Global warming

[mhaze]

Do we really have a choice, except to try to adapt to the weather/climate we are dealt ? Even if some of it is man made. It is what it is ..

Exactly what is the expected net effect of global warming in the next hundred years or so ? Rising unemployment at ski resorts ? The deserts will be even more agri-unfriendly than they are now ? More people will die from the heat than from the cold ?

The IPCC, to Stern report, Voltok, recently Nordhaus have studied the economics, including the "do nothing" option.

Alarmists focus on the worst of the worst scenarios not the middle estimates.

Middle estimates are no big deal.

[a_unique_person]

It was all that was required.



Fact: H2O is the chief greenhouse gas

So what is the debate? There is no debate.. right?

I say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
You say it is the chief greenhouse gas.
The IPCC says it is the chief greenhouse gas.
All the science says that it is the chief greenhouse gas.

So who is nitpicking? All I did was correct a person who posted incorrect information. Since then I have been descended upon with replies to my correction with unrelated information.. as if these "nit picks" change the fact.. they don't.. and you even say that they don't.. so again I ask you.. WHAT IS THE DEBATE?

You are trying to appear smart.. but fail to see the obvious.. that you are going on and on and on about something unrelated to the situation..

CD did already acknowledge it, but it's not the point. The point is why is it changing. That is not because H2O is he most powerful greenhouse gas. And as the thread title says, it's all about the change that is happening.

[a_unique_person]

The IPCC, to Stern report, Voltok, recently Nordhaus have studied the economics, including the "do nothing" option.

Alarmists focus on the worst of the worst scenarios not the middle estimates.

Middle estimates are no big deal.

The Arctic is already worst case scenaio, don't tell me they can't happen.

[a_unique_person]

And me too! I said it too!

The debate is this -

AUP used RC, a 2005 essay, to try to refute Wentz 2007, but obviously that no work.

Means the Models are broke.

I'm trying to get them to admit it.

The models are not broke. I am waiting for an evaluation of that paper from somewhere other than CO2 science. I have seen one already, but can't find it yet. The spin from CS is the usual 'broke (tm)' from the denier camp.

The models are not perfect, the models are improving, the models tell us a lot more about the projected climate than sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying "I'M NOT LISTENING". Hansens much more primitive model from 1996 has already done a pretty good job of projecting the rise in temperature for the past decade.

[mhaze]

The Arctic is already worst case scenaio, don't tell me they can't happen.

Absolute nonsense. The Skeptic view.

Fact.
There are no tipping points.

There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.

[mhaze]

The models are not broke. I am waiting for an evaluation of that paper from somewhere other than CO2 science. I have seen one already, but can't find it yet. The spin from CS is the usual 'broke (tm)' from the denier camp.

The models are not perfect, the models are improving, the models tell us a lot more about the projected climate than sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying "I'M NOT LISTENING". Hansens much more primitive model from 1996 has already done a pretty good job of projecting the rise in temperature for the past decade.

Broke is a good word for the models. Yes they will get better - figure 10-20 years. Models would be a good subject for discussion but that would get technical. RC talking points would not work.

To put it really simple

If data quality is so questionable that people have to go out and survey the ground temp stations, then is no way you can trust a model which must be based on hard data. Garbage in, garbage out.

[a_unique_person]

Absolute nonsense. The Skeptic view.

Fact.
[quote]
There are no tipping points.


You can prove that?



There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.


Yes, it's a fabrication from Singer at al. At what point would you be prepared to admit it's not just a cycle?

[a_unique_person]

Broke is a good word for the models. Yes they will get better - figure 10-20 years. Models would be a good subject for discussion but that would get technical. RC talking points would not work.



Even the simplest are useful, from a zero dimensional model up.


To put it really simple

If data quality is so questionable that people have to go out and survey the ground temp stations, then is no way you can trust a model which must be based on hard data. Garbage in, garbage out.

The ground data is not so questionable. Mr watt has told us about his experiment with the paint on Stevenson boxes. He said it would take a month to reveal his findings, three months ago. All I can assume is the experiment didn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

Australia is experiencing widespread drought, as predicted. The results are already in.

[rockoon]

CD did already acknowledge it, but it's not the point.


Why is it that corrections to factual errors such as this cannot be accepted gracefully by the AGW camp?

..as if even though the fact presented was patently wrong, its heart was in the right place so lets hit the reply button and downplay the error.

Cowpucks.

I got news for you.. facts matter.

When people get it wrong they should be informed of their error and held to the standard that the facts really do need to be correct and no matter how many people try to downplay the error, its still an error.

[a_unique_person]

Why is it that corrections to factual errors such as this cannot be accepted gracefully by the AGW camp?

..as if even though the fact presented was patently wrong, its heart was in the right place so lets hit the reply button and downplay the error.

Cowpucks.

I got news for you.. facts matter.

When people get it wrong they should be informed of their error and held to the standard that the facts really do need to be correct and no matter how many people try to downplay the error, its still an error.

He didn't make an error. CO2 is the GHG that is forcing climate change at the moment, it is not the strongest GHG, H2O is.

[rockoon]

He didn't make an error. CO2 is the GHG that is forcing climate change at the moment, it is not the strongest GHG, H2O is.

You simply cannot let it go, can you?

The error statement, quoted in full, is:
Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to the greenhouse effect, constitutes 0.0360% of the earth's atmosphere.

But you easily let THIS go.. right?

You are having the same problem, again. You cannot tell the difference between "greenhouse effect" and "global warming."

The main contributor to the greenhouse effect is......

(A) H2O
(B) CO2
(C) REO SPEEDWAGON

Guess which answer is correct?

[JoeEllison]

You simply cannot let it go, can you?



But you easily let THIS go.. right?

You are having the same problem, again. You cannot tell the difference between "greenhouse effect" and "global warming."

The main contributor to the greenhouse effect is......

(A) H2O
(B) CO2
(C) REO SPEEDWAGON

Guess which answer is correct?

Wow, you look silly.

[rockoon]

Wow, you look silly.

If you never replied at all, then it would have ended at this fact being corrected.

But no.. you folks INSISTED on downplaying the error just as yopu have INSISTED on downplaying Manns error, and INSISTED on downplaying Hansens error.

Its silly to correct factual errors?

[a_unique_person]

If you never replied at all, then it would have ended at this fact being corrected.

But no.. you folks INSISTED on downplaying the error just as yopu have INSISTED on downplaying Manns error, and INSISTED on downplaying Hansens error.

Its silly to correct factual errors?

CD says quite clearly.



And so on through the same old same-old. Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere. Yes, in a warmer climate there's more H2O in the atmosphere. The atmosphere gets wetter when it gets warmer. It doesn't get warmer because it suddenly got wetter. The atmosphere is always as wet as it can be in the prevailing circumstances. H2O is not a forcing, it doesn't impel warming (or cooling). It reacts, as a positive feedback.



I don't think it get's much clearer than that.

[JoeEllison]

If you never replied at all, then it would have ended at this fact being corrected.

But no.. you folks INSISTED on downplaying the error just as yopu have INSISTED on downplaying Manns error, and INSISTED on downplaying Hansens error.

Its silly to correct factual errors?

Nope, you still look silly.:D

[JoeEllison]

Pardon and excuse me.

For the sake of politeness, and the rules of most websites of this sort, let me say that rockoon's position looks silly. I make no comment about any person specifically.

[rockoon]

Pardon and excuse me.

For the sake of politeness, and the rules of most websites of this sort, let me say that rockoon's position looks silly. I make no comment about any person specifically.

What is my position?

[JoeEllison]

What is my position?

Jeez, dude, if you don't know, how do you expect me to explain it to you? :D

[rockoon]

CD says quite clearly.


He did not say it clearly. He hid the admission within facts not under contention.

It could have been "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere." but he didnt leave it at that, did he?

It really does seem as if he thought "OMG one of our own made a mistake and someone noticed it... I need to hit reply and obfuscate the matter"

[JoeEllison]

He did not say it clearly. He hid the admission within facts not under contention.

It could have been "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere." but he didnt leave it at that, did he?

It really does seem as if he thought "OMG one of our own made a mistake and someone noticed it... I need to hit reply and obfuscate the matter"

Awww... more of the silliness!

[a_unique_person]

He did not say it clearly. He hid the admission within facts not under contention.

It could have been "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere." but he didnt leave it at that, did he?

It really does seem as if he thought "OMG one of our own made a mistake and someone noticed it... I need to hit reply and obfuscate the matter"

The topic is "Global Warming", that is, H2O is not causing the warming, CO2 is. "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere.", but that's not the issue.

[rockoon]

Jeez, dude, if you don't know, how do you expect me to explain it to you? :D

Ok let me rephrase, because in the spirite of politeness I will let your intentionally ignorant reply go with a pass...

What do YOU THINK my position is?

[JoeEllison]

Ok let me rephrase, because in the spirite of politeness I will let your intentionally ignorant reply go with a pass...

What do YOU THINK my position is?
I think it is silly!:p

[rockoon]

The topic is "Global Warming", that is, H2O is not causing the warming, CO2 is. "Yes, H2O is the major greenhouse component in the atmosphere.", but that's not the issue.

The issue is global warming and in that context a factual error was made regarding the greenhouse effect..


..I corrected it.

Where is the debate?

[Safe-Keeper]

I think my mistake was thinking that you were saying, as a_unique_person posted, that Co2 is not responsible for AGW, or that AGW is not real, because H2O is a more significant greenhouse gas. And many do say just that, which is probably why I jumped the gun on you. Sorry, mate.

[chillzero]

Please remember:
Be civil and polite.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Keep the thread on topic.

[mhaze]

He didn't make an error. CO2 is the GHG that is forcing climate change at the moment, it is not the strongest GHG, H2O is.

Don't you think you should be qualifying that statement in terms of

"I believe" or "My opinion is" ?

Certainly you do not have a scientific fact there.

You have a belief that there is "climate change" (I assume that means, outside the bounds of natural variability) and then you have an opinion as to a single (or primary, this is unclear) causative agent, CO2.

[a_unique_person]

Read the IPCC Report, it's all in there.

[mhaze]

Read the IPCC Report, it's all in there.

That qualifies as a non answer, and ducking and dodging, in a context in which you are debating with people who have read these reports, and whom had often quoted them to you often to correct errors you made.

Perhaps you could read the IPPC reports indeed of RC.

Then perhaps respond to my assertion that Wentz 2007 clearly invalidates the climate modeling as used to support the conclusions of IPCC 2007.

[mhaze]

I think my mistake was thinking that you were saying, as a_unique_person posted, that Co2 is not responsible for AGW, or that AGW is not real, because H2O is a more significant greenhouse gas. And many do say just that, which is probably why I jumped the gun on you. Sorry, mate.

Repeating my comment to AUP.
Don't you think you should be qualifying that statement in terms of

"I believe" or "My opinion is" ?

Certainly you do not have a scientific fact there.

You have a belief that there is "climate change" (I assume that means, outside the bounds of natural variability) and then you have an opinion as to a single (or primary, this is unclear) causative agent, CO2.

[David Rodale]

Read the IPCC Report, it's all in there.

Show us.

[HghrSymmetry]

Please remember:
Be civil and polite.
Attack the argument, not the arguer.
Keep the thread on topic.



Hi Chill,
Perhaps you haven't heard....it's all civil here. Absolutely no vitriol.

[mhaze]

We don't have time. The CO2 we add persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The feedback mechanisms are kicking in, with albedo changing, for example.

By just agreeing to disagree, you win, since we end up effectively doing nothing.

We don't have time.A. We have time, plenty of it.
The CO2 we add persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.B. 5-15 years
The feedback mechanisms are kicking in, with albedo changing, for example.C. Natural climate variability. Naturally occurring feedbacks.
By just agreeing to disagree, you win, since we end up effectively doing nothing. D. Sounds great. We could address substantial problems of the world instead of imaginary ones.

[a_unique_person]

That qualifies as a non answer, and ducking and dodging, in a context in which you are debating with people who have read these reports, and whom had often quoted them to you often to correct errors you made.

Perhaps you could read the IPPC reports indeed of RC.

Then perhaps respond to my assertion that Wentz 2007 clearly invalidates the climate modeling as used to support the conclusions of IPCC 2007.

Wentz does not invalidate the models. There are plenty of areas where the models are wrong.

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagnostic_subprojects.php

A whole project dedicated to improving climate modeling. They are way ahead of you, there are several projects that deal specifically with precipitation.

[mhaze]

Wentz does not invalidate the models. There are plenty of areas where the models are wrong.

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagnostic_subprojects.php

A whole project dedicated to improving climate modeling. They are way ahead of you, there are several projects that deal specifically with precipitation.

Perhaps what you are meaning here is that as the models incorporate new scientific findings, such as Wentz 2007, they become more accurate. Although arguably, that may make them less accurate by exposing alorithmic flaws. (climate is not a linear system)

But that is no different from my prior comment, that Wentz 2007 invalidates modeling done yesteryear and used by the IPCC in large part as the basis for its conclusions and future scenarios.

Look at it this way.
You are a general in a war. You have a modeled scenario that you have some confidence in in which your troops are facing the enemy across the valley. Your troops are facing the enemy across the valley. You need to decide whether to tell your troops to attack across the valley. The model says you will win if you do so. A courier comes in and says the enemy has moved....

[a_unique_person]

We don't have time.A. We have time, plenty of it.



You just have to see how Kyoto was effectively knackered to realise that realistic efforts to reduce CO2 will take years to produce results, if ever.


The CO2 we add persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.B. 5-15 years



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134


The feedback mechanisms are kicking in, with albedo changing, for example.C. Natural climate variability. Naturally occurring feedbacks.



Permafrost melting and accelerated glacier retreat suggests otherwise. That is 'natural' retreat was at a much slower rate.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif


Text and graphics may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form
for educational or non-profit purposes, provided that credit is given to the source. (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/intro.htm)



By just agreeing to disagree, you win, since we end up effectively doing nothing. D. Sounds great. We could address substantial problems of the world instead of imaginary ones.


The IPCC findings beg to differ.

[Skeptical Greg]

The Arctic is already worst case scenario, don't tell me they can't happen.Who said they can't ?
By claiming that the Arctic melting is a ' worst case scenario ', you are implying it's as bad as it can get; that further warming can't do any more damage.

You just made mhaze' point about alarmism.

Thank you ..

[mhaze]

Absolute nonsense. The Skeptic view.
Fact.
There are no tipping points.

You can prove that?

The burden of proof that the world will not end tommorrow is not on the one that says the world will not end tomorrow, but on the one that says it will. I can and have made a pretty strong case for it. But the burden of proof remains with you to convince others of it or not. There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.

Yes, it's a fabrication from Singer at al. At what point would you be prepared to admit it's not just a cycle?First, if you had been actually listening and reading the references you would know that the 60-80 year cycle is not referenced to Singer but several other scientists. Second, I would be happy to conclude that it was not a 60-80 year nature cycle when a substantial part of that cycle had not gone according to the dynamics of that cycle as laid out in the scientific literature. That could be determined either as a statistical anomaly or just via common sense approach. So I am ready to change my opinions thus as the facts change.

And you...?

I object strongly to your disparaging of scientists you don't agree with.
"He's a nutter". (Lindzen)
"It's a fabrication"(from Singer)
"CO2 science who made up supposed qualities of the models"
"CO2 science and others ... misrepresent"
The demonstrated scientific frauds and fabrications are all on your side. I repeat my previously offer - If you want to go ballistic if a ref to co2science, idso, or daly comes in, here's the deal. I'll not mention them, but I get to pick three people or websites you don't like or reference. The ones I pick will be ones that if engaged in the business of stock market promotion would now be spending time alone in their little room with iron bars.

[mhaze]

Who said they can't ?
By claiming that the Arctic melting is a ' worst case scenario ', you are implying it's as bad as it can get; that further warming can't do any more damage.

You just made mhaze' point about alarmism.

Thank you ..

They have these concepts of "tipping points", where one thing leads to another more horrifying thing, and on and on and on.

[mhaze]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

Now, this is supposed to prove up the "CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years" hypothesis. I said 5-15. Your reference is 2005, mine is 2007. Do you have anything not disproven by recent work?

[quote]
Permafrost melting and accelerated glacier retreat suggests otherwise. That is 'natural' retreat was at a much slower rate.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif
The IPCC findings beg to differ.Sure, we can look at the 60-90 glaciers that are monitored out of the total of what, 67,000?

Oh. The ones that are retreating began their retreat way before CO2 concentrations went up. Doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?

If you think not, let's make a little chart up with average glacial retreat and CO2 levels on the same page.

Otherwise your evidence presented refutes your hypothesis.

[Skeptical Greg]

....

Oh. The ones that are retreating began their retreat way before CO2 concentrations went up. Doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?

...........

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

:D

[mhaze]

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

:D

The BIG factor (http://www.solarcycle24.com/)that does not can about the fantasies of man's evil CO2, technology, and industry.

[a_unique_person]

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

:D

So what?

[a_unique_person]

Who said they can't ?
By claiming that the Arctic melting is a ' worst case scenario ', you are implying it's as bad as it can get; that further warming can't do any more damage.

You just made mhaze' point about alarmism.

Thank you ..

The rate at which it is melting is worst case scenario. The actual effects for us are minimal, directly. However, that's a whole lot of albedo feedback that's going to be added to warming the rest of the planet a lot sooner than expected. The ice also helps to regulate the temperature, think of an ice cube in a glass of water on a hot day. It also means the models may be underestimating the rate at which warming is going to happen for the rest of the planet.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=134

Now, this is supposed to prove up the "CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years" hypothesis. I said 5-15. Your reference is 2005, mine is 2007. Do you have anything not disproven by recent work?

[quote]

The 'cluthing at straws' syndrome. The extra CO2 that cannot be absorbed by natural processes is the problem. The charts of the CO2 increase indicate 5-15 years is not actually happening to stop that increase.



Sure, we can look at the 60-90 glaciers that are monitored out of the total of what, 67,000?

Oh. The ones that are retreating began their retreat way before CO2 concentrations went up. Doesn't that disprove your hypothesis?



I have already pointed out, the natural rate increased in recent times.

60-90 glaciers is a reasonable sample. You can see where they are located. They can tell how an election will go with only a few hundred people out of millions.


If you think not, let's make a little chart up with average glacial retreat and CO2 levels on the same page.

Otherwise your evidence presented refutes your hypothesis.


It does nothing of the sort.

[Skeptical Greg]

What's even funnier, AUP didn't seem to notice that several of the glaciers, according to his chart, have been advancing for the last 20 years. ( up to 2000 )

:D

So what?Are you serious ?

[mhaze]

Permafrost melting and accelerated glacier retreat suggests otherwise. That is 'natural' retreat was at a much slower rate.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif

I have already pointed out, the natural rate increased in recent times.

60-90 glaciers is a reasonable sample. You can see where they are located.


Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

[a_unique_person]

Are you serious ?

I'm wondering if you are.

[a_unique_person]

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

That's up to you, then. I think the records are quite clear and easy to understand.

[CapelDodger]

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.

Could you elaborate on that observation?

[mhaze]

That's up to you, then. I think the records are quite clear and easy to understand.

Helllooo????

[CapelDodger]

I'm wondering if you are.

Me too. It's no more than a suspicion yet, but I'm still gathering data.

[CapelDodger]

Helllooo????

We all realise that you do not find the records clear or easy to understand. There's no need to shout. The thing is, that's your problem. Not a problem with the records. Which most of us find clear and easy to understand.

[CapelDodger]

Are you serious ?
Do you think "several" is serious? Seriously? "Several" lacks impact, it doesn't shout "serious". Why do you think it matters at all?

[CapelDodger]

The BIG factor (http://www.solarcycle24.com/)that does not can about the fantasies of man's evil CO2, technology, and industry.

Again with the "evil". Can you not set emotion aside?

I will say it again, and why not : AGW is an Unintended Consequence. Value-judgements do not apply.

[bobdroege7]

The burden of proof that the world will not end tommorrow is not on the one that says the world will not end tomorrow, but on the one that says it will. I can and have made a pretty strong case for it. But the burden of proof remains with you to convince others of it or not. There is a 60-80 year sea ice cycle and you completely deny it.
First, if you had been actually listening and reading the references you would know that the 60-80 year cycle is not referenced to Singer but several other scientists. Second, I would be happy to conclude that it was not a 60-80 year nature cycle when a substantial part of that cycle had not gone according to the dynamics of that cycle as laid out in the scientific literature. That could be determined either as a statistical anomaly or just via common sense approach. So I am ready to change my opinions thus as the facts change.



Can you point me in the direction of the evidence for a 60-80 year sea ice cycle?

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you think "several" is serious? Seriously? "Several" lacks impact, it doesn't shout "serious". Why do you think it matters at all?I see the observation was lost on both of you..

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

[a_unique_person]

I see the observation was lost on both of you..

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

The prediction was never that all areas of the planet would increase in temperature in lock step. Look at the overall pattern.

[bobdroege7]

Looks like natural variation with possibly a negative correlation to CO2 levels.


Where is the advance that would correlate with the little ice age?

[Safe-Keeper]

Global warming is the increase of average temperature. Which means that some areas definitely can grow colder. I'll have a more detailed answer later.

[Pipirr]

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

Here's some background from the publication in Science:

Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1107046v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Oerlemans&searchid=1111000586989_7764&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=3/31/2005%22)
Johannes Hans Oerlemans 1

1 Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University

A temperature history for different parts of the world has been constructed from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, changes in glacier length were related to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century is 0.5 K. This warming was remarkably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.

Some commentary from statured climate scientists:

From the compilations (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129) of World Glacier Monitoring Service (and many other groups and individuals), we know that glacier retreat is in fact an essentially global phenomenon, with only a few isolated (and well understood) counter-examples, such as western Norway.

Diogenes, in the study some of the glaciers showed 'a rather dramatic advance' but most of them do not. The ones that do are the exceptions, for "well understood" reasons. For the rest, it was possible to identify "warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations".

One of the counter examples from that figure is the Franz-Josef glacier in NZ. The glacier is currently 12 km long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Glacier) and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. It exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat, driven by differences between the volume of meltwater at the foot of the glacier and volume of snowfall feeding the névé.

Having retreated several kilometres between the 1940s and 1980s, the glacier entered an advancing phase in 1984 and at times has advanced at the phenomenal (by glacial standards) rate of 70 cm a day. The flow rate is about 10 times that of typical glaciers. Over the longer term, the glacier has retreated since the last ice age, and it is believed that it extended into the sea some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.

From the description, it is an atypical glacier.

[Skeptical Greg]

From the description, it is an atypical glacier.Of course it is ..;)

Looks like several in the chart were atypical ...

Retreating since the last ice age ... Hmmmm.. Who would have guessed ?

[mhaze]

Can you point me in the direction of the evidence for a 60-80 year sea ice cycle?

Sure. Here are just two references, one is from an interview in the Scotsman of the arctic climatologist Dr. Chad Dick. The fisherman's guide IMHO much more interested but you be the judge. There are lots of more (technical, peer reviewed) references and this is well known - the newspapers shouting "Alarm" simply are not telling the public about it.

The short story is that the low arctic ice is a good sign because it means the end of the cycle is near and ice will start going up, with climate getting cooler in some areas - those affected by these issues. Note that Dr. Dick does not say his work shows no AGW, he simply says that if the sea ice goes down and does not come back, that would be due to AGW.

In other words, the next few years and the sea ice would tell you pretty conclusively if there was any AGW at all.... Smart guy, that scientist. Discusses all sides of the issue quite intelligently.

But first the fish story.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf) The ppossibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410 (UN Document, seems mostly Russian scientists).

From Chapter 3.

Commercial fish catches shows R=0.84 correlation between Californian sardine and the ACI (Atmospheric Circulation Index), and R=0.68 for the Japanese sardine. Pacific salmon R=0.82, Peruvian sardine 0.90, R=0.85 Chilien Jack Mackeral and others are similar.

The ACI index exhibits regular, roughly 30 year, alternation of the "circulation epochs" characterized by predominance of either zonal or meridional components. These epochs correspond to the periods of either global warming or global cooling...maximum production of seven of the twelve major commercial species fall on the "warm" period, whereas the production of the remaining 5 species is in good agreement with the "cool" period.

Regular alternation of the epochs for the last 110 years suggests that the present epoch of "zonal" circulation is coming into its final phase and the new "meridional" epoch is due....recent data confirm this viewpoint. The population of Atlantic (and Pacific) herring has already started to rise.


Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm)

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm


file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mike/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/EverNoteTempDir/0000@232_image002.jpg
Wed 9 Mar 2005
IAN JOHNSTON
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature. The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.

The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years. As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming. Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.

However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results. He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.

"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back.
"If it doesn’t come back it shows we are in serious trouble. Sea ice has a whole lot of effects on climate and it is pretty important."

[mhaze]

Where is the advance that would correlate with the little ice age?

Do not expect the chart from Realclimate to show that. That would refute their basis for existence. They are only showing recent measurements during the time frame in which we came out of the little ice age.

Note that "coming out of the little ice age" of course we expect the planet to warm up slightly - that is just saying the same thing twice, right? The question is whether AUP's chart illustrates AGW, as asserted and whether, as stated, it shows an "accelerating trend".

I don't see that at all. Two people can look at the same ink blot and one sees an ink blot, the other a rabbit.

Actual numerical data is used to solve a problem of this sort. Going from memory here, total glacial mass loss was in the -450 cu km to + 150 cu km with a confidence level of 95%. We could take the midpoint there and agree that 300 cu km was being lost per year, but that actually isn't what the scientists say. They state the range and say it is 95% certain it is somewhere within that range.

Back to the question that AUP attempted to answer with this chart - does it show an "accelerating trend in glacier loss" that is obviously due to AWP?

If so, please substantiate that. Don't just say it is obvious from looking at the chart.

[varwoche]

Note that Dr. Dick does not say his work shows no AGW, he simply says that if the sea ice goes down and does not come back, that would be due to AGW ... Smart guy, that scientist. Discusses all sides of the issue quite intelligently. I hope you noticed what your esteemed scientist said: We know there is warming and that it’s caused by humans

[mhaze]

I hope you noticed what your esteemed scientist said:

Unlike you I have no fundamentalist, alarmist belief set that constricts what or who I quote or consider a reputable scientists.

By the way, neither you nor AUP have taken me up on my rather generous offer to abstain from mentioning or quoting 3 aggravating sources. I am concerned that you may have missed this.

I'd pick ones that if they were engaged in business development and promotion, and used the same tactics, would be behind bars.

Your chance - either take my offer, or expect to see references to and from Idso, Daly, and co2science as and when appropriate.

Your choice. Want to know whom my picks would be?:D

[varwoche]

The burden of proof that the world will not end tommorrow is not on the one that says the world will not end tomorrow, but on the one that says it will. Seeing as I'm unaware of a climate scientist who says the world is ending tomorrow, nor have I seen posts here that say the world is ending tomorrow, when you complain incessantly about AGW alarmism and you bandy about alarmistic straw in the process, it's a curious thing to behold.

[mhaze]

Seeing as I'm unaware of a climate scientist who says the world is ending tomorrow, nor have I seen posts here that say the world is ending tomorrow, when you complain incessantly about AGW alarmism and you bandy about alarmistic straw in the process, it's a curious thing to behold.

Let's rephrase the argument then, which was addressed to AUP, not a climate scientist, by the way.

The burden of proof that there is a problem that requires action, that urgent action is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem, is upon the one that asserts that there is a problem, that urgency is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem.

The short story? You believe and want A,B,C,D, you prove A, B, C, D.

(We are probably all skeptics on D...):rolleyes:

[Pipirr]

Let's rephrase the argument then, which was addressed to AUP, not a climate scientist, by the way.

The burden of proof that there is a problem that requires action, that urgent action is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem, is upon the one that asserts that there is a problem, that urgency is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem.

The short story? You believe and want A,B,C,D, you prove A, B, C, D.

(We are probably all skeptics on D...):rolleyes:


Are you banging on about taxation again?

Why not take it to the politics or business sections. You might actually get a response to it over there.

[a_unique_person]

Of course it is ..;)

Looks like several in the chart were atypical ...

Retreating since the last ice age ... Hmmmm.. Who would have guessed ?

Look at the rate of retreat, it accelerates after CO2 starts accumulating. If you can't see an overall trend, I don't know why.

[a_unique_person]

Let's rephrase the argument then, which was addressed to AUP, not a climate scientist, by the way.

The burden of proof that there is a problem that requires action, that urgent action is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem, is upon the one that asserts that there is a problem, that urgency is required, that taxation and penalties on business and individuals worldwide is required, and that said taxation and penalties will effect a solution to said problem.

The short story? You believe and want A,B,C,D, you prove A, B, C, D.

(We are probably all skeptics on D...):rolleyes:

Read the IPCC report. It's all in there.

[CapelDodger]

Are you banging on about taxation again?

We may not think taxation is scientific, and for good reason, but mhaze thinks it is, for what passes for good reason in his mind.

Why not take it to the politics or business sections. You might actually get a response to it over there.

Nobody ever died from lack of response in the Politics forum :) .

[CapelDodger]

Looks like several in the chart were atypical ...

Several out of how many?

[CapelDodger]

Let's rephrase the argument then ...

Tell it like it is; lets retreat to yet another indefensible position.

[Pipirr]

Nobody ever died from lack of response in the Politics forum :) .


Heck yeah. I'd bring popcorn :)

[CapelDodger]

Seeing as I'm unaware of a climate scientist who says the world is ending tomorrow, nor have I seen posts here that say the world is ending tomorrow, when you complain incessantly about AGW alarmism and you bandy about alarmistic straw in the process, it's a curious thing to behold.

It has a peculiar fascination, doesn't it?

mhaze seems to have (probably unwittingly) taken on, or been gifted with, the role of point-man in this foray. Expendable, and emerging from the jungle like a Japanese Imperial soldier, in about 2025. Dazed and confused.

[mhaze]

Are you banging on about taxation again?

Why not take it to the politics or business sections. You might actually get a response to it over there.

If you are referring to the Bush bashing, war-bashing, and various other things I agree. However....

The IPCC documents are intimately interwoven with economic analysis. In implementation that means tax and fine, cap and trade, and the like. Regulation and taxation is proposed to achieve a goal of reduction of atmospheric CO2 content. These are inseparable.

Going to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

The very essence of this is development of "scenarios", each with certain economic model assumptions (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm). These are labeled B1, A1T, B2, A1B, A2, and A1F1. Each of these has -

a predicted temperature change "likely range" and a predicted "sea level rise".
a "storyline" with specific economic development and technological infrastructure presumed for various regional areas of the world.
various attempts (or lack of) to cope with various greenhouse gas scenarios that develop as a result of that "world model".http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/089.htm

It is in the area of economics you find the actual work, and actual answers - to assertions like these which are often made here -

"we must take action now"
"urgent action is required"
"cap and trade emissions programs" will or will not work
what optimum levels per ton of CO2 would produce the desired results
Here are a few examples of current - thought in these areas. Note that we have some history (of failure) of Kyoto, so this is not as speculative as it was a decade ago.

Keller et al 2007 (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/2/2/024004) Environmental Research Letters "The regrets of procrastination in climate policy"


"Is the world waiting too long to start serious action to abate CO2 emissions?"
The regrets increase with increasing procrastination period and with decreasing limits on global mean temperature increase.

Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007 Science Direct "Mistreatment of the economic impacts (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2543-2007.21.pdf) of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change."

(the Stern Report) "overestimates propagate through the report's estimate of future global losses...a more comprehensive analysis underscores the importance of adaptation in any comprehensive portfolio of responses"

Nordhaus 2007 (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf) The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy


Nordhaus establishes that for $13 trillion in economic benefits from abating CO2 (using some middle of the road presumptions about the effects of CO2) to cost $17 trillion. Therefore, he argues that doing nothing or doing careful adaptive strategies would be better on a cost benefits basis than massive implementation of Kyoto type plans.

Nordhaus, 2007 (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/stern_050307.pdf) - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change


"....the (Stern) Review's unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are consistent with today's marketplace real interest rates and savings rates.....Hence the central questions about global warming policy - how much, how fast, and how costly - remain open. The (Stern) Review informs but does not answer these fundamental questions.

[Skeptical Greg]

Look at the rate of retreat, it accelerates after CO2 starts accumulating. Except where the ice is advancing ..

And yes, I would expect the glaciers to show an overall trend of retreating after an ice age has ended ..

You would have to show that man made CO2 is the main culprit, if that is your claim.

[mhaze]

Look at the rate of retreat, it accelerates after CO2 starts accumulating. If you can't see an overall trend, I don't know why.

What year about is that, AUP, where you see the accelerating trend start?

We are either mis communicating on this, or it actually is a case of different people looking at an inkblot and one seeing an inkblot, and the other a rabbit.

[Pipirr]

The IPCC documents are intimately interwoven with economic analysis. In implementation that means tax and fine, cap and trade, and the like. Regulation and taxation is proposed to achieve a goal of reduction of atmospheric CO2 content. These are inseparable.

Nope. The evidence of climate change, the evidence for global warming, these are scientific issues. They can be kept completely separate from the economics, if you were so minded.

Perhaps you would be amazed by how many papers in climatology don't segue into discussions of cap and trade?

If you really want to discuss the economics, take it elsewhere. Seriously, if you genuinely want to discuss that aspect, start a thread in politics or business. I would expect that you would get a lively debate.

[mhaze]

Except where the ice is advancing ..

And yes, I would expect the glaciers to show an overall trend of retreating after an ice age has ended ..


Maybe we can devise a test for that ...We can each take an ice cream cone out of the freezer and hold it and watch it.

It won't melt.

Will it?

[a_unique_person]

What year about is that, AUP, where you see the accelerating trend start?

We are either mis communicating on this, or it actually is a case of different people looking at an inkblot and one seeing an inkblot, and the other a rabbit.

There is a clear downward trend to about 1900, then it accellerates after that.

[a_unique_person]

Maybe we can devise a test for that ...We can each take an ice cream cone out of the freezer and hold it and watch it.

It won't melt.

Will it?

Then just to spice it up, raise the temperature in the room after they have started to melt, and see if that causes a change in the rate they melt at.

[mhaze]

There is a clear downward trend to about 1900, then it accellerates after that.

I get maybe 5 accelerating past 1900, of those 12 which have a history of at least 200 years.

[varwoche]

You would have to show that man made CO2 is the main culprit, if that is your claim. No comment on the "main culprit" part. However, the notion that AGW is a significant cause of Arctic ice retreat is a claim being made by... Dr. Ted Lambos, Glaciologist / US National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1912202.htm?enviro)... He discounts the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles ... caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he says is the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes ... and a team of NASA scientists (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html)... NASA scientists have found that a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic ... According to this new research, ozone was responsible for one-third to half of the observed warming trend in the Arctic ... and by a team of scientists from Scripps, Brookhaven, US Dept of Energy (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=712)... The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities, in the form of rapidly retreating and thinning sea ice ... and by a team of scientists from NCAR, UW, and McGill (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/arctic.shtml)... The recent retreat of Arctic sea ice is likely to accelerate so rapidly that the Arctic Ocean could become nearly devoid of ice during summertime as early as 2040 ... rates of greenhouse gas emissions can affect the probability of abrupt ice loss ... amongst others.

[a_unique_person]

I get maybe 5 accelerating past 1900, of those 12 which have a history of at least 200 years.

I get 8 with a long history, 6 of which show accelerated change.

[bobdroege7]

Sure. Here are just two references, one is from an interview in the Scotsman of the arctic climatologist Dr. Chad Dick. The fisherman's guide IMHO much more interested but you be the judge. There are lots of more (technical, peer reviewed) references and this is well known - the newspapers shouting "Alarm" simply are not telling the public about it.

The short story is that the low arctic ice is a good sign because it means the end of the cycle is near and ice will start going up, with climate getting cooler in some areas - those affected by these issues. Note that Dr. Dick does not say his work shows no AGW, he simply says that if the sea ice goes down and does not come back, that would be due to AGW.

In other words, the next few years and the sea ice would tell you pretty conclusively if there was any AGW at all.... Smart guy, that scientist. Discusses all sides of the issue quite intelligently.

But first the fish story.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf
Climate Change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches: (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf) The ppossibility of forecasting. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper #410 (UN Document, seems mostly Russian scientists).

From Chapter 3.

Commercial fish catches shows R=0.84 correlation between Californian sardine and the ACI (Atmospheric Circulation Index), and R=0.68 for the Japanese sardine. Pacific salmon R=0.82, Peruvian sardine 0.90, R=0.85 Chilien Jack Mackeral and others are similar.

The ACI index exhibits regular, roughly 30 year, alternation of the "circulation epochs" characterized by predominance of either zonal or meridional components. These epochs correspond to the periods of either global warming or global cooling...maximum production of seven of the twelve major commercial species fall on the "warm" period, whereas the production of the remaining 5 species is in good agreement with the "cool" period.

Regular alternation of the epochs for the last 110 years suggests that the present epoch of "zonal" circulation is coming into its final phase and the new "meridional" epoch is due....recent data confirm this viewpoint. The population of Atlantic (and Pacific) herring has already started to rise.


Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm)

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm


file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mike/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/EverNoteTempDir/0000@232_image002.jpg
Wed 9 Mar 2005
IAN JOHNSTON
THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.
After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature. The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.

The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years. As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming. Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.

However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results. He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.

"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back.
"If it doesn’t come back it shows we are in serious trouble. Sea ice has a whole lot of effects on climate and it is pretty important."

Check out CNN your trusty news source

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/

The arctic ice pack is at is lowest level ever recorded now and it is still shrinking. I think it is way lower than 60-80 years ago, else Peary and Scotts stories of arctic exploration would have had stories of swim calls.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/live/live.html?in_article_id=468256&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

No swim calls up there in 1960,

Alright, the last picture is in February, but is the first I found of a sub at the north pole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_%28SSN-583%29

http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm

Though, there were some naturally occurring ice free areas in 2004

1962 in August, little free water

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857805.jpg


Just some nice pictures, doesn't prove anything

[a_unique_person]

It would be worth asking Dr Dick what he thinks in view of the current state of the Arctic, just two years after he asked question.

[a_unique_person]

EG.



Using satellite data and imagery, NSIDC now estimates the Arctic ice pack covers 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles) -- equal to just less than half the size of the United States. This figure is about 20 percent less than the previous all-time low record of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) set in September 2005



http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[mhaze]

Check out CNN your trusty news source

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/11/arctic.ice.cover/

The arctic ice pack is at is lowest level ever recorded now and it is still shrinking. I think it is way lower than 60-80 years ago, else Peary and Scotts stories of arctic exploration would have had stories of swim calls.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/live/live.html?in_article_id=468256&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

No swim calls up there in 1960,

Alright, the last picture is in February, but is the first I found of a sub at the north pole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sargo_%28SSN-583%29

http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm

Though, there were some naturally occurring ice free areas in 2004

1962 in August, little free water

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0857805.jpg


Just some nice pictures, doesn't prove anything

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)

Sure looks like a cycle. Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle-but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

[Geckko]

How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

[a_unique_person]

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)

Sure looks like a cycle. Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle-but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

Global warming acts to jack the whole chaotic equation up a notch. You can still have your cycles, but they'll be occurring at a higher temperature.

[mhaze]

I get 8 with a long history, 6 of which show accelerated change.

Inkblots, then. Actual data is better.

I won't argue that more than 50% of glaciers are shrinking and that that is probably due to a warmer climate. But how do you attribute a given part of that to man made causes excluding obvious stuff like changes in land use in the vicinity. The connection to co2 is most tenuous.

[a_unique_person]

How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Good question. The Antarctic has a different climate system compared to the Arctic.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/

[mhaze]

Global warming acts to jack the whole chaotic equation up a notch. You can still have your cycles, but they'll be occurring at a higher temperature.

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

[a_unique_person]

Inkblots, then. Actual data is better.

I won't argue that more than 50% of glaciers are shrinking and that that is probably due to a warmer climate. But how do you attribute a given part of that to man made causes excluding obvious stuff like changes in land use in the vicinity. The connection to co2 is most tenuous.

Kilimanjaro is one example of intense research.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157

[a_unique_person]

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

Not at all. Till now, the climate models, IIRC, could not include natural cycles into their programs due to complexity and resources. The Hadley Centre in GB now claims to be the first model to try to do just that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm

[Skeptical Greg]

Then just to spice it up, raise the temperature in the room after they have started to melt, and see if that causes a change in the rate they melt at.A million bucks says they won't get bigger after you raise the temperature..

( I just remembered, I don't have a million bucks. Would you settle for a case of
Fosters Special Bitter ? )

[CapelDodger]

No swim calls up there in 1960,

Alright, the last picture is in February, but is the first I found of a sub at the north pole.

They were keeping a low profile up there in those days. Cold War, MAD, all that stuff.

As an aside, the strategic importance of the Arctic Ocean is why there's such good data available for ice-thickness and extent since the 60's. There's nothing like being defence-related to get funding for your research, and those subs might as well be doing something while they're skulking down there.

The Southern Ocean and Antarctica are far less well-known than the Northern Atlantic and Arctic, despite the best efforts of Australians and New Zealanders. No strategic significance, doncha know. Not to the big money and populations, anyway.

[CapelDodger]

It would be worth asking Dr Dick what he thinks in view of the current state of the Arctic, just two years after he asked question.

It certainly would. I'm sure he'll have taken note of the accelerated loss and realised the implication. Which is that either the 60-80 year cycle is very oddly-shaped, or it's being overriden by a dominant forcing. That being AGW, to the rational and educated mind.

[CapelDodger]

Not at all. Till now, the climate models, IIRC, could not include natural cycles into their programs due to complexity and resources. The Hadley Centre in GB now claims to be the first model to try to do just that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm

But one serious volcano and all bets are off :) .

Hats off to these guys. It's real cock-on-the-block stuff. That's confidence. My money's on them being right.

They predict mild La Nina conditions for the next two years, as I understand it, which might bring some temporary relief (or just more floods) to Australia. In the longer term, though, it doesn't look pretty.

[CapelDodger]

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

I'm surprised they have anything much to say about your "cycles". Hansen and the IPCC mostly concern themselves with the practical effect of 383ppmCO2. Mann is famous for his climate reconstruction (and fixation on hockey).

Their work is based on observations and physics, your "cycles" are purely statistical derivations of noisy data. The 60-80 year Arctic cycle is credible, and there's a similarly derived 60-80 year rainfall cycle in the continental US, the last minimum being around the Dustbowl. It may be a long-wave cycle of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the historic Arctic ice-extent data is heavily slanted towards the Atlantic end of things.

Whatever, your cycle is just another broken reed. There's a new player in town, and things will never be the same again. The world's first industrialised species is making its presence felt.

[CapelDodger]

Thanks. That's the point I've been trying to make.

That's NOT what Mann, Hansen and the IPCC say.

I'm surprised they have anything much to say about your "cycles". Hansen and the IPCC mostly concern themselves with the practical effect of 383ppmCO2. Mann is famous for his climate reconstruction (and fixation on hockey).

Their work is based on observations and physics, your "cycles" are purely statistical derivations of noisy data. The 60-80 year Arctic cycle is credible, and there's a similarly derived 60-80 year rainfall cycle in the continental US, the last minimum being around the Dustbowl. It may be a long-wave cycle of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the historic Arctic ice-extent data is heavily slanted towards the Atlantic end of things.

Whatever, your "cycle" is just another broken reed. There's a new player in town, and things will never be the same again. The world's first industrialised species is making its presence felt.

[a_unique_person]

A million bucks says they won't get bigger after you raise the temperature..

( I just remembered, I don't have a million bucks. Would you settle for a case of
Fosters Special Bitter ? )

The experiment you have set up has us controlling the temperature. How about we add in a little chaotic behaviour to the temperature, and some ice cream rain?

[CapelDodger]

How does this fit into the equation? Apparently increased sea ice coverage in the Southern Hemisphere:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

South Pole : Continent surrounded by ocean.

North Pole : Ocean almost surrounded by continent.


Very different beasts, very different ice-dynamics. In the south, sea-ice is dominated by the ice-flow off the continent; in the north it's dominated by how the ocean freezes.

[mhaze]

A million bucks says they won't get bigger after you raise the temperature..

( I just remembered, I don't have a million bucks. Would you settle for a case of
Fosters Special Bitter ? )

ice cream was so much fun.
Lets try some pie. But, is it a hot pie? They say it is about to burn up.
70% measures 2C hotter than it really is. Is our pie hot or not hot?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446e877e251197.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8267)

The pie chart of US temperatures monitoring sites.
Anthony Watt's interim results.
www.surfacestations.org
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#comments

[mhaze]

your "cycles" are purely statistical derivations of noisy data. The 60-80 year Arctic cycle is credible, and there's a similarly derived 60-80 year rainfall cycle in the continental US, the last minimum being around the Dustbowl. It may be a long-wave cycle of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the historic Arctic ice-extent data is heavily slanted towards the Atlantic end of things.

Whatever, your "cycle" is just another broken reed. There's a new player in town, and things will never be the same again. The world's first industrialised species is making its presence felt.

Yes, indeed we are.

By scoffing at alarmist claims of those species afflicted with climatoGOREfrezia, lobotowarmingmyopia, and the most incurable carbondioxidethrombosis.

[CapelDodger]

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

There were people nuts enough to live around the North-West Passage, and they didn't report anything like today's lack of ice. If you're going to take comfort from this cycle, it'll surely have to match the previous minimum. Sometime in the 1920's to 40's. Do you have any anectdotal evidence for an equivalent minimum?


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)

Sure looks like a cycle.

But there's a new influence. Human-induced greenhouse warming. An exponential influence, which is why it's only featuring in modern times. There is no refuge in the past

Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle ...

Your cycle has already been blown away by AGW. AGW has muscled its way into dominance.

... but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Ignoring the cycle actually reduces the observed AGW. Including a cycle that is working against AGW is an easy get-out, if one's intention is to exaggerate the effect.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

Your cycle lies kicked to death on the road we are going down.

[CapelDodger]

I see the observation was lost on both of you..

I see my point was lost on you. Do you seriously think several out of several hundred is significant?

Why, if the planet is getting warmer, would some of the glaciers show a rather dramatic advance?

Pass me the glacier, then ask me again.

If th planet isn't getting warmer, why are all the other glaciers retreating? That's a question from me.

I'm really trying to understand how warmer = more ice ...

It depends on where and how the ice is formed. For instance, in Patagonia there's a glacier that's advancing because its source is very high, in altitude and latitude, and is accumulating the extra moisture generated by the warmer southern oceans. That creates extra pressure on the whole glacier, and so thrusts out the bottom end. The increased melt-water (due to global warming) in the lower reaches lubricates the process. Wham, bam, advancing glacier in a warming world.

Pass me another one.

I see my observation was lost on you.

At least I answered your sort-of question. Are you still struggling to understand?

[CapelDodger]

The pie chart of US temperatures monitoring sites.

Well, won't that make a difference. Pie-charts as climate forcings ... it's new, I'll grant you that.

[CapelDodger]

Heck yeah. I'd bring popcorn :)

I'm still in recovery from Politics, I just can't go there. I lost years of my life to it (and made some friends), and I'll lose no more. I'm utterly sworn off.

I'm eager for reports, though : is that where Diamond et al are hanging out? Damn' little sign of them around here.

[mhaze]

AGW has muscled its way into dominance.


Really? It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

[a_unique_person]

Really? It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

Read the IPCC report.

[Tex Luthor]

Read the IPCC report.

This is one of the first times in modern history where we have science by inquisition. Follow the money, those who oppose the man created global warming stance are ridiculed, ostracised, and even fired - why?

[a_unique_person]

ice cream was so much fun.
Lets try some pie. But, is it a hot pie? They say it is about to burn up.
70% measures 2C hotter than it really is. Is our pie hot or not hot?

[/URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446e877e251197.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8267)

The pie chart of US temperatures monitoring sites.
Anthony Watt's interim results.
www.surfacestations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org)
[URL]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2048#comments

You are talking about UHI. It's already taken into account.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110

[a_unique_person]

This is one of the first times in modern history where we have science by inquisition. Follow the money, those who oppose the man created global warming stance are ridiculed, ostracised, and even fired - why?

Have you read the report?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Lets suppose you are a climate scientist in a position of power.
Your profession used to be boring and it looks that every other scientist (geneticist, chemistry, computer) were getting all the grants and the public attention.
But suddenly there is a new field of study. Global Warming. Earth is being menaced by a terrible force, and it looks that YOU are the one that can solve it.
You found yourself giving advice to police makers. The new budget for this field is 6.7 billion dollars for the next year. You are receiveing grants and public attention in a way you never dream off. But there come those little, small voices who start to raise doubts about the nature of the warming we are experimenting. They are even looking at the data and the algorithms you elaborated to demostrate your position. They are challenging your worst case scenarios......they are pointing the changing nature of the climate.

Imagine what a tragedy will be for you that somebody demostrate that you are wrong and there is nothing tho worry about !:jaw-dropp. Would you welcome that research?

For those who care, I guess that next year will be a very good time to cacth the discussion about AGW again . Data auditing and some revisions of the cycles theories are very active right now.


This is one of the first times in modern history where we have science by inquisition. Follow the money, those who oppose the man created global warming stance are ridiculed, ostracised, and even fired - why?

[a_unique_person]

Lets suppose you are a climate scientist in a position of power.
Your profession used to be boring and it looks that every other scientist (geneticist, chemistry, computer) were getting all the grants and the public attention.
But suddenly there is a new field of study. Global Warming. Earth is being menaced by a terrible force, and it looks that YOU are the one that can solve it.
You found yourself giving advice to police makers. The new budget for this field is 6.7 billion dollars for the next year. You are receiveing grants and public attention in a way you never dream off. But there come those little, small voices who start to raise doubts about the nature of the warming we are experimenting. They are even looking at the data and the algorithms you elaborated to demostrate your position. They are challenging your worst case scenarios......they are pointing the changing nature of the climate.

Imagine what a tragedy will be for you that somebody demostrate that you are wrong and there is nothing tho worry about !:jaw-dropp. Would you welcome that research?

For those who care, I guess that next year will be a very good time to cacth the discussion about AGW again . Data auditing and some revisions of the cycles theories are very active right now.



Fiction is now evidence?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Ask Hansen...or better, follow up the "code" saga.

[a_unique_person]

Hansens code has stood up to the test already, ten years after his presentation to congress, his projection has been accurate.

[a_unique_person]

Ask Hansen...or better, follow up the "code" saga.

Once again, does fiction now count as evidence?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2957463#post2957463)
Really? It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

Read the IPCC report.

Yes I have (and agree with you that others should)
It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

[mhaze]

You are talking about UHI. It's already taken into account.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110

No. This is not a matter of opinion and the spin does not work.

It is really the first effort to get it right.

[David Rodale]

You are talking about UHI. It's already taken into account.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=110

I notice they cite Hansen 2001, interesting.
Try a bit of reading:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=uhi&submit=Search
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-145.pdf
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Steve McIntyre disagrees with your link's assessment. Would you like to bet who wins? We won't even have to wait 50 years for this. In fact, try reading something different for once, it's good to do. The house of cards is falling.
http://climateaudit.org/
I'll tell you what Unique. You can quote your source all you want. Let's have a friendly wager: within 6 months if Steve McIntyre's efforts are fruitless and he doesn't show conclusively that the surface temperature record is unreliable and erroneous, I will publicly state that I was completely off base and your statement "UHI was already addressed" was correct. However, if he does, you must state your sources are unreliable, not to be trusted and IPCC is a load of dung. Deal?

BTW, as I have asked for evidence for CO2 warming, Steve M does as well. The request is still the same in his words:
I regularly ask readers who are critical of me to provide a citation to a detailed exposition of how doubled CO2 results in 2.5 deg C - in which all arguments and assumptions are pulled together. No one has been able to provide one. I do not suggest that such an exposition is impossible, but the seeming absence of such an exposition really frustrates the debate. Prior to the framing of AR4, I suggested that such an exposition be included but IPCC apparently decided that it was irrelevant.

Linking to IPCC is not evidence. It's not up to us to prove it doesn't exist, but the burden is on you to prove it does.

Finally, I'm wondering if current arctic temperatures and conditions are "unprecedented"? Has the NorthWest Passage ever been navigated before?

[mhaze]

Finally, I'm wondering if current arctic temperatures and conditions are "unprecedented"? Has the NorthWest Passage ever been navigated before?

Do ducks quack?

[a_unique_person]

Yes I have (and agree with you that others should)
It didn't need factual accuracy and scientific proof?
Interesting.....

It is based on science. Science is not about hard and fast facts that last forever, it's a continual progression from dark towards light. We will never reach the end. Science is full of facts that have subsequently been shown to be wrong. At present, the IPCC is presenting the best science we have on the topic, and it's mostly correct. They'll also tell you how confident they are of the claims they make, and the research they are based on.

[a_unique_person]

Linking to IPCC is not evidence. It's not up to us to prove it doesn't exist, but the burden is on you to prove it does.


Lucifuge dreams up a work of fiction, and you ignore him?

The IPCC reports are based on scientific research.

[mhaze]

BTW, as I have asked for evidence for CO2 warming, Steve M does as well. The request is still the same in his words:

Quote:
I regularly ask readers who are critical of me to provide a citation to a detailed exposition of how doubled CO2 results in 2.5 deg C - in which all arguments and assumptions are pulled together. No one has been able to provide one. I do not suggest that such an exposition is impossible, but the seeming absence of such an exposition really frustrates the debate. Prior to the framing of AR4, I suggested that such an exposition be included but IPCC apparently decided that it was irrelevant.



Gavin at Realclimate cannot answer that, he has been asked.

[a_unique_person]

I notice they cite Hansen 2001, interesting.
Try a bit of reading:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/index.php?s=uhi&submit=Search
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/NR-145.pdf
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf (http://www.geography.uc.edu/%7Ekenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf)
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

Steve McIntyre disagrees with your link's assessment. Would you like to bet who wins? We won't even have to wait 50 years for this. In fact, try reading something different for once, it's good to do. The house of cards is falling.
http://climateaudit.org/
I'll tell you what Unique. You can quote your source all you want. Let's have a friendly wager: within 6 months if Steve McIntyre's efforts are fruitless and he doesn't show conclusively that the surface temperature record is unreliable and erroneous, I will publicly state that I was completely off base and your statement "UHI was already addressed" was correct. However, if he does, you must state your sources are unreliable, not to be trusted and IPCC is a load of dung. Deal?



Given that obvious evidence is not agree upon here, it can't be a deal.


BTW, as I have asked for evidence for CO2 warming, Steve M does as well. The request is still the same in his words:


Linking to IPCC is not evidence. It's not up to us to prove it doesn't exist, but the burden is on you to prove it does.



IPCC states the process it used to estimate climate sensitivity.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf


Finally, I'm wondering if current arctic temperatures and conditions are "unprecedented"? Has the NorthWest Passage ever been navigated before?


Apparently not.

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

[David Rodale]

It is based on science. Science is not about hard and fast facts that last forever, it's a continual progression from dark towards light. We will never reach the end. Science is full of facts that have subsequently been shown to be wrong. At present, the IPCC is presenting the best science we have on the topic, and it's mostly correct. They'll also tell you how confident they are of the claims they make, and the research they are based on.
I thought the "science was settled"?

You are dodging the question. I am contending IPCC is NOT presenting the best science, and in fact ignores science disagreeing with their agenda; this is well documented for which references are available upon request. I'll even go as far to state it is a corrupt institution not wholly based on science, and in fact did not formulate their APM based on the actual scientist's reports. For instance, the hockey stick was not formally reviewed prior to being included in the 2001 TAR, Michael Mann was the lead author for the 'Observed Climate Variability and Change' group in 2001, essentially reviewing his own work and effectively trashed the hundreds of studies preceding his. IPCC is rife with this sort of chicanery. If the hockey stick was "vindicated" as you claim, why have all references to it disappeared in AR4?

Is the current Arctic temperatures and conditions unprecedented, and has the NorthWest passage ever been navigated in previous times?

You will not present us with any paper outlining in detail, the hypothesis of CO2 as the main driver of climate because such a paper does not exist. I and others however have posted articles falsifying the hypothesis as presented by IPCC. Shall we reiterate?

Is the surface temperature record accurate, reliable and honestly presented for public consumption? I contend it is not, believe in due time sadly our scientific institutions will be tainted by it, and public trust in those institutions will plummet.

[a_unique_person]

[/indent]
Gavin at Realclimate cannot answer that, he has been asked.

It's not that simple, so there won't ever be a simple answer.

[bobdroege7]

I think you pay yer $20,000 and get a ride to who North Pole where you are guarenteed a swim. Its a nuclear powered vessel either a sub or icebreaker. 60-80 years ago maybe no one was sufficiently nuts to want to...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Atlantic ocean temperatures. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039530005&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1)

Sure looks like a cycle. Note that we could discuss what small AGW trend could possibly be overlaid on a cycle-but you can't just ignore the cycle in order to create the biggest boldest AGW number.

Going down that road, AGW does not look alarming .

Geez, at least give me a monitoring station close to the north pole, 51.9 degrees north, hey I've been farther north than that, polar explorer that I am.

[bobdroege7]

xx

[robinson]

I'm all for Global Warming. I think it is pretty damn cool that we can stave off the next ice age, and open up all kinds of new real estate. Global Cooling, now that would suck.

I keep trying to tell people, if we can keep the planet warm by burning fossil fuels and killing off the forest, then the next time some giant ass volcano goes off, we can stop the next ice age from starting.

(A cloud of volcanic ash and dust blocking out the sun would kill off so much plant life, cause so many fires, that not only would it cool the planet down, it would dramatically increase the CO2 levels, as well as really suck on so many other levels.)

If we have the ability to warm the entire planet up by burning fuel, (and increasing methane production), then we rule the climate, not the other way around. Why the alarmist hue and cry?

[a_unique_person]

Bugger Jack, I'm OK?

Australia is just about to experience another year of drought, that has reduced the expected wheat harvest by about 50%.

[stevea]

'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!


Well it really doesn't answer any questions except as an appeal to authority (a fallacious argiument form). It's more a list of quips than a argument to reason. Listing some census of scientists has nothing to do with a rational argument.

One glaring minor example of a misleading argument is pointing to modern wineries in S.England. The author apparently didn't realize then most of the wine-grape varieties mentioned at this site are vinifera/labrusca and vinifera/riparea crosses (crosses of N.American and European grapes) which are inherently more cold hardy, yet obviously unavailable during the supposed age warming period. The use of grafted cross-N.American rootstock (almost universal in Europe after the phylloxera epidemic in the 1800s) also impacts the cold hardiness of grapes. Frankly it's relatively unimportant whether the same grape varieties would grow in the same area of S.UK when the argument refers to global climate. The records of the rise and fall of the Viking colonies of Greenland are a less controvertible example of a small region of the N.Atlantic which was considerably warmer within historical times.

This does point to a fundamental problem - that estimates of historical temperature are based on secondary measures which are of arguable accuracy.

==

I agree with the several people on this list who suggest that a display of the evidence and not an appeal to authority of scientists or politicians is necessary to form a convincing argument.

There have been some extreme ANTI-reason arguments in this thread which I find disgusting. Science requires continual skepticism of even the most basic and seemingly reliable foundational "facts". The idea that science is ever settled implies ignorance of the scientific method. The ad hominem, ad verecundium, and ad populum arguments (all well know as false arguments) and the strong use of emotive words to color the discussion is clear evidence that some proponents GW are not able to form a rational argument.

This doesn't weigh either in favor or against the reality of GW, but it does add heat and no light to this discussion.

[a_unique_person]

The evidence is all out there, it's just that 99% of the people posting here, including myself, would not be able to understand it. When I read climateaudit and I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[mhaze]

I'm all for Global Warming. I think it is pretty damn cool that we can stave off the next ice age, and open up all kinds of new real estate. Global Cooling, now that would suck.


Global cooling. A world with no bikinis...

We must ACT NOW to be sure that our actions today do not leave this horrid legacy to future generations. :D

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2773470#post2773470)
'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!

Well it really doesn't answer any questions except as an appeal to authority (a fallacious argiument form). It's more a list of quips than a argument to reason. Listing some census of scientists has nothing to do with a rational argument.

One glaring minor example of a ....

Actually, instead of reading "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" one could of course just read this thread. Reading that sort of script and reciting it isn't really the path to learning or understanding...a bit like reading the Bible for knowledge and wisdom isn't it?

[Safe-Keeper]

Actually, instead of reading "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" one could of course just read this threadRight, especially when before my link to the site there were a grand total of... how many posts in the thread? Nearly none? Right.

The records of the rise and fall of the Viking colonies of Greenland are a less controvertible example of a small region of the N.Atlantic which was considerably warmer within historical times.Don't judge places based on their names. The Yellow Sea is not really yellow and the Democratic Republic of North Korea is everything but free.

Seriously, though, read up on Viking settlements and why they failed. It was not because Greenland had been warm and suddenly cooled. It was because the Vikings flat out refused to adapt to the harsh climate of Greenland. They tried to farm and keep livestock, which failed miserably, and flat out refused to fish with kayaks (or without them) like the Inuits, for unknown reasons.

I'm all for Global Warming. I think it is pretty damn cool that we can stave off the next ice age, and open up all kinds of new real estate. Global Cooling, now that would suck.False dilemma. Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic. I keep ranting about how no one understands I'm joking when I move onto the Internet, but I'm of course prone to weakness in that field myself:o.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Again AUP, you made my day :)
It's not that simple, so there won't ever be a simple answer.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2773470#post2773470)
'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!


Well it really doesn't answer any questions except as an appeal to authority (a fallacious argiument form). It's more a list of quips than a argument to reason. Listing some census of scientists has nothing to do with a rational argument.
Quote:
Actually, instead of reading "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" one could of course just read this thread

Right, especially when before my link to the site there were a grand total of... how many posts in the thread? Nearly none? Right.


That's true, you mentioned it quite early.

But it make no sense to have someone reading and quoting the "How to talk to a climate skeptic" document written in 2005 when the skeptics are quoting 2007 published peer reviewed literature.

[robinson]

If you accept the theory that humans burning fuel, increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, leads to a warmer planet, if you accept that theory, then it means we can modify the climate. Not just the weather, the entire planets climate.

We can warm the earth up. :D

While I see either alarm or denial about this happening, if you accept that it is a valid theory, then there is no escaping the facts. We can modify the heat loss from the earth. We can make it warmer.

It is theorized we can also make it colder, (Nuclear Winter), by creating dust and clouds to block out sunlight. If you accept that theory, we can cool the planet, (obviously with serious other side effects, nuclear fallout and such).

So according to scientific theories, we can modify the earth.

I find that amazing. All the issues over GW seem to be focused ob what to do to stop this, or that it isn't happening, or that it is happening but not because of people. Those are all great subjects. I find the very concept that it can be done far more interesting.

If we have a catastrophic volcanic event, which usually leads to almost immediate cooling, we have the ability to speed up the rebound of the climate, avoiding an extended mini ice age. According to the theory that we can influence the global climate, we are not at the mercy of nature.

I find it far more likely that long before the feared ocean rise and global warming, there will be a volcanic event that will cool the world. (This happened in June 1991). Global temperature fell by .5 degrees Celsius. Due to Global Warming the climate rebounded, rather than the earth cooling, after two years the climate started warming again.

It wasn't as bad as Krakatoa in 1883. In the year following that eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888. It was bad in some areas.

A similar episode of climatic aberration was also observed in 1816, popularly known as the "Year Without a Summer", which has been connected to the explosion of the volcano Tambora in Sumbawa, Indonesia. Lots of people starved to death.

And then there was the really bad times, the Climate changes of 535–536. Theories range from the volcano Rabaul to yet again, Krakatoa exploding. In most cases in the past, large volcanoes have caused mass suffering, and climate change. Something happened, and it was a bad thing.

It might be that without the mass CO2 we are producing, the planet would be heading towards an ice age, or just way colder than it is now.

Those contrails we keep laying over the North Pole are also holding in heat. While many accept CO2 as a cause, the stiff resistance to what contrails are doing to the climate is pretty much the same as the minority resistance to CO2 being a problem.

So while I see most "scientist" saying CO2 emissions are causing GW, they are pretty quiet about the massive heat blanket that aircraft lay down everyday, especially over the arctic. Though Europe and the Americas also are influenced daily by contrails. In the daytime, the cloud cover cools the area, (decreased sunlight), but at night it keeps it far warmer. Just a simple fact of laying high level CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere.

With little effort we can change the immediate temperature of large areas of the planet, just by flying aircraft overhead. This is just a fact. What the flights are doing, adding upper atmosphere pollutants, CO2, and water vapor to the atmosphere, besides changing the amount of sunlight and heat loss, is pretty sketchy.

But some scientist suspect it is a cause of GW.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/

How bout them apples? Lots of flights over the Arctic, very very few over the Antarctic. Global Coincidence?



Of course.

[David Rodale]

Seriously, though, read up on Viking settlements and why they failed. It was not because Greenland had been warm and suddenly cooled. It was because the Vikings flat out refused to adapt to the harsh climate of Greenland. They tried to farm and keep livestock, which failed miserably, and flat out refused to fish with kayaks (or without them) like the Inuits, for unknown reasons.

How about this: It was warm when Erik the Red settled in 985, then later 3000-5000 inhabited Greenland. Over 400 building foundations have been discovered amongst countless artifacts, but no evidence of fish hooks, fishing boats or seal traps. The climate became inhospitable (cold) to the Viking’s way of living as they were not geared for cold harsh living conditions

They were farmers, and the reason for miserable failure was because they did not adapt when the climate did change to unfavorable conditions. Their yearly shipment(s) of tools and such dwindled, then stopped completely for the same reasons. There’s a reason why the Inuit survived and the Vikings did not, but they did for at least 300 years before their demise began. How could they have survived for that long if the climate was the same throughout that period, i.e cold? The winters became longer, Spring and Summer shorter.

Archeological records, including skeletal remains and temperature reconstructions confirm this. It wasn’t a tropical paradise, but the climate changed from a warmer inhabitable environment to bitter cold sometime in the ~14th century. Your revisionist history is incorrect. Believe it or not, there really was a MWP and LIA.

Of course it was named Greenland. Would a name like Wasteland have attracted new settlers?

[mhaze]

How about this: It was warm when Erik the Red settled in 985, then later 3000-5000 inhabited Greenland. .... The winters became longer, Spring and Summer shorter.

Archeological records, including skeletal remains and temperature reconstructions confirm this. It wasn’t a tropical paradise, but the climate changed from a warmer inhabitable environment to bitter cold sometime in the ~14th century. Your revisionist history is incorrect. Believe it or not, there really was a MWP and LIA.

Of course it was named Greenland. Would a name like Wasteland have attracted new settlers?

On Greenland, the University of Michigan’s Henry Fricke tested the
tooth enamel of dead Vikings for O-18 to O-16 ratios. Comparing the tooth
enamel of skeletons buried in 1100 with those buried in 1400, he documented a 1.5° C drop in temperatures.

R. Monastersky, “Viking Teeth Recount Sad Greenland Tale,” Science News, vol. 19, 1994. from Singer 2007. (http://forums.randi.org/www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/) "Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycle"

May we stop the rather silly but continuing discussion of "whether there was a little ice age" and "whether there was a medieval warming period"? These are well established historical facts. One may of course debate how much colder or hotter they were, but to suggest they did not exist is moving not in the direction of science.

[mhaze]

With little effort we can change the immediate temperature of large areas of the planet, just by flying aircraft overhead. This is just a fact. What the flights are doing, adding upper atmosphere pollutants, CO2, and water vapor to the atmosphere, besides changing the amount of sunlight and heat loss, is pretty sketchy.

But some scientist suspect it is a cause of GW.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/

How bout them apples? Lots of flights over the Arctic, very very few over the Antarctic. Global Coincidence?


Interesting theory.

Note also that in Varoche's recent post, providing four references that support the AGW theory of the recent events of Arctic ice melting, 2 of the 4 were looking at pollution, not CO2, as causative - also, there is the well known issue of the Asian Brown Clouds.

Now you mention Arctic cirrus and contrail by jets as another possible factor...

[mhaze]

Online video commentaries on Global Warming

Global Warming: An Unsettled Science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQH5aa5Q0s)
Television interview (and transcript) 10 minute video (http://www.eenews.net/tv/transcript/503) of Singer and Avery "Physical evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500 Year Climate Cycles"
the myth of global warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIuNxy6i1o0&mode=related&search=)
scare tactics in Incon Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&mode=related&search=) - laugh - ignore - repeat
traveling global warming show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E42mIvjzRw)
great global warming swindle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag)
globale warming opportunities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BURDqZVdKAc)
canadians for global warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8)
doomsday called off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search=)
data from the great global warming swindle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU&mode=related&search=)
Glenn Beck w. Durbin (Producer of GGWS) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efe7LzQ36Pk&mode=related&search=)
1958 - Global Warming - It's NOT newly Known (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOcqgnqWG8)
Myron Ebell Discusses Global Cooling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIqNuQakJg&NR=1)
Newsnight: CO2, they call it life, we call it a greenhouse gas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKUblhXJw8&mode=related&search=)
Freeman Dyson 2of2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&mode=related&search=) Global Warming / Stratospheric Cooling
1of2 Bogus Climate Models (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&mode=related&search=)
Global Warming Myth Exposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKL3Lv_DzfU&mode=related&search=): The Video Al Gore Fears Most
Global Warming The Funded Popular Lie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGCRK85gAI0&mode=related&search=)(Alan Combs)
MIchael Crichton on Global Warming Part 1 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k)
State of Fear: Science or Politics with Michael Crichton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZTXeJWApwY&mode=related&search=)
Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU&mode=related&search=)

[a_unique_person]

Michael Crichton? He makes up what people think and why. Fiction is not evidence. Heavy on evidence from earnest amateurs, very light on peer reviewed scientific research.

[bobdroege7]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058

NASA Finds Vast Regions of West Antarctica Melted in Recent Past

Ice melting everywhere

[David Rodale]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058

NASA Finds Vast Regions of West Antarctica Melted in Recent Past

Ice melting everywhere

Ice increasing everywhere!

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

A NEW RECORD FOR ANTARCTIC ICE EXTENT?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ea71437c69f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8311)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ea71b32297e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8312)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ea73c241686.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8313)

[a_unique_person]

Ice increasing everywhere!

I may be missing something here, but since when was the Antarctic everywhere?

[mhaze]

I may be missing something here, but since when was the Antarctic everywhere?

Since clearly it is growing, we need to be alarmed about the changes in albedo that will occur, the increased cold, and the possibility that ice growth it will spread exponentially as the Cold Tipping Points kick in. Covering all of Australia, New Zealand and Africa with a two mile thick slab of ice is not outside the realm of possibliity. Lowered sea levels will drydock all bays and shipping channels, rendering those which are not already icebound useless.

The process is likely to be irreversible once started.

Don't you think we need urgent action now?:rolleyes:

[mhaze]

Michael Crichton? He makes up what people think and why. Fiction is not evidence. Heavy on evidence from earnest amateurs, very light on peer reviewed scientific research.

Add this and it's cited articles to the argumento ad youtube list, some of which is of course light on peer reviewed research. Not all, though. Not Crichton, by the way, he loves handing people pages of references to back up what he says.

Global Warming: An Unsettled Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQH5aa5Q0s
Moberg 2005
Esper et all 2005 "Climate: past ranges and future changes"
2004 Storch
2006 de Matt and Maurellis "Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends"
2006 NOAA "Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere"
2003 Stott et al
Sept 2005 Scafetta & West
March 2006 Scafetta & West
Sept 2006 Scafetta & West

[David Rodale]

I may be missing something here, but since when was the Antarctic everywhere?

Ice melting everywhere
Ice increasing everywhere

Get the point? It isn't a static system.

Incidentally, Antarctica comprises ~89.5% of total global ice.

AGW states Antarctica should be warming. Observations of course refute that.

Since the Arctic is "regional", isn't it then customary to say it isn't global therefore irrelevant?

[mhaze]

Lomberg, the "Skeptical Environmentalist" is back with a new book. Now watch the True AGW Believers start -

He's a nutter
He's the no-go to guy.
Just more fiction.
.... Take it from there....

Also, Believers, you'll find gobs of Anti-Lomberg stuff at your favorite "How to Debate a Climate Skeptic" talking-points-sites.

Keep in mind that none of these issues matter unless someone comes up with some actual evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere does anything detrimental - no one around here seems ready to step up to that plate.

Article quoted is from the NY Times -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/science/earth/11tiern.html But the best strategy, he (Lomberg) says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York, so that people elsewhere can afford to do things like shore up their coastlines and buy air conditioners. He calls Kyoto-style treaties to cut greenhouse-gas emissions a mistake because they cost too much and do too little too late. Even if the United States were to join in the Kyoto treaty, he notes, the cuts in emissions would merely postpone the projected rise in sea level by four years: from 2100 to 2104.

“We could spend all that money to cut emissions and end up with more land flooded next century because people would be poorer,” Dr. Lomborg said as we surveyed Manhattan’s expanded shoreline. “Wealth is a more important factor than sea-level rise in protecting you from the sea. You can draw maps showing 100 million people flooded out of their homes from global warming, but look at what’s happened here in New York. It’s the same story in Denmark and Holland — we’ve been gaining land as the sea rises.”

[mhaze]

Julian Simons, the recently deceased economist who had released numerous of his books and articles to the web - this is the guy that won the famous bet with Paul Erlich (Population Bomb infamy)

http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Norton/

Quoting from Simon's book

"Scarcity or Abundance? A debate on the Environment" Faced with the data, these persons often say to people like me, "You don't understand. You're not a biologist" or "ecologist" or whatever.

This is patently the way of thinking of the true believer with whom it is hopeless to discuss, because there is no conceivable data which would overturn that belief. This is the sort of thinking that, when the predicted doomsday does not happen, the true believer comes down off the mountain and says,

"The prediction that the world would end was simply off by the date".

This is not the way of thinking of science, which only accords respect to theories when they fit facts, and relinquishes the theories when they fail to be proven empirically. Everything is "yes but"....

Impossible to pin them down for a test. What data would they consider?

[Safe-Keeper]

AGW states Antarctica should be warming. Observations of course refute that.We've been over this already, in the North Pole thread. First of all, as I'm sure you well understand, global warming is the average increase in global temperature, which means you certainly can have certain areas cooling.

As for Antarctica, the inner reaches have ice growing more plentiful not despite AGW but due to it. It goes without saying that temperatures are not going to increase the 50 degrees it takes the inner reaches to reach melting temperature, even if parts of them are heating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg). Increases in heat, however, increases precipitation, and since the temperature of inner Antarctica is, again, half a hundred degrees below, this precipitation will fall as snow. Snow in a very cold environment turns into ice (let me follow up on Mhaze's cute ice cream experiment by asking you if you've ever put a snowball in the freezer. It turns into solid ice almost overnight).

Since the Arctic is "regional", isn't it then customary to say it isn't global therefore irrelevant?How do you reach the conclusion that it's irrelevant because it's just one part of the world? Most consequences of global warming would be irrelevant if this was the case, as every part of the Earth is but a region.

Landslides in Norway due to AGW? Not global. Irrelevant.
Droughts in Australia due to AGW? Not global. Irrelevant.
Floods in England due to AGW? Not global. Irrelevant.
Heat waves killing 30 000 in Europe due to AGW? Not global. Irrelevant.

And so on? Or did I misunderstand you?

[varwoche]

Lomberg, the "Skeptical Environmentalist" is back with a new book. Now watch the True AGW Believers start - He's a nutter
He's the no-go to guy.
Just more fiction.
This is one flimsy attempt at preemption mhaze. That's because you left out the key facts: Not a climate scientist. Not even a scientist. In other words, this is yet another of your appeals to false authority.

Julian Simons, the recently deceased economist... And yet another.

Along with the marketing professor. And some guy who wrote an article about basketball. And various bags of free market hot air. You are rapidly ascending to the dubious position as grand master of the goofy cites in my recurring list of goofy cites by A/GW pseudo skeptics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2779174#post2779174).

[Skeptical Greg]

.....

Heat waves killing 30 000 in Europe due to AGW? Not global. Irrelevant.

And so on? Or did I misunderstand you?

Where is the outcry against Global cooling ?

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver


For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold.


I say yes ! Lets get global warming under control now, so those winter deaths can get back up there where they belong..

[a_unique_person]

Since clearly it is growing, we need to be alarmed about the changes in albedo that will occur, the increased cold, and the possibility that ice growth it will spread exponentially as the Cold Tipping Points kick in. Covering all of Australia, New Zealand and Africa with a two mile thick slab of ice is not outside the realm of possibliity. Lowered sea levels will drydock all bays and shipping channels, rendering those which are not already icebound useless.

The process is likely to be irreversible once started.

Don't you think we need urgent action now?:rolleyes:

Some glaciers are advancing, the majority are not. The global temperature is rising, some localalised temperatures are not. The Anarctic has it's own specialised circumstances, for it's own peculiar reasons.

As was already linked, the mass of ice is falling, even as it is spreading. The Ozone layer, that is necessary for human life, is very thin at the Antarctic and is also a greenhouse gas, for example. The models predicted that the Antarctic would not warm as quickly as the rest of the planet.

The scientists were on to this years ago. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/

It's nothing new.

[mhaze]

The scientists were on to this years ago. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/

It's nothing new.

It was a joke.

[a_unique_person]

Where is the outcry against Global cooling ?

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver




I say yes ! Lets get global warming under control now, so those winter deaths can get back up there where they belong..

It's another one of Lomborg's false dilemmas, of which he has an endless series. What makes you think that people who are too poor to afford winter warming will be able to afford air conditioning?

It is easier for people to survive colder climates than hotter ones. The human body can survive quite readily at temperatures well below it's nominal temperature, but temperatures above it are much more difficult to handle.

[mhaze]

It's another one of Lomborg's false dilemmas, of which he has an endless series. What makes you think that people who are too poor to afford winter warming will be able to afford air conditioning?

It is easier for people to survive colder climates than hotter ones. The human body can survive quite readily at temperatures well below it's nominal temperature, but temperatures above it are much more difficult to handle.

A cold winter kills a lot more people than a hot summer.

Economists and stat guys know this stuff.

Maybe "climate scientists" don't.

[a_unique_person]

It was a joke.

I know, but a couple of posts were made mentioning the topic of the Antarctic, and your's just happened to be the one I replied to.

[mhaze]

It's another one of Lomborg's false dilemmas, of which he has an endless series. What makes you think that people who are too poor to afford winter warming will be able to afford air conditioning?

How about "Just Read" instead of "Read the IPCC".

From the article.
It is easier for people to survive colder climates than hotter ones. The human body can survive quite readily at temperatures well below it's nominal temperature, but temperatures above it are much more difficult to handle.

For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.

[a_unique_person]

For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.
[/indent]

There will be a lot more dying due to climate change than that. As I said, it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat. The human body is very capable of surviving temperatures below it's nominal heat, but not very good at surviving temperatures above that. The deaths in Europe from one heat wave was only a taste of what is to come.

[bokonon]

There will be a lot more dying due to climate change than that. As I said, it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat. The human body is very capable of surviving temperatures below it's nominal heat, but not very good at surviving temperatures above that. The deaths in Europe from one heat wave was only a taste of what is to come.
If it's really true that it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat, then how do you explain the 200,000 vs 1.5 million numbers? Are they just incorrect? A one-time fluke?

It seems to me that most of the people living in the warmer latitudes don't need high technology to make their living spaces habitable, and they have more population density there than people living in arctic climates.

[a_unique_person]

If it's really true that it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat, then how do you explain the 200,000 vs 1.5 million numbers? Are they just incorrect? A one-time fluke?

It seems to me that most of the people living in the warmer latitudes don't need high technology to make their living spaces habitable, and they have more population density there than people living in arctic climates.

Every year there is a winter, that one off heat wave is going to be more severe and more regular. At the same time, our ability to cope will be compromised due to *global* change. That is, every country in the world will be experiencing destabilising change and stress at the same time.

Already it looks like wheat is suffering from climate change, with prices rocketing up due to failed crops.

[mhaze]

Every year there is a winter, that one off heat wave is going to be more severe and more regular. At the same time, our ability to cope will be compromised due to *global* change. That is, every country in the world will be experiencing destabilising change and stress at the same time

That is all debatable isn't it?

Yes certain modeling scenarios predict certain bad effects.

That is why I brought Lomberg in-he handles those effects in a completely pragmatic way. Others just shout Dire Consequences.

[a_unique_person]

That is all debatable isn't it?

Yes certain modeling scenarios predict certain bad effects.

That is why I brought Lomberg in-he handles those effects in a completely pragmatic way. Others just shout Dire Consequences.

Lomborg is a goose, he has no insight into issues, just puts up a few graphs that usually completely misrepresent the case. Australia, according to Lomborg, has plenty of water. In reality, all major cities are having to install desalination plants.

[mhaze]

Lomborg is a goose, he has no insight into issues, just puts up a few graphs that usually completely misrepresent the case. Australia, according to Lomborg, has plenty of water. In reality, all major cities are having to install desalination plants.

Which you will be powering with your famous dirty coal. I won't bother to elaborate the con your radical Greens have pulled. Maybe send them all out to work the varmint - rabbit fence? Then just go nuclear power.

Australia has problems with its growth and can solve theme. But not if blinded on the one side by AGW hype, on the other by anti-nuclear greenies.

[a_unique_person]

Which you will be powering with your famous dirty coal. I won't bother to elaborate the con your radical Greens have pulled. Maybe send them all out to work the varmint - rabbit fence? Then just go nuclear power.

Australia has problems with its growth and can solve theme. But not if blinded on the one side by AGW hype, on the other by anti-nuclear greenies.

No, wind power is being actively installed, and there would be a lot more of it except for the current conservative government. With them about to be voted out, I think the backing of a new government will see much more development of research and investment in non-coal power.

[mhaze]

No, wind power is being actively installed, and there would be a lot more of it except for the current conservative government. With them about to be voted out, I think the backing of a new government will see much more development of research and investment in non-coal power.

Nope. Wind power cannot form the backbone of any power grid. For that you need powerplants using coal, natural gas or nuclear.

You don't have natural gas, so that leaves coal or nuclear.

[a_unique_person]

Decentralisation of the load reduces the base load requirement. Solar hot water is an excellent way to do this.

[mhaze]

Here is a chart and cyclic smoothing that seems to show pretty easily why the temperatures of the last 150 years or so have been what they were.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342)

1. We were coming out of a little ice age, so the trend is slightly upward.
2. Established 60-80 year cycles and they are overlaid on top of the general trend.
3. No alarming unprecedented trend in recent years.
4. No evidence in the temperature trend for an effect of CO2 on the temperature record - No relation between the temperature record and some "accelerating curve" or "exponential curve" and CO2.

If this is correct here are the conclusions.

1. The next decade will show cooling.
2. Various propagandists for AGW (eg British MET) will try to double talk their way around it
3. AGW due to CO2 is negligible (does not have anything to do with AGW due to land use, pollution, ozone, aerosols, asian brown clouds, soot, jet contrails, etc).

Here is the evidence these conclusions may be right.

1. There has been something of a cooling trend.
2. The MET is already starting the doubletalk.
3. The calculations of numerous models (NOT IPCC) repeatedly show a doubling of CO2 (which we are nowhere near) produces a temperature rise including feedbacks and forcings of perhaps 1.1 C.

[a_unique_person]

That upward trend is still too fast for coming out of the ice age, and the westward passage is now navigable, when it has never been before.

[a_unique_person]

Here is a chart and cyclic smoothing that seems to show pretty easily why the temperatures of the last 150 years or so have been what they were.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342)

1. We were coming out of a little ice age, so the trend is slightly upward.
2. Established 60-80 year cycles and they are overlaid on top of the general trend.
3. No alarming unprecedented trend in recent years.
4. No evidence in the temperature trend for an effect of CO2 on the temperature record - No relation between the temperature record and some "accelerating curve" or "exponential curve" and CO2.

If this is correct here are the conclusions.

1. The next decade will show cooling.
2. Various propagandists for AGW (eg British MET) will try to double talk their way around it
3. AGW due to CO2 is negligible (does not have anything to do with AGW due to land use, pollution, ozone, aerosols, asian brown clouds, soot, jet contrails, etc).

Here is the evidence these conclusions may be right.

1. There has been something of a cooling trend.
2. The MET is already starting the doubletalk.
3. The calculations of numerous models (NOT IPCC) repeatedly show a doubling of CO2 (which we are nowhere near) produces a temperature rise including feedbacks and forcings of perhaps 1.1 C.

1. There has been no cooling trend, at best a levelling off from a steady upward trend. (which your graph describes).
2. Is not evidence of anything.
3. The low calculations of climate sensitivity have been demonstrated to seriously underestimate the correct value.

[Gurdur]

Lets suppose you are a climate scientist in a position of power. ... Would you welcome that research?


We're not all like you. Scientists very usually will pursue the truth no matter how inconvenient for them; scientists who cheat are an exceptionally small minority and ousted by their peers as soon as unmasked.

I kinda like the chutzpah with how you try defaming an entire scientific discipline merely because it is politically inconvenient for you; but never mind, it's not like your opinion matters in the slightest whatsoever. Will you also attack historians simply because you like to describe Russia as still communist?
:)

[mhaze]

Decentralisation of the load reduces the base load requirement. Solar hot water is an excellent way to do this.

You are actually believing nonsense that the Australian government is promulgating.

The plan to require all households to buy and install an estimated $3800 solar hot water heater in 2012. Put some numbers to that and come back with the percentage reduction in baseline load requirements versus the cost expenditure.

[a_unique_person]

You are actually believing nonsense that the Australian government is promulgating.

The plan to require all households to buy and install an estimated $3800 solar hot water heater in 2012. Put some numbers to that and come back with the percentage reduction in baseline load requirements versus the cost expenditure.

Victoria is on the verge of having to build another base load power station, and it doesn't have the water available to support one. The price is going to be huge. Solar hot water systems are finally becoming a well understood and efficient means of providing hot water, and pay for themselves when the true cost of base load power is factored in.

[a_unique_person]

Here is a chart and cyclic smoothing that seems to show pretty easily why the temperatures of the last 150 years or so have been what they were.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342)


Hadley says in a few years, the cycle will be upward again, your graph, which I am assuming is based on Singers work says in a few years it will be clearly down. So by 2010 both sides will be able to pretty well agree, AGW is real or not?

[mhaze]

1. There has been no cooling trend, at best a levelling off from a steady upward trend. (which your graph describes).

More or less we agree. I'm saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed. You're saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed because the MET said it would.


2. Is not evidence of anything.
Looks pretty simple to me. They agree with us - no warming coming - got to have a quick rationalization for it. Whoever in the MET made that dumb prediction of "warmest year ever" in Jan 2007 does not want to be fired right away does he?:D


3. The low calculations of climate sensitivity have been demonstrated to seriously underestimate the correct value.AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.

The recorded temperatures do not show that increase.

So...AUP, mhaze and the MET agree the next couple of years will not show a "exponential temperature rise", etc.

Where is your big hypothesized CO2 effect?

[David Rodale]

More or less we agree. I'm saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed. You're saying temperature in the next few years will track the curve displayed because the MET said it would.

Looks pretty simple to me. They agree with us - no warming coming - got to have a quick rationalization for it. Whoever in the MET made that dumb prediction of "warmest year ever" in Jan 2007 does not want to be fired right away does he?:D

AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.

The recorded temperatures do not show that increase.

So...AUP, mhaze and the MET agree the next couple of years will not show a "exponential temperature rise", etc.

Where is your big hypothesized CO2 effect?

Met O's 'new and improved' global warming:
Writing in Science, Met Office researchers project that at least half of the years between 2009 and 2014 are likely to exceed existing records.

However, the Hadley Centre researchers said that the influence of natural climatic variations were likely to dampen the effects of emissions from human activities between now and 2009.
Translation: "Observations are contrary to AGW predictions; global warming has stopped. Previous climate models were wrong, but our 'new and improved' climate model is accurate....we really mean it this time, just you wait and see".

Met O has essentially conceded warming has stopped, but still insert a disclaimer concerning “ dampen the effects of emissions from human activities” to keep in step with AGW as if to infer we are only experiencing a speed bump due to some unspecified temporary “natural climatic variations” overcoming the untested hypothesis of CO2 driving climate.

Natural variations? What natural variation? We've been told humans are responsible for 20th century warming. IPCC is wrong?

What do you suppose is the “natural cycle” the article is referring to, a temporary decreasing trend in human/moose/livestock flatulation? No, it’s the sun.

Met O knows very well based on the literature there is a tight correlation between temperature and solar activity despite attempts to minimize it. As MHaze has linked to http://www.solarcycle24.com , the sun is currently in a state of relative calm. For a period there will be cooling until SC24 begins at which point will determine a return to warmth or a sustained increased period of cooling.

Some solar researchers predict a strong SC24, others weak. Met O is betting on very strong. What is known is the longer SC23 lingers on, the more likely SC24 will be weak.

One can assume if Met O’s ‘new and improved’ climate model can take natural variations into account, that would mean solar, cosmic rays, precipitation, clouds, ocean decadal oscillations, aerosols, are now suddenly well understood (IPPC Holy Scriptures have a low LOSU) and all are included into their ‘new and improved’ climate model. Is it a coincidence their prediction of increased warming coincides with strong SC24 predictions?


Prediction of strong SC24:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/Dik06GRLMar.pdf

Prediction of weak SC24:
http://www.spacew.com/news/05Mar2005/index.php
http://www.iiap.res.in/ihy/talks/Session3/piyali_ihy.pdf
Schatten also predicts weak.

General information:
http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf
http://sidc.oma.be/news/094/SolarCycle24-eng.pdf
http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/content.shtml?http://allesoversterrenkunde.nl/cgi-bin/scripts/db.cgi?db=default&id=default&ID=605&ww=1&view_records=1

Make no mistake. It is the sun that drives climate. Met O is counting on it.

[mhaze]

http://www.solarcycle24.com , the sun is currently in a state of relative calm. For a period there will be cooling until SC24 begins at which point will determine a return to warmth or a sustained increased period of cooling.

Make no mistake. It is the sun that drives climate. Met O is counting on it.

Relative calm?????

Look at those pictures.

The sun looks like a placid lake in the morning with not even a ripple.....

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

:bigclap Thanks for make my point. (if you don't understand this, again, take irony 101)
We're not all like you. Scientists very usually will pursue the truth no matter how inconvenient for them; scientists who cheat are an exceptionally small minority and ousted by their peers as soon as unmasked.

I kinda like the chutzpah with how you try defaming an entire scientific discipline merely because it is politically inconvenient for you; but never mind, it's not like your opinion matters in the slightest whatsoever. Will you also attack historians simply because you like to describe Russia as still communist?
:)

[mhaze]

That upward trend is still too fast for coming out of the ice age

I'm feeling generous today.

Say the current decadal temperature trend is 0.15 C per decade.

I'll allow you 0.025C for all man's AGW effects, and of that, 0.005C per decade for the effect of CO2.

Deal?

[mhaze]

Victoria is on the verge of having to build another base load power station, and it doesn't have the water available to support one. The price is going to be huge. Solar hot water systems are finally becoming a well understood and efficient means of providing hot water, and pay for themselves when the true cost of base load power is factored in.

Looks like Victoria has lots of water. (http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_storage.cfm?uid=3506-8538-5661-1132)

And from how Warwick Hughes blog, a reader writes in.Victoria is now going to spend $3.6 billion building de-sal plants and pipelines when all they needed to do is build the Mitchel River dam for $0.5billion, which was planned in 2000 but was cancelled by Bracks for religious reasons.

The Vic government has knowingly and deliberatley created the water crisis. And now they lie about rainfall patterns to cover their buts.
What is the name of the foreign corporation that is getting the 10-20 billion dollars in business for those un needed desalt plants?

Local politics, not AGW.

By the way, do the math on those solar hot water heaters. They will make a dent in power consumption so tiny it won't even be noticed.

Again, local politics. No AGW.

[a_unique_person]

Looks like Victoria has lots of water. (http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/dams_storage.cfm?uid=3506-8538-5661-1132)

And from how Warwick Hughes blog, a reader writes in.Victoria is now going to spend $3.6 billion building de-sal plants and pipelines when all they needed to do is build the Mitchel River dam for $0.5billion, which was planned in 2000 but was cancelled by Bracks for religious reasons.

The Vic government has knowingly and deliberatley created the water crisis. And now they lie about rainfall patterns to cover their buts.
What is the name of the foreign corporation that is getting the 10-20 billion dollars in business for those un needed desalt plants?

Local politics, not AGW.

By the way, do the math on those solar hot water heaters. They will make a dent in power consumption so tiny it won't even be noticed.

Again, local politics. No AGW.

The Mitchell river is the last major river that hasn't been damed. It would add 28% capacity to our water system. That is, given the drought we are now in, which appears to be partly due to global warming, we would not be that much better off. Our current status is 39% full, adding in that dam would only get us to about 50% full, still in serious trouble.

And Warwick Hughes is a nong, a serious nutter.

[a_unique_person]

The desalination plant will have a capacity of 150 billion litres. That is every year, including drought years. The problem with dams is they don't add any extra capacity to you during a drought, and with our current 10 year dry spell, that is significant. The largest dam that was supposed to drought proof Melbourne, the Thompson dam, has never filled. The La Nina that was supposed to turn up this year appears to have fizzled out. Wheat crops are going to fail over much of Australia. Maybe next year La Nina will arrive, maybe it never will, maybe from now on all we will get are these weak events that only give us what used to be our average rainfall.

[CapelDodger]

Hadley says in a few years, the cycle will be upward again, your graph, which I am assuming is based on Singers work says in a few years it will be clearly down. So by 2010 both sides will be able to pretty well agree, AGW is real or not?

mhaze knows of a cycle that has eight years to run, so we're looking at 2015 at a minimum. An absolute minimum, very unlikely.

And what you need, by the way, is not water but nuclear power instead of all that dirty coal and the CO2 it produces which might not be - probably isn't - a problem anyway but why not bring it up? I'm not feeling much love for Aussies at the moment either. For obvious reasons.

It's all your own fault. For some reason. Whatever it is. :mad:

[mhaze]

The desalination plant will have a capacity of 150 billion litres. That is every year, including drought years. The problem with dams is they don't add any extra capacity to you during a drought, and with our current 10 year dry spell, that is significant. The largest dam that was supposed to drought proof Melbourne, the Thompson dam, has never filled. The La Nina that was supposed to turn up this year appears to have fizzled out. Wheat crops are going to fail over much of Australia. Maybe next year La Nina will arrive, maybe it never will, maybe from now on all we will get are these weak events that only give us what used to be our average rainfall.
AUP, please understand my point of view on this matter.

The numbers say that Australia needs nuclear power. The numbers.

That's not talking ethics, green vs. conservative, etc. Just the numbers. That's what economists and statisticians, businesspeople and engineers look at. It's not what politicians look at.

So if I seem quick to brush off the solar hot water and the windmills, it isn't because of well, an opinion.

It would indeed be unfortunate if the green lobby against nuclear leaned for the coal/with windmills and solar ec. That's sort of....a giant politically correct lie, to put it mildly. If it did turn out that CO2 emissions was a real problem (of course I'll not agree to that but let's imagine here) then there is NO solution possible within the domain of coal/alternative energy.

Repeat that over and over. Politicians won't tell you that.

[Matteo Martini]

Antarctic Ice Levels Hit Record High

Highest amount seen since record-keeping began


Researchers at the University of Illinois are reporting a sharp increase in the total amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. Recent observations show the total ice area now at 16.26 million square kilometers -- the highest amount seen since record-keeping began, and up more than 8% over the past five years.

http://www.dailytech.com/Antarctic+Ice+Levels+Hit+Record+High/article8871.htm

[oponol]

Met O's 'new and improved' global warming:

Translation: "Observations are contrary to AGW predictions; global warming has stopped. Previous climate models were wrong, but our 'new and improved' climate model is accurate....we really mean it this time, just you wait and see".

Uh observations are not contrary to AGW predictions. Climate models give long term projections of climate, not year-to-year noisy variation. Ie if they predict 0.2C warming per decade that could be 0.1C up in the first 3 years, 0.05C down in the next 4 and 0.15C up in the last 3. Or it could be some other distribution that ends in about 0.2C warming.

Met O has essentially conceded warming has stopped

Only in the same way that you could say warming stopped at other periods in the last 30 years. The warming trend is not upwards continuously, it has noise in it. Sometimes multiple successive years will show no increase.

but still insert a disclaimer concerning “ dampen the effects of emissions from human activities” to keep in step with AGW as if to infer we are only experiencing a speed bump due to some unspecified temporary “natural climatic variations” overcoming the untested hypothesis of CO2 driving climate.

I refer you to the global surface temprature records which clearly show these bumps do exist

Natural variations? What natural variation? We've been told humans are responsible for 20th century warming. IPCC is wrong?

Natural variation does exist as noise over the overall upward trend

What do you suppose is the “natural cycle” the article is referring to, a temporary decreasing trend in human/moose/livestock flatulation? No, it’s the sun.

Yes for example take the solar cycle, up and down and up and down in a cycle of about 11 years. That cycle does not explain the last 30 years of warming. It does explain variation over that long term warming though.

Met O knows very well based on the literature there is a tight correlation between temperature and solar activity despite attempts to minimize it.

The literature supports a fall away in correlation between solar activity and global temperature in the last 30 years.

Some solar researchers predict a strong SC24, others weak. Met O is betting on very strong.

No Met will be simply assuming the Sun will follow a similar trend that it has done over the last 50 years - eg virtually flat.

Make no mistake. It is the sun that drives climate. Met O is counting on it.

I suspect rising greenhouse gases are affecting it more in the long term now.

[oponol]

Looks pretty simple to me. They agree with us - no warming coming - got to have a quick rationalization for it.

I believe they say no warming in the next 2 years I believe, but that the long term warming trend over the last 30 will continue.

Whoever in the MET made that dumb prediction of "warmest year ever" in Jan 2007 does not want to be fired right away does he?:D

I believe they gave about 60% probability of that occuring. To date (jan-aug) 2007 is about the 4th warmest year on record (and during a solar minimum too huh)

AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.

This would be ignoring cooling effects over the 20th century (eg aerosols and volcanic erruptions) which dampen the warming from co2, and ignores the lag in temperature response which means total warming from the current rise in co2 hasn't yet been reached.

What matters is that climate models with the IPCC climate sensitivity that take all this into account are able to reproduce 20th century temperature trends:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

[Safe-Keeper]

Met O has essentially conceded warming has stopped If you observe an exceptionally quiet week in Baghdad, with no IEDs, skirmishes, ambushes, suicide bombings or death threats, can we conclude that terrorism has stopped, disband the Coalition, tear down that Baghdad Wall thingie, and send the brave soldiers home? Or does it just mean it's a quiet week and that the bad guys will be back soon?

It's the same with global warming. We're looking at a trend of warming over the next decades. One or two years means nothing.

[mhaze]

I believe they say no warming in the next 2 years I believe, but that the long term warming trend over the last 30 will continue.
I believe they gave about 60% probability of that occuring. To date (jan-aug) 2007 is about the 4th warmest year on record (and during a solar minimum too huh)

Sounds about right, I get 7th warmest year. Doesn't matter, the issue was their bold media splash about their prediction it was going to be the "warmest year ever". Hubris.




Quote:
AGW models overestimate the actual historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. I've asked you and CP to show some specific relation between CO2 and temp, first for the 150 year period, then I shortened it to 50 years. You run to the IPCC models.

The models overestimate actual temperature to CO2 dependence - climate sensitivity. Take some arbitrary "IPCC climate sensitivity" either 2.5C or 6C, whatever. Go back and look at the actual CO2 increase in the last decades above baseline levels and compute the temperature increase the "IPCC climate sensitivity" should cause.


This would be ignoring cooling effects over the 20th century (eg aerosols and volcanic erruptions) which dampen the warming from co2, and ignores the lag in temperature response which means total warming from the current rise in co2 hasn't yet been reached.

What matters is that climate models with the IPCC climate sensitivity that take all this into account are able to reproduce 20th century temperature trends:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

No. The challenge is for AGW believers to show some correlation or relationship between temperature and CO2. I suggested 1850, then changed it to 1950. Doesn't matter. You pick the time range, exclude some years if you think that volcanoes affected the data in those years.

Just don't go running for the models or the lab measurements.

Just show some actual relationship between temperature and CO2, in the atmosphere. Not unreasonable, right?

Or let's say it differently. I know quite well it is a complex system, but there is alleged this huge CO2 impact, so please show me what the best is you can do regarding actually showing that A + B cause C.

By the way, would Meedl et al's data, methods, model parameters, and models as used for the study befully archived and available for the purposes of someone wishing to replicate or check the work?

[Skeptical Greg]

There will be a lot more dying due to climate change than that. As I said, it's a lot easier to survive cold than heat. The human body is very capable of surviving temperatures below it's nominal heat, but not very good at surviving temperatures above that. The deaths in Europe from one heat wave was only a taste of what is to come.
What you call a heat wave in Europe is nothing compared to the average summer temp in many parts of the world, where millions of people manage quite well..

And yes, people will die due to climate change - in either direction..

We call it weather...

[oponol]

No. The challenge is for AGW believers to show some correlation or relationship between temperature and CO2.

If you want a good correlation then you'll have to look at the last 30 years where the anthropogenic signal has broken through natural variation. Before this period the anthropogenic signal was too weak (eg greenhouse gases hadn't increased enough) to be detectable over natural variation.

By the way, would Meedl et al's data, methods, model parameters, and models as used for the study befully archived and available for the purposes of someone wishing to replicate or check the work?Their methodology and parameters are laid out in the paper. The data for the last century is available from other groups. Meedl's work has been reproduced successfully by other groups operating their own climate models. Ie it's apparent that climate models are able to reproduce last century global temperature trends.

[mhaze]

If you want a good correlation then you'll have to look at the last 30 years where the anthropogenic signal has broken through natural variation. Before this period the anthropogenic signal was too weak (eg greenhouse gases hadn't increased enough) to be detectable over natural variation.

Perhaps.

Perhaps the last 30 years is just the upward rise of the 60-80 year natural climate cycle.

Perhaps there could be some AGW overlaid on top of that natural variation and some fraction of that could be CO2 effects. But how much?

Surely it is possible to put some numbers to this empirically, instead of a bunch of arm waving about the models say so?

Of course one could go back to the ice cores, also. Other historical records of various sorts. Atmospheric CO2 measurements that predate the current monitoring station on the side of the volcano.

I'd just like to see a AGW Believer come up with the best they can based on actual temperatures and CO2 records. That's not even asking for a good relation between the two - just the best that they can do.

If it is a weak relationship that is easily refuted by other comparisons of temperature and CO2 (leaving aside volcano eruptions and the like) that would be quite interesting, wouldn't it?

The Argument to Authority - that we've got to trust the computer model - will not fly.

[Safe-Keeper]

What you call a heat wave in Europe is nothing compared to the average summer temp in many parts of the world, where millions of people manage quite well..Of course they do. They're used to the hot weather. They have air conditioners and fans and know to drink lots of water and not exhaust themselves. Most Europeans don't. Climate change is just that - change. New threats we're not used to.

It's akin to how Houston would grind to a halt whenever snowed even the least bit there. Tiny amounts of snow, barely enough to cover the ground, is no issue in temperate Bergen, Norway, but in sub-tropical Houston it was crippling as the Houstonians were not used to it.

And yes, people will die due to climate change - in either direction..Yup. Global warming is bad, global cooling is also bad.

We call it weather...There's a difference between weather and climate.

[mhaze]

Of course they do. They're used to the hot weather. They have air conditioners and fans and know to drink lots of water and not exhaust themselves. Most Europeans don't. Climate change is just that - change. New threats we're not used to.

It's akin to how Houston would grind to a halt whenever snowed even the least bit there. Tiny amounts of snow, barely enough to cover the ground, is no issue in temperate Bergen, Norway, but in sub-tropical Houston it was crippling as the Houstonians were not used to it.

You've just made Lomberg's point. Unless you think that people are really, really stupid. Solutions follow.

Hypothetical. Europe is too hot.
Certain, Cheap Engineering solution. Europe buys air conditioners.

Hypothetical. Houston gets snow.
Certain, Cheap Engineer Point of View. Houston buys snow plows.

Lomberg is saying you can adapt easily and inexpensively, and it is very expensive and uncertain to mess with planetary climate which is very poorly understood.

[hamelekim]

You've just made Lomberg's point. Unless you think that people are really, really stupid. Solutions follow.

Hypothetical. Europe is too hot.
Certain, Cheap Engineering solution. Europe buys air conditioners.

Hypothetical. Houston gets snow.
Certain, Cheap Engineer Point of View. Houston buys snow plows.

Lomberg is saying you can adapt easily and inexpensively, and it is very expensive and uncertain to mess with planetary climate which is very poorly understood.

Easily adapt? It would cause massive economic problems in second and third world countries. In the first would the governments could help people but it would be expensive and it would definitely cause economic disruption. Then you have crops drying up and a reduction in the food source. A lack of grass for grazing would reduce levels of cattle and other animals we eat.

We would have to switch to vertical farming and grow our meat instead of raising it. We should do that anyway but it's very expensive to start something like that.

[oponol]

Perhaps.

Perhaps the last 30 years is just the upward rise of the 60-80 year natural climate cycle.

You asked for a period of correlation, I gave it. Now you are correctly pointing out that correlation doesn't prove causation. Which is why I cannot understand your demand for an example of correlation. It wouldn't prove anything so why do you want one?

Surely it is possible to put some numbers to this empirically, instead of a bunch of arm waving about the models say so?

The models reflect current understanding of physics which is what the theory is based upon. Of course current understanding of physics is based on empirical data, but if you are after empirical evidence that co2 is causing current warming then there is no direct evidence.

Of course one could go back to the ice cores, also. Other historical records of various sorts. Atmospheric CO2 measurements that predate the current monitoring station on the side of the volcano.

The problem is that in the past few hundred thousand years of ice core history, co2 rise and fall has been largely caused by temperature change. That makes it impossible to derive precisely how much of the temperature change is due to co2 and how much is due to the other factors.

It would be nice to have a period where co2 goes up due to a cause other than temperature, but the only known period when that has happened is the last 200 years.

[mhaze]

Easily adapt? It would cause massive economic problems in second and third world countries. In the first would the governments could help people but it would be expensive and it would definitely cause economic disruption. Then you have crops drying up and a reduction in the food source. A lack of grass for grazing would reduce levels of cattle and other animals we eat.

In the second and third world countries it would cause massive economic problems?Go back a few messages and read the excerpt from Lomberg. He notes that there could be a ripple effect on the 2nd and 3rd world from the 1st world stopping buying things, not from climate.
In the first world the governments would help people?

Really.

Okay let's test that out. Somebody in Texas has a ranch and it's hot. He can fix the problem himself or the government can fix it (they say). Here is the way it comes down:

A. The rancher buys a window AC unit. He's cool. End of problem.
B. The Government says, "We'll tax you and fine you and make you cap and trade and this will lower the CO2 in the air and then your whole ranch will be cooler."
Would you believe the shyster that said he'd air condition the whole ranch?

Questions to ask.
Is there a guarantee?
Like, a ten year warranty?
Do you get your money back if (B) does not work?

[mhaze]

You asked for a period of correlation, I gave it. Correlation doesn't prove causation. Which is why I cannot understand your demand for an example of correlation. It wouldn't prove anything so why do you want one?


Granted, there is a lot of what appears to be noise in the climate system, although it is really autocorrelated and trending according to dynamics that we do not clearly understand.

The IPCC predicates CO2 as the main driver. One would think that even if the causation could be be clearly pointed to, there would be some serious correlations in stretches of data over the last 150 years.

If we derived a simple relationship between the temperature and the atmospheric CO2 for the last 30 years, then with that alone we should be able to predict future temperatures. Or go backwards to the 1850-1970 era, where CO2 was beginning it's climb, and validate it.

If there were some stretches of time in that century and a half where CO2 in the atmosphere went down, then a causative relationship would seem to emerge.

[a_unique_person]

You've just made Lomberg's point. Unless you think that people are really, really stupid. Solutions follow.Hypothetical. Europe is too hot.
Certain, Cheap Engineering solution. Europe buys air conditioners.

Hypothetical. Houston gets snow.
Certain, Cheap Engineer Point of View. Houston buys snow plows.
Lomberg is saying you can adapt easily and inexpensively, and it is very expensive and uncertain to mess with planetary climate which is very poorly understood.

We are already messing with planetary climate, like it or not. Europe is just one example, the desert countries that are already very hot, such as Australia, are going to suffer a lot more.

[mhaze]

We are already messing with planetary climate, like it or not. Europe is just one example, the desert countries that are already very hot, such as Australia, are going to suffer a lot more.

It's only your opinion that we are having an effect on planetary climate. Others do not share that. And it's your opinion that the effects would be mostly bad. Again, others do not share that.

Note the Sahara desert is .... shrinking.

For every bad thing you can mention in current day environment (which is allegedly due to CO2) I can mention a good thing in current day environment.

It isn't CO2 that's caused your population to increase 4x since WW1, it's your immigration policies. Project that into your future. That's the strain on your natural resources, not CO2.

[a_unique_person]

It's only your opinion that we are having an effect on planetary climate. Others do not share that. And it's your opinion that the effects would be mostly bad. Again, others do not share that.

Note the Sahara desert is .... shrinking.

For every bad thing you can mention in current day environment (which is allegedly due to CO2) I can mention a good thing in current day environment.

It isn't CO2 that's caused your population to increase 4x since WW1, it's your immigration policies. Project that into your future. That's the strain on your natural resources, not CO2.

Australia is a country the size of continental USA, with less then 1/10 the population, and already we are struggling. I was amazed I couln't buy tomatoes at the supermarket yesterday, they can't get their hands on any.

[a_unique_person]

It's only your opinion that we are having an effect on planetary climate.



Correction, it's scientific research making that claim, I am just passing it on.



Others do not share that. And it's your opinion that the effects would be mostly bad. Again, others do not share that.



Once again, you are partly correct, it's scientific research making that claim, it's opinion that's denying it.



Note the Sahara desert is .... shrinking.

For every bad thing you can mention in current day environment (which is allegedly due to CO2) I can mention a good thing in current day environment.

It isn't CO2 that's caused your population to increase 4x since WW1, it's your immigration policies. Project that into your future. That's the strain on your natural resources, not CO2.

Dessication is growing, once again you appear to be cherry picking. What crops are the worst in years, and no tomatoes :(

[CapelDodger]

It's only your opinion that we are having an effect on planetary climate.

It's a minority opinion that we aren't.

Others do not share that.

Well there's a thing. A minority disagrees.

And it's your opinion that the effects would be mostly bad.

It's bleedin' obvious the effects will be mostly bad. The vast majority of the world's population do not suffer from the weather being too cold or the sea too low. They are where they are because the weather's just-so and sea-level is dependable

Again, others do not share that.

And don't wish to. So they don't.

Note the Sahara desert is .... shrinking.

So what? Do you have any clue why, or even care?

I won't add the Sahara to my list of contrarian refuges yet, but it's on notice.

For every bad thing you can mention in current day environment (which is allegedly due to CO2) I can mention a good thing in current day environment.

Give us some good things first.


It isn't CO2 that's caused your population to increase 4x since WW1, it's your immigration policies.

I guess that White Australia Policy missed something, then. Too appealing, perhaps.

Project that into your future. That's the strain on your natural resources, not CO2.

Since most of the added population lives in Australia's cities today, and the reduction in water flowing into the cities today is the problem, that makes no sense at all.

[CapelDodger]

I was amazed I couln't buy tomatoes at the supermarket yesterday, they can't get their hands on any.

It's a straw in the wind. I've been warning you for a while now. Get out while you can.

[CapelDodger]

It would be nice to have a period where co2 goes up due to a cause other than temperature, but the only known period when that has happened is the last 200 years.

The next industrialised species will at least have something to go on :) . Of course, they won't find much easily-availiable coal and oil unless they're way up the line. More likely to be evolved to cope with the effects of a nuclear-fueled industrial revolution. Until they overdo it.

I'm in danger of slipping into science-fiction.

[a_unique_person]

Note the Sahara desert is .... shrinking.


The desert appears to be jumping the Mediteranean to Spain.

[a_unique_person]

You've just made Lomberg's point. Unless you think that people are really, really stupid. Solutions follow.
Hypothetical. Europe is too hot.
Certain, Cheap Engineering solution. Europe buys air conditioners.

Hypothetical. Houston gets snow.
Certain, Cheap Engineer Point of View. Houston buys snow plows.
Lomberg is saying you can adapt easily and inexpensively, and it is very expensive and uncertain to mess with planetary climate which is very poorly understood.

Buy air conditioners? Lomborg is really that stupid?

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2034474.htm




TONY EASTLEY: There are alarming predictions of rising food prices and shortages as farm crops continue to fail because of a lack of water.

Australians are being warned to brace themselves for a hit in the hip-pocket come Christmas time.

Paula Kruger reports.

PAULA KRUGER: Farmers say if there is no spring rain over Australia's inland farms by the end of this month, there will be a catastrophic crop failure.

Kris Newton is the Chief Executive of the Australian Horticulture Council.

KRIS NEWTON: I can't think of another disaster, agricultural or otherwise, that comes close to this. This will make equine influenza and Cyclone Larry combined look like a storm in a teacup.

We're talking about huge tracks of inland Australia at immediate and desperate risk.

PAULA KRUGER: For many, there is no way of surviving under the current water restrictions, and because the average farmer is over 55 years of age, some believe there is no point trying.

KRIS NEWTON: So you can imagine that if someone 55 or 60 or 65 years old looking at anything up to ten years before they get a commercial crop again, they may not be prepared to do that, and that's perfectly understandable.

So one of the things that we'll be wanting to talk with government about is exit with dignity packages; restructuring opportunities for people who have decided that's enough and that they wish to get out of the industry or indeed, retire.

PAULA KRUGER: Kris Newton will be representing farmers in the horticulture sector at a crisis taskforce meeting in Canberra later this week with the Minister for Agriculture, Peter McGauran, and Centrelink officials.

It seems the Federal Government is willing to give farmers more assistance if that is what's needed.

The Prime Minister used his weekly radio message to say government spending on drought-hit regions is more than $26-million a week, but that it could do more.



We get less food, food prices go up, and aid to farmers rockets up. How do airconditioners fix that problem:confused:.

[mhaze]

Buy air conditioners? Lomborg is really that stupid?

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2034474.htm




We get less food, food prices go up, and aid to farmers rockets up. How do airconditioners fix that problem:confused:.

You are actually blaming the "Australian drought" on global warming. Unbelievable.

Please check these charts and data (http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/) from your own country then tell me if you still believe that. I agree you may be being told this is the by factions in your country.


http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/
as shown here (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=deciles&period=6month&area=aus) rainfall in australia over the last 6 months have been low i the south west - north of perth. High in the north and especailly north west Australia.

No sign of drought there.

The last 12 months (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=deciles&period=12month&area=aus) has seen low rainfall in the far seaboard west and low in the mid south, and south east. Higher has been recorded in central north and north west.

No sign of a drought there either, with some up some down.

Seems to me that Australia's rainfall is not decreasing in total (as is shown here) (http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/aus/latest.gif), (which also shows if anything increasing Australian rainfall), but rather the places that are getting less rainfall are in the south east highly farmed land, and the places are are not are in the northern non farmed land.

Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2

[mhaze]

What crops are the worst in years, and no tomatoes :(

Is this the sort of propaganda that your ascribe to?
Greens:


We're all doomed, unless...you...err....vote for us

The green party of Australia have released a flyer (http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/) that is sent to households. In it it describes the consequences if you vote liberal or labor at the forthcoming election.

It describes that, given a liberal vote, world wide temperature will rise by at least 3 degrees and a labor vote by at least 2 degrees. This will result in:
- "seas up to 25m higher", yep that's right, we are all going to be under water. 25 meters! wow

- "No snow on the Europe's Alps." Well if there is no snow there, we can assume that there will be no snow anywhere. Say good bye to skiing and the winter olympics

- "30-95% species extinction". Yep you heard correctly, up to 19 in 20 species will become extinct. Maybe humans will be one of them

- "No ice on the poles". Yep the north and south pole will, according to the greens be iceless. So the only place one will be able to view ice is at the local petrol station. No ice, amazing.

- "97% loss of the great barrier reef" Lucky 3% will remain, but I guess it will be 25 meters under water. Which begs the question, how can coral survive being 25 meters under water? I'd like to see how they got the 97% statistic.

- "Greenland melts" And it becomes green again.

- "'Super droughts' across the world" - i guess just like the recent worst drought in 1000 years.

- "Oceans become acidic, destroying sea life" - yep, no more fish. Sea life will die. No more dolphins, whales, fish and those cute octopussies. Get your ocean basket at your local restaurant while you can.
Of course the greens are they key, and a vote for them and none of the above will happen. We'll just be in economical ruin, and therefore will have no money to spend stopping the above.

[a_unique_person]

You are actually blaming the "Australian drought" on global warming. Unbelievable.

Please check these charts and data (http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/) from your own country then tell me if you still believe that. I agree you may be being told this is the by factions in your country.


http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/as shown here (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=deciles&period=6month&area=aus) rainfall in australia over the last 6 months have been low i the south west - north of perth. High in the north and especailly north west Australia.

No sign of drought there.

The last 12 months (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/rainmaps.cgi?page=map&variable=deciles&period=12month&area=aus) has seen low rainfall in the far seaboard west and low in the mid south, and south east. Higher has been recorded in central north and north west.

No sign of a drought there either, with some up some down.

Seems to me that Australia's rainfall is not decreasing in total (as is shown here) (http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/rain/0112/aus/latest.gif), (which also shows if anything increasing Australian rainfall), but rather the places that are getting less rainfall are in the south east highly farmed land, and the places are are not are in the northern non farmed land.

Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2


No, you are falling for Lomborgs habit of shallow analysis. The simple stats don't tell the story of mostly useless localised flooding, lack of steady, soaking rain, and farmers finding the early promise of rain disappearing. The rainfall failing yet again, and more and more farmers are ending up with little show for the year. The rain up in the North West is mostly useless, as no-one lives up there. It's like saying it's OK if there's a drought in Italy, it's raining in Poland.

[a_unique_person]

From last year.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1744758.htm



MARK COLVIN: The nation's wheat crop is expected to be a lot smaller than first predicted.

The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, ABARE, predicts farmers will produce 26 million tonnes of wheat, down 36 per cent on last year.

Never in the last decade or so of droughty conditions has a crop prediction fallen so much in one year.

Continuing dry conditions and low rainfall over winter have dramatically reduced the forecast.

Brigid Glanville reports.

BRIGID GLANVILLE: Nick Redden is a grain grower from Narromine in Central West New South Wales. With no decent winter rainfall, his wheat crop is ruined and he won't be able to harvest the 600-hectare crop.

It's the first year since the early '90s that Nick Redden won't have any wheat to harvest.

NICK REDDEN: This year the situation is not really good. Our crops are just hanging on.

We've probably got a week to go before we put stock on them, and I can't see us harvesting anything at the moment unless it rains very shortly.

BRIGID GLANVILLE: And if it does rain, will that save the crop or is it too late?

NICK REDDEN: I think it's too late. We're just hanging on in the hope that... looking at forecasts and a few things like that, there's actually no rain forecast until the end the month and by then it will be too late.

BRIGID GLANVILLE: For Nick Redden and most farmers, the wheat crop is his family's main source of income for the year.

NICK REDDEN: This wheat crop is probably one of our main enterprises. So we're very very dependent on it financially and it's going to make a long hard battle for the next couple of years just to get back on top of things.

BRIGID GLANVILLE: Do you normally plant summer crops?

NICK REDDEN: We normally plant summer crops, but this year we've got a zero allocation out on Burrendong Dam, so I'd say the window of opportunity for planting cotton closing's very quickly.



The AGW denying depart ABARE, had this to say.



http://www.abareconomics.com/interactive/ac_june07/htm/wheat.htm

world stocks remain low
In 2007-08, global wheat stocks are forecast to remain historically low at around 117 million tonnes, with production and consumption being roughly in balance.
Stocks in the major exporting countries are expected to remain relatively stable in 2007-08, with US and EU stocks likely to change little from 2006-07. Stocks were drawn down significantly in 2006-07 as demand remained strong and poor seasonal conditions reduced production. Total stocks in the five major exporting countries (Australia, Argentina, the United States, the European Union and Canada) are forecast to be 33.5 million tonnes in 2007-08, 6 million tonnes below their five year average.

Australian production to increase
Livestock producers who reduced animal numbers in 2006-07 in response to drought will be turning to more cropping, where feasible, to improve short term cash flows. As a result the area sown to winter grain crops in 2007-08 is forecast to increase by around 10 per cent from last season to just over 20 million hectares.

As a result of the early break to the season, the area sown to wheat is forecast to be 11 per cent higher in 2007-08 at around 12.4 million hectares. Australian wheat yields are also expected to recover in 2007-08 and are forecast to be around historical averages. As a result, Australian wheat production is forecast to more than double, to 22.5 million tonnes, which in turn is expected to lead to a recovery in domestic wheat stocks.





http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1775676.htm



MAXINE MCKEW: The latest report from a government forecasting body has described the nation's key winter crops of being in the grip of a severe drought, one which will whip more than $6 billion off farm production, and the bureau of agricultural and resource economics has made another substantial cut in its estimates of production from the nation's major crops of wheat, barley and canola, only one month after its last forecast. Helen Brown has the story.

HELEN BROWN: Just one month in spring without rain has significantly worsened the outlook for the nation's grain growers. The Prime Minister was being told how farmers are now just hoping to save a few seeds from dying crops, so they have something to plant next year. See how the head's shrivelled up and died. There will be no grain in it.

The government forecaster has slashed another 2.8 million tonnes off the harvest of wheat, barley and canola.

TERRY SHEALES: People are talking of this drought being comparable to what happened in World War II. The old-timers tell us that. The history books also suggest there was the federation drought at the turn of the 20th century - that was also extremely severe.

HELEN BROWN: Output from the nation's key cropping industries is estimated at 13.6 million tons, down 63 per cent on last year.

TERRY SHEALES: Financially we're talking about - for the main cropping and livestock industries we're talking about earnings being down 16 per cent from real terms in 2002 and 2003. It is worse across those industries and more broadly that would also apply.

HELEN BROWN: Pastoral growth has been stunted, which will mean even less feed for sheep and cattle, and the outlook for summer crops such as cotton is looking grim. ABARE forecasts that $6.2 billion will be lost in agricultural production, chopping 0.7 per cent of economic growth.



The trend in rainfall is as predicted.

[mhaze]

No, you are falling for Lomborgs habit of shallow analysis. The simple stats don't tell the story of mostly useless localised flooding, lack of steady, soaking rain, and farmers finding the early promise of rain disappearing. The rainfall failing yet again, and more and more farmers are ending up with little show for the year. The rain up in the North West is mostly useless, as no-one lives up there. It's like saying it's OK if there's a drought in Italy, it's raining in Poland.

Nonsense. I suppose your concept of C02 control is going to make rain fall just where you want it to?

Repeating...
Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2

[a_unique_person]

Nonsense. I suppose your concept of C02 control is going to make rain fall just where you want it to?

Repeating...Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2


Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts was predicting the wheels are about to fall off the AGW wagon.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/Anthony%20Watts

Not quite.



Ultra deniers Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre) have been hard at work. Anthony Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts) has ranked about one third of U.S. surface stations according to the new CRN siting guidelines (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf). Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre and several of his commenters have graphed the resulting temperature trends from the "good" (CRN class 1 and 2) stations as well as the "bad" (CRN5) stations. It would be fair to say that both expected the warming trend apparent in the GISSTEMP (Goddard Institute For Space Studies) data set to disappear once this had been done. As Anthony has written, "you have to wonder if the whole house of cards isn't about to start falling down". It would be fair to say, however, that they have both been disappointed. Their preliminary results are given in the above graph, provided by one John V (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061#comment-137949) (a frequent poster on Climate Audit (http://www.climateaudit.org/)), who writes:

....

If the Deniers can't deny it, then I think we're on pretty solid ground. But McIntyre's not giving up yet. He's standing on his head and looking at the data all squinty eyed (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2069#more-2069), to see if he can't make the numbers go in another direction. So far, however, the resemblance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph) is astonishing.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt! No more appearances on Rush Limbaugh for these two.

[mhaze]

Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.


No they are not. I've just proved it with the data from your own BOM.

This study

How Much More Rain (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N33/EDIT.jsp) Will Global Warming Bring?

Shows GW would increase rain by a factor of 3x over the predictions of the IPCC models. Got that? GW increases rain, not decreases rain.

Want more? A paper by Gemma Narisma et al. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GeoRL..3406710N) that counted severe drought episodes:

1900-1919: 7
1920-1939: 7
1940-1959: 8
1960-1979: 5
1980-1999: 3As you can see, severe drought is getting less frequent rather than more frequent.



You are falling for your government's propaganda machine that wants to hoist ten billion dollar projects on it's public using fear mongering.



By the way, you never answered my question.



What is the name of the foreign contractor, the company, which is behind the 10-20 Billion dollar "desalization plant" deals with your major cities and provinces?



And you assert that AGW caused an Australian tomatoes shortage.

[David Rodale]

Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts was predicting the wheels are about to fall off the AGW wagon.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/Anthony%20Watts

Not quite.

Australia is about the size of continental USA. Rainfall patterns are changing, due to global warming, as predicted.

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts was predicting the wheels are about to fall off the AGW wagon.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/Anthony%20Watts

Not quite.

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

Now you are quoting bigcitylib? Keep in mind he and others like him are the same ones who said Steve McIntyre was wasting his time with NASA last month before Hansen was forced to correct errors in their temperature reports.

Why not actually read CA to get the facts instead of relying on those whose only goal is to obfuscate and muddy the waters. BCL, Steve Bloom, Eli Rabbet and others posted at Dr. Roger Pielke’s blog constantly with the same tripe, for which Dr. Pielke politely responded with facts and data.

The truth is there are significant issues within the surface station network whether those aforementioned insignificant nabobs admit it or not. Also, if you were paying attention, NOAA did not correct the U.S. temperature record and their data is in huge disagreement with NASA, but you won’t see that mentioned by BCL. So, which one is correct?

Seeing how AGwarmers constantly harp about “regional is not global”, and U.S. temperatures “don’t matter”, logic would dictate Australia is regional as well and “doesn’t matter” wouldn’t you agree?

Now, produce a 100-150 year rainfall history for Australia to show a 1000 year “unprecedented” drought; that would give some credence to your unsubstantiated claims. Put up or shut up. Something other than climate models would be helpful, such as this which is an actual study:

Linkages between solar activity,climate predictability and water resource development
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf

[mhaze]

Also, here is a rather amazing piece of work.

It isn't about AGW GW at all. Alexander 2007 (http://forums.randi.org/nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf) - trying to figure out how to predict rainfall. He relates solar activity to river flow, finds some correlations, raises some unanswered questions.

Alexander has a very clear explanation of the sun's wobble and movements and how they affect the earth.

nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

Some people actually do useful work and try to figure out what is happening on the planet instead of just blaming it on CO2 emissions.

[mhaze]

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

Linkages between solar activity,climate predictability and water resource development
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif

Hmm....your link is the same as mine. That proves consensus.



Popular news stories??? Here's one, AUP. The High Priest, Hansen, leading the prayer vigil in Greenland. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/GlobalWarming/story?id=3572327) To use your own words, AUP: "He's a nutter".


http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/GlobalWarming/story?id=3572327



My challenge.

Who can find the most outright lies and exaggerations in the story?

[a_unique_person]

Nonsense. I suppose your concept of C02 control is going to make rain fall just where you want it to?

Repeating...Is Australia getting less rainfall? No, the graph above shows this. Its just been unfortunate that the rainfall of late has fallen on the places that don't use the land for agriculture.

Maybe Co2 causes the rain to only fall where we don't need it. Nasty thing Co2


No, we have had established rainfall patterns, that's where the farms are. Now the rainfall patterns are changing, as predicted. There is rain falling where farms aren't. That's not because CO2 is nasty, that's just a result of the laws of physics.

I have already said, the rainfall is not less, for the whole continent, but it's less where it needs to be. This year, when La Nina was predicted to give Australia's farming areas a good soaking, there has been some flash flooding, some average and below average rainfall, but not what farmers rely on, steady, soaking rain.

The result is not anecdotal, it's another fall in farm output, as reported. Due to prolonged drought, the moisture content has fallen, meaning average rainfall is not enought to produce a full crop, and irrigation will not be available for those who rely on that, also as reported.

[a_unique_person]

Also, here is a rather amazing piece of work.

It isn't about AGW GW at all. Alexander 2007 (http://forums.randi.org/nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf) - trying to figure out how to predict rainfall. He relates solar activity to river flow, finds some correlations, raises some unanswered questions.

Alexander has a very clear explanation of the sun's wobble and movements and how they affect the earth.

nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf

Some people actually do useful work and try to figure out what is happening on the planet instead of just blaming it on CO2 emissions.


nzclimatescience? "commonsense about climate change" give me a break. Science is not about common sense. If it was, no one would have thought of quantum mechanics. It is more and more about understanding highly complex systems. A bunch of earnest nutters and contrarians, with little actual expertise in what is actually being researched, doing just what the deniers all want, finding any answer but CO2, which is the point. It's the sun, no it's a natural cycle, no it's not actually changing, measurements are wrong, it's anything but CO2. Vincent Gray is past it, he has no idea what current research is nor how to understand it, Bellamy is a botanist, Carter is a simple contrarian in the mold of Lindzen, who is outside his field of competence.

They publish yet another paper by people with no actual expertise in their field they are investigating.

Compare their statistic for measuring rainfall, with the annual Australian rainfall, for example.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112

Correlation non existant. They have gone off on a data mining exercise, and managed to pick a period of time and water statistic that suits their pre conceived ideas. You will note it stops in 1995. That's over ten years ago.

[a_unique_person]

Nearly all your posts are anecdotal and emotive consisting of scripted responses, news headlines, blogs, opinions, unsubstantiated claims, generalized statements, appeal to Authority etc.

Now you are quoting bigcitylib? Keep in mind he and others like him are the same ones who said Steve McIntyre was wasting his time with NASA last month before Hansen was forced to correct errors in their temperature reports.



He was right, the error McIntyre found was inconsequential. You ignored the link to McIntyre's own site, where the 'wheels about to fall off' stayed firmly on. McIntyre and friends, for all that effort, merely managed to validate the temperature record. Nice of them to do so, but a waste of time.

References to scientific research are not appeals to authority. I am quite happy to admit I am not a climate scientist, that I have to rely on them to tell me what the scientific method has discovered. When you read McIntyres site, the image that pops into my mind is a bunch of ten year old boys forming a secret club and building a cubby house. It's a lot of fun, but not actual science.


Why not actually read CA to get the facts instead of relying on those whose only goal is to obfuscate and muddy the waters. BCL, Steve Bloom, Eli Rabbet and others posted at Dr. Roger Pielke’s blog constantly with the same tripe, for which Dr. Pielke politely responded with facts and data.


The fact is, the work they have put into invalidating the temperature record has only validated it.


The truth is there are significant issues within the surface station network whether those aforementioned insignificant nabobs admit it or not. Also, if you were paying attention, NOAA did not correct the U.S. temperature record and their data is in huge disagreement with NASA, but you won’t see that mentioned by BCL. So, which one is correct?


It's not a huge disagreement. It's a huge disagreement if you feel you want it to be.


Seeing how AGwarmers constantly harp about “regional is not global”, and U.S. temperatures “don’t matter”, logic would dictate Australia is regional as well and “doesn’t matter” wouldn’t you agree?



Now, produce a 100-150 year rainfall history for Australia to show a 1000 year “unprecedented” drought; that would give some credence to your unsubstantiated claims. Put up or shut up. Something other than climate models would be helpful, such as this which is an actual study:


Models are the basis of the majority of science these days. Purely empirical science is a thing of the past, it explains nothing.

[quote]
Linkages between solar activity,climate predictability and water resource development
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Alexander-etal-2007.pdf

It's a load of tripe. I already found a rainfall record that doesn't match their solar cycles, and it took me five minutes.

[mhaze]

nzclimatescience? "commonsense about climate change" give me a break. Science is not about common sense. If it was, no one would have thought of quantum mechanics. It is more and more about understanding highly complex systems. A bunch of earnest nutters and contrarians, with little actual expertise in what is actually being researched, doing just what the deniers all want, finding any answer but CO2, which is the point. It's the sun, no it's a natural cycle, no it's not actually changing, measurements are wrong, it's anything but CO2. Vincent Gray is past it, he has no idea what current research is nor how to understand it, Bellamy is a botanist, Carter is a simple contrarian in the mold of Lindzen, who is outside his field of competence.

You are off on another nutter rampage. That nutter rampage has nothing to do about the subject (again). The subject is Alexander 2007, published in a South African journal of civil engineering. That is a pdf file. It happened to be on a web page you don't like. Get over it.

And by the way, my gracious offer to not quote 3 sources of your pick (whom you find annoying and who set you off on nutter rampages) in exchange for you not doing the same (those being scientists you like who, if they were engaged in business promotion would be behind bars) is now withdrawn.

And this statement by you - No, we have had established rainfall patterns, that's where the farms are. Now the rainfall patterns are changing, as predicted. There is rain falling where farms aren't. That's not because CO2 is nasty, that's just a result of the laws of physics.
Is quite fascinating. AGW is happening and is proven because rain is falling where the farms are not.

OOOOOOOOOOKay..............

[a_unique_person]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/#more-471

Schwartz comes up with a low value for climate sensitivity. Hooray goes the blogosphere, the IPCC is wrong, he is right.

How did he come up with the low value for climate sensitivity? He used a simple mathematical model of course. But I thought models were out? We can't use models, they can't tell us anything about climate. Why the cheers, why no attacks on Schwartz for being a climate sceptic who uses models?

[a_unique_person]

You are off on another nutter rampage. That nutter rampage has nothing to do about the subject (again). The subject is Alexander 2007, published in a South African journal of civil engineering. That is a pdf file. It happened to be on a web page you don't like. Get over it.

[quote]

I called the nutters, and I gave my reasons, which you have ignored.

[quote]
And by the way, my gracious offer to not quote 3 sources of your pick (whom you find annoying and who set you off on nutter rampages) in exchange for you not doing the same (those being scientists you like who, if they were engaged in business promotion would be behind bars) is now withdrawn.

And this statement by you -No, we have had established rainfall patterns, that's where the farms are. Now the rainfall patterns are changing, as predicted. There is rain falling where farms aren't. That's not because CO2 is nasty, that's just a result of the laws of physics.
Is quite fascinating. AGW is happening and is proven because rain is falling where the farms are not.

OOOOOOOOOOKay..............

I didn't say AGW is proven because of changing rainfall patterns, I said it was predicted and is happening. It's happening because the cold fronts that pass across the south of Australia have been shifted further south by global warming. They are dropping more of their rain on the ocean now, instead of land.

[Tex Luthor]

Sorry, I was out during the post on water vapor, but I thought it was interesting. I really liked the comment "increased water vapor is caused by warming, it is not the cause of it". The same goes for CO2. If we look at CO2 solubility in the oceans we find that it decreases with increasing temperature. Therefore, as the temperature increases the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases. Hence increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

[David Rodale]

He was right, the error McIntyre found was inconsequential. You ignored the link to McIntyre's own site, where the 'wheels about to fall off' stayed firmly on. McIntyre and friends, for all that effort, merely managed to validate the temperature record. Nice of them to do so, but a waste of time.

References to scientific research are not appeals to authority. I am quite happy to admit I am not a climate scientist, that I have to rely on them to tell me what the scientific method has discovered. When you read McIntyres site, the image that pops into my mind is a bunch of ten year old boys forming a secret club and building a cubby house. It's a lot of fun, but not actual science.

The fact is, the work they have put into invalidating the temperature record has only validated it.

It's not a huge disagreement. It's a huge disagreement if you feel you want it to be.


Models are the basis of the majority of science these days. Purely empirical science is a thing of the past, it explains nothing.



It's a load of tripe. I already found a rainfall record that doesn't match their solar cycles, and it took me five minutes.

I must apologize for missing the link to the rainfall record that doesn't match Alexander's solar cycles. Would you please point it out? Did you read his article?

Would you still like to take me up on that friendly wager about McIntyre and the temperature record/surface station issue?

Models are the basis of the majority of science these days. Purely empirical science is a thing of the past, it explains nothing.:jaw-dropp

I've been contributing to and following events at Climate Audit since Spring 2006, so I think you may be a bit wet behind the ears. You're getting information 2nd hand. Perhaps it may be efficacious to get direct from the source? Below is the latest concerning Hansen's shell game, an email sent to Dr. Hansen from Steve M, and no doubt bigcitylib addressed it on his blog ;)

To NASA:
Dear Sirs, I notice that you’ve changed the historical data for some US stations since Sep 7, 2007. In particular, I noticed that temperatures for Detroit Lakes MN in the early part of the century were reduced by nearly 0.5 deg C. These changes are subsequent to your changes in August 2007 for the changing versions. To my knowledge, there is no explanation for this most recent change and I was wondering what the reason is.

Essentially what is happening here is Hansen gets whatever results he wants by hook or crook. Do you challenge this assertion?

Are you saying quality control is not important in science? Please do a search for Benford's Law.

Are we on for the bet?

[CapelDodger]

The desert appears to be jumping the Mediteranean to Spain.

And in the southern hemisphere, the rain-band is leaving Australia and falling on fish that really don't need it.

It's time for you guys to emigrate to the Southern Sahara, while the land's cheap and unoccupied. It remains arid, but Australia has a wealth of expertise in farming an arid country.

You might have to fight the Spanish for it, but how hard is that likely to be? You'll have the Welsh on your side if you call your colony New New South Wales.

It's all rather silly, isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Sorry, I was out during the post on water vapor, but I thought it was interesting. I really liked the comment "increased water vapor is caused by warming, it is not the cause of it". The same goes for CO2. If we look at CO2 solubility in the oceans we find that it decreases with increasing temperature. Therefore, as the temperature increases the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases. Hence increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's amazing how quickly 'papers' get around the blogosphere.

The paper is rubbish, it all shows is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Research has already been done to see if the extra CO2 is from the ocean or is from fossil fuels. The answer is fossil fuels. This can be determined using the same methods used for carbon dating.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

This research was done years ago. I don't know why yet another earnest amateur bothered to waste his time.

[a_unique_person]

I must apologize for missing the link to the rainfall record that doesn't match Alexander's solar cycles. Would you please point it out? Did you read his article?



Yes, and his source for validation, one record of inflow to one water storage, is a joke.



Would you still like to take me up on that friendly wager about McIntyre and the temperature record/surface station issue?

:jaw-dropp

I've been contributing to and following events at Climate Audit since Spring 2006, so I think you may be a bit wet behind the ears. You're getting information 2nd hand. Perhaps it may be efficacious to get direct from the source? Below is the latest concerning Hansen's shell game, an email sent to Dr. Hansen from Steve M, and no doubt bigcitylib addressed it on his blog ;)

To NASA:


Essentially what is happening here is Hansen gets whatever results he wants by hook or crook. Do you challenge this assertion?



Considering McIntyre's own website has come up with the same answer, does that make him a co-conspiritor?


Are you saying quality control is not important in science? Please do a search for Benford's Law.

And when did you start beating your wife.


Are we on for the bet?What for? McIntyre has already got the graph on his web site that shows clearly, the US temperature record has been validated by him. Not that he appears to be aware of that fact.

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, I was out during the post on water vapor, but I thought it was interesting. I really liked the comment "increased water vapor is caused by warming, it is not the cause of it". The same goes for CO2. If we look at CO2 solubility in the oceans we find that it decreases with increasing temperature. Therefore, as the temperature increases the oceans ability to hold CO2 decreases. Hence increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Big problem with that : dissolved oceanic CO2 is increasing, not decreasing. The oceans are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, not vice versa, despite the warming. (In fact, acidification of the oceans may turn out to be a more immediate problem than climate change.)

Warming isn't increasing CO2, increasing CO2 is causing warming. There are no other credible candidates, and no good reason to seek them.

[CapelDodger]

It's amazing how quickly 'papers' get around the blogosphere.

It shows how small that world is.

[Tex Luthor]

As a chemical engineer with advanced degrees and 6 patents on CO2 behavior I simply cannot compete with you guys. I was trying to agree that human activity is probably not the source or the warming, but I just don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I promise to stay out of your universe.

[a_unique_person]

As a chemical engineer with advanced degrees and 6 patents on CO2 behavior I simply cannot compete with you guys. I was trying to agree that human activity is probably not the source or the warming, but I just don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I promise to stay out of your universe.

Did you read the link to Realclimate? People do research these things, they have already sought to confirm the source of the CO2. It was done years ago. People do know, and they know because they use science to investigate these things.

If you are a chemical engineer, then you would understand the use of carbon dating to find out just where the extra CO2 came from.

*To the extent that science can prove things.

[CapelDodger]

I've been contributing to and following events at Climate Audit since Spring 2006, so I think you may be a bit wet behind the ears. You're getting information 2nd hand.

That's truly special.

First ClimateAudit and then the reference to second-hand information. It's beyond self-parody.

Perhaps it may be efficacious to get direct from the source? Below is the latest concerning Hansen's shell game, an email sent to Dr. Hansen from Steve M, and no doubt bigcitylib addressed it on his blog ;)

To NASA:


Essentially what is happening here is Hansen gets whatever results he wants by hook or crook. Do you challenge this assertion?

Essentially what is happening there is MciIntyre sending an email and the going "Look at my email! What about that, eh?".

Are you saying quality control is not important in science?

Nobody's saying that. Some people, such as yourself, would rather take refuge in detail of no real significance than face the real world. The one that is so obviously getting warmer, and has been for a while now.


Are we on for the bet?

I bet you a thousand euros the world will be warmer in 2012 than it is now.

What's your bet?

[David Rodale]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/#more-471

Schwartz comes up with a low value for climate sensitivity. Hooray goes the blogosphere, the IPCC is wrong, he is right.

How did he come up with the low value for climate sensitivity? He used a simple mathematical model of course. But I thought models were out? We can't use models, they can't tell us anything about climate. Why the cheers, why no attacks on Schwartz for being a climate sceptic who uses models?

Who said models are out? Not being a climate scientist doesn't mean one must be totally clueless, please learn about models, their limitations and why climate models cannot be validated.

We can expect RealClimate to publish a peer reviewed response any day now:D

I'll let you look up 2001 & 2007.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef33c5707f0.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8376)

[a_unique_person]

Who said models are out? Not being a climate scientist doesn't mean one must be totally clueless, please learn about models, their limitations and why climate models cannot be validated.

We can expect RealClimate to publish a peer reviewed response any day now:D

I'll let you look up 2001 & 2007.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef33c5707f0.jpg

Realclimate has already stated why his simplified model is wrong in several respects. Peer reviewed response? Does it even warrent one. If scientists had to respond to every paper an amateur in the field puts up, they would never get any real work done.

[a_unique_person]

I'll let you look up 2001 & 2007.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef33c5707f0.jpg

No, I'll let you, you're the one making the claim.

[David Rodale]

That's truly special.

First ClimateAudit and then the reference to second-hand information. It's beyond self-parody.



Essentially what is happening there is MciIntyre sending an email and the going "Look at my email! What about that, eh?".



Nobody's saying that. Some people, such as yourself, would rather take refuge in detail of no real significance than face the real world. The one that is so obviously getting warmer, and has been for a while now.




I bet you a thousand euros the world will be warmer in 2012 than it is now.

What's your bet?

Depending on what SC24 does, it may very well be as warm as today, maybe even slightly warmer. However, if SC24 is weak as some predict, it will be cooler and continue downward from there. By all accounts SC25 will be much weaker. SC24 is the grey area. There is a 4-15 year lag response.

Your Met O is counting on SC24 going off the charts, so at least they acknowledge the sun actually is responsible for temperature. Regardless, there won't be any more warming between now and then; Met O admits that much :D


Unique will tell you what the bet is; just a simple gentleman's wager.
McIntyre is 3-0. Please explain the below "adjustments" by NASA. The data is available, unless Hansen deleted it of course.
From ClimateAudit:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef463355856.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8377)




Satellite records. As I recall, Sept. 2007 data has not yet been calibrated.
Source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Since Hansen's prophetic utterance 1988
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef514b444bd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8379)

Since Nov. 1978
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef5192a5c8d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8380)

Since 1997. Trend can be ignored as 1998 was Super El Nino...wouldn't want to be accused of padding the numbers!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef5391a44ec.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8381)

Since Feb 2001, coming out of 1998 El Nino. Not much warmin' goin on
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef53fdaa53c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8382)

Remove the El Nino's and the trend is DOWN

[mhaze]

As a chemical engineer with advanced degrees and 6 patents on CO2 behavior I simply cannot compete with you guys. I was trying to agree that human activity is probably not the source or the warming, but I just don't know, and neither does anyone else.

I promise to stay out of your universe.

Were you referring to Schwartz 2007 or Weintz 2007? First being "heat capacity" and deriving 1.1 C for climate sensitivity, second showing precipitation 3x for given temperature increase over what the models show.

[a_unique_person]

Depending on what SC24 does, it may very well be as warm as today, maybe even slightly warmer. However, if SC24 is weak as some predict, it will be cooler and continue downward from there. By all accounts SC25 will be much weaker. SC24 is the grey area. There is a 4-15 year lag response.

Your Met O is counting on SC24 going off the charts, so at least they acknowledge the sun actually is responsible for temperature. Regardless, there won't be any more warming between now and then; Met O admits that much :D

Nobody ever said it wasn't, nobody is that stupid. If I ever meet anyone who thinks otherwise, I'll be sure to pass the message on.

If you want to debate the reasons for the current climate change, that's something else.

[mhaze]

That's truly special.

First ClimateAudit and then the reference to second-hand information. It's beyond self-parody.



Essentially what is happening there is MciIntyre sending an email and the going "Look at my email! What about that, eh?".



Nobody's saying that. Some people, such as yourself, would rather take refuge in detail of no real significance than face the real world. The one that is so obviously getting warmer, and has been for a while now.




I bet you a thousand euros the world will be warmer in 2012 than it is now.

What's your bet?
Here's a bet. The Arctic ice grows back and does not shrink to zero as alarmists are claiming may happen pretty shortly.

How about that one? No gentlemen's wagers, money escrowed at the start.

[a_unique_person]

McIntyre is 3-0. Please explain the below "adjustments" by NASA. The data is available, unless Hansen deleted it of course.
From ClimateAudit:
[/URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef463355856.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8377)



Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero. :rolleyes:


Satellite records. As I recall, Sept. 2007 data has not yet been calibrated.

Since Hansen's prophetic utterance 1988
[URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032346ef514b444bd.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8379)



Yes, it's an upward trend.

[mhaze]

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero. :rolleyes:
Yes, it's an upward trend.

By the way, AUP, you never answered me on this.

I said I was willing to go 0.025 C/decade for AGW superimposed on the natural cycle, with 0.005 C/decade for CO2 "greenhouse effects".

Do you want to agree with that? If not, please look at the chart here and tell me how much for AGW in the last decade, how much for CO2, and how much was from the natural cycle.

Here are some things to mull over. I'll be pointing out some details in them which are quite relevant to the current discussion. Not that I've got all the answers, mind you....just trying to make an effort to ask the right questions.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446ebe79371e34.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8342)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/14224469fff341ad5f.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7118)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446a0022711046.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7146)



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446a001893d2c8.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7141)



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446a000e229470.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7134)

[David Rodale]

Hansen revises and checks the figures, it's patent fraud, McIntyre does it for him, he's a hero. :rolleyes:



Yes, it's an upward trend.

Only a gullible warmer could believe "adjusting" temperature data upward continually without justification or explanation is not to be questioned.

The trend is less than the climate models predicted, and it is going down. It won't be long until you folks will be back here trying to convince us that's a result of "global warming" as well. Irrefutable hypotheses are great aren't they?