Global Warming backdown

[Oleg Bach]

That's fine, but I don't turn on the Mexican wrestling channel for the latest financial news either.

I appreciate your being off-kilter as long as you keep your kilt on. You may know what balance is, but is that really part of the personal brand that is "Oleg" ? I would rather read your pronouncements on theatre, cinema and the like than your proclamations on the balance of others.

You might have something there my friend..seeing I have no back ground in political science and am not a qualified mental health professional-- then...perhaps with my back ground in the arts, I should become a creative critic..literary for starters..."being off-kilter as long as you keep your kilt on" - nice group of words..I give you a 8 out of 10 for that one....next...."Mexican wrestling channel for the latest financial news" - You get a 10 out of 10 rating for that gem...NOW before you twist reality completely out of shape- I will put to the test that YOU might just be pulling a fast one here.

The balance issue was geared toward the use and over abuse of material resourses-- and that how some people (not you of course) are not willing to strike a balance with mother nature in order to maintain a sustainable and happy existence for all-----------------this could be a question of balance between the have and have nots---I assume you fit into the HAVE catagory and that explains the mutilation of reality providing a justification for your poor social behavior regarding the balance of power- I might assume that material gluttony and the following pollution that results is of no concern to you..In your perfectly balance and luxury driven world.

[Michael Hardner]

I might assume that material gluttony and the following pollution that results is of no concern to you..In your perfectly balance and luxury driven world.

Point taken - your comments on balance, at large, are appreciated but I question the pot-shots at 'balance' in general.

[Keepitsimple]

that's right Shady... your belief in anything journalists write certainly carries more weight/significance than anything NASA would provide. But then again, as you've stated... NASA and NOAA are a part of your perceived conspiracy to deny the, as you say, "concerned public", it's right to rely on journalists to provide the "Shady facts".

here Shady... a little more of that NASA conspiratorial input, solely provided to distort "Shady facts"

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

Here in Canada, we've experienced the following in the past decade. Draw whatever conclusions you like:

Since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

Edited February 28, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Oleg Bach]

Point taken - your comments on balance, at large, are appreciated but I question the pot-shots at 'balance' in general.

They were not meant to be personal to begin with- others found that the general broad side I fired off at the whole concept of natural non-responsiveness to real issues and the real core...might be taken as a personal pot shot...maybe I inadvertently hit a tender point that global climate disruption might be due to the imbalance of man and the planet..makes sense to me but seems to rudely bother others...sorry-- I believe we are responsible for the problem and must respond to it realistically and not be governed by the fear of a depleted bank balance.

[Michael Hardner]

...a depleted bank balance.

Bank balances, too, can be interesting. Let's continue...

[Oleg Bach]

Bank balances, too, can be interesting. Let's continue...

AT another location and doing my laundry--then I have to walk the dogs--then I have to do this and do that...Yes--not today...but you seem to see my point that it is about those that believe their standard of living might suffer if they do what is correct and right to preserve and protect our damaged environ---It's fear as usual..people hate the poor because they dread poverty--It looks as if no one wants to lose a dime to make a buck...in time everyone will be poor if we not take the needed measures as far as instlling the right attitude that you will not perish and life will not end as we know it if you become a balanced and reasonable consumer..we are supposed to be more than things that consume and excrete- the excretion is the problem because we overly consume.

[Oleg Bach]

INSTITUTIONALIZATION coupled with habit - is hard to deal with- Those the run industry and banks know no other existence or identity - all their lives they worked towards total success..now they have it and don't have a clue on how to stop.

[waldo]

that's right Shady... your belief in anything journalists write certainly carries more weight/significance than anything NASA would provide. But then again, as you've stated... NASA and NOAA are a part of your perceived conspiracy to deny the, as you say, "concerned public", it's right to rely on journalists to provide the "Shady facts".

here Shady... a little more of that NASA conspiratorial input, solely provided to distort "Shady facts"

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

Here in Canada, we've experienced the following in the past decade. Draw whatever conclusions you like:

Since 1948, ranked in terms of warmest:

2000 - 11th warmest

2001 - 4

2002 - 19

2003 - 8

2004 - 33

2005 - 6

2006 - 2

2007 - 13

2008 - 17

2009 - 14

Link: http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/annual08/Ntable_e.html?region=n&table=temperature&season=Annual&date=2008&rows=61

hey Simple... that is a verbatim copy of exactly what you posted in this earlier Dec18 post - here... you know - part of your repeated ongoing nonsense about the, as you state, "world is cooling". Which kind of contradicts your other oft repeated claims that you accept that AGW warming is occurring but, apparently, not to your qualifications (whatever the hell they may be???). Simple, how do you keep these competing cooling vs. warming positions straight within your "thinking" process?

of course, you know that this, your latest post, can only be followed up with the same response I provided to that earlier Dec post - here ... you know, over that series of posts where you touted Environment Canada data... only to receive your comeuppance... with an Environment Canada data trending graphic - here ... surely you remember that thread, right Simple? The thread where you were soundly schooled in temperature trending... remember?

(on edit: updated trend link)

Edited January 8, 2011 by waldo

[eyeball]

Here in Canada, we've experienced the following in the past decade. Draw whatever conclusions you like:

It's called global warming not Canada warming.

[Keepitsimple]

hey Simple... that is a verbatim copy of exactly what you posted in this earlier Dec18 post - here... you know - part of your repeated ongoing nonsense about the, as you state, "world is cooling". Which kind of contradicts your other oft repeated claims that you accept that AGW warming is occurring but, apparently, not to your qualifications (whatever the hell they may be???). Simple, how do you keep these competing cooling vs. warming positions straight within your "thinking" process?

Very Simple (pardon the pun) if you'd keep up with the conversation. The world has been warming for several centuries - about 1 degree F every century. The temperature goes up for what appears to be a 25 or 30 year cycle and then down for the same amount of time....but there has always been a net increase of about 1 degree per century. Contrary to the IPCC models, some scientists agree that we are already into another cycle of cooling.....or at least a "lack of warming". The same two major questions still exist:

1) Is the warming that we experienced in the 90's really unprecedented?

2) How much do humans actually "accellerate" warming?

3) A third question now is "have the temperatures been measured accurately"

Pretty Simple Waldo.....I believe that the planet is warming - as any informed person would agree....but I am skeptical that humans have contributed so much that the planet is in peril and we are all doomed unless we take immediate and drastic action. Did I make myself clear?

Waldo....you do not seem to have ANY position other than spouting whatever the IPCC and their mouthpiece RealClimate have to say. Your own parroting using the word "meme" shows how much you are enslaved to RealClimate. Use your brain Waldo - think for yourself - question things - that's science.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

More on the need to re-evaluate temperature measurements - the details are in the article - I've just posted the summary.....and yes Waldo - it's by Roy Spencer who just must be in the pocket of big oil, right?

THE NEED FOR NEW TEMPERATURE RENALYSES

I suspect it would be difficult to track down the precise reasons why the differences in the above datasets exist. The data used in the Jones analysis has undergone many changes over time, and the more complex and subjective the analysis methodology, the more difficult it is to ferret out the reasons for specific behaviors.

I am increasingly convinced that a much simpler, objective analysis of original weather station temperature data is necessary to better understand how spurious influences might have impacted global temperature trends computed by groups such as CRU and NASA/GISS. It seems to me that a simple and easily repeatable methodology should be the starting point. Then, if one can demonstrate that the simple temperature analysis has spurious temperature trends, an objective and easily repeatable adjustment methodology should be the first choice for an improved version of the analysis.

In my opinion, simplicity, objectivity, and repeatability should be of paramount importance. Once one starts making subjective adjustments of individual stations’ data, the ability to replicate work becomes almost impossible.

Therefore, more important than the recently reported “do-over” of a global temperature reanalysis proposed by the UK’s Met Office would be other, independent researchers doing their own global temperature analysis. In my experience, better methods of data analysis come from the ideas of individuals, not from the majority rule of a committee.

Of particular interest to me at this point is a simple and objective method for quantifying and removing the spurious warming arising from the urban heat island (UHI) effect. The recent paper by McKitrick and Michaels suggests that a substantial UHI influence continues to infect the GISS and CRU temperature datasets.

In fact, the results for the U.S. I have presented above almost seem to suggest that the Jones CRUTem3 dataset has a UHI adjustment that is in the wrong direction. Coincidentally, this is also the conclusion of a recent post on Anthony Watts’ blog, discussing a new paper published by SPPI.

It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.

Link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/spurious-warming-in-the-jones-u-s-temperatures-since-1973/

[Shady]

It's called global warming not Canada warming.

Wrong. It's called climate change. It was called global warming, but reality wasn't fitting well with the global warming description. However, you'll notice that they still sprinkle in global warming from time to time. But the true-believers decided to change the terminology. Now with the term climage change, they can use any type of weather, hot, warm, dry, cold, wet, anywhere in the world, to fit their perversion.

Example:

Regular Person: "Wow, this summer was really, really, hot."

True Believer: "That's because of global warming."

(the following summer)

Regular Person: "Wow, this summer wasn't very hot at all."

True Believer: "That's because of climate change."

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wrong. It's called climate change. It was called global warming, but reality wasn't fitting well with the global warming description. However, you'll notice that they still sprinkle in global warming from time to time. But the true-believers decided to change the terminology. Now with the term climage change, they can use any type of weather, hot, warm, dry, cold, wet, anywhere in the world, to fit their perversion.

They're the same thing.

[wyly]

They're the same thing.

they're not...global warming is misleading...

[Guest TrueMetis]

they're not...global warming is misleading...

If the globe warms the climate will change. They're the same thing.

[wyly]

If the globe warms the climate will change. They're the same thing.

yes but it's inaccurate...warming could ultimately cause cooling, a large melting of the Ice caps could/will change the oceans and possibly bring cooler temps to Western Europe should ocean currents be affected...so calling it global warming gives an impression of uniform warming weather everywhere which may not be the case...

[Shady]

Another day, another global warming mishap.

UN's climate link to hurricanes in doubt

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms.

The benchmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that a worldwide increase in hurricane-force storms since 1970 was probably linked to global warming.

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

Link

Looks like the corruption continues.

[Keepitsimple]

Another day, another global warming mishap.

Looks like the corruption continues.

That's three "iconic" symbols of Global Warming that have been relegated to the trash can:

1) The melting of the Himalayas

2) Hurricanes and severe storms

3) Polar Bears dying

It wouldn't be such a big deal if the Alarmists had not used each of these examples as examples of how Global Warming is an immediate threat to mankind and we must take drastic and immediate action.

[Alta4ever]

More on the need to re-evaluate temperature measurements - the details are in the article - I've just posted the summary.....and yes Waldo - it's by Roy Spencer who just must be in the pocket of big oil, right?

Link: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/spurious-warming-in-the-jones-u-s-temperatures-since-1973/

I'm sure that his data is just as good as those scientists who are in the pocket of big government.

[eyeball]

It wouldn't be such a big deal if the Alarmists had not used each of these examples as examples of how Global Warming is an immediate threat to mankind and we must take drastic and immediate action.

I can't deny the evidence of Alarmism in an institution I've had no real reason to mistrust, if science can be called an institution. The fact is Alarmists are just about everywhere you look. Even amongst the people the public really need to know they can trust right here at the local level. Who can forget when our local RCMP reported to local media that rape-gangs were prowling the mean streets of Tofino? After the national news picked it up and the local hospitality industry was up in arms over the bad publicity, the cops admitted they arrested one person with a few hits of GBH or Extasy or some such thing and blew the whole thing out of proportion so they could raise awareness of their particular issue. Of course last summer the same detachment breathlessly reported the confiscation of millions of dollars worth of $1000 pot plants out in the bush hereabouts. There'll probably be billions of dollars worth planted this year now that the public knows they're that valuable.

The use of galvanizing events, fudged data and publication bias probably goes back to the days of cavemen.

I'm left wondering why no one ever questions the economic Alarmists that cry doom and gloom and that it'll be the the end of the world should we even take a precautionary approach to the possibility we might be cooking the planet. In fact, of all the sciences that should be the most suspect I think economics should probably top the list.

[Michael Hardner]

I believe that the planet is warming - as any informed person would agree....but I am skeptical that humans have contributed so much that the planet is in peril and we are all doomed unless we take immediate and drastic action.

The graphs that correlate temperature with CO2 and radiation over time are pretty convincing, and we know there's more CO2 from human activity.

[Michael Hardner]

Wrong. It's called climate change. It was called global warming, but reality wasn't fitting well with the global warming description. However, you'll notice that they still sprinkle in global warming from time to time. But the true-believers decided to change the terminology. Now with the term climage change, they can use any type of weather, hot, warm, dry, cold, wet, anywhere in the world, to fit their perversion.

Why does it have to be a perversion ? Why can't it be a correction ? Why does every change to the theory have to be imbued with some evil motivation ?

You seem to be all right with arguing the science most of the time, so why do you descend into this bad habit of character assassination ?

[wyly]

Why does it have to be a perversion ? Why can't it be a correction ? Why does every change to the theory have to be imbued with some evil motivation ?

You seem to be all right with arguing the science most of the time, so why do you descend into this bad habit of character assassination ?

conspiracies everywhere...hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are all in cahoots to steal our money and give it to al gore... Edited March 2, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

Edited March 2, 2010 by wyly

[Moonlight Graham]

- think for yourself - question things - that's science.

Agreed 100%.