Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of wa

[msj]

Only because you insist on interpreting it in a way that was not intended. As I said, the magnitude of the drop was equal to the total temperature rise this century.

If you bothered to read the link I provided earlier and spent some time looking at the charts it would should become obvious to you about where your error is.

But as I said earlier: the innumerate shall inherit the earth. Truly so....

[margrace]

Deny, deny, deny. I watched a show on California. In it they showed a town along the ocean, can't remember the name of it, and it sits under a very unstable small mountain. Regularly the mountain decides to slide down burying houses and killing people. When they interviewed a woman who lived there and asked why she stayed she just laughted and said oh well its my home and other places in the world are a lot more dangerous than this place is.

When they asked a pychiatrist about this prevailing attitude in California about earth quakes, fires, land slides etc. this person said it is a form of denial. If you don't think about it it won't happen to you. This is probably what is going on here with the people who deny climate change. They can find all kinds of reasons why it won't happen to them.

In California the belief is that the fires are set but the problem is that the area is very volitile and this is just an excuse. The other reason given is that it is the government's problem and they should do something about it.

On another place on here there was a lot of talk about how expensive changing our life style would be I said it probably won't matter we will all be dead. Someone replied with a very vitrolic and angry answer about how dense I was. Why was this person so angry because he/she is in denial and doesn't want to think about the consequenses of our actions.

Remember the old legend about the Rock up on the cliff that might fall on the town below. Maybe we all need to consider the meaning of that.

Edited March 3, 2008 by margrace

[margrace]

Deny, deny, deny. I watched a show on California. In it they showed a town along the ocean, can't remember the name of it, and it sits under a very unstable small mountain. Regularly the mountain decides to slide down burying houses and killing people. When they interviewed a woman who lived there and asked why she stayed she just laughted and said oh well its my home and other places in the world are a lot more dangerous than this place is.

When they asked a pychiatrist about this prevailing attitude in California about earth quakes, fires, land slides etc. this person said it is a form of denial. If you don't think about it it won't happen to you. This is probably what is going on here with the people who deny climate change. They can find all kinds of reasons why it won't happen to them.

In California the belief is that the fires are set but the problem is that the area is very volitile and this is just an excuse. The other reason given is that it is the government's problem and they should do something about it.

On another place on here there was a lot of talk about how expensive changing our life style would be I said it probably won't matter we will all be dead. Someone replied with a very vitrolic and angry answer about how dense I was. Why was this person so angry because he/she is in denial and doesn't want to think about the consequenses of our actions.

Remember the old legend about the Rock up on the cliff that might fall on the town below. Maybe we all need to consider the meaning of that.

Well thats interesting.

[Oleg Bach]

Well thats interesting.

Rapid and drastic global warming or cooling are both the result of human activity..we are smart creatures and very inventive - but we are not gods and we make mistakes. The massive technological and industrial advance humanity was very impressive as was the price for these brilliant and comforting achievements..the price was that we are inefficent and wasteful and really not as clever as nature which does not waste anything..we are now burdened with the waste of our success...the air is polluted - the water is dirty - and the very light of day is tainted to the point that radiation is no longer allowed to balance itself in a natural manner...we should stop playing god..we really are not very good at it.

[Drea]

No. Especially since most scientists are funded by government and/or academia.

Yah, they are mmmm"acadamia nuts".

[Wild Bill]

Rapid and drastic global warming or cooling are both the result of human activity..we are smart creatures and very inventive - but we are not gods and we make mistakes. The massive technological and industrial advance humanity was very impressive as was the price for these brilliant and comforting achievements..the price was that we are inefficent and wasteful and really not as clever as nature which does not waste anything..we are now burdened with the waste of our success...the air is polluted - the water is dirty - and the very light of day is tainted to the point that radiation is no longer allowed to balance itself in a natural manner...we should stop playing god..we really are not very good at it.

Are they? You don't think that ol' Sol's output has even a teeny bit to do with it? We have evidence of global warming on Mars, which has mice nuts worth of atmosphere. So even if those little green guys are driving SUV's that all need ring and valve jobs you'd think that atmosphere is not the major factor.

I'm a long time science guy. My first book in Grade 1 was a science tech. I make no claims of being as educated as a Stephen Hawking but my perspective gives me a strong feeling that over the next 5-6 years a lot of Al Gore type folks are going to be very, very embarrassed. Mother Nature doesn't care about your politics. She runs by her own rules and science is how we find out how she does things. Just because there's a "consensus" of agreement (mostly by white coats dependent on government money to feed their kids or poli-sci refugees from schools like Queens or Ryerson) it doesn't mean squat in reality. There have been many other issues where most folks believed something that turned out to be totally half-baked. At least today we just cut the grant money to "deniers", rather than burning them.

I hope I live long enough. I'd love to see if Suzuki or Gore are men enough to admit they were wrong. One thing's for sure, if the Liberals return to power and cause any job losses over climate change that turn out to have been unnecessary they may not be back in power for generations!

In politics as well as pool you should do more than just take the cheap shot. You should consider the shape you leave on the ball.

[jbg]

Yah, they are mmmm"acadamia nuts".

Good one. You wrote an "M. Dancer" line.

[jbg]

When they asked a pychiatrist about this prevailing attitude in California about earth quakes, fires, land slides etc. this person said it is a form of denial. If you don't think about it it won't happen to you. This is probably what is going on here with the people who deny climate change. They can find all kinds of reasons why it won't happen to them.

The term "climate change denier" is meant to parellel "Holocaust Denier". It is a false parellel because one is a far-fetched theory (at least as far as human impact) and the other very much happened.

[White Doors]

Well thats interesting.

wtf?

lol

[Adelle]

No. Especially since most scientists are funded by government and/or academia.

My father was saying yesterday that these people are correct to say that the average temp has been rising since the mid-19 century, which is also roughly the start of the industrial revolution. He also said that what you don't hear is that from about 1640 til 1850 the world was experiancing a mini-ice age so it really had no where to go but up (or history would have been very different) and the increase in industry was co-incidental. I checked a few sites on-line and it turns out he's right.

Also, CO2 has gone up. The world has gotten warmer. But are these two directly related? Guess not, since CO2 levels surged after 1940 but at the same time the average temp droped (til the '50s). Heard that while dad was watching an editorial tv show. So what else happend then? Volcanos? Sun-spots? Why the drop in temp? Why the increase since then?

It's not enough that these scientists and enthusiasts tell the truth, but that they tell the WHOLE truth, not just the part that supports their theory/belief.

[eyeball]

You got to be kidding. Scientists are herd animals like the rest of us and tend to follow the crowd - especially when their livelyhood depends on singing the AGW tune.

This letter by one of the more respected climate scientists is quite telling:

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-trop...rivate-citizen/

She starts off by saying:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly..."

That statement alone speaks volumes about the state of the scientific community.

She also says;

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

That's good enough for me. I would think conservatives of all people would be the first to approve of a precautionary approach. Besides which there are lots of other good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels.

[GostHacked]

She also says;

..

That's good enough for me. I would think conservatives of all people would be the first to approve of a precautionary approach. Besides which there are lots of other good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels.

From your article in the first paragraph.

A large group of earth scientists, voiced in an IPCC[1] statement, have reached what they claim is a consensus of nearly all atmospheric scientists that man-released greenhouse gases are causing increasing harm to our planet. They predict that most icepacks including those in the Polar Regions, also sea ice, will continue melting with disastrous ecological consequences including coastal flooding.

So an independant scientist towing the concensus line on global warming?

[Riverwind]

That's good enough for me. I would think conservatives of all people would be the first to approve of a precautionary approach. Besides which there are lots of other good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels.

You completely misrepresented her statement by selective quotes. She is merely points out that policy makers have to make decisions based on the *assumption* that the IPCC is right. She says she is not convinced and that we need more data.

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

She also says:

There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring. However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.

In other words, she completely rejects the notion that CO2 warming has be "proven" by the data (which is why she is making the call to collect more data). She also criticizes skeptics who claim that AGW is a hoax (a fair criticism) but that criticism does not mean that she accepts the consensus position. Edited March 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[oreodontist]

Does anyone know what the actual ratio of believers is to deniers?

I'm perfectly willing to let the scientists take a vote on this and let the winners be the architects of our country's policies. I'd sooner do this than leave it up to the politicians. We could even set the same standard for moving to a proportional system of electoral representation, say 60% in 75% of all fields of science that relate to the climate. Would that be conservative enough?

No way. I'm a geologist. About 6 or 7 years ago a survey came around to our department on global warming. It asked 'our' views. Why? None of us had drawn a carbon-based molecule since university let alone understand the variables that a carbon molecule influences. As one colleague said, if he wants to know the weather he sticks his head out the window.

Sure enough, out comes the a surveys results: 'x' thousands of scientists all agreeing that blah, blah, blah,. That's nothing to do with 'science'. Science is not a person or opinion poll but a methodology. I've seen no quality science to date on climate change. The science in fact is abysmal. All I can say on the larger question is 'I don't know' but I also know that nobody else knows.

[stevoh]

In other words, she completely rejects the notion that CO2 warming has be "proven" by the data (which is why she is making the call to collect more data). She also criticizes skeptics who claim that AGW is a hoax (a fair criticism) but that criticism does not mean that she accepts the consensus position.

She does however support following the IPCC recomendations, as the potential cost of not doing anything, if they are right, is too high. You appear to diverge from this belief. How can you be more certain than a scientist "with no agenda" that the scale of AGW is small enough not to do anything about?

[Riverwind]

She does however support following the IPCC recommendations, as the potential cost of not doing anything, if they are right, is too high. You appear to diverge from this belief. How can you be more certain than a scientist "with no agenda" that the scale of AGW is small enough not to do anything about?

She is a scientist - not a policy maker. She is not responsible or accountable for the decisions made. That said, her views of the science are clear: there is no compelling empirical evidence that the recent warming has been caused by GHGs (this directly contradicts the IPCC claim of 90% certainty). Policy makers must take this uncertainty into account when crafting policies which means the cost of implementing policies must be weighed against the theoretical benefits.

I recommend that people read this article:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/who-decides/

It explains the distinction between science and policy and who is responsible for making what decisions.

[Wild Bill]

She does however support following the IPCC recomendations, as the potential cost of not doing anything, if they are right, is too high. You appear to diverge from this belief. How can you be more certain than a scientist "with no agenda" that the scale of AGW is small enough not to do anything about?

And isn't the cost of doing what they suggest too high? Who pays? How much? Can we afford it? What approach will work and what would be a waste of time?

If Canada had met the Liberal Kyoto promises I guarantee that you would be thinking a Big Mac is a fancy night out!

Yet if you ask these questions the only answer you got was : "Don't bother us with such details! Do as we say or we'll all fry! Everyone important agrees with us! You must be a DENIER!"

Does this sound like "scientific method" to you?

[Topaz]

I remember back in my school days of the 1960's and my teacher telling us in science that one day the world will turn on its axis and our climate here in Canada would change. I also remember her telling us that computers will be apart of our lives. Today, some scientists are saying the same about the earth. www.coasttocoastam.com if you type 'global warming" in the search box you'll get the shows that George has done on this topic and the point of views. The sun has alot to do with our weather and the sunspots that are released do affect our weather. 2012 is the year the weather is suppose enter another ice age said by scientist on coasttocoast.

[eyeball]

(eyeball @ Mar 2 2008, 04:17 PM)

I'm perfectly willing to let the scientists take a vote on this and let the winners be the architects of our country's policies.

You got to be kidding. Scientists are herd animals like the rest of us and tend to follow the crowd - especially when their livelyhood depends on singing the AGW tune.

So how would you feel about letting a herd of economists whose livelihoods depend on corporate funding designing our global trade rules? You don't see any great controversy over the lack of consensus amongst economists causing policymakers to think twice before committing us to things like WTO policies. Certainly not compared to the way the lack of consensus is being used to confound attempts to commit us to policies that address carbon emissions.

I wonder how many contrary economists it would take to make economic policy-makers think twice vs the number of contrary scientists its taken to thwart policies for climate change? If a measure of controversy is the thing voters and representatives are expected to use when deciding what policy we shoud follow shouldn't we have some sort of ruler to gauge what this is? How many experts in agreement vs the number of contrary experts does it take to trigger a policy, 50% + 1, 75% in 75% of all fields? How many experts not in agreement vs the number of experts in agreement does it take to NOT execute a policy 50% + 1, 25%, 10% or less? I suspect a comparison of these ratios relative to the effort taken to actually make economic and environmental policies would be an eye opener.

[stevoh]

And isn't the cost of doing what they suggest too high? Who pays? How much? Can we afford it? What approach will work and what would be a waste of time?

I think if you placed any credence at all in the agw models proposed by the IPCC, you would not think any cost is too high, our survival depends on it. Its only because you dismiss them that you are focussed on cost. If you believed that their modelling scenarious were likely, where costs are measured in human lives, then no cost would be too high.

If Canada had met the Liberal Kyoto promises I guarantee that you would be thinking a Big Mac is a fancy night out!

I think this is a vast overstatement. I am however very interested in the effects on the provincial economy of BC of the new "revenue neutral" carbon tax they have proposed. We shall know within a year or so if I have to go to McDonalds for my wife and my monthly date night.

Yet if you ask these questions the only answer you got was : "Don't bother us with such details! Do as we say or we'll all fry! Everyone important agrees with us! You must be a DENIER!"

Does this sound like "scientific method" to you?

I don't think scientific method has ever included defending research against random critisims from non-scientists.

[Riverwind]

I think if you placed any credence at all in the agw models proposed by the IPCC, you would not think any cost is too high, our survival depends on it. Its only because you dismiss them that you are focussed on cost. If you believed that their modelling scenarious were likely, where costs are measured in human lives, then no cost would be too high.

The fact is the IPCC has been consistently wrong since its first report in the early 1990s. It tried to compensate for its over predictions by reducing them significantly in 2001 and 2007, however, the temperatures have flatlined since then which means the IPCC is still wrong. In other words, we have no reason to believe that the IPCC is right at this point in time.

I think this is a vast overstatement. I am however very interested in the effects on the provincial economy of BC of the new "revenue neutral" carbon tax they have proposed. We shall know within a year or so if I have to go to McDonalds for my wife and my monthly date night.

There are two certain outcomes:

1) The effect of the carbon tax will be swamped by other factors such as the price of oil and the US economy.

2) The total emissions of CO2 in BC will continue to rise unless there is a major recession and/or drop in population.

The carbon tax was a brilliant polictical move on the part of the BC Liberals, however, it is ultimately a useless gesture. If CO2 is a problem we have to shrink the population or trigger a USSR style economic meltdown. If neither of those is an option then we need to adapt to climate change.

I don't think scientific method has ever included defending research against random criticisms from non-scientists.

Climate science used to be a niche speciality that did not get much attention. During that time the climate scientists were free to do what ever they wanted in their ivory towers. However, they gave up this freedom the moment these scientists started to demand economic and political changes based on their science. Unfortunately, many climate scientists are in denial and think that they should allowed to continue with their ivory tower ways. Tough. If they expect people to invest money based on their science they should learn to produce science that meets the standards demanded in engineering and medicine.

[stevoh]

The fact is the IPCC has been consistently wrong since its first report in the early 1990s. It tried to compensate for its over predictions by reducing them significantly in 2001 and 2007, however, the temperatures have flatlined since then which means the IPCC is still wrong. In other words, we have no reason to believe that the IPCC is right at this point in time.

My point exactly. You don't agree with the scientist skeptic you linked to, as you don't believe there is any chance the IPCC is right. That to me isn't skepticism, that is you having made up your mind already. She is an actual skeptic who is willing to wait for further data before saying "yes" or "no" to AGW.

There are two certain outcomes:

1) The effect of the carbon tax will be swamped by other factors such as the price of oil and the US economy.

2) The total emissions of CO2 in BC will continue to rise unless there is a major recession and/or drop in population.

The carbon tax was a brilliant polictical move on the part of the BC Liberals, however, it is ultimately a useless gesture. If CO2 is a problem we have to shrink the population or trigger a USSR style economic meltdown. If neither of those is an option then we need to adapt to climate change.

I am still waiting to see if that big mac is a big deal next year. And, I am also in a "wait and see" mode on the effectiveness of the tax changes. You see, that is the difference between a real skeptic, such as myself, and someone who is a denier, such as yourself. A deniers mind is already made up.

Don't believe me? If in one year, BC's total emissions are reduced more than any other provinces, you will find anything else to blame it on other than effectiveness of a carbon tax. I already see the excuses in #1 and #2 above.

Climate science used to be a niche speciality that did not get much attention. During that time the climate scientists were free to do what ever they wanted in their ivory towers. However, they gave up this freedom the moment these scientists started to demand economic and political changes based on their science. Unfortunately, many climate scientists are in denial and think that they should allowed to continue with their ivory tower ways. Tough. If they expect people to invest money based on their science they should learn to produce science that meets the standards demanded in engineering and medicine.

Its not about scientists having freedom, its about scientists working within the scientific method that has already been established for research. No work would ever be completed if scientists had to defend their efforts against every random critic that comes along.

In my opinion, its the role of political bodies such as the IPCC to respond to legitimate questions (not random criticisms) surrounding the science. That, I believe, they have not done very well.

[Riverwind]

Don't believe me? If in one year, BC's total emissions are reduced more than any other provinces, you will find anything else to blame it on other than effectiveness of a carbon tax. I already see the excuses in #1 and #2 above.

Right. Do you really believe that it would be possible to come to any conclusion about the effectiveness of the carbon tax in one year? That said, what you call 'excuses' are actually faslifiable hypotheses. If CO2 emissions go down even with economic and population growth then I would concede that the either the carbon tax or high energy prices were the likely cause. What would it take to convince you that CO2 will not go down as long as there is economic growth and a rising population?

Same goes for the IPCC predictions - I will take their warnings seriously as soon as the actual data confirms their predictions. The trouble is the actual climate data has not been cooperating over the last 7 years.

In my opinion, its the role of political bodies such as the IPCC to respond to legitimate questions (not random criticisms)

surrounding the science. That, I believe, they have not done very well.

Hardly. They completely bungled the Mann hockeystick fiasco and demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to respresent the science in an unbiased way. Edited March 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Same goes for the IPCC predictions - I will take their warnings seriously as soon as the actual data confirms their predictions. The trouble is the actual climate data has not been cooperating over the last 7 years.

Hardly. They completely bungled the Mann hockeystick fiasco and demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to respresent the science in an unbiased way.

+1! Politicians are simply not qualified as a rule to mess with scientific matters! A poli-sci degree is not a science degree, even if it comes from Queens or Ryerson!

I mean, most of these people can't even manage their own email or wordprocessing and have to have aides to do it for them! They likely have never changed a plug on a lamp in their lives. The space under the hood of their car is a cosmic mystery. They don't understand the difference between astrology and astronomy.

Politicians think consensus is as valid in science as in politics, when of course it is completely irrelevant as to truth. Witness how so many scientists in irrelevant fields have their names added to IPCC support lists, often without their knowledge!

We are living in times where the average level of scientific education in our population is at an all time low. Few kids build their own radio. They play Xboxes! It is telling that in many school boards a science or math teacher has his pick of positions, due to scarcity. If he's male he can write his own ticket! I'm not saying that a science teacher is inherently more valuable to society than an English or Art teacher. It's just that things are way out of balance and the result is seen in how well society is equipped to understand scientific matters.

It has been said that scientific thinking is not innate to human beings. If it's not taught before the age of 10 the child will rarely ever be able to think that way. Yet the world gets more and more complicated, as we get more and more poorly equipped to cope with it.

Or to put it more scientifically, "Intelligence is a constant that is divided by the number of people in the group."

[eyeball]

No way. I'm a geologist. About 6 or 7 years ago a survey came around to our department on global warming. It asked 'our' views. Why? None of us had drawn a carbon-based molecule since university let alone understand the variables that a carbon molecule influences. As one colleague said, if he wants to know the weather he sticks his head out the window.

Sure enough, out comes the a surveys results: 'x' thousands of scientists all agreeing that blah, blah, blah,. That's nothing to do with 'science'. Science is not a person or opinion poll but a methodology. I've seen no quality science to date on climate change. The science in fact is abysmal. All I can say on the larger question is 'I don't know' but I also know that nobody else knows.

Are you comfortable with the conclusion that there's nothing at all to worry about and that its perfectly safe to continue dumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we like? What if that proves wrong?