Global Warming a Hoax

[Mangosteen]

I wonder sometimes after seeing this short Greenpeace Founder video if all the hype around climate change, global warming, carbon tax is nothing but propaganda. Either way this video sure makes one wonder if we are truly being fed BS by some sources.

There are some valid facts in this utube video that really dispute global warming.
Coming from Green Peace this is amazing.

http://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc

[rugatika]

Seen the video before. And yes, it's a hoax. More fleecing of dollars from hard working people.

[histyle]

Seen the video before. And yes, it's a hoax. More fleecing of dollars from hard working people.

X2. Nothing more than an excuse to redistribute wealth on a global scale. Socialism at it's finest.

[35 whelen]

Last year hottest on record world wide .

[hal53]

Last year hottest on record world wide .
......and? that proves what?

[rugatika]

Last year hottest on record world wide .

How long have we been keeping records?

[35 whelen]

......and? that proves what?

IT PROVES THAT LAST WAS WARMEST ON RECORD :sign0161:

[histyle]

Last year hottest on record world wide .

Whether or not you believe that the cause is man made, is the solution taking money from developed countries, and giving it to developing tin pot dictatorships? Just what exactly will that accomplish, other than lining a few pockets?

[Sundancefisher]

Last year hottest on record world wide .

Clarify with what time frame... Between ___ and ___ this was the warmest.

[35 whelen]

Just read somewhere I'm sure someone can find it ,I'm going swimming with my grandkids :)

[rugatika]

Just read somewhere I'm sure someone can find it ,I'm going swimming with my grandkids :)

Good plan. Just remember, CO2 was created to heat the pool. :)

[Sundancefisher]

Just read somewhere I'm sure someone can find it ,I'm going swimming with my grandkids :)

Guess the point is the recent high quality satellite data is really recent. Prior to that data was cherry picked. Cold locations shut down. Warmer locations kept. Recording devices located at airports where micro climate affects increased. Old data was normalized with poor confidence limits then all lumped together.

Historical temperatures have warmed steadily since the last ice age.

Nothing to see here folks move along and keep the road clear.

[Flight01]

Last year hottest on record world wide .

Since the last one

[thumper]

Arctic fossils a hoax !

The earth has never been warmer than right now. Those fossils of extinct animals and plants in the arctic were obviously placed there by global warming deniers.

And
Haven't you noticed that the days are getting longer? We're all going to die from lack of sleep!

[HalfBreed]

All I know is after the big floods, my bum hits more on my floats than ever before. I'm worried that one of these lazy summer days I'm going to be violated by the rivers bottom.

Please PLEASE don't let the river violate me.

[From The Hip]

If you have anything negative to say about Climate Change and the science behind it(all backed by the pigs at the trough) you are labelled as a denier and the media pounces on you if you are public figure.

Climate change has not been on the radar for the last few months in a big way due to the "refugee crises" in Europe but it is the same cat with different stripes...say that those "refugees" are actually economic migrants and you are instantly branded as a racist and with the case in Germany you are also called a Nazi...yup you as a German citizen whose family goes back generations are a "Nazi" because you voice discontent over having 1 million people invade your country and that you have to pay for them whilst they turn your society/country into a sewer and ignore your deeply founded cultural beliefs whilst forcing theirs upon you.

FTH

[drhu22]

I'll just leave this here (for all the good it will do)...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The comments in blue are links to more detailed explanations.

[bobtodrick]

Yeah, what the heck, 98% of respected scientists can't be right, can they?

[gman1978]

How long have we been keeping records?

Accurately across the globe???? not very long that's for sure

[RustyRick]

I haven't heard of any tiny islands with very little elevation having been swallowed up by a risen tide level? Shore lines have remained the same. Ocean ports and docks haven't disappeared.

[rugatika]

I'll just leave this here (for all the good it will do)...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The comments in blue are links to more detailed explanations.

That guys a crackpot, and completely fabricated almost everything on his site.

Clicking on one of your links on that site at random, was the 97% myth.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#6d9362b65909

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.

Read the whole thing if you want.

And this:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.


Again, read the whole article.

A complete lack of critical thinking skills are leading millions of people to become "believers" in the cult of AGW.

I realize the truth is unlikely to change believers minds, but for those that are still capable and willing to sift through all the flotsam and jetsam perpetrated by AGW whacko's, it is pretty clear that AGW as a significant source of global warming is a very long way from having any sort of credibility as a legitimate theory.

Enjoy the truth. Or not.

[drhu22]

http://s29.postimg.org/6dt0zmocz/C_Idso2.jpg?noCache=1453608131
and...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15

Thats about all I need to know about Craig Idso.
Image doesnt display proper size for some reason, here is the link...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Craig_Idso
"Public speaking
Speaking Engagement at 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Meeting
Idso was a featured speaker at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Meeting, speaking at a Workshop that was to be titled "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2."[6] The title was later changed to "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[7] He was joined in that workshop by two other speakers and fellow climate skeptics, Roger Helmer and Robert Ferguson.[8] The workshop was hosted by ALEC's Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[9]
About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills."

[Sundancefisher]

Yeah, what the heck, 98% of respected scientists can't be right, can they?

Actually it is 97% of published scientists. They peer review themselves. They get 99.9% of funding. They call anyone trying to disprove the man made global warming theory disparaging names and ostracize them.

Somehow I don't feel comfortable putting as much faith in your statement.

[rugatika]

http://s29.postimg.org/6dt0zmocz/C_Idso2.jpg?noCache=1453608131
and...
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15

Thats about all I need to know about Craig Idso.
Image doesnt display proper size for some reason, here is the link...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Craig_Idso

Your guy is the one that counted him as a supporter of AGW. :sHa_shakeshout:

Ooops!! Guess that's how you get to 97% when you don't have the numbers. :sHa_sarcasticlol: I think it's called fraud.

[Bellero]

I believe climate change on a small scale is real but I don't believe it's due to human activity at all.

[roper1]

Climate change has been around since Earth was a wee lad, methinks.

Follow the money, the guys espousing evil man's role aren't ever going to get more research funds( ever, ever, ever ) if the findings don't match what the puppet masters want to hear......

[RustyRick]

We were going to run out of "non-renewable resources". In 1994 in the middle of the night driving truck I heard Ronald Reagan's son a talk show host in the USA talking to an upper level scientist about ell-ninio. The Doctor said "what was surprising them was the earth seemed to be healing itself". DA

[drhu22]

Your guy is the one that counted him as a supporter of AGW. :sHa_shakeshout:
Ooops!! Guess that's how you get to 97% when you don't have the numbers. :sHa_sarcasticlol: I think it's called fraud.

My guy? :confused0074:

[avb3]

We have many here who are connected to the oil industry. Even Exxon knew back in the 1970s that CO2 was causing global warming, and conspired to spread doubt, following the tobacco industry's example.

The tobacco farmers in the Carolinas where the last to admit that smoking cause cancer, buying into the same spin that many members here on this board have for carbon based fuels.

It is what happens when an industry feels threatened by causes it contributes to that are negative. The same thing happened when CWD was found in elk and deer, and the ranchers tried to spin that it was not their fault.

Oh, and here is an article about co2 and man caused atmospheric global warming that was printed in the New York Times.

60 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

October 28, 1956. Elvis was just making his mark at that point.

The science isn't new.

[rugatika]

We have many here who are connected to the oil industry. Even Exxon knew back in the 1970s that CO2 was causing global warming, and conspired to spread doubt, following the tobacco industry's example.

The tobacco farmers in the Carolinas where the last to admit that smoking cause cancer, buying into the same spin that many members here on this board have for carbon based fuels.

It is what happens when an industry feels threatened by causes it contributes to that are negative. The same thing happened when CWD was found in elk and deer, and the ranchers tried to spin that it was not their fault.

Oh, and here is an article about co2 and man caused atmospheric global warming that was printed in the New York Times.

60 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

October 28, 1956. Elvis was just making his mark at that point.

The science isn't new.

Wasn't that about the same time that "scientists" started telling us cholesterol was bad for us? http://doctorskeptic.blogspot.ca/2013/06/book-review-great-cholesterol-myth.html

Funny/sad how long bad "science" can convince people of something.

[avb3]

Wasn't that about the same time that "scientists" started telling us cholesterol was bad for us? http://doctorskeptic.blogspot.ca/2013/06/book-review-great-cholesterol-myth.html

Funny/sad how long bad "science" can convince people of something.
You didn't address the issue.

Exxon knew there was an problem in the1970's, and did a tobacco industry negative and denial spin PR campaign, that was picked up by a lot of the industry.

It is interesting that now both Shell and British Petroleum are quite aware of the issue, and in fact are major players in alternative energy sources now.

Exxon is not.

[rugatika]

You didn't address the issue.

Exxon knew there was an problem in the1970's, and did a tobacco industry negative and denial spin PR campaign, that was picked up by a lot of the industry.

It is interesting that now both Shell and British Petroleum are quite aware of the issue, and in fact are major players in alternative energy sources now.

Exxon is not.

How did Exxon know there was a problem in the 70's, when there still isn't any conclusive proof of AGW?

Do you think Shell and BP would sell you snake oil if they could make money off of it? Of course they would. They see a path for profits and they are taking it. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not based on real science.

[avb3]

How did Exxon know there was a problem in the 70's, when there still isn't any conclusive proof of AGW?

Do you think Shell and BP would sell you snake oil if they could make money off of it? Of course they would. They see a path for profits and they are taking it. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not based on real science.
See here

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

And funded deniers here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

[MADTRAPPER 1]

Was at A andW last week. No one is coming out alive!

[Sundancefisher]

We have many here who are connected to the oil industry. Even Exxon knew back in the 1970s that CO2 was causing global warming, and conspired to spread doubt, following the tobacco industry's example.

The tobacco farmers in the Carolinas where the last to admit that smoking cause cancer, buying into the same spin that many members here on this board have for carbon based fuels.

It is what happens when an industry feels threatened by causes it contributes to that are negative. The same thing happened when CWD was found in elk and deer, and the ranchers tried to spin that it was not their fault.

Oh, and here is an article about co2 and man caused atmospheric global warming that was printed in the New York Times.

60 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf

October 28, 1956. Elvis was just making his mark at that point.

The science isn't new.

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic; U.S. and Soviet Press Arctic Studies
July 18, 1970, Saturday
By WALTER SULLIVAN

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic; U.S. and Soviet ... July 18, 1970, Saturday ... the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice ... By WALTER SULLIVAN Special to The New York Times.

So...we now have competing news links.

Fun eh.

[Sundancefisher]

See here

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

And funded deniers here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Exxon spent money on studies to disprove man made global warming.

They didn't believe it and wanted balanced research. Unfortunately man made effects are not something that formats well into science.

All you get are computer models and what ifs.

Please provide us with 5 studies that you believe proves dangerous man made global warming is real.

Or can you find any? I know it is easy to find a link to a 1956 times article on a propaganda site...but surely since it is not a cult you can think for yourself and bring forth 5 studies.

Thanks and we all look forward to reading and discussing them.

[rugatika]

See here

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

And funded deniers here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Where's the scientific breakthrough? An Exxon scientist was worried about greenhouse effect and Exxon didn't want it to get out. Not really a shocker, or conclusive proof of anything. The report by Black looks like a review of scientific papers of the time.

l. Current Opinion Overwhelmingly Favors
Atlributing Atmospheric COz lncrease To Fossil Fuel Combuslion
ll. Most Scientists Feel More Research ls
Needed To Support An Unquaftlied Conclusion
lll. Some Scientists Claim That Part Or All Of The COz Increase

Matheuatical uodels for predicting the clinatic effect of a
C02 lncrease have not progressed to the poi.nt at whieh all the feedback
interactlons which ean be lmportant to the outcome can be included.

A nurnber of assrmrptions and uncertairlties are iuvolved, ia the predictlons of the Greenhouse Effect. The fLrst is the assunption that the observed Co2 lncrease can be attributed eati.rel-y to fossil. fuel coubustLon. At Presentr meteorol.ogists have no direct evldence that the incremental C02 tn the atmosphere comes from fossil carbon. The increase could be at least partly due to changes in the natural balance. There is eonsiderable uncertainty regarding what controls the exchange of atuospheric Co2 wlth the oceans and with carbonaceous uaterlals on the contlnents.

Models whlch predict the climatic effects of a CO2 lncrease are in a prfurltlve stage of development. The atmosphere i.s a very com- p]-icated system, particuLarry on a global- scaLe. rn existlng models, lmportant lnteractions are neglected, ei.ther because they ar! not com- pletely understood or because thelr proper roathematical treatment is too cuobersome. Substantlal efforts are being expended to improve exlsting models. But there is no guarantee that better knowleage wfU lessen rather than auguent the severity of the predictions. Arises From The Destruction Of Forests And Other Land Biota.

Weird transcription from the article, but you get the point. Nothing new. Same old, same old. Old science doesn't necessarily mean good science, and of course...corporate science can be just as bad as government science.

[avb3]

Exxon spent money on studies to disprove man made global warming.

They didn't believe it and wanted balanced research. Unfortunately man made effects are not something that formats well into science.

All you get are computer models and what ifs.

From the article:

Exxon also hired scientists and mathematicians to develop better climate models and publish research results in peer-reviewed journals. By 1982, the company's own scientists, collaborating with outside researchers, created rigorous climate models – computer programs that simulate the workings of the climate to assess the impact of emissions on global temperatures. They confirmed an emerging scientific consensus that warming could be even worse than Black had warned five years earlier.

Maybe you want to reconsider your comment up above.

[TimeOff]

Warming or Cooling, matters not!. Carbon tax, and the like, is a scam to glean more money and freedoms from the little guy. The result means more control and riches for the elite and hardship for the rest.
There is lots of money to be made for those in control through Climate Change, and Sheep'l will cry out for them to do it!

[avb3]

I haven't heard of any tiny islands with very little elevation having been swallowed up by a risen tide level? Shore lines have remained the same. Ocean ports and docks haven't disappeared.

You might be interested and what these islands think.

http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10#kiribati-1

[6.5x47]

It better be warming up! the little ice age just ended in the mid 19th century. Any idea how many people starved to death during the little ice age as a result of global cooling? Sure as f$ck wasn't 7 billion people on this planet to feed back then either. 12000 yrs ago, Canada was covered by an ice sheet up to 2 miles thick. The anatomically modern human dates back 200,000 years, yet we are merely guessing about the previous thousand years. I don't know what that says to you, but I'll hazard to guess that this galaxy and planet will f&ck us up before we will it.

[Sundancefisher]

From the article:

Exxon also hired scientists and mathematicians to develop better climate models and publish research results in peer-reviewed journals. By 1982, the company's own scientists, collaborating with outside researchers, created rigorous climate models – computer programs that simulate the workings of the climate to assess the impact of emissions on global temperatures. They confirmed an emerging scientific consensus that warming could be even worse than Black had warned five years earlier.

Maybe you want to reconsider your comment up above.

Not needed. There are lots of articles. Computer model are inherently flawed method for predicting climate and weather. Climate models fail constantly and get redone. One from 1982 is meaningless as a basis for saying any scientist knew anything factual. Do you have all the facts and information or just the media telling you what to think? When was the subpoena served? Who is on the witch hunt? I suspect that you derive your feelings and opinions from the news and not scientific studies. I recommend you read some for yourself. Attempt to build on your feelings and then share 5 studies that you feel prove dangerous man made global warming.

[Sundancefisher]

You might be interested and what these islands think.

http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10#kiribati-1

Ok. Let me start you out showing the benefit of looking at factual research versus news articles.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

In this dangerously warming time according to you everything is melting and the sky is falling.

However Antarctica is growing ice and causing water levels to drop. So way is it if you feel the earth is warming some areas and are not following the predictive computer models?

Why do some scientists look at the past 10,000 years yet report to study only the past 50? What benefit is there to limit your scope to such a short period in time?

Why do scientists showing something contadictory to the global warming media buzz feeds always add a qualifier to show they are not a denier?

You purport to be a super strong believer. Please show us 5 studies that prove it for you.

Everyone would love to read a study versus a news article you posted.

[avb3]

Not needed. There are lots of articles. Computer model are inherently flawed method for predicting climate and weather. Climate models fail constantly and get redone. One from 1982 is meaningless as a basis for saying any scientist knew anything factual. Do you have all the facts and information or just the media telling you what to think? When was the subpoena served? Who is on the witch hunt? I suspect that you derive your feelings and opinions from the news and not scientific studies. I recommend you read some for yourself. Attempt to build on your feelings and then share 5 studies that you feel prove dangerous man made global warming.

A) You disregarded the quote from Exxon's own people. Why?


B) So you don't deny global warming is occurring. You just deny man is the cause, is that correct?

Just want to be clear what your asking.

[avb3]

Ok. Let me start you out showing the benefit of looking at factual research versus news articles.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

In this dangerously warming time according to you everything is melting and the sky is falling.

However Antarctica is growing ice and causing water levels to drop. So way is it if you feel the earth is warming some areas and are not following the predictive computer models?

Why do some scientists look at the past 10,000 years yet report to study only the past 50? What benefit is there to limit your scope to such a short period in time?

Why do scientists showing something contadictory to the global warming media buzz feeds always add a qualifier to show they are not a denier?

You purport to be a super strong believer. Please show us 5 studies that prove it for you.

Everyone would love to read a study versus a news article you posted.

The island are having real problems now. It is not because sea level is getting any lower.

You did not address that.

[Sundancefisher]

A) You disregarded the quote from Exxon's own people. Why?


B) So you don't deny global warming is occurring. You just deny man is the cause, is that correct?

Just want to be clear what your asking.

Nice.

Subpoena served 2 months ago. Believe the media all you like. We all know they are closer to 0% fact based and are trying to sell based upon exaggeration and emotional writing.

I believe that the earth has been warming since the last ice age. I have yet to see strong facts pointing to man increasing it.

Which news feeds prove to you that dangerous man made global warming is happening?

Have you ever looked up the facts to validate the news and their spin in it to make more sensational journalism sell advertising?

If you have looked up facts yourself...I am sincerely interested in seeing your top 5 studies that prove dangerous global warming is happening.

I have a science education and background. I don't believe what I am told. I like to see the info.

I can be convinced. I don't see any compelling facts. But I do see media endured crowd decision making swayed by lack of fair and unbiased even scientific study.

The core basis for scientific study is trying to prove theories and study false. Being able to replicate. In an environment hostile to that end you skew thinking and prevent discovery.

[Sundancefisher]

The island are having real problems now. It is not because sea level is getting any lower.

You did not address that.

Island built on coral atolls settle over time until they disappear.. Well known just like oligatrophic lakes become more eutrophic until the eventually disappear.

Ocean levels rise and fall over the years and building on any low spot has risks.

Scientists have no clue why oceans are rising. They thought Antarctica was contributing and were wrong. Another example of guesses without scientific validation.

Maybe oceans can rise by tectonic means?

[winged1]

Same wall, same heads. What contributions to your cause have you fellows committed to on a personal level?

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/6/3/2463/pdf

Island erosion.


Tuvalu. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/. Will it disappear?

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-darwin-sinking-island-theory-dispute-coral-reef.html

[avb3]

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/6/3/2463/pdf

Island erosion.


Tuvalu. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150213-tuvalu-sopoaga-kench-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/. Will it disappear?

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-darwin-sinking-island-theory-dispute-coral-reef.html
Yes, erosion and sinking is an issue with *some* islands.

But as the phys.org link you provided says, it is only *part* of the issue, and rising sea levels are real.

Quote:

"Sea level drops during ice ages, when water becomes locked in ice sheets on land, and then rises between glaciations as the ice melts. Daly suggested that exposure to increased wave energy during sea-level drops would erode an island away; then, as sea level rises, the coral would regrow on submerged island platform"

[Sundancefisher]

Yes, erosion and sinking is an issue with *some* islands.

But as the phys.org link you provided says, it is only *part* of the issue, and rising sea levels are real.

Quote:

"Sea level drops during ice ages, when water becomes locked in ice sheets on land, and then rises between glaciations as the ice melts. Daly suggested that exposure to increased wave energy during sea-level drops would erode an island away; then, as sea level rises, the coral would regrow on submerged island platform"

Look up sinking as well as erosion... Sinking is important for any islands derived from volcanic activity. Gotta understand more to ask the questions. The burden of proof lies with proving dangerous man made global warming.

Great to see you thinking. There is more to the story than being told the earth is dying.

These islands are atolls that grow and shrink with decadal cycles. What impacts them is weather events, deforestation and de vegetation. Land use practices and simply choosing poor places to live in a planet with many natural cycles.

Compound that with natural warming since the last ice age and you get it...

Just like I would not chose to live in a flood plain in Calgary...some chose without the education and in poorer countries to live in bad places. The first world is not responsible for other countries choices.

They need to adapt to change...not seek monetary handouts as a compensation. They need to relocation and better understand and protect their island.

Just like climate is so complicated and no model has ever worked...ever worked... Living on an island...a few meters above sea level has its complications.

The what if blame game needs to refocus on existing with a normal changing earth.

The Time article I posted looked to understand how to live in a cooling 1970's environment. Same applies to everyone. A warmer earth is safer and more inhabitable, grows more food and its residents use less energy than a colder earth. The media notion we are boiling alive is laughable.

Just say you refuse to provide 5 studies as requested above. Clearly you know none or else you have blogged elsewhere seeking help with the question.

I wanted to know if your opinion is based upon the media or your own knowledge.

[avb3]

Great to see you thinking. There is more to the story than being told the earth is dying.

These islands are atolls that grow and shrink with decadal cycles. What impacts them is weather events, deforestation and de vegetation. Land use practices and simply choosing poor places to live in a planet with many natural cycles.

Compound that with natural warming since the last ice age and you get it...

Just like I would not chose to live in a flood plain in Calgary...some chose without the education and in poorer countries to live in bad places. The first world is not responsible for other countries choices.

They need to adapt to change...not seek monetary handouts as a compensation. They need to relocation and better understand and protect their island.

Just like climate is so complicated and no model has ever worked...ever worked... Living on an island...a few meters above sea level has its complications.

The what if blame game needs to refocus on existing with a normal changing earth.

The Time article I posted looked to understand how to live in a cooling 1970's environment. Same applies to everyone. A warmer earth is safer and more inhabitable, grows more food and its residents use less energy than a colder earth. The media notion we are boiling alive is laughable.

Can't refute all of these:


http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-global-warming-scientific-evidence-2011-8?op=1

[Sundancefisher]

Can't refute all of these:


http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-global-warming-scientific-evidence-2011-8?op=1

Until you can post the 5 studies you believe causes dangerous man made global warming...I am tired of reading your news links from 2011.

Just say you can't so I can stop asking. It will tell us a lot but at least one fact will be answered here today.

Any serious article should not start with an emotional staged photo of a polar bear. :bad_boys_20:

[Redfrog]

Here's an example of man's contribution to Global Warming, very close to home.

http://www.history.alberta.ca/historicsites/default.aspx

Maybe it was caused by all those bison farting, and not man at all.:thinking-006:

[avb3]

Until you can post the 5 studies you believe causes dangerous man made global warming...I am tired of reading your news links from 2011.

Just say you can't so I can stop asking. It will tell us a lot but at least one fact will be answered here today.

Any serious article should not start with an emotional staged photo of a polar bear. :bad_boys_20:
I see.

So you don't refute any of the *15* signs then, just the source.

[Hat in the Cat]

A warmer earth is safer and more inhabitable, grows more food and its residents use less energy than a colder earth. The media notion we are boiling alive is laughable.


So many studies all point to the fact that human and nature thrive at a warmer temperature but everyone is so scared by media reports. I personally love the scare line of how many people will die from the heat but don't mention how many homeless people die in the harsh winters every year. Clean up pollution, absolutely, attempt unproven theories to stop global temperature change not in my opinion.

If old Ottoman empire naval maps and logs can describe a green Antarctica but not mention the time that Constantanople (Istanbul) was submerged I think we as humans will do alright.

[Sundancefisher]

Can't refute all of these:


http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-global-warming-scientific-evidence-2011-8?op=1

Ok...just for fun...look at the sea level point.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1-figure-1.html

It says in the instrumentation period...very low confidence level due to technology...water is deemed to have risen 200 mm or 20 cm since 1870 and about half the rise before 1950. Do you know that historically the natural rise is measured in meters? I put forth the follow NASA information for you to see what a reasonable length of time is needed to review to understand this recent panic time is really saying scientifically.

Check out this graph...then compare it to your 2011 blog graph.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/slr.jpg
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

[Sundancefisher]

I see.

So you don't refute any of the *15* signs then, just the source.

You keep asking for answers yet refuse to give your own. Just so happened I was bored and did a quick one for you. Do be quick to make assumptions. Rather than asking other to do your research and cause some thinking to be done...how about do your own.

Look objectively st all those questions yourself. See if there is another way to look at it. Do the research. Look up some contrary opinion sites and think about what they are saying with an open mind.

I was taught in science how to do that but it can be very difficult to be open minded in the face of so much peer pressure.

[sdvc]

Any subject that has Govt> is censoring your very thought process! Tells you SOMEthing? Does it not?? Apparently there are a number of lemmings who follow the politburo tagline. Free speech/thought isn't and science+ Truth depends on it.

[Sundancefisher]

I see.

So you don't refute any of the *15* signs then, just the source.

Further evidence for you two ponder.

Global warming theorists claim they agree sea levels are rising but the speed has been made worse by mankind.

Now if you ignore the proof and facts I showed you on the historical rise in meters in the past versus mm of today you may close your eyes and plug your ears and say...no. The faster rise is due to mankind.

So here is a study for you to read.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/27/11017.full.pdf

As it states the rise started AD 1865 - 1892. Now changes will surely occur as we can see there is nothing unique to the age of man or fossil fuels.

Cheers.

SDF

[TripleTTT]

Further evidence for you two ponder.

Global warming theorists claim they agree sea levels are rising but the speed has been made worse by mankind.

Now if you ignore the proof and facts I showed you on the historical rise in meters in the past versus mm of today you may close your eyes and plug your ears and say...no. The faster rise is due to mankind.

So here is a study for you to read.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/27/11017.full.pdf

As it states the rise started AD 1865 - 1892. Now changes will surely occur as we can see there is nothing unique to the age of man or fossil fuels.

Cheers.

SDF

Contrary to popular misinformation, sea levels are not rising. NASA states that sea levels are in equilibrium right now. According to NASA, the western glaciers in Antarctica are gaining 90 billion tons of ice per year. They say this is enough to offset any melt from other ice sheets on the planet.

ALSO, how does a redistribution of wealth (carbon tax) cause the planet to safely convert excess CO2? :bad_boys_20: Must be a Trudeauism!!! :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Sundancefisher]

Contrary to popular misinformation, sea levels are not rising. NASA states that sea levels are in equilibrium right now. According to NASA, the western glaciers in Antarctica are gaining 90 billion tons of ice per year. They say this is enough to offset any melt from other ice sheets on the planet.

ALSO, how does a redistribution of wealth (carbon tax) cause the planet to safely convert excess CO2? :bad_boys_20: Must be a Trudeauism!!! :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Post the link. I am open minded but I believe this is the one you are thinking.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


It is taking up a lot of water however some say not all.

Arctic sea ice is still holding within a near term band average.

May of read sea ice in Antarctica is at equilibrium with sea level. I believe what they are say is ice floating in the ocean already contributes to sea volume.

Ice on land in Antarctica and Greenland is where people say the ice sits that would raise sea levels.

[TripleTTT]

Yup, that's the one! Thanks!

Cheers!
T

Here is the article:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.

"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

[Sundancefisher]

Natural change can be rapid.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full.pdf

For anyone that wants proof how change can happen quickly. Saying it is quick now because of people regardless of further qualifiers can be debunked with facts.

Another factual study.

[Sundancefisher]

Can't refute all of these:


http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-global-warming-scientific-evidence-2011-8?op=1

Melting glacier and Greenland. This is an easy one to refute.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n9/full/ngeo1898.html

Scientists studying climate seem to ignore magma. Read this one. Pretty cool.

[Red Bullets]

Theory, shmeory!

a meteorite is going to smack into the little green ball and create a nuclear winter anyways.

Or...

In the year 2515, the politicians of the province of New Amazon, Canadakistan will be saying..."Looks like another bumper crop of rice and banana's at KugLugTuk. Our canadian people can eat well again. Now if we could just get that water pipeline from Antarctica approved." :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Sundancefisher]

Can't refute all of these:


http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-global-warming-scientific-evidence-2011-8?op=1

You link states hurricanes are worse and likely caused by a warmer ocean.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

However the science is inconclusive and therefore this is not a fact as you stated you believe it is a fact.

How about you take the challenge and try and refute one yourself.

[Sundancefisher]

ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/amp/mmop/documents/JCOMM-TR/J-TR-13-Marine-Climatology/REV1/joc1171.pdf

When we see statements regarding past data or historical data from 1900 to today people must realize that the data is fudged to correct for problems we know or guess were there.

There is no way to prove the corrections were right and a few individuals who are in the inner global warming circle decided what it is.

It is very complicated. Interesting to know how deep bias permeates into this topic.

[nelsonob1]

ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/amp/mmop/documents/JCOMM-TR/J-TR-13-Marine-Climatology/REV1/joc1171.pdf

Interesting to know how deep bias permeates into this topic.

Not sure that is bias rather than difference in opinion.

[nelsonob1]

Theory, shmeory!

a meteorite is going to smack into the little green ball and create a nuclear winter anyways.

Or...

In the year 2515, the politicians of the province of New Amazon, Canadakistan will be saying..."Looks like another bumper crop of rice and banana's at KugLugTuk. Our canadian people can eat well again. Now if we could just get that water pipeline from Antarctica approved." :sHa_sarcasticlol:

^^^^lol....good one.. I might steal that water pipeline approval line...

[Sundancefisher]

Not sure that is bias rather than difference in opinion.

When a group that believe one theory control and manipulate the data use it and promote the results as proof of their theory I begin to worry.

The data manipulation is one of the biggest problems. They say trust us as it is all peer reviewed...however only believers can be peer reviewers.

Anyone disputing anything are ostracized and called names. Bullying and pushing out anyone wanting to test the conclusions for fear of losing funding.

Terrible situation right now for scientists. I feel bad for the profession.

[parfleche]

Back in the day the earth was FLAT!!!:scared:

[avb3]

When a group that believe one theory control and manipulate the data use it and promote the results as proof of their theory I begin to worry.

The data manipulation is one of the biggest problems. They say trust us as it is all peer reviewed...however only believers can be peer reviewers.

Anyone disputing anything are ostracized and called names. Bullying and pushing out anyone wanting to test the conclusions for fear of losing funding.

Terrible situation right now for scientists. I feel bad for the profession.
What is your proof, that those who peer reviewed are being bullied? And don't tell us something Watts through together.

You're as well aware as I am that peer review can often lead to an expose of errors in data or calculation. That is what peer review does.

[Sundancefisher]

What is your proof, that those who peer reviewed are being bullied? And don't tell us something Watts through together.

You're as well aware as I am that peer review can often lead to an expose of errors in data or calculation. That is what peer review does.

Hmmm.

Just wondering were you went. You haven't given us 5 studies you feel is causing dangerous man made global warming.

I disputed some of some indisputable "facts" as your article stated and at your request. No response to the actual studies I posted? Still no studies on your end.

Please just say you are totally relying on media sites for your belief. I don't blame you for doing that. Most people that believe can't research for themselves and understand science enough to do anything but follow someone else's advice.

It is always a problem and make populations easily manipulated. Google news has the ability to only stream news they want you to see. That has incredible influencing abilities. Especially for those that won't go out and seek their own answers to validate what someone is telling them.

And

P.S.

Read this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

[TripleTTT]

Peer reviews for "Junk Science" is this a GMO forum? :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Any way, with or with out mankind, the northern part of the northern hemisphere is still rebounding from the ice age that we are still coming out of.
This study refers to Antarctica, however, the same is happening in Northern Canada.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/sea-level-rise-2/recovering-from-an-ice-age/

I believe that this will contribute more to sea levels rising than glacial melt. But what do I know? :rolleye2:

[avb3]

Hmmm.

Just wondering were you went. You haven't given us 5 studies you feel is causing dangerous man made global warming.

I disputed some of some indisputable "facts" as your article stated and at your request. No response to the actual studies I posted? Still no studies on your end.

Please just say you are totally relying on media sites for your belief. I don't blame you for doing that. Most people that believe can't research for themselves and understand science enough to do anything but follow someone else's advice.

It is always a problem and make populations easily manipulated. Google news has the ability to only stream news they want you to see. That has incredible influencing abilities. Especially for those that won't go out and seek their own answers to validate what someone is telling them.

And

P.S.

Read this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

I asked for clarification what your stance was.

You side stepped A and didn't answer B

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?p=3118143

[Sundancefisher]

Peer reviews for "Junk Science" is this a GMO forum? :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Any way, with or with out mankind, the northern part of the northern hemisphere is still rebounding from the ice age that we are still coming out of.
This study refers to Antarctica, however, the same is happening in Northern Canada.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/sea-level-rise-2/recovering-from-an-ice-age/

I believe that this will contribute more to sea levels rising than glacial melt. But what do I know? :rolleye2:

But Antarctica is also melting. West Antarctic ice sheet is melting. This is seen as a problem. But why is it melting? Global warming? Rest of Antarctica is not melting. So what then? Ocean currents? Yes...the major oscillation currents do cycle and have a huge impact both in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Anything else? How about magma?

http://news.utexas.edu/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting

Where else is this an issue? Are magma factors influencing oceans? Who knows.

[avb3]

Hmmm.

Just wondering were you went. You haven't given us 5 studies you feel is causing dangerous man made global warming.

I disputed some of some indisputable "facts" as your article stated and at your request. No response to the actual studies I posted? Still no studies on your end.

Please just say you are totally relying on media sites for your belief. I don't blame you for doing that. Most people that believe can't research for themselves and understand science enough to do anything but follow someone else's advice.

It is always a problem and make populations easily manipulated. Google news has the ability to only stream news they want you to see. That has incredible influencing abilities. Especially for those that won't go out and seek their own answers to validate what someone is telling them.

And

P.S.

Read this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
Premise of article long ago debunked. You been shown this before and repeat the lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Full investigation report:

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VqV8_nNOnqA

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

Stop with believing the agitprop.

[Sundancefisher]

I asked for clarification what your stance was.

You side stepped A and didn't answer B

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?p=3118143

You didn't read the article.

And so far your answering zero questions and side stepping by asking new questions each time.

Fun game. I like your style. Subterfuge. In a debate...the best defence in a strong offence.

Still. I have answered all your questions. Can you please just answer my only question. Can you provide 5 studies that prove to you that dangerous man made global warming is happening. Or just say you refuse or rely on media for your facts.

Cheers

SDF

[Sundancefisher]

Premise of article long ago debunked. You been shown this before and repeat the lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Full investigation report:

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VqV8_nNOnqA

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

Stop with believing the agitprop.

Blogs attacking blogs and those being accused of problems investigating themselves.

Interesting.

Here is a study to read. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Infiltration2015.pdf

[avb3]

You didn't read the article.

And so far your answering zero questions and side stepping by asking new questions each time.

Fun game. I like your style. Subterfuge. In a debate...the best defence in a strong offence.

Still. I have answered all your questions. Can you please just answer my only question. Can you provide 5 studies that prove to you that dangerous man made global warming is happening. Or just say you refuse or rely on media for your facts.

Cheers

SDF
No, neither question was answered A, or clarified, B.

By the way 160 page report debunking your suggestion that the peer review process was faulty in so-called Climategate is going to take a bit to look through and find fault with it. Or has Andrew Watts already done that for you?

Or maybe the so-called Lord Monckton is credible?

[avb3]

Blogs attacking blogs and those being accused of problems investigating themselves.

Interesting.
I see, you dismiss 160 page report out of hand. How scientific of you.

Here is the actual review team.

http://www.cce-review.org/About.php

[grouse_hunter]

Back in the day the earth was FLAT!!!:scared:

That's right, and most well respected scientists of the time would have been Flat Earth believers...

[Sundancefisher]

I see, you dismiss 160 page report out of hand. How scientific of you.

Here is the actual review team.

http://www.cce-review.org/About.php

Here is the report for you.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Infiltration2015.pdf

[histyle]

That's right, and most well respected scientists of the time would have been Flat Earth believers...

Peer reviewed by other flat earth scientists, too!

Probably to keep from being called a denier, or heretic to the populist 'science' of the day. Thus keeping themselves from being locked in the tower for mental health issues. :thinking-006:

[Sundancefisher]

No, neither question was answered A, or clarified, B.

By the way 160 page report debunking your suggestion that the peer review process was faulty in so-called Climategate is going to take a bit to look through and find fault with it. Or has Andrew Watts already done that for you?

Or maybe the so-called Lord Monckton is credible?



From your report

But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.

In a scientific process truly open to everyone to test and try and prove false the actions of so called scientists working secretively does not prove your point.

Clause 1.3. 15.

Then

18. On the allegation of withholding station identifiers we find that CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in each of the versions of the Climatic Research Unit Land Temperature Record (CRUTEM) at the time of publication. We find that CRU‟s responses to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive.

Not conducive of open and transparent scientific due process.

Other reports numerous problems. Hopefully fixed. And hopefully no longer happening.

SDF

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

[nelsonob1]

Back in the day the earth was FLAT!!!:scared:

WRONG. My truck broke down the other day and I can assure you it is not.

[avb3]

Here is the report for you.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Infiltration2015.pdf
Friend's of Science?

You're quoting Friend's of Science???? That's Barry Cooper's group.

Those guys are worse than Watts. And were behind the so called Lord Monckton's tour.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/12/global_warming_denial_calgary_billboard_is_laughab ly_wrong.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/655

You're really reaching into the bottom of the barrel to bring up a group like that.

[rugatika]

Friend's of Science?

You're quoting Friend's of Science???? That's Barry Cooper's group.

Those guys are worse than Watts. And were behind the so called Lord Monckton's tour.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/12/global_warming_denial_calgary_billboard_is_laughab ly_wrong.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friends_of_Science

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/655

You're really reaching into the bottom of the barrel to bring up a group like that.

I'm not sure I'd be questioning the presentation of facts by people who are skeptical of AGW, when we've shown on here time and time again how data is being manipulated and genuine skeptical scientists are being ostracized.

Every time it comes up you say "show me the proof", and we show you the proof, and you say it's not good enough. Then one month later you're asking the same questions.

It's pretty clear you're not interested in an honest and meaningful debate on the subject, which is pretty much in line with the attitude of most Believers. Hence, the damage that is being done to science in general.

[avb3]

I'm not sure I'd be questioning the presentation of facts by people who are skeptical of AGW, when we've shown on here time and time again how data is being manipulated and genuine skeptical scientists are being ostracized.

Every time it comes up you say "show me the proof", and we show you the proof, and you say it's not good enough. Then one month later you're asking the same questions.

It's pretty clear you're not interested in an honest and meaningful debate on the subject, which is pretty much in line with the attitude of most Believers. Hence, the damage that is being done to science in general.
What the so called Friends of Science do is not science at all. They are propagating tobacco industry type propaganda.

As the saying goes follow the money.

[rugatika]

As the saying goes follow the money.

Indeed.

[260 Rem]

Regardless of the polarized "beliefs" regarding global warming, does it not make sense for humans to keep the air they breathe as clean as possible?

[Sundancefisher]

What the so called Friends of Science do is not science at all. They are propagating tobacco industry type propaganda.

As the saying goes follow the money.

Ok.

So we will all agree you refuse to answer my question. You also refuse to say if it is because you can't find any studies you feel warrant discussion on your part or don't want to say you just believe media. You may also just hate answering questions in a debate.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

As for the follow the money. Do you realize the sum of money in the research bucket? Do you realize that money is the lifeblood for scientists?

Anyways...I would love to debate your studies someday.

Where does NASA's budget go to?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/how-global-warming-science-ate-the-nasa-budget/

Good day Sir.

[avb3]

Ok.

So we will all agree you refuse to answer my question. You also refuse to say if it is because you can't find any studies you feel warrant discussion on your part or don't want to say you just believe media. You may also just hate answering questions in a debate.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html



Conclusion of your link:

"...Bengtsson's stringent criticism of climate change forecasts is misleading, explaining that the models provided useable results that were tested on historical climate change. The 5th IPCC Report that took hundreds of scientists years to produce, says Knutti, comprehensively documents the range of results. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception."



Anyways...I would love to debate your studies someday.

Where does NASA's budget go to?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/how-global-warming-science-ate-the-nasa-budget/

Good day Sir.

Great. Please clarify your question. Do you need me to repeat?

Oh, and I have not forgot that you completely avoided part A of the two part clarification.

[Roughneck12]

Its the sun stupid. Yes its a giant hoax and lie. The delusional and hysterical left.

[TripleTTT]

All the climate change/global warming pundits should be made to watch Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax" If any movie or idea was ever so over simplified as to show man made climate change; this is it.

Too much apathy, and not enough uncensored science.

It's been a long day, I need a drink....:shark:

[Sundancefisher]

Conclusion of your link:

"...Bengtsson's stringent criticism of climate change forecasts is misleading, explaining that the models provided useable results that were tested on historical climate change. The 5th IPCC Report that took hundreds of scientists years to produce, says Knutti, comprehensively documents the range of results. He says that sitting back and waiting until all the questions are answered is not an alternative, and describes a large portion of what has come to be called skepticism as deliberate deception."




Great. Please clarify your question. Do you need me to repeat?

Oh, and I have not forgot that you completely avoided part A of the two part clarification.

You want to debate computer model predictions? By all means post a study you love based upon a computer model.

It will be fun. Nothing like running millions of scenarios till you get one that matches only to have it fail and start again.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

The Arctic is screaming. Lol.

Oh well.

So you have not received any studies from Reddit or skepicle folks to feed everyone?

Please give us the 5 studies. Just do some research. Don't be scared. Hopefully you can find some winners to convince me. Even if you can show 1 in 5 that provides a good scientific argument I would live to see it.

[avb3]

You want to debate computer model predictions? By all means post a study you love based upon a computer model.

It will be fun. Nothing like running millions of scenarios till you get one that matches only to have it fail and start again.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

The Arctic is screaming. Lol.

Oh well.

So you have not received any studies from Reddit or skepicle folks to feed everyone?

Please give us the 5 studies. Just do some research. Don't be scared. Hopefully you can find some winners to convince me. Even if you can show 1 in 5 that provides a good scientific argument I would live to see it.
So you refuse to answer why the Exxon scientists back in the last "1970's" said global warming was a real danger.

And you won't answer the simple question if you think global warming is occurring or not. Caused by whatever, but that warming is real.

If we can clarify those two points, at least we will knows we are discussing there same thing.

[Sundancefisher]

So you refuse to answer why the Exxon scientists back in the last "1970's" said global warming was a real danger.

And you won't answer the simple question if you think global warming is occurring or not. Caused by whatever, but that warming is real.

If we can clarify those two points, at least we will knows we are discussing there same thing.

I told you. They had a subpoena in November. I will wait for facts. Not for media reports. Likely like any company you have different points of view. If one person knew everything each would employ only one geologist. :thinking-006:

So. You still won't come and give us the 5 studies that prove to you that dangerous man made global warming is happening.

Oh well. No point in debating one side. Cheers and have a great night.

I told you the earth had been warming since the last ice age. I don't know anyone that says we have been cooling. You can find lots of graphs showing that.

Cheers

SDF

P.S. Until you answer my question...you are on your own.

Please give us your 5... Forget it. We now know you won't.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Let's look at the indisputable facts

1. co2 has been present at roughly 10x the current levels in the past
2. The earth has warmed by slightly over one degree FAHRENHEIT in the last 100 years
3. The earth has been at least 5 degrees fahrenheit warmer in the past
4. The earth at many times in the past has had ZERO ice on its surface, and life still flourished
5. Greenhouse owners often artificially increase co2 levels by 5 times the current atmospheric level of co2, because it is a scientific fact that it increases plant yield
6. The greener plants are the more o2 they emit during cellular respiration
7. Food growth is at record highs, one of the variables being higher atmospheric co2
8. We are currently in an ice age, and the earth has been 'warming' for 20 000 years
9. co2 is freely admitted by the alarmists has not having been a direct cause of warming in the past, but merely 'accelerated it', yet today they claim it is the cause
10. Earth's climate is such an enormously complex system that reductive computer 'modeling' is almost certainly going to lead to false conclusions
11. Regardless of the legal outcome, there is direct evidence that the IPCC has willfully attempted to remove cooling periods in the last 100 years from their models because they don't correlate with the co2 = warming hypothesis
12. 500+ years ago during the medieval warm period, they were able to grow vineyards in england
13. Scientists have been forced to alter their hypothesis many times in the past 20 years because their models have not accurately predicted reality. IE: Global warming turns into climate change, the oceans are responsible for taking the heat that should be there that we don't see, the real problem isn't CFCs or co2 at all anymore but actually methane, co2 won't kill us all but methane released from the oceans will etc etc etc
14. Correlation =/= Causation
15. The '97% agree' has not only been debunked, it commits the 'argument from authority' fallacy.
16. There is a GROWING number of leading field scientists that are skeptical about the co2=warming hypothesis.


Draw your own conclusions

[Okotokian]

You can sail ice free through the north west passage. Couldn't before. I'm sure both sides twist the facts, but it's hard to argue with no ice being where it used to be. Now the human contribution to a natural phenomena is still a bit unclear to a non-scientist like me, but I'm convinced it's gotten warmer, at least in the Canadian North.

[FlyTheory]

I love only hearing from the Albertan rural opinion

[V_1]

IT PROVES THAT LAST WAS WARMEST ON RECORD :sign0161:

Did you fail to mention amazing 39% confidence NASA put on it's own report?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRICfZOvpY
or if you prefer CBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8B-gsqPZ9k

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

You can sail ice free through the north west passage. Couldn't before. I'm sure both sides twist the facts, but it's hard to argue with no ice being where it used to be. Now the human contribution to a natural phenomena is still a bit unclear to a non-scientist like me, but I'm convinced it's gotten warmer, at least in the Canadian North.

There were times in earths history where there was NO ICE AT ALL on the surface.

In fact, in the past 500 million years, the earth was in this 'greenhouse state' 80% of the time

www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/

[Okotokian]

There were times in earths history where there was NO ICE AT ALL on the surface.

In fact, in the past 500 million years, the earth was in this 'greenhouse state' 80% of the time

www.newscientist.com/article/dn18949-the-history-of-ice-on-earth/

No doubt. No one is saying it's never been warmer than it is now. Only that it's getting warmer than it has been in the past few hundred years. Alberta used to be under water too.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

No doubt. No one is saying it's never been warmer than it is now. Only that it's getting warmer than it has been in the past few hundred years. Alberta used to be under water too.

Right. But with that in mind don't you think it'd be prudent to be skeptical of all the hype about how this is going to be an enormous global catastrophe? I've even read/heard some scientists saying this will be the end of all life on earth! What rubbish!

[Okotokian]

Right. But with that in mind don't you think it'd be prudent to be skeptical of all the hype about how this is going to be an enormous global catastrophe? I've even read/heard some scientists saying this will be the end of all life on earth! What rubbish!

True. Some species will thrive even more than now. Some islanders and coastal city dwellers just don't like the idea of their grandkids' homes being underwater. LOL

[bobtodrick]

Right. But with that in mind don't you think it'd be prudent to be skeptical of all the hype about how this is going to be an enormous global catastrophe? I've even read/heard some scientists saying this will be the end of all life on earth! What rubbish!

lemmesse...I know what Stephen Hawkings credentials are...and yours are...??
And 'rightwing know it all' really isn't a credential.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

lemmesse...I know what Stephen Hawkings credentials are...and yours are...??
And 'rightwing know it all' really isn't a credential.

If even a cursory study of the history of science is any indication, then credentials don't mean squat. Hawking himself has been wrong many times, something which he freely admits.

[V_1]

Hawking himself has been wrong many times, something which he freely admits.

But he's a scientist, while in case of AGW we're talking about CULT. :D

one more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6YfQx9I64

[TripleTTT]

You can sail ice free through the north west passage. Couldn't before. I'm sure both sides twist the facts, but it's hard to argue with no ice being where it used to be. Now the human contribution to a natural phenomena is still a bit unclear to a non-scientist like me, but I'm convinced it's gotten warmer, at least in the Canadian North.

No, it is not clear of ice! There is less of it. All ships over 500 tones need to register with the Canadian Government, and get to travel with an icebreaker.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/northwest-passage-crossed-by-first-cargo-ship-the-nordic-orion-heralding-new-era-of-arctic-commercial-activity

[happy honker]

Regardless of the polarized "beliefs" regarding global warming, does it not make sense for humans to keep the air they breathe as clean as possible?

Exactly.
I just don't get the rabid foaming at the mouth passion of climate change denial.
Even if the numbers are wrong and the world isn't getting warmer or colder due to our industrialized impact....what's wrong with cutting back a bit on polluting air and water??

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Exactly.
I just don't get the rabid foaming at the mouth passion of climate change denial.
Even if the numbers are wrong and the world isn't getting warmer or colder due to our industrialized impact....what's wrong with cutting back a bit on polluting air and water??

Nothing. We've been controlling emissions for years in Canada. What is wrong is when the powers that be use it as a 'this is the end' hoax to pilfer even more of our money from our own pockets---at gunpoint. What's also wrong is overestimating the dangers so that they can get consensus and silencing dissent.

[Hat in the Cat]

lemmesse...I know what Stephen Hawkings credentials are...and yours are...??
And 'rightwing know it all' really isn't a credential.

A theoretical physicist and cosmetologist? That makes him an expert on global warming?

[Okotokian]

No, it is not clear of ice! There is less of it. All ships over 500 tones need to register with the Canadian Government, and get to travel with an icebreaker.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/northwest-passage-crossed-by-first-cargo-ship-the-nordic-orion-heralding-new-era-of-arctic-commercial-activity

Ok, no global warming. But what about this part?:

"Last year, Arctic sea ice coverage was a record low 3.42 million square kilometres, according to the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. As the ice continues to melt, some experts have estimated that shipping via the Arctic could account for a quarter of the cargo traffic between Europe and Asia by 2030."

Plenty of ships transiting now, NOT accompanied by icebreakers
http://www.cruisingworld.com/northwest-passage-routes-made-passable

[TripleTTT]

Exactly.
I just don't get the rabid foaming at the mouth passion of climate change denial.
Even if the numbers are wrong and the world isn't getting warmer or colder due to our industrialized impact....what's wrong with cutting back a bit on polluting air and water??

I have no problems with cutting back, it's how it's being done (or not being done) that really shows it's not the environment that decides things, but governments and big money.

The current carbon tax models on the table have no provisions for enforcement and nearly all of the big offenders have opted out of meeting quotas. So, it really is just another tax. Instead of using this money to clean the oceans of plastic and replanting the world's rain forests it's earmarked to fund oil companies research. Shell has come out in favour of a carbon tax for Alberta, for this reason only.

I rest my case...

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Ok, no global warming. This part of your quoted story must be a lie then?:

"Last year, Arctic sea ice coverage was a record low 3.42 million square kilometres, according to the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. As the ice continues to melt, some experts have estimated that shipping via the Arctic could account for a quarter of the cargo traffic between Europe and Asia by 2030."

The words 'record low' suggest something that isn't true. While it may be true that polar ice is lower now than in the past 50 years when we seriously started looking, it is not true that this is the 'lowest the ice has ever been.' It's this kind of sensationalist media slant that gives people the impression that we are headed for disaster. The fact is, 80% of the last 500 million years there were 0 square kilometres of ice on the ENTIRE PLANET. So who cares!?

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

I have no problems with cutting back, it's how it's being done (or not being done) that really shows it's not the environment that decides things, but governments and big money.

The current carbon tax models on the table have no provisions for enforcement and nearly all of the big offenders have opted out of meeting quotas. So, it really is just another tax. Instead of using this money to clean the oceans of plastic and replanting the world's rain forests it's earmarked to fund oil companies research. Shell has come out in favour of a carbon tax for Alberta, for this reason only.

I rest my case...

Exactly. I actually wouldn't object one bit if I was certain that money was going to actually help the environment. But I know it will go to wasting money on NDP programs that don't work and making sure Queen Notley gets to work in her limousine and NDP MLAs in Calgary can buy their $80000 sports cars on their $160 000 salaries, like the guy I know did.

[TripleTTT]

Ok, no global warming. But what about this part?:

"Last year, Arctic sea ice coverage was a record low 3.42 million square kilometres, according to the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. As the ice continues to melt, some experts have estimated that shipping via the Arctic could account for a quarter of the cargo traffic between Europe and Asia by 2030."

Plenty of ships transiting now, NOT accompanied by icebreakers
http://www.cruisingworld.com/northwest-passage-routes-made-passable

Semantics, "some experts have estimated..." I bet you I an also find some experts to refute this statement....

As for the second statement stating "Plenty of ships..." These ships are under 500 tonnes, Ice still poses a threat to sink boats. Hey, the Atlantic is considered "ice free". Still doesn't stop boats sinking from hitting ice.

[Sundancefisher]

Ok, no global warming. But what about this part?:

"Last year, Arctic sea ice coverage was a record low 3.42 million square kilometres, according to the University of Colorado Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center. As the ice continues to melt, some experts have estimated that shipping via the Arctic could account for a quarter of the cargo traffic between Europe and Asia by 2030."

Plenty of ships transiting now, NOT accompanied by icebreakers
http://www.cruisingworld.com/northwest-passage-routes-made-passable

Early explorers from Europe used the passage until the little ice age.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

So maybe the problem is not global warming caused by mankind but rather mankind refusing to fairly address history and focus on a shorter time frame that helps their main goal?

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

We have no reliable sea ice data before 1970.

Arguing the sky is falling because the Northwest Passage is opennish today is super overkill.

If not overkill... Then way on earth in 1576 did someone not complain of manmade global warming? The passage was open then and you didn't need and ice breaker. Just a sailing ship.

[Bushrat]

Exactly.
I just don't get the rabid foaming at the mouth passion of climate change denial.

I see it the other way around, the ones foaming at the mouth are protesting, wild eyed fear mongering environmentalists, go on facebook, refute someones global warming blurb and you get jumped on by hundreds of believers. Walk on any campus or school and question man made global warming and you instantly get called a denier and treated you like your some sort of terrorist or monster. You can't have a rational calm discussion, they say its proven and the book is closed. If you don't agree they assume you hate the planet and want it destroyed.

[fitzy]

I see it the other way around, the ones foaming at the mouth are protesting, wild eyed fear mongering environmentalists, go on facebook, refute someones global warming blurb and you get jumped on by hundreds of believers. Walk on any campus or school and question man made global warming and you instantly get called a denier and treated you like your some sort of terrorist or monster. You can't have a rational calm discussion, they say its proven and the book is closed. If you don't agree they assume you hate the planet and want it destroyed.

I just like to sit in the middle and shake my head, not a lot of common ground. Obviously man isn't good for the enviroment, we as outdoorsmen have all seen evidence of it. On the other hand whats our option? Leave... can't really. I say do it like we learned in boy scouts, leave it a little better than you found it.

[Sundancefisher]

Great. Now they are linking the atomic doomsday clock to global warming.

Gesh

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/doomsday-clock-feat/index.html

I'm so emotional I might just cry. :thinking-006:

[avb3]

Great. Now they are linking the atomic doomsday clock to global warming.

Gesh

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/doomsday-clock-feat/index.html

I'm so emotional I might just cry. :thinking-006:
You should.

http://m.livescience.com/53488-global-warming-heat-records-odds.html

You particularly will like this part:

"Fourteen of the 15 warmest years in recorded history occurred between 2000 and 2015 (and it was recently announced that2015 was Earth's hottest year*since record keeping began, in 1880). The odds are between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 170,000 that natural climate swings caused the sweltering-high temperatures around the world, researchers reported Monday (Jan. 25) in the journal*Nature Scientific Reports. For 2014 alone, there's a one-in-a-million chance that the monster heat record occurred only from natural climate variability."

Not projections or models, BTW.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

You should.

http://m.livescience.com/53488-global-warming-heat-records-odds.html

You particularly will like this part:

"Fourteen of the 15 warmest years in recorded history occurred between 2000 and 2015 (and it was recently announced that2015 was Earth's hottest year*since record keeping began, in 1880). The odds are between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 170,000 that natural climate swings caused the sweltering-high temperatures around the world, researchers reported Monday (Jan. 25) in the journal*Nature Scientific Reports. For 2014 alone, there's a one-in-a-million chance that the monster heat record occurred only from natural climate variability."

Not projections or models, BTW.

What a bunch of hooey. Here is the actual graph for the past 500 million years. Please notice 500 million years ago the earth was 25 degrees celsius higher average temperature. Just over 20 000 years ago, you will please note that the average temperature was 5 degrees celsius higher than now. Mankind was around then. It's still around now. It will still be around when this global warming baloney goes away too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Heres another one for the last half million years taken from ice cores. Notice a trend?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

I wonder what kind of crazy factories those early hominids had.

[avb3]

Heres another one for the last half million years taken from ice cores. Notice a trend?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

I wonder what kind of crazy factories those early hominids had.
Are you aware that in the past, CO2 levels rose AFTER warming, not before.

Currently CO2 is increasing BEFORE temperature.

What does that indicate to you?

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Are you aware that in the past, CO2 levels rose AFTER warming, not before.

Currently CO2 is increasing BEFORE temperature.

What does that indicate to you?

It means that co2 had nothing to do with causing warming in the past and probably still doesn't.

But then again, it could mean nothing. Or something. No one knows.

To base global policy on evidence as shaky as that seems like a very reckless thing to do.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

All these words come from the first Earth day in 1970.

- “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” - “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” - “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” - “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” - Kenneth Watt, ecologist

- “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” - “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” - “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” - Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

- “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” - Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University 　

- “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” - Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

- “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” - George Wald, Harvard Biologist

- “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” - Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

- “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” - Life Magazine, January 1970

- “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” - New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

- “We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.” - Martin Litton, Sierra Club director 　

- “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” - Sen. Gaylord Nelson

[58thecat]

We are always fed bs by some sources, just jump on the bandwagon that suites your fancy!

Saskatchewan xmas 94 was green/brown grass in the plus temps...all,others were -20000 with wind chill thrown in...go figure!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[avb3]

It means that co2 had nothing to do with causing warming in the past and probably still doesn't.

But then again, it could mean nothing. Or something. No one knows.

To base global policy on evidence as shaky as that seems like a very reckless thing to do.
CO2 effect on atmospheric warming has been known since the late 1800's.

This is not new science.

But then many people didn't believe that smoking causes cancer either did they? Even though doctors knew about it decades before, that industry use the same techniques the carbon based industries are using and trying to spread fear uncertainty and doubt.

Because we have so many people working in the oil and gas industry in Alberta, many are buying the FUD factor. Just like tobacco farmers did in years gone by.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

CO2 effect on atmospheric warming has been known since the late 1800's.

This is not new science.

But then many people didn't believe that smoking causes cancer either did they? Even though doctors knew about it decades before, that industry use the same techniques the carbon based industries are using and trying to spread fear uncertainty and doubt.

Because we have so many people working in the oil and gas industry in Alberta, many are buying the FUD factor. Just like tobacco farmers did in years gone by.

You just finished saying that co2 was not responsible for warming in the past. What makes you think it's responsible now?

Also, why is warming even a bad thing at all? The planet is greener than ever and food crops are record breaking. It's certainly not all bad.

Making a blanket statement that people are being wilfully ignorant just because they like working is pretty silly and condescending. There are a lot of smart people who 'just don't see it.' I for one think fracking is horrible because of the water it uses as I've seen it first hand, but I'm skeptical about climate change.

I agree the climate is changing, agree that the earth is at the tail end of a natural warming period, agree that mankind has increased co2 levels by about 150 ppm in the last 150 years, and agree that the average temperature has risen about a degree fahrenheit. Those are scientific facts.

What remains conjecture at this point is whether mankind is a major cause of these things, whether they will continue as the alarmists are predicting (i am highly skeptical), or whether it's even a bad thing. In some ways like i mentioned above it would be a bad thing to STOP co2 emissions!!

[avb3]

You just finished saying that co2 was not responsible for warming in the past. What makes you think it's responsible now?

Also, why is warming even a bad thing at all? The planet is greener than ever and food crops are record breaking. It's certainly not all bad.

Making a blanket statement that people are being wilfully ignorant just because they like working is pretty silly and condescending. There are a lot of smart people who 'just don't see it.' I for one think fracking is horrible because of the water it uses as I've seen it first hand, but I'm skeptical about climate change.

I agree the climate is changing, agree that the earth is at the tail end of a natural warming period, agree that mankind has increased co2 levels by about 150 ppm in the last 150 years, and agree that the average temperature has risen about a degree fahrenheit. Those are scientific facts.

What remains conjecture at this point is whether mankind is a major cause of these things, whether they will continue as the alarmists are predicting (i am highly skeptical), or whether it's even a bad thing. In some ways like i mentioned above it would be a bad thing to STOP co2 emissions!!
You might want to read this 200 page report by the International Energy Agency :

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org

Take a look at how many oil and other energy companies were involved in putting it together.


If you have questions about particular issues that you don't believe in, this is a good resource to start for scientific references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

You might want to read this 200 page report by the International Energy Agency :

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org

Take a look at how many oil and other energy companies were involved in putting it together.


If you have questions about particular issues that you don't believe in, this is a good resource to start for scientific references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com

I guess you didn't really read my post.

I believe the earth is warming.
I am on the fence about how much is manmade.
I think the people screaming catastrophe are wrong.

[rugatika]

Are you aware that in the past, CO2 levels rose AFTER warming, not before.

Currently CO2 is increasing BEFORE temperature.

What does that indicate to you?

Didn't the earth start warming about 10,000 years ago? What caused that?

[Sundancefisher]

Heres another one for the last half million years taken from ice cores. Notice a trend?

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

I wonder what kind of crazy factories those early hominids had.

http://www.vonborks.org/Pages/Walt/1.jpg

Another good one.

[V_1]

What makes me laugh every time that THOSE WHO POST GRAPHS SHOWING HUGE VARIATIONS in PAST CLIMATE of the planet are called by Cult 'climate change deniers'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4cBx30j4jU

I wish there was warming. Really. Definitely not man made, but it's not important. Only real danger of it is that we (and our kids) will be robbed in process of 'saving the planet'. But opposite scenario may be way worse.

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

As for Cult, I bet they will be freezing to death but still blame it on global warming. :D

[rugatika]

I have to admit. I ran to the window this morning to see if the world was still there.

It was 10 years yesterday, that Al Gore said we had 10 years left. :sHa_sarcasticlol:


http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/time-runs-out-on-al-gores-global-warming-armageddon/

Ten years ago, Rush Limbaugh started a countdown clock after Al Gore reportedly claimed there were only 10 years left to save the world from the ravages of global warming.

Actor and activist Larry David was quoted as saying, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

[avb3]

Interesting study on the cost of changing to renewables in the United States.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/switch-to-clean-energy-can-be-fast-and-cheap/

[rugatika]

Interesting study on the cost of changing to renewables in the United States.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/switch-to-clean-energy-can-be-fast-and-cheap/

Another hoax. :thinking-006:

[avb3]

Another hoax. :thinking-006:
Glad you have an open mind and are a quick reader, being able to discern what exactly was wrong with that study. Hair on ya, as you're better than most scientists are.

[rugatika]

Glad you have an open mind and are a quick reader, being able to discern what exactly was wrong with that study. Hair on ya, as you're better than most scientists are.

I agree with you on all points made in that post. :)

[avb3]

I agree with you on all points made in that post. :)
Well about time you agree with something I said. Lol.

[rugatika]

Well about time you agree with something I said. Lol.

I agree with you 90% of the time. I just try and keep it on the down low. :sHa_shakeshout:

[propliner]

Climate Change is the new religion.

In decades past, people would flock to the church, worship God, and happily tithe.

Now, people flock to the internet, worship Mother Earth and her scientists, and happily pay more taxes.

Everyone needs something to believe in.

[Wild&Free]

http://www.vonborks.org/Pages/Walt/1.jpg

Another good one.

I always get a kick out of this graph.

I feel I should point out a few bits of information I've gathered over the years.

Snowball Earth, happened before the start of the graph, by a few dozen million years. suspected thaw was caused by a spike of volcanic activity releasing huge amounts of gas and heat from within the earth to thaw it all out.

Formation of Pangaea, 400-350 million BC. Drastically changed climate and greatly cooled the planet.

P/T extinction event, coincides with the breakup of Pangaea which is another large release of stored gas and energy from within the earth. some 90% of all life was wiped out during this period. notice the spike in temperature at the same time.

The Triassic extinction also has a sharp rise in temperature. coincidence since there's not much evidence pointing to volcanism causing that warming.

similar geological climate change also took place around 20million BC the isthmus of Panama was formed. which stopped global ocean currents circulating warm equatorial waters and cooling really took off again.

This long term graph explains NOTHING because there was so much going on over such a large time frame that causation is completely ignored.

Now I don't have 5 definitive studies for you Sundance, but what I do have is some basic understanding of a few recognized notions. first that the earth is predominately a closed system. very little escapes from the system so any changes made effect the system. secondly, increasing the amount of CO2 in a closed system does have a Greenhouse effect, this was observed over 150 years ago and still holds true today. third, increasing warming with CO2 creates a feedback loop which increases water vapor in the atmosphere and water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas. This is why CO2 rises before temperatures rise.

Now you've always argued that more CO2 and a warmer planet has benefits, no argument on that point one bit from me. Which is why reversing the effect is never on the agenda like the damage done with CFCs or Acid Rain but limiting the effect. I've come to an idea that this whole anthropomorphic climate change notion is not so much that we are doing it, but that we can do it. If it is something we can influence we should have some framework and guidelines as to how far we should/could take it.

Considering how limited our knowledge of the climate is, erring on the side of caution seems to be the most practical and rational path forward don't you think?

[abhunter8]

Nothing. We've been controlling emissions for years in Canada. What is wrong is when the powers that be use it as a 'this is the end' hoax to pilfer even more of our money from our own pockets---at gunpoint. What's also wrong is overestimating the dangers so that they can get consensus and silencing dissent.

Bingo!

[avb3]

I always get a kick out of this graph.

I feel I should point out a few bits of information I've gathered over the years.

Snowball Earth, happened before the start of the graph, by a few dozen million years. suspected thaw was caused by a spike of volcanic activity releasing huge amounts of gas and heat from within the earth to thaw it all out.

Formation of Pangaea, 400-350 million BC. Drastically changed climate and greatly cooled the planet.

P/T extinction event, coincides with the breakup of Pangaea which is another large release of stored gas and energy from within the earth. some 90% of all life was wiped out during this period. notice the spike in temperature at the same time.

The Triassic extinction also has a sharp rise in temperature. coincidence since there's not much evidence pointing to volcanism causing that warming.

similar geological climate change also took place around 20million BC the isthmus of Panama was formed. which stopped global ocean currents circulating warm equatorial waters and cooling really took off again.

This long term graph explains NOTHING because there was so much going on over such a large time frame that causation is completely ignored.

Now I don't have 5 definitive studies for you Sundance, but what I do have is some basic understanding of a few recognized notions. first that the earth is predominately a closed system. very little escapes from the system so any changes made effect the system. secondly, increasing the amount of CO2 in a closed system does have a Greenhouse effect, this was observed over 150 years ago and still holds true today. third, increasing warming with CO2 creates a feedback loop which increases water vapor in the atmosphere and water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas. This is why CO2 rises before temperatures rise.

Now you've always argued that more CO2 and a warmer planet has benefits, no argument on that point one bit from me. Which is why reversing the effect is never on the agenda like the damage done with CFCs or Acid Rain but limiting the effect. I've come to an idea that this whole anthropomorphic climate change notion is not so much that we are doing it, but that we can do it. If it is something we can influence we should have some framework and guidelines as to how far we should/could take it.

Considering how limited our knowledge of the climate is, erring on the side of caution seems to be the most practical and rational path forward don't you think?
Well stated.

[threeforthree]

Global warming must be true....saw a gopher today

[rugatika]

Considering how limited our knowledge of the climate is, erring on the side of caution seems to be the most practical and rational path forward don't you think?

Now for my favourite part.

So, following your idea of the most practical and rational path forward you have significantly reduced your CO2 footprint?

What do you drive? How do you heat your home? Electricity? etc etc etc etc etc

I continually hear the dire consequences of not doing anything, but I never see anyone actually do anything. In fact, the loudest voices I hear about CO2 are inevitably the ones that have 2 or more homes, drive and fly all over the place, have several children etc etc.

If everyone quit having multiple kids for a generation or two the CO2 "problem" would be solved. But nobody can even be bothered to do that.

[Jadham]

What a bunch of hooey. Here is the actual graph for the past 500 million years. Please notice 500 million years ago the earth was 25 degrees celsius higher average temperature. Just over 20 000 years ago, you will please note that the average temperature was 5 degrees celsius higher than now. Mankind was around then. It's still around now. It will still be around when this global warming baloney goes away too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg/1000px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

Umm how do you know the world was 25 degrees hotter 500 million years ago?

Computer modeling? So you ok with modeling to project what the earth's temperature was 500 million years ago not with modeling that might predict what it will be in a 100 years?:thinking-006:

[rugatika]

Umm how do you know the world was 25 degrees hotter 500 million years ago?

Computer modeling? So you ok with modeling to project what the earth's temperature was 500 million years ago not with modeling that might predict what it will be in a 100 years?:thinking-006:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ18O
Oxygen isotope concentrations.

[V_1]

If even a cursory study of the history of science is any indication, then credentials don't mean squat. Hawking himself has been wrong many times, something which he freely admits.

Umm how do you know the world was 25 degrees hotter 500 million years ago?

Computer modeling? So you ok with modeling to project what the earth's temperature was 500 million years ago not with modeling that might predict what it will be in a 100 years?:thinking-006:

1. Google 'proxy evidence". Very little if anything to do with modeling.
2. The difference is that the models supposedly predict a climate 100yrs from now were persistently off mark for CURRENT climate for how long now? The reason - garbage in, garbage out.

[Wild&Free]

Now for my favourite part.

So, following your idea of the most practical and rational path forward you have significantly reduced your CO2 footprint?

What do you drive? How do you heat your home? Electricity? etc etc etc etc etc

I continually hear the dire consequences of not doing anything, but I never see anyone actually do anything. In fact, the loudest voices I hear about CO2 are inevitably the ones that have 2 or more homes, drive and fly all over the place, have several children etc etc.

If everyone quit having multiple kids for a generation or two the CO2 "problem" would be solved. But nobody can even be bothered to do that.

ad hominem. not surprised.

just to let you know though my CO footprint is a lot less then the type of person you're describing.

[Jadham]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ18O
Oxygen isotope concentrations.

It is still inferred temperature, not measured.

There are always certain assumptions made when looking at radioactive decay, and lots of further simplifications, as described in the link.

[260 Rem]

Umm how do you know the world was 25 degrees hotter 500 million years ago?
Computer modeling? So you ok with modeling to project what the earth's temperature was 500 million years ago not with modeling that might predict what it will be in a 100 years?:thinking-006:
Curious isn't it!

[Walleyedude]

It's on the long side, but it's excellent, and well worth your time. Pretty definitive to my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFshBnvB_zU

I'd love to hear any responses to what's presented in the video...

[TripleTTT]

1. Google 'proxy evidence". Very little if anything to do with modeling.
2. The difference is that the models supposedly predict a climate 100yrs from now were persistently off mark for CURRENT climate for how long now? The reason - garbage in, garbage out.

X2

First taught in programming: GOGO

:sHa_shakeshout:

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

I always get a kick out of this graph.

I feel I should point out a few bits of information I've gathered over the years.

Snowball Earth, happened before the start of the graph, by a few dozen million years. suspected thaw was caused by a spike of volcanic activity releasing huge amounts of gas and heat from within the earth to thaw it all out.

Formation of Pangaea, 400-350 million BC. Drastically changed climate and greatly cooled the planet.

P/T extinction event, coincides with the breakup of Pangaea which is another large release of stored gas and energy from within the earth. some 90% of all life was wiped out during this period. notice the spike in temperature at the same time.

The Triassic extinction also has a sharp rise in temperature. coincidence since there's not much evidence pointing to volcanism causing that warming.

similar geological climate change also took place around 20million BC the isthmus of Panama was formed. which stopped global ocean currents circulating warm equatorial waters and cooling really took off again.

This long term graph explains NOTHING because there was so much going on over such a large time frame that causation is completely ignored.

By the same token, simply increasing or decreasing co2 levels in a system as complex as earth is cannot have simple conclusions, you see that right? It's one thing to raise co2 levels in a simple, variable controlled model. It's another thing entirely to extrapolate that to the whole earth and then claim it's going to have the exact same effect. It's pretty obviously NOT going to have the same effect. This is where modern science often goes wrong. It thinks that reducing complex things to the summation of its parts is the way to go. We're finding out the more we learn just how wrong that is.


Now you've always argued that more CO2 and a warmer planet has benefits, no argument on that point one bit from me. Which is why reversing the effect is never on the agenda like the damage done with CFCs or Acid Rain but limiting the effect. I've come to an idea that this whole anthropomorphic climate change notion is not so much that we are doing it, but that we can do it. If it is something we can influence we should have some framework and guidelines as to how far we should/could take it.

Considering how limited our knowledge of the climate is, erring on the side of caution seems to be the most practical and rational path forward don't you think?

We don't know what the effect is going to be, yet scientists all over the world are pushing for an agenda. Don't you see how stupid that is? I'm all for being good stewards of the environment. We should do everything in our power to limit emissions and force companies that pollute to plant trees. We should also get tough on China and India, who are the biggest polluters by a mile. I always see what bad apples the US and Canada are when it comes to polluting, never a word is said about the new coal fired power plants built in China at the rate of 1 per week.

[Jadham]

1. Google 'proxy evidence". Very little if anything to do with modeling.
2. The difference is that the models supposedly predict a climate 100yrs from now were persistently off mark for CURRENT climate for how long now? The reason - garbage in, garbage out.

Just to be clear... the models from 30 years ago are off the mark for the current climate?

Are you sure they are not continuing refining their algorithms? Seems to me there would a lot of interest in that, both by graduate & post-doctorate fellows.

[avb3]

It's on the long side, but it's excellent, and well worth your time. Pretty definitive to my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFshBnvB_zU

I'd love to hear any responses to what's presented in the video...
He makes some assertions and does not reference them. As example, the so called hockey stick chart, he says " people have looked at the algorithms and found them to be faulty" yet never states who those people might be and what the issues are.

FUD.

[Sundancefisher]

I always get a kick out of this graph.

I feel I should point out a few bits of information I've gathered over the years.

Snowball Earth, happened before the start of the graph, by a few dozen million years. suspected thaw was caused by a spike of volcanic activity releasing huge amounts of gas and heat from within the earth to thaw it all out.

Formation of Pangaea, 400-350 million BC. Drastically changed climate and greatly cooled the planet.

P/T extinction event, coincides with the breakup of Pangaea which is another large release of stored gas and energy from within the earth. some 90% of all life was wiped out during this period. notice the spike in temperature at the same time.

The Triassic extinction also has a sharp rise in temperature. coincidence since there's not much evidence pointing to volcanism causing that warming.

similar geological climate change also took place around 20million BC the isthmus of Panama was formed. which stopped global ocean currents circulating warm equatorial waters and cooling really took off again.

This long term graph explains NOTHING because there was so much going on over such a large time frame that causation is completely ignored.

Now I don't have 5 definitive studies for you Sundance, but what I do have is some basic understanding of a few recognized notions. first that the earth is predominately a closed system. very little escapes from the system so any changes made effect the system. secondly, increasing the amount of CO2 in a closed system does have a Greenhouse effect, this was observed over 150 years ago and still holds true today. third, increasing warming with CO2 creates a feedback loop which increases water vapor in the atmosphere and water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas. This is why CO2 rises before temperatures rise.

Now you've always argued that more CO2 and a warmer planet has benefits, no argument on that point one bit from me. Which is why reversing the effect is never on the agenda like the damage done with CFCs or Acid Rain but limiting the effect. I've come to an idea that this whole anthropomorphic climate change notion is not so much that we are doing it, but that we can do it. If it is something we can influence we should have some framework and guidelines as to how far we should/could take it.

Considering how limited our knowledge of the climate is, erring on the side of caution seems to be the most practical and rational path forward don't you think?

Actually the Earth is far from a closed system. Just to point out one fact. The Earth loses a lot of heat to space.

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html

Think of is it warmer on an average cloudy morning or an average clear sky morning.

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135642main_balance_trifold21.pdf

What blocks heat escaping to space is clouds. What causes clouds is solar wind and atmospheric moisture among others.

The Earth is very far from a closed system. Far from it.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas as scientists describe. However it is not following the models as to impact. Scientists are trying very hard to understand why CO2 is not as impactful as thought. While CO2 concentrations were rising fast...we saw 19 years of flat temperatures. CO2 concentrations don't always track. We are looking at a very short time frame with scientists scrambling for funding money and shoe horning concepts into false reality.

You won't give me 5 studies. Why not? THere is lots of literature. Read some for yourself with an open mind. Does it convince you? Then share. Reading is fun.


CO2 is also in a loop. Plants give it off at night, absorb it via photosynthesis to create energy to grow and propagate. CO2 is vital to human survival. It is a life giving naturally sourced gas that without it we die. Reduce enough of it and famine hits and billions die. If we could turn global temperature down we would reduce food production. Prices would go up. Some would starve.


Cheers

SDF

[Walleyedude]

He makes some assertions and does not reference them. As example, the so called hockey stick chart, he says " people have looked at the algorithms and found them to be faulty" yet never states who those people might be and what the issues are.

FUD.

You couldn't possibly have watched it all since I posted it, it's well over an hour long, but he does state at the start of the video that everything is painstakingly referenced, and that he would be glad to provide them for anyone that wishes to have them.

If that's all you can come up with, that makes me rest easy. It's a short talk (that's already too long), not an exhaustive PhD dissertation. Also, if that, and typing out "FUD" is the level of response you have to what was presented in the video, that's also very enlightening.

[avb3]

You couldn't possibly have watched it all since I posted it, it's well over an hour long, but he does state at the start of the video that everything is painstakingly referenced, and that he would be glad to provide them for anyone that wishes to have them.

If that's all you can come up with, that makes me rest easy. It's a short talk (that's already too long), not an exhaustive PhD dissertation. Also, if that, and typing out "FUD" is the level of response you have to what was presented in the video, that's also very enlightening.
He never referenced the FUD I referred to... I fast forwarded before I posted to see.

Show me different.

[Walleyedude]

He never referenced the FUD I referred to... I fast forwarded before I posted to see.

Show me different.

I don't have it, I haven't asked him for it, and I don't intend to. It's not a new claim on his part, the "hockey stick" isn't exactly bulletproof science. Rather than asking to be spoon fed, ask him yourself. Do some digging yourself.

If something so minor in the first 5 mins of the video was all it took for you to dismiss it in it's entirety with a ridiculous statement like "FUD" rather than actually watch the video, then I've got nothing I can add, nor do I have any desire to try and do so. It takes more than googling and pasting news links to actually understand a topic. Given your sig. line, I would have expected a lot more.

[avb3]

I don't have it, I haven't asked him for it, and I don't intend to. It's not a new claim on his part, the "hockey stick" isn't exactly bulletproof science. Rather than asking to be spoon fed, ask him yourself. Do some digging yourself.

If something so minor in the first 5 mins of the video was all it took for you to dismiss it in it's entirety with a ridiculous statement like "FUD" rather than actually watch the video, then I've got nothing I can add, nor do I have any desire to try and do so. It takes more than googling and pasting news links to actually understand a topic. Given your sig. line, I would have expected a lot more.
When someone makes an unsubstantiated statement, especially when it is so fundamental in the point they're trying to make, it becomes imperative for them to actually references.

Their credibility goes somewhere down the tube if they do not.

[avb3]

Looks like those that are actually affected by rising sea levels have real concerns. Miami district mayors, including Republicans, are telling climate change deniers to stop and look what is actually happening on the ground.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/26/3742935/rubio-bush-florida-mayors-letter/

[Walleyedude]

When someone makes an unsubstantiated statement, especially when it is so fundamental in the point they're trying to make, it becomes imperative for them to actually references.

Their credibility goes somewhere down the tube if they do not.

:rolleye2::rolleyes:

Such a cop out...

[rugatika]

It's on the long side, but it's excellent, and well worth your time. Pretty definitive to my mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFshBnvB_zU

I'd love to hear any responses to what's presented in the video...

Great video. Watched the whole thing, and pretty much lines up with what many of us have been saying for years.

Sad that so many people can be taken in by phony "science" and politics.

What's that saying? "You can fool some of the people some of the time...and usually that's good enough." :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[rugatika]

Looks like those that are actually affected by rising sea levels have real concerns. Miami district mayors, including Republicans, are telling climate change deniers to stop and look what is actually happening on the ground.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/26/3742935/rubio-bush-florida-mayors-letter/

I didn't see Denis Coderre's name on there. I don't usually get my science from mayor's...but when I do, it's gotta be Denis!!

[TripleTTT]

Looks like those that are actually affected by rising sea levels have real concerns. Miami district mayors, including Republicans, are telling climate change deniers to stop and look what is actually happening on the ground.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/26/3742935/rubio-bush-florida-mayors-letter/


From what I have read and been taught, is that rising sea levels are happening because of continental buoyancy. This is like a ship being unloaded and it rises out of the water. Unfortunately, when the glaciers left the north and south polar regions; the continents affected have been rising up for the last 10,000 years. Pictures of the 17th century ship docks built in Churchill Bay were 1/4 - 1/2 mile away from the ocean in picture that I saw in '69. I have not seen any new pictures of how far they are now from the water.

One other area of concern... Does this mean the North West Passage is also getting shallower? :thinking-006:

[avb3]

From what I have read and been taught, is that rising sea levels are happening because of continental buoyancy. This is like a ship being unloaded and it rises out of the water. Unfortunately, when the glaciers left the north and south polar regions; the continents affected have been rising up for the last 10,000 years. Pictures of the 17th century ship docks built in Churchill Bay were 1/4 - 1/2 mile away from the ocean in picture that I saw in '69. I have not seen any new pictures of how far they are now from the water.

One other area of concern... Does this mean the North West Passage is also getting shallower? :thinking-006:
You might want to think about the logic that you're talking about. If land was rising, sea level would be declining.

[TripleTTT]

You might want to think about the logic that you're talking about. If land was rising, sea level would be declining.

Sea levels are declining at the poles...

Where is all that water going?

I should have said "currently, sea levels are rising because of continental buoyancy" The melting ice sheets definitely made the sea levels rise...

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

The video the other poster posted is excellent. He lays out the facts for all to see and asks you to make your own conclusions.

It's EASY for me to see why some people would be immensely concerned with the rising co2 levels. They have risen sharply.

However, temperature has NOT followed suit. This doesn't mean it won't. But it's far from certain that it will either.

Notleys carbon tax isn't going to do jack to help the planet, and we should really all be calling it out for what it is. Governments all over the world are chomping at the bit to take advantage of the hysteria over 'climate change' to increase their power and control over their citizens, and we have to stand up in increasing numbers if we don't want to see ourselves more powerless and less well off.

With that said, I think it would be prudent to continue doing research because the co2 levels rising so sharply are a little concerning to me but only for the 'unknown' factor. We really don't know what's going to happen until it happens. As I said before, companies should be regulated to decrease their emissions. I don't see why that can't be accomplished or why the tax needs to be on us. Simple legislation could force these companies to be 'taxed' by planting trees. That would solve the problem and make the environment immensely better for a low cost.

[rugatika]

He makes some assertions and does not reference them. As example, the so called hockey stick chart, he says " people have looked at the algorithms and found them to be faulty" yet never states who those people might be and what the issues are.

FUD.

http://notrickszone.com/2012/09/14/ross-mckitrick-and-german-professor-in-berlin-to-present-manns-hockey-stick-giss-temperature-alterations/#sthash.wbfyeuQg.dpbs

He explicitly stated that it was people from the University of Guelph that showed Mann's hockey stick is a fraud.

I haven't read it yet, but looking forward to reading Mark Steyn's book on Mann. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/a-review-of-steyns-scathing-new-book-about-michael-mann-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

[TripleTTT]

Sea levels are declining at the poles...

Where is all that water going?

I should have said "currently, sea levels are rising because of continental buoyancy" The melting ice sheets definitely made the sea levels rise...

Here is the article from NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/glacial-rebound-the-not-so-solid-earth :thinking-006:

[JamesB]

Looks like those that are actually affected by rising sea levels have real concerns. Miami district mayors, including Republicans, are telling climate change deniers to stop and look what is actually happening on the ground.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/26/3742935/rubio-bush-florida-mayors-letter/

Sorry I missed the part where they were actually being affected by anything. They claim increased flooding, not higher water levels and there seems to be little evidence that sea levels are appreciably higher now than say 100 years ago. They also claim that they fear water levels will rise significantly by 2060. However to date there are few if any projections made by scientists that have been shown to be correct. FWIW ten years ago Al Gore predicted that we would be suffering dangerous and irreversible effects from global warming today. Things look pretty much the same to me.

[Sundancefisher]

Looks like those that are actually affected by rising sea levels have real concerns. Miami district mayors, including Republicans, are telling climate change deniers to stop and look what is actually happening on the ground.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/26/3742935/rubio-bush-florida-mayors-letter/

Since 1970 when the same scientists were stating an ice age was coming the sea level could be seen as rising 75 mm or 7.5 centimetres.

http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

The feeling the media gives is that dangerous man made global warming is causing oceans to rise. However if you READ this study you should note that sea levels have been rising since recordings started.

This study shows the gain since 1900 easily understood.

Now if you would read other studies you would find out there has been a massive rise in sea level since medieval days.

So posting a link to a blog in which some mayors are whining for monetary handouts seems like a poor debate point.

Maybe they should be fired for allowing Zoning for commercial and residential development in a tidal flood zone.

Funny until Canada pays out of pocket for other countries poor choices.

[V_1]

Just to be clear... the models from 30 years ago are off the mark for the current climate?

Are you sure they are not continuing refining their algorithms? Seems to me there would a lot of interest in that, both by graduate & post-doctorate fellows.

They sure are. But still cant neither explain a pause in warming, nor predict even short term developments. Because they based on the the same faulty assumptions: exaggerated feedbacks of greenhouse effects, limited scope of influencing factors (no Sun variability, no clouds - apparently they a too difficult to model, so albedo effect is not counted in), etc. This aggravated by corrupted peer review process, dropping inconvenient data (like Maunder Minimum and Medieval Warm period) from 'models' and tweaking data to produce desirable results (and ***** observations).

Most prominent goof - the was 10th anniversary of Al Gor's dooms day claim a few days back IIRC. :D Same goes for 'polar bears facing extinction' (their population never been healthier for past century) and expedition to Antarctica to study lack of summer ice stuck in that same 'disappearing' ice.

I think it will help you great deal to study times of Lysenko in soviet biology. This is exactly that's happening now in atmospheric sciences.

[rugatika]

Interesting study on the cost of changing to renewables in the United States.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/switch-to-clean-energy-can-be-fast-and-cheap/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wind-solar-energy-already-competitive-fossil-fuels-bjorn-lomborg?trk=pulse_spock-articles

We constantly hear how solar and wind energy is already cheaper than fossil fuels. A few months ago, Bloomberg Business declared that ”wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies.”

If renewable energy is cheaper than dirty fossil fuels, why isn’t everyone adopting them? Are we so irrationally addicted to polluting energy sources that we won’t even embrace cheaper and cleaner alternatives?

Well, as you might have guessed, it turns out that wind and solar energy isn’t cheaper than fossil fuels in the real world. Quite the opposite.

Truth is, wind and solar PV will be trivial contributions to global energy for the next quarter century. The International Energy Agency estimates that today just about 0.5 per cent of global energy comes from solar and wind (see graphic below). Even in 2040, even if everyone does everything they’ve promised at the Paris climate summit, the world will get just 2.4% of its energy from solar and wind.

[Walleyedude]

FWIW ten years ago Al Gore predicted that we would be suffering dangerous and irreversible effects from global warming today.

Why does this get no media coverage?

Why is Al Gore not being called out for his nonsense? He should be getting publicly ridiculed and being forced to answer for all his hyperbole/fear mongering.

It's mind boggling to me, and shows the obvious bias of the media.

[rugatika]

Why does this get no media coverage?

Why is Al Gore not being called out for his nonsense? He should be getting publicly ridiculed and being forced to answer for all his hyperbole/fear mongering.

It's mind boggling to me, and shows the obvious bias of the media.

The media ridicules every other doomsday cult to come along, but since celebrities support the AGW doomsday cult, they cling to it and protect it, with the hopes of getting a selfie with Leo, or Clooney.

[V_1]

Here, I hope we're in a stage two already:

[260 Rem]

With so many diverse opinions regarding the human impact on climate change, I defer to Stephen Hawking, whom I believe would be a pretty hard guy to fool. He also has a decent record related to objective scientific inquiry and research. Bottom line, he believes we are hastening our demise.

[avb3]

The media ridicules every other doomsday cult to come along, but since celebrities support the AGW doomsday cult, they cling to it and protect it, with the hopes of getting a selfie with Leo, or Clooney.
Who's doing the ridiculing?

BTW, Al Gore is not a scientist, nor did he invent the internet. Invoking him does nothing but make one feel good, something like kids saying, "Na Na Na Na boo hoo".

[V_1]

You're constantly trying to switch topics. Same way as Cult re-branded itself from warming to climate change I guess. We're not talking about personal credentials. Or '97%'. We're comparing predictions supported by Cult-affiliated crowd (some of the call themselves scientists but forgone principals of scientific inquiry and resorted to bullying and law suits) to ... reality. Reality is - Cult is an deeply corrupt industry which wants money to keep flowing.

[avb3]

You're constantly trying to switch topics. Same way as Cult re-branded itself from warming to climate change I guess.

Talk about switching topics, your talking points have been overused for way too long.

Do you have any idea or want to guess what the CC stands for in IPCC?

Do you have any idea how long it's been around?


We're not talking about personal credentials. Or '97%'. We're comparing predictions supported by Cult-affiliated crowd (some of the call themselves scientists but forgone principals of scientific inquiry and resorted to bullying and law suits) to ... reality. Reality is - Cult is an deeply corrupt industry which wants money to keep flowing.

You seem to be quite knowledgeable about scientist that have forgotten the principles of scientific inquiry.

Perhaps you should describe for us what your perspective of the scientific method is. It may give you some insight and answers.

[rugatika]

With so many diverse opinions regarding the human impact on climate change, I defer to Stephen Hawking, whom I believe would be a pretty hard guy to fool. He also has a decent record related to objective scientific inquiry and research. Bottom line, he believes we are hastening our demise.

I suppose you still think matter disappears into nothing in a black hole as well. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

After 30 years, Hawking admits he was wrong.

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1053983.html

It does't matter who you are or how smart you may be, there are some things we just don't know the answers to yet, and everyone can be wrong. We ignore science at our peril. To quote Richard Feynman (He's a brilliant science guy): "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."


Maybe 30 years from now Hawking will admit he was wrong about global warming as well.

[rugatika]

Talk about switching topics, your talking points have been overused for way too long.

Do you have any idea or want to guess what the CC stands for in IPCC?

Do you have any idea how long it's been around?



You seem to be quite knowledgeable about scientist that have forgotten the principles of scientific inquiry.

Perhaps you should describe for us what your perspective of the scientific method is. It may give you some insight and answers.

InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC's charter from the outset has been ''to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation''.

Nothing like reaching your conclusion before researching your conclusion. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/how-politics-clouds-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja#ixzz3yZFd6z4t
Follow us: @brisbanetimes on Twitter | brisbanetimes on Facebook

[V_1]

I wouldn't ever spent time answering that. The recent re-branding is so obvious not seeing this is just an evidence of bad case of Cultism.

[Sundancefisher]

You're constantly trying to switch topics. Same way as Cult re-branded itself from warming to climate change I guess. We're not talking about personal credentials. Or '97%'. We're comparing predictions supported by Cult-affiliated crowd (some of the call themselves scientists but forgone principals of scientific inquiry and resorted to bullying and law suits) to ... reality. Reality is - Cult is an deeply corrupt industry which wants money to keep flowing.

Careful.

The 97% means something different in reality than what is involked by those seeking to crush scientific theory.

Actually it is 97% of published scientists. They peer review themselves. They get 99.9% of funding. They call anyone trying to disprove the man made global warming theory disparaging names and ostracize them.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12786.html

The ability to repeatably test theories, confirm them and make falsifiable predictions is key. Problem is those seeking to disprove dangerous man made global warming are for all intensive purposes blocked from funding or ostracized from peer groups.

The other problem with "global warming" science is that there is no science involved. It is predictive modelling and often in the worst kind. Unable to test or prove accuracy over time. Compounded worse because there is a reluctance to say it is crap and just let them redo their model to fit their conclusions.

Very sad day when any real scientist believe global warming science is occuring.

[avb3]

I wouldn't ever spent time answering that. The recent re-branding is so obvious not seeing this is just an evidence of bad case of Cultism.
1988 is recent?????

[avb3]

Careful.

The 97% means something different in reality than what is involked by those seeking to crush scientific theory.

Actually it is 97% of published scientists. They peer review themselves. They get 99.9% of funding. They call anyone trying to disprove the man made global warming theory disparaging names and ostracize them.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12786.html

The ability to repeatably test theories, confirm them and make falsifiable predictions is key. Problem is those seeking to disprove dangerous man made global warming are for all intensive purposes blocked from funding or ostracized from peer groups.

The other problem with "global warming" science is that there is no science involved. It is predictive modelling and often in the worst kind. Unable to test or prove accuracy over time. Compounded worse because there is a reluctance to say it is crap and just let them redo their model to fit their conclusions.

Very sad day when any real scientist believe global warming science is occuring.
No, Sundance, only SOME is predictive, and the models are constantly being improve.

You can tell me or anyone else that the measurements being taken by satellites and other remote sensors are not accurate.

Nor can you tell us that real effects such as rising sea levels are not occurring.

[V_1]

The other problem with "global warming" science is that there is no science involved. It is predictive modelling and often in the worst kind. Unable to test or prove accuracy over time. Compounded worse because there is a reluctance to say it is crap and just let them redo their model to fit their conclusions.


The MAIN problem with the Cult is that it the new vehicle for ultra-left ideology and whole environmental movement which should be addressing real issues is hijacked by radical left.

[V_1]

1988 is recent?????

I'm talking about mass media rhetoric. Which also reeks of ignorance as does every document IPCC produces. 'CARBON POLLUTION' and 'CARBON free economy' are the best examples.

[Peter Gill]

Why does this get no media coverage? Why is Al Gore not being called out for his nonsense?

As a member of the Board of Apple Corp, Gore is recommending shareholders vote against a shareholder proposal entitled "Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2030."
Bet you won't see that on the CBC.

The Goracle also claimed in 2006 (Jan 25, 2006 at Sundance to be specific) that, "unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return... a true planetary emergency.”

Well, that 10 years was up three days ago, and since we haven't yet reduced alleged greenhouse gases, we may as well give up, it's over, too late, we're doomed.

And let's not forget his claim that the Arctic will be nearly ice-free by the summer of 2014, so said his computer models.

I'm stocking up on old tires and creosote-soaked railway ties to burn for heat & light next Earth Day.

[ak-71]

I thought discussing religion was not allowed on this board, and yet thread is still here :)

[Peter Gill]

avb3: Looks like those that are actually affected by rising sea levels have real concerns

NOAA data shows published mid-2014 shows no change in sea level rise rates in Hawaii, Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf coasts and a decline in sea level rise rates in Alaska. Some of the data dates back to the mid 1850s.

There is simply NO support in the data for the claim of CAGW accelerating sea level rise.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml

I thought discussing religion was not allowed on this board, and yet thread is still here
Infidel!

You can tell me or anyone else that the measurements being taken by satellites and other remote sensors are not accurate.
avb3, can you clarify the above for me? Are you saying satellites et al are or are not accurate?

[V_1]

First things to look at then 'sea level changed' is HISTORICAL records, then tectonics, thermal expansion of water and evaporation. Not scary clips about ice falling off glaciers in ocean. Latter happens all the time.

[jkav]

Careful.

The 97% means something different in reality than what is involked by those seeking to crush scientific theory.

Actually it is 97% of published scientists. They peer review themselves. They get 99.9% of funding. They call anyone trying to disprove the man made global warming theory disparaging names and ostracize them.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature12786.html

The ability to repeatably test theories, confirm them and make falsifiable predictions is key. Problem is those seeking to disprove dangerous man made global warming are for all intensive purposes blocked from funding or ostracized from peer groups.

The other problem with "global warming" science is that there is no science involved. It is predictive modelling and often in the worst kind. Unable to test or prove accuracy over time. Compounded worse because there is a reluctance to say it is crap and just let them redo their model to fit their conclusions.

Very sad day when any real scientist believe global warming science is occuring.

Honest question here: the Nature paper you linked to employs a numerical model to examine the herding behaviour you're talking about. What makes that model trustworthy? Can the complexities of human behaviour really be modeled more readily than the Earth's energy budget?

[avb3]

...
avb3, can you clarify the above for me? Are you saying satellites et al are or are not accurate?

Meant to say can't tell me.

Oops

[jkav]

avb3:

NOAA data shows published mid-2014 shows no change in sea level rise rates in Hawaii, Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf coasts and a decline in sea level rise rates in Alaska. Some of the data dates back to the mid 1850s.

There is simply NO support in the data for the claim of CAGW accelerating sea level rise.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.shtml


Infidel!


avb3, can you clarify the above for me? Are you saying satellites et al are or are not accurate?

With respect to sea level rise, it's not as simple as that given that various parts of the Earth are adjusting to past ice conditions [edit: and other tectonic and erosional forces].

In coastal Alaska, sea level is declining with respect to shoreline for two reasons: (1) the land there is rebounding upwards (at rates up to 33 mm/year) due to decreasing ice mass since the Little Ice Age; and (2) because there is less ice mass up in the coastal mountains, there is a lower gravitational attraction to draw water towards the coast. So coastal Alaskans have nothing to fear from sea level rise in the foreseeable future.

If you'd like sources I can dig them up.

[Peter Gill]

I assume by that (you can't tell me... are not accurate), that you accept that satellite et al (e.g. balloon radiosonde) data is accurate?
Then, can you explain why said data (6 different databases, 2 satellite & 4 balloon) shows no atmospheric warming and perhaps slight cooling, utterly contrary to the CAGW meme?
I thought the "greenhouse effect" meant the atmosphere would warm from reflected energy which would then warm the surface. Why does the data not show this, contrary to virtually all of the (allegedly improved?) models.

[avb3]

I assume by that (you can't tell me... are not accurate), that you accept that satellite et al (e.g. balloon radiosonde) data is accurate?
Then, can you explain why said data (6 different databases, 2 satellite & 4 balloon) shows no atmospheric warming and perhaps slight cooling, utterly contrary to the CAGW meme?
I thought the "greenhouse effect" meant the atmosphere would warm from reflected energy which would then warm the surface. Why does the data not show this, contrary to virtually all of the (allegedly improved?) models.
Do you want to reference these assertions?

[jkav]

I assume by that (you can't tell me... are not accurate), that you accept that satellite et al (e.g. balloon radiosonde) data is accurate?
Then, can you explain why said data (6 different databases, 2 satellite & 4 balloon) shows no atmospheric warming and perhaps slight cooling, utterly contrary to the CAGW meme?
I thought the "greenhouse effect" meant the atmosphere would warm from reflected energy which would then warm the surface. Why does the data not show this, contrary to virtually all of the (allegedly improved?) models.

Hey Peter,

What data are you referring to? Warming is definitely observed in the atmosphere by satellites, and the warming patterns are consistent with both observed surface warming and the increases in atmospheric CO2 forcing. Here's two sources: Yinnikov and Grody, 2003 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5643/269.full); Santer et al., 2013 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235.abstract)

Cheers,

jkav

[BlackHeart]

With so many diverse opinions regarding the human impact on climate change, I defer to Stephen Hawking, whom I believe would be a pretty hard guy to fool. He also has a decent record related to objective scientific inquiry and research. Bottom line, he believes we are hastening our demise.

Stephen Hawkings......OPINION.......is irrevlevant. Hawkings is no more a climate scientist than I am.

This is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. The fallacy is since he is one of the great physicists of all time, his insight into other topics has to be right as well.

He is not always right and has missed on some big ones........in his area of expertise.....the Haldron Collider/god particle/black whole resulting in the end of world is one.

And he has a reputation for being a bit of an alarmist. AI being another example. His is also a writer....a very profitable one as well......they need to be in the public eye in order to sell books and nothing sells books better than controversy or global fear.

Unless he has some original scientific evidence or has figured a way to redo the climate change modelling software to account for every possible variable and actually have it be correct a few year out of 20,(without having to constantly rejig it and cherry pick the actual temperature readings) then his OPINION is just that.

In fact, I would say, him expressing his opinion on the issue does more harm than good, in that it increased the background noise and clouds the resolving of the issues by facts and verifiable results. Just as windbag mayors suckling for more federal funding do and the media that gives them credibility and points to their squealing as proof of rising sea level a`la global warming. The only thing they prove is how fat and lazy and greedy they are.

[Peter Gill]

Do you want to reference these assertions?Certainly.

The databases and analysis tools are available at various places:
KNMI Climate Explorer (https://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere);
Wood for Trees (woodfortrees.org/); and
Trendviewer (http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html).

UAH6.0beta4: Flat slope since July 1997, no statistically significant warming since May 1993.
RSS: Flat slope since May 1997 , no statistically significant warming since May 1993.
Satellite data goes back 37 years.

Weather balloon data:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon-data.
Balloon data goes back 58 years.

Attachment ref: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/index.php

[avb3]

Certainly.

The databases and analysis tools are available at various places:
KNMI Climate Explorer (https://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi?id=someone@somewhere);
Wood for Trees (woodfortrees.org/); and
Trendviewer (http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html).

UAH6.0beta4: Flat slope since July 1997, no statistically significant warming since May 1993.
RSS: Flat slope since May 1997 , no statistically significant warming since May 1993.
Satellite data goes back 37 years.

Weather balloon data:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon-data.
Balloon data goes back 58 years.

Attachment ref: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/index.php
Please give the links inside those sites. They are huge, and not intuitive.

[boroumand8]

I don't think it's a hoax, just exaggerated.

[Sundancefisher]

No, Sundance, only SOME is predictive, and the models are constantly being improve.

You can tell me or anyone else that the measurements being taken by satellites and other remote sensors are not accurate.

Nor can you tell us that real effects such as rising sea levels are not occurring.

Show me 5 studies that are not predictive that you feel proves dangerous man made global warming is happening.

You forget. The argument on your side is that warming is caused by fossil fuel use. We all agree temperatures have been increasing since the last ice age.

You also profess sea level rises are caused by fossil fuel yet actual proven studies show water levels rose dramatically in medieval times. In more recent times levels have been proven to have rose since in 1900 when measurements started.

When climate scientists said the next ice was coming in 1970 sea levels were still rising. Since 1970 levels rose 7.5 cm. You post east coast US mayors are frantic about flooding. Their land use practices are poor.

You can talk about "what if" studies till your blue In your face. However they are not repeatable. They cannot be tested. They have no proof.

You talk about scientific process however what you use is not. So then the emotional argument screams forward... "What about the children. If we are wrong and do nothing we all die". Gore was the last to shout the warming war cry. But alas the Arctic sea is still within a fair standard deviation... Of an extremely biased bandwidth consider a very short time frame.

You talk to the Northwest Passage opening up as a sign yet ignore all the early European sailing explorers that found it open when they arrived. Sounds like a 500 year cycle to me.

[Sundancefisher]

Honest question here: the Nature paper you linked to employs a numerical model to examine the herding behaviour you're talking about. What makes that model trustworthy? Can the complexities of human behaviour really be modeled more readily than the Earth's energy budget?

Models are models. Totally agree. The differences between predictive accuracy comes with either knowing all variable or knowing none then all the issues inbetween.

A reader needs to ask how complicated is the model. Can I run a model with the same understandings and get the same result. Can it be tested against the real world.

In climate circuits they run tons of models and tweak it to make it fit the past and pick the one that also matches their prediction. When it fails they rerun it. Again and again.

[jkav]

In climate circuits they run tons of models and tweak it to make it fit the past and pick the one that also matches their prediction. When it fails they rerun it. Again and again.

Sorry Sundancefisher, but in no way does this describe the process by which publishable climate model simulations are generated. Well, that's not completely true: they do run "tons of models" - but for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the model to reasonable variations in poorly-constrained model parameters (such as the cloud-albedo feedback you mentioned) and run-to-run variablilty. The range of possible outcomes defines the uncertainty on either side of the most likely scenario. Individual model runs are completely worthless, and there's a 0% chance of getting anything published in the scientific literature if exhaustive sensitivity analyses of this kind aren't performed.

Nowadays, relatively little serious consideration is given even to results generated by individual GCMs. For the IPCC, for example, these suites of runs (as described above) are performed by all of the models in the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/)), and the results are compared. Why? Because each model has its own implementation or parameterization of the equations governing the transport of geophysical fluids (air, water), energy, moisture, etc., over the Earth. (Plus vegetation growth/decay, precip and snowmelt, land and sea ice changes, etc. If it matters, it's in there.) As a result, each model yields different results - some better in some aspects of the Earth system, others better than other aspects. And it's become clear that the average of these models tends to perform far better across the board than any one model. And note that all of the GCM results included in the past couple of IPCC Assessment Reports are averaged results of these ensemble runs. If you care to dispel some of your mistaken notions about GCMs, this paper by Gleckler et al. (2008) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008972/full) is a good place to start.

A few more points:
1. These models are all published in the scientific literature, whether in peer-reviewed journals or M.Sc. and Ph.D theses. If not, they're simply not accepted by the scientific community. If you'd like to examine them to check for mathematical errors, "fudge factors", etc., fill your boots. All data from the model runs used in the IPCC reports is also freely available (except for commercial use) at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/.

2. The "I" in IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental" - which means that all member nations must sign off on every word in the report before it's released. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Comparing the IPCC member nation list (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-countries.pdf) with Wikipedia's list of top oil-producing nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) (sorry for the Wiki reference; I don't need to spend much more time on this), they're all there.

If any one of these nations had any disagreements with the IPCC report, they could torpedo it. And yet the reports are public. What does this mean? It means that anything at all controversial is watered down to the point that it's acceptable to the most cautious of member nations.

3. The idea that the science community is driven by greed or the quest for money is laughable - if anyone wanted to get rich, the absolutely worst way to do so is to throw away your best earning years for a 2-3 year $20,000/year M.Sc. position, a 5-6 year $25,000/year Ph.D. program, and a couple of 2 year postdoctoral positions at $40,000/year - on the very small chance that you'll land a professorship that might top out at $250k/yr if you're at the top of your field. The big grant money you speak of goes to student and staff salaries, computer time, publication fees, conference registrations and travel costs, etc. It doesn't end up in the researcher's bank account. Anyone contemplating going this route to get rich would be better off joining any of the oilfield services trades.

Instead, every scientist I've ever met has been driven by the quest to figure out how and why things work the way they do. Period.

4. Gore, DeCaprio, Suzuki, etc. are celebrities, not scientists. The reason we have to listen to them is that the vast majority of scientists do their best to remain objective - and thus rarely speak to the media. This leaves a vacuum for people who love to hear themselves speak.

I'll stop there, but kindly suggest that you do a bit more investigation into how climate models are actually run and used. You're wildly off the mark.

Best regards and have a good evening,

jkav

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Sorry Sundancefisher, but in no way does this describe the process by which publishable climate model simulations are generated. Well, that's not completely true: they do run "tons of models" - but for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the model to reasonable variations in poorly-constrained model parameters (such as the cloud-albedo feedback you mentioned) and run-to-run variablilty. The range of possible outcomes defines the uncertainty on either side of the most likely scenario. Individual model runs are completely worthless, and there's a 0% chance of getting anything published in the scientific literature if exhaustive sensitivity analyses of this kind aren't performed.

Nowadays, relatively little serious consideration is given even to results generated by individual GCMs. For the IPCC, for example, these suites of runs (as described above) are performed by all of the models in the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/)), and the results are compared. Why? Because each model has its own implementation or parameterization of the equations governing the transport of geophysical fluids (air, water), energy, moisture, etc., over the Earth. (Plus vegetation growth/decay, precip and snowmelt, land and sea ice changes, etc. If it matters, it's in there.) As a result, each model yields different results - some better in some aspects of the Earth system, others better than other aspects. And it's become clear that the average of these models tends to perform far better across the board than any one model. And note that all of the GCM results included in the past couple of IPCC Assessment Reports are averaged results of these ensemble runs. If you care to dispel some of your mistaken notions about GCMs, this paper by Gleckler et al. (2008) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008972/full) is a good place to start.

A few more points:
1. These models are all published in the scientific literature, whether in peer-reviewed journals or M.Sc. and Ph.D theses. If not, they're simply not accepted by the scientific community. If you'd like to examine them to check for mathematical errors, "fudge factors", etc., fill your boots. All data from the model runs used in the IPCC reports is also freely available (except for commercial use) at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/.

2. The "I" in IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental" - which means that all member nations must sign off on every word in the report before it's released. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Comparing the IPCC member nation list (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-countries.pdf) with Wikipedia's list of top oil-producing nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) (sorry for the Wiki reference; I don't need to spend much more time on this), they're all there.

If any one of these nations had any disagreements with the IPCC report, they could torpedo it. And yet the reports are public. What does this mean? It means that anything at all controversial is watered down to the point that it's acceptable to the most cautious of member nations.

3. The idea that the science community is driven by greed or the quest for money is laughable - if anyone wanted to get rich, the absolutely worst way to do so is to throw away your best earning years for a 2-3 year $20,000/year M.Sc. position, a 5-6 year $25,000/year Ph.D. program, and a couple of 2 year postdoctoral positions at $40,000/year - on the very small chance that you'll land a professorship that might top out at $250k/yr if you're at the top of your field. The big grant money you speak of goes to student and staff salaries, computer time, publication fees, conference registrations and travel costs, etc. It doesn't end up in the researcher's bank account. Anyone contemplating going this route to get rich would be better off joining any of the oilfield services trades.

Instead, every scientist I've ever met has been driven by the quest to figure out how and why things work the way they do. Period.

4. Gore, DeCaprio, Suzuki, etc. are celebrities, not scientists. The reason we have to listen to them is that the vast majority of scientists do their best to remain objective - and thus rarely speak to the media. This leaves a vacuum for people who love to hear themselves speak.

I'll stop there, but kindly suggest that you do a bit more investigation into how climate models are actually run and used. You're wildly off the mark.

Best regards and have a good evening,

jkav

It doesn't really matter that he's off the mark. The scientists have been screaming catastrophe based on the models for 25 years. They PREDICTED a sharp increase in temperature due to rising co2 levels that DID NOT HAPPEN.

So what did they do? They are now claiming it's the oceans that are sucking up the heat. This doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that their conclusions are set in stone, and it's obvious, partly because of the predictive power of their models, and rather than reexamine their assumptions they simply tweak the theory to support their predetermined conclusion that 'warming is inevitable one day.' But this is nonsense! They might be right, but the FACT IS that they are WRONG SO FAR. That's not science. It's pushing an agenda. We need to be cautious about what we believe from the scientific community.

20 years ago the theory that some dinosaurs had feathers or that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds was considered borderline ludicrous. Now they are 'certain' that not only did some have them, MOST DID! What will they be certain of tomorrow?

This touches on an issue that has been coming up in the philosophical and scientific communities in the past few decades: the inherent limitations of scientific reductivism. It seems obvious that complex systems like earth or the brain CAN NOT be boiled down to the summation of their parts. Yet the scientific community continues to believe and promote that not only is it a good way of doing things, it's the ONLY way.

[sdvc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

I know its an ad but do the math...

[jkav]

It doesn't really matter that he's off the mark. The scientists have been screaming catastrophe based on the models for 25 years. They PREDICTED a sharp increase in temperature due to rising co2 levels that DID NOT HAPPEN.

So what did they do? They are now claiming it's the oceans that are sucking up the heat. This doesn't mean that they're wrong. It just means that their conclusions are set in stone, and it's obvious, partly because of the predictive power of their models, and rather than reexamine their assumptions they simply tweak the theory to support their predetermined conclusion that 'warming is inevitable one day.' But this is nonsense! They might be right, but the FACT IS that they are WRONG SO FAR. That's not science. It's pushing an agenda. We need to be cautious about what we believe from the scientific community.

20 years ago the theory that some dinosaurs had feathers or that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds was considered borderline ludicrous. Now they are 'certain' that not only did some have them, MOST DID! What will they be certain of tomorrow?

This touches on an issue that has been coming up in the philosophical and scientific communities in the past few decades: the inherent limitations of scientific reductivism. It seems obvious that complex systems like earth or the brain CAN NOT be boiled down to the summation of their parts. Yet the scientific community continues to believe and promote that not only is it a good way of doing things, it's the ONLY way.

Sorry CGTRW, there are a lot of assertions you've made that I can't really address without more specific information (citations, etc.). Global mean temperatures are in fact increasing, at rates that generally agree with modern GCMs - but only if anthropogenic CO2 is included as a forcing. The models and reality seem to be in broad agreement.

When scientists (and their models) are wrong, of course they seek the reasons why and improve the physics and implementations of those physics. If a hunter doesn't adjust their scope after missing, they'll go hungry; if a scientist gets things wrong and doesn't correct them to match additional information, they also go hungry.

I'm also at a loss as to what "agenda" scientists are pushing - that is, to what gain? Financial? Again, they'd make much better money with their computer skills in finance or any number of other fields. If they're wrong, and keep pushing that wrong answer, it is unavoidable that they WILL be found out. Do you believe it's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists across the globe? Sorry, not possible - nations with competing interests don't get along that well, and there'd always be a rogue scientist who would spill the bean. And if the results are rigged or falsified, some young scientist would definitely make his or her mark upon the world by getting it right!

As for the screaming - most of it has not been by scientists, but by the celebrities. And if scientists are screaming, it's generally because they see what they believe - right or wrong - to be serious problems.

Best regards,

jkav

[avb3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

I know its an ad but do the math...

Warafin, as coumadin, is rat poison, is used for heart therapy. In the proper dosage, is it safe to use that way.

However, used little bit too much, and it'll kill you. That is the same as adding just a little bit too much co2 to the atmosphere. It is not the fact that it is only a small percentage, it the fact that the percentage humans are adding takes it out of equilibrium and becomes too much.

[rugatika]

Sorry CGTRW, there are a lot of assertions you've made that I can't really address without more specific information (citations, etc.). Global mean temperatures are in fact increasing, at rates that generally agree with modern GCMs - but only if anthropogenic CO2 is included as a forcing. The models and reality seem to be in broad agreement.

When scientists (and their models) are wrong, of course they seek the reasons why and improve the physics and implementations of those physics. If a hunter doesn't adjust their scope after missing, they'll go hungry; if a scientist gets things wrong and doesn't correct them to match additional information, they also go hungry.

I'm also at a loss as to what "agenda" scientists are pushing - that is, to what gain? Financial? Again, they'd make much better money with their computer skills in finance or any number of other fields. If they're wrong, and keep pushing that wrong answer, it is unavoidable that they WILL be found out. Do you believe it's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists across the globe? Sorry, not possible - nations with competing interests don't get along that well, and there'd always be a rogue scientist who would spill the bean. And if the results are rigged or falsified, some young scientist would definitely make his or her mark upon the world by getting it right!

As for the screaming - most of it has not been by scientists, but by the celebrities. And if scientists are screaming, it's generally because they see what they believe - right or wrong - to be serious problems.

Best regards,

jkav


Follow the money. Governments want to increase taxes, corporations want the CO2 sequestration (etc) grant money, scientists want the funding that goes to AGW favourable papers and research, and they all want to rub elbows at fancy "conferences" around the world. = scam. And the gullible public is falling for it.

[jkav]

...scientists want the funding that goes to AGW favourable papers and research, and they all want to rub elbows at fancy "conferences" around the world...

This is what motivates all of the literally THOUSANDS of scientists investigating the many aspects of climate change all over the world? I'm not buying it - it's small potatoes.

In all seriousness, they'd get far better funding trying to increase yields from livestock, agriculture - or bitumen sands.

[Sundancefisher]

Sorry Sundancefisher, but in no way does this describe the process by which publishable climate model simulations are generated. Well, that's not completely true: they do run "tons of models" - but for the purpose of testing the sensitivity of the model to reasonable variations in poorly-constrained model parameters (such as the cloud-albedo feedback you mentioned) and run-to-run variablilty. The range of possible outcomes defines the uncertainty on either side of the most likely scenario. Individual model runs are completely worthless, and there's a 0% chance of getting anything published in the scientific literature if exhaustive sensitivity analyses of this kind aren't performed.

Nowadays, relatively little serious consideration is given even to results generated by individual GCMs. For the IPCC, for example, these suites of runs (as described above) are performed by all of the models in the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/)), and the results are compared. Why? Because each model has its own implementation or parameterization of the equations governing the transport of geophysical fluids (air, water), energy, moisture, etc., over the Earth. (Plus vegetation growth/decay, precip and snowmelt, land and sea ice changes, etc. If it matters, it's in there.) As a result, each model yields different results - some better in some aspects of the Earth system, others better than other aspects. And it's become clear that the average of these models tends to perform far better across the board than any one model. And note that all of the GCM results included in the past couple of IPCC Assessment Reports are averaged results of these ensemble runs. If you care to dispel some of your mistaken notions about GCMs, this paper by Gleckler et al. (2008) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007JD008972/full) is a good place to start.

A few more points:
1. These models are all published in the scientific literature, whether in peer-reviewed journals or M.Sc. and Ph.D theses. If not, they're simply not accepted by the scientific community. If you'd like to examine them to check for mathematical errors, "fudge factors", etc., fill your boots. All data from the model runs used in the IPCC reports is also freely available (except for commercial use) at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/.

2. The "I" in IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental" - which means that all member nations must sign off on every word in the report before it's released. No "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. Comparing the IPCC member nation list (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-countries.pdf) with Wikipedia's list of top oil-producing nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) (sorry for the Wiki reference; I don't need to spend much more time on this), they're all there.

If any one of these nations had any disagreements with the IPCC report, they could torpedo it. And yet the reports are public. What does this mean? It means that anything at all controversial is watered down to the point that it's acceptable to the most cautious of member nations.

3. The idea that the science community is driven by greed or the quest for money is laughable - if anyone wanted to get rich, the absolutely worst way to do so is to throw away your best earning years for a 2-3 year $20,000/year M.Sc. position, a 5-6 year $25,000/year Ph.D. program, and a couple of 2 year postdoctoral positions at $40,000/year - on the very small chance that you'll land a professorship that might top out at $250k/yr if you're at the top of your field. The big grant money you speak of goes to student and staff salaries, computer time, publication fees, conference registrations and travel costs, etc. It doesn't end up in the researcher's bank account. Anyone contemplating going this route to get rich would be better off joining any of the oilfield services trades.

Instead, every scientist I've ever met has been driven by the quest to figure out how and why things work the way they do. Period.

4. Gore, DeCaprio, Suzuki, etc. are celebrities, not scientists. The reason we have to listen to them is that the vast majority of scientists do their best to remain objective - and thus rarely speak to the media. This leaves a vacuum for people who love to hear themselves speak.

I'll stop there, but kindly suggest that you do a bit more investigation into how climate models are actually run and used. You're wildly off the mark.

Best regards and have a good evening,

jkav

I am not saying scientists are getting rich. What I am saying is money is the lifeblood for all and to continue working you need the grants.

To get the grants you must essentially be pro global warming.

Those peer reviewing are those who are researching. It is a tight click.

IPCC is a group with an agenda. The agenda has been manifested and promoted hard in the media for ratings. Governments see this as a means to tax. It is what we see. I ask for 5 studies that prove to individuals that they believe dangerous man made global warming is occurring. They can't.

Celebrities are in it for attention. Any attention. A cause gives them market share as a professional. Obscurity does not sell movie salaries.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba396

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-limitations-climate.html

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344

You can argue...it is getting better...however not good enough to take money away from 3rd world efforts on starvation, water, health etc.

It is not good enough for any policy. Models are failing to do anything other that predict expected natural trends.

Sorry. We can agree to disagree.

Cheers

PS Remember. Politicians want to be paid also. They cater to the votes. The media has everyone believing every bad thing happening in the world is global warming caused. Snow, Rain, floods, drought, blizzards, warm weather, cold weather, no wind, hurricanes, tornadoes etc. Nothing is immune from blame.

The best way to control a population is through a single defined enemy. In this day and age we don't have the evil communist empire. Instead we have evil global warming. We have evil capitalists causing global warming. Everyone hate them and vote for me. Simple.

[jkav]

I am not saying scientists are getting rich. What I am saying is money is the lifeblood for all and to continue working you need the grants.

To get the grants you must essentially be pro global warming.

Those peer reviewing are those who are researching. It is a tight click.

I'm in Earth sciences, and disagree. To get funding you need to identify a weakness in the current state of knowledge, and how you're going to address it. If through that grant you find that current thinking is wrong, and can back it up, it's easy to publish your findings - even with respect to global warming.

Sorry, the cliques aren't that tight.

[crazyguntotinrightwinger]

Sorry CGTRW, there are a lot of assertions you've made that I can't really address without more specific information (citations, etc.). Global mean temperatures are in fact increasing, at rates that generally agree with modern GCMs - but only if anthropogenic CO2 is included as a forcing. The models and reality seem to be in broad agreement.

I don't know how you can say this. Here is a graph of the actual warming trend we've seen since 1979. The warming has been about a third of a degree.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2015_v61.png

And here is a graph of modeling predictions released from the IPCC

http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/climate/IPCC-Prediction.jpg

No matter which prediction you look at, even their best lowest estimates have consistently been wrong for 40 years, overestimating the actual warming by almost half a degree.

The fact is that the earth has warmed about 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 150 years, and there's a pretty big margin for error when you take into account that our measuring instruments are getting more accurate all the time. A good analogy would be earthquakes. They certainly aren't increasing year to year, but we detect many more of them in the present day and so if you plotted the data points from 150 years ago you would see a staggering increase.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the earth is warming. I'm just trying to point out the inherent difficulties of even plotting graphs over 150 years that leave out real margins of error based on steadily improving instrument accuracy.


I'm also at a loss as to what "agenda" scientists are pushing - that is, to what gain? Financial? Again, they'd make much better money with their computer skills in finance or any number of other fields. If they're wrong, and keep pushing that wrong answer, it is unavoidable that they WILL be found out.

They have been found out multiple times in the past forging results so their models better fit their pre-determined conclusions. There are any number of reasons why scientists would push an agenda and not maybe even realize they're doing it from financial to emotional to even trying to gain a sense of purpose and notoriety in a career that often leaves much to be desired in those regards. Scientists are just humans. The scientific method does nothing to take away mans inborn drives and motivations, despite what scientists say about themselves. :)


Do you believe it's a vast conspiracy of climate scientists across the globe?

I do not. But wouldn't you agree that the media is a major player in over or underestimating the significance of scientific results because they want to sell newspapers? It's certainly not a conspiracy, but it only takes a couple of forces pushing in one direction to change the entire metaphysic of a societies beliefs. And that strays from the facts and reality. And then people who DO want to exploit that fear jump in and exploit it. So we should be careful about that.

A really good example is gay marriage. It only took 50 years or so of media repeating themselves and gay rights smear campaigns to turn into reality something that was previously unfathomable in all of human history.

[Sundancefisher]

I'm in Earth sciences, and disagree. To get funding you need to identify a weakness in the current state of knowledge, and how you're going to address it. If through that grant you find that current thinking is wrong, and can back it up, it's easy to publish your findings - even with respect to global warming.

Sorry, the cliques aren't that tight.

Are you just starting out or right in the thick of the politics? I thought very Utopian world view type stuff when I was in science. in the end it is no different than any other field. Scrambling to make a living. Doing jobs that pay.

I would be more convinced if there wasn't a peer stigma and bias against trying to disprove theories. Testing and retesting.

We don't have that now. I don't believe in computer models. If climate models were accurate...someone would have a accurate model to predict capital markets and near term weather.

I disagree with your premise funding is available to disprove man made global warming. Every study out there now regardless of being linked to global warming has a paragraph that tries to link it. That way they are in the crowd.

So here is something to know about me.

I can be convinced.

I have a science trained education.

I think.

I read.

Therefore give me 5 studies that in your mind as an educated person in the field that definitively proves that dangerous man made global warming is occurring.

For something that some say is a cult like religious experience...I am amazed no one has come forth with the studies.

Thanks kindly.

SDF

[rugatika]

This is what motivates all of the literally THOUSANDS of scientists investigating the many aspects of climate change all over the world? I'm not buying it - it's small potatoes.

In all seriousness, they'd get far better funding trying to increase yields from livestock, agriculture - or bitumen sands.

I have worked with scientists as a summer student, and had several scientists as professors. They don't study things that they don't get funding for. Applying for funding is a significant part of their job. Even government scientists that I worked with tailored certain studies for private industry (as they were the one's co-funding many studies).

If you form an international body with the preconceived goal of determining the effects of man made CO2 on climate what sort of research would you expect to come from that? If you put out a paper that says there's nothing to it, how much more funding are you going to get?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

Funding discussion starts at about 8:50 if you want to watch the discussion with actual scientists. But I would encourage you to watch the entire clip.


PS: Increasing yields from agriculture is easy. You just increase CO2 levels.

[jkav]

I don't know how you can say this. Here is a graph of the actual warming trend we've seen since 1979. The warming has been about a third of a degree.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2015_v61.png

Thanks for these, CGTRW. It's honestly difficult knowing what to make of that timeseries - and I'm not trying to be evasive - without knowing details of their analysis. NOAA, for example, has a different trend (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade).

And here is a graph of modeling predictions released from the IPCC

http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/climate/IPCC-Prediction.jpg

No matter which prediction you look at, even their best lowest estimates have consistently been wrong for 40 years, overestimating the actual warming by almost half a degree.

The fact is that the earth has warmed about 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 150 years, and there's a pretty big margin for error when you take into account that our measuring instruments are getting more accurate all the time. A good analogy would be earthquakes. They certainly aren't increasing year to year, but we detect many more of them in the present day and so if you plotted the data points from 150 years ago you would see a staggering increase.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the earth is warming. I'm just trying to point out the inherent difficulties of even plotting graphs over 150 years that leave out real margins of error based on steadily improving instrument accuracy.

I have no reason to try to justify the errors in the IPCC's 1990 forecast - but I believe that the models have improved markedly since then. Perhaps ironically, many of the improvements result from weaknesses in earlier models pointed out those called "skeptics" or "deniers" - who provided an invaluable service! (I believe all scientists should be skeptical of the status quo...)

They have been found out multiple times in the past forging results so their models better fit their pre-determined conclusions. There are any number of reasons why scientists would push an agenda and not maybe even realize they're doing it from financial to emotional to even trying to gain a sense of purpose and notoriety in a career that often leaves much to be desired in those regards. Scientists are just humans. The scientific method does nothing to take away mans inborn drives and motivations, despite what scientists say about themselves. :)

Sorry if I sounded like all scientists qualify for sainthood - I don't doubt that there have been some foul dealings. In my experience with scientists, this certainly isn't the norm or the motivation. In fact, most scientists are pretty terrified of getting things wrong - that publication is NEVER going away. But I also believe that some of these controversies are overblown.

I do not. But wouldn't you agree that the media is a major player in over or underestimating the significance of scientific results because they want to sell newspapers? It's certainly not a conspiracy, but it only takes a couple of forces pushing in one direction to change the entire metaphysic of a societies beliefs. And that strays from the facts and reality. And then people who DO want to exploit that fear jump in and exploit it. So we should be careful about that.

Yep.

A really good example is gay marriage. It only took 50 years or so of media repeating themselves and gay rights smear campaigns to turn into reality something that was previously unfathomable in all of human history.

Cheers,

jkav

[jkav]

Are you just starting out or right in the thick of the politics? I thought very Utopian world view type stuff when I was in science. in the end it is no different than any other field. Scrambling to make a living. Doing jobs that pay.

I would be more convinced if there wasn't a peer stigma and bias against trying to disprove theories. Testing and retesting.

We don't have that now. I don't believe in computer models. If climate models were accurate...someone would have a accurate model to predict capital markets and near term weather.

I disagree with your premise funding is available to disprove man made global warming. Every study out there now regardless of being linked to global warming has a paragraph that tries to link it. That way they are in the crowd.

So here is something to know about me.

I can be convinced.

I have a science trained education.

I think.

I read.

Therefore give me 5 studies that in your mind as an educated person in the field that definitively proves that dangerous man made global warming is occurring.

For something that some say is a cult like religious experience...I am amazed no one has come forth with the studies.

Thanks kindly.

SDF

Right on, SDF. I'll get you a solid list - please give me a little time to assemble it.

One point I'd like to make, though: in my experience in writing grant proposals today, it's imperative that the study goes well beyond looking at the impact of climate change on whatever system you're examining. That wheelbarrow has overturned, and you'd better have reasons to look at impacts/aspects that don't hinge on AGW if you want any chance of funding success.

And my own experience with publishing scientific papers shows that it is, at the very least, easy to refute the status quo with respect to the impacts of global warming if your study is sound.

Best,

jkav

[Peter Gill]

Please give the links inside those sites. They are huge, and not intuitive.
No, you'll have to do your own homework on this one. The databases are there, as are numerous analytical tools. I'm not going to try to teach you how to do a least-squares linear regressive analysis. I don't find those sites "huge" nor un-intuitive.

[FlyTheory]

Just realize that climate and weather are not the same thing. Weather is a daily occurrence and climate is the cumulative. Climate consists of data from "weather". If its raining in Edmonton ONCE, that does not mean its global climate change, but an isolated event.. Saying that if the average daily/yearly/decade temperature is increasing (AS IT SO OBVIOUSLY IS BACKED UP BY REAL WORLD AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF), that is climate change. And its happening currently, and it wont balance out for another thousand years est. see fig 1.
Global temp increase is no doubt our fault. Once you start addressing the metastrophic idea, you can piece together the puzzle and find out there is no questions. We haven't seen this high of temps in 125 thousand years (ice sheet data goes back to 800 thousand years FYI), and the 20th century is the warmest in the last thousand years. Choose to be ignorant, but one's opinion will not change the fact.
For people posting graphs, here are some screenshots of graphs I've drawn (retrieved) from my university. Yes I have taken many courses involving this same subject matter. I am not an expert, but I am reasonably educated within this field :)
Figure 1)http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/zacharyvydra/g4_zpshk4cqybj.png
Figure 2) http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/zacharyvydra/g1_zpslbiv8ro0.jpg
Figure 3)http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/zacharyvydra/g3_zpsvl3z9hik.jpg
Figure 4) http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/zacharyvydra/g2_zpsv53obzvt.jpg
Figure 5) http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/zacharyvydra/g5_zpsgx5qf4ez.jpg

[FlyTheory]

My five figure were NOT in refute to SDF's request, just a heads up

[TripleTTT]

I am the fly in the ointment :sHa_shakeshout:

Here is data refuting ice core data at certain depths/pressures... it's still under study and debate. The comments are interesting.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/antarctic-ice-cores-the-sample-rate-problem/

[sjd]

Great website here - zoom in to your favourite township in Alberta and see trend 1950 - 2010 in average increase in number of growing season days, days above zero, fewer days below -25, heat wave days etc.

http://www.albertaclimaterecords.com/#

Climate is warming, boys. Surely old-timers who spend time outdoors know this.

[rugatika]

Great website here - zoom in to your favourite township in Alberta and see trend 1950 - 2010 in average increase in number of growing season days, days above zero, fewer days below -25, heat wave days etc.

http://www.albertaclimaterecords.com/#

Climate is warming, boys. Surely old-timers who spend time outdoors know this.

Ever notice that there isn't a mile of ice sitting on your house? Climate's been warming for 10,000 years.

[FlyTheory]

Ever notice that there isn't a mile of ice sitting on your house? Climate's been warming for 10,000 years.

It has been, but the historical climactic trend should be leading towards another ice age. But we've altered the path, and the assumption is we will be seeing climate that is similar to 30mya. And even if an observer doesn't believe the earth is that old, ponder that regardless of the earth is 4.5Ga or 10k years old, it doesn't change the fact of what is happening right now.
Realize that this trend is interlinked so closely to the start of the industrial revolution. Even if you refute that it isn't, don't you find it funny that there is such a large change in data? Why do we all of a sudden have a "hockey stick" formation instead of a nice linear decline?
I used to be of the mindset "the earth has natural cycles and is warming naturally". But I was ignorant of the information back then, as I'm sure many are.

[rugatika]

It has been, but the historical climactic trend should be leading towards another ice age. But we've altered the path, and the assumption is we will be seeing climate that is similar to 30mya. And even if an observer doesn't believe the earth is that old, ponder that regardless of the earth is 4.5Ga or 10k years old, it doesn't change the fact of what is happening right now.
Realize that this trend is interlinked so closely to the start of the industrial revolution. Even if you refute that it isn't, don't you find it funny that there is such a large change in data? Why do we all of a sudden have a "hockey stick" formation instead of a nice linear decline?
I used to be of the mindset "the earth has natural cycles and is warming naturally". But I was ignorant of the information back then, as I'm sure many are.

It's not a hockey stick if you play ringette.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html

When critics saw the hockey stick graph, they knew something was wrong. So Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. In years gone by, all data would be included in a scientific publication; but nowdays, too much paper would be required, so scientific publications are little more than sales pitches with about as much objectivity as a soap advertisement.

In the spirit of godliness, all scientific journals require that data be made available to other scientists; but this is nothing but an image booster which is ignored in practice. So critics of the hockey stick graph were denied access to the data.

Therefore, what Steve McIntyre did was go through the statistical analysis and show that it incorrectly showed a significance where there was none. The original authors then published more such work attempting to bolster and justify their methodology. Eventually, they published in a journal which required them to make their data available. McIntyre took the data and showed that when all of it was properly evaluated, there was no hockey stick bend on the end representing the twentieth century and human activity.

Re: Ice age onset, I believe there is no real long trend that develops leading up to an ice age. It comes on rather suddenly. Interglacials are roughly 10,000 to 14,000 years long. We could be approaching the end of ours in 50 years or it could be 1000 years away.

In any case, IF we believe man made CO2 is increasing the temperature of the earth ever so slightly...wouldn't that be a good thing if we are so close to the beginning of another ice age??

[FlyTheory]

It's not a hockey stick if you play ringette. Okay :rolleye2:

http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html

When critics saw the hockey stick graph, they knew something was wrong. So Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. In years gone by, all data would be included in a scientific publication; but nowdays, too much paper would be required, so scientific publications are little more than sales pitches with about as much objectivity as a soap advertisement. just because he can't acquire information from sources doesn't refute that the information did not exist

In the spirit of godliness, all scientific journals require that data be made available to other scientists; but this is nothing but an image booster which is ignored in practice. So critics of the hockey stick graph were denied access to the data.

Therefore, what Steve McIntyre did was go through the statistical analysis and show that it incorrectly showed a significance where there was none. The original authors then published more such work attempting to bolster and justify their methodology. Eventually, they published in a journal which required them to make their data available. McIntyre took the data and showed that when all of it was properly evaluated, there was no hockey stick bend on the end representing the twentieth century and human activity.
To put it simply, this site is not legit enough to convince many people. I realize my graphs don't have any sources either, but I don't have the time to source them. :P
Re: Ice age onset, I believe (Do not say "I believe" or "in my opinion", as it does not matter what you think and this should be left outside of your main argument. Additional comments could have personal opinion, but claims of scientific fact should be neutral and not tied to your personal stance. Huge mistake in debating.) there is no real long trend that develops leading up to an ice age. It comes on rather suddenly. Interglacials are roughly 10,000 to 14,000 years long. We could be approaching the end of ours in 50 years or it could be 1000 years away. Yeah who knows, but patterns indicate that we should be, and the coincidence with the CO2 of the industrial revolution should definitely be considered. And large scale agriculture. Don't dance around that :)

In any case, IF we believe man made CO2 which we should, because that's whats happeningis increasing the temperature of the earth ever so slightly...relatively slightly, remember we are talking about net global worth. Regional fluctuations can be far from slight... Remember total net radiation is = absorbed incoming shortwave radiation - reflected short wave radiation + absorbed long wave radiation - reflected long wave radiation. This is quite an amalgamation for worldwide numbers. Regional differences fluctuate way more. This whole "Earth increasing by 4-12C" doesn't sound big when put in less harmful contextwouldn't that be a good thing if we are so close to the beginning of another ice age??
Well yeah of course its a good thing.. but if we are warming this much along with hitting an ice age, should it not concern you at the severity of its impact? If the world were hitting another ice age, yet showing temperatures that are increasing explicitly at a fast speed, that should change your mind for sure.
edit (addition): pardon any grammatical errors, for I am tired. I will reply in the morning.

[Sundancefisher]

Well yeah of course its a good thing.. but if we are warming this much along with hitting an ice age, should it not concern you at the severity of its impact? If the world were hitting another ice age, yet showing temperatures that are increasing explicitly at a fast speed, that should change your mind for sure.
edit (addition): pardon any grammatical errors, for I am tired. I will reply in the morning.

On your graph. What was causing CO2 to rise from 1800 to 1970? Did those factors accelerate?

Which model are you looking at that says 12 C increase?

What do you mean warming and hitting an ice age?

It is also only fair Zachary to just add the link to the graph in the photo insert button above. Then we can see the link.

[Carriertxv]

We were going to run out of "non-renewable resources". In 1994 in the middle of the night driving truck I heard Ronald Reagan's son a talk show host in the USA talking to an upper level scientist about ell-ninio. The Doctor said "what was surprising them was the earth seemed to be healing itself". DA

Ronnie jr is a complete and total wing nut. I could never believe he came from the loins of Ronald Reagan SR

[TripleTTT]

Here's some reading from 2011...



bubbagyro
January 1, 2011 at 6:56 pm

Spector says:
January 1, 2011 at 6:10 pm

Yes. The experiment, CO2 diffusion in ice, has been performed at Scripps in 2008, demonstrating unequivocally that CO2 does indeed diffuse through ice at a rate that would be significant over years or decades timeframe, much less millenia or megayears, and initial concentrations will decrease if they are higher than the current ambient concentrations:

“CO2 diffusion in polar ice : observations from naturally formed CO2 spikes in the Siple Dome (Antarctica) ice core
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
AHN Jinho (1 2) ; HEADLY Melissa (1) ; WAHLEN Martin (1) ; BROOK Edward J. (2) ; MAYEWSKI Paul A. (3) ; TAYLOR Kendrick C. (4)

Journal of Glaciology ISSN 0022-1430 CODEN JOGLAO
Source / Source
2008, vol. 54, no187, pp. 685-695 [11 page(s) (article)] (1 p.1/2)”

I had been posting about CO2 diffusion for some time at WUWT and elsewhere, but nobody has put together what this means, until now, to my knowledge. Fick’s Laws of diffusion govern diffusion of gases and solids in gases liquids and solids. The Second Law states that diffusion occurs from high to low concentration, and is directly proportional to change of initial concentration, and inversely with time.

What this means is that 600 ppm in a bubble in ice with 300 ppm outside will deplete CO2 in the bubble until the outside concentration approaching 300 ppm is asymptotically reached. A concentration of 1200 ppm will diffuse twice as fast as 600, 2400 ppm 4 times as fast, etc. Twice the age, conversely, will have twice the time for diffusion, so old cores will be nearer outside equilibrium level.

Practically, then, no old ice core can give an accurate result for ancient conditions using the traditional CO2 bubble gas chromatography method, and the result will be worse the higher the initial concentration of CO2 that existed in the past, and even worse the longer the residence time in the core. Old, high CO2 cores will be nowhere near the initial condition. So if we had tens of thousands of CO2 ppm in the past, ice core CO2 methodology would never show it.

This is intuitively obvious to me, since the extreme size of dinosaurs 100 Mya required high CO2, parts per thousand, for plants to grow to supply them with food,; said plants could then generate the high oxygen levels the dinosaurs needed to maintain their metabolism at such high levels.

I would think that the leaf stomata method, since it is static and not dynamic as is the CO2 sampling method, should be the method of choice until a better proxy comes along. Moreover, the CO2 method should be discarded completely for anything but current atmospheric conditions.

One cannot deduce a past static state using a dynamic conditions method.
Jim Cole
January 1, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Gary Pearse is correct to be skeptical about the fidelity of gas-bubble contents in millenial ice to the atmosphere at the time of inclusion. Honestly, can anyone really believe that atmosphere entrained among snow crystals during snowfall will remain unchanged for hundreds/thousands of years while those snow crystals slowly get transformed to firn and then to ice (multiple H20 phase changes)?

Oxygen isotopes in the ice are not such a problem because the water molocules remain the same in ice (regardless of transformations). CO2 as a trace contaminant in the gas phase of the ice-air mixture is much more susceptible to diffusion/conduction/convection processes that would tend to smooth out “spikey” variations over time.

I think CO2 concentration values in ice core are largely meaningless due to thermodynamic “smoothing” issues (above).

Modern CO2 concentration values in the atmosphere are largely governed by ocean heat content and biologic uptake/decay.

Human effects on CO2 are trivial and mostly immaterial regarding “global temperatures”, whatever they may be. Humans greatest effect on atmospheric temperatures is in “urban heat islands” due to land-use changes.

But not enough to create any “global” changes, except in unrealistic computer models of “climate change”.


Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/antarctic-ice-cores-the-sample-rate-problem/

[FlyTheory]

On your graph, what was causing CO2 to rise from 1800 to 1970? Did those factors accelerate? I'm not sure, as you being a scientist (which field and how long ago? I am just curious.) you shall understand that one bastardized graph is not proof. It may be due to the introduction of steam power and coal burning associated with that, which perfectly fills that time period. Moreover, for that "era's" CO2 emissions, the increase is seemingly (I am not claiming this is proof, however) justified.

Which model are you looking at that says 12 C increase? I am not looking through 643 slides to find the model. I'm sure its easy to acquire, and if I happen to stumble across it, I shall post it. I assume you will say my falling short is a loss of validity. That's fine, but if you expect to find an answer, throw out the apathy, and go to your university database, alumni are allowed access to data. This is an online forum debate, do you really think I am going to put in hours of effort to convince a few people? Nope... :)

What do you mean warming and hitting an ice age? Look at some of the graphs posted earlier. The sinusoidal patterns you can find of global patterns would indicate such. Review fig 2. Then go online and look up "Quaternary + to + present + epoch + temperature + Holocene.. etc.

It is also only fair Zachary, I appreciate you addressing me on a first name basis, thank you :) to just add the link to the graph in the photo insert button above. Then we can see the link.This information was taken from a PDF, which means I am not capable of linking embedded photos. Hence why I had to take screenshots. And no, the access to the PFD is limited.

Best,
Zach

[Sundancefisher]

Best,
Zach

Hard to chat with you when you don't provide much.

Click on a photo and click copy. Click on photo insert button above. Click in the line remove duplicate info and hit paste and enter. If it is a JPEG etc it works fine. Saves you having to copy to your photobucket site.

Your info could be from 2008 for all we know.

Still don't get your warming and an ice age comment. Doesn't make sense.

I see climate as a cyclical process with imbedded cycles superimposed within.

We could be in an increasing warming trend still coming out of an ice age or an increasing blip on a cooling trend.

[rugatika]

Well yeah of course its a good thing.. but if we are warming this much along with hitting an ice age, should it not concern you at the severity of its impact? If the world were hitting another ice age, yet showing temperatures that are increasing explicitly at a fast speed, that should change your mind for sure.
edit (addition): pardon any grammatical errors, for I am tired. I will reply in the morning.

The earth's temperatures are relatively stable for the time being. (the last 18 years I believe). All while CO2 levels have been stable or increasing.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.




Why would warming temperatures concern me if we are approaching an ice age? That would be a pretty groovy thing if it were occurring. An ice age will wipe out the bread baskets of the globe. Mass starvation events. Children with big bellies etc etc. How can the UN support the mass extermination that would ensue? Shameful.


I expect the next great hysteria to come from the UN will be a panel investigating how man made CO2 has caused the climate to STOP changing. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[avb3]

The earth's temperatures are relatively stable for the time being. (the last 18 years I believe). All while CO2 levels have been stable or increasing.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.

Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.




Why would warming temperatures concern me if we are approaching an ice age? That would be a pretty groovy thing if it were occurring. An ice age will wipe out the bread baskets of the globe. Mass starvation events. Children with big bellies etc etc. How can the UN support the mass extermination that would ensue? Shameful.
Your information doesn't include the heat that's been absorbed by oceans. It is somewhat disingenuous to ignore that.