BS: It's global warming, stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:55 PM

Here is a statement from who released the ClimateGate emails in 2009...


(Here, via Bishop Hill, is the relevant passage.)

    That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn't plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

    If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

    The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

    Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern.

    It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

    Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might". The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

    Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

    We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.

    If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

    It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

    Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

    Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

    If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try. I couldn't morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

    I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

    Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

    Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

    Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a "progressive" blog, corroborated by a renowned "scientist", that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

    I wasn't aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project.

For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 13 - 09:29 PM

Q, I believe the research article (On the instability and evolutionary age of deep-sea chemosynthetic communities
Robert C. Vrijenhoek) can be accessed on this site:


Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 08:40 AM

Don,

"You really enjoy leading with your chin, don't you mate.

Read up on the water cycle.

The atmosphere can only hold so much water, and what cannot remain in cloud suspension falls as rain, eventually finding its way, by watercourses, back into the sea, after topping up worldwide aquifers."



The amount of water vapor that can be held by the atmosphere is a function of temperature.

If, as I have postulated and you have NEVER addressed, the climate change is going on regardless of the manmade causes, the temperature will continue to rise, and the increased water vapor will cause a further increase in the temperature, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect.

IF there are other causes bed]sides CO2 increase to global warming, YOUR solution is just going to make things worse.

Can you demonstrate the ALL global warming is caused by man-made CO2? I don't think you even think so, therefore MY concern is valid, and YOU have just taken a KO punch to the jaw.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 10:25 AM

Unless you are stating that Global Warming does not involve any increase in temperature...

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 11:01 AM

Here is a graph that tells all you need to know on the "man-made" portion of GW"

                                    
                                                               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1990_FAR_chapter_7_fig_7.1(c).png

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 11:10 AM

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf


for those who don't believe Wiki unless it supports their viewpoint...

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 12:03 PM

For Don- want something easier to understand??? Look for the big "T"




http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html



http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/images_encyclopedie/VaporPressureGraph/Carbon_dioxide_Vapor_Pressure.GIF

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 01:26 PM

The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended because of an increase in solar output coupled with changes in thermohaline circulation, and a global decrease in volcanic activity. The solar increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions. And there has been (as yet) no major change in the ocean conveyor or global volcanism.
So the Medieval Warm/Little Ice Age graph really does not "explain" anything about the current warming. It is just obfuscation.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 02:23 PM

"and a global decrease in volcanic activity"


And the recent increase in volcanic activity? NOT a man-made cause, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 02:40 PM

"The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended because of an increase in solar output coupled with changes in thermohaline circulation, and a global decrease in volcanic activity."


Absolutely unsupportable by fact or science.

Please tell us what type of computer-assisted sensors were used to test the Sun's energy output in 1450.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 03:35 PM

So how do we know anything about anything that happened before computer-assisted sensors! Sorry pdq, you clearly do not know enough about the science to understand proxies, so I will go back to educating young receptive minds, and leave your closed one to read and ponder this:
Crowley, T. J.: Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years, Science, 289, 270–277, 2000.
Which contains TSI anomalies back to the year 1000.
Notice that is the journal Science, not Wikipedia or any other website.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 03:44 PM

bb;
The Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program disagrees with your premise.
Here is your homework:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/education/questions/index.cfm?faq=06

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,Guest Iain
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 04:05 PM

Unfortunately to even begin to get a grasp of the complexity of climate change entails extensive literature research over many different fields of scientific endeavour. Much of the research published is behind pay firewalls, although generally abstracts are freely available. I would argue that to make a definitve statement that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change is simply not possible at the present time.
Superficially the increase in CO2 makes a logical argument, but it is not a scientifically proved fact. Many scientists argue that it is, but many also argue it is not. Forget whatever the mainstream media or wikipedia may say, and even some of the more commonly read scientific journals are guilty of publishing certain articles and delaying/killing others. Peer review only works when papers are distributed. Just look at the history of medicine and science and see how many original thinkers were at first villified before having a grudging acceptance of their contributions. Science is a perfect example of Darwinism at work-step outside the herd mentality and your career may well die and your funding dry up. When you see a certain agenda being pushed and another being crucified just ask yourself:
Who is the winner from the dominant agenda? What argument is going to make certain people wealthy? The idea that human activities may influence climate has too many moneymaking activities attached to it to let mere science stand in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 04:10 PM

Bravo Iain for this statement:
"how many original thinkers were at first villified before having a grudging acceptance of their contributions"
That is *precisely* how science works!
I forget whose quote this is (Karl Popper?):
"Hypotheses are scorned when born, live briefly in glory, and die discredited"... and I have probably butchered it.
As for stepping outside the herd - that is the surest route to fame and funding!

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Apr 13 - 07:42 PM

Thanks, Ed T. The article has a good abstract. The summary you first posted is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 01:04 PM

The American Liberty Publishers are hardly a credible source for interpreting scientific data.
They are a propaganda wing and by their own admission state that the IPCC reports do not reflect the views of scientists alone. Politics plays a role here. I smell Koch Brothers money.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 06:40 PM

""here is a graph that tells all you need to know on the "man-made" portion of GW"

                                    
                                                               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1990_FAR_chapter_7_fig_7.1(c).png""

A user generated file in Wikipedia, one half page, sporting a non accredited graph which stops short of the current day and predicts nothing.

Oh well done peedee! Care to tell us what your next door neighbour but one has to say on the subject?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

""The idea that human activities may influence climate has too many moneymaking activities attached to it to let mere science stand in the way.""

Take that thought and accept that there may or may not be a human element, then take the next step.

If no, what harm may efforts to reduce do?
If yes, what harm may efforts to reduce do?
In either case zero!
If yes, what harm may inaction do?

If not now, WHEN? If not us, WHO?

I am reminded of the Jewish mother with a sick son, who dosed him regularly with bowls of hot chicken broth.

"Will it help Momma?"......."CAN'T HURT SON?"

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM

An article from 1996 that I found interesting on the cycles of the Sun. I am sure there is more recent info. but this is still interesting.

Old, but still intersting

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 06 Apr 13 - 08:37 PM

Not a bad article.

Fairly neutral tone and factual.

It does use the olde figure of "0.5^o C rise in average temperature since 1850".

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: pdq
Date: 09 May 13 - 07:24 PM

The picure in the following article is from 2 days ago.

Coming to a university near you...


                                                                                                    scientific open-mindedness (not!)

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 May 13 - 01:47 PM

Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Writing in Nature Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades.

But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.

Continue reading the main story
"
Start Quote

The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before"

Dr Alexander Otto
University of Oxford
The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.

But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the short-term and long-term.

An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term climate response.

Transient nature
Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.

Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 13 - 02:30 PM

Official release:

"97% of climate scientists agree that global warming exists and is man-caused."

Denier's interpretation of the official release:

"Climate scientists are not in 100% agreement that global warming exists, or that, if it exists, it is man-caused."

The smirk is going to be on the other side of their faces when all their expensive waterfront property is underwater

Don Firth

P. S.   NASA compilation of reports from various earth sciences sources

P. P. S.   Smog in Beijing

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 May 13 - 03:06 PM

Interesting article. Here is a very important quote from it:

--snip--

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.

"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."

--snip--


Now TIA talking:
So, the new prediction may be lower, but the error bars are larger - large enough to encompass the old prediction! So this certainly does not *replace* the old prediction.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 May 13 - 04:15 PM

Remember cui bono? Who has to gain from the bought off scientists by the energy companies? Since we've gone past 350 ppb in carbon emissions not to mention
the methane created man-made, the dead zones in the seas, the pollution of the Savannah River Plant, the potential for Fukushima style blows up at San Onofre, the under developed
nuclear power plants built by GE, the melting of polar ice caps, increasing storms and tornados and the desertification of middle US and Australia, it would be well to mention what is happening to scientists at leading universities who are in danger of losing their funding if they say the wrong thing and the corporations pull the plug on these universities. Academic freedom in the sciences is becoming mythical.

Do the math and do your own research but don't expect impartial answers.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 13 - 05:16 PM

In the late 1980s I worked for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. My job was to compile the reports brought in by field inspectors into one concise six-page report, with all the relevant figures. These reports were evaluations of how well—or ill—a residence had been insulated to prevent heat loss. The BPA made funds available to people who wanted to have their houses insulated, double-pane windows installed, and generally weatherized.

The Department of Energy had commissioned the BPA to find new, non-polluting, and inexpensive sources of energy. After many surveys and much research, the BPA was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that the cheapest, most non-polluting source of new energy was

Conservation.

Many thousands of residences were insulated under this program—until the funds ran out.

An engineer friend of mine (and one of my guitar students) and I used to sit in the Pizza Haven and swill coffee for hours, and discuss such things as new and unexploited energy sources. He was full of ideas, a few of which are being talked about these days. But he had a lot of other ideas for cheap, non-polluting energy sources—and how to harness them—that no one else seems to have thought of.

And as I said, Doug was an engineer and had thought these things through quite thoroughly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 May 13 - 06:01 PM

So this certainly does not *replace* the old prediction.

Apparently - for Beardy, at least - it does.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 02:28 PM

"But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

"Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless."

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, "Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn't bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years." In other words, another Little Ice Age."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 May 13 - 02:31 PM

"Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution's upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN's IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN's IPCC did not know or did not think significant."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Stu
Date: 30 May 13 - 03:55 PM

Bruce - that entire Forbes article doesn't contain a single reference to a peer-reviewed publication. The entire piece is essentially a run-of-the-mill hack job by a republican shill. the author, Peter Ferrara isn't even a scientist, but a lawyer who graduated from Harvard and served under Reagan and Bush, and is basically a right-wing policy maker.

This explains his complete lack of understanding of climate science, and his inability to quote his sources and actually understand the subject he's writing about is impressive.

For instance (from this similar rant) (interestingly, the article quotes from an article Ferrara states was published by 'The German Herald on March 31 2013, which as I write this here in the UK is actually tomorrow. Hmmm):

"The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed"

Whoa there boy! Is Ferrara sure of that? Because if he is, then he's wrong. For starters, in the Mesozoic there is a correlation between C02 concentration and atmospheric warming, and even when the climate cools towards the end of the Mesozoic and into the early Cenozoic there is no hint of C02-climate decoupling. In fact, the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere during this time explains the cooler intervals that punctuated the warm conditions that prevailed during the Mesozoic.

Thing is, citing examples from the popular media is not helping your argument. Hacks like Ferrara simply don't understand the science, don't attempt to address the bigger picture but simply cherry pick the odd phrase they've read to support what is effectively propaganda. This is a complex science, and some of the hysterical todge the likes of Forbes shovel up might be gobbled up buy gullible businessmen but anyone with even a passing knowledge of the science would realise it's utter crap.

Here's an idea: stick to peer-reviewed papers. If you can't get over the fact climate scientists are not working to some secret agenda dreamt up by god knows who, then you need to do some reading.


I'm surprised you haven't mention Milankovitch Cycles yet. Better get onto it, it's something else for you to misunderstand.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 May 13 - 07:53 PM

An interesting summary of climate change and CO2 concentrations through geologic time is given in an article by Nasif Nahle, "Cycles of Global Climate Change"
Graphs and references included.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 May 13 - 09:36 PM

1962 Shock News : Open Water At The North Pole

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 13 - 09:53 AM

Skate (SSN-578) at the North Pole, 1962, US NAVY Photograph

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 13 - 10:10 AM

The Forbes (Ferrara) piece is premised almost entirely on a talk given by Don Easterbrook at the 2012 Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference. In Easterbrook's talk, he presented supposed IPCC data. It has since been shown that the data he presented were highly selective and possibly manipulated. This is so well known and documented that you can find many explanations and illustrations of this on your own with our friend Google. Sadly Ferrara's understanding of climate science is insufficient for him to spot what is clearly an egregious distortion, so his piece made it into print, and can then be cited by others as some kind of "evidence". Find the original data sources, and it all falls apart. It is a classic anthropogenic climate change denier cherry pick.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 11:07 AM

God, what a brilliant factual argument!

"It is a classic anthropogenic climate change denier cherry pick."


You mean like the "Liberal Pinko lies" that abound here?


Labels are not a reasonable debate method, even for Liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:04 PM

Bruce,
It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.
Easterbrook was caught presenting very carefully selected data in an intentionally misleading fashion, and Ferrara ran with it without understadning that.
Go learn about what you are promoting before you put it out there publically.
I am afraid you are the one who is factually challenged here.

PS
Do you not find it funny that I am talking about data and you are talking about "liberal pinko lies" and pissing and moaning about "labels" in the same sentence?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:11 PM

Sarcasm, my fiend...



A number of the supporters of "Climate Change "have been caught selecting data- shall we ignore everything they say as well, or just those you disagree with?


I am working (i.e., in my professional career as a "rocket scientist") to help find data to determine IF the models being used for climate change are accurate representations of reality- What are YOU doing?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:39 PM

What am I doing?

Among other things, I am an Earth Science Professor at a University you are undoubtedly familiar with. I am sure you would rather discuss data than have a CV duel. You will get no "appeal to authority" out of me.

Here - I will help you out:

A video of Easterbrook's talk (that Ferrara relied upon) is on the Heartland website.
http://www.viddler.com/v/7a56a0b0?secret=47939698

Go to minute 6:00, and look at the graph in the upper right. Listen as he presents it as the IPCC temperature prediction (i.e. 1 degree C average surface temperature rise between 2000 and 2010).

Here is the actual IPC prediction (which is 0.2 degrees C between 2000 and 2010)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig9-14s.gif

You will surely see that the graph he presents is not at all like the actual IPCC graph, and he is either misleading the audience, or has made a serious and very public error.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:48 PM

Great- YOU may actually know something.

Can you please explain why, if the solar flux is decreasing the Martian ice caps are decreasing in size and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of stability has started to change? Could it POSSIBLY be due to weather?


I have stated that Climate change IS happening (IMHO)- the discussion is
1. Are Anthropologic sources the driving factor?
2. Can we take steps to adjust to the new climate state, instead of just trying to stop the change?

The present arguments have all been on stopping the change, regardless of the costs involved, or risk of war- Are YOU prepared to die to get the Chinese to stop using coal? How about to keep the Third world in an energy shortage, since they do not have the technology to implement "clean energy" in many cases?

OK, Prof. Canute?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 13 - 12:51 PM

Facts have no relevence for Beardy, Tia - the same way he complains about people calling him names and then does so himself.

You're wasting your time trying to teach this particular pig to sing.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 01:02 PM

And with Greggie boy supporting you, you have lost a lot of status-

Are you sure you want your university to be aware that people who consider "Black and a Democratic" individuals as "dumb Ni**ers" are backing you up?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:01 PM

Not only are there variations in solar energy, but mountain building, changes is sea distribution and other global events change weather patterns,
The earth's axis has changed through time.

Man's effects on climate are contributory according to many scientists.

Regardless of the cause of global climate change, plans should be made to adjust.

A cleaner planet is desirable; we are fouling our own nest. But population growth requires more and more energy and mineral product. Mining and use of fossil fuels will continue to be important, but their contribution must be adjusted to prevent waste.

No far, words have been thrown at the problem but little else.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 13 - 02:13 PM

But the entire "Climate Change" setup is to remove Carbon ( and nothing else) to PREVENT the change- NO effort is being made to adjust people to the new climate.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 13 - 04:44 PM

You asked what I do. I told you. You mocked. I did not mock your profession. You are an asshole. Argue bullshit with yourself. I will teach young minds to think critically rather than waste time on you.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 09:25 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/mystery-venus-super-hurricane-force-winds-inexplicably-stronger-104226704.html



Must be because of man-made carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, like the recent changes to the Martian Ice cap, and the Red Spot on Jupiter. Don't want to look at a possible solar connection, after all...

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:56 AM

Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about "climate change" or "global warming." Not a single one of those stories mentioned the "warming plateau" reported even by The New York Times on June 10. The Times wrote, "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace."

The problems with climate forecasting models weren't mentioned either, even though a researcher at Sweden's University of Gothenburg found that many climate models couldn't correctly model known temperatures in China. Investor's Business Daily reported on March 28 that "Only half of the 21 analyzed climate models were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China," he said. "Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change."

In an interview with Der Spiegel on June 20, German climate scientist Hans von Storch of the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg pointed to the major problems of climate modeling. "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened.In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year," he explained.

The Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute looked at all the "climate change" or "global warming" stories from Jan. 1, 2013, through June 15, 2013, aired on ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs. BMI found that out there were more than 8 times as many stories that cited a study or included a scientist promoting global warming alarmism than cited a study or included a scientist challenging alarmism (25 stories to 3 stories). Nearly one-fourth of the stories this year (22 of 92) also connected (or at least asked if there was a connection) weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, snow or flooding to climate change, in spite of the many scientific critics of those claims.

Of course in 2010, when the weather seemed to contradict the message of global warming alarmism Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said, "It is important that people recognize that weather is not the same thing as climate."

8 Times the Alarmism

New reports, studies or scientists that warned of the threat of climate change from concern over penguin populations, to predictions of sea level rise continued to be promoted by the networks in 2013. There were stories or news briefs warning that flying would become more turbulent because of climate change, connecting allergies to global warming, and others worrying about glacial melt and sea level rise.

There were 25 networks reports that mentioned a new report or analysis or that cited a scientist who promoted the climate alarmist viewpoint. That was 8 times as many as the other side; there were only three stories that cited a report or included such a scientist challenging alarmism.

The networks consulted scientists from NASA and NOAA as well as activists like Michael Oppenheimer from Princeton, who has gotten climate predictions wrong in the past. "Nightly News" interviewed Kenneth Kunkel from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center on May 25 who continued the hype, saying "If we continue to increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we will warm the globe and that will bring certain risks into play or increase the risks of certain types of extremes."

The networks also included other people promoting alarmism who were not counted in this analysis because they weren't on to discuss a new study and they aren't scientists. Editors and reporters from Time magazine went on network broadcasts and hyped the threat of climate change. And NBC interviewed global warming activist and former Vice President Al Gore in three separate stories.

One of those times was Jan. 29, on "Today." Matt Lauer and Gore were discussing Gore's latest book and Lauer asked the former vice president about skepticism of the danger of global warming.

"I want to talk to you about some polling. If you talk to Americans, about four in five people in this country believe that climate change is happening, global warming is real and it's going to present a problem. But there's a group inside that large group, and it's not an insignificant group, and they don't believe that climate change is manmade or exacerbated by humans. Does that surprise you?" Lauer asked.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:46 AM

Ah, Jeez, Beardy, do you have to smear ANOTHER thread with your characteristic horseshit?

You want to believe in the tooth fairy or deny the existence of gravity all well & good - but can't you keep it to yourself?

Or are you a professional proselytizing asshole of the street-speaking type?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: EBarnacle
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:42 PM

To the deniers, I say but one thing. Let's take a walk across the Northwest Passage next Summer. I'm bringing my kayak.

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:48 PM

It is denying climate change to point out that the models are not accurate???


Is truth such a threat to so many of you here????


Unanswered post-


For all you "climate change profiteers" out there:

Can you please explain why, if the solar flux is decreasing the Martian ice caps are decreasing in size and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, after 400 years of stability has started to change? Could it POSSIBLY be due to weather?


I have stated that Climate change IS happening (IMHO)- the discussion is
1. Are Anthropologic sources the driving factor?
2. Can we take steps to adjust to the new climate state, instead of just trying to stop the change?

The present arguments have all been on stopping the change, regardless of the costs involved, or risk of war- Are YOU prepared to die to get the Chinese to stop using coal? How about to keep the Third world in an energy shortage, since they do not have the technology to implement "clean energy" in many cases?

Subject: RE: BS: It's global warming, stupid!
From: sciencegeek
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:58 PM

TIA,

for whatever my 2 cents is worth in today's economy... I have found your posts to be thoughtful and well considered. You pupils are fortunate to have you.

science is at its best when free and open discourse takes place and egos & ideology are put aside for the moment.

spirited debate is great, but this rude obstructionism only stiffles inquiry... but maybe that is the intended goal...