 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Where's the Global Warming
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:18 PM "My facts are facts and your facts are not facts." That pretty much sums up your argumentation, too. That and "Climate changes in this little corner of the world necessarily map worldwide climate change taken as a whole." I can't see any more reason to engage with you. Heels. Dust. Bye. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:08 PM Bill: I did not say you said anything about Chantilly. Dulles airport is in Chantilly so I assume the data you posted and the data I posted are the same except your data had the seasons added in the columns. And I agreed with you about the last three winters being warmer than average but your are intent on being nasty. Where is your response to This NOAA chart? Maybe you don't really want to find a pattern that disagrees with you. I have lived here for 65 years and I have to pay people to plow snow. I have had to plow for the last three years but for 5 years before that there was not enough snow to plow. Mouse thief: do you think WGMS is monitoring all the glaciers? 238 Glaciers is a pittance when the Himalayas have 1500 alone and none of them are being monitored by WGMS. SO where does that leave your assertion that "all the glaciers taken together" must be considered. "No, not the tiny, well chosen contingent of shrinking glaciers, but all the glaciers taken together." TIA: That is admittedly flawed because they were so anxious to prove global warming that they grabbed facts that were not facts and published them as facts. From the railroad engineer now proclaimed to be a leading world climate scientist: "The IPCC produces key scientific material that is of the highest relevance to policymaking, and is agreed word-by-word by all governments, from the most skeptical to the most confident. This difficult process is made possible by the tremendous strength of the underlying scientific and technical material included in the IPCC reports." Such a pompous ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:18 PM On the Himalayan Glacier issue, please read the following. If you are a partisan butt-head, make all the hay you want. If you are truly interested in science, stop and think. From Skepticalscience.com... ---snip--- The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains a mistake. This is not the first inaccuracy to be found in the AR4 - there have been several papers demonstrating where IPCC predictions have underestimated the climate response to CO2 emissions. However, this time the climate response has been overestimated. Specifically, the IPCC AR4 predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 which is decidedly not the case. What's the significance of this error? To determine this, let's look at how it happened and the broader context. The error occurs in Section 10.6.2: The Himalayan glaciers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)." The source for this information was "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China", a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF report was not peer reviewed. On Page 25, we find: "In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the pres ent rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by t! he year 2035 is very high". Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years. The prediction that "glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming" and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will "eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages" (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing." The WWF sourced their information from a 1999 news item in New Scientist. Again this was not peer reviewed (New Scientist is a popular science magazine). The article was based on an interview with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain, chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035. This speculation was not supported by any formal research. Unfortunately, the error was not spotted in the review process. This may be because it was buried deep in the Working Group II section (which focuses on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with a regional emphasis). It was not one of the key features included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The 2035 prediction was not included in the Working Group I section (focusing on the Physical Science with more of a global emphasis) which was solidly based on peer reviewed research. The moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field. This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005). On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Him alaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008). While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007). The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:05 PM ??? Sawzaw...where did I say anything about Chantilly? Did you look at the pages I posted? The 2nd one shows very clearly that average area (DC area) has been getting generally WARMER. I have lived here for 32 years, and I see in those charts a confirmation of what my own senses told me...less Wintery weather. There have been fluctuations, and yearly fluctuation are normal. And mousethief asks rightly if you comprehend that the concern is with GLOBAL conditions, not some local data which may not show the trends...yet. ALL the major studies show significant GLOBAL rise in temps. Sailors know it, scientists know it, polar bears know it, residents of Alaska know it.....but you dig up little charts for specific areas and wave them as if YOU know better. refresh this thread in 10 years and tell me how it's going... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:13 AM So, no answer then. As expected. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jan 10 - 02:00 AM Bill: I see in this data from NOAA Chantily which I assume is Dulles: JAN FEB MAR AVG ANN So if you average Jan Feb and MAR and compare them to and average going back to 1963 you are right. The last three winters have been warmer than average. My point is they have been getting progressively colder except for a bump in 2008. Also the yearly average has been getting progressively colder each year since 2006. If you look at this NOAA chart the overall average temperature has been flat since the 1880s. How can this be when The CO2 has been climbing all the time? How can the temperature be linked to CO2? I would like to see this chart with CO2 superimposed on it. If you look at the last three years on the chart, the average temperature has plunged 7 degrees F / 3 degrees C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jan 10 - 01:31 AM What part of how many of the 15000 Himalayan glaciers glaciers did they include in the 228 that they monitor do you fail to understand? "No, not the tiny, well chosen contingent of shrinking glaciers, but all the glaciers taken together." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:36 AM What part of "local conditions do not necessarily follow planet-wide trends" do you fail to understand? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:22 AM Mouse: How many of those 15000 Himalayan glaciers do they include in that "planet-wide trends"? Zero. Therefore it is not planet wide and not accurate. The same way that GISS weeded out 4500 weather stations that reported lower temperatures. GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM Yep DougR, that proves it's all eggs in moonshine. Might as well close the thread now. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: DougR Date: 19 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM "Where's the Global Warming"? Why in Al Gore's back yard! Everybody should know that! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:43 PM "Then don't make them about others. " You used MY name to argue with mousethief. You want to argue with me, do it directly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:24 PM Amos, YOUR comments using the word "conservative" have always been so slanted that my comments about "liberals" are complimentary in comparision. Should I endeavor to equal your vitriol in regards to what **I** find unreasonable and offensive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:01 PM "And I will not be a pawn in others smart-ass remarks. Relevant posters take note." Then don't make them about others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 19 Jan 10 - 11:48 AM "Are you all hot air or do you have any numbers to back up your subjective assertion that "The last few years have been quite warm Winters."? Yeah... right here This is the records from Dulles airport since 1963. (25 miles to the southwest of me)If you go to the lower right corner, you'll see the 4 seasons listed, and above them the average temps. If you look up the columns, you'll see several degrees more per year on average, with the usual fluctuations. 2000-2004 were colder than 2005-2009, and if you go back to 1977-1999, you'll see overall RISE in average of several degrees. You want records since 1871 at what is now Reagan National? DCA same basic general rise in average annual temps. I have lived in the area since 1977, so I guess MY "hot air" must be to blame for a lot of it, huh? Your problem, Sawzaw, is that you don't really want to find a pattern that disagrees with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Jan 10 - 08:55 AM Cogley, BTW, is a coauthor of the IPCC report with the wrong information. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Jan 10 - 08:40 AM AN IPCC WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. That prediction was based on a rough estimate of a Russian glacier scientist, Vladimir Kotlyakov, who in 1996 had written in a paper that the Himalaya glaciers might shrink to a fifth of their present volume by 2350. Graham Cogley is the one who has found out about this hard to believe blunder because he just couldn't believe the 2035 datum knowing how thick the Himalaya ice is now. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Amos Date: 19 Jan 10 - 03:54 AM BB: Your use of the word liberal is a little bit slanted. Have you been studying acting out with Ms Coulter? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 19 Jan 10 - 12:20 AM What part of "local conditions do not necessarily follow planet-wide trends" do you fail to understand? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Jan 10 - 11:38 PM Bill D: Are you all hot air or do you have any numbers to back up your subjective assertion that "The last few years have been quite warm Winters."? "WGMS have monitored 228 glaciers" Did they monitor the 230 Himalayan glaciers? Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. According to a new study. Among legendary peaks of Mt. Everest like K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are growing, and have been for almost three decades. "These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha said. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing." World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown The west Himalayan range includes 15,000 glaciers AN IPCC WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Related Internet Links Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 10 - 10:31 PM The fact that I don't live near Hagerstown is relevant only to Hagerstown being further North and West!! Of course weather patterns are slightly different there. Get some stats on St. Mary's county! And I will not be a pawn in others smart-ass remarks. Relevant posters take note. (Who, me? Getting testy? naawwwww...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 18 Jan 10 - 09:50 PM So if you're just shooting from the hip, and not actually countering liberal lies, you're off the clock? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:02 PM Yeah. My hobby is to expose the lies being put out by liberals- since there are enough here covering conservatives that there is no need for any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:12 PM Don't you have a hobby or something? Aside from raising dust? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM mouse, So the precious yaers were even colder??? You are calling BillD a liar, now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:12 PM As opposed to the Repuglicans in Congress who produce the icy blasts of hate. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM Sawz, You have to remember that BillD lives nearer DC than Hagerstown- He gets the benefit of the additional hot air produced by the Democrats in Congress over the years you mentioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:03 PM From here Over the period 1946–2005, the WGMS have monitored 228 glaciers. In the early years, just several glaciers were monitored. Over time, observations from more glaciers across the globe were added to the database, giving us a broader picture of global glacier mass balance. The highest quality glacier observations are ongoing, continuous and long term. There are 30 glaciers in 9 different mountain ranges that have been continuously measured since 1976 (11 of them reaching back to 1960 and earlier). These are considered 'reference glaciers'. (see page for charts) What do these glacier observations reveal? The following table shows the mass balance of individual glaciers over 2002 and 2003. Negative values indicate shrinkage. We see that there are isolated glaciers that are growing. However, focusing solely on these few glaciers to indicate global glacier growth paints a very misleading picture. The vast majority of glaciers are receding. And importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003). ------- So, my answer to your question: No, not the tiny, well chosen contingent of shrinking glaciers, but all the glaciers taken together. Nice try, though. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:56 PM "Plus glaciers, Sawzaw. I notice you didn't address that." The glaciers that are growing? I would like to point out that Bill D is not the only person in Maryland that makes observations. Stats for Hagerstown Average temperatues for January 2006 to 2009 38.9 35.4 33.7 27.0 Yearly averages 2006 to 2008 54.8 53.8 53.4 Hence the statement "The last few years have been quite warm Winters." Is hyperbole unless some supporting data can be produced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM "(BB...aren't you ever gonna quit gnawing that "plan how to move everyone North" bone? We can't DO that.) " Not if Gore has his way. Look at the potential crop capacity of the Russian Steppes and the Canadian plain. Given a longer growing season, there would be more than enough to feed the present populations- Can you say that about the present croplands? We have ( before the warmists destroy the capability) the means and industry to build new housing that would support the world's population in greater comfort than presently. But as long as "king" Al will stop the rising tide with his command, we will NOT do any of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:47 PM Plus glaciers, Sawzaw. I notice you didn't address that. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 10 - 12:13 PM "Where is your direct response to the NOAA stats that show the last 3 winters in Maryland have been getting colder.." Right here... I LIVE in Maryland, and the last 3 Winters were not colder, and I saw no 'stats' that showed 'Maryland' as a whole getting colder. THIS Winter has been 'slightly' colder...so far. The last couple of Summers here were slightly cooler. Fine...helped my electric bill. Should I draw any long-term conclusions from these 'facts'? No...I will wait and see. I don't think I'll toss out my AC yet. (In West Virgina, skiing has been a problem in several of the last few Winters, and ski lodges were looking for alternate income.) It is not relevant that we can note temporary regional fluctuations! Globally, the trend has been warmer, and perusal of ALL the data, plus the overall **visible** manifestations, (such as the opening of a true "Northwest Passage"), show that concerns are justified! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Jan 10 - 11:08 AM Hey Bill D Where is your direct response to the NOAA stats that show the last 3 winters in Maryland have been getting colder when you said "in Maryland just had a record Dec. snowfall.... now it is well above freezing again, and the snow will soon be gone. The last few years have been quite warm Winters."? Do you use the "fudge factor" in your calculations? I did see something about Alaska. Gore: The "entire north polar ice cap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade." The north polar ice cap is melting at rates that are certainly cause for concern. But it’s not going quite as fast as Gore says. Gore’s 40 percent figure is outdated. Arctic ice levels, as measured by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, were 40 percent lower at the end of the summer of 2007 than the average observed from 1979 to 2000. But the totals have actually increased for two consecutive years since. According to a release from the group, the average ice cover was 5.36 million square kilometers for the month of September 2009, compared with the 1979 to 2000 September average of 7.04 million square kilometers. That’s a difference of about 24 percent, nearly half what Gore said. And Gore was wildly off the mark when he predicted that all Arctic ice would "go completely within the next decade." We should point out that ice levels in the Arctic region change seasonally. During the summer months some ice melts, and then waters freeze again in winter as the temperature goes down. The levels of summer melting have been going up for a number of years, and this could eventually lead to very minimal ice coverage during the summer. One researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Post-Graduate School, made a projection in 2007 that a nearly ice-free arctic summer might occur as early as 2013, though he recently moved that back to 2020. But saying the north polar ice cap will be entirely gone is hyperbole. Even the most dramatic projections, such as Maslowski’s, do not say the ice would be gone during the winter months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Bill D Date: 16 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM Gee, it was cold around here for most of the last 2-3 weeks. Sawzaw posted stuff to suggest that the cold snap was relevant, and that we could relax. It's back up to 50°F now and the snow has melted. I assume he is with us now and worried? --------------------------------------------------------- (BB...aren't you ever gonna quit gnawing that "plan how to move everyone North" bone? We can't DO that.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Jan 10 - 03:56 PM the(y) ASSUME that the efforts will STOP what may or may not be a natural process. Not so. The reasonable assumption is that failure to make these efforts will make things worse than might otherwise be the case. Even if natural processes were a more significant element in climate change than most scientists believe, this would in no way remove the need to avoid acting in ways that are anticipated to contribute significantly to undesired climate change. This is a point that has repeatedly been made by a number of people posting to this thread. I note that it is consistently ignored by the "sceptics". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Donuel Date: 16 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM "Global warming scientists are reducing the resources we need to deal with the real effects of climate change" WTF? go ahead ahead and name 3. By resources I assume you mean money fat cats make from destroying the enoviorment free of charge. Man you guys aren't happy unless you can pinch a buck at someone else's expence. 'Someone else' in this case is a generation of people you will never get to see due to your aged but wealthy demise. Most important of all is to listen to your BS and think it through. I mean really think it through. Is being a short term winner all that damn important? If so, your lack of humanity jeopardizes life itself. If not, you are at the beggining of a beautiful realtionship with Earth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 16 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM No. I am more familiar with the actual data and with the proper mathematical treatment of such data than you can begin to believe. and no, you do not get to see my CV. I have not read any of Al Gore's books, and place no stock in his pronouncements because he does not understand the science. I have spent a lot of time on this thread, and it was clearly wasted. Next week, classes begin, and I have 13 weeks in which to explain these things to 40 students who have had math through calculus (inlcuding probability and statistics), and at least two Earth Science prerequisites, so we can actually explore the data, and not spend our time with worthless, easily refuted arguments that are based on a nonsensical understanding of math and earth processes. So, my attention goes there, not to this steaming pile. Carry on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Jan 10 - 11:20 PM You repeat slogans from the bumper stickers on AL Gore's CO2 belching limousine. ...The following two graphs show NASA's adjustment to the Santa Rosa, CA, station (which happens to be at the headquarters of NOAA).... http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/12/08/climate-data-fact-or-fiction/ Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." Michael Mann: "Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH [northern hemisphere] records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a time frame of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." Computer code by Keith Briffa to "process" temperature data at CRU: <'yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] 'valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor May 2008 email from Phil Jones head of CRU to Michael Mann: Subject: IPCC & FOI [Freedom of Information request] Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 15 Jan 10 - 05:03 PM "You do not study the data" What do I do Sawzaw? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: beardedbruce Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM It states that "if the science is not completely settled, it is better to act anyhow to prevent possible bad outcomes". So where is all the attention to dealing with the CONSEQUENCES of Global Warming, in case they ARE natural and inevitable??? The present actions to reduce carbon emmissions DO NOT ADDRESS the problem of adjusting to a changing climate- the ASSUME that the efforts will STOP what may or may nott be a natural process. It is the present PC crowd that wants to reduce carbon emmissions, and NOT deal with ANY of the effects of Climate Change that are NOT following the Precautionary Principle. The sun is known to be a slightly variable star: Output has changed in the past, and WILL change in the future. By ignoring this, warmists are sticking their heads in the sand, and insisting on expensive fixes that will not solve the problem, but reduce the resources need to deal with the real effects of climate change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Ringer Date: 15 Jan 10 - 12:53 PM "But please take a few moments to see where the money behind the various theories comes from." Well, that argument is truly a two-edged sword. There are enormous quantities of money at stake in the AGW scam: the value of traded carbon credits is forecast to be $10 trillion within this decade (I quote that value from memory: it might not be quite correct but it's a vast sum). People like Pachauri place themselves so as to be able to stoke the fire in the expectation that some of those trillions of dollars stick to their fingers. "...the 10 warmest years on record ... have all been in the last 12 years, so which decade of non-warming are you referring to?" I simply dispute your fact. "...getting things generally right over a very long time period is much less difficult than getting a specific thing right at a specific spot at a specific time." You evidently know little of chaos theory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:33 AM TIA - I am not saying that ""nobody really knows, and it doesn't matter anyhow". Don't put such words in my mouth, please. I am saying that I don't know! And I am saying that most (if not all) people who are yakking about it here on this forum don't know. Yet they are rabid in their chosen opinion, whatever that may be, and arrogant in their utter intolerance for others who hold a differing opinion. I find that self-centered and inappropriate on their part...since they really DON'T know for 100% sure what they are talking about. I was NEVER at any time saying that "it doesn't matter anyhow". It does matter, in the sense that we all have to deal with various global changes that are occuring in the climate and weather conditions. We need to make suitable preparations for rising water, changing temperatures, etc. I don't think there is one solitary thing that I, personally, can do about the Global Warming situation on Planet Earth, because I think it's probably being caused by changing natural cycles in the sun's activity, not by us. I don't deny that there IS Global Warming occuring, I just have doubts about one very popular conventional theory of WHY it is occurring. I talk about it because it's an interesting subject. This doesn't mean I think I'm "above it all", for God's sake! That's your notion, because you seem to have some need to try to make me feel guilty or something for not seeing it your way. How could I possibly be "above it all"? I might better say I'm "below it all"...because I can't do fuck-all about it, and I know it. If the Sun is what's doing it, nobody can do fuck-all about it. I'll be dead and gone, and people will still be arguing about shit like this and insulting each other over their differences of opinion, and I know it. It's pretty sad behaviour when they do that, and I think they all ought to grow up and learn a little humility and mutual respect for one another. If you think you can do something about Global Warming....you go right ahead. I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. Everyone should, by golly, get out there and make a difference if they think they see a viable way to do it. I do not see ANY way that I can make a difference to Global Warming, because I don't think present human activity is what's causing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:06 AM Tia: You do not study the data. You are obviously incapable so you have to rely on railroad engineers and politicians that are seriously invested in the carbon trade calling them selves scientists to do your thinking. That youtube thing is the perfect example. More of the nation is shown blue than orange. Then when one actually pays attention to the numbers, a nono for people on the bandwagon, it shows the US a net 4.5 degrees below normal while the announcer drones on saying idiots think the US is colder etc. etc. After highlighting the blue areas which include most of Texas and saying the east is colder [Texas is in the eastern US?] the left side is turned orange including the areas that were not colored at all and that were normal. and claims the western US is warmer that normal, a distortion of the facts. He says the east shows temperature ten to 20 degrees colder in the east. There are 13 temperatures below 20 degrees and 5 above 10 degrees. In the west there is one temperature above 20 degrees and 19 above 10 degrees. In fact there are two negative numbers in below average areas in the west that magically turn orange and are claimed to be above normal. -4 is normal? Is this a distortion of the facts or not? That video was made for you because it tells you what to think, in lieu of your lack of ability to think and interpret facts for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 Jan 10 - 11:31 PM LH, You are willing to accept your inconsequence and lack of power. I am not. That means two things. I do not accept your inconsequence, nor do I accept mine. You and your actions do matter. As do mine. Stay above it all if you wish. But I will still see that as an abdication of power that I think you have - whether you believe it or not. I know enough about this issue to know that whether we are simply yacking about it on a folkie forum or wielding giant flaming swords in the halls of power, this shit matters. By saying "nobody really knows, and it doesn't matter anyhow" (which is pretty much what you are saying), you are abdicating a societal, and human, and global responsibility. Sorry to get so deep on a simple folkie forum, but there it is. I have kids. I will be dead. They will deal with the consequences of what we do today. We had a gig last night, and another on Saturday, and the daughter that I taught to play the bass clearly now kicks my ass at it. She deserves the best planet that we can leave her. And if Exxon execs and stockholders lose some money to give it to her, I am not too broken up about that. Why the hell did TIA bring Exxon into it? Damn good question. Go ahead and read and be bemused and semi-interested in all the climate theories you want. But please take a few moments to see where the money behind the various theories comes from. Be careful. I see you dangerously close to joining the E$$on big money team. And your posting history over the last umpteen years suggests to me that you are not happy on that team. Be informed. In your desire to be an iconoclastic freethinker (which I fancy myself as well) there lies a cleverly laid trap - made just for folks like you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: mousethief Date: 14 Jan 10 - 10:21 PM The glaciers are retreating. As far as I can remember, all of them. Everywhere. Nepal. Alaska. Antarctica. South America. Mudcattia. What might cause that if not a general overall rise in average temperatures? Answers on a postcard. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 10 - 05:52 PM I agree with the Precautionary Principle exactly as you have stated it, TIA. I agree enthusiastically with it. I am not saying that anyone in a position to actually DO something significant about the situation should "stay above it all and just observe and wait, and see if we wreck the planet or not." Good Lord, no! Quite the contrary. But you have to remember who I am. I'm a folk musician! I am NOT someone in a position to actually do a darned thing about the Global Warming situation, and I DON'T know for sure which Global Warming theory is correct anyway...if any of them are...but the key factor here is that I, personally, can't do anything about it. I'm not a politician. I'm not a legislator. I don't own a major industry. And I don't know for sure what really needs to be done. I'm just some schmuck who is yakking on an internet forum, for Christ's sakes, and so are the other people here (I would assume). So when I say I will have to wait and see what happens, I'm not saying that everyone in the world who could actually DO something significant about Global Warming should wait and see what happens, I'm saying that in my personal case...that's the only real choice I've got....because I am just some unimportant schmuck who is yakking about something on the Internet. See? I don't take myself too goddamn seriously when it comes to matters like this. I don't take the rest of you too goddamn seriously either. All we are is we're a bunch of talkative folkies with some time on our hands who get caught up in talking about a ton of stuff here, because it gives our minds something to chew on for a bit...and that's better than having nothing for one's mind to chew on, perhaps? I'm saying that we yak here because we LIKE to. And we disagree on many things...and that provokes further discussion...but do you think any of it is going to make a rat's ass of difference to what happens with humanity's response to Global Warming? I sure as hell don't. I just talk about it because I find it kind of interesting...but do I think it'll change anything? Or change anyone else here? NO! I am fully aware of how tiny my influence is on events in this world and on other people's opinions. I am like a flea on the back of a dog the size of Alaska. And so are you. Now...everyone loves an authoritative source, right? If that source says something they like... Okay, check this one out. You'll love it. ;-) John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel speaks on Global Warming. John Coleman on the Global Warming Theory |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 Jan 10 - 04:46 PM LH Sorry, one more thing... The Precautionary Principle is EXACTLY about uncertainty (not shouting - can't underline). It states that "if the science is not completely settled, it is better to act anyhow to prevent possible bad outcomes". It almost seems above as if you are saying that because you are not certain, you choose to stay above it all and just observe and wait, and see if we wreck the planet or not. So, of course you are completely free to bemusedly watch and scold, but for me, the "someone else" who may find out might be my daughter. (If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized you - apologies). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,TIA Date: 14 Jan 10 - 04:35 PM LH "One thing most people are very loath to ever admit to is how little they really know" The list of topics about which I know almost nothing, or enough to be dangerous, is quite alarmingly long. Not loath to admit that at all. However, this topic (as you might guess from my inability to stop posting) is one that I know a great deal about, and have been involved in since the (gulp, my age is about to show) late 1970s. Ringer "Global Climate Change" is not a ducking tactic. People studying it have been insisting for years that the popular phrase (popularized partly by Al Gore of course) is inaccurate. Now to answer what you have specifically asked (my answers between stars): "I live in the UK, whose Met Office (well known warmistas, so much so that their web-site now lists them as "weather and climate change") has predicted that the last two summers would be "barbecue summers" (both were washouts) and that the last two winters would be milder than usual (both were - this one is so far - colder than usual). Their forecasts for six months into the future are laughably inaccurate - but they purport to tell us what the climate will be like in a hundred years and we believe them? **it is more difficult to predict specific weather at a specific spot than to forecast long-term global trends** How absolutely cretinous is that? **not at all...getting things generally right over a very long time period is much less difficult than getting a specific thing right at a specific spot at a specific time** If you answer one thing on this post, please answer me this: why should we trust the decadal forecasts of these incompetents when we can't trust their mensal forecasts? **see above...please do not confuse "weathermen" with "climate scientists"...weathermen are those popular goofy guys on TV, climate scientists are the goofy guys in cluttered offices with no social life** If their models didn't predict this decade of non-warming, why should we trust their models?" **In case you missed it, the 10 warmest years on record (going back to the late 1800's) have all been in the last 12 years, so which decade of non-warming are you referring to?** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 14 Jan 10 - 12:45 PM OK, so I should have googled the phrase before I put it in the comment... Great article here: The Conservative Case for Conservation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Where's the Global Warming From: GUEST,KP Date: 14 Jan 10 - 12:39 PM Sadly, this debate seems to have got to the point of people posting individual articles which support/reinforce their previously held positions. I'm not seeing anyone trying to move from the arguments to sensibly discuss what we might all agree to actually do. I know its fun to deride Sarah Palin/Al Gore (delete as appropriate..) but can't we be a bit more constructive here? For example, even if one is a conservative and thinks that the IPCC are a bunch of commie/liberals etc, isn't there still a case for investing in renewable energies, and not driving the largest gas-guzzling SUV you can find? (btw I'm not trying to stereotype or suggest that all Conservatives are NASCAR loving V8 drivers, just trying to find consensus). Hasn't America's high demand for gasoline from crude oil helped to make people like Chavez, Bin Laden, and Putin rich and/or powerful? (I know the US gets much of its oil from Canada, but high demand from America helps to put up the world price for M.East and other crude). Wouldn't driving electric or fuel cell vehicles powered from Solar thermal plants in Texas/Nevada be a patriotic thing to do? Perhaps someone could articulate the 'Conservative Case for Conservation' ? For those who firmly believe in AGW, wouldn't it be a better tactic to push for investment (possibly funded by carbon taxes or cap n' trade) rather than just keeping on telling the sceptics that 'they're wrong' (whether they are or not)? |
