concensus" and that the debate continues (dispite Al Gore's objections) is because the science behind AGW is so WEAK.

But the issue remains that the ice caps are melting, so we have to ask why. If it's a variance determined solely by astrophysical variables, then we should have seen this coming in a predictable way. But we didn't. So what is it? Where is the heat coming from?

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 01:51 PM

But the issue remains that the ice caps are melting, so we have to ask why. If it's a variance determined solely by astrophysical variables, then we should have seen this coming in a predictable way. But we didn't. So what is it? Where is the heat coming from?

Just show me the study that proves this melting is due to human-produced CO2 and I'll never post a thread on AGW again.

<crickets>

MannyIsGod

10-08-2009, 01:55 PM

Funny how as a city grows bigger and bigger, more concrete, more asphalt, less trees and other vegetation...

That it gets hotter!

Who would have guessed...

:lmao

South Texas had its hottest summer on record in all of history. We had the worst drought over the past 2 years that has ever been recorded and you think its because of some San Antonio heat island effect?

This is so incredibly fucking stupid. I know that some other people fall for your bullshit because you post a few pretty graphs or through out a few big words but I think its hilarious that anytime you come up against someone that actually knows about the science you're talking about they immediatly figure out just what a fucking idiot you are.

Yes, the hottest summer in South Texas history was due to a an urban heat island.

Amazing.

admiralsnackbar

10-08-2009, 01:56 PM

Just show me the study that proves this melting is due to human-produced CO2 and I'll never post a thread on AGW again.

<crickets>
And end this lovely conversation? Not a chance! But back to my question: where's the heat come from?

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 01:57 PM

:lmao

South Texas had its hottest summer on record in all of history. We had the worst drought over the past 2 years that has ever been recorded and you think its because of some San Antonio heat island effect?

This is so incredibly fucking stupid. I know that some other people fall for your bullshit because you post a few pretty graphs or through out a few big words but I think its hilarious that anytime you come up against someone that actually knows about the science you're talking about they immediatly figure out just what a fucking idiot you are.

Yes, the hottest summer in South Texas history was due to a an urban heat island.

Amazing.

And the northern parts of the US had one of their coolest summers in history. Sounds to me like an unusual weather pattern that was holding for much of the summer.

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 01:57 PM

And end this lovely conversation? Not a chance! But back to my question: where's the heat come from?

sol

MannyIsGod

10-08-2009, 01:58 PM

And the northern parts of the US had one of their coolest summers in history. Sounds to me like an unusual weather pattern that was holding for much of the summer.

Notice I never tired either to climate change, Darrin. I know you had your canned response ready to go, but I merely pointed out how stupid the connection of an urban heat island effect to the entire regions abnormally hot summer was.

You saw the tee set up and decided to swing away and you never realized there was no ball there.

DarrinS

10-08-2009, 02:02 PM

Notice I never tired either to climate change, Darrin. I know you had your canned response ready to go, but I merely pointed out how stupid the connection of an urban heat island effect to the entire regions abnormally hot summer was.

You saw the tee set up and decided to swing away and you never realized there was no ball there.

Fair enough.

I don't think our record heat had much to do with urban heat island effect, but I do think the effect is real and affects surface temperature measurements.

Here's a good site that has been monitoring USHCN sites. http://www.surfacestations.org/

Here's the sites they've surveyed. Yellow sites measurement error > 1C. Orange sites measurement error > 2C.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ushcn-surveyed-7-14-09.jpg

RandomGuy

10-13-2009, 01:34 PM

I really had thought the fucktarded posting of cold snaps to somehow debunk overall global warming stopped a while back.

Guess we could start having pissing contests with links to record breaking heat waves or droughts again.

Way to elevate the conversation. :tu

baseline bum

10-13-2009, 01:39 PM

I really had thought the fucktarded posting of cold snaps to somehow debunk overall global warming stopped a while back.

Of course they did; it was summer.

RandomGuy

10-13-2009, 02:01 PM

Of course they did; it was summer.

I find it quite telling about the level of critical thinking involved with posts like the OP where cold snaps are presented to imply criticism of a theory that says, in part, that AVERAGE global temperatures are rising.

It is a bit like looking at a statistic that the average of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is 2.5 and saying "OH MY GOD, LOOK, TWO OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE BELOW THE AVERAGE, HOW SILLY DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO BELEIVE THE "THEORY" THAT THE AVERAGE IS 2.5".

gmafb

DarrinS

10-13-2009, 02:36 PM

I find it quite telling about the level of critical thinking involved with posts like the OP where cold snaps are presented to imply criticism of a theory that says, in part, that AVERAGE global temperatures are rising.

It is a bit like looking at a statistic that the average of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is 2.5 and saying "OH MY GOD, LOOK, TWO OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE BELOW THE AVERAGE, HOW SILLY DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO BELEIVE THE "THEORY" THAT THE AVERAGE IS 2.5".

gmafb

Or, just look at the average temps since 1998.

AGW seems like a compelling theory -- if only the weather would cooperate.

Interesting how you guys never address the data collected by http://www.surfacestations.org

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 09:26 AM

Or, just look at the average temps since 1998.

AGW seems like a compelling theory -- if only the weather would cooperate.

Interesting how you guys never address the data collected by http://www.surfacestations.org

Why would one want to restrict a look at how CO2 affects the climatw to just the last 10 years?

Haven't we been buring coal/oil for longer than that?

Interesting how you guys never address the data collected before 1998.

Funny how you guys never have addressed data collected by these weather stations:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html#cnnSTCText

Seriously, Darrin, you start to sound like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists sometimes when you simply cherry-pick data that supports your pet theory, and ignore things that don't fit into that.

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 09:39 AM

Why would one want to restrict a look at how CO2 affects the climatw to just the last 10 years?

A simple question for you:

How long does a predictive computer model have to be wrong (and by how much), before you lose faith in its predictions?

20 years?

30 years?

more?

balli

10-14-2009, 09:42 AM

Seriously, Darrin, you start to sound like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists sometimes when you simply cherry-pick data that supports your pet theory, and ignore things that don't fit into that.
At least he linked to actual data that time, as opposed to, y'know, a fucking local news weather report...

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 09:57 AM

At least he linked to actual data that time, as opposed to, y'know, a fucking local news weather report...

At least I never compare RandomGuy to a 911 twoofer or a Holocaust denier. I understand why many people believe in catastrophic AGW. I used to be one of those people. This issue is not political to me at all. It's a simple matter of comparing what's has been predicted to what's been observed (measured).

Winehole23

10-14-2009, 10:04 AM

Are you sure you have a statistically significant period of measurement to conclude one way or another?

SnakeBoy

10-14-2009, 10:12 AM

But the issue remains that the ice caps are melting

Not plural, only one has decreased. The other increased.

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 10:17 AM

Are you sure you have a statistically significant period of measurement to conclude one way or another?

In a sense, that's what I'm asking RG. At what point do you say the IPCC models are completely useless? Current trends do not agree with the model predictions. I know my OP of using a singular event is nonsensical, but it does irk the true believers and gets them discussing it.

MannyIsGod

10-14-2009, 10:39 AM

You're looking at the model output completely incorrectly and thats why you think you can declare them incorrect.

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 11:03 AM

You're looking at the model output completely incorrectly and thats why you think you can declare them incorrect.

That's clear as mud.

How should someone look at the model output? I used my eyes.

rjv

10-14-2009, 11:04 AM

i'm still in shock that there would be cold weather in colorado and idaho.

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 11:12 AM

A simple question for you:

How long does a predictive computer model have to be wrong (and by how much), before you lose faith in its predictions?

20 years?

30 years?

more?

Funny that you ducked answering my question about WHY you would only want to talk about the last 10 years.

The answer to that question, were you to answer it honestly:

"I only wanted to use the last 10 years' data, because that is the data that I think makes my case."

Cherry-picking. Just like the asshats at Truthout.org.

"OMG, PEOPLE HEARD EXPLOSIONS. BOMBS MAKE EXPLOSIONS, IT MUST HAVE BEEN BOMBS!!!"

"OMG, HERE IS DATA THAT SHOWS IT BEING COLDER THAN AVERAGE. SINCE IT WAS COLDER IN THIS TEN YEAR PERIOD, IT MUST DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMING."

It is patently intellectually dishonest to simply present data from an isolated ten year period when you are attempting to debunk a wider trend.

Making a case is one thing, making it dishonestly, or illogically, is another.

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg

Someone goes into much more depth here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Are you making a case, or are you deliberately trying to mislead?

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 11:19 AM

Funny that you ducked answering my question about WHY you would only want to talk about the last 10 years.

The answer to that question, were you to answer it honestly:

"I only wanted to use the last 10 years' data, because that is the data that I think makes my case."

It is patently intellectually dishonest to simply present data from an isolated ten year period when you are attempting to debunk a wider trend.

Making a case is one thing, making it dishonestly, or illogically, is another.

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg

Someone goes into much more depth here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Are you making a case, or are you deliberately trying to mislead?

Wow, I can do this to. Why doesn't your graph go back further? Say, to 1940? Temperatures between 1940 and 1970 decreased, while CO2 increased.

http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

Cherry-picking. Just like the asshats at Truthout.org.

"OMG, PEOPLE HEARD EXPLOSIONS. BOMBS MAKE EXPLOSIONS, IT MUST HAVE BEEN BOMBS!!!"

"OMG, HERE IS DATA THAT SHOWS IT BEING COLDER THAN AVERAGE. SINCE IT WAS COLDER IN THIS TEN YEAR PERIOD, IT MUST DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMING."

Are you this douchey in real life?

MannyIsGod

10-14-2009, 11:21 AM

That's clear as mud.

How should someone look at the model output? I used my eyes.

Well for starters you should ask yourself if any of the model simulations had any time periods of ten years with a negative increase in tempature?

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 11:21 AM

At least I never compare RandomGuy to a 911 twoofer or a Holocaust denier. I understand why many people believe in catastrophic AGW. I used to be one of those people. This issue is not political to me at all. It's a simple matter of comparing what's has been predicted to what's been observed (measured).

I beleive there is a distinct possbility that we could experience or are experiencing catastrophic AGW, as that is what a lot of research seems to suggest.

The modus operendi of 9-11 truthers is to take things like the NIST report, scan through a 1000+ page document looking for ANY mistake or inconsistency and then completely ignore the bulk of the report, hyper-focus on that one seeming flaw and wave their hands at the rest of it as complete bunk.

This is exactly what I see most deniers like Wild Cobra and yourself as doing.

I remember getting into a snit fit with WC about an accounting treatment of the effects of pollution, and WC jumping up and down when a reporter in an article cited used a singular noun for a chemical compound as opposed to a plural, then waved the entire thrust of the article away as hogwash.

The parallels to me between the rabid "denier" movement and the rabid "truth" movement are rather striking.

Both eschew any pretense at actual science and actually presenting their ideas in a format where they could have logical, reasonable questions posed to them. Both make some noises at trying, but invariably put together shoddy, thinly veiled polemics, that only really fool people who lack the critical thinking skills to analyse what they are being told.

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 11:26 AM

Well for starters you should ask yourself if any of the model simulations had any time periods of ten years with a negative increase in tempature?

Not that I'm aware of. Their models produce slightly different results on each run. They publish the average of 18 different simulations, from what I understand.

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 11:27 AM

Wow, I can do this to. Why doesn't your graph go back further? Say, to 1940? Temperatures between 1940 and 1970 decreased, while CO2 increased.

http://www.zanzig.com/miscpix/crichton2.jpg

Are you this douchey in real life?

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/global_t2m.jpg

The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn’t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so.

Are you?

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 11:33 AM

Both eschew any pretense at actual science and actually presenting their ideas in a format where they could have logical, reasonable questions posed to them. Both make some noises at trying, but invariably put together shoddy, thinly veiled polemics, that only really fool people who lack the critical thinking skills to analyse what they are being told.

The standard answer when WC is asked why there are no real peer-reviewed papers on this echoes that of the truthers when asked the same question.

"They" don't want you to know about it. :rolleyes

Real scientists aren't scared of presenting real papers for others to critique. If the critique is shoddy, then that says more about the reviewers than the paper, and is obvious to anybody with enough education to understand what they are reading.

WC, when asked about where the papers he loves to cite are "peer-reviewed" loves to cite a few sciency sounding articles published by people with obvious biases. It is a bit like having "scientific" papers on holocaust denial being published by "Aryan Whitehorse Publishing" and expecting a thorough vetting of ideas. Not quite the scientific rigor needed to convince me.

MannyIsGod

10-14-2009, 11:36 AM

Not that I'm aware of. Their models produce slightly different results on each run. They publish the average of 18 different simulations, from what I understand.

They do Darrin. Almost 20% of all simulations show this type of short term variability as a negative - just the way its happend. Your assumptions that this wasn't predicted are false and your assumptions that models work on a right or wrong basis do not take into account how these simulations are run.

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 11:42 AM

Winehole23

10-14-2009, 11:54 AM

He might as well be. You duck all his questions, D.

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 12:28 PM

They do Darrin. Almost 20% of all simulations show this type of short term variability as a negative - just the way its happend. Your assumptions that this wasn't predicted are false and your assumptions that models work on a right or wrong basis do not take into account how these simulations are run.

Simulations become useful for determining a range of possibilities and help to figure out how sensitive any particular model is to any one variable.

No one can say with any real certainty what the temperature will be on any given day in a particular spot, just as no one can tell you with any given certainty what the global average temperature will be next year.

What models can show and provide data for are probabilities, and ranges of outcomes.

The good thing about climate models is that as we grow to understand data, and actually do real science aimed at increasing our understanding is that we get better and better models. This coupled with increases in computing power means that our ability to predict trends will get better over time.

Deniers love to point to articles from the 70's when it was thought there was a definite cooling trend (look at Darrin's graph from a few posts ago) that was going to lead to a new ice age as proof that current thinking MUST be wrong.

All it means is that we have been getting better data and better models. Just as the original thinking of atoms were distinctly "solar system"-like constructions with central nuclei and electrons in nice circular orbits was replaced by the much more messy balloon shaped electron fields of modern models.

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 12:37 PM

Are you this douchey in real life?

You are entirely correct. I was a douchebag in my reply. Guilty as charged.

I let my irritation at the entire premise of this thread get to me, and I let that irritation make me a bit less respectful than I know I should be.

I apologize for that.

A better response would have been to simply make the point about how silly posts like the OP was by posting news articles about isolated heat waves to show how useless isolated events are when demonstrating multi-year trends on phenomena that have been going on for hundreds of years.

Don't you think the premise of your OP was just a *little* flawed?

DarrinS

10-14-2009, 12:42 PM

He might as well be. You duck all his questions, D.

Hard to have respect for this guy when he equates people skeptical of catastrophic AGW with 911 twooferism and Holocaust deniers.

I guess RG thinks all the 30,000+ scientists that have signed this petition are a bunch of 911 twoofer wackos.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

RandomGuy

10-14-2009, 12:50 PM

Hard to have respect for this guy when he equates people skeptical of catastrophic AGW with 911 twooferism and Holocaust deniers.

I guess RG thinks all the 30,000+ scientists that have signed this petition are a bunch of 911 twoofer wackos.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Twoofers have a petition as well.

I equate them quite easily as the same bad logic and bad science pervades both movements.

Start with a conclusion, then ignore all the data that seems to contradict it.

You post a graph showing cooling trends from 1940-1970, then I post a graph that shows that data in a larger context, and you ignore it.

Just because you don't like the company you place yourself in through your own actions , doesn't mean you don't deserve the analogy.

All three movements to me exhibit a kind of twisted lack of intellectual honesty that starts in places like this where someone doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit the possibility of the other sides' position being right, especially in what should be a scientific debate.

Winehole23

10-14-2009, 04:42 PM

Don't you think the premise of your OP was just a *little* flawed?Darrin said as much. He does it to get your goat.

Wild Cobra

10-14-2009, 06:26 PM

Why would one want to restrict a look at how CO2 affects the climatw to just the last 10 years?
Funny. Those of us who disagree woth you guys like to use convienet periods of time from a low to a high. When one of us do the same, you cry foul.

Haven't we been buring coal/oil for longer than that?
Yes, I think most sources agree than mankind has put well over 300 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, almost entirely as CO2. It was calculated at about 285 gigatons until 2000, and estimated to be about 360 gigatons by the end of 2010.

Seriously, Darrin, you start to sound like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists sometimes when you simply cherry-pick data that supports your pet theory, and ignore things that don't fit into that.
Talk about Cherry picking.... Funny that is what made the Hockystick...

Funny that you ducked answering my question about WHY you would only want to talk about the last 10 years.

The answer to that question, were you to answer it honestly:

"I only wanted to use the last 10 years' data, because that is the data that I think makes my case."

Cherry-picking. Just like the asshats at Truthout.org.
Why don't you tell the alarmists they are cherry picking? Hypocritical much?

It is patently intellectually dishonest to simply present data from an isolated ten year period when you are attempting to debunk a wider trend.

Making a case is one thing, making it dishonestly, or illogically, is another.

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/GISStrends.jpg[/QUOTE]
I love how you guys like to start at 1980, after the warming trend starting in 1900 was stopped by the albedo of high pollution, and the warming caught up after the EPA had it's way.

Someone goes into much more depth here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Are you making a case, or are you deliberately trying to mislead?
Have you asked RealClimate why they cherry pick their information?

I recently found a site that has tons of information on the subject. When I went to look for a graph disputing your 25 year graph, I couldn't find it. When I do, I'll post it. This isn't it, but will suffice for now. It's on the page titled Reclaiming Climate Science (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm):

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/primer/Bodo.gif

Meanwhile, here's something from the Welcome page (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Welcome/welcome.htm) of Green World Trust (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/):

Climate Change - there are two very different views, stirring a lot of "hot air". One view (the "scientific consensus") says that global warming from our growing CO2 emissions will cause sea level rise and extreme weather patterns, droughts, hurricanes, and floods. Others (the "skeptics") say that CO2 always follows temperature changes, that the oceans and biosphere are the great regulators of CO2, that human CO2 emissions are tiny by comparison, are totally beneficial to, and absorbed by, plants, that the current fears arise through deliberate stirring-up of anxiety, and that the IPCC science is misreading the evidence of a few decades during which solar activity has been significantly high. Is the hot air real?

The source their information, and I can in essence call them my pier review for everything I have been saying on the subject.

Wild Cobra

10-14-2009, 09:22 PM

More scientific consensus (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/Testimony.htm):

“When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.” - Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

“AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction.” - William Kininmonth, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?s National Climate Centre (1986-1998), Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-1998).

"There is] an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science” - David Packham, former CSIRO principle research scientist, senior research fellow in a climate group at Monash University, and an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

“It is my strong belief that CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation that I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. As an example, consider the Garnaut Report [on global warming], possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO’s modelling programs.” - Dr. Art Raiche, former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion. I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself.” - Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

“Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific.” - Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.

“What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading - they’re going to lose their money!” - Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, former dean of engineering and pro-vice chancellor at Monash University.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

I argue: (1) that global warming (climate change, climate chaos, etc.) will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around), (2) that global warming is presently nowhere near being the planet’s most deadly environmental scourge, and (3) that government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world. - Denis G Rancourt is a professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. His scientific research has been concentrated in the areas of spectroscopic and diffraction measurement methods, magnetism, reactive environmental nanoparticles, aquatic sediments and nutrients, and boreal forest lakes.

Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anybody who proclaims that “Global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both. - Richard S. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.

If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. - Reid Bryson (deceased) founded what is now the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He completed a B.A. in geology and a Ph.D. in meteorology. He became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970. Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program in 1990.

The IPCC has become an inbred process. All the scientists I know are doing legitimate work and believe in what they are doing. ... Still, it's a narrow view. - Roger Pielke Sr. is currently a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Pielke has studied terrain-induced mesoscale systems, including the development of a three-dimensional mesoscale model of the sea breeze, for which he received the NOAA Distinguished Authorship Award for 1974. Dr. Pielke has worked for NOAA's Experimental Meteorology Lab and served as Colorado State Climatologist from 1999-2006.

One of the problems is that people look at really hot weather—it started out in 1988 when the summer was really hot—and then use that as a springboard to talk about global warming. You can’t really judge climate by looking at two or three annual records one way or the other. Climate is not something that you can actually see out the window or you experience directly. It is something you experience over generations. - Dr. Christopher Essex is a full Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario. He is the author of publications in academic journals such as the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, Nature, the Physical Review, Physica, The Journal of Physics, Proceedings of the Royal Society, and the Astrophysical Journal. He specializes in the underlying mathematics, physics and computation of complex dynamical processes such as climate. Dr. Essex was an NSERC visiting fellow at the Canadian Climate Centre and an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow in Germany. He is currently a visiting professor at the Niels Bohr Institute's Ørsted Laboratory in Denmark.

Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside. - James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. [He appears to believe that there is manmade global warming, but that it is already too late to do anything to save ourselves. So we support this statement without buying into his beliefs - Ed].

"[After the second world war] everybody said, we ought to invest in these people...out of that came a lot of scientists who were in it for the money, the power... those people don't always tell you the truth... there's nothing in their contract that makes it to their advantage always to tell you the truth... the people I'm talking about are, say, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..." Kary Mullis, from Celebrating the Scientific Experiment. Sharing tales from the 17th century and from his own backyard-rocketry days, he celebrates the curiosity, inspiration and rigor of good science in all its forms. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry that jump-started the 1990s' biorevolution.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pål Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

"The so-called scientific basis of the climate problem is within my professional competence as a meteorologist. It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the foreseeable future." - Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes.

Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. - Dr. Nir J. Shaviv is a Senior Lecturer at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His research interests cover a wide range of topics in astrophysics, most are related to the application of fluid dynamics, radiation transfer or high energy physics to a wide range of objects.

The global warming impacts are so tiny today that they can't be measured although they might be measured in 100 years. Compared to the natural swings of hurricane activity and compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise. - Christopher Landsea received a doctoral degree atmospheric science Colorado State University. Formerly a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, is now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change, data are inconclusive. - Petr Chylek is a researcher for Space and Remote Sensing Sciences at Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos National Laboratory. Prior to becoming a government researcher in 2001, Chylek was Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science in the graduate program at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada where he continues as an Adjunct Professor. Chylek has published over 100 scientific papers in remote sensing, atmospheric radiation, climate change, cloud and aerosol physics, applied laser physics and ice core analysis. His work has been cited more than 3000 times. Chylek is best known for his work in remote sensing, water vapor, aerosols and their relation to climate change.

If both water vapour and CO2 are an internal part of the system, and only the anthropogenic part of CO2 is considered external, the impact of the latter will be modified by water vapour. There is merit to the precautionary action of keeping the emissions as low as possible. In the end this approach [speculating we are headed for disaster] may be counterproductive. It is like the boy that cried wolf. If it happens too many times without proof, people will stop listening. I would rather have all the facts before rushing to any conclusions. - Dr. Jan Veizer is a “Distinguished University Professor” of Geology at the University of Ottawa (Emeritus since April 2004) where he held the NSERC/Noranda/CIAR Research Chair in Earth Systems. He recently retired also from the Chair of Sedimentary and Isotope Geology at Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany. He has drawn on the principles of geology, chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology to paint a picture of the Earth as a dynamic, “living” entity.

Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary. - Daniel Botkin: Marine Biologist and President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and Professor Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California.

Wild Cobra

10-14-2009, 09:39 PM

Here is a must see, but it's 45 megabytes of Power Point:

Global Warming Science and what we can do to prevent disaster, prepared by Alan Cheetham (http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalWarmingScience.ppt)

Heres more good information and is much easier for the rest of you to handle. From The Middlebury Community Network; Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax? (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html):

And about those "melting glaciers..."
Strange how our research turned up a completely different story. We found 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year.

And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/glacier1.jpg

The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in Icy Bay in July 2005.
Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF (above)

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/glacier2.jpg

The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in June 2007 after a recent advance of the glacier. Note the position of the large waterfall. The glacier advanced about one-third of a mile sometime between August 2006 and June 2007.
Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF (above)

Wild Cobra

10-14-2009, 09:58 PM

Here are four images from that large Power Point file:

Slide 121

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Slide121ofwarmingppt.jpg

Slide 124

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Slide124ofwarmingppt.jpg

Slide 125

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Slide125ofwarmingppt.jpg

Slide 130

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Slide130ofwarmingppt.jpg

Wild Cobra

10-14-2009, 10:09 PM

Here's a great one:

FOLkze-9GcI

Blake

07-30-2021, 11:34 PM

"(CNN)Greenland is experiencing its most significant melting event of the year as temperatures in the Arctic surge. The amount of ice that melted on Tuesday alone would be enough to cover the entire state of Florida in two inches of water...."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/us/greenland-ice-melting-climate-change/index.html

Blake

07-30-2021, 11:34 PM

Spurtacular

07-30-2021, 11:59 PM

https://i.imgur.com/znIty4O.jpg

:lolK