Iceberg in Lake Superior in June

[xgsound]

Please explain how the current weather in Michigan is indicative of the global climate. For example, does ice on Lake Superior in June predict what weather patterns will be like in Bangladesh, or Norway, or Angola? If you can't extrapolate the results, perhaps it's because local weather patterns are not indicative of global climate trends.

It is not indicative of global climate. It is only one data point against warming. After all, accumulated local patterns are what make the global trend. Evidently the 31,000 signers of the petition project http://www.petitionproject.org/ don't think the IPCCs models or conclusions are correct about the immediate or longterm outlook.

I just realized that 80% of my posts this month (I checked) were not to help any computer problems. That's why I come here so I'm going to refocus. I'd bet big money you will all get along fine without me, so have fun.

Jim

 

[Moonbeam]

Same way Katrina and Sandy were "Climate" instead of "Weather".

Weather is declared Climate ALL the time in arguments against us.

There is no argument. Man made climate change is a fact.

 

[Thebobo]

There is no argument. Man made climate change is a fact.

Yes sir! mam?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

It is not indicative of global climate. It is only one data point against warming. After all, accumulated local patterns are what make the global trend. Evidently the 31,000 signers of the petition project http://www.petitionproject.org/ don't think the IPCCs models or conclusions are correct about the immediate or longterm outlook.

I just realized that 80% of my posts this month (I checked) were not to help any computer problems. That's why I come here so I'm going to refocus. I'd bet big money you will all get along fine without me, so have fun.

Jim

31000 climate scientists?

I would love to hear more

Interesting quote on one of the prominent signers:

"When, in 1998, Dr. Seitz issued a statement and circulated a petition attacking the scientific conclusions underlying international efforts to control emissions of industrial-waste gases, the National Academy of Sciences took the extraordinary step of refuting the position of one its former presidents. The petition called for the United States to reject the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty, negotiated by more than 150 countries, imposing limits on emissions of gases like carbon dioxide.

Dr. Seitz’s petition was accompanied by an article concluding that emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, posed no climatic threat. Instead, the article said, the emissions amounted to “a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution” by stimulating atmospheric carbon dioxide and increasing plant growth.

Dr. Press, who was also President Jimmy Carter’s science adviser, said that while he and Dr. Seitz were good friends, Dr. Seitz “was not a specialist in this field.”
"

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no argument. Man made climate change is a fact.

Fact check, do I believe in Man Made Climate Change (AGW)? Yes.

I am one of your most ardent opponents because I accept much of the science surrounding this, but I adamantly disagree with their estimates on Climate Sensitivity. My opposition is based on an alternative scientific argument to explain observed changes in temperature.

AGW is just a piece of that observed change, I think a very small piece.

 

[werepossum]

Fact check, do I believe in Man Made Climate Change (AGW)? Yes.

I am one of your most ardent opponents because I accept much of the science surrounding this, but I adamantly disagree with their estimates on Climate Sensitivity. My opposition is based on an alternative scientific argument to explain observed changes in temperature.

AGW is just a piece of that observed change, I think a very small piece.

Clearly the "consensus" on Climate Sensitivity is just completely wrong. Even ignoring the constant failure of climate models to model the climate, we've had much higher CO2 in the past. If the climate were even a level of magnitude below that being preached, Earth would have become Venus II: The Revenge long before mankind evolved a thumb to scratch our asses.

That said, there clearly are some bad side effects to very high CO2 levels, and nature tends to increase CO2 production as temperatures increase. So where we can reduce our CO2 production at a reasonable cost, it makes sense to do so.

 

[boomerang]

Caution: This article may present information that is in conflict with your religious beliefs.

Climate Cultists

 

[Thebobo]

Caution: This article may present information that is in conflict with your religious beliefs.

Climate Cultists

Ah yes the weekly standard and author Steven F. Hayward a shill for the fossil fuel industry. I just don't know what makes him an expert on climate change.

 

[Jaskalas]

BTW, can we confirm that all the Great Lake ice has now melted?

 

[Cozarkian]

Ah yes the weekly standard and author Steven F. Hayward a shill for the fossil fuel industry. I just don't know what makes him an expert on climate change.

Would you mind assisting me in determining which of these claims from the article are inaccurate?

• "the central issue is climate sensitivity"
• the IPCC estimate is that a doubling of greenhouse gases will result in 1.1 to 4.8 degree Celsius increase
• warming up to as much as 2 deg. would be no big deal
• the IPCC can't settle on a best-guess estimate in the range
• a number of scenarios for the year 2100 cluster around 2%
• the IPCC range differs little from Svante Arrhenius' 1896 estimate of 1.6 to 5.0 degree increase
• Arrhenius provided a best guess of 2.1 degree
• Water vapor feedback (clouds) is a crucial question in narrowing the range
• The IPCC admits there are significant errors in the model simulation of clouds
• The IPCC reports the confidence in our understanding of clouds and aerosols is low
• The IPCC report allows it is possible that clouds could cancel out the warming effect
• The IPCC modeling chapter admits most models have overpredicted recent warming
• There has been a 17-year plateau in warming that doesn't meet with the expected 0.2 degree warming per decade
• Climateers have a plausible theory that the missing heat is going into the deep ocean
• We have very little data to substantiate the above hypothesis, and less data as to how things will play out in the future if it is happening
• Other explanations for the pause include wind patterns, aerosols and solar variation
• The solar variation explanation would contradict previous claims that solar variation plays little role in climate change
• Several recently-published papers in peer-reviewed literature conclude climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought

Steven Hayward may be a shill for the fossil fuel industry, and the rest of his article may be a politically-biased rant, but these assertions pulled from the first page and a half seem to be verifiable facts. Further, these facts tend to suggest that the concerns about catastrophic climate change are based on a worst-case scenario, and that the more-likely scenario doesn't suggest we need to take drastic efforts to reduce emissions.

 

[Cozarkian]

BTW, can we confirm that all the Great Lake ice has now melted?

Not quite, satellite data shows it was still there on June 8, 2014. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83844&eocn=home&eoci=iotd_previous

According to the above article, it's "effectively ice-free for the sake of shipping interests." In other words, there is still ice, but you can transport goods by ship anyway.

 

[Vanth]

You should see "Snowpiercer"...the Little Ice Age is upon us! The last brutal winter we had is indicative of this.

 

[Thebobo]

Would you mind assisting me in determining which of these claims from the article are inaccurate?

• "the central issue is climate sensitivity"
• the IPCC estimate is that a doubling of greenhouse gases will result in 1.1 to 4.8 degree Celsius increase
• warming up to as much as 2 deg. would be no big deal
• the IPCC can't settle on a best-guess estimate in the range
• a number of scenarios for the year 2100 cluster around 2%
• the IPCC range differs little from Svante Arrhenius' 1896 estimate of 1.6 to 5.0 degree increase
• Arrhenius provided a best guess of 2.1 degree
• Water vapor feedback (clouds) is a crucial question in narrowing the range
• The IPCC admits there are significant errors in the model simulation of clouds
• The IPCC reports the confidence in our understanding of clouds and aerosols is low
• The IPCC report allows it is possible that clouds could cancel out the warming effect
• The IPCC modeling chapter admits most models have overpredicted recent warming
• There has been a 17-year plateau in warming that doesn't meet with the expected 0.2 degree warming per decade
• Climateers have a plausible theory that the missing heat is going into the deep ocean
• We have very little data to substantiate the above hypothesis, and less data as to how things will play out in the future if it is happening
• Other explanations for the pause include wind patterns, aerosols and solar variation
• The solar variation explanation would contradict previous claims that solar variation plays little role in climate change
• Several recently-published papers in peer-reviewed literature conclude climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought

Steven Hayward may be a shill for the fossil fuel industry, and the rest of his article may be a politically-biased rant, but these assertions pulled from the first page and a half seem to be verifiable facts. Further, these facts tend to suggest that the concerns about catastrophic climate change are based on a worst-case scenario, and that the more-likely scenario doesn't suggest we need to take drastic efforts to reduce emissions.

No you can research yourself to see which ones if any are accurate.

 

[Cozarkian]

Same way Katrina and Sandy were "Climate" instead of "Weather".

Weather is declared Climate ALL the time in arguments against us.

To provide an example of this: