Archive through January 07, 2011 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Superstorm / Climate Change » GLOBAL WARMING? COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES » Archive through January 07, 2011 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

miaree9
Senior Member
Username: miaree9

Post Number: 4083
Registered: 5-2005
Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 10:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I noticed this today: "Climategate" Researchers Largely Cleared.

Here's a snippet of the article:

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
New member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 1:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I'm not that surprised. I always thought the "appearance" of what transpired was the really the only questionable aspect. Right wingers grabbed it as some kind of holy grail that they were right, when in fact there wasn't much there, besides, East Anglia isn't the only research unit collecting data.

Warming or cooling, certainly something is going on, and would hazard a guess that humans probably play some part in it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1368
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 2:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

As I've said before, the focus on the "hide the decline" elements were taken way out of context. The actual text from the house of commons review I believe is essentially correct, though still playing down certain key elements that I think will come to light if/when their call for disclosure of data and methodology is followed:


quote:

CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT, SAY MPs

The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:

“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”



quote:

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to reassess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.


So the University is going to take the brunt although it was the CRU who withheld and deleted data. Cool.

Assuming the climate science community listens, this will be the first opportunity independent scientists have to actually examine the full data and processes leading to the case for AGW - which the above review did not go into. This should be a step towards clearing up the culture of data withholding and unverifiable results and conclusions. Only once this happens will it be possible to truly examine the data and science. I look forward to this disclosure.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
New member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 31
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2010 - 2:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

A good write-up of the current Climate issues:

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,687259,00.html

edit: whoops, fixed my link

(Message edited by mthood on April 07, 2010)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1369
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 - 4:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

That is a good article, and it is worth reading all eight parts to it. I came across it over the Easter weekend but forgot about it. That link doesn't seem to work but you can find the article here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
New member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 - 1:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hah, that's the same one I posted, but messed up the link.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
New member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 50
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2010 - 10:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

"Up in the Air"

No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax. Nor has anyone been able to explain why Mother Nature would keep playing along; despite what it might have felt like in the Northeast these past few months, globally it was one of the warmest winters on record.

The message from scientists at this point couldn’t be clearer: the world’s emissions trajectory is extremely dangerous. Goofball weathermen, Climategate, conspiracy theories—these are all a distraction from what’s really happening. Which, apparently, is what we’re looking for.


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/04/12/100412taco_talk_kolbert

An interesting write up...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1371
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Friday, April 09, 2010 - 6:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Note the straw-man in the room. Attempts are to keep the focus fixed on the "hoax" argument, where there must be a conspiracy among "thousands of scientists" or else the whole "climategate" affair is just a beat-up. This kind of intentional fallacy of logic can be very effective at manipulating the public's perception of an issue.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1372
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 1:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Well it's that time of year again. I wonder if anyone is willing to make a bet on where the Arctic sea ice minimum will be in 2010 in relation to previous years. We have all heard the "death spiral" claims, with the earliest predictions for an ice-free Arctic summer set for 2013, now only three seasons away.

Having now seen growth in ice extent for the last two years, it will be interesting to see where 2010 ends up. With the Arctic Oscillation still negative my instinct says we may finish with more ice than 2009. However, my official (and somewhat more conservative) bet is that 2010 will be closer to 2009 than either 2008 or 2007.

Still, the last two seasons have proven quite variable week to week, and very difficult to predict. Currently 2010 is sitting above all recent years; just above 2009 and 2008, and just about a million square km above 2007 on this date. Buckle up folks, should be an interesting ride.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skin Shed Mon
Senior Member
Username: shedmyskin

Post Number: 2934
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 7:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

push for law to criminalize remarks against man made global warming?
http://www.infowars.com/club-of-rome-behind-eco-fascist-purge-to-criminalize-cli mate-skepticism/
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. -Anne Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 95
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 8:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Those Brits can be wacky. No offense intended to those across the pond.

Just extreme measures on both sides who believe drastic measures need to be taken to protect their viewpoint. I'm sure the Global Warming skeptic group wouldn't mind making any talk of GW illegal.

I try to drive it down the middle.
“There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skin Shed Mon
Senior Member
Username: shedmyskin

Post Number: 2936
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 11:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

hit the fairway mthood
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. -Anne Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

fyah
Intermediate Member
Username: fyah

Post Number: 110
Registered: 11-2009
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

For what it is worth:

I believe these last few very cold winters were explained in "The Coming Global Superstorm" and by the MOTK in "The Key". I have re-read both books and reference them frequently. Climate change, global warming, very, very long and cold winters, are explained in detail in those books for those who are interested in some of Whitley's works.

I for one am getting tired of the increasing cold during the winters. I find it "leaking" into some Spring and Summer nights as well as early mornings.

BTW, I saw a documentary on Monsanto and the duplicity of our government leaders from George Bush, the 1st to Bill Clinton and their administrations. It is a Canadian production. An eye opener. Catch it on the Sundance Channel.
"In America, you are so rich; why don't you have these things for your people?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skin Shed Mon
Senior Member
Username: shedmyskin

Post Number: 2940
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 1:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

It depends where you live though too...at times in the Northeast this winter was fairly mild. Then again our seasons are never consistent from year to year. The exciting weather of new england.
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. -Anne Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skin Shed Mon
Senior Member
Username: shedmyskin

Post Number: 2941
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 1:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

fyah I will have to look for that. I like things that seem to be moderate and truthful as that sounds. If a political documentary is only putting blame on one side, its nothing but propaganda in my mind. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, the whole list....there is no good side or bad. Its just that our government giving in to big interests like Monsanto to their gain and our loss.
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. -Anne Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 2:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

on the subject of weather, you know that is one of the biggest things that people get a hold of and say "what global warming?"

Case in point...Vancouver BC had one of the mildest winters on records, but 500 km to the south, where I grew up, the winter was absolutely brutal, with some of the coldest weather on record.

Local weather and climate are related, but are two different things.
“There's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skin Shed Mon
Senior Member
Username: shedmyskin

Post Number: 2946
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 - 3:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

very true, like I said here in New England it doesnt mean much year to year. We've had blizzards in April with 70 degree days a week later.
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. -Anne Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1373
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Friday, April 23, 2010 - 6:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I just came across an excellent interview with Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Curry has received some press of late for critiquing the IPCC and its processes. Here I believe she gets to the heart of the real issues raised by the leaked emails, that have thus far been all but ignored in favour of the addressing the hoax (smoke screen) argument.

An Inconvenient Provocateur

Extract:


quote:

Criticisms of the Oxburgh report that have been made include: bias of some of the members including the Chair, not examining the papers that are at the heart of the controversies, lack of consideration of the actual criticisms made by Steve McIntyre and others, and a short report with few specifics that implies a superficial investigation. When I first read the report, I thought I was reading the executive summary and proceeded to look for the details; well, there weren’t any. And I was concerned that the report explicitly did not address the key issues that had been raised by the skeptics. Upon reading Andrew Montford’s analysis, I learned: “So we have an extraordinary coincidence – that both the UEA submission to the [UK Parliament's Science and Technology] Select Committee and Lord Oxburgh’s panel independently came up with almost identical lists of papers to look at, and that they independently neglected key papers like Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006.” I recall reading this statement from one of the blogs, which seems especially apt: the fire department receives report of a fire in the kitchen; upon investigating the living room, they declare that there is no fire in the house.

So in summary, Jones, Briffa et al. can be relieved that they have been vindicated of charges of scientific misconduct. Even with the deficiencies of the Oxburgh report, I don’t disagree with their conclusion about finding no evidence of scientific misconduct: I haven’t seen any evidence of plagiarism or fabrication/falsification of data by the CRU scientists. Sloppy record keeping, cherry picking of data, and inadequate statistical methods do not constitute scientific misconduct, but neither do they inspire confidence in the research product. Further, the “bad apple” issue is still out there, but this is something that is impossible to check objectively. And the behavior of these scientists (sloppy record keeping, dismissal of skeptical critiques, and lack of transparency) has slowed down scientific progress in assessing and improving these very important data sets. Therefore I have been proposing that we move away from the focus on individual behavior, and shifting focus to issues related to the IPCC assessment process, addressing issues related the availability of data and transparency of the methods, and to improving the temperature data and proxies. Once these issues are addressed, the “bad apple” issue becomes mostly moot.



"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

miaree9
Senior Member
Username: miaree9

Post Number: 4207
Registered: 5-2005
Posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 - 2:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I thought this might be a good thread to place this article: Scientists Speak Out Against Climate Change Deniers' McCarthy-Like Threats.

Here's a bit of the article:

In a letter published in the journal Science, more than 250 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates, condemned the increase in "political assaults" on scientists who argue greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.

The 'climategate' scandal and mistakes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have led to a surge in attacks on climate scientists around the world.
In the US politicians have called for a criminal investigation of climate scientists, while in the UK eminent professors have received hate mail and even death threats.

In a strongly worded letter, the group of scientists likened the situation to the 'McCarthy era' in the US where anyone suspected of communist links was threatened with persecution. The period in the 1950s was named after the anti-communist pursuits of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

"We call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them," the letter read.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alen
Intermediate Member
Username: slippywhnwet

Post Number: 195
Registered: 4-2010
Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2010 - 12:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Has anyone seen the Watcher?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1377
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2010 - 6:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Miaree. Yes, while right-wing US politics and media continues to play up the "hoax" argument we will likely see more of this. They are their own worst enemy, and the weight of public opinion will eventually swing back in the other direction once it is clear that the argument holds little substance.

On the flip side of this are the skeptical scientists who for years have been the targets of character attacks, their papers blocked from respectable journals, and withdrawals of research funding, for speaking out against the orthodoxy.

Reality is always somewhere in-between.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1379
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 5:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Spiegel Online in Germany has just come out with another excellent article.

How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised

Link (with commas):

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484,00.html

It's once again worth reading all 7 parts.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 365
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 9:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Climate Scientists Threatened.

If you don't agree with them, threaten them. It makes it all go away, right?
“Silence is golden, and duct tape is silver”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1380
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 8:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Agree, that's disgraceful. Threats certainly have no place in open scientific debate.

Sceptics for their part have been likened to holocaust deniers and war criminals, called traitors, and much worse... or as Greenpeace infamously stated:

quote:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.



No, these kind of tactics certainly do not make the opposition go away. And they are definitely not the way forward.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 7677
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 8:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Good for Greenpeace.
Understand that all things are sacred--yet nothing is sacred.

~Yotee Coyote
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

fyah
Intermediate Member
Username: fyah

Post Number: 123
Registered: 11-2009
Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 2:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I have to read that Spiegel Online article, thanks for posting the link.

It is the week before Memorial Day and it is still as if we are starting to phase from winter to spring! Unbelievable! Santa Monica!
"In America, you are so rich; why don't you have these things for your people?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1381
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 9:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

No worries, fyah. The article is worth reading. In my opinion it manages to walk a reasonable middle ground between opposing views. Such articles are incredibly few and far between when they involve this topic. Once we can begin to acknowledge that there is some merit to both perspectives, we can begin to move forward. But while attempts continue (from both sides) to throw stones and dehumanize opponents, the idiocy will continue.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Senior Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 505
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 8:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

May Global Temperature is Warmest on Record
"Blaine is a pain, and that is the truth."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1383
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 8:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes, thanks to El Nino. To put this in perspective, here's the UAH Satellite data. We are currently on the down-slope of an El Nino temperature spike that is not quite as large as the one in 1998. The related peak months are slightly different though. This is what makes it possible (using one dataset at least) to single out May as the "Warmest on Record" (as opposed to 2010 in general). And as El Nino is ending, it will be very interesting to watch what happens now...

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Senior Member
Username: mthood

Post Number: 508
Registered: 3-2010
Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 9:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes, though it is interesting to see that even though we have had numerous El Nino's in the past we still seem to be breaking records. So if global warming is a real event we should continue to record temperature upticks. If not, well, I suppose we'll see. I could use a cooler summer here anyway.
"Blaine is a pain, and that is the truth."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1385
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 5:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Global temperatures were not as high as during the last El Nino. The world has warmed in the last 30 years though - this isn't in question - so strong el ninos may well break records in certain months.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allen
Senior Member
Username: eastsider01

Post Number: 2040
Registered: 4-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 10:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

"This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."

the report is here...http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Worst+retreat+Arctic+thousands+years+s tudy/3112363/story.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1388
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 5:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The full quote:

quote:

"The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades," the study states. "This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and (is) unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities."


Interesting that it started in the late 1800s - back then atmospheric CO2 was at about 290ppm. I don't think anyone is currently claiming that human influence was dominating natural cycles that early. This is particularly intriguing, because note that the article also states:

quote:

The study's lead author, Ohio State University polar researcher Leonid Polyak, said Thursday that predictable, long-term ice-cover changes linked to fluctuations in the Earth's orbit mean "we should expect more rather than less sea ice" at this time.


So, if I'm reading this correctly, it would appear that either human influence on the Arctic has been dramatically underestimated, and has been driving changes for more than a century, or there is something we don't understand about Arctic variability and how it relates to other cycles.

I'm interested to learn more about the technique for using whale bones as a proxy, I'll have to keep a look out for the study when published.

And, of course, it will continue to be very interesting to observe the changes in the Arctic over the next few seasons.

Chris

[edit: typo]

(Message edited by Chr15t05 on June 26, 2010)
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

man in
Advanced Member
Username: thirdpal

Post Number: 234
Registered: 1-2010
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 6:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The Romantic period poets were suggesting that "the Satanic mills spewing their foul smoke" were a problem over 200 years ago.

No one listens to artists, however.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mama Shine
Senior Member
Username: mama_shine

Post Number: 12059
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 6:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

man in sez:

" No one listens to artists, however."

I do.
I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. ~William Blake

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

man in
Advanced Member
Username: thirdpal

Post Number: 239
Registered: 1-2010
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 2:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

That may be because you're an artist yourself mama shine. But thanks for your support.

Do you perform?

You've probably heard of little Queenie. She lost everything in Katrina and now lives near Winston Salem, NC.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Victoria
Advanced Member
Username: victoria

Post Number: 431
Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 3:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

June 22, 2010, 7:15 am
Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change}

By JUSTIN GILLIS NYTimers
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-ch ange/


"Stanford University compiled a database of 1,372 climate research scientists. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny.

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it."

Read the whole article and give it a think!
Too many people enjoy the comfort of opinion without struggling through the labor of thought. JFK

...so... Eschew Obfuscation! ;-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Victoria
Advanced Member
Username: victoria

Post Number: 434
Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 5:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

from Science Daily -- Science News -- 6-24-10

Sea Ice in the Arctic Not Recovering: Another Critical Minimum Forecast

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100624112306.htm
Too many people enjoy the comfort of opinion
without struggling through the labor of thought. JFK

...so... Eschew Obfuscation! ;-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1389
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 5:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change


Hi Victoria. Wonderful - ok, so little bit of a busy week for me this week, but let me quickly list the reasons why I believe that article (and related database) is bunk.

1. It is essentially a "black list" in an industry where it has already been demonstrated that sceptical scientists are subject to character attacks, and are actively blocked from being published in mainstream journals.

2. The "Climate Science" industry, over the last few decades, has turned into a hundred billion dollar funding behemoth for studies and scientists that will first align themselves with the core ideology.

3. When science can stand on its own merits, appeals to authority are redundant.

There was a decent rebuttal in the Examiner National, which I'll post below. I also highly recommend reading the whole article, and giving it, and my points above, a good think.


quote:

Global warming's Stephen Schneider: The Light That Failed

The publication this week of a paper titled 'Expert Credibility in Climate Change' in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences will certainly do nothing to raise the credibility of the authors, those attempting to defend the paper in the media, or climate science itself.

(Article Continues)




Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1390
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 5:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

Sea Ice in the Arctic Not Recovering: Another Critical Minimum Forecast


This prediction has been made every year since 2007. Last year several groups even got articles out early vindicating their forecasts based on early trends, and ended up with egg on their faces when the Arctic didn't obey. Will it be the same this year? Not long to wait and see.

Here's the AMSR-E Ice Extent

Here are current Temperatures in the Arctic

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 8110
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 7:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Chris,

IMO, your posts always read like press releases...
Understand that all things are sacred--yet nothing is sacred.

~Yotee Coyote
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1391
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 7:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Ha. Well media is my background, as I've mentioned. But I actually think I tend to write more like a school essay - intro, argue, conclude. Nice and repetitive though, agreed.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

animalspirits
Senior Member
Username: animalspiritstalstarcom

Post Number: 8113
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 - 7:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

chris,

LOL. Glad you didn't take offense, because I really didn't mean any.


Understand that all things are sacred--yet nothing is sacred.

~Yotee Coyote
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1393
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Friday, July 02, 2010 - 6:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent just set a new record for the date.

Here is current extent

Here also is current area

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1394
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Saturday, July 03, 2010 - 1:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Meanwhile, here in Oz:

Australians shiver through coldest winter morning in 30 years

Perth: Our coldest June in 15 years
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1395
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 6:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

While I have been somewhat critical of the CRU investigations thus far, in that they tended to avoid looking into the actual controversy, at least some Climatologists appear to have come to terms with the change in public perception of Climate Science, and this could be a very good thing long term. The article below is from the Guardian in the UK, and is written by prominent New Scientist writer, Fred Pearce.

quote:

'Climategate' was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists

Science has been changed forever by the so-called "climategate" saga, leading researchers have said ahead of publication of an inquiry into the affair – and mostly it has been changed for the better.

This Wednesday sees the publication of the Muir Russell report into the conduct of scientists from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose emails caused a furore in November after they were hacked into and published online.

Critics say the emails reveal evasion of freedom of information law, secret deals done during the writing of reports for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a cover-up of uncertainties in key research findings and the misuse of scientific peer review to silence critics.

But whatever Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, concludes on these charges, senior climate scientists say their world has been dramatically changed by the affair.

"The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer," said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. "The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance."

And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how "astonishing" it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. "The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all." He believes that will now happen.

Bob Watson, a former chair of the IPCC and now chief environment scientist for the British government, agreed. "It is clear that the scientific community will have to respond by being more open and transparent in allowing access to raw data in order that their scientific findings can be checked."

In addition, Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "Researchers have to accept that it won't just be their science that is judged but also their motives, professionalism, integrity and all those other qualities that are considered important in public life."

Researchers outside Britain say a row that began in Norwich now has important implications for the wider scientific community round the world.

"Trust has been damaged," said Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. "People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution."

The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as "self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters". The outside world now sees that "the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe".

Some IPCC scientists are in denial on this issue, she said, arguing that they would like to see the CRU incident as "an irrelevant blip" and to blame their problems on "a monolithic denial machine", but that won't wash.

Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that "the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents".

He added: "Such a strategy will simply exacerbate the pathological politicisation of the climate science community." In reality, he said, "There is no going back to the pre-November 2009 era."

Curry exempted from this criticism Phil Jones, CRU director and the man at the centre of the furore. Put through the fire, "Jones seems genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why... speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets," she said.

The affair "has pointed out the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the IPCC assessment reports," she said. "A host of issues need to be addressed."

The veteran Oxford science philosopher Jerome Ravetz says the role of the blogosphere in revealing the important issues buried in the emails means it will assume an increasing role in scientific discourse. "The radical implications of the blogosphere need to be better understood." Curry too applauds the rise of the "citizen scientist" triggered by climategate, and urges scientists to embrace them.

But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult."




Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allen
Senior Member
Username: eastsider01

Post Number: 2284
Registered: 4-2005
Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 - 11:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Things are warming up in the Artic, That's not good!


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69K4VN20101021
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Advanced Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 233
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2010 - 4:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

It's amazing that this thread is still going after two years - and it's title is still relevant!

For all those who said before that one cold winter isn't climate, it's weather, I think that the current trend IS climate! And it's cooling.

It's unusually cool in Cancun right now too. Yet they keep telling us (before the year has even finished, so it coincides with Cancun) that this year will be one of the warmest on record.

But that's deceitful because not only is it unlikely to be, with the current crop of record low temps around the world, it also doesn't mention that this year was an El Nino year and this artificially boosted a couple of the months.

The coverage re: Cancun, at least on the BBC, has been very muted compared to last year in Copenhagen. And those skeptics that have attended report a more subdued atmosphere too.

Then we have Japan saying they won't renew Kyoto.

Now we hear of hundreds of scientists jumping ship re: AGW.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/shredding-the-climate-consensus-myth-more- than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims-c hallenge-un-ipcc-gore/

At last, the game is up. Whether any sense will come into these people's heads is another matter. The bureaucracies, scams, taxes and laws will probably continue unabated.

But whatever, the facts are sinking in now at least - they got it wrong. The world is very likely entering a cooling phase and our already futile and costly measures to prevent CO2 emissions will probably just make the pain a lot worse.

I urge anyone one of you well-meaning people out there who worry about their carbon emissions take the time and read what some of the boffins in the link are saying. There's lots there. Surely no one, not even the most die-hard green, could fail to at least rub their chin and go 'hmmm'. At least that. Otherwise you may as well just right them off as nuts and comfort yourself that you know better than them.

It's serious. We are going to be asked to sacrifice a lot over the coming years over this issue.

We will be taxed more.
Monitored more.
Discouraged from doing things like travelling abroad.
You will see more ugly and inefficient windfarms festooning our beautiful countries.
Financial scammers will use loopholes in the carbon market to commit fraud, for no environmental benefit.
Vast amounts of your money will be sent abroad to developing countries to help them with their CO2 emissions. That OK with you right now?
Vast amounts of your money will be used to build infrastructure that has barely been tested, let alone used before.

Even the greenest among you should think about these things very seriously, because they're going to happen and yet as you can plainly see, the science is very far from settled.

In fact I'd go as far as to say it's coming apart at the seams.
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.” - FDR
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

lisa
Advanced Member
Username: thunderchicken

Post Number: 216
Registered: 7-2005
Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2010 - 1:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Interesting article in our paper today. Florida Power and Light had a power plant in Cocoa which dispersed warm water into the Indian River (very close to the ocean) the manatees went there since the 60's to keep warm in the winter. The plant is now closed but FPL still warms the water for the manatees. Well, this got me to thinking, how many power plants around the world are dispersing warm water into the worlds oceans? This one plant warmed the water 12 degrees. Multiply that by all plants and how much are the power plants alone raising water temps around the globe?
The circle of life sure has some sharp edges!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 - 1:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Was looking at the general weather circulation over North America and there's a low pressure system over Northern Canada moving from east to west instead from west to east, the wrong direction! It's definitely connected to the plunge of arctic air over Europe. This occurs from time to time but I've never seen it literally move almost across the entire continent. I wonder if this is part of the change towards an ice age circulation pattern, I hope not but will be interesting to see what happens.

http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_ir_hem_loop-12.html

(Message edited by xevious on December 19, 2010)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 161
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 - 12:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Here's more information regarding the shift in the jet stream with regards to the cold weather in Europe and abnormal mild conditions in Northern Canada of all places.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=jet_stream_ causing_abnormal__181210?ref=ccbox_homepage_topstories
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

allan
New member
Username: allan

Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2009
Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 - 12:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Yes indeed Mike, your observations are correct. I have been watching this event for over a week. Have not seen anything like it. This satellite is one I have gone on daily for many years and shows it quite clearly also...thanks

http://www.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/opdb/aviation/loops/realtime/atlwv_loope.h tml
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 162
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2010 - 5:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Thanks Allan. What do you think will happen if that rush of arctic air coming down from the North Atlantic will do if it keeps moving south reaches the warmer waters of the Mid-Atlantic, at the same latitude as the Caribbean lies? Could it trigger hurricane like storms?

I think there's a very good chance that this could actually block low pressure areas and stall them over the U.S. and Canada.

Here's a pretty good satellite view of the arctic, but the animation they put together isn't very good.

http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/satellite/animateweb_e.html?imagetype=satellite&i magename=hrpt_dfo_ir_m_..................jpg&nbimages=1&clf=1
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

miaree9
Senior Member
Username: miaree9

Post Number: 4661
Registered: 5-2005
Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 12:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi, guys. Nice to see this thread continue. I thought this article belonged here: Speculation Alert: “New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Advanced Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 238
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 6:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Thanks miaree.

I notice in Whitley's Space that our friend is saying that this was predicted in 'The Key' and that Superstorms would lead to extreme cold, like they did in the past.

That may be true but we weren't around then, so what caused extreme weather events in the past?

And why is it that we've been told for a long time now we are overdue for an ice age, yet when something actually starts to happen it's us that's causing it? That's ridiculous.

I sincerely believe that if anything is happening it's the ice age predicted in the seventies, which was simply down to numbers on when the next one was due.

But you can bet your bottom dollar this will be thrown on to the Climate Change bandwagon, so get ready to feel really guilty about it because you are to blame!

And yet.... not even the extreme weather events ocurring now are outside normal parameters.

The only thing which has exceeded normal parameters is mass hysteria.
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.” - FDR
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1396
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 11:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post


quote:

But you can bet your bottom dollar this will be thrown on to the Climate Change bandwagon, so get ready to feel really guilty about it because you are to blame!


Actually it's Climate Disruption now. Keep up!

I've seen the following UK article from back in 2000 re-posted in a few places lately. Seems appropriate for this thread. Note that the main quote comes from our friends at the Climate Research Unit of "Climategate" fame. They were simpler times for climate science back then... the hockey stick was valid, the science was settled, it wasn't necessary to keep original data, the peer review process was an impenetrable firewall, and the winters were warm - good times indeed.


quote:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

(Full Article




Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Advanced Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 241
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 6:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Chr15t05

yes, that article is being widely quoted recently here too.

However, what I find perplexing is how it doesn't matter what the weather does, it's us to blame. Why? Extreme weather events of the like we have never seen occurred in the past and they could occur now too. It really does not stand up to scrutiny to say we will be the cause. The data just does not indicate that.

I am also dismayed by the fact that the reason AGW adherents disagree with the kind of views I outline above is because they haven't looked at the serious arguments and data from the other side. I suppose most people are like that but I'm a convert and the reason I changed my mind is because I held my nose and read up on the other points of view.

And to any die-hard AGW believers out there: believe me, there IS another point of view.

Anyway, it's beyond science now. Politics has got hold of the whole issue and run off into the distance, clutching it to it's bosom in joy.

It's deeply worrying.
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.” - FDR
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1398
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 11:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Hi Brit,

I think one of the main problems here is the complexity of the perceived issue and the number of inherent unknowns. Generally all that is known is that regional season and weather related patterns should change in some way, depending on a myriad of variables relating to environmental processes that are poorly understood. This is what has made it possible to associate just about every perceived change from "normal" with AGW theory, and for scientists to say each local event is "consistent" with overall predictions and/or model projections.

What has changed recently is that the public has started to become more aware of these inherent uncertainties and contradictions, and to an extent have begun to call BS when the standard fear card is played to hype up local events into the AGW paradigm. The AGW movement believes that this is primarily a communication issue, and have decided that improved PR is the best way to deal with the problem. It remains to be seen how effective this strategy will be in regaining public support.

I have had a similar experience to you in that I was originally a supporter of AGW theory and became more sceptical once I started researching both sides of the issue. That's not to say that there aren't a fair share idiotic claims coming from both camps, but simply that reality is most likely somewhere in-between. In my opinion the only way forward is to desensationalise the issue, acknowledge uncertainties, admit mistakes, and move forward on stronger footing. But with so much wealth and politics in the mix, I don't hold out a great deal of hope in this regard.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Advanced Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 243
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 7:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Sensible post Chr15t05. I agree with a lot of your points, except perhaps when you say that the truth is probably somewhere in between the two extremes of opinion. I say that simply because there has been so much greater effort to portay it as being one way than the other that's all. From what I can see we seem to have statistically less effect on the global climate as more data comes in. Sure we affect things locally but the larger ecosystem has much bigger fish to fry than us. Anyway, I accept that's a minor point.

When you write about how scientists were able to attribute virtually any scenario to AGW because of uncertainty in the data however, I totally agree. I've got some of this data because I downloaded the 'Climategate' stuff. It's fascinating. But why did they do this? That to me is one of the big questions.

Let me state straight away that I don't think there's some huge conspiracy here but what I do believe is that it comes down to a number of factors. One of which is simply that some people just got a bit carried away with themselves. They enjoyed the buzz of doing stuff for the government and liked it when the government seemed to take a real interest in what they were saying. So they dug deeper and looked more and, is often the case, they were able to find what they were looking for. But that doesn't mean it was there.

Meanwhile the politicians could see this as the perfect opportunity to be seen to be 'doing something'. An enemy they could confront on the public's behalf. And so the two parties became entwined in a positive feedback loop, with each confirming the other.

And so the money began to flow. These days far more (taxpayer's) money is used in the climate change lobby than is ever used by oil companies et al. Even though skeptics are always accused of using 'oil money'. And with this money came the ability to propagandize on a massive scale and over a few years the supertanker of public opinion changed course.

Later other vested interests got on board with green energy, green financial trading and green policy makers all joining the great climate change machine. No one would disagree that this little lot isn't going to go away easily, even if alien baings landed on the White House lawn and told us all we were completely wrong.

That's what I think has happened here. If there is some sort of conspiracy it has come later, as the usual suspects, who are always out there, have seen climate change as the perfect opportunity to grab more money and control. That's when it gets scary IMO. It has been hijacked. Plus we have hubris - in the idea we can 'combat' climate change and stop it. That is one of history's most bonkers ideas in my opinion. King Canute would have been proud.

So it is with no surprise that we see such little notice taken when the little guy starts tugging on the coattails of such an operation. But as more people started listening it's also not surprising that such vitriol has been used against them. I'm thinking McKitrick, McIntyre, Carter etc. Yet, as history so often proves, the little guy is frequently proved correct in the end.

So, we now have a perfect storm of politicians, personalities, corporations and other vested interests all coming together in a common cause, while the science has taken a back seat - except that which reinforces the desired view.

Nornally this would be brilliant - human beings all coming together to achieve something. However, in reality this is 21st century planet Earth we're talking about here, with all our corruption, mendacity and plain old incompetence.

I think I would prefer a bit of climate change personally!

Sorry to blather on Chr15t05. It's something I feel passionately about that's all.
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.” - FDR
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1399
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 7:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

There's no need to apologise, Brit, I am also passionate about this issue. It has been a great frustration to me over the last 5-10 years that so many people were buying into the sensation of AGW under, in my opinion, gross misrepresentations of the level of certainty involved in future climate projections.

When I say that reality is most likely in-between views I am talking about extremes. On one side is the ideology that we have the direct ability to control the climate, the other is the opposition that we have no influence whatsoever. I do believe it's probable that we have some level of climatic influence through both our pollution and land use, but that the issue has been hyped up into a political movement that has lost objectivity in place of group think and confirmation bias. This has resulted in, as you say, a positive feedback loop in which any and all opposition was either excluded or excommunicated.

I don't believe there is any conspiracy or hoax among scientists, and in my opinion ongoing claims of this coming from sceptical groups will only damage their own credibility long-term. I do believe, however, that other interests have latched onto the AGW paradigm as a way of attaining wealth and power. I also agree that the idea that we can stop the climate changing is a logical fallacy; the best we can do is minimise our impact, whatever that may be. But then this is why there is so much effort to try to pin down the last thirty years (or so) of warming as primarily anthropogenic, because if that control factor is now removed or reduced the momentum can't be maintained.

I have been a follower of Steve McIntyre for some time now, and having read through the leaked CRU files at length it was fascinating to see just how much this one man had managed to rattle the cages using almost solely mathematical and statistical arguments. But on the flip side would be someone like Judith Curry, who still (mostly) supports the standard views while being open to input from sceptical scientists and openly critical of the growing political aspects of climate science. In my opinion we need more open and moderate minds if we're going to claw back scientific credibility on this issue.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

brit
Advanced Member
Username: clicker

Post Number: 245
Registered: 3-2001
Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 7:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Excellent post Chris! How I wish more people thought like you - a voice of reason in a sea of hysteria. Thanks.

And I agree about Judith Curry too. She should chair the IPCC instead of a self-aggrandising, preening railway engineer.
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.” - FDR
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 229
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I'd agree with much of that as well.

2010 nearly had same peak temps as 2005

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

As far as weather goes, we are in the grip of one of the strongest La Nina's in decades:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48141

Which generally keeps temps on the cool side, even though average global temps might be on the uptick.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 163
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 8:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

The extreme circulation that caused the weather to back from east to west has normalized, weather in Europe is probably going to return to the norms for the time being. Curious to see what happens as winter progresses and air temps in the arctic become even colder. Sure to be more extreme storms like the North Easter that occurred this week. Get that extra pair of long johns!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tomkowt
Advanced Member
Username: tomkowt

Post Number: 448
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 10:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

has anybody asked here what their choice would be, extreme cold or blazing heat? I'd "prefer" freezing my tail off. At least you can pile the clothes on and stay as close to home as possible. I hate humidity and the blazing sun. Plus I'm not much of an outdoors type. Much prefer a cozy chair, a book and walls around me. And snow doesn't bother me much either.
Something unknown is doing we don't know what. �� Sir Arthur Eddington, 1927

For human evolution to continue, the conversation must deepen.ďż˝-Margaret Mead
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 164
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 11:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

In terms of survival, I'd much prefer the heat, you can find a tree and find shade. If it's sub-zero, no matter what you do, frost bite isn't a good thing to experience.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sharon2
Senior Member
Username: sharon2468

Post Number: 3684
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 9:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I prefer the heat too. But I'm talking regular heat. anything over 100 degrees is life threatening.
Either extreme would be very bad!

I'm cold all the time. Hate going into a theater or restaurant in July and freezing to death.

I don't understand how businesses can keep their thermostats warmer in the winter but in the SUMMER turn it down to 65! At least that's what it feels like.
Our life is determined by the choices we make!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 233
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Extremes in either would be pretty uncomfortable, but if you look at good old planet earth, life and humans life in just about every climate. Personally, I prefer heat over cold, but extreme heat is just as bad as extreme cold.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Skin Shed Mon
Senior Member
Username: shedmyskin

Post Number: 3493
Registered: 1-2007
Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I'll take the cold any day, then again I'm a descendant of some of those Acadians that didn't flee to Louisiana and stayed in the great white north, family descendants of Normandy viking settlers(lol viking settlers, okay invaders) I think cold is in my blood. I enjoy standing outside in a blizzard, its invigorating.
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. -Anne Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jimmy
Senior Member
Username: chippyo

Post Number: 1517
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 1:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Best way to live is liek a snowbird. A nomadic migration from hot summers & cold winters.

NY--> FLA--->NY--> FLA


"Don't take life to seriously;no one gets out alive."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mthood
Advanced Member
Username: r_f

Post Number: 238
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 2:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

That's a good plan Jimmy. Actually, being somewhat mobile or having homes (or places you can call home) in different areas is a good idea.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1402
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 5:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

mthood said:

quote:

2010 nearly had same peak temps as 2005

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/


The main caveat here is that the GISS dataset is controlled by James Hansen and team. These are the guys who have arguably the most to gain by promoting AGW. The reference to 2005 is interesting, as none of our other global temperature datasets agree that 2005 is the current warmest year in their respective records. All of them agree that this was 1998, except GISS, which has continued to present ongoing warming consistent with AGW theory. (*Cough*)

I would say it's fairly probable that GISS will soon announce 2010 to be the new "hottest year ever". Whether or not the other independent datasets agree will, in my opinion, test the validity of this claim. I would recommend paying close attention, however, to the amount of effort spent on keeping the focus on GISS alone. This is a great example of what happens when science stops behaving objectively.

mthood also said:

quote:

As far as weather goes, we are in the grip of one of the strongest La Nina's in decades:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48141

Which generally keeps temps on the cool side, even though average global temps might be on the uptick.


I'm glad you brought up the La Nina. This is true. It's also true that the bulk of 2010 saw a very strong El Nino, which generally keeps temps on the warm side. Both are natural phenomena, and when we have swings from one to the other is generally where we see the most extreme weather patterns. This is what we are experiencing now. While the 2010 El Nino was not as strong as the one in 1998, it occurred across a large portion of a single year. This is what gives 2010 the warming boost, even though 1998 saw a higher overall peak.

tomkowt said:

quote:

has anybody asked here what their choice would be, extreme cold or blazing heat?


Just based on overall trends in past human societies, periods of warmth have almost invariably been positive. Prolonged cold periods have been the reverse.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1403
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 3:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

I said above:

quote:

I would say it's fairly probable that GISS will soon announce 2010 to be the new "hottest year ever". Whether or not the other independent datasets agree will, in my opinion, test the validity of this claim.


Both UAH and RSS Satellite temperature data-sets have now updated for December. Both are in agreement that the 1998 temperature record remains. 2010 was still quite warm due to the boost from a significant El Nino over the bulk of the calendar year, but the overall temperature peak was still visibly lower than the peak in 1998.

UAH Graph

RSS Graph

Now we just wait for the land station based data-sets to update.

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike
Intermediate Member
Username: xevious

Post Number: 168
Registered: 4-2002
Posted on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 5:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

Looks like the pattern is developing again that brought all that snow to Europe; low pressure area is moving slowly from east to west again over Northern Canada.

http://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_vis.php?image=ir&inv=0&t=l12&region=he
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chr15t05
Senior Member
Username: chr15t05

Post Number: 1404
Registered: 8-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2011 - 4:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

How's this for a UK Winter?

December 2010 update: Second coldest since 1659

Met Office provisional figures show that December 2010 with a mean CET temperature of -0.7C was the second coldest since records began in 1659, beaten only by December 1890 which had a mean of -0.8C.

(Article continues)

Chris
"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jimmy
Senior Member
Username: chippyo

Post Number: 1523
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Friday, January 07, 2011 - 9:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post

look at the over all grid variants. Just like a stock market chart with it's daily variances and peaks & lows over decades trending.

But the over all long term trend is hotter & hotter.

Sort of like you can't see the forest for the trees.
"Don't take life to seriously;no one gets out alive."