Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Northalbertan]

Safetysoff, that is a very broad generalization of "global climate change".  But it is no worse that the climate models that have been used to predict the "coming global warming disaster I hear so much about.  Living in northern Alberta and with winter rapidly approaching I would welcome a little global warming come January.  :cold:  :cheers:

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Their chiefs were more concerned over building Tiki heads  (insert nations economy here) than on managing their environment.  They blindly altered their  environment by cutting down all their trees, had all the topsoil wash away, due to no tree roots holding it down, leaving little area for farming or for trees to regrow and out fished their immediate fish stocks.

Hmmm, so their government wasted time and resources on something useless and unproven and their society collapsed?  Cool.  Thanks for providing an example of why our government should not spend one more cent on all this carbon emission BS.  I guess you really did read the whole thread. 

 

[bdave]

I'm sure we are the cause of SOME of the climate change.

However, it's hard to swallow all the crap Al Gore and co. are feeding us when they are the ones flying around in their private jets and leaving all the lights on in the mansions they own but don't live in.
When the world leaders start to reflect what they say, then maybe more people will listen.

edit: Replaced 'mentions' with 'mansions'. Whoops.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I found it interesting to read about what happened to the society on Easter Island. . . . while not exactly what's happening with global warming now it bears some similarities that could be extrapolated to the globe's present population and how we're altering our environment.
(when was the last time you were able to use 'extrapolate' in a sentence  ;D BOOYA!)

I'll give you a quick summary.  The society on Easter Island had a finite amount of trees, land for farming and fishing stocks off shore.  Their chiefs were more concerned over building Tiki heads  (insert nations economy here) than on managing their environment.  They blindly altered their  environment by cutting down all their trees, had all the topsoil wash away, due to no tree roots holding it down, leaving little area for farming or for trees to regrow and out fished their immediate fish stocks.

When their populations began starving there was civil conflict and their society collapsed.

Not realizing about how our society or population is affecting climate change/global warming/the atmosphere or whatever you want to call it  at a global scale and not having any foresight about it will, I'm positive, lead to a similar  type of cascade or set of issues down the road

What you say about Easter Island is a theory. No one knows what happened. We can only guess. Quit stating your opinion as fact, unless you can back it up. And backing it up means proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not just quoting someone else's opinion.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm sure we are the cause of SOME of the climate change.

However, it's hard to swallow all the crap Al Gore and co. are feeding us when they are the ones flying around in their private jets and leaving all the lights on in the mentions they own but don't live in.
When the world leaders start to reflect what they say, then maybe more people will listen.

I live in Central Alberta, live 24 kms from the nearest grocery store, drive a 3/4 ton diesel pickup, and heat my home with natural gas.  I'll put my carbon footprint up against David Suzuki's, Al Gore's, Sean Penn's, or Bono's any day.  Fucking celebretards piss me off.

 

[safetysOff]

What you say about Easter Island is a theory. No one knows what happened. We can only guess. Quit stating your opinion as fact, unless you can back it up. And backing it up means proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not just quoting someone else's opinion.

What I've said so far has been my own personal opinion, not trying to pass it off as fact by anymeans.  I used that example, that I read a long while ago, not sure what the reference was, for comparisson only, to try and show that it's not just climate change but the resulting consequences that it can have on a society that may need to be considered.

Leaving it at that, I've gotten way too into this thread. [beer][/beer]

 

[daftandbarmy]

Nice one, Doc:

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Anthony Watts describes it thus:

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

 

[Journeyman]

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

What you needed to quote was the ending of Professor Lewis's resignation:

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara

 

[a_majoor]

Break out the polypro and Polar Fleece:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-super-la-nina-and-the-coming-winter/?print=1

The Super La Nina and the Coming Winter
Posted By Art Horn On October 25, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 47 Comments

A super La Nina is developing.

Historically, these strong La Nina events drop the Earth’s average temperature around one degree Fahrenheit, and the drop comes quickly. As a result, some of the same places that had record heat this summer may suffer through record cold this winter.

La Nina is the lesser-known colder sister of El Nino. La Nina chills the waters of the tropical Pacific Ocean, and in turn cools the entire planet for one to two years or more. This chilling has the potential to bring bone-numbing cold to many parts of the world for this and the following winter. As a result, world energy demand may spike in the next one to two years as much colder weather hits many of the major industrial nations.

This La Nina appears to be special [1], at least so far. It is well on its way to being the strongest of these events since the super La Nina of 1955-1956. During that powerful La Nina that lasted two years, the global average temperature fell nearly one degree Fahrenheit from 1953 to 1956.

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) measures the air pressure difference between Darwin, Australia, and Tahiti. The lower the value of the index, the stronger the El Nino typically is. The higher the SOI index, the stronger the La Nina. The September SOI value of +25.0 [2] was the highest of any September going back to 1917, when it was +29.7. During that super La Nina, the global temperature fell 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1915 to 1917. The +25.0 September SOI reading is also the highest for any month dating back to the +31.6 value in November of 1973.

The most recent La Nina developed in the spring of 2007, and persisted until the early summer of 2008. The global average temperature fell one degree Fahrenheit in that period of time, equal to all of the warming of the last 100 years! If the trend of this rapidly developing, potentially super La Nina continues, an equal or larger temperature drop can be anticipated during the next one to two years. This La Nina [3] is coming on very fast and very strong. Already it is colder than the six coldest La Ninas of the last 60 years when they were at a similar stage of development.

What about the recent heat we’ve all heard about?

For the last year, the world has been dealing with the warming effects of a strong El Nino. The El Nino warms the ocean waters of the tropical Pacific Ocean and in turn heats the atmosphere. Western Russia melted under a record heat wave this summer, after freezing from record cold last winter. Many parts of the southern United States had record heat this summer, but also shivered under record cold last winter. The persistence of the jetstream to blow in patterns that changed very little for long periods of time contributed to these extremes of temperature. This locked in jetstream wind pattern enhances temperature anomalies by restricting the exchange of air flow from one place to another. What would be hot becomes very hot, and what would be cold becomes very cold.

It is common for the jetstream to behave this way when the sun is in the solar minimum, such as it has been for the last three years. We are emerging from the minimum, but the sunspot numbers are continuing to be very low. Some solar experts say this next sunspot maximum may be one of the weakest in 200 years [4]. As a result, the tendency for the jetstream to blow over parts of the Earth with little month-to-month variability may continue this year. That would result in continued extremes of temperature. The difference would be this time cold areas would be even colder due to the oncoming super La Nina and the falling global temperature.

The El Nino of the last year pushed the global temperature right back to where it had been in the beginning of 2007. The result has been no net warming or cooling since then. In fact, there has been no net warming or cooling since around 1999. Interestingly, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 369 parts per million to 387 ppm (parts per million) during this time. This amount is above the level of 302 ppm in 1910, when 20th century global temperature started to rise. Despite this significant rise in carbon dioxide since 1999, there has been no “global warming” [5] during this period.

Right now the Pacific Ocean is in the beginning of a thirty year cooler spell called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [6]. There is a strong, potentially super La Nina developing. The sun is still quiet with very few sunspots. When these conditions exist [7], the first two months of the cold season (December and January) tend to be cold from Montana to Iowa to Florida up to the Great Lakes and most of New England. In addition, temperatures tend to be very cold from central and western Canada to Alaska. China could suffer a bitterly cold December and January if historic temperature patterns are consistent with current conditions. Much of central and western Europe are cold in these situations as well.

The second half of the cold season (February and March) typically experiences some changes in the global temperature patterns in these types of winters. For Europe the changes are not good. Bitter cold and snow dominates from western Russia across all of Europe. In other words, what starts as a cold winter in central and western Europe deepens into a severe winter in February and March across all of Europe. The extreme cold eases in southern China but it deepens in the north and northeastern part of the country. In the United States the cold of December and January in the middle and eastern part of the country reverses to mild weather from Texas to Florida up to the Great Lakes and New England. All of the western U.S. is cold and snowy up to the northern Great Plains. What starts as a mild winter out west turns much colder with large amounts of snow while the east gets a break from the cold.

The current La Nina is coming on stronger than any in decades. The world is demanding more and more energy to fuel growth even in hard economic times. This winter may test the world energy supplier’s ability to provide it. The resulting increase in demand could produce a spike in energy costs. This could bring more hardship to people who are suffering through this long and deep recession. It remains to be seen if this La Nina equals or exceeds the super La Nina of 1955/56. Right now El Nino’s colder sister is on the fast track to generate more temperature extremes and a very cold winter in some parts of the world.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-super-la-nina-and-the-coming-winter/

URLs in this post:

[1] special: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/11/with-a-rapid-onset-the-strongest-la-nina-since-1955-56/
[2] September SOI value of +25.0: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml
[3] This La Nina: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/mei.html
[4] weakest in 200 years: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing-the-hype/using_the_ap_magnetic_index_prediction_for_solar_cycle_24_amplitude_predict/
[5] no “global warming”: http://www.climate4you.com/
[6] Pacific Decadal Oscillation: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
[7] these conditions exist: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WINTER_201011.pdf

 

[Haletown]

Donna Laframboise has been doing the grunt work to dissect the crap & lies that the IPCC spin machine spews . . . very interesting stuff.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/

Here she counts the "thousands of the world's best scientists" BS

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/the-non-stop-ipcc-spin-machine/

Can you count to 258?

Her latest series is to look at the qualifications of the Lead Authors of the IPCC  . . .  and guess what?  Seems working for Greenpeace is the best qualification not getting your advanced eduction degrees.

Suppose we should expect such deceit and corruption . . it is the UN after all.

 

[jhk87]

Of course, all of the evidence presented above is anecdotal and takes no account whatever of the vast majority of scientists saying that human contributions to global warming are

1 - A problem
2 - Will cost plenty in the long term
3 - Can be addressed



The rhetoric, employing straw men doing mythical things (like this nonstop obsession with Al Gore) debases the discussion and clouds the fundamental problem of long-term vs short-term costs (and risks, and, for that matter, benefits.)


Would like to participate in this discussion, but only if everyone can agree to calm down and act like mature, informed citizens.

 

[Haletown]

Of course, all of the evidence presented above is anecdotal and takes no account whatever of the vast majority of scientists saying that human contributions to global warming are  realize that their ride on the Fame & Gravy Train is 100% dependent on continuing to raise the Scare and Fear level among the citizenry.

No Faux Crisis, no R&D funds shoveled off the truck.

No Faux Crisis, no flattering interviews on TV and invites to Hollywood.

No Faux Crisis, no trips to Bali in the depths of Winter to discuss AGW

 

[HavokFour]

...but only if everyone can agree to calm down and act like mature, informed citizens.

I was under the impression we were already doing so.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Of course, all of the evidence presented above is anecdotal and takes no account whatever of the vast majority of scientists saying that human contributions to global warming are

1 - A problem
2 - Will cost plenty in the long term
3 - Can be addressed

It pretty thoroughly debunks the vast majority of scientists part. Unless there are so few scientists that 258 is a "vast majority".

 

[HavokFour]

It pretty thoroughly debunks the vast majority of scientists part. Unless there are so few scientists that 258 is a "vast majority".

God help us if there are only 258 on the planet.

 

[ArmyRick]

JHK87,

What did you mean by everybody calming down and participating in the conversation? I don't see anybody getting fired up.

What  do see are valid points being made and then three pages later, someone who clearly hasn't read through everything goes on a new tangent. Like yourself.

What vast majority of scientist say this?

 

[jhk87]

Of course I could speak to the original post put the past few pages have been a seeming nonstop track of bluster accusing people of "faux" crises and Al Gore of masterminding some massive global scam (available only on pajamas media.)

Oh. and
At least 87% of scientists, actually.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey.scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.real


For a reasonable summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Oh, and at least 87%

 

[Haletown]

Well that settles it . . .  wikipedia say 87%.

Or you can actually count the names, like Donna Laframboise has done

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/the-non-stop-ipcc-spin-machine/


Let's see . . .  count the actual names or rely on Wikipedia.

Hmmmmmmm  what to do, what to do, who can be trusted?  Basic grade 2 arithmetic or anonymous Wikipedia entry . . .  or could it be the infamous William Connelly before he was banned?


Your choice . . .

 

[Journeyman]

For a reasonable summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I gather the basis of a "reasonable" summary is one that is supportive of a poster's opinion.

That article was changed nine times on 21 Oct, again on 22 Oct, twice on 31 Oct, again on 1 November...
Yep, that Wikipedia is as close as one gets to peer-reviewed support for an argument.  :

 

[jhk87]

Because "nofrakkingconsensus.com" is a pretty reliable, unbiased source.