What Do We Think About Climate Change

[fasteddy106]

Here is some footage for the updated version of "An Inconvenient Truth", actually the film was based on some observational data so it probably has more validity - lol!

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/2012...ich.html#watch

[Pericles]

Jimbo,

Yep, damn fine article. I found and read it earlier this morning via http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/

Is AGW True-Believer Syndrome treatable by anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

Other sites worth noting. You may already be familiar with them

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/glo...cam_index.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.iris.edu/seismon/bigmap/index.phtml
http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

Regards,

Perry

[Jimbo1490]

Suspect everything you might read on the illustrious "Wikipedia" regarding the subject of this thread. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad

Jimbo

[Guest625101138]

Days have more daylight here from today. That is the climate change I look forward to each year. Also means we get a bit warmer.

Rick W

[Landlubber]

Keep the blinds shut Rick, ya know the extra sun damages the curtains!

[Guest625101138]

Originally Posted by Landlubber

Keep the blinds shut Rick, ya know the extra sun damages the curtains!

That only happens in Queensland.

Rick W

[Guillermo]

The British Climate Change Act: a critical evaluation and proposed alternative
approach.
Roger A Pielke Jr, Environmental Research Letters, published 18 June 2009.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9...9-3b3f42e78724

"A focus on decarbonization as the central goal of
carbon policy rather than emissions reductions means that to
achieve specific stabilization targets the rate of decarbonization
of the UK economy must not only exceed the rate of
economic growth, but it must exceed rates of decarbonization
observed historically in the UK and in other developed
countries5. Because no one knows how fast a large
economy can decarbonize, any policy (or policies) focused
on decarbonization will have to proceed incrementally, with
constant adjustment based on the proven ability to accelerate
decarbonization (cf Anderson et al 2008). Setting targets and
timetables for emissions reductions absent knowledge of the
ability to decarbonize is thus just political fiction."

Cheers

[Guillermo]

Climate change horror: the UK will be like Provence

A UK government report unwittingly reveals that we should not be cutting carbon use but investing in Mediterranean-style cooling measures.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/7066/

Cheers, Perry!

[Guillermo]

The Thermostat Hypothesis

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/1...at-hypothesis/

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

I don't know if it's new or been posted before, but I just watched this for the first time:



Links to the other parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqBrML4nsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv06IyygoUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87vLJrh2AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pRmbBsdhNE

Jimbo

[Pericles]

Anthony Watts has been evaluating the locations of surface weather stations, many of which are now inappropriately located due to urban development. Could it be that the alarm over rising temperatures was engendered by false numbers and that AGW does not exist? http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf

Worse still is the distinct possibility that the benevolent warming that has occurred, is part of a totally natural cycle and that as the temperature have not risen any further for a decade and have fallen since 2003. we humans are now faced with the onset of the next 100.000 years glacial period. That will bring extinction for many species, perhaps including the majority of humans. Those who survive will evolve away from Homo sapiens sapiens into Homo fridgidus tootsies.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Welcome back to these forums and particularly to this very crazy thread, Jon. If you are patient enough and read through the 200+ pages, you'll find out debate uses to become a quite hot discussion. Now you have been warned....

(Although things are more calm now, once our most relevant poster, Boston, seems to have decided not to post anymore )

Cheers.

just taking a break from panic and barrage of insults that tend to ensue whenever I point out the complete lack of scientifically valid data being so often interjected by the deniers. Seems like any deceitful tactic or obviously agnotistic industry source is acceptable round here in what amounts to a non debate. Where this a real scientific debate the conversation would have been held to some standard of real science, reviewed by various accredited peer reviewed processes and agreed as acceptable by a relevant organization, ( the IPCC for instance ) rather than what amounts to tobacco industry agnotists attempting to convince an unwary public that its good for you to smoke, except in this case working for the oil and gas industry and in regards to global climate change.

basically its not possible to have any kind of informed debate on science when the basics of the science involved are completely and deliberately either misunderstood or ignored in an effort to maintain an apposing unscientific position

after all, the scientist involved are in 97% agreement on this one
not much denying that eh

lends a lot of weight to the scientific analysis
rather than an emotional denial

of the tens of thousands of scientific articles and reviews that I could quote in yet another fruitless effort to establish evidence already well established by the scientific community; presented to and ignored by the deniers in this thread, Just for the sake of hopeless endeavor, Ill offer yet another confirmation of the accuracy of the ice core data and again point out that permeability is a qualifiable component within that data, that the data by and large agrees with the scientific consensus and that the mountain of evidence in agreement with the basic theory is dramatically outpacing the mole hill of evidence in disagreement

for instance

Ocean Sediment Yields Climate Record For Past Half-million Years; 'Unprecedented Among Marine Records'
Underwatertimes.com News Service
June 15, 2009 21:16 EST


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Researchers here have used sediment from the deep ocean bottom to reconstruct a record of ancient climate that dates back more than the last half-million years.

The record, trapped within the top 20 meters (65.6 feet) of a 400-meter (1,312-foot) sediment core drilled in 2005 in the North Atlantic Ocean by the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, gives new information about the four glacial cycles that occurred during that period.

The new research was presented today at the Chapman Conference on Abrupt Climate Change at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center. The meeting is jointly sponsored by the American Geophysical Union and the National Science Foundation.

Harunur Rashid, a post-doctoral fellow at the Byrd Center, explained that experts have been trying to capture a longer climate record for this part of the ocean for nearly a half-century. "We've now generated a climate record from this core that has a very high temporal resolution, one that is decipherable at increments of 100 to 300 years," he said.

While climate records from ice cores can show resolutions with individual annual layers, ocean sediment cores are greatly compressed with resolutions sometimes no finer than millennia

"What we have is unprecedented among marine records."

Dating methods such as carbon-14 are useless beyond 30,000 years or so, he said, so Rashid and his colleagues used the ratio of the isotopes oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 as a proxy for temperature in the records. The isotopes were stored in the remains of tiny sea creatures that fell to the ocean bottom over time.

When the researchers compared their record of past climate from the North Atlantic to a similar record taken from an ice core drilled from Dome C in Antarctica, they found it was remarkably similar.

"You can't miss the similarity between the two records, one from the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean and the other from Antarctica," he said. "The record is virtually the same regardless of the location."

Surprisingly, Rashid's team was also able to score another first with their analysis of this sediment core – a record of the temperature at the sea surface in the North Atlantic.

They drew on knowledge readily known to chemists that the amount of magnesium trapped in calcite crystals can indicate the temperatures at which the crystals formed. The more magnesium present, the warmer the waters were when the tiny organisms were alive.

They applied this analysis to the remains of the benthic organisms in the cores and were able to develop a record of warming and cooling of the sea surface in the North Atlantic for the last half-million years.

Having this information will be useful as scientists try to understand how quickly the major ocean currents shifted as glacial cycles came and went, Rashid said.

The researchers were also able to gauge the extent of the ancient Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered much of North America during the last 130,000 years.

As that ice sheet calved off icebergs into the Atlantic, Rashid said that the "dirty underbelly" of those icebergs carried gravel out into the ocean. As the bergs melted, the debris fell to the bottom and of the ocean floor. The more debris present, the more icebergs had been released to carry it, meaning that the ice sheet itself had to have been larger.

"Based on this, we've determined that the Laurentide Ice Sheet was probably largest during the last glacial cycle than it was during any of the three previous cycles," he said.

During the last glacial cycle, the Laurentide Ice Sheet was more than a kilometer (.6 miles) thick and extended to several miles north of Ohio State.

think of it this way G
if you had a student who insisted the earth is flat
would you enjoy a good laugh and move on
or would you waste endless amounts of time catering to what amounts to an emotional choice rather than an informed acceptance of a simple scientifically established concept

Ive had my laughs and only drop in for a moment

thing to remember is that both I and others tried to go through the science step by step from the beginning, in an effort to find were our disagreements began, the deniers refused to even remotely consider the science involved or even for that matter engage in the conversation and instead rambled on with obviously industry supplied disinformation. The effort to go through the science of the issue was simply not conducive to the continuation of there disbelief, so the deniers simply refuse to stick to science and instead wallow on endlessly mired in industry spin
just as they have done throughout this thread

as someone pointed out a while back
no honest scientist would bother with this
they were right
this kind of industry spin page has time and time again proven itself unworthy of an informed response

might be worth a few laughs from time to time
but hardly worthy of any additional efforts

enjoy
B



ps
just for old times sakes

kinda hard to deny the obvious correlation between co2 and temp or that the little green monster at the end of the graph is bound to cause some kind of trouble eh

and its kinda hard to deny that the ice is melting which generally happens when things are getting warmer

Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, 1979-2007: Although Arctic sea ice extent underwent a strong decline from 1979 to 2007, Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase. The Antarctic ice extent increases were smaller in magnitude than the Arctic increases, and some regions of the Antarctic experienced strong declining trends in sea ice extent. See the Arctic Sea Ice FAQ for more information. Image provided by National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

also a little difficult to deny that alterations in our atmospheric chemistry are having profound effects on reactions within the atmosphere






feel free to begin the panicked attempts to deny through whatever means necessary

[fasteddy106]

1. There is no conclusive evidence that anthropogenic C02 is causing warming.
2. 97% of scientists agree that the climate is changing, not 97% of scientists agree that the human race is causing the changes. In fact 54% agree that the climate changes could well be within natural variation.
3. The evidence of AGW is compiled using computer models based on distorted data that cannot accurately predict the weather in an hour without looking out the window.
4. The IPCC is a political body started with a defined bias in its mission statement.
5. The livelihood of warmists depends on the success of their theories.
6. The debate cannot be over, there never was one.
7. Ad hominem attacks on sources do not disprove or prove the validity of an argument.
8. As the evidence begins to mount that AGW is simply a social engineering project backed up by junk science, the folks that are panicking are those who stand to be out of work,and out of credibilty.

Boston continues to post the 97% figure, it is wrong and he knows it. Then he tries to supplement his argument by authority position with a comical video that is woefully deficient on facts and reality. He also fails to mention that the Artic Ice Cap has virtually recovered to its 1979 position, the Antartic Ice Cap is increasing in weight, and temperatures are dropping for the last ten years. He goes on and on about the oil industry. They are a business, not an ideology, they are going to make lots of money regardless of the success of the AGW battle. Promoting class warfare is propaganda, not science. Besides, the amount of funding that the oil industry invests in the debate is a fraction of what the government flushes down the toilet. At least the oil companies produce something to earn their money instead of being a societal parasite bent on devolving human civilization to a level of subsistance hunter gatherer sophistication.

Nice video, Jimbo but to say that increases in cosmic rays as allowed by decreases in the protective magnetic field of the sun cause the Earth to warm seems like a stretch in the same way that because co² correlates with temp, co² causes increases in temp when, to me, it is just the oppposite.
I'm not suggesting that Earth affects the cosmic rays in any manner but I do think we need to be careful to not jump on any two graphs that line up. After all, we don't have a political stake in mis-representation. Our only hope against those that would destroy the West to save hope that man-made GW is real is to make sure we get it right.
If we can't totally blow GW out of the water with reason (remember who we are trying to reason with - They shoe-horn into a Prius and field a veritable army of Rasta wanna-bes and unicorn mounted college students!), then time will simply have to tell.

[fasteddy106]

Orestes video is nothing more that a 58 minute ad hominem attack on those who refuse to swallow the KoolAid.

Some things we do know ...........

1. CO2 follows warming, acknowlegded by all except Boston
2. The Mann graph has been dumped in the waste bin by the IPCC, even they can't figure out how to use a broken hockey stick.
3. The data from the ground based weather stations is worthless because of the lack of dicipline in their placement, and the corruption of the data.
4. The data from weather balloons and satelites show that the climate is in a cooling trend.
5. Solar activity is right in line with the cooling trend
6.The net temp increase even with all rigging of the data by the alarmists crowd is still only .7C over a century.

With no evidence of anthropogenic change, and climate changes well within historical norms. Why should we listen to the alarmists whose main argument boils down to, "trust me, I'm smarter than you". That is dogma, more appropriate in the Vatican than in scientific discussions.