Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Fishbone Jones]

Anti climate change scientists are the same ones that worked for big tobacco and denied the cancer\ tobacco causation?

BULLSHIT.

Take your thin skin and delete the stupidity in your posts before hitting send.

I could care less what side you're on, but stop with the grade two theatrics.

They make you look dumb and desperate.

 

[Kilo_302]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/keydocs.html


Found these links quite easily. If I still had access to JSTOR (haven't for a few years now) I could post several academic papers on the matter.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and the same ones who screamed "ice age" not so long ago?

Ho hum.......

 

[TheHead]

Actually the Heartland Institute, the organization that pays Anthony Watts used to claim that Second Hand Smoke is not dangerous and that smoking in moderation wasn't harmful.  Moderation was stated as up to 6 cigarettes a day.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Actually the Heartland Institute, the organization that pays Anthony Watts used to claim that Second Hand Smoke is not dangerous and that smoking in moderation wasn't harmful.  Moderation was stated as up to 6 cigarettes a day.

So you got a smattering. That's different than implying they all worked there.

I'm sure there's enough crackpot scientists for both sides.

What's your point?

 

[Haletown]

Actually the Heartland Institute, the organization that pays Anthony Watts used to claim that Second Hand Smoke is not dangerous and that smoking in moderation wasn't harmful.  Moderation was stated as up to 6 cigarettes a day.

Donna explains . . .

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

 

[a_majoor]

Maybe you should re read the 78 pages of posts.

There are huge and glaring holes in the AGW arguments, and lots of evidence from multiple branches of science that strongly suggest that climate change is a natural phenomena following complex, non linear responses to thousands of inputs (ranging from the Sun and cosmic rays to the reflectively of clouds).

When historical evidence shows Vikings raising cattle on Greenland in 1100 AD (when it is too cold to do so today), or space probes tracking the temperatures on Mars show the same levels of increase as the Earth, to point out two easily researched observations, then both the cause and potential consequences of climate change as portrayed by the alarmists are thrown into doubt.

You can also read the 78 pages to see how the alarmists behave, hiding data, refusing to release the algorithms used to "calculate" and "predict" climate change, strong arming journals to refuse to publish dissenting papers, the IPCC using speculation and wild guesses to "prove" that climate change is real and there is a need for massive intervention in the global economy etc. etc.

 

[Zartan]

When historical evidence shows Vikings raising cattle on Greenland in 1100 AD (when it is too cold to do so today), or space probes tracking the temperatures on Mars show the same levels of increase as the Earth, to point out two easily researched observations, then both the cause and potential consequences of climate change as portrayed by the alarmists are thrown into doubt.

And people were farming in the American southwest, where they are no longer, and Southern Arabia was also supporting large urban civilization of which Yemen is a mere shadow (in both cases because it became too dry and hot). Climate change does not always equal warming, nor is a single example from a single timeframe indicative of a whole.

There has been a lot of posts in this thread, which can be summarized thus, if I may post a grenade: like the cherry-pickings of a Christian who has never read the bible.

Meanwhile, the Climate change argument is over to which degree humans are supplementing or altering natural processes. To claim that there are scientists who deny that climates do not change through natural processes is to strawman them. Certainly, there are people who do believe such tripe. I dare say that they are not scientists.

 

[ModlrMike]

To believe that humans are wholly responsible for global warming is the height of conceit.

To believe that we have the power to reverse it is the height of hubris.

 

[ArmyRick]

You should look up Allan Savory or listen to his material for a different insight on Climate malfunction. He points out how 200,000 cars on the road for one year release same amount of carbon as 12 acres of forest fire burning for 15 minutes, big WHOA!

He is very analytical and looks at several problems being tied into one major issue. He is one of the few environmentalist WHO does not spout off the usual non sense (Cars running, cattle, not enough stupid accords like Kyoto, etc, etc)

One Major issue he brings up is Desertification, a long standing issue that has greater impact on the environment and human personal and social health.

Climate change is a given and happens, if we want it or not. There are ways to address some issues without the usual doomsday speeches.

I highly recommend listening to Mr Savory, he is a great speaker and worth hearing a well thought out theory. Most of his principles I apply to my own farm practice.

http://vimeo.com/8239427 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I just have one comment....

The pro-AGW "scientists" have repeatedly been caught lying, falsifying data, falsifying computer models, misrepresenting 'average temperatures' by ignoring the urbanization (heat sinks) of some collection points as well as not correcting for a southern shift of average collection points....

By any scientific standard, they should be ostricized and expelled from their fields....

The fact that they are often still tenured and cited as 'experts' is a fallacy driven by the fact that many progressives (in particular those in our educational institutions), are decidedly anti-fossil fuel, anti-industrialization, and have demonstrated a clear Machiavellian belief that the end (de-industrialization) justify the means (falsifying and misrepresenting whatever they have to in order to get carbon caps).


Matthew.

 

[a_majoor]

Since the facts do not support what is being said, you need to look for what motivates politicians to tell such lies. OF course, in this case the answer is quite simple; try to create a real or faux crisis and then use that as a reason to increase government spending and power:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/obamas-thirteen-words.php

Obama’s Thirteen Words

Remember George W. Bush’s famous “16 words”? They came from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech, where Bush said: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That was a true statement, but it caused immense controversy, for reasons that are now hard to remember.

Fast forward to 2013, and President Obama’s State of the Union, where he said, talking about global warming: “Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense.” That statement was demonstrably false, as SEPP’s The Week That Was points out:

  The claim is so factually challenged that it is a wonder it got by the White House staff. Looking at the weather stations that have 80 years of data shows heat records were set in the 1930s, the Palmer drought index shows the 1930s and the 1950s were hotter and dryer with the 1930’s dust bowl lasting a decade. … Increased floods are not supported by the data, and, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, wildfires are declining.

Obama was wrong about Hurricane Sandy, too:

    “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy….a freak coincidence…” Sandy was neither unique nor extreme. Hurricane direct hits on NYC occurred in 1815, 1821 and 1893 in prior active periods.

What are the chances that Obama’s false 13 words will become as controversial as Bush’s true 16 words? Slim and none, obviously. Of course, there were so many other untrue statements in Obama’s SOTU that it is understandable that the 13 words on global warming got lost in the shuffle.

 

[a_majoor]

Found your problem:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290289/NASA-warns-unexpected-happening-Sun-year-supposed-peak-sunspot-cycle.html

The calm before the solar storm? NASA warns 'something unexpected is happening to the Sun'

    2013 was due to be year of the 'solar maximum'
    As this picture shows, in fact the sun is incredibly calm - baffling experts

By Mark Prigg

PUBLISHED: 16:54 GMT, 8 March 2013 | UPDATED: 17:34 GMT, 8 March 2013

'Something unexpected' is happening on the Sun, Nasa has warned.

This year was supposed to be the year of 'solar maximum,' the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle.

But as this image reveals, solar activity is relatively low.

Scroll down for video
Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent, as this image shows - despite Nasa forecasting major solar storms

Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent, as this image shows - despite Nasa forecasting major solar storms

THE SOLAR CYCLE

Conventional wisdom holds that solar activity swings back and forth like a simple pendulum.

At one end of the cycle, there is a quiet time with few sunspots and flares.

At the other end, solar max brings high sunspot numbers and frequent solar storms.

It’s a regular rhythm that repeats every 11 years.

Reality is more complicated.

Astronomers have been counting sunspots for centuries, and they have seen that the solar cycle is not perfectly regular.

'Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent,' the space agency says.

The image above shows the Earth-facing surface of the Sun on February 28, 2013, as observed by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.

It observed just a few small sunspots on an otherwise clean face, which is usually riddled with many spots during peak solar activity.

Experts have been baffled by the apparent lack of activity - with many wondering if NASA simply got it wrong.

However, Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center believes he has a different explanation.

'This is solar maximum,' he says.

'But it looks different from what we expected because it is double-peaked.'

'The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.'

Solar activity went up, dipped, then rose again, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years, he said.
Researchers have recently captured massive sunspots on the solar surface - and believed we should have seen more

Researchers have recently captured massive sunspots on the solar surface - and believed we should have seen more

The same thing could be happening now, as sunspot counts jumped in 2011 and dipped in 2012, he believes.

Pesnell expects them to rebound in 2013: 'I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014.'

He spotted a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.

If the two cycles are twins, 'it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290289/NASA-warns-unexpected-happening-Sun-year-supposed-peak-sunspot-cycle.html#ixzz2N2jTLHw0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Any hypothesis about climate which does not take the prime driver into account is...incomplete.

 

[Nemo888]

I love watching the flat earthers in this thread regurgitate Koch funded nonsense. Not even the paid henchmen can stand the BS anymore.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video

Richard Muller, who directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity.

 

[Scott]

Be respectful or go away, you've been warned about this sort of thing, along with others, before.

Scott
Staff

 

[Kilo_302]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/09/hockey-stick


One of the main arguments against climate change is that the earth's climate naturally shifts. The above graph takes that into account by going further back than previous models. Look at the pronounced rise in temperature coinciding with human activity at the end of the graph. 

 

[Haletown]

This whole climate change nee global warming thingy is just so last century.  How do the environmentalists think the can continue to scam the rubes and grow the congregation unless they find a new pice of falling sky?

After all, in one form or another, they have been running this grift since the early '70's. 

"In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Another Ice Age? – TIME 1974"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/09/hockey-stick


One of the main arguments against climate change is that the earth's climate naturally shifts. The above graph takes that into account by going further back than previous models. Look at the pronounced rise in temperature coinciding with human activity at the end of the graph.

1.  Based on the manipulated data sets to date, why would you trust this one if we know Mann et al have changed numbers to suit their objectives in past.

2.  It is a blatant attempt to misrepresent 'climate' when looking at something within a 10,000 year framework.  If you look at a 10 million year framework, then you can see natural climate shifts on a more accurate scale.  The fact these frauds would use a scale they know is not representative to see the change in context shows again what a willfill deceipt they possess.

3.  As it's become such big business, global climate change fear mongering is probably the biggest propaganda play on the planet.  There are daily releases of fear-mongering statistics that never provide counter-arguments....which again demonstrates that this is NOT science.


M.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Here's a quick one from the National Parks Service....

My argument here being that if we clearly know manmade activity was not responsible for pre-historic temperatures level changes, then someone should take the time to generate a computer model that STARTS by first being accurate when backtesting against known data.

There was a huge uproar which you may have missed a couple of years ago where a 'climate scientist' made the claim that based on his models, the antarctic ice sheet was going to melt in 50-years.  Tonnes of papers and media picked it up.  Less covered was the fact that some non-believers got a hold of his model and he had 'fixed the outcome'.  Even if you put in lower levels of CO2 which was his primary variable (ignoring that giant warming agent we usually call the 'The Sun'), he still showed melting.  So CO2 up = Melting & CO2 down = melting.

Not science....

So again, my comment is that when you see claims like you posted, be sure you know who is providing the data set, and do your due diligence on if they've misrepresented information before.


M.

 

[Haletown]

"One of the main arguments against climate change is that the earth's climate naturally shifts."

Actually that is the main argument for Climate Change . . the real one not the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.  It is actually kind of a funny phrase.  By definition, our climate is close coupled, chaotic, dynamic energy balancing,  seeking system.  Change is to climate what wet is to water, an inherent characteristic and if people talked about "water wet", we'd figure they were a few bales full of a load.

That graph shows only the most recent climate era -  11,000 years ago, not even a blink of an eye in the planet's geologic/climate history.

11,000 years ago was about the peak of the last ice age.  Putting  that into perspective, about 99% of what is Canada was buried under anywhere from 10,000 - 20,000 feet and multiple trillions of tons of ice.  The landmass, due to the massive weight was depressed about 400 ft below current levels (Canada continues to rise up as the plastic  characteristics of rocks is still recovering from the ice age deformations).

Pretty much the coldest point the planet has been in that time period.  Very short miserable "summers", very high albedo, very unfriendly to Homo Sapiens, with or without a Prius.


Global sea volumes and levels, because so much water was locked up in the ice sheets,  was drastically reduced and lowered respectively.

There was a lot of interesting material in the most recent report to have fun with.  The previous Hockey Stick graph eliminated the Medieval Warm Period because of the "interesting" statistical methodologies employed by MBH to get a final upsurge needed to make it the previous poster graph for the IPCC.  This new graph puts it back in.

Go figure. Both graphs cannot be correct.

The other most interesting part is the claim  that current "global warming" is the only thing preventing the next ice age from starting.

Well if that is true we better start burning a lot more hydrocarbons,  because if a couple degrees of warming can create the current level of the hysteria about what might happen, the reality of what a next ice age would do to life on the planet would really freak out the fear mongers.