What Do We Think About Climate Change

You are out of your league. Please just stay out of rewritting yourself history, and read posts before answering.
It will be apreciated.
Danieel

 

You are just extremely boring with your Richard Lindzen. He just write what everybody else wrote.
Whaoo that was an eye opener.
Daniel

 

That is what happens when people write truth. They get quoted. Just like when people write lies. They get quoted too. Look how many time the liar Gore got quoted.

 

Again, you're rewriting history. You seem to have some kind of obsession about how much everyone loved Hitler and the Nazis. The truth is that the whole world didn't love Hitler, and it's an asinine claim to make.

Most of the support Hitler got from other countries was due to the fact that he was seen as a bulwark against Russian communism. He was considered the lesser of two evils by a lot of cynical people in power elsewhere. It hardly meant they 'loved him'--much less that the whole world loved and admired him, including the scientific community.

Ah, good. Here's a quick quote from the History Guide, that says it more eloquently than I did:

The British believed that Germany had been treated too harshly by the provisions of Versailles and because of this, they were willing to make concessions to the Germans. The French, with the largest army on the Continent, refused to contemplate an offensive war, as was their position in World War One, and decided instead to protect their borders at all costs. The United States, meanwhile, stood aloof from any European conflict because they had their own problems to deal with, namely, the Great Depression. To top it all off, the British and French no longer trusted Russia, so the hopes of establishing an alliance along the lines which developed during the Great War was just not possible. So the British introduced their policy of appeasement. They hoped that by making concessions to Hitler, war would be avoided. They also held on to the illusion that Hitler was, once again, Europe's best defense against Soviet Russia. The British appeasers certainly missed the boat -- even with Mein Kampf in their hands, they failed to understand Hitler's foreign policy aims. Hitler could be reasoned with, they argued. Meanwhile, Germany grew stronger and the German people began to look to Hitler as their messiah.

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture11.html

That's your definition of love and admiration? Please....

 

By the way, Jimbo: Dr Richard Lindzen is well-known as a contrarian. He delights in being on the unpopular side of issues. For example, he claims there's a very weak link between smoking and lung cancer.

Yeppers, that's the kind of guy I'd trust with the future of the world.....

 

Your not acting like a wise man now Hoyt.

Cheers!
Angel

 

oh this is priceless
news flash
the vast majority of the arctic environments are wastelands devoid of just about everything
life at the poles congregates in a few special places and has for as long as its been being studied
read "halls expedition to the arctic 1862-5" and get back to me on this one

yes deniers have tried to pass of snow turning to rain because of cooling
but
no one is buying it

which is why I think Angelique feels like the question has yet to receive a realistic answer from the deniers camp

dam
what did I just mention in my last about how much I appreciate the laughs folks

even when I quit posting for a while I would drop in from time to time and just read along for shits and giggles

speaking of which Guillermo
how come when I point out the hypocrisy of you demanding some form of direct measurements when you think it supports your global shrinking theory but descry the same forms of evidence when you think it doesn't, you then disappear for two or three pages.

I thought the whole subject was going to be the game ender of Rapid Global Climate Change Theory ?

 

I told Jimbo his Doctor was a fake.
He rewrote what other write just for Jimbo to follow up in the forum.
And you know what? Jimbo fell in the trap and bingo, he post the doctor richard lindzen (No upper case needed in that case)
Daniel

 

Jimbo, your last post started out with the claim that the Arctic is cooling, before seguing into Antarctica. You were wrong. Maybe you meant to say Antarctica to begin with, in which case let's move right along:

The Antarctica cooling controversy relates to questions posed in popular media regarding whether or not current temperature trends in Antarctica cast doubt on global warming. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. Trends elsewhere on the continent show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed; but more recent results from Steig et al. show warming over the entire continent.[2][3] Climate models predict that temperature trends due to global warming will be much smaller in Antarctica than in the Arctic,[4] mainly because heat uptake by the Southern Ocean acts to moderate the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. The depletion of stratospheric ozone also has had a cooling effect, since ozone acts as a greenhouse gas.

There is no similar controversy within the scientific community, as the small observed changes in Antarctica are consistent with the small changes predicted by climate models. Various global warming skeptics, most notably novelist Michael Crichton,[5] have asserted that the Antarctic data contradict global warming. The few scientists who have commented on the supposed controversy state that there is no contradiction,[6] while the author of the paper whose work inspired Crichton's remarks has said that Crichton "misused" his results.[7]

In a more recent study released in 2009, historical weather station data was combined with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors, Eric J. Steig of the University of Washington, stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."[8]

1. ^ a b NASA (2007). "Two Decades of Temperature Change in Antarctica". Earth Observatory Newsroom. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17838. Retrieved 2008-08-14. NASA image by Robert Simmon, based on data from Joey Comiso, GSFC.
2. ^ Monthly mean surface temperature data and derived statistics for some Antarctic stations from www.antarctica.ac.uk
3. ^ a b William L. Chapman and John E. Walsh (2007). "A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures". Journal of Climate 20 (16): 4096–4117. doi:10.1175/JCLI4236.1. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/JCLI4236.1. Retrieved 2007-11-05.
4. ^ IPCC Working Group I
5. ^ a b Michael Crichton (2005-01-25). "The Case for Skepticism in Global Warming". Michael Crichton The official site. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html. Retrieved 2008-08-14. Speech at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
6. ^ Antarctic cooling, global warming? Real Climate December 2004
7. ^ a b Peter Doran (2006-07-27). "Cold, Hard Facts". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html. Retrieved 2008-08-14.
8. ^ Kenneth Chang (2009-01-21). "Warming in Antarctica Looks Certain". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html?ref=science. Retrieved 2009-01-21.

It looks to me like whether Antarctica is warming or cooling depends on which part of it you happen to be standing on. But the overall trend is towards warming.

 

I never claimed the mantle of wisdom. Only arrogant people think they are smarter than everybody else.
Now I have to change my signature. . . and my socks.

 

I think you're referring to the link between so-called 'second-hand' smoke and cancer, for which there remains NO causal link AT ALL, despite recent legislation passed to curb it, based on junk science. This was a blatant example of data massaging to get a desired result. Several AGW skeptics have picked up that baton to try to show people that junk is junk even if the end intention is unequivocally good, as it is in the case of the second-hand smoke debate.

But people believed the junk science so well that they began to look upon those calling it junk science as the disseminators of junk science, which is tragically ironic, I guess. Shows how easy it is to manipulate the scientifically illiterate

Jimbo

 

What evidence, my darling? You have post NONE.

P.S.
By the way, you have conveniently "forgotten" to comment on the 2009 "Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2" paper I quoted on post 5743.

 

If I had meant 'second-hand smoke' instead of 'smoking,' I'd have said 'second-hand smoke.'

Writing in Newsweek, Fred Guterl stated "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette" – an observation that was later echoed by Robyn Williams.

 

Funny, I never thought of the NSIDC as a "popular media" outlet




The first graphic is from NASA and the second from UAH. As you can see, most of the continent is cooling, while some is warming. But so what? What does it prove? Absolutely NOTHING!

Show us how this proves that CO2 has caused this. You can't even jump the first hurdle which is to show that CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of incidental sources in the first place! For that to be true you need a long residence time and so far you have yet to cite or post a single measurement study which shows this long residence time.

The only thing you have posted to date is the output of computer models. Wonder B then introduces the *absolutely laughable* line of reasoning that if we use models to study the paleoclimate, then why not rely on models to study the residence time?

We sure would like to study the paleoclimate with modern instrumentation in real time, but guess what? The time machine has not been invented yet. Models and proxies is all we have.

If you measured your driveway and the tape measure told you that it's 25 meters long, and then you wrote a computer simulation program to study your driveway and it tells you your driveway is 855 meters long, which one are you going to believe?

We already know the residence time because we've measured it directly many times and it always comes out the same: it is short. If a computer model tells you that it's long then the model is wrong, simple as that.

Jimbo

 

No, I can't see that "most of the continent is cooling." If you look at one picture it seems to have more blue, but it's superimposed over an outline of just the continental landmass. As we both know, Antarctica is comprised of a lot more than that: it includes islands, continental ice shelves, and sea ice. That blue is surrounded by a whole lot of red. And the second picture has a lot more red than it does blue.

You need to stop just grabbing phrases out of the middle of my posts, if you want an intelligent conversation. I never said that Antarctica is warming based on computer modeling. I said the observed temperatures happen to be consistent with predictions made using computer models. And quite obviously (obvious if you actually read what I posted, anyway), I was talking about the last few years--not any 'paleoclimate.'

Speaking of reading what I actually posted, I never said a word about the cause of Antarctic warming--much less claimed it was due to CO2. I didn't even mention residence times, accumulations, or any of your other pet demons.

Again, Jimbo: learn to read. Start responding to what I actually say, instead of carrying on a one-sided argument with your preconceived notions about what I believe.

But that's an interesting claim you make:

Who's this 'we' you speak of? You and the mouse in your pocket?

How does one measure the residence time directly?