Climategate 2.0

[monovillage]

If you want to put it in a science perspective the look up Kevin Trenberth and the "null hypothesis" he advocates. That is pretty much what shira is talking about.

 

[JSt0rm]

If you want to put it in a science perspective the look up Kevin Trenberth and the "null hypothesis" he advocates. That is pretty much what shira is talking about.

ok

 

[monovillage]

Here you go shira.

"In fact, I DISAGREE that "most if not all people agree" that there's been 300 years of warming. If I had to guess, I'd say the actual percentage is less than 10%, with maybe half of the rest thinking that warming is a relatively recent phenomenon - starting in the past 50 or 60 years, and the other half not believing there's been warming at all."

I was wrong in that claim, i should have said that most, if not all people that are at all conversant with climate change/global warming believes the earth has warmed over the last 300 years. It was my mistake in leaving out those qualifiers.

 

[bfdd]

and is your opinion a scientific one? or is your opinion what you feel in your gut?

I believe in local cases we have done much damage to the environment, nothing that can't be fixed, but damage has been done. JSt0rm, you have family that grew up in LA? Ask them how it was in the 70s compared to now and there's easily 4 times as many cars on the road. I'm worried about polluting the planet to the point it's unusable by us, everyone should be, but that's a way different beast than AGW or ACC.

 

[palehorse]

Carbon tax = Killing your country.

FTFY.

 

[Ninjahedge]

So, if the cause is 100% natural, you want to find a way to manipulate the climate to stop the natural changes?

If it is natural, we find a way to deal with it.

Nice bait Mr. Troller!

Bottom line is simple.

Pollution = Bad.

For whatever reason Climate Change is occurring, a push to curtail our own contribution, no matter how large or small, should be taken.

Everyone is arguing the points that do not matter and is not trying to deal with the result.

When a man is on the floor bleeding, you do not get into an argument about what manufacturer made the knife.

 

[Ninjahedge]

FTFY.

You are right.

You did Fvck That For Me.

 

[Paul98]

Sun's heat and magnetic drivers,ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation) , Earths orbit/wobble/tilt, water vapor, CO2,methane, ocean currents, albedo. etc.

These are lots of the effects taken into account when studying climate change. When looking at them you can see positive and negative effects on climate depending on what you are looking at. You can look at different effects see where changes have happened the reasons for those changes. This is the very thing that climate scientists study, all the different effects and changes that are made.

 

[NeoV]

for the deniers who maintain it isn't getting warmer:

"This year is shaping up to be one of the ten hottest years on record, according to a United Nations report announced yesterday.

Likewise, 2011 may be the hottest year on record during La Niña, a periodic cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific.

That's a bad sign, since La Niña years are generally relatively cool, said Steven Running, a professor of ecology at the University of Montana, who was not part of the study team.

So the new finding suggests that La Niña conditions that once produced strong global cooling now only slightly affect the overall temperature trend, Running said by email.

"What does it take now to have a cooling cycle?" he asked. "And what will happen in the next strong El Niño?"

El Niño is a warming of tropical waters in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. During El Niño years, the warmer currents heat the planet on top of the steady global warming trend caused by human-induced greenhouse gases.

Based on data from 189 countries, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report was presented at an international climate conference this week in Durban, South Africa.

(Related: "Global Warming 'Marches On'; Past Decade Hottest Known.")

Climate Hot, and Getting Hotter

The report also found that all but two of the overall 15 hottest years since record-keeping began in 1850 have occurred between 1997 and 2011. (See "Heat Wave: 2010 to Be One of Hottest Years on Record.")

In addition, sea ice coverage was the second lowest on record. The lowest occurred in 2007.

Even that figure might be deceptively optimistic, because much of the sea ice appears to have been thinner than in past years. When sea ice cover was at its smallest in 2011, on September 9, the total Arctic sea ice volume was 8 percent lower than in 2010—previously the lowest on record, the WMO scientists found.

(See "Global Warming Silver Lining? Arctic Could Get Cleaner.")

The WMO's Global Atmosphere Watch program also recently released a report concluding that heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had reached a new high—an increase that will only continue, researchers say.

"Our science is solid, and it proves unequivocally that the world is warming and that this warming is due to human activities," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement addressing both reports.

(Quiz: Test your global warming knowledge.)

Floods, Droughts: A Year of Climate Extremes

This year was also full of extremes, according to this week's report.

Not surprisingly, given the high rates of melting in the Arctic, many Arctic regions were unusually hot. Parts of northern Russia reported springtime temperatures more than 16°F (9°C) above average, the WMO said.

(Related blog post: "Russia Burns in Hottest Summer on Record [2010].")

But there was plenty of other extreme weather elsewhere. For instance:

Finland, Armenia, Central America, and Spain all reported record heat.
It was the driest spring on record in many parts of western Europe, followed in some areas by the wettest summer.
East Africa experienced severe drought followed by flooding.
Other severe floods, often deadly, occurred in Southeast Asia, Brazil, Australia, Southern Africa, Central America, and Pakistan. (Read: "Extreme Storms and Floods Concretely Linked to Climate Change?")
Tropical cyclone and hurricane activity was unusually low, although not as low as in 2010 (which had the lowest storm count since satellites first allowed accurate record keeping).
(See a world map of potential global warming impacts.)

Texas-Size Temperature Rise

Extremes were also present in the U.S. and Canada, where conditions ranged from drought and heat in the South to heavy snowpack in the Midwest to record-breaking rainfall in the Northeast.

It was also the third worst U.S. tornado season since 1950, after 2004 and 2008.

(Read "Monster Alabama Tornado Spawned by Rare 'Perfect Storm.'")

But the most stunning figures may have come from Texas, where daily temperatures averaged 86.7° (30.4°C), in June through August—a staggering 5.4°F (3.0°C) above normal, scientists said.

The Texas statistic is "the highest [such average] ever recorded for any American state," according to the WMO website.

It's difficult to determine exactly how much of the extremes are due to climate change versus normal weather variations, said Richard Alley, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not part of the WMO team.

"The increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air from our activities do not make 'weather' disappear," he said by email. "But they do 'load the dice' to make hot conditions more likely.

"We haven't made cold snaps, and even record lows, disappear, but data and our physical understanding agree that we're still pushing strongly toward warming.""

 

[JSt0rm]

for the deniers who maintain it isn't getting warmer:

These people dont trust science. They believe in jesus christ not science. The world laughs at us.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I don't think most deniers are saying that it isn't getting warmer, I think most have a problem with the supposed cause being man-made. Of course they're also partially fueled by the fact that the government claims that taxing us more and "carbon credits" somehow is an answer - when money gets involved like that, it smells like a rat.

 

[werepossum]

Here you go shira.

"In fact, I DISAGREE that "most if not all people agree" that there's been 300 years of warming. If I had to guess, I'd say the actual percentage is less than 10%, with maybe half of the rest thinking that warming is a relatively recent phenomenon - starting in the past 50 or 60 years, and the other half not believing there's been warming at all."

I was wrong in that claim, i should have said that most, if not all people that are at all conversant with climate change/global warming believes the earth has warmed over the last 300 years. It was my mistake in leaving out those qualifiers.

The last three hundred years would have us warming from the Little Ice Age, so it would be equally valid to say the world has cooled over the last six hundred years (Medieval Warm Period.) In general though there will be gradual (though lumpy) warming in any interglacial period, followed by another glacial period.

The Earth has exquisite feedback loops (designed in or by happy accident, your choice) so I'm not greatly worried about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I am troubled by the excess CO2 though - I think that is a significant stressor on marine systems already stressed by overfishing, pollution, siltation, etc. We really need to be moving to power generated by nuclear, solar, etc. as well as mandating more insulation, tighter construction, more efficient appliances and vehicles, and other things to reduce energy consumption.

 

[cybrsage]

for the deniers who maintain it isn't getting warmer:

It is obviously getting warming. 14,000 years ago, there were glaciers covering half of the northern hemisphere. Then, without any pollution from mankind, they melted.

What we are denying is that man sent SUVs backwards in time to cause all four of the last warming periods...which would, obivously, include the current naturally caused warming period.

 

[cybrsage]

The last three hundred years would have us warming from the Little Ice Age, so it would be equally valid to say the world has cooled over the last six hundred years (Medieval Warm Period.) In general though there will be gradual (though lumpy) warming in any interglacial period, followed by another glacial period.

The Earth has exquisite feedback loops (designed in or by happy accident, your choice) so I'm not greatly worried about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I am troubled by the excess CO2 though - I think that is a significant stressor on marine systems already stressed by overfishing, pollution, siltation, etc. We really need to be moving to power generated by nuclear, solar, etc. as well as mandating more insulation, tighter construction, more efficient appliances and vehicles, and other things to reduce energy consumption.

Agreed. The crying Indian did a LOT for stopping pollution. No need to lie and pretend the Earth is going to burst into flame is people keep driving SUVs.

 

[werepossum]

for the deniers who maintain it isn't getting warmer:

SNIP
Tropical cyclone and hurricane activity was unusually low, although not as low as in 2010 (which had the lowest storm count since satellites first allowed accurate record keeping).
(See a world map of potential global warming impacts.)
SNIP

Just out of morbid curiosity, do you not have even the slightest problem with higher cyclone and hurricane activity AND lower cyclone and hurricane activity proving catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Obligatory:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

 

[palehorse]

for the deniers who maintain it isn't getting warmer:

I dont think anyone here has claimed that it's not getting warmer. The entire debate centers around the cause(s) for said warming; or, more specifically, whether or not the human race has had anything to do with it -- versus the warming being part of the Earth's completely natural cycles.

The debate also revolves around what to do about it -- if anything.

I, for one, draw the line at carbon taxation and carbon credits. I consider each of those "solutions" to be dangerous extremist nonsense that could seriously obliterate what little is left of the global economy.

Pollution = bad.

Cleaner power = good.

Carbon credits and/or taxation = devastating.

 

[monovillage]

Gee NeoV thanks for that timely United Nations report, they're not politically motivated, or motivated by their hoped for 100 Billion dollars a year from developed countries, just good hard working scientists being honest and truthful to the sucke....... people they want that money from.

 

[werepossum]

gee neov thanks for that timely united nations report, they're not politically motivated, or motivated by their hoped for 100 billion dollars a year from developed countries, just good hard working scientists being honest and truthful to the sucke....... People they want that money from.

lol +1

 

[shira]

It is obviously getting warming. 14,000 years ago, there were glaciers covering half of the northern hemisphere. Then, without any pollution from mankind, they melted.

What we are denying is that man sent SUVs backwards in time to cause all four of the last warming periods...which would, obivously, include the current naturally caused warming period.

So let's see, by way of analogy, if I've got this argument correct:

Europeans who smoke are obviously getting lung cancer in modern times. Prior to 1500, there was no tobacco in Europe. Yet, without any tobacco smoking, pre-1500 Europeans still developed lung cancer.

What we are denying is that man sent tobacco back in time to cause the lung-cancer deaths that occurred in pre-1500 Europe. And whatever caused pre-1500 Europeans to get lunch cancer still causes lung cancer in modern times.

Therefore, tobacco smoking does not significantly contribute to modern lung cancer rates in Europe.

 

[palehorse]

So let's see, by way of analogy, if I've got this argument correct:

Europeans who smoke are obviously getting lung cancer in modern times. Prior to 1500, there was no tobacco in Europe. Yet, without any tobacco smoking, pre-1500 Europeans still developed lung cancer.

What we are denying is that man sent tobacco back in time to cause the lung-cancer deaths that occurred in pre-1500 Europe. And whatever caused pre-1500 Europeans to get lunch cancer still causes lung cancer in modern times.

Therefore, tobacco smoking does not significantly contribute to modern lung cancer rates in Europe.

fail.

 

[werepossum]

fail.

Wait - we need to see how many Earths are included in his double blind studies.

 

[monovillage]

It's all about the science?

The North Pole, once a wintery wonderland,
is no longer safe for Santa's Workshop.

Climate change is melting the snow and ice, and the rising water is getting too close for comfort. Santa must relocate — fast — to make sure that all the nice boys and girls still have a Happy Holiday.

http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/

 

[cybrsage]

These people dont trust science. They believe in jesus christ not science. The world laughs at us.

I know your mind only works in simple thoughts, but the rest of us understand the two are not linked. They are mutually exclusive things.

Unless you are saying people like Freeman Dyson, Max Planck (you may recognize his name as that of a famous constant), and Jennifer Wiseman do not trust science.

Go ahead, say that...or at least admit you are wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

So let's see, by way of analogy, if I've got this argument correct:

Europeans who smoke are obviously getting lung cancer in modern times. Prior to 1500, there was no tobacco in Europe. Yet, without any tobacco smoking, pre-1500 Europeans still developed lung cancer.

What we are denying is that man sent tobacco back in time to cause the lung-cancer deaths that occurred in pre-1500 Europe. And whatever caused pre-1500 Europeans to get lunch cancer still causes lung cancer in modern times.

Therefore, tobacco smoking does not significantly contribute to modern lung cancer rates in Europe.

You would be correct if the lung cancer rates now and then were the same. Very good example for disputing your own claim.

The temp increase of the planet fits in perfectly with the previously 100% natural increases of the past. Your example, which shows an increased lung cancer rate after the addition of man create cancer agents, shows that we would need to see extra heating above and beyond the natural caused heating in order for man to be the cause.

Since we do not see any extra heating above and beyond what the natrual caused heating is causing, we can say mankind is not causing any noticable increase in temps.

Thank you for helping me show you to be wrong.