What Do We Think About Climate Change

So Florida had record cold this winter because there wasn't enough snow? Huh!

 

'Huh!' is right. No one said lack of snow causes cold weather.

 

It's rather well-documented that there are people making a good living by producing doctored pseudo-science and propaganda, in denial of AGW. You either already know that, or you've blindly rejected the truth. So there's no point in producing the documentation over and over and over, every time you or someone else demands it. Look it up.

Tax money, on the other hand, is not generally used to produce a pre-determined result; it's used to support research--and the fact that you just don't like the result of the research doesn't make the result a myth.

You're right that there's a bias towards the existence of AGW among genuine researchers, though. You know why? Because they believe the results of their work, instead of believing a bunch of half-baked bloggers and professional shills.

 

Woodfortrees is right. Short term trends are not significant. Go back a few posts to post #8576 and note that I made the same point myself.

 

Pericles quote snippet

"Humans have come to dominate life on Earth because we know how to adapt to the planet. We know how to use its minerals, the riches of its plant life, the domestication of its animals, and its reserves of energy in the form of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear fission, to fuel the creation of great cities, farms and ranches, and everything that passes for modern civilization."


Boating4fun response

Pericles even though we know how to use earth's resources and have been using them in all likelihood even those resources will be depleted and cease to exist forcing us to look elsewhere for alternative energy solutions this is why its very important now more then ever to start focusing on on other options apparently solar power won't do much good even though the sun puts out "free energy" except during the night it doesn't provide enough amps same thing with wind energy and forget about coal don't even get me started on nuclear energy we're just asking for a nuclear reactor leak or explosion


however I do feel something must be done I don't think we should be heavily relying on our dependence for fossil fuels and crude oil as a longterm solution because ultimately in time it will cease to exist... what then?

 

I´m just pleased that after more than 8,500 posts and 130,000 views that I´m still alive. I expected to have been incinerated by now.

 

Diamonds and this thread are forever.

 

Why the Church of Warmnotology will never succeed. Our faith and passion are stronger.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE

 

it proves that your insistence on a particular data set meant to study local phenomenon but that you would like to use in regards to global climate is just another one of your flawed arguments designed to confuse the readers

just out of curiosity why are you trying to deny the warming of the last 10 year period when its clearly stated in the site which you are so fond of that this period was warmer than the previous which was still warmer than its previous. Thats an awful lot of warming for a period you claim is cooling

seems like you are using data which is not supporting your claim again

and unable to admit it

cheers
B

 

There's your basic problem: you're trying to discredit scientific research with 'faith and passion,' instead of with better science.

In spite of your attempt to recast it, AGW is a scientific issue--not a religious one.

 

"...I do feel something must be done I don't think we should be heavily relying on our dependence for fossil fuels and crude oil as a longterm solution because ultimately in time it will cease to exist..." Well stated. May I recommend that you immediately STOP using that Earth-hateful plastic computer, keyboard, and monitor, stop driving, watching TV, playing sports, boating, getting modern healthcare, and eating cheaply? Something must be done and we need to start somewhere.

There is but one sure way to have this thread and what it represents atrophy. The answer is to let Troy, Wood and Bos pound the desk all they want and nobody respond! (It only will work if nobody talks to them on this thread) The reason people argue anonymously is that they are honing their argument skills (or, in some cases, they are mentally ill)- let 'em be trees in the forest with nobody to hear them fall.

 

wouldn't be the same if we didn't have a few deniers floating around to help us show the readers why Rapid Global Climate Change is such a key issue. After all its the obvious flaws in there diatribe that lends itself so well.

cheers
B

 

Thanks Paul for having clarified the "to" issue. It was my mistake not to have realized that.

About short or long trends, we were just discussing here through the last posts if there has been or not warming for these last years, which it's quite clear it has been not. For the cherrypicked 1998-2010 period (up to the end of 2009, now it's clear), the resulting warming, as per your WFT program and data, has been of 0,001ºC, which is very well within the noise, so negligible.

 

Alan:
I also thank you for having brought the "to" issue to my attention and I apologize for having suspected you were massaging data .....although you deserved it for introducing the yearly means graph, which produces a "massaged" trend as you have now clearly recognized.

As I had said at the beginning of this last discussion, I hope it is quite clear now (except for the scatterbrained idiot who sttuborngly insists in shamelessly showing the world he has no brains), we cannot say there has been net warming for the last decade or so. I said it and I stand to it.

And the trend for most of the years of the 1998-2010 period has been a descending one, as demonstrated.

2009 and the first half of 2010 temperatures have been affected by an strong El Niño, not by whatever anthropogenic CO2 effect and now La Niña is coming and the cooling will take its turn, also having nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2.

Let's see how 2010 ends. Most probably I will be five bucks richer

 

Now let's have a look to a longer trend, like the 1850- end 2010 one (+/- 0.45ºC per century), as well as its partial up and down trends in more or less 30 years periods. I would appreciate very much your comments on this behaviour, Alan. Please don't lose time commenting the limits of the cherrypicked periods I used to highlight the ups and downs, but focuse on the general idea.

I'm still waiting for a convincing explanation on what the hell has all this to do with anthropogenic CO2 ....mmmmm....

I want also take the opportunity to remember you our previous talking on the 'most likely' possibility of the 60 years oscillation thing.