Scientific evidence now points to global cooling, contrary to U.N. alarmism

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Manbearpig

NontrollOCpost

I'm not going to stop searching, are you?
*************************************************
Let's look at the pro's and con's of acting on MMGW.

Pro's
1. We might avert extinction(this rates very highly with most humans)
2. We'll have cleaner air to breathe
3. Sustainable energy development

Con's
1. Higher energy prices.
2. ????????

Now of not acting.

Pro's
1. Energy prices remain more or less what they are now, with declining supplies certain to lead to much higher prices in the future.
2. Telling those commies in the EU to suck it.

Con's
1. The possible extinction of the human race.
2. Certainly loss of arable land in the US, perhaps presenting the US with the possibility of not being able to feed her populace for the first time in history.
3. Surrendering the future to the EU, China, and India. Because they are moving on, with or without us.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find interesting is that you guys want policymakers to use single studies to base their decisions on instead of hundreds if not thousands of them. Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with you cherry-picking science that agrees with your already held viewpoint?

I haven't read the study yet, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does not refute the basic premise of global warming.

Well, I think saying "the globe isn't warming, it's cooling," is a basic refutation of the theory that the globe is warming.

It's not a refutation at all, it's a god damned minority opinion, a minority opinion over a politicized issue an issue so politicized that you can bet politics will trump reason for many people. In fact, let me give you blithering idiots a sample of your own thinking: Scientists who think global warming is false almost all Republicans, Christian fundamentalists, and on the pay of the fossil fuel companies. They are all a bunch of lying hypocrites.

Well, now who made it political? Leftists, Greens, eco-nuts. The science is far, far from settled. Climate changes and quite frankly, for any of us to think man by himself can make dramatic alterations to our climate that would put the present version of Earth at risk is simply laughable. A couple Pinatubo's in a year would do far more harm than what man can currently dump into the atmosphere over several years.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We must understand that the global temperature in any given year is linked to solar output, which in turn is linked to the amount of sunspot activity which mainly follows a 11 year cycle. And this year has been notable for a lack of sunspot activity. Which means things are cooling down, at least this year.

But I dismiss any scientists who try to correlate global warming to only CO2 content in the atmosphere, because the problem of global warming is far more complex than that, and anyone who thinks the problem is understood only fools themselves.

What we have now is unprecedented in the last 150,000 years, with both polar icecaps melting, meanwhile methane is bumbling out of peramafrosts with methane being 17 times as effective as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and huge ocean deposits of methane hydrates are in danger of bubbling out.

Anyone who looks at a few years of low sun spot activity as a reprieve is being wildly overoptimistic.

You seem to be in agreement with the premise of the non-anthropogenic scientists in your first two paragraphs.

Unfortunately, your next two paragraphs make statements that are not corroborated with current research.

For example, your expressed concern with methane is laudable but almost all of the studies show that it is a very, very remote risk. Under conditions of global cooling it is likely no risk at all. Here I refer to -

Methane hydrates and anthropogenic climate change

...Regardless of the source of the methane, the climate forcing from the observed methane record is too weak to argue for a dominant role for methane in the glacial cycles.

Risks for the Future

We have defined a catastrophic methane release as one which occurs on a time scale that is short relative to the atmospheric lifetime of methane, about a decade, generating a 26 spike in atmospheric methane concentration that lasts about a decade...

The nightmare scenario would be the catastrophic release of a large fraction of the thousands of Gton C in the ocean hydrate reservoir. No one has proposed a mechanism by which such a nightmare catastrophe could take place.

As far as the "facts" of polar ice melt, there are a wide variety of contradictory studies.

Local climate variations are generally much larger than global ones. The reason is simple: it is easy to generate large localized temperature changes simply by changing the atmospheric circulation patterns (as happens for example in the North Atlantic Oscillation, NAO) ? this will steer the winds along a different track, causing some regions to warm and others to cool. In a global or hemispheric average, in contrast, this kind of redistribution of heat cancels out. For example, Arctic ice melt is almost always accompanied by Antarctic ice growth and vice versa.

There have been studies done to evaluate and correlate the various models employed, one can be found here -

An Antarctic assessment of IPCC AR4 coupled models

We assess 19 coupled models from the IPCC fourth assessment report archive from the simulation of the 20th century, based on the calculation of ?skill scores.? The models show a wide range of scores when assessed against Antarctic or global measures of large-scale circulation indices. Except for continental mass balance, the model average proves a more reliable estimate than that for any one model. Individual models show a very wide scatter in simulated Antarctic temperature trends over the past century; the large trend over the Antarctic peninsula in winter is not well represented, which makes it clear that whatever has been driving these trends is not well captured by many GCMs. Trends in temperature are clearly linked to the sea ice simulation, another variable that most models do not simulate well.

But these studies are of the last 100, 50, 20, 5 years and are thus completely out of sync with long term activity. I need to go get a coffee but you can check out this cool WWW site to get a clearer idea of the geologic time scale as it relates to climate change.

CLIMATE HISTORY w/illustrations and animations

 

[shira]

I have an uncle who was a professional meteorologist for the forest service for his entire professional career. In retirement (for the last 15 years), he's been gathering weather data in the Rockies and is extremely well-versed on the state-of-the art of climatology thinking. I was with him for three days last week, and I spent several hours discussing climate issues with him.

His own data and his prolific reading leave him in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real and accelerating. And note that this is a man with absolutely no ax to grind in this debate - he's been retired for over 15 years and has no financial or professional stake in this issue. Also, he's about as ego-less an individual as I've ever known. He just enjoys studying and understanding weather patterns, and has an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

Science isn't perfect, but it sure beats superstition and religion when it comes to delivering the goods; just look at anything involving technological progress - that's science in action.

The question I continually ask is: If you have 100 compelling papers in support of one viewpoint, and you have 5 compelling papers opposed to that viewpoint, why on earth would you side with the minority? When the preponderance of evidence says anthropogenic climate change is real, why are you going with the long-shot?

Every scientific theory (even General Relativity) has flaws, so arguing that unless current climate models are shown to be perfect and can account for ALL climate data (even data which suggests cooling patterns), the models must be rejected is just plain dishonest. If that's your intellectual approach, why don't you also demand that General Relativity be discarded, and quantum mechanics?

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What I find interesting is that you guys want policymakers to use single studies to base their decisions on instead of hundreds if not thousands of them. Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with you cherry-picking science that agrees with your already held viewpoint?

I haven't read the study yet, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does not refute the basic premise of global warming.

Well, I think saying "the globe isn't warming, it's cooling," is a basic refutation of the theory that the globe is warming.

It's not a refutation at all, it's a god damned minority opinion, a minority opinion over a politicized issue an issue so politicized that you can bet politics will trump reason for many people. In fact, let me give you blithering idiots a sample of your own thinking: Scientists who think global warming is false almost all Republicans, Christian fundamentalists, and on the pay of the fossil fuel companies. They are all a bunch of lying hypocrites.

Well, now who made it political? Leftists, Greens, eco-nuts. The science is far, far from settled. Climate changes and quite frankly, for any of us to think man by himself can make dramatic alterations to our climate that would put the present version of Earth at risk is simply laughable. A couple Pinatubo's in a year would do far more harm than what man can currently dump into the atmosphere over several years.

Jesus, what makes anything political. Truth gores somebody's ox. That's what made it political. The persons whose financial interests that are affected by truth go ape shit with denial. Where have you been. Surely you don't think it's truth that is political. It is always the asshole whose interests truth gores. See if you can remember that.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: shira
I have an uncle who was a professional meteorologist for the forest service for his entire professional career. In retirement (for the last 15 years), he's been gathering weather data in the Rockies and is extremely well-versed on the state-of-the art of climatology thinking. I was with him for three days last week, and I spent several hours discussing climate issues with him.

His own data and his prolific reading leave him in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real and accelerating. And note that this is a man with absolutely no ax to grind in this debate - he's been retired for over 15 years and has no financial or professional stake in this issue. Also, he's about as ego-less an individual as I've ever known. He just enjoys studying and understanding weather patterns, and has an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

Science isn't perfect, but it sure beats superstition and religion when it comes to delivering the goods; just look at anything involving technological progress - that's science in action.

The question I continually ask is: If you have 100 compelling papers in support of one viewpoint, and you have 5 compelling papers opposed to that viewpoint, why on earth would you side with the minority? When the preponderance of evidence says anthropogenic climate change is real, why are you going with the long-shot?

Every scientific theory (even General Relativity) has flaws, so arguing that unless current climate models are shown to be perfect and can account for ALL climate data (even data which suggests cooling patterns), the models must be rejected is just plain dishonest. If that's your intellectual approach, why don't you also demand that General Relativity be discarded, and quantum mechanics?

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

Uh huh...so, you have personally counted up the exact number of scientific studies that support this "man-made climate change" and the ones that are opposed to "man-made climate change" to come to the conclusion (more like assumption) that it is 100 to 5 in favor of "man-made climate change"? Right?

And you also have no personal agenda in this issue at all, seeing as how your "meteorologist uncle" is very pro-"man-made climate change", right?

:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira
I have an uncle who was a professional meteorologist for the forest service for his entire professional career. In retirement (for the last 15 years), he's been gathering weather data in the Rockies and is extremely well-versed on the state-of-the art of climatology thinking. I was with him for three days last week, and I spent several hours discussing climate issues with him.

His own data and his prolific reading leave him in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real and accelerating. And note that this is a man with absolutely no ax to grind in this debate - he's been retired for over 15 years and has no financial or professional stake in this issue. Also, he's about as ego-less an individual as I've ever known. He just enjoys studying and understanding weather patterns, and has an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

Science isn't perfect, but it sure beats superstition and religion when it comes to delivering the goods; just look at anything involving technological progress - that's science in action.

The question I continually ask is: If you have 100 compelling papers in support of one viewpoint, and you have 5 compelling papers opposed to that viewpoint, why on earth would you side with the minority? When the preponderance of evidence says anthropogenic climate change is real, why are you going with the long-shot?

Every scientific theory (even General Relativity) has flaws, so arguing that unless current climate models are shown to be perfect and can account for ALL climate data (even data which suggests cooling patterns), the models must be rejected is just plain dishonest. If that's your intellectual approach, why don't you also demand that General Relativity be discarded, and quantum mechanics?

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

The intention is to propagandize doubt because doubt causes paralysis. Do nothing folks so my team can continue to make money killing the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: shira
I have an uncle who was a professional meteorologist for the forest service for his entire professional career. In retirement (for the last 15 years), he's been gathering weather data in the Rockies and is extremely well-versed on the state-of-the art of climatology thinking. I was with him for three days last week, and I spent several hours discussing climate issues with him.

His own data and his prolific reading leave him in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real and accelerating. And note that this is a man with absolutely no ax to grind in this debate - he's been retired for over 15 years and has no financial or professional stake in this issue. Also, he's about as ego-less an individual as I've ever known. He just enjoys studying and understanding weather patterns, and has an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

Science isn't perfect, but it sure beats superstition and religion when it comes to delivering the goods; just look at anything involving technological progress - that's science in action.

The question I continually ask is: If you have 100 compelling papers in support of one viewpoint, and you have 5 compelling papers opposed to that viewpoint, why on earth would you side with the minority? When the preponderance of evidence says anthropogenic climate change is real, why are you going with the long-shot?

Every scientific theory (even General Relativity) has flaws, so arguing that unless current climate models are shown to be perfect and can account for ALL climate data (even data which suggests cooling patterns), the models must be rejected is just plain dishonest. If that's your intellectual approach, why don't you also demand that General Relativity be discarded, and quantum mechanics?

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

Uh huh...so, you have personally counted up the exact number of scientific studies that support this "man-made climate change" and the ones that are opposed to "man-made climate change" to come to the conclusion (more like assumption) that it is 100 to 5 in favor of "man-made climate change"? Right?

And you also have no personal agenda in this issue at all, seeing as how your "meteorologist uncle" is very pro-"man-made climate change", right?

:roll:

You are biased by your imbecility and don't understand what he said.

 

[Moonbeam]

I forgot:

:thumbsdown: :roll:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

Ah, so you've already resorted to name-calling and wild hyperbole. Yup, no bias or agenda coming from you.

:roll:

 

[PJABBER]

shira sez,

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

If presenting countering research by reputable scientists doesn't cut it, then what does?

If you are a "true believer" then no amount of logic or reference will convince you. That is why so many scientists refer to unquestioning anthropogenic belief as "pseudo-religion."

With all due respect to your grandfather, who is admirable for his dedication to micro climate research, the science is evolving and the consensus is rapidly shifting in a number of ways as it relates to causative and influencing factors and what, if anything, can be done and whether anything should be done.

Each of these issues can be addressed in isolation, but it is the last question that impacts political and economic decision making the most. If the science cannot be definitively determined, and in the opinion of many, many qualified scientists this is the only thing CAN be agreed to, then the best course of action is to do nothing lest we cause unintended harm or waste precious human and material resources.

We can cite source upon source in debate but the real question is, do we devote trillions of dollars toward ineffective and climate inconsequential programs that also introduce huge economic inefficiencies that would most definitely help destroy the economies of developed and developing countries, put millions of lives at risk by slowing or eliminating economic development, trade off more realistic and useful programs (the opportunity cost) and play this game solo as global competitors laugh at our foolishness?

Monies and resources can and should be better applied in demonstrably less expensive and much more effective ways than "Cap & Trade" - and here I refer you back to another post I made -

Mr. Gore, Your Solution to Global Warming Is Wrong

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Riprorin lives...

Was thinking the exact same thing!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

I may be a cretin but you are a complete dumbass for that response to my observation of what is happening in MN.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

last year i was golfing in late november, and we had the longest and warmest fall of my lifetime. Last winter was actually slightly warmer and much shorter than usual, and we had a pretty decent spring as well. July was cold and shitty

 

[OutHouse]

Sat morning Aug 1 at my house just 30 miles north of Denver the morning temp was 49 degrees. we have had a very mild and wet summer. my tomatoes are not ripening due to the low night time temps and the farms are worried about their crops.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira
I have an uncle who was a professional meteorologist for the forest service for his entire professional career. In retirement (for the last 15 years), he's been gathering weather data in the Rockies and is extremely well-versed on the state-of-the art of climatology thinking. I was with him for three days last week, and I spent several hours discussing climate issues with him.

His own data and his prolific reading leave him in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real and accelerating. And note that this is a man with absolutely no ax to grind in this debate - he's been retired for over 15 years and has no financial or professional stake in this issue. Also, he's about as ego-less an individual as I've ever known. He just enjoys studying and understanding weather patterns, and has an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

Science isn't perfect, but it sure beats superstition and religion when it comes to delivering the goods; just look at anything involving technological progress - that's science in action.

The question I continually ask is: If you have 100 compelling papers in support of one viewpoint, and you have 5 compelling papers opposed to that viewpoint, why on earth would you side with the minority? When the preponderance of evidence says anthropogenic climate change is real, why are you going with the long-shot?

Every scientific theory (even General Relativity) has flaws, so arguing that unless current climate models are shown to be perfect and can account for ALL climate data (even data which suggests cooling patterns), the models must be rejected is just plain dishonest. If that's your intellectual approach, why don't you also demand that General Relativity be discarded, and quantum mechanics?

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

The problem is that those 100 "compelling" scientific papers aren't really in agreement. Overall they argue that climate change is happening, but when it comes to the anthropogenic contribution they do not agree and often vary wildly. So it's a bit intellectually dishonest to claim that those 100 papers are in agreement in the first place. They agree on a major premise but can't seem to come to a concensus on the details, and those details are very important. Computer models based on those papers still continually fail to properly forecast temperature changes, cloud cover, sea ice; and can't even properly model the past climate. Clearly, something is still missing from the equation.

I have little doubt that dumping copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is having some kind of an effect. The question is how major or minor that effect is. If the Earth really is moving into another ice age cycle, not an unreasonable possibility considering the recent climatological past of our planet, excess atmospheric CO2 could help to moderate the effect of that change or slow the spread.

In reality, right now we are stuck between a rock and a hard place until we have further, conclusive data. Spending billions or trillions of dollars to solve a problem that we don't have a firm understanding of is simply silly. It'd be like trying to fix a highly complex assembly when you don't even know what some of the components are or what their function is. Claiming that AGW is a fact before that conclusive data comes in is jumping the gun as well. The only thing we can definitively state at this point is that "We just don't know what to do."

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

Ah, so your "scientific method" is that if a four pack-a-day smoker has great health for three years, that must mean that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous to health. Or if you flip a coin four times and it comes up "heads" on every flip, that must mean that the coin is flawed. Or if you go to singles bars and have unprotected sex with numerous women over the course of three years and remain disease-free, that must mean there's no such thing as AIDs.

You're a cretin.

WTF? he just pointed out what he has noticed in the area he resides. why in the hell did you call him a cretin for that?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody living in the upper plains, more specifically MN knows we have had bitter winters and mild summers the last 3 years. I really enjoyed the 65 and 30 MPH winds last weekend at the lake. Wearing a late fall jacket in the first weekend of August is not what I call a good time. Our winters have been brutal and longer than usual. This year was a little better but in 2008 we had 40s and 50 into early May and some places up north were still iced in for fishing opener.

last year i was golfing in late november, and we had the longest and warmest fall of my lifetime. Last winter was actually slightly warmer and much shorter than usual, and we had a pretty decent spring as well. July was cold and shitty

Do you pay an electric bill from xCel? Take a look at the avg temps for last winter. Decmber was off by nearly 3 degree's from the year before. Jan wasnt much better. Ill look at the rest of the months tonight. I question your late november bit as well.

Starting on or around the 8th of November we plumetted into the 30s for highs.

Nov 7th max report temp was 60.7 degrees, 8th was 37.9
This is the max rest of the month for minneapolis

37.9
34
34
37.4
44.6
44.1
41
32
33.1
30.9
36
30.9
28.9
33.1 - Nov 22nd
37.9 - gusts to 26mph
37.9 - gusts to 27mph
36
37.9
42.1 - gusts to 31
42.1 - gusts to 25
41

You'd have to be insane to play golf in that kind of weather. I'd like to know which courses stayed open that late in the year with that kind of weather? Those are the max temps. The mins was usually half those temps.

December didnt waste much time getting to night times between 1-3 degree's.

And I agreed we had a better spring than 08 which lead to news reports like this.
http://www.kare11.com/news/new...le.aspx?storyid=509119

 

[Lemon law]

PJABBER is correct in saying that the science of global warming is not understood, and partly right in saying the Ocean currents, el nino periods, and such tend to be cyclical. And while in the recorded history of the Human race which spans some 6000 years, its correct to say we have experienced some of these longer cycles in terms of so called little ice age around 1200 AD and a warm up that followed.

What PJABBER ignores is not that these cycles tend to repeat, but in the fact that we can reach so called tipping points, where the climate springs off to a totally different pattern, and does not reverse itself. Right now we are in danger of stopping Ocean currents like the Gulf stream if too much arctic ice melts. Which would result in all of Europe freezing.

In short, we are playing Russian roulette with our climate, we know that the human race can survive and thrive with normal climate cycles, what we don't know is can we survive climatic conditions brought on by reaching non reversible tipping points. As it is, existing global warming climate models fail and fail badly, they grossly over estimate the amount of warming at middle latitudes and grossly underestimate the amount of warming at the poles. In short and to add another dimension to the global warming problem, we do not presently understand how our climate distributes heat from the sun, most effective at the equator, to higher latitudes. Nor will we likely have a better understanding in the 30 year foreseeable future.

But sadly, sometimes we have to operate on less than perfect data, to not do so may be suicidal. Because by the time we have better data, it may be too late to prevent the cause and effect we would then better understand.

Its sort of like the guy who fell off the top of a 100 story building, and was heard saying as he passed the 50'th floor, so far so good. Because we know its futile, as soon as he fell off he was doomed, and only one outcome is then possible, he will go splat on the sidewalk
when he hits the ground, understanding his doom adds little.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira
I have an uncle who was a professional meteorologist for the forest service for his entire professional career. In retirement (for the last 15 years), he's been gathering weather data in the Rockies and is extremely well-versed on the state-of-the art of climatology thinking. I was with him for three days last week, and I spent several hours discussing climate issues with him.

His own data and his prolific reading leave him in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real and accelerating. And note that this is a man with absolutely no ax to grind in this debate - he's been retired for over 15 years and has no financial or professional stake in this issue. Also, he's about as ego-less an individual as I've ever known. He just enjoys studying and understanding weather patterns, and has an encyclopedic knowledge on the subject.

Science isn't perfect, but it sure beats superstition and religion when it comes to delivering the goods; just look at anything involving technological progress - that's science in action.

The question I continually ask is: If you have 100 compelling papers in support of one viewpoint, and you have 5 compelling papers opposed to that viewpoint, why on earth would you side with the minority? When the preponderance of evidence says anthropogenic climate change is real, why are you going with the long-shot?

Every scientific theory (even General Relativity) has flaws, so arguing that unless current climate models are shown to be perfect and can account for ALL climate data (even data which suggests cooling patterns), the models must be rejected is just plain dishonest. If that's your intellectual approach, why don't you also demand that General Relativity be discarded, and quantum mechanics?

If you think anthropogenic climate change is a crock, the burden is on YOU to justify why you're siding with a small minority. Citing a few papers - even good ones - won't cut it - I can cite you ten times as many good papers that support my belief.

The problem is that those 100 "compelling" scientific papers aren't really in agreement. Overall they argue that climate change is happening, but when it comes to the anthropogenic contribution they do not agree and often vary wildly. So it's a bit intellectually dishonest to claim that those 100 papers are in agreement in the first place. They agree on a major premise but can't seem to come to a concensus on the details, and those details are very important. Computer models based on those papers still continually fail to properly forecast temperature changes, cloud cover, sea ice; and can't even properly model the past climate. Clearly, something is still missing from the equation.

I have little doubt that dumping copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is having some kind of an effect. The question is how major or minor that effect is. If the Earth really is moving into another ice age cycle, not an unreasonable possibility considering the recent climatological past of our planet, excess atmospheric CO2 could help to moderate the effect of that change or slow the spread.

In reality, right now we are stuck between a rock and a hard place until we have further, conclusive data. Spending billions or trillions of dollars to solve a problem that we don't have a firm understanding of is simply silly. It'd be like trying to fix a highly complex assembly when you don't even know what some of the components are or what their function is. Claiming that AGW is a fact before that conclusive data comes in is jumping the gun as well. The only thing we can definitively state at this point is that "We just don't know what to do."

No, no, no! Don't you get it? "Everybody agrees" that "man-made climate change" is a "major crisis"! We "need" to spend trillions of dollars to avert this "catastrophe" now! We all need to live in tents and ride our bikes everywhere to save Mother Earth*! You just need to be enlightened.

*Algore and his private jets and fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs are exempt from this restriction because he is better than everyone else.

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Jmman
I am sure the Princeton Physics professor must be a right wing nutcase then......

Text

He's looking for funding from big oil.

Moon has a valid point on the distortions that come from the competitive process inherent to grant seeking. But there is quite a bit of evidence that the anthropogenic side of the debate is more sensitive to claims that their research was funding biased.

Let's consider Happer's perspective before we go on...

(Moon, you misinterpreted the quotes in the article -)

"Happer said that he is alarmed by the funding that climate change scientists, such as Pacala and Socolow, receive from the private sector.

?Their whole career depends on pushing. They have no other reason to exist. I could care less. I don?t get a dime one way or another from the global warming issue,? Happer noted. ?I?m not on the payroll of oil companies as they are. They are funded by BP.?

Happer is not funded by BP, anthropogenic researchers Pacala and Socolow are.

The CMI that pays Pacala and Socolow has had a research partnership with BP since 2000 and receives $2 million each year from the company. In October, BP announced that it would extend the partnership ? which had been scheduled to expire in 2010 ? by five years.

More from The Daily Princetonian article -

"Physics professor William Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore?s views on climate change. He asked in December, 2008 to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming

Though Happer has promulgated his skepticism in the past, he requested to be named a skeptic in light of the inauguration of then President-elect Barack Obama, whose administration has, as Happer notes, ?stated that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? and that humans are ?poisoning the atmosphere.?

Happer maintains that he doubts there is any strong anthropogenic influence on global temperature.

?All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it?s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,? Happer explained.

Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. ?I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,? Happer explained. ?They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.?

The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.

?They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings ? I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,? Happer said. ?This guy looked at me and said, ?What answer would you like?? I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ?Give me all this money, and I?ll get the answer you like.? ?

Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable ?religious cult,? noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.

He noted in an interview that in the past decade, despite what he called ?alarmist? claims, there has not only not been warming, there has in fact been global cooling. He added that climate change scientists are unable to use models to either predict the future or accurately model past events.

?There was a baseball sage who said prediction is hard, especially of the future, but the implication was that you could look at the past and at least second-guess the past,? Happer explained. ?They can?t even do that.?

Happer cited an ice age at the time of the American Revolution, when Londoners skated on the Thames, and warm periods during the Middle Ages, when settlers were able to farm southern portions of Greenland, as evidence of naturally occurring fluctuations that undermine the case for anthropogenic influence.

?[Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration] was exactly the same then. It didn?t change at all,? he explained. ?So there was something that was making the earth warm and cool that modelers still don?t really understand.?

The problem does not in fact exist, he said, and society should not sacrifice for nothing.

?[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It?s going to give science a really bad name in the future,? he said. ?I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.?

 

[Pens1566]

It was unusually warm here in June. And wasn't it record 100+ highs in pacific NW last week?

I guess that means global warming is back on ....

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We must understand that the global temperature in any given year is linked to solar output, which in turn is linked to the amount of sunspot activity which mainly follows a 11 year cycle. And this year has been notable for a lack of sunspot activity. Which means things are cooling down, at least this year.

But I dismiss any scientists who try to correlate global warming to only CO2 content in the atmosphere, because the problem of global warming is far more complex than that, and anyone who thinks the problem is understood only fools themselves.

What we have now is unprecedented in the last 150,000 years, with both polar icecaps melting, meanwhile methane is bumbling out of peramafrosts with methane being 17 times as effective as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and huge ocean deposits of methane hydrates are in danger of bubbling out.

Anyone who looks at a few years of low sun spot activity as a reprieve is being wildly overoptimistic.

Then why are all the "scientists" saying we need to cut CO2??? Because it's political. The environment has turned from the crusade of the enviro-whacos to the crusade of the power hunger whackos that want to use it as a means of extorting more money out of Americans in the guise as a tax.

 

[Brigandier]

A few quick questions:

In human history, has the average global temperature been higher than it is today?

If so, was that period before or after the industrial revolution?

In earth's history, has the average global temperature been higher than it is today?

Geologically speaking, are the trends of a few hundred years enough to predict or found alarmist claims about the doom of humanity?


Now, I want to clean up the environment, not because I'm afraid of ruining Earth, but because I enjoy the outdoors. I think a little more caution and discretion should be used before a large portion of Earth's productive capabilities are shunted into attempting to repair a problem that just may be beyond our control and always has been.