2011's Global Cooling

[Rainsford]

I imagine climate scientists would point out that trying to suggest anything about long term climate trends using 5 months of data is silly.

Of course the debate about MMGW clearly has little if anything to do with that climate scientists think about it. Because after all, just because you are educated and experienced in a particular topic doesn't mean you have any more right to an opinion on it than random people on the Internet, right?

 

[Darwin333]

I think the only reason there are even deniers is they don't like any of the proposed remedies.

I for one am neither a "denier" nor a "believer" but I am quite positive that there has been no proposed remedy that is even remotely feasible on a global level.

 

[Darwin333]

Looks to me like they are. I didn't see any mention of those things till you just mentioned them here. I know I sure as hell wouldn't support any of those comments, but I do know that MMGW is real due to some of the reasons I talked about here. I am not going to defend stupid comments some people make. But I am going to defend the science behind climate change.

Really those type of comment that have been made should be ignored, or at least said by both sides that it is just a stupid comment and shouldn't be brought up again. There are tons of these comments on both sides. Bringing these and other idiotic comments up just takes away from the actual discussion, and trying to show what is really going on.

I am just trying to show the very basics of MMGW. So I agree that those comments are stupid now lets move forward.

Ok, lets move forward. Currently there are billions of people that live in really fucked up conditions, no electricity or running water. They kind of want to better their lifestyles and have things like running water and electricity. How do you convince those people to either forgo that better lifestyle or to wait much much longer so they can afford to get it using "clean" technology (if they can ever afford it at all)? How do you convince the Chinas and Indias to slow down the improvement of their peoples lives by providing those things as cheaply as possible?

I am quite sure that we can reduce our emissions in the US, albeit at a rather large cost in most areas, but that isn't the real issue. I have yet to hear a reasonable idea on how to get the rest of the world, who doesn't currently enjoy the lifestyle we do, to get on board.

 

[monovillage]

I imagine climate scientists would point out that trying to suggest anything about long term climate trends using 5 months of data is silly.

Of course the debate about MMGW clearly has little if anything to do with that climate scientists think about it. Because after all, just because you are educated and experienced in a particular topic doesn't mean you have any more right to an opinion on it than random people on the Internet, right?

Not all climate scientists agree on long term climate trends. One worthwhile blog to check is Dr. Judith Curry's.
http://judithcurry.com/

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Where I live it is frequently 100F or higher by late April, yet now it's almost June and has only touched 90F. I think the high today was 70F. I blame all these silly liberal environmental regulations to be the cause. More greenhouse gasses please, so I can have a warm swimming pool without spending energy on heating it.

 

[shira]

Not all climate scientists agree on long term climate trends. One worthwhile blog to check is Dr. Judith Curry's.
http://judithcurry.com/

Unanimity doesn't exist in any branch or science or in any science specialization. Why then do MMCC-deniers pretend that the existence of a small minority of climatologists who don't agree with the consensus means something?

Really, it's laughable. MMCC-deniers like Monovillage pretend that they've sifted through all of the research and have made a fully informed decision based on having all of the available data.

But they're lying. They want MMCC to be false as a matter of ideology; they search for arguments on the anti-MMCC side that sound credible to them; and - voila! - MMCC is false.

 

[monovillage]

Unanimity doesn't exist in any branch or science or in any science specialization. Why then do MMCC-deniers pretend that the existence of a small minority of climatologists who don't agree with the consensus means something?

Really, it's laughable. MMCC-deniers like Monovillage pretend that they've sifted through all of the research and have made a fully informed decision based on having all of the available data.

But they're lying. They want MMCC to be false as a matter of ideology; they search for arguments on the anti-MMCC side that sound credible to them; and - voila! - MMCC is false.

Try looking at and reading the link shira, you just might learn something. It's obvious that you have a closed mind and in science that's always a fatal flaw. Read the link, look at the data and maybe you'll find something you agree with. It's not that tough to spend a couple of hours doing a bit of research before you make such laughable claims.

 

[shira]

Try looking at and reading the link shira, you just might learn something. It's obvious that you have a closed mind and in science that's always a fatal flaw. Read the link, look at the data and maybe you'll find something you agree with. It's not that tough to spend a couple of hours doing a bit of research before you make such laughable claims.

Why don't you first explain to us why you give so much credence to the 5% of data that seems to undermine MMCC. Explain to us why the other 95% of studies isn't convincing to you?

Do you understand the problem here? You're cherry-picking studies, looking for something to support your pre-conceived, self-interested beliefs.

I, on the other hand, don't need to cherry-pick. Not being an expert in the field, I go with the consensus, wherever it leads. it would be the height of arrogance for me to NOT go with the consensus.

But apparently you think you're an expert. You think you can selectively read papers and make an informed decision. Who needs a PhD in climatology when all they need to do is cherry-pick research?

 

[monovillage]

Because you pulled that number out of your hat. Where did you get the number that 95% of the data supports what you think is the correct answer? .............. yeah I thought so, you got it from the same place you got the rest of your "information". It's not the science you're angry about, it's the political and policy defeat that Catastrophic Climate Change has suffered in the worldwide political arena.

 

[LumbergTech]

the argument that we cannot have a profound effect on our planet is absurd

there are a variety of instances in which we have caused some epically fucked up things to happen...if you had taken a number of courses in science it would be quite obvious

i'm not saying that validates MMGW, i'm just pointing out how retarded of an argument it is

 

[dmcowen674]

the argument that we cannot have a profound effect on our planet is absurd

there are a variety of instances in which we have caused some epically fucked up things to happen...

if you had taken a number of courses in science it would be quite obvious

Dude, Religious Rich Republicans do not believe in Science and have in fact eliminated Science from southern state school curriculums and replaced with Bible study. Where have you've been?

 

[shira]

Because you pulled that number out of your hat. Where did you get the number that 95% of the data supports what you think is the correct answer? .............. yeah I thought so, you got it from the same place you got the rest of your "information". It's not the science you're angry about, it's the political and policy defeat that Catastrophic Climate Change has suffered in the worldwide political arena.

Out of a hat? Where?

http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science

Don't some scientists disagree?

Yes, some do. Just as some scientists disagree about evolution, and about the health effects of tobacco. A minority report released to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee listed 700 scientists who disagree.

A survey study of several thousand leading scientists conducted by the University of Illinois found that 82% believe that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Many listed in the minority report are meteorologists and petroleum geologists.

The survey study concluded that, "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." The study also concluded that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge now is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

The study cited above is this one:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

And then there was this study from 2004 that analyzed peer-reviewed papers on Climate Change (check Page 71):

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.3835&rep=rep1&type=pdf

But let me guess: You're not convinced. It's a conspiracy. There's billions of dollars supplied by some mysterious cabal trying to panic the world into reducing carbon emissions.

The fact is, monovillage, NOTHING will convince you that MMCC is real. You're incapable of objectivity. You're an arrogant fool.

 

[werepossum]

So you are comparing 2011, of which there are at most 5 months of data right now, to 2010's full year of data? Are you off your meds? Not to mention even if the comparison was for the same months, fluctuations from 1 year to the next mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Do you really want to argue that the violent tornadoes of Q1/Q2 2011 are caused partially by things that have not yet happened?

Personally I think people who really care about the Earth and the environment need to drop the doom and gloom. We're still uncovering mines, villages and passes which in the Little Ice Age were covered with snow and ice, so obviously we're not yet near the point where humanity will have problems from heat. Instead, concentrate on the less controversial and more provable things - pollution, the measurable effects of high CO2 such as marine and aquatic acidification, the environmental side effects of fracking and drilling. Everyone likes to feel important, but the insane predictions and continually failing predictions just make CAGW proponents look, well, insane and incompetent, not to mention ideologically driven.

 

[monovillage]

Out of a hat? Where?

http://www.climatepath.org/aboutus/science



The study cited above is this one:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

And then there was this study from 2004 that analyzed peer-reviewed papers on Climate Change (check Page 71):

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.3835&rep=rep1&type=pdf

But let me guess: You're not convinced. It's a conspiracy. There's billions of dollars supplied by some mysterious cabal trying to panic the world into reducing carbon emissions.

The fact is, monovillage, NOTHING will convince you that MMCC is real. You're incapable of objectivity. You're an arrogant fool.

The 2 significant questions in the poll you cited above.
"1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?"

If you read that PDF you'd see how ridiculous that study was. How many skeptics even disagree with those questions? Not many. How many skeptics disagree with the fact that humans "play a role" in climate change? If you'd bothered to read the link to Dr. Curry's blog about the things we can agree on you'd see just how nonsensical your response is. There's a major degree of uncertainty and doubt when you move from playing a role in the climate to Catastrophic Global Warming that requires trillions of dollars in funding for nonexistent returns.

 

[desy]

Agreed focus on pollution and reduction of GH gases without making it a war crime
Kyoto failed becasue it exempted the two fastest growing economies, not because governments worried over much about the science, it was about the economics of carbon trading

 

[Jaskalas]

Because you pulled that number out of your hat. Where did you get the number that 95% of the data supports what you think is the correct answer? .............. yeah I thought so, you got it from the same place you got the rest of your "information". It's not the science you're angry about, it's the political and policy defeat that Catastrophic Climate Change has suffered in the worldwide political arena.

I know the answer to that, not that I wanted to return to post somewhat off-topic material, but the issue has now been raised and I will not let that propaganda rest.

75 of 77 'climate scientists' agreed with the warmist orthodoxy, and of course you already know that 75 people means practically everyone. That's the ultimate consensus right there. Ignore the fact that they polled over 10,000 scientists and had to cut and cut and cut until the percentile looked just right.

In case the whole article is tough to read, here's the pertinent information.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

That propaganda was filtered through the media and made 'fact' for the lemmings to tout. Consensus through propaganda.

 

[shira]

The 2 significant questions in the poll you cited above.
"1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?"

If you read that PDF you'd see how ridiculous that study was. How many skeptics even disagree with those questions? Not many. How many skeptics disagree with the fact that humans "play a role" in climate change? If you'd bothered to read the link to Dr. Curry's blog about the things we can agree on you'd see just how nonsensical your response is. There's a major degree of uncertainty and doubt when you move from playing a role in the climate to Catastrophic Global Warming that requires trillions of dollars in funding for nonexistent returns.

How come you believe what Curry writes but you don't believe what the National Research Council wrote two weeks ago?

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...-reports/reports-in-brief/ACC-final-brief.pdf

Given the inherent complexities of the climate system, and the many social, economic, and technological factors that affect the climate system, we can expect always to be learning more and to be facing uncertainties regarding future risks. But
uncertainty is a double-edged sword; it is possible that future climate-related risks will be less serious than current projections indicate, but it is also possible they will be even more serious. Uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. Rather, the challenge for society is to acknowledge the uncertainties and respond accordingly, as is done in so many other realms (for example, when
people buy home insurance to protect against unknown future losses and when businesses plan for a range of possible future economic conditions).

Oh, wait. I keep forgetting. You're cherry picking.

 

[monovillage]

Because Curry is a scientist and the NRC is a political policy organization.

"
Cover detail from The Future of U.S. Chemistry Research
Welcome to the National Research Council

The National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln that was originally granted to the NAS in 1863. Under this charter, the NRC was established in 1916, the NAE in 1964, and the IOM in 1970. The four organizations are collectively referred to as the National Academies"

You do know the difference between science and politics don't you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh, wait. I keep forgetting. You're cherry picking.

The study you cited ignored the opinions of solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers (i.e.. those who actually understand external forcing factors)...and you talk about cherry picking? Wow.

 

[jhbball]

When did Republicans first start hating science?

 

[monovillage]

When did Republicans first start hating science?

When did you stop beating your wife?

 

[KlokWyze]

When did you stop beating your wife?

LMAO.... thread delivers. :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Because Curry is a scientist and the NRC is a political policy organization.

"
Cover detail from The Future of U.S. Chemistry Research
Welcome to the National Research Council

The National Research Council (NRC) functions under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln that was originally granted to the NAS in 1863. Under this charter, the NRC was established in 1916, the NAE in 1964, and the IOM in 1970. The four organizations are collectively referred to as the National Academies"

You do know the difference between science and politics don't you?

The NRC is a political policy organization? If you're that far gone that you need to desperately dismiss an extremely well-known independent scientific research and reporting wing of the National Academy of Sciences as "political," I'm not going to waste my time with you anymore. There's an old saying, "You're entitled to your opinion but not to your version of the facts." It's clear now how your mind works when confronted with factual information that crushes your true-denier belief system: dismiss the information as political; insist that it doesn't mean anything.

Please, go back to your highly convincing blog and wallow in your pathetic ignorance.

 

[shira]

The study you cited ignored the opinions of solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers (i.e.. those who actually understand external forcing factors)...and you talk about cherry picking? Wow.

That paper includes scientists of all types. The chart shows that 89% of scientists in ANY field who are actively publishing agree with the MMCC consensus. And the chart also shows that 97% of climatologists actively publishing papers on climatology agreed with the consensus.

What a surprise: To the extent that someone's scientific specialization is NOT climatology, they don't agree with the consensus. And you think that means something?