World temperature anomalies in June 2010 Photograph: NCDC/NESDIS/NOAA
Last month was the hottest June ever recorded worldwide and the fourth consecutive month that the combined global land and sea temperature records have been broken, according to the US government's climate data centre.
The figures released last night by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) suggest that 2010 is now on course to be the warmest year since records began in 1880.
The trend to a warmer world is now incontrovertible. According to NOAA, June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985. Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last 15 years with the previous warmest first half of a year in 1998.
Temperature anomalies included Spain, which experienced its coolest June temperature since 1997, and Guizhou in southern China, which had its coolest June on record. According to Beijing Climate Centre, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and Jilin experienced their warmest June since their records began in 1951.
Scientists expressed surprise that the June land surface temperature exceeded the previous record by 0.11C (0.20F). "This large difference over land contributed strongly to the overall global land and ocean temperature anomaly," said John Leslie, a spokesman for NOAA.
Separate satellite data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado shows that the extent of sea ice in the Arctic was at its lowest for any June since satellite records started in 1979. The icy skin over the Arctic Ocean grows each winter and shrinks in summer, reaching its annual low point in September. The monthly average for June 2010 was 10.87 km sq. The ice was declining an average of 88,000 sq km per day in June.
In a further possible sign of a warming world, the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier, one of the largest in Greenland, lost a 2.7-square mile chunk of ice and retreated one mile between 6-7 July – one of the largest single losses to a glacier ever recorded.
The glacier, a tongue of the Greenland ice sheet, has retreated six miles since 2000 and more than 27 miles since 1850. It is believed to be the single largest contributor to sea level rise in the northern hemisphere.
Greenland's ice sheet, a vast body of ancient ice covering 1.7m sq km, is melting today more rapidly than only a few decades ago. Since 2000, the ice sheet is calculated to have lost about 1,500 cubic kilometres of water– enough to raise global sea levels by 5mm . If the entire ice sheet melted, the world's oceans would rise by over six metres.
Glaciologists expressed surprise at the speed of the break-up of the glacier: "This is unusual because it occurs on the heels of a warm winter that saw no sea ice form in the surrounding bay ... it lends credence to the theory that warming of the oceans is responsible for the ice loss observed throughout Greenland and Antarctica," said Nasa scientist Thomas Wagner.
"These are clear signs of a rapidly warming world and exactly what the climate models have predicted. Thankfully, there is a way out of it if we can get greenhouse gas emissions under control," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace.
07-16-2010, 06:58 PM
Speak2Truth
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
The oceans have risen over 400 feet already, most of it long before Mankind ever built a major city much less a steam engine. This is normal and predictable. It has happened before.
As for average temperatures, it is still cooler now than it was 1000 years ago. We have a long way to go to catch up, after these brief, mini ice ages.
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
God Damn Socialists!
They've invented the myth of Man Made Global Warming in an evil plot to deny us all the benefits of Free Market Capitalism.
Something must be done, I tell you!
Something!!!!
07-16-2010, 07:20 PM
Speak2Truth
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
See, you are starting to catch on.
It wasn't too long ago in human history that some clever schmucks invented the myth that they had to rip the beating heart out of a human being to make sure the sun would rise, to "save the planet". And, by the way, The People had to give them lots of loot and keep them living in luxury because they were the special ones saving everyone. Yeah, enough of the masses were stupid enough to fall for that one too.
That is why this nation was not created as a 'democracy' - o protect us from charlatans and the masses of "useful idiots" they prey upon.
Sure enough, those Socialists are getting rich off redirecting our cash into their pockets in the name of "saving the planet" - again.
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
Gore's Home Still Guzzling Energy - energy use increased since 'green' additions made
Information obtained through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service https://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/...mo_code=648C-1
Funny thing is, whenever the planet warms, the CO2 rises and plant life prospers as a result. Warming causes the release of CO2 that "greens" the planet. Hooray!
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
The climate denial echo chamber is again in high gear trying to assassinate the character of respected scientist Michael Mann of Penn State. Their latest ruse is to squawk that Dr. Mann is the indirect recipient of federal stimulus dollars.
That is not at all surprising since last year $3 billion in federal stimulus funds was provided to the National Science Foundation in addition to their normal budget of about $6 billion. That means that about one third of all research grants from the NSF nation-wide benefited from stimulus money.
Lets drill a little deeper into this smear campaign. Penn State and the University of Hawaii both shared a grant of $770,000 for a research project called “Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model”.
Of this money, Dr. Mann received $57,000 (or 7.5%) over a three-year period, or $19,000 a year. Clearly these climate scientists are in it for the money…
07-16-2010, 11:15 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:
See, you are starting to catch on.
It wasn't too long ago in human history that some clever schmucks invented the myth that they had to rip the beating heart out of a human being to make sure the sun would rise, to "save the planet". And, by the way, The People had to give them lots of loot and keep them living in luxury because they were the special ones saving everyone. Yeah, enough of the masses were stupid enough to fall for that one too.
That is why this nation was not created as a 'democracy' - o protect us from charlatans and the masses of "useful idiots" they prey upon.
Sure enough, those Socialists are getting rich off redirecting our cash into their pockets in the name of "saving the planet" - again.
So the Aztecs were Socialists... God Damn Aztec Socialists. They were ruining the country, til Cortez came along and set them straight.
Yay Cortez, kill all those goddamn Socialist Aztecs. Kill Socialist Aztecs! Kill!
And since MECHA wants to reclaim Aztlan, Watch Out!!!
Angry Aztec Socialists are going to rip your heart out on top of a pyramid!
2012 is just around the corner. They're gonna get us!
Oh wait, those were Mayans. Goddamn Socialist Mayans and their anti-capitalist calendar.
Obama is an Aztec/Mayan plant who wants your heart ripped out by Socialist priests.
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
[B]Minneapolis Metrodome's inflatable roof collapses as 20 INCHES of snow is dumped on Midwest in ONE DAY...
All of which is about weather rather than climate.
And the issue is more about climate "change" rather than warming, since as the global warms overall, the climate may get colder in certain places. So your links are actually supportive of climate change, even if they are really about weather.
12-13-2010, 08:30 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
[B]Minneapolis Metrodome's inflatable roof collapses as 20 INCHES of snow is dumped on Midwest in ONE DAY...
Didn't you just make a post lamenting how stupid Americans have become? The very same scientific method used to record the low temperatures you cite also shows that "June was the 304th consecutive month with a combined global land and surface temperature above the 20th-century average. The last month with below-average temperatures was February 1985. Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last 15 years..."
Being familiar with your recent post history, I expect the above scientific facts to sadly run off you like water off a duck, but for anyone else reading this, cherry-picked local records aren't relevant, (and there's no doubt far more record HIGHS that our OrchardDweller is conveniently ignoring), but what the original post is saying is that the average global temperature is continuing to break record highs.
sheesh.
12-14-2010, 06:52 AM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
I watched Al Gore’s movie and it was about Global Warming. That evil CO2 was gonna push temperatures so high that Al had to get on a crane to get to the top of that graph. Global warming! Global warming! Don’t you remember?
But when it became obvious that world temperatures were declining, it was changed to “climate change” as if the climate isn’t supposed to change. The climate has always changed. They used to have vinyards in northern England. The climate also changes on other planets. In fact, the other planets in our solar system have been warming and cooling right along with us. Do a search using a planet's name and add "global warming", or "climate change". Pay attention to the dates of the NASA and MIT stories.
Climate change. What’ll we be blamed for next? Weather change? Temperature change? I think there’s scientific evidence now that the seasons have been changing. Hear that Al? David Rockefeller? You better come save us with your regulations and taxes which benefit you and your associates. Come save us on your private jets please.
Believe and say what you want. You’re the WaccoBB core. Despite all the evidence that has been presented here over the years, you continue to push global warming. And vaccines. And bad politicians (or are you still defending Obama?). You show no respect for our intelligent community. Just who do you think you’re fooling?
12-14-2010, 07:11 AM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
I've dealt with Clancy before. You can see a three year old thread here (Clancy went back and removed or changed posts)
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Hundreds of new cold and snow records set in the USA
Record Events for Mon Dec 6, 2010 through Sun Dec 12, 2010
Total Records: 2002
Rainfall: 319
Snowfall: 320
High Temperatures: 71
Low Temperatures: 426
Lowest Max Temperatures: 767
Highest Min Temperatures: 99
This probably will also be upsetting to the WaccoBB core. The thread is called "Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??". But if you post articles showing how the weather has been, it'll upset them.
12-14-2010, 09:51 AM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
This probably will also be upsetting to the WaccoBB core. The thread is called "Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??". But if you post articles showing how the weather has been, it'll upset them.
Yes, it's true that there are many record low temperatures being set. What you're intentionally ignoring is that there are TWICE as many record HIGH temperatures being set at the same time. If there were no global warming, the rate of high and low records being set would be approximately the same. Please, show just the slightest bit of integrity (intellectual and otherwise) and read the following article.
Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...Lows-Across-US
12-14-2010, 11:09 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Dr. Uffe Ravnskov M.D. explains " If a scientific hypothesis is sound, it must agree with ALL observations. A hypothesis is not like a sports event, where the team with greatest number of points wins the game. Even one observation that does not support a hypothesis is enough to disprove it. The proponents of a scientific idea have the burden of proof on their shoulders. The opponent doesn't have to present an alternative idea; his task is only to find the weakness in the hypothesis. If there is only one proof against it, one proof that can not be denied and that is based on reliable scientific observations, the hypothesis must be rejected."
Of course Dr. Ravnskov was talking about the diet heart hypothesis stating that cholesterol and saturated fat are the cause of heart disease (another false consensus among the scientific community and general public), but it applies across the board to all scientific hypotheses.
Want to see the weakness in the Man Made Climate Change hypothesis (as I have posted before and no one has yet to comment on) : Page four on this report is a graph from peer reviewed scientific literature authored by Lindzen and Choi. https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...rt_july_09.pdf
For those who do not wish to read the links I'll explain what the paper proves. A large part of the Man Made Climate Change hypothesis states that out-going long wave radiation is being trapped in our atmosphere and there have been many prediction models based on this assumption. However, this actual measurement of long wave radiation shows quite the opposite is taking place.
This report published in Science magazine examines the effects of rapid global warming as seen in the Paleocene-Eocene era. temperatures back then raised 3 - 5 degrees Celsius (certain doom as predicted by the IPCC) and most all life forms flourished, especially plants, which saw an increase in diversity in tropical regions. So much for the dooms day theory.
12-14-2010, 03:03 PM
Barry
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
Believe and say what you want. You’re the WaccoBB core. Despite all the evidence that has been presented here over the years, you continue to push global warming. And vaccines. And bad politicians (or are you still defending Obama?). You show no respect for our intelligent community. Just who do you think you’re fooling?
Are you talking about me? Yes, I still think Man Made Climate Change is happening, and so do 90+% of scientists. There's even a couple Republican Representative that can no longer deny the evidence.
I don't recall pushing vaccines. The only one I get is tetanus and skip the rest, for both me and my kids.
I've got alot of problems with Obama, but he's clearly the best electable option! You'd prefer McCain? Nadar and Paul are not going to get elected, ever! Obama maybe becoming a better leader, even if the direction he is leading is drifting further off course!
You're the one out of step around here, but that's OK.
12-14-2010, 05:53 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
no Barry, but you might question your news sources.
Can't win? How negative. Any candidate can win if the people vote for them and the votes are fairly counted. "He can't win" is something the corporate media pushes. It's apparently an accepted truth now. TV pushes it, it bypasses critical thinking, and people repeat it. Should one vote for the candidate that he thinks will win, or the candidate that he thinks should win. If everybody did the latter, I think we'd have a better country and we might finally see some actual progress. Besides, a third party candidate just getting a significant percentage of the vote can have a influence in politics. The other parties will shift for those votes. Vote your conscience.
12-14-2010, 06:25 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
...bypasses critical thinking...
Amazing. When shown proof that record highs are happening twice as often as lows you simply ignore it. Talk about a lack of critical thinking; watching your evasions is genuinely unsettling.
12-14-2010, 06:55 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:
Amazing. When shown proof that record highs are happening twice as often as lows you simply ignore it. Talk about a lack of critical thinking; watching your evasions is genuinely unsettling.
What is truly amazing is that I have presented the facts that prove the hypothesis of Man Made Climate Change and it's impact to be flawed at it's core and nobody will even consider it here. That's something else. What else is interesting is the temperature hasn't risen in over a decade and you won't dare to acknowledge that. What else is super insane, is that a warmer climate would be beneficial for us and we are arguing about what is causing this amazing process as if it matters. Like Simon Winchester (noted intellectual and liberal) said on KPFA's Letter's to Washington show a few weeks ago, it is so very egotistical to think that man has any significant impact when it comes to something as massive and complex as our environment.
12-14-2010, 07:04 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
I know you feel neglected, but we're talking about the ratio of record high temps compared to record lows. Given that record highs are happening twice as often as record lows, does that mean anything to you?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
What is truly amazing is that I have presented the facts that prove the hypothesis of Man Made Climate Change and it's impact to be flawed at it's core and nobody will even consider it here. That's something else. What else is interesting is the temperature hasn't risen in over a decade and you won't dare to acknowledge that. What else is super insane, is that a warmer climate would be beneficial for us and we are arguing about what is causing this amazing process as if it matters. Like Simon Winchester (noted intellectual and liberal) said on KPFA's Letter's to Washington show a few weeks ago, it is so very egotistical to think that man has any significant impact when it comes to something as massive and complex as our environment.
12-14-2010, 07:36 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:
I know you feel neglected, but we're talking about the ratio of record high temps compared to record lows. Given that record highs are happening twice as often as record lows, does that mean anything to you?
Yes it does. It indicates that the temperatures have risen a little bit. What caused it? Who knows? But the temperature has risen above this before and it has been a good thing for the majority of life on this planet as I pointed out earlier. So this debate you are seeking is really for nothing at all since we already have read the Climategate emails, which are damning pieces of evidence, observed the actual data (not models) that proves this theory to be flawed, observed time and again how consensus based science is flawed as our collective knowledge of everything is continually growing and updating, and discovered that warming would be a good thing for our planet and us!
12-14-2010, 07:52 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
The "climategate" emails are nothing but a tempest in a teapot, created by organizations that have a financial interest in denying reality.
Yes it does. It indicates that the temperatures have risen a little bit. What caused it? Who knows? But the temperature has risen above this before and it has been a good thing for the majority of life on this planet as I pointed out earlier. So this debate you are seeking is really for nothing at all since we already have read the Climategate emails, which are damning pieces of evidence, observed the actual data (not models) that proves this theory to be flawed, observed time and again how consensus based science is flawed as our collective knowledge of everything is continually growing and updating, and discovered that warming would be a good thing for our planet and us!
12-14-2010, 07:56 PM
busyb555
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Problem is they just don't want to remove the Obama in 08 and the global warming/climate change bumper stickers from the back of their cars no matter what the facts of the case. Amazing as it may be they are stuck on their truth and the facts will never reach them.
12-14-2010, 08:01 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by busyb555:
Problem is they just don't want to remove the Obama in 08 and the global warming/climate change bumper stickers from the back of their cars no matter what the facts of the case. Amazing as it may be they are stuck on their truth and the facts will never reach them.
Your ignorance of the people you're whining about is funny; I'm probably Obama's biggest critic here. Your intentional ignorance of science is tragic.
12-14-2010, 08:04 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:
The "climategate" emails are nothing but a tempest in a teapot, created by organizations that have a financial interest in denying reality.
Rather than reading Newsweek, why don't you read the hacked e-mails for yourself? What have you got to lose?
And why don't you address the whole argument I laid out? You talk a lot about intellectual integrity...... I'm just saying.
12-14-2010, 08:07 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Rather than reading Newsweek, why don;t you read them for yourself? What have you got to lose?
I did, thank you. To make the absurd claim they invalidate the top climatologists from over 100 nations is criminal. The perps should be in jail for the damage they've done.
12-14-2010, 08:08 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Hey Clancy - tell ya what. Let's just see if it gets warmer or colder. It's of no importance to me what you believe.
12-14-2010, 08:14 PM
Clancy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
Hey Clancy - tell ya what. Let's just see if it gets warmer or colder. It's of no importance to me what you believe.
There are rewards for living life with integrity, you should try it sometime.
12-14-2010, 09:08 PM
djinthecountry
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Great job! Especially appreciated you adding the record lows shown across the country.
But the global warming nuts refuse to accept FACTS, so what's a common sense person to do
when there's no reasoning with them?
12-14-2010, 09:51 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:
I did, thank you. To make the absurd claim they invalidate the top climatologists from over 100 nations is criminal. The perps should be in jail for the damage they've done.
If you had really read the hacked e-mails you'd know that those scientists whos e-mail's were hacked are downright frauds. Don't weasel out of it and explain it away by changing the subject of these scientists misdeeds to the credibility of 100's of scientists from different nations. Your just spinning the issue and using a false argument. No one claimed that those e-mails invalidate the top climatologists from over 100 nations, nor did anyone imply it. Your asserting this into the argument as if it were said, and that sir is bullshit. You are deflecting the issue at hand and avoiding all inconvenient information. That is not cool, and has nothing to do with integrity or maturity, its that simple buddy. I've already pointed out that in science you need only to point out one flaw in the hypothesis for it to become invalid. I've pointed out two major flaws in the Man Made Climate Change doomsday hypothesis. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with me, or believe otherwise, a person who has any knowledge and integrity regarding science would know this.
Here is some information about those e-mails. Again, they do not render all science from all the IPCC's authors invalid, and no one is saying it does. There are other arguments that proves the IPCC is full of BS. But for now I'll just point out the BS that came from these scientists in the Climategate scandal which proves that these scientists and probably others are fudging data for political purposes, and that we should question everything no matter who says it. Enjoy!
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Clancy:
There are rewards for living life with integrity, you should try it sometime.
:chillpill: :chillpill:
12-15-2010, 08:50 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
I'm deleting this because I accidentally sent it before finishing it. The finished version is posted below.
12-15-2010, 09:53 AM
podfish
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
With both sides claiming scientific backing, and both having enough professional/"expert" publications (that the amateur isn't qualified to accurately critique anyway) to draw on, we clearly are beyond the point where anyone will convince anyone to change their mind. Anyone with even the slightest vulnerability to the confirmation bias has had his critical facilities crippled by all the (mis)information on both sides. Clearly much of what's published on either side is irrelevant, exaggerated or misinterpreted. Even most of the professionals who publish aren't as well versed in the science as you'd like them to be, and the quality of the evidence is often questionable. I think that much is clear even to us dilettantes. I still think the arguments of the deniers aren't all that convincing, but clearly they feel otherwise.
But there sure seem to be a lot more claims that we're going to find out real soon now. I suppose even then, there will be arguments about whether it's AGW or just GW. It's not going to matter much. The anthropos will have to adjust either way.
all that being said, Barry's right - weather stories don't mean a damn thing and it's damaging to your credibility to cite them as evidence that way.
12-15-2010, 10:03 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
(I accidentally posted this before it was finished. I deleted that one and this is the finished version.)
There's been a lot of sniping back and forth in this thread. Let's see if we can get some agreement on a couple of things. I haven't taken the time to research both sides of this issue much, so I could easily be wrong about anything here (as always), but here are the essential issues as I understand them vis-a-vis the current discussion:
1. The average global temperature is what we're talking about when we say "global warming". Therefore, anecdotal info such as litanies of record cold snaps in specific areas is irrelevant. To list anecdotal instances of record coldness thinking that this somehow refutes global warming is like cherry-picking specific cases of tobacco smokers who lived to a ripe old age, thinking that that refutes the idea that smoking is unhealthy. The (increased?) incidence of record cold temperatures combined with the many more instances of record warm temperatures yields a picture of increasingly extreme temperatures within the larger trend of increasing high average global temperature--which is exactly what global warming models predict. I'd like to hear you anti-global warming folks acknowledge that basic point, and stop invoking anecdotal cases of low temperature as if they're relevant to the question; they are not. Can I hear some acknowledgment of that, please?
2. Can we at least agree that the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that global warming is real and is largely anthropogenic (i.e.,caused by human activity)? Can you anti-global-warming folks acknowledge that, even if you think those scientists are wrong (or engaging in a huge conspiracy)? In other words, can we clear away the obfuscation of thinking that the issue is controversial among the actual experts when in fact the number of climate scientists who disagree with the majority isn't much greater than the number of dissenting scientists on any other issue (there are always a few dissenters; it's part of the process)?
3. Can we also acknowledge that the main financial support for anti-global warming info is from Big Oil and other industries that will lose money if we make the necessary lifestyle changes to combat global warming, and that many (most?) of the anti-global warming scientists receive money from those special interests? Some of the global warming skeptic scientists are the same guys who were paid by Big Tobacco to say that tobacco doesn't hurt us, too! Where big money is offered, there will always be some doctors and scientists who are willing to whore themselves by lending their authority to whatever position pays the most. And note that this issue balances out the financial conflict of interest that Al Gore or any other global warming believer may have. There are people on both sides of the issue who stand to benefit financially, so we must simply bring our skepticism to bear on the claims of both sides--as always!
4. OrchardDweller, can you acknowledge that when Barry invoked the fact that 90+ percent of scientists agree about anthropogenic global warming, your response--a list of articles about surveys of the opinions of ordinary people, not scientists--was irrelevant to the discussion and, in fact, an evasion of the issue he brought up? Or do you really imagine that the opinion of the average Joe Sixpack on the street constitutes some kind of evidence about the validity of a scientific theory (keeping in mind that millions of those folks don't even believe in evolution)?
4. It is true that (pre)historically, global warming has been a boon to many species of plants. In fact, nearly all types of global change, including catastrophic mass extinctions from asteroid impacts, from mega-volcanism and from plain old global temperature change itself, eventually result in a proliferation of life, as the niches vacated by extinction are exploited by new species. But the flippant mention of this fact by Speak2Truth and someguy misses an important point: What benefits some species means the extinction or severe degradation of others. I've already mentioned that much of the proliferation of life after climatic change involves new species exploiting niches vacated by extinction. But even if we assume that the majority of humans survive extreme global warming, we're already starting to see the negative consequences of it: increased severity of storms with concomitant human death, loss and suffering (Katrina, etc.); increased incidence and severity of drought leading to starvation and privation; more people freezing to death in cold snaps due to climate change; loss of crops leading to starvation; ocean level rise threatening island nations; hugely accelerated extinction of species, etc. etc. So, Speak2Truth and someguy, can we drop the flippant references to how wonderful it will be to have a greener planet due to increased CO2--or is plant life more important to you than human life?
5. someguy, can you acknowledge that refuting any particular detail about the presumed mechanism of a theory, such as the long wave radiation issue you mention, does not refute the theory itself unless the theory was based entirely on that mechanism alone? Honestly, you sound like those creationists who invoke specific problems or controversies within the evolutionary science community as if such specific problems refute the entire theory; they usually do not. And can we also agree that the unseemly acts of some scientists who wrote the "Climategate" emails, such as trying to keep dissenting positions out of the IFCC's report, does not in itself invalidate the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
6. I acknowledge that, since other planets in our solar system are showing signs of global warming, some part of our global warming is likely to be caused by extraterrestrial (probably solar) influences. Can we all acknowledge that that doesn't mean that human activity isn't also a major, if not THE major cause?
7. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that global warming isn't anthropogenic at all, can we still acknowledge that it's real and that there may be something we can do to ameliorate its severity so we can pass a reasonably livable planet down to our children--even if that means we have to tighten our belts and live more responsibly and less profligately?
12-15-2010, 10:04 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
The anthropos will have to adjust either way.
all that being said, Barry's right - weather stories don't mean a damn thing and it's damaging to your credibility to cite them as evidence that way.
Funny that the IPCC uses weather stories such as the flash heat wave in Paris a decade or so ago to back their claims. Is that not damaging to their credibility as well?
12-15-2010, 10:07 AM
podfish
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Funny that the IPCC uses weather stories such as the flash heat wave in Paris a decade or so ago to back their claims. Is that not damaging to their credibility as well?
yep.
12-15-2010, 10:13 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
5. someguy, can you acknowledge that refuting any particular detail about the presumed mechanism of a theory, such as the long wave radiation issue you mention, does not refute the theory itself unless the theory was based entirely on that mechanism alone? Honestly, you sound like those creationists who invoke specific problems or controversies within the evolutionary science community as if such specific problems refute the entire theory; they usually do not. And can we also agree that the unseemly acts of some scientists who wrote the "Climategate" emails, such as trying to keep dissenting positions out of the IFCC's report, does not in itself invalidate the theory of anthropogenic global warming?
The long-wave radiation theory presented by the IPCC is a massive part of their hypothesis. It would be incredibly stupid to discount my presented facts about their miscalculations. And I already said (very explicitly) that the Climategate e-mails do not invalidate the theory all-together. Sheesh. How about this fact that does slam the theory right at its base, Co2 is guided by temperature not the other way around. It is a fact. Even Mr. Gore in his documentary proved it for us all to see. It is also a fact that a warmer climate of 3 - 5 degrees Celsius would be a great thing for us as I also pointed out earlier. Why won't you acknowledge these things? You just keep hammering the consensus down our throats as if it proves anything at all. It doesn't. Please understand that knowledge grows and the consensus that is formed in the present day will without a doubt be found untrue in time, just as it always does.
12-15-2010, 10:36 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
4. It is true that (pre)historically, global warming has been a boon to many species of plants. In fact, nearly all types of global change, including catastrophic mass extinctions from asteroid impacts, from mega-volcanism and from plain old global temperature change itself, eventually result in a proliferation of life, as the niches vacated by extinction are exploited by new species. But the flippant mention of this fact by Speak2Truth and someguy misses an important point: What benefits some species means the extinction or severe degradation of others. I've already mentioned that much of the proliferation of life after climatic change involves new species exploiting niches vacated by extinction. But even if we assume that the majority of humans survive extreme global warming, we're already starting to see the negative consequences of it: increased severity of storms with concomitant human death, loss and suffering (Katrina, etc.); increased incidence and severity of drought leading to starvation and privation; more people freezing to death in cold snaps due to climate change; loss of crops leading to starvation; ocean level rise threatening island nations; hugely accelerated extinction of species, etc. etc. So, Speak2Truth and someguy, can we drop the flippant references to how wonderful it will be to have a greener planet due to increased CO2--or is plant life more important to you than human life?
What you need to understand is that our climate is not and has never been static. Populations of every species on this planet are never static. Nothing in our reality is ever static. So trying to maintain everything the way it is now is absolutely futile. And when we are talking about minor temperature adjustments upwards we can look at history and realize how mammalian and plant life has benefited. This is an important note because the AGW folk paint a doomsday scenario which is false. Of course with any change there will always be winners and losers (remember nothing is static). This is nature my friend, we have to understand this fundamental concept of our planet especially if we are striving to influence it in some manner.
12-15-2010, 10:48 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
6. I acknowledge that, since other planets in our solar system are showing signs of global warming, some part of our global warming is likely to be caused by extraterrestrial (probably solar) influences. Can we all acknowledge that that doesn't mean that human activity isn't also a major, if not THE major cause?
Just this statement alone about the solar influence on all the planets in our solar system doesn't disprove the AGW theory. What it does do is cast some serious doubt as to whether human activity is even a minor factor in the equation. It should be a no-brainer that when all the planets are warming up as the sun is more active, that the sun is most likely the major cause of our planets warming. At least this should cast some serious doubt in your mind about the AGW theory.
12-15-2010, 10:53 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
7. And even if we assume for the sake of argument that global warming isn't anthropogenic at all, can we still acknowledge that it's real and that there may be something we can do to ameliorate its severity so we can pass a reasonably livable planet down to our children--even if that means we have to tighten our belts and live more responsibly and less profligately?
Like I said before, we should be happy for our children and their children that they will benefit from a warmer planet. What we should be worried about (environmentally speaking here) is GMO's, Geo-engineering, pollution, fertilizers, water contaminated with all kinds of heavy metals and other toxic material, factory farming, and issues such as mountain top removal. We are wasting our time and effort addressing this non-problem. We should be getting together to stop these real issues that I just mentioned. What do you say?
12-15-2010, 07:41 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Like I said before, we should be happy for our children and their children that they will benefit from a warmer planet. What we should be worried about (environmentally speaking here) is GMO's, Geo-engineering, pollution, fertilizers, water contaminated with all kinds of heavy metals and other toxic material, factory farming, and issues such as mountain top removal. We are wasting our time and effort addressing this non-problem. We should be getting together to stop these real issues that I just mentioned. What do you say?
excellent arguments and information in your posts someguy. Thanks! :thumbsup:
BTW how's your oil company doing, big guy? Mine is doing great though we've been getting some tough competition from Al Gore's Occidental Oil company. Well, I better go lie some more about how the world is getting cooler or I may miss out on some profits. See ya at The Grove ;)
12-15-2010, 07:44 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
global warming/climate change throughout our solar system
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
What we should be worried about (environmentally speaking here) is GMO's, Geo-engineering, pollution, fertilizers, water contaminated with all kinds of heavy metals and other toxic material, factory farming, and issues such as mountain top removal. We are wasting our time and effort addressing this non-problem. We should be getting together to stop these real issues that I just mentioned. What do you say?
I say that there has to be some consequences to pumping to the surface and combusting dead carbon-based forms that have been buried and transformed over 300 to 400 million years. I'm not sure I want to live in a climate that harkens back that far. Regardless of my opinion of the effects human folk can have on a massive and complex planet ecology, I agree that there are many issues to work on.
Many of the issues that someguy mentions above are related to the use of fossil fuels. All of it has to do with making money. Since fossils fuels are one of the key factors, this might be an area where we can get past debates of opinions about anthropogenically-influenced climate change and start sharing what we are doing in our everyday lives to affect the very real and very clearly human-generated issues listed above.
Who wants to start? (I promise to chime in too!)
12-18-2010, 09:11 AM
Valley Oak
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
This is an excellent topic for everyone to chime in on but it requires a new thread with its own title.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Orm Embar:
I say that there has to be some consequences to pumping to the surface and combusting dead carbon-based forms that have been buried and transformed over 300 to 400 million years. I'm not sure I want to live in a climate that harkens back that far. Regardless of my opinion of the effects human folk can have on a massive and complex planet ecology, I agree that there are many issues to work on.
Many of the issues that someguy mentions above are related to the use of fossil fuels. All of it has to do with making money. Since fossils fuels are one of the key factors, this might be an area where we can get past debates of opinions about anthropogenically-influenced climate change and start sharing what we are doing in our everyday lives to affect the very real and very clearly human-generated issues listed above.
Who wants to start? (I promise to chime in too!)
12-18-2010, 09:39 AM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists (2008)
12-18-2010, 09:42 AM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change as Homeland Security Issue
At an all-day White House conference on "environmental justice," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.
Speaking at the first White House Forum on Environmental Justice on Thursday, Napolitano discussed the initial findings of the department’s recently created "Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force"...
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
This is an excellent topic for everyone to chime in on but it requires a new thread with its own title.
Edward
Yes! Would you create the new thread? I'm off to do makeup and hair for the Sebastopol Nutcracker. I'll chime in after this weekend of performances.
You are all invited to walk or pedal your way to see a very talented group of locals perform the Nutcracker at Analy. It sounds like this matinee will be very full but Sat night always has room.
cheers!
12-19-2010, 08:41 AM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
This is an excellent topic for everyone to chime in on but it requires a new thread with its own title.
Edward
Care about the environment? Oil usage? Want to make a BIG impact? Support anti-war candidates. The Pentagon uses more oil than Sweden, for example.
If you're really concerned about the world's environment and the impact on people, look into the subject of DU (depleted uranium) which is being used in bombs in the Middle East (warning: horrific subject but very real).
If you'd like to also know how it's being used against US citizens, watch Gary Null's "Gulf War Syndrome - Killing Our Own".
Also, concerned citizens might look into how countries with centralized power have the worst environmental records (there is no or little private property under these systems).
maybe he'll take a green tour through the country using his fleet of Hummers
12-19-2010, 10:31 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
Care about the environment? Oil usage? Want to make a BIG impact? Support anti-war candidates. The Pentagon uses more oil than Sweden, for example.
If you're really concerned about the world's environment and the impact on people, look into the subject of DU (depleted uranium) which is being used in bombs in the Middle East (warning: horrific subject but very real).
If you'd like to also know how it's being used against US citizens, watch Gary Null's "Gulf War Syndrome - Killing Our Own".
Good call my man! Ron Paul 2012!!!:Yinyangv: & :heart:
12-19-2010, 11:09 AM
Valley Oak
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Ron Paul is a fascist and he would be much worse than Bush was. His racist, pro-corporate son, Rand, is even worse! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
This is the kind of reprehensible man that you endorse:
""Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life", "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level". He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters." Paul takes a critical view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations.""
And the appalling list of his "record" just goes on and on!
Please stop supporting such a fascist, religious fanatic, backward individual! It is offensive and disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourself. When you get older you will know better.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Good call my man! Ron Paul 2012!!!:Yinyangv: & :heart:
12-19-2010, 11:36 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Ron Paul is a fascist and he would be much worse than Bush was. His racist, pro-corporate son, Rand, is even worse! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
This is the kind of reprehensible man that you endorse:
""Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life", "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level". He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters." Paul takes a critical view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations.""
And the appalling list of his "record" just goes on and on!
Please stop supporting such a fascist, religious fanatic, backward individual! It is offensive and disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourself. When you get older you will know better.
Edward
Shows how little you know.
How about you tell us what you do to stop your fossil fuel pollution while your here on this thread?
12-19-2010, 02:35 PM
busyb555
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Valley Oak just can't keep from calling folks he does not agree with names. Nothing like seeing a lefty out of brain power.
12-19-2010, 04:15 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Ron Paul isn’t racist.
That’s what the media tried to portray him as because he is a threat to the establishment. Dr. Paul used to work in poor areas of Texas giving people free medical care. One of his picks for VP was Walter Williams, the economist.
I think many here would be surpised at how different reality is from what the MSM reports (and some here repeat). Ron Paul supporters racist?
Dr. Paul has given the only solution to rascim as far as I’m concerned. And it’s not done by the government giving special rights to special groups. It’s done by all of US looking at people as individuals, instead of merely as a member of a larger group. We're all unique expressions, of a greater whole. The way for us to be unified as people is for all of us to become free-thinking, loving, unique individuals again.
Instead of having your views shaped by corporate media, why don’t you have a look at what Ron Paul says yourself.
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
sorry - had missed this
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
4. OrchardDweller, can you acknowledge that when Barry invoked the fact that 90+ percent of scientists agree about anthropogenic global warming, your response--a list of articles about surveys of the opinions of ordinary people, not scientists--was irrelevant to the discussion and, in fact, an evasion of the issue he brought up?
I wasn't responding to what you say I was responding to. I was responding to being "out of step".
There's been tons of info on frauds connected to all this global warming. But like I said before, despite the info that's been posted here, a core group here continues to push global warming and our need to cut our carbon footprint.
Quote:
Or do you really imagine that the opinion of the average Joe Sixpack on the street constitutes some kind of evidence about the validity of a scientific theory (keeping in mind that millions of those folks don't even believe in evolution)?
No, I don't believe that "the opinion of average Joe Sixpack on the street constitutes some kind of evidence about the validity of a scientific theory". I was responding to being out of step. But I wouldn't care if I were out of step anyway. Columbus was out of step.
“Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” - Gandhi
I also didn't address something else that Barry mentioned. Doesn't mean I wasn't evading the issue though. But he might want to do a search on tetanus vaccinations + sterility.
But what does it all matter? Everyone has left this thread to go discuss how they can cut their fossil fuel usage?????
It doesn't matter if we're being sprayed with aluminum and barium. Or that the vaccines they push are killing people worldwide. Or that we're in multiple unconstitutional wars that's making the world hate us. Or that our rights are being taken away. Or even that unelected UN "officials" are lying to us about swine flu and global warming. Let's just get back into that comfort zone and talk about cutting our carbon footprint and imagine that we're all doing something for the betterment of mankind. Al would be so proud.
12-21-2010, 12:36 PM
Barry
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
...
I also didn't address something else that Barry mentioned. Doesn't mean I wasn't evading the issue though. But he might want to do a search on tetanus vaccinations + sterility...
I'm already sterile :banana:
12-21-2010, 01:24 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I'm already sterile :banana:
Ok Barry, that's fine. Just thought you (and others) would be interested.
Does that graphic you used indicate that you won something?
12-21-2010, 01:36 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Ron Paul is a fascist and he would be much worse than Bush was. His racist, pro-corporate son, Rand, is even worse! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul
This is the kind of reprehensible man that you endorse:
""Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life", "an unshakable foe of abortion", and believes regulation or ban on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level". He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception; his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters." Paul takes a critical view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it was unconstitutional and did not improve race relations.""
And the appalling list of his "record" just goes on and on!
Please stop supporting such a fascist, religious fanatic, backward individual! It is offensive and disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourself. When you get older you will know better.
Edward
That would be the Constitutional position, as the federal government has no authority to dictate to the states on issues like abortion. According to the 10th amendment, issues not listed in section 1 should be handled on the state level, or by the people.
Regarding Dr. Paul's personal view on when life begins, it should have no bearing on what states would do. In fact, following the Constitution would remove any power that Ron Paul might have regarding abortion if he were to win the presidency. I seriously doubt Ron Paul would violate the Constitution and get involved in abortion like this administration has by taking money in taxes, even from the half of the population who believe abortion is murder, to fund abortions. By the way, Dr. Paul has delivered 4,000 babies. I would consider the opinions of this smart and humane man. But I have an open mind.
12-21-2010, 02:05 PM
Barry
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
Ok Barry, that's fine. Just thought you (and others) would be interested.
Does that graphic you used indicate that you won something?
Yes, my freedom! :wink:
12-27-2010, 01:00 PM
Zeno Swijtink
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Maybe not the warmest, but likely in the top three. - Zeno
***
Press Release No. 904
For use of the information media
Not an official record
2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010 warmest 10-year period
2 December 2010 - Cancun/Geneva (WMO) - The year 2010 is almost certain to rank in the top 3 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2010 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.55°C ± 0.11°C1 (0.99°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. At present, 2010’s nominal value is the highest on record, just ahead of 1998 (January-October anomaly +0.53°C) and 2005 (0.52°C)2. The ERA-Interim3 reanalysis data are also indicating that January-October 2010 temperatures are near record levels. The final ranking of 2010 will not become clear until November and December data are analysed in early 2011. Preliminary operational data from 1-25 November indicate that global temperatures from November 2010 are similar to those observed in November 2005, indicating that global temperatures for 2010 are continuing to track near record levels.
Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C above the 1961-1990 average, 0.03°C above the 2000-09 average and the highest value ever recorded for a 10-year period. Recent warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic; the Saharan/Arabian, East African, Central Asian and Greenland/Arctic Canada sub-regions have all had 2001-10 temperatures 1.2 to 1.4°C above the long-term average, and 0.7°C to 0.9°C warmer than any previous decade.
Surface air temperatures over land were above normal across most parts of the world. The most extreme warm anomalies occurred in two major regions. The first extended across most of Canada and Greenland, with mean annual temperatures 3°C or more above normal in parts of west Greenland and the eastern Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic. The second covered most of the northern half of Africa and south Asia, extending as far east as the western half of China, with annual temperatures 1 to 3°C above normal over most of the region. Many parts of both regions had their warmest year on record, including large parts of northern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and southwest Asia (with Turkey and Tunisia having their warmest year on record), as well as much of the Canadian Arctic and coastal Greenland. Four of the five sub-regions4 which are wholly or partly in Africa (West and Southern Africa, the Saharan/Arabian region and the Mediterranean) are on course for their warmest year on record, along with South and Central Asia, and Greenland/Arctic Canada. Temperatures averaged over Canada have also been the highest on record.
Only limited land areas had below-normal temperatures in 2010, the most notable being parts of western and central Siberia in Russia, parts of southern South America, interior Australia, parts of northern and western Europe, eastern China and the southeast United States. It was the coolest year since 1996 for the northern European region, and since 1998 for northern Asia, due mainly to below-normal temperatures during the winter. A number of northern European countries are also likely to have their coolest year since 1996, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Norway.
THE earth continues to get warmer, yet it’s feeling a lot colder outside. Over the past few weeks, subzero temperatures in Poland claimed 66 lives; snow arrived in Seattle well before the winter solstice, and fell heavily enough in Minneapolis to make the roof of the Metrodome collapse; and last week blizzards closed Europe’s busiest airports in London and Frankfurt for days, stranding holiday travelers. The snow and record cold have invaded the Eastern United States, with more bad weather predicted.
All of this cold was met with perfect comic timing by the release of a World Meteorological Organization report showing that 2010 will probably be among the three warmest years on record, and 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record.
How can we reconcile this? The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes. Last winter, too, was exceptionally snowy and cold across the Eastern United States and Eurasia, as were seven of the previous nine winters.
For a more detailed explanation, we must turn our attention to the snow in Siberia.
Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters.
But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has expanded across the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Siberia, just north of a series of exceptionally high mountain ranges, including the Himalayas, the Tien Shan and the Altai.
The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.
As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.
The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.
The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.
That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century. Most forecasts have failed to predict these colder winters, however, because the primary drivers in their models are the oceans, which have been warming even as winters have grown chillier. They have ignored the snow in Siberia.
Last week, the British government asked its chief science adviser for an explanation. My advice to him is to look to the east.
It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.
Judah Cohen is the director of seasonal forecasting at an atmospheric and environmental research firm.
12-27-2010, 07:12 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is” London Independent
Dec 20, 2010 (originally posted Monday 20th March 2000)
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.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]East [COLOR=blue ! important]Anglia[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.
"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Climate [COLOR=blue ! important]Prediction[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".
yep.
well, not the "global alarmists" necessarily. But the scientists... I don't believe them uncritically, but I listen to what they have to offer. The public face of this "debate" is all noise by now. I guess I'll make that point once in a while. The science itself, and challenges to it, are often interesting. "I told you so" links don't add much without pro & con context.
01-04-2011, 11:50 AM
Speak2Truth
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
There are several noteworthy factors currently at work.
As NASA reported in 2009, reduced solar activity is cooling the Earth's upper atmosphere.
Because the Earth lacks a "greenhouse effect" to prevent convection, the cooler upper atmosphere increases convective cooling of the surface, resulting in the record cold temperatures being reported in so many areas of the world, with negative effects such as coral bleaching, record snowstorms and power outages.
However, the brief earlier warming period warmed a great deal of ocean water that is still carrying that heat energy around, preventing the cooling from becoming a rapid (and deadly) downward spiral like that experienced from 1945 to 1980.
What happens when the current El Nino effect ends?
If the reduction in solar forcing is not reversed, could we face yet another deadly cooling period?
What surprises me about all this is that in many public discussion forums, folks assert the record cold is a symptom of global warming. They're clearly not paying attention to the atmospheric physics driving all this and are instead performing like puppets in the game of "blame every change on global warming".
01-04-2011, 12:12 PM
Speak2Truth
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
One more notion for consideration: "since record keeping began" generally refers to modern, technological systems such as surface temperature monitoring stations and more recently satellites.
This form of record keeping began during the deadly cold period of 1945 to 1980. Obviously, as we recover from that, we will be recording warmer and warmer temperatures.
Scientific record keeping of temperature variations began in earnest largely because of:
The cooling was severe, sparking warnings such as:
• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson
• The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
• “By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Sound familiar?
Al Gore asserted in his film "Inconvenient Truth" that in 1982 he began the effort to impose a carbon tax. Whether it is cooling or warming, that is the real agenda: TAKE YOUR MONEY.
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
The head of the IPCC had to admit last year that they were WRONG.
I guess some here missed that story.
Times of London March 27, 2010: UN climate change chief says sorry — and switches to neutral
The outspoken chairman of the UN’s climate change body is to adopt a neutral advisory role and has agreed to stop making statements demanding new taxes and other radical policies on cutting emissions.
In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologised for his organisation’s handling of complaints about errors in its report.
He also apologised for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers...
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
The head of the IPCC had to admit last year that they were WRONG.
Your intro, OrchardDweller, gave me the impression that the IPCC head had said they were wrong about global warming and he was now neutral on that issue. But when I read the article you linked to, it became clear that that's not the case at all, so I thought I'd post this little clarification; I'm sure you wouldn't want our fellow Waccobites to be misled.
The neutrality referred to by IPCC chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri referred only to the issue of his having made policy recommendations. He has decided to be neutral in terms of supporting any particular policy recommendations, and to just report the scientific findings. There is no indication in the article that he has changed his position about anthropogenic global warming at all.
Presumably he caught flak from powerful factions (probably corporations and their government stooges) for his policy recommendations. Ironically, the recommendations mentioned in the article are, IMHO, good ideas! To wit: "Last year, he called for higher taxes on aviation and motoring, said people should eat less meat, and proposed that hotel rooms should have electricity meters to charge people extra for using air conditioning. " The suggestion about eating less meat would be enormously helpful in a lot of ways (and I'm speaking as a carnivore), and the other suggestions would help to focus the costs of polluting emissions more squarely on the worst offenders, plus would probably have the useful effect of decreasing motoring.
What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?
Quote:
In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, apologised for his organisation’s handling of complaints about errors in its report.
This is correct. Specifically: "On the IPCC’s tardiness in responding to complaints and correcting errors — such as its claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — he said: 'Our response has been much too late and much too inadequate.' "
Quote:
He also apologised for describing as “voodoo science” an Indian Government report which challenged the IPCC’s claims about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers...
This too is correct.
Thanks for posting that link, Orch. I hope my clarification has been helpful.
01-06-2011, 06:57 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Bingo! I have found what appears to be an excellent source of info which addresses pretty much all of the climate change skeptics' arguments, including, I think, all of the objections brought up herein by OrchardDweller, someguy, and others. The site is at: https://www.skepticalscience.com/
I haven't had time to read much of it yet, but it has lots of articles, many of them available in "Basic", "Intermediate" and sometimes "Advanced" versions. There's plenty of scientific info, with charts and graphs as needed. It's simple to find topics, clearly laid out, fun to read, and comprehensive. So, OrchardDweller and everyone, I urge you to go to the link above, check out the "Most Used Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Really Says" section in the left-hand margin, and look up the rebuttal to each argument, for starters. Have fun!
01-06-2011, 08:44 AM
DynamicBalance
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?
It's come to my attention that Someguy accidentally posted under my account. I'm going to repost his message under his account. Sorry for the confusion, and have a great day!
-Laurel
01-06-2011, 12:22 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Hey there "global warming debunkers", when you deny validity to those who you disagree with, because they haven't met your challenge to show what they're doing to help the environment, you're making a nonsensical argument.
We're all free adults here. If someone wants to present their green bona fides here, they can. And if others choose not to recite some "loyalty oath" to the environment, that's their right.
Demanding something from someone you disagree with, isn't a very effective pursuasive technique. The only thing debators have the right to demand from their opponents, is proof.
You are the ones making the claims against man-made global warming. Therefore it is you who are beholden to us, your audience, to support your claims with "facts".
Demanding to see the badges of those who say you haven't done so, at least not by providing credible sources, isn't your right or privilege. You're not the new sheriff's in town. And we're not your charges. You're the ones doing the debunking, it's up to you to prove it. So far I'm not convinced.
Anecdotes, rumors, fear-mongering, stoking the hysteria and dumping masses of repetitive and unsubstantiated blather, do not an argument make. At least not sound ones.
And I don't have to prove anything to you. Even when I question your sources and logic. You're the ones making the assertions. Just back them up with credible evidence, and leave us to decide if you've made your case or not. We owe you no proof that we're as "good" at saving the planet as you "are".
Just because someone doesn't respond to a request, or a demand, doesn't mean they couldn't if they chose to. It means they're not interested in being called on the carpet by self-appointed arbiters of ecological correctness.
Or maybe they have lives in which their responsibilities and choices of entertainment, are much more compelling than engaging in repetitive, sterile and unending debates.
Debates in which, after sufficient time, it is clear the other side will never accede, to a change their opinion, or admit that their obsessions are unfounded, biased, irrational or delusional.
But hey, we all get to think whatever we want, we just shouldn't expect others to agree with us, especially when all we've done is to hector them with the same old, same old.
Ultimately the global warming issue will be "resolved" by climatological events. And if the political will to make changes in our production of CO2 isn't mustered sufficiently, that's all that will happen.
Because the forces arrayed against a proactive approach are so powerful, your fringe culture has little or nothing to do with what governments and corporations decide, and what masses of individuals and communities do as well. All of your cries of conspiracy, lies and corruption aren't going to be part of the equation that determines outcome.
But as I find myself saying here on waccobb.net more often than not, Hey, knock yourselves out!
It's worked so well for the hard left orthodox Marxists over the last hundred and fifty years, why shouldn't you use the same methods? The methods I'm referring to are the rhetorical ones. Hammering the same idea over and over in the court of public opinion.
The one party murderous dictatorships? Not so much. Except China's doing pretty well. At least on the surface.
01-06-2011, 01:11 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Your intro, OrchardDweller, gave me the impression that the IPCC head had said they were wrong about global warming and he was now neutral on that issue. But when I read the article you linked to, it became clear that that's not the case at all, so I thought I'd post this little clarification; I'm sure you wouldn't want our fellow Waccobites to be misled.
Thanks for posting that link, Orch. I hope my clarification has been helpful.
Thanks. No misleading needed. Truth is my friend. I spread the truth. Link was provided to the news story. Everything else is others' assumptions.
01-06-2011, 01:14 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
So, OrchardDweller and everyone, I urge you to go to the link above, check out the "Most Used Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Really Says" section in the left-hand margin, and look up the rebuttal to each argument, for starters. Have fun!
I have other things to do. I know of more important issues to post about. But others are free to do whatever they want.
01-06-2011, 01:21 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?
Dixon,
Those that I expose are not environmentalists. They do not care about the environment. Or about us (except in their desire to control us). So my exposing these criminals who try to force their unelected one world government agenda upon us does not mean I don’t care about the environment. I do.
I think you are being fooled by a tactic that is sometimes referred to as the Either/Or Falicy. If I criticize Obama, I must be for McCain. Other examples: Democrats vs Republicans, Darwinism vs. Creationism, Zionism vs Anti-Semitism, You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists...
Again, you're free to focus on whatever you wish, but I am not interested in going back and forth on these matters. There are more important issues for me, and my time on here is limited.
01-06-2011, 01:26 PM
OrchardDweller
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
But it's not only about making billions and controlling our lives. There appears to be a much darker side...
Gates uses the "Either/Or Fallacy" trick. He presents it as a case where it’s one or the other. Why don’t we have ‘both’ as a choice - let grandma live and keep the jobs? Other Either/Or Fallacies: Democrats vs Republicans, Darwinism vs Creationism, Zionism vs. Anti-Semitism, "You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists"....
Bill's father, William Gates Sr, was head of Planned Parenthood, a reworking of the American Eugenics Society with connections to Hitler. Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger wrote:
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
What I would like to hear from you, Orch, is some acknowledgment of the fact that even if there is no such thing as global warming, those suggestions are good ideas! Or do you think that relatively unbridled emission of toxic pollutants into the environment is a good tradition that should continue unhampered?
Hey Dixon, OrchardDweller and I have said what we would do to stop polluting our planet. You and the other alarmists here have not..... And frankly I'm disgusted with all of you who spout all this compassion for the environment but won't even tell us what your doing to take care of it.
BTW eat more meat not less! As long as it is grass-fed. It will be better for all of our health in doing so.
01-06-2011, 04:19 PM
Barry
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Hey Dixon, OrchardDweller and I have said what we would do to stop polluting our planet. You and the other alarmists here have not..... And frankly I'm disgusted with all of you who spout all this compassion for the environment but won't even tell us what your doing to take care of it.....
Do any of you seriously still think these people have any idea what they are talking about??????? :hmmm:
someguy, you have quoted one article from a decade ago in which a few people make predictions that haven't (yet) come to pass. It looks to me like you make a couple of logic mistakes here:
1. You seem to think that these folks predicted that there'd be no snow in Britain by 2010. They did not. The closest to that I saw in your quotes was the phrase "within a few years" which, in the climate change context, could easily mean decades, and you're ready to ridicule them on the basis of your assumption that they're wrong after only 10 years. Your bias is leading you into the realm of what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "Intellectual Unfairness". And note that provocative phrases from the article such as "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" are the wording of the newspaper hack who wrote the article, not of the scientists quoted in the article.
2. You seem to want to pretend that the pronouncements of a couple of people in this article (and maybe a few more in other articles) represent the consensus among the community of those who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (AGW), apparently thus to fallaciously discredit that position. But even if we assume, as you wish, that these guys were wrong, that doesn't reflect on the entire community of those who recognize AGW.
Again and again I see from you AGW deniers the same fallacy: cherry-picking claims from a few people which you perceive as mistaken (and which in some cases may actually be mistaken) and wanting us to conclude that these people represent the whole AGW community, and/or that their having made a mistake about some detail refutes AGW. I'm starting to get the impression that some of you are closed-minded ideologues rather than reasoning in good faith here.
01-07-2011, 07:46 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Speak2Truth, you repeat the same fallacy I'm seeing from other Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers here: you cherry pick some mistaken predictions or wrong claims from a few people and apparently want us to think that those claims represented the position of the whole AGW community and that you've somehow refuted AGW by mentioning them. A first-year logic student would laugh at your use of such anecdotal arguments. It also doesn't help matters any that you cite stories from the popular press, such as Time and Newsweek, which are not dependable reflections of scientific consensus.
For instance, you link to several mistaken predictions from the 1970s about an ice age or extreme cooling which they expected by now. But in fact, the vast majority of climate scientists in the 70s were predicting global warming. There's a short but informative article on this at https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm
Among other things, it says "A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case." I recommend reading that short article. You will see that it demolishes your argument here.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:
Al Gore asserted in his film "Inconvenient Truth" that in 1982 he began the effort to impose a carbon tax. Whether it is cooling or warming, that is the real agenda: TAKE YOUR MONEY.
Your fallacy here is in assuming that the fact that some approaches to the global warming issue involve taxation means that taxing us is the "real agenda". Leaving aside the tangential issue of whether this or that particular tax is a good idea, how have you ruled out other, less negative assumptions about the motives of those who propose such taxes, such as their honest conclusion that we're facing a real problem which will require some taxation as a response? You sound like one of those anti-tax zealots. If so, you're entitled to your ideological position, but don't let it distort your reasoning with needlessly negative assumptions about others' motives when you haven't reasonably ruled out less sinister motives.
Good! The imperialistic countries, notably the USA, have way more than their share of the world's resources, due mainly to their absolutely brutal exploitation of so-called Third World peoples, through slavery, genocide, military and economic machinations, first colonial and now neo-colonial. It's about time we gave a little back to those cultures we've ripped off to assuage our greed. Let's get busy with the more equitable redistribution of resources. Those who assume that any policy that decreases their wealth in favor of someone poorer is bad are reasoning self-centeredly.
01-07-2011, 08:11 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by OrchardDweller:
I have other things to do. I know of more important issues to post about. But others are free to do whatever they want.
Orch, elsewhere on this thread you have characterized yourself as a friend of Truth, and open-minded. Now, suddenly, when I have provided you with links to concise rebuttals of your talking points, you "have other things to do". Up until this moment, you've had plenty of time to take potshots at those you disagree with, posting tons of anecdotal arguments and not-very-relevant links, but when someone comes along with compelling counter-arguments and the data to back them up, you suddenly have no time for the discussion. Thus you reveal yourself as a closed-minded ideologue rather than an "open-minded" "friend of truth". Pathetic.
01-07-2011, 08:36 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Hey Dixon, OrchardDweller and I have said what we would do to stop polluting our planet. You and the other alarmists here have not..... And frankly I'm disgusted with all of you who spout all this compassion for the environment but won't even tell us what your doing to take care of it.
While I agree with "Mad" Miles and others who consider your implied question irrelevant to the current discussion on the reality or unreality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I also think that your question is an important one. So, without letting you retreat into this tangent as an evasion of the AGW question, I'm happy to answer the question "What do I do to stop polluting our planet?'
The short answer is: "More than the average American, but not nearly enough." The longer answer: "I do my recycling pretty faithfully. I donate my used bags to the Food Bank. I don't buy much stuff, and when I do buy something, it's mostly 2nd hand; most of my clothing, for instance, is from thrift shops. I consolidate my car trips, bundling 2 or 3 or 5 tasks into one trip rather than several. I try to be conservative in my electricity and gas usage. I support environmentally friendly policies and candidates, for instance, voting against measures that would increase single car traffic, such as highway improvements, and for responsible public transportation measures. I encourage environmental responsibility in those around me, such as by my rants on Wacco." That's all I can think of right now. You may very well do better than me. If so, I salute you.
Quote:
BTW eat more meat not less! As long as it is grass-fed. It will be better for all of our health in doing so.
Wrong! Sure, grass-fed is better than corn-fed, and lots better than cows fed on dead cows. But like most USAmericans, I have too much fat in my diet; I'd definitely be better off with less meat, even if we're talking about the organic meat without all the weird hormones and stuff. And less meat means less arable land wasted growing grains for livestock, when using that land for plants to feed humans would increase its productivity something like 10-fold, thus allowing us to wipe out most hunger globally. Also less meat means lots more water available for people instead of livestock, lots less greenhouse gases from livestock farts and feces, lots less deforestation and soil erosion, lots less heart disease, cancer and other illnesses associated with meat diets, etc. etc. Not to mention, lots less suffering of animals who are needlessly neglected and brutalized while being raised and slaughtered.
01-07-2011, 08:44 AM
Dixon
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
I've found an even better link to brief, authoritative articles on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). It's a different page at the same site. This page lists 139 arguments against AGW with a link to a rebuttal for each one. It's at:
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
While I agree with "Mad" Miles and others who consider your implied question irrelevant to the current discussion on the reality or unreality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), I also think that your question is an important one. So, without letting you retreat into this tangent as an evasion of the AGW question, I'm happy to answer the question "What do I do to stop polluting our planet?'
The short answer is: "More than the average American, but not nearly enough." The longer answer: "I do my recycling pretty faithfully. I donate my used bags to the Food Bank. I don't buy much stuff, and when I do buy something, it's mostly 2nd hand; most of my clothing, for instance, is from thrift shops. I consolidate my car trips, bundling 2 or 3 or 5 tasks into one trip rather than several. I try to be conservative in my electricity and gas usage. I support environmentally friendly policies and candidates, for instance, voting against measures that would increase single car traffic, such as highway improvements, and for responsible public transportation measures. I encourage environmental responsibility in those around me, such as by my rants on Wacco." That's all I can think of right now. You may very well do better than me. If so, I salute you.
Wrong! Sure, grass-fed is better than corn-fed, and lots better than cows fed on dead cows. But like most USAmericans, I have too much fat in my diet; I'd definitely be better off with less meat, even if we're talking about the organic meat without all the weird hormones and stuff. And less meat means less arable land wasted growing grains for livestock, when using that land for plants to feed humans would increase its productivity something like 10-fold, thus allowing us to wipe out most hunger globally. Also less meat means lots more water available for people instead of livestock, lots less greenhouse gases from livestock farts and feces, lots less deforestation and soil erosion, lots less heart disease, cancer and other illnesses associated with meat diets, etc. etc. Not to mention, lots less suffering of animals who are needlessly neglected and brutalized while being raised and slaughtered.
I commend you for stating what you do to reduce your fossil fuel pollution. Good for you. If your looking for some more ways to decrease your pollution, you can adopt some of the myriad of things suggested on this other thread. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=#post126414
However, you are completely wrong in your assessment of beef. We'll just leave it at that since you seem as religious about that subject as you do about global warming, and I doubt any information will sway your religious beliefs. Good luck with that!
01-07-2011, 10:45 AM
podfish
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
We'll just leave it at that since you seem as religious about that subject as you do about global warming, and I doubt any information will sway your religious beliefs.
where did -that- come from? I've seen this tactic in the evolution "debate", where people who believe there's divine instigation equate their religious thinking to that of people who accept the logic-driven Darwinian theories. It's just a tactic to dismiss their opponent, and a false association in most cases. Sure, people aren't perfectly logical and may believe things that aren't as well supported by evidence as they suppose. The key difference is that religious thinking openly accepts some ideas on faith; logical thinking allows for the beliefs to be challenged by evidence. Why accuse Dixon of that???
01-07-2011, 11:17 AM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
where did -that- come from? I've seen this tactic in the evolution "debate", where people who believe there's divine instigation equate their religious thinking to that of people who accept the logic-driven Darwinian theories. It's just a tactic to dismiss their opponent, and a false association in most cases. Sure, people aren't perfectly logical and may believe things that aren't as well supported by evidence as they suppose. The key difference is that religious thinking openly accepts some ideas on faith; logical thinking allows for the beliefs to be challenged by evidence. Why accuse Dixon of that???
I have presented some damning evidence to Dixon and others on this thread that are immediately dismissed, and never even considered, most likely because they interfere with their beliefs. That seems like a religious outlook on the situation, does it not? When I provide information that directly contradicts their belief, they rely on faith in the science that they choose to follow to see them through. That is where I'm coming from.
01-07-2011, 02:23 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
someguy, you have quoted one article from a decade ago in which a few people make predictions that haven't (yet) come to pass. It looks to me like you make a couple of logic mistakes here:
1. You seem to think that these folks predicted that there'd be no snow in Britain by 2010. They did not. The closest to that I saw in your quotes was the phrase "within a few years" which, in the climate change context, could easily mean decades, and you're ready to ridicule them on the basis of your assumption that they're wrong after only 10 years. Your bias is leading you into the realm of what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "Intellectual Unfairness". And note that provocative phrases from the article such as "snowfalls are now just a thing of the past" are the wording of the newspaper hack who wrote the article, not of the scientists quoted in the article.
2. You seem to want to pretend that the pronouncements of a couple of people in this article (and maybe a few more in other articles) represent the consensus among the community of those who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (AGW), apparently thus to fallaciously discredit that position. But even if we assume, as you wish, that these guys were wrong, that doesn't reflect on the entire community of those who recognize AGW.
Again and again I see from you AGW deniers the same fallacy: cherry-picking claims from a few people which you perceive as mistaken (and which in some cases may actually be mistaken) and wanting us to conclude that these people represent the whole AGW community, and/or that their having made a mistake about some detail refutes AGW. I'm starting to get the impression that some of you are closed-minded ideologues rather than reasoning in good faith here.
I don't seem to think what you seem to think I think. Got that? That is one of the biggest problems you all have, assuming what I (or others with a differing POV) think..... "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," was the fricking title of the article. That was a direct quote from one of the scientists from the CRU! You must not have read the article very carefully. He said that within a few years, snowfall would be a rare and exciting event! Not a few decades (which is surely what he would have said if that is what he really meant), a few years. It's not what I think they were saying in the article, and trying to put into people's minds, it was what they were saying!
I did not post that article to suggest that it proves AGW theory is completely wrong, or to suggest that it represented the entire AGW community, but as a response to Barry's article that he posted about there being so much snow in Europe and it being caused by man made global warming. I just wanted to point out the contradiction between the two articles and attitudes of the global warming community of ten years ago and today. If you really are unbiased about this, you should be saying the same thing to Barry that you said to me. He posts an article about how the weather we are seeing is the result of global warming, and you give him gratitude because it supports your point of view. On the other hand, if a global warming skeptic were to post a similar type of article you would surely say its irrelevant because its talking about weather and not climate. You cherry pick claims from a few people who you think are correct, and you look the other way when the people on "your side" use the same tactics that you accuse your "opponents" of using.
As long as we are talking about this as a competition between opposing sides, its worth mentioning that the other thread that I linked to ( https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ht=#post126414 ) was an attempt to bring all the folks on this thread (regardless of their beliefs on global warming) together to discuss the thing we all have in common, which is a love for our planet earth and a concern that it is being polluted. We are all clearly concerned about fossil fuel pollution, some of us just disagree about whether carbon can be considered a pollutant. Notice how the the majority of those who posted what they are personally doing were skeptics (OrchardDwellers post remains on this thread however, which is even more reason why you, Dixon, should have realized already that OrchardDweller is concerned about pollution. Your recent questions to him imply that he is somehow not concerned about this when he has already stated on this very same thread what he personally does to change our political system towards a cleaner planet.) and yet you still treat the skeptics here as though we are pro-fossil fuel. That is why I am disgusted.
These are my arguments against the proposed theory of man made global warming and the doomsday predictions:
1. Yes, the climate has changed before naturally. I know this does not prove that currently the warming is not man made, but it does raise a different scenario that is just as, if not more, likely to be the cause here. The IPCC's omission of the medieval warm period from some of their reports (not all, so clearly they did at one time recognize this period) shows that they are trying for some reason to hide that evidence of natural warming in the recent past. Why would they do that? Does that not raise your eyebrow a little bit and make you question their motivations?
2. Oil companies and globalists stand to gain, not lose from carbon taxation or carbon trading. The CEO of Exxon is calling for a carbon tax. Exxon put pressure on the Bush white house to back Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. Oil companies have substantial investments in the bio-fuel industry. Globalists like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and the Rothschilds essentially own the carbon trading market, hence their promotion of global warming hysteria. Fear is a factor that can motivate people to make decisions that are not in their best interest (such as a global carbon tax or cap and trade). Not to mention that globalists are inherently interested in global governance, and fear of global warming catastrophe is the perfect vehicle for them to achieve that.
3. Climategate. Please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tcsnpolvvos In it you'll understand that the folks who investigated Climategate were not unbiased, and did not conduct a thorough investigation. If you read the e-mails for yourself, or just watch the video link I provided, you'd surely see that these CRU scientists were hiding information on purpose, and skewing data on purpose. They straight up said that they would rather delete the data they relied upon than allow others to review it themselves. Don't believe everything you hear in the Mainstream media, which is owned by only a few corporations, globalists who stand to benefit immensely from carbon trading/ taxation. Look at the information for yourself.
4. Climate models are fundamentally unreliable. In addition to the fact that they say nothing about what causes the warming they are predicting, Richard Lindzen has shown with his peer-reviewed research and actual measurements that the IPCC's climate models, which predict outgoing long-wave radiation being increasingly trapped in our atmosphere as Co2 concentrations rise, are completely backwards. In fact, the actual measurements show that more long-wave radiation escapes as Co2 concentrations rise. How can we trust anything the IPCC predicts if they can't even get this down? I think it is more likely since the IPCC is an organization created by the United Nations that they intentionally got this wrong so that they can promote their political agenda with their scary predictions. They said themselves in 1995 that if they do not predict catastrophe that no one will listen. Does that sound like a non-biased group to you?
5. Al Gore was proven in court to have 9 errors in his film. https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...oreerrors.html Your website on the other hand explains this all away by saying that we should just trust Al Gore's expert witness. That's a bunk argument if I ever heard one. Something that your website Skepticalscience is full of. It does not even address one of the major errors in the film, which was Gore's assertion that Co2 drives temperature. About this the judge said, "Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts." Your website actually acknowledges on another page that temperature drives Co2 in general and that there is a lag of 600-1000 years between the rise of temperature and the rise of Co2. So why did they fail to point out that Gore made an error in stating the opposite? Because they are biased, and because the entire purpose of the website is to "prove" the skeptics wrong, not to give an unbiased view of the situation. Al Gore recently bought a condo in San Francisco, so he clearly also doesn't believe that sea levels are going to rise significantly anytime soon, as he implied in his film.
6. The IPCC (and the mainstream media) is happy to rely on examples of weather that supposedly "prove" their predictions. Can't we all agree that this kind of argument is invalid when we are talking about climate? Why does everyone ignore the fact that the IPCC uses these tactics to support their position, while simultaneously pointing out every single example of AGW skeptics using the same tactics? Biased, biased, biased. Several of Al Gore's incorrect assertions in his movie were based on this tactic, for example, that Lake Chad drying up and hurricane Katrina were due to global warming.
6. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that politicians and corporations have conspired together to misinform the public about a false scientific consensus. Its not a stretch of the imagination at all to believe that this is what is happening with AGW. A lot of our currently held ideas about nutrition are completely backwards because the edible oil industry got together with the government to create our dietary guidelines. You have clearly bought into these faulty ideas as well. It is not difficult to look up this information for yourself and learn that we've been had by corporations. Even though the supposed link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease has been repeatedly dis-proven, and can be dis-proven through simple observation, it continues to be promoted as fact by our government for the benefit of corporations. When you understand the amount of corruption that exists in government for the sake of corporate profits, it makes it difficult to believe what governmental organizations say when it comes to science of any kind.
7. The burden of proof rests on the people promoting the theory. I am not proposing a theory, I am simply pointing out problems with the proposed theory of AGW. As i have already said on this thread, in science it is up to the promoters of a theory to prove that their theory is correct, and skeptics are not required to present an alternate theory. I agree that the planet is warming, but I disagree that it is due mostly to man-made causes, and I disagree that it is a serious problem. Perhaps some of it is due to man-made causes, but it's impossible to ever know how much. The IPCC would have us believe that it has already been proven to be nearly entirely due to man-made causes, which it has not. Part of the reason I am so concerned about this issue is that I feel it distracts people from other issues that are definite serious problems for the environment and our health, like pollution and soil degradation from industrial farming, geo-engineering, neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors in our environment and food, etc.
8. Each of the things I have mentioned, taken separately, obviously do not disprove the entire theory of AGW. But taken together, they definitely suggest that there is far more to this issue than meets the eye, especially the eye of someone who takes the mainstream media seriously.
I am not a closed-minded ideologue as you have implied. I used to believe in AGW very much so. its what I have been taught since I was a little kid, and I took it for granted as being true. It took me a long time to let go of my attachment to believing in man-made global warming. But as I learned about other things, I slowly came to the conclusion that something was seriously wrong, especially with the proposed solutions to the problem of climate change and the people promoting the solutions. Closed-minded people stick to their views regardless of what is presented to them, and that is not what I have done.
Good day to you sir.
-someguy
01-07-2011, 02:43 PM
podfish
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
I am not a closed-minded ideologue as you have implied. I used to believe in AGW very much so. its what I have been taught since I was a little kid, and I took it for granted as being true. It took me a long time to let go of my attachment to believing in man-made global warming. But as I learned about other things, I slowly came to the conclusion that something was seriously wrong, especially with the proposed solutions to the problem of climate change and the people promoting the solutions. Closed-minded people stick to their views regardless of what is presented to them, and that is not what I have done.
is AGW old enough for adults to have believed in it as little kids??:wink: Good post, though - thanks for the solid exposition.
01-07-2011, 02:51 PM
someguy
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
is AGW old enough for adults to have believed in it as little kids??:wink: Good post, though - thanks for the solid exposition.
Why, thank you! Perhaps I shouldn't have said "little" kid, but definitely since I was 10 years old. Young enough to be very impressionable.
Thanks for reading.
01-24-2011, 05:26 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Yo Waccoons,
I've stayed out of this debate for months, because it kind of got repetitive and the various camps were entrenched and impervious to persuasion. Didn't see much point.
But I just got this via Facebook, and thought it a good succinct argument for the "AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is real and we should take action to mitigate it camp." Anybody who understands basic game theory (which I barely do myself, what I know I learned from Daniel Ellsberg back in '82) will find this familiar:
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
A few things to consider:
1) "Since recordkeeping began" refers to about the late 1800s. At that time the Little Ice age came to an end, as NASA reports, due to increasing solar forcing. It is to be expected that as we thaw out of an ice age, and record keeping began during that ice age, we have "record" warmer years since.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century." - NASA
2) 2010 was an anomaly, due to the El Nino currents spreading warm water over the ocean surface. The same year was characterized by record cold events on land with devastating consequences. Why? Again, NASA gives us the answer:
3) Reduced solar forcing caused record cold events on land for the past couple of years. In addition, cooling of the upper atmosphere causes increased convective cooling, increasing precipitation and storms.
4) Did you notice that rising CO2 cannot stop the devastating cold due to even a slight reduction in solar forcing?
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
But I just got this via Facebook, and thought it a good succinct argument for the "AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change) is real and we should take action to mitigate it camp."
It is a mistake to say "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change". We MUST distinguish between global temperature change and man's direct effects on climate. For example, this has devastating climate effects but is not about temperature:
The European Union has mandated a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, mandating that 10 percent of all vehicles be powered by biofuels. Government spends tax dollars, toward this end, on the investments of George Soros in this market. BP and Shell are also players.
Consequence: Vast amounts of Amazon rain forest are destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation to produce biofuels. Brazil announced that deforestation was on track to double in 2009
The theory of this fellow is wrong. The consequence of handing over global control of all nations' economies to crooks like Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, George Soros and others can be truly devastating. It's not about money - it is about handing global power to truly malicious people. Look at the USSR. Was that just about transferring wealth? No. It was about giving absolute power over the economy and all important aspects of production and wealth distribution to crooks in government. There are real and deadly consequences to taking the action the Carbon Cult wants us to.
Remember who is behind it all...
Global Green is the American Arm of Green Cross International (GCI), which was created by President Mikhail S. Gorbachev https://www.globalgreen.org/about/
His presentation is fatally flawed. The real risk is that we destroy the USA as a global superpower and give global dominance to China. Think of how they run things. Not a pretty picture. The risk is destruction of the refuge to which people have fled from Socialist nations, like China, for a very long time.
Sorry - he grossly underestimates the risk of letting evil people like Soros and Gorbachev (and China) gain control over our lives.
The risk of not acting is not at all great. If we are lucky, the world will return to the warmth of the Medieval Climate Optimum. If we are luckier, we will multiply atmospheric carbon dioxide by two or three times to restore the lush growth and abundance of life that such levels previously supported.
The guy is wrong.
03-06-2011, 12:42 AM
Speak2Truth
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
is AGW old enough for adults to have believed in it as little kids??
No. When I was a kid, the problem was global cooling. The Earth had been in a cooling cycle since 1945 with devastating consequences including crop failures, drought, displacement of populations, threats to various species. In school, we were shown pictures of glaciers crushing New York and London to frighten us into "going green". Let's not forget that Al Gore was trying to push Carbon Taxes in 1982. But then, it started warming up again.
NOAA had a special division created to study the Global Cooling.
Earth Day was organized in fear of the Global Cooling.
The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
“By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Sound familiar?
No matter which direction the temperature goes, they cry "climate change" and demand we hand over bucket loads of cash to "fight" it, which they really cannot do.
They just want the cash.
03-06-2011, 08:40 AM
Hotspring 44
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:
...No matter which direction the temperature goes, they cry "climate change" and demand we hand over bucket loads of cash to "fight" it, which they really cannot do...
Speak2Truth, Your analysis seems to me to be more on the side of anecdotal analysis and rhetorical arguments than scientific ones. But that's okay. Here are a few "rhetorical arguments" that also have scientific data that has responses to what some of what you have said here...
The skeptic argument...
Ocean acidification isn't serious
'Our harmless emissions of trifling quantities of carbon dioxide cannot possibly acidify the oceans. Paper after paper after learned paper in the peer-reviewed literature makes that quite plain. Idso cites some 150 scientific sources, nearly all of them providing hard evidence, by measurement and experiment, that there is no basis for imagining that we can acidify the oceans to any extent large enough to be measured even by the most sensitive instruments.' (Christopher Monckton) What the science says...
That is a political argument and is only scientific in the realm of political science and not environmental science.
03-07-2011, 08:36 AM
podfish
Re: Will 2010 be the hottest year worldwide since record keeping began??
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:
...No matter which direction the temperature goes, they cry "climate change" and demand we hand over bucket loads of cash to "fight" it, which they really cannot do.
They just want the cash.
reluctant as I am to defend 'them' (those guys who just want the cash) this kind of argument isn't particularly convincing. There are plenty of scientific - or scientific-sounding - arguments to be made against AGW. But a lot of your posts consist of a scattering of links to those, finishing with a claim that it's all a ploy by 'them' to take our money. It does simplify thinking about it if you just identify boogy-men and make broad claims that they have nothing but ulterior motives. If they say it, it must be untrue!
It's too boring to try to do an amateur's meta-analysis of the scientific claims, reading differing claims and seeing which ones seem credible. It's easier to judge them by the degree of separation from Gore.
