Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Anaxogoras]

This is an interesting idea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html?ref=science

[Angus]

LOL, there is so much crap around. Anyway, the russian think-tank-sky has it all. So the arctic Ice is not melting, - indeed nothing is happening at all. I hope you sleep well despite smelling smoke in yer house 

[saggs]

LOL, there is so much crap around. Anyway, the russian think-tank-sky has it all. So the arctic Ice is not melting, - indeed nothing is happening at all. I hope you sleep well despite smelling smoke in yer house  

 

How is it that species like crocodiles and sea turtles have survived dozens of warming/cooling cycles.  But we (the most advanced species on the planet) are all going to turn into cannibals (really Ted Turner) and die in a fiery flood it the temperature rises a few degrees?

First off we don't even know if it is going to get warmer, all the GW people said this was going to be a HORRIFIC hurricane season because of GW.   Really?!?  How many hurricanes we have this past season?  (wait I know this one...   ... NONE)  And yet we believe their playstation/XBox models about what the cilmate will be in 50-100 years.

And if it does get warmer -or colder- SO WHAT!  We adapt, life goes on.  Sure some places would become less hospitable, but other previously inhospitable places would become so.  I bet many Canadian farmers would love for it to warm a few degrees so they have a longer growing season, and the Polar Bears are moving further inland and thriving.

So, instead of thinking about adaptation, we get the RIDICULOUS idea that we can STOP THE CLIMATE FROM CHANGING!?!?!  Well, guess what, the climate NEVER has been, nor ever will be static.  WE CAN"T STOP IT!  

So we push for treaties and taxes which will:  keep poor countries poor, make rich countries poor, destroy countries sovereignty, and further cripple the world economy.

So we can stop something that: can't be predicted, can't be stopped, would be beneficial to some, and we could easily adapt to.

WAKE UP!  It is all about money, power, and ego for fear-mongers like Gore who are hellbent on scaring the pants of off the rest of us.

[Chalenge]

Not true there saggs... we did have a hurricane pass through here in Southern Alabama... I cant remember the name but I distinctly remember having to go out on the porch and right the lawn chair it knocked over.

[saggs]

Not true there saggs... we did have a hurricane pass through here in Southern Alabama... I cant remember the name but I distinctly remember having to go out on the porch and right the lawn chair it knocked over.

 

I just looked it up on the Wikipedia, (not the most reliable source I know, but I'm lazy) 3 hurricanes in 2009, none made landfall.  September was the mildest since 1994. 

And what a relief, the well below average season was blamed not on global warming, but on El Nino!!!!!    Remember El Nino, he was big back in the early 90's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnbWa3E70zg

 

PS. anyone know how to get the squiggly line (I know what it's called, but can't spell it) over the second "N" in Nino?

[SirFrancis]

ń <- just mark this one and then copy & paste. Voila!!

 

no, seriously, look up in your character table. Normally Alt+0241 should work, but you have to look if this character is available in your character table. Hope this helps. If not, well...just copy & paste the above one

Regards
SF 

[DMBEAR]

How'd Copenhagen turn out?  The polar bears celebrating?

[CAP1]

How'd Copenhagen turn out?  The polar bears celebrating?

we're gettin our storm early this year. there's a few inches on the ground, and it's still comin hard. vis. is about 1/4 mile.

[rstel01]

Irony= Barrack Hussein Obama leaving the Global Warming Conf early due to the massive Snow Storm we are getting in DC.   

       

[MORAY37]

Irony= Barrack Hussein Obama leaving the Global Warming Conf early due to the massive Snow Storm we are getting in DC.    

      

Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.

Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.

  I'm not directly attributing this storm to AGW, yet you somehow feel a snowstorm in December is proof there isn't?

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding

An increase in global temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle. This is because an increase in surface air temperature causes an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. In addition, a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more water vapor. The excess water vapor will in turn lead to more frequent heavy precipitation when atmospheric instability is sufficient to trigger precipitation events. Intense precipitation can result in flooding, soil erosion, landslides, and damage to structures and crops.

Parallel to the likely increase in heavy precipitation events in winter, increased temperatures will also amplify the drying out of soils and vegetation due to increased evaporation in the summer. This is likely to result in more severe and widespread droughts where and when atmospheric conditions do not favor precipitation (see Droughts and Wildfires).

The largest changes in precipitation are expected at mid- to- high latitudes (Kattenberg et al., 1996). Climate models predict an increase in average precipitation in winter at high latitudes due to poleward transport of evaporated moisture from lower latitudes. There is also an increase in the expected frequency and areal extent of intense precipitation over the continents. Predictions for soil moisture changes are less certain; however, models show an increase in soil moisture in high northern latitudes in winter.

Consistent with model predictions, weather observations over the last century indeed indicate an increase in precipitation over land in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (Nicholls et al., 1996). For the United States, precipitation since 1970 has averaged about 5% more than in the previous 70 years (Karl et al., 1996), and cold season precipitation has increased by almost 10% during the last century. Over the period 1950 to 1990, annual snowfall increased by about 20% over northern Canada and by about 11% over Alaska (Groisman and Easterling, 1994). An increase in snowfall was also observed in the 1960s and 1970s in China. A recent analysis indicates a trend toward increasing streamflow in most regions of the United States (Lins and Slack, 1999), consistent with the observations of a wetter climate.

Some regions have also experienced an increase in extreme precipitation events, as predicted in model simulations (Nicholls et al., 1996). Observations for the last 100 years indicate that extreme precipitation events (more than 2 inches in 24 hours) in the United States have increased by about 20% (Karl and Knight, 1998). Increases in heavy precipitation have also been reported for Japan and northeastern Australia. An increase in the intensity of precipitation increases flood potential. Although streamflow has increased significantly in the United States since the 1940s, however, there has been no increase in peak flows (Lins and Slack, 1999). Further analysis is needed to reconcile the discrepancy between the findings that the increase in US precipitation has been due primarily to an increase in heavy precipitation (Karl and Knight, 1998) and the analysis that streamflows have become less extreme (Lins and Slack, 1999).

Although it is impossible to link a particular weather event directly to increased greenhouse gases, the heavy precipitation events highlighted on the map are examples of the kind of situations that are expected to become more frequent as climate warms. The magnitude of the human influence relative to natural variability is much larger for temperature compared to precipitation and atmospheric circulation, meaning that a "fingerprint" of anthropogenic warming in precipitation records will emerge much more slowly (Wigley et al., 1999). It may be decades before an unmistakable human signal emerges from the natural background noise.

References

Groisman P.Y. and D.R Easterling, 1994. Variability and trends of precipitation and snowfall over the United States and Canada, Journal of Climate 7, 184-205.

Karl, T. R, R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, and R.G. Quayle, 1996. Indices of climate change for the United States, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77 (2), 279-292.

Karl, T.R. and R.W. Knight, 1998. Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79 (2), 231-241.

[SirFrancis]

Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.

Moray, the references in your quote are between 9 to 15 years old. Do you have newer ones? (besides Lins and Slack from 1999)

Regards
SF

(edit: those references also only take a view on US and Canada landmass)

[rstel01]

Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.

Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.

I am suprised the debacle exposed from East Anglia didn't have you crawl back into your hole on the subject.

Silly me, I didn't use the new talking point for the giant lie to change it to "climate change". Call it was it is, made up lies fueled by flawed politically driven science and flawed second rate members of academia who live on the governmental tit to usher in a new world order of global governance. Lets see, in the 1970's the same group was pushing to cover the ice caps in black soot to prevent "the coming Ice Age". Then the tactic shifted to "Global Warming". Now hell, lets just loop it into a generic "Climate Change". For the love of God, just get it out in the open for what your agenda is: Institution of a single global governance, transfer of wealth from Western Nations and generate an Orwellian Utopia.  

The day will come in the not to distant future to where charlatans like yourself, who are nothing more than pawns to the Club of Rome and Bilderbergers are held directly accountable for their actions.

Thank god for the legions of real scientists and patriots, who continue to expose this hoax for what it is.

Enjoy your last twelve months of having any political clout left.

Now if you will exuse me, I have to return to snowblowing and contribute to the .0002% of CO2 that all of mankind has ever added to the enviroment.      

[CAP1]

Irony= A post like yours not knowing the difference between weather and climate.

Also...
Considering increased snowfall was also a side effect in all predictions.....I'm not sure where you think your argument is.

  I'm not directly attributing this storm to AGW, yet you somehow feel a snowstorm in December is proof there isn't?

i think his point may have been that it's perfectly NORMAL to have a snowstorm about this time of year.

[MORAY37]

i think his point may have been that it's perfectly NORMAL to have a snowstorm about this time of year.

Indeed.  Historically it is.    (And weather isn't climate)

[MORAY37]

I am suprised the debacle exposed from East Anglia didn't have you crawl back into your hole on the subject.

Silly me, I didn't use the new talking point for the giant lie to change it to "climate change". Call it was it is, made up lies fueled by flawed politically driven science and flawed second rate members of academia who live on the governmental tit to usher in a new world order of global governance. Lets see, in the 1970's the same group was pushing to cover the ice caps in black soot to prevent "the coming Ice Age". Then the tactic shifted to "Global Warming". Now hell, lets just loop it into a generic "Climate Change". For the love of God, just get it out in the open for what your agenda is: Institution of a single global governance, transfer of wealth from Western Nations and generate an Orwellian Utopia.  
    

Actually, the 1970's "Ice Age" craze was purely media driven. George Will quoted a single paper (that was not peer reviewed) in Science.  The article he quoted, Hays et al., ran in a non peer reviewed rag called Science News.  At no point was there any stir among scientists that this "Impending Ice Age" had any inherent truth nor even a speck of empirical data behind it.   All the news outlets of the time, who, like you, didn't understand the difference between PEER REVIEWED and NON PEER REVIEWED publications, ran with it as a true research story(TIME, NEWSWEEK, etc), which it WAS NOT.

Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigious journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

I'm sure you can actually look up the information, instead of passing utter fallacy here.

You "conspiracy theorists" are absolutely the worst of the bunch.

A new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling

Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.