Global Warming backdown

[bloodyminded]

Yes, it is accurate. Coulter admires McCarthy. Thus confirming she is a real nutcase? Isn't that your message?

No, this point alone doesn't confirm it. It's death by a thousand cuts, a thousand instances of her defense of statist reactionaries and partisan madness that confirms it.

[Pliny]

No, this point alone doesn't confirm it. It's death by a thousand cuts, a thousand instances of her defense of statist reactionaries and partisan madness that confirms it.

You have confirmed the confirmation. Let it be known...

[bloodyminded]

You have confirmed the confirmation. Let it be known...

Luckily, it's already known by most people, I believe.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an interesting story on American public opinion on Global Warming:

Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change

Even as the climate science becomes more definitive, polls show that public concern in the United States about global warming has been declining. What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?

by ted nordhaus and michael shellenberger

Last month, the Pew Research Center released its latest poll of public attitudes on global warming. On its face, the news was not good: Belief that global warming is occurring had declined from 71 percent in April of 2008 to 56 percent in October — an astonishing drop in just 18 months. The belief that global warming is human-caused declined from 47 percent to 36 percent.

While some pollsters questioned these numbers, the Pew statistics are consistent with the findings by Gallup in March that public concern about global warming had declined, that the number of Americans who believed that news about global warming was exaggerated had increased, and that the number of Americans who believed that the effects of global warming had already begun had declined.

.......snip

Perhaps we should give the American public a little more credit. They may not know climate science very well, but they are not going to be muscled into accepting apocalyptic visions about our planetary future — or embracing calls to radically transform “our way of life” — just because environmentalists or climate scientists tell them they must. They typically give less credit to expert opinion than do educated elites, and those of us who tend to pay more attention to these questions would do well to remember that expert opinion and indeed, expert consensus, has tended to have a less sterling track record than most of us might like to admit.

At the same time, significant majorities of Americans are still prepared to support reasonable efforts to reduce carbon emissions even if they have their doubts about the science. They may be disinclined to tell pollsters that the science is settled, just as they are not inclined to tell them that evolution is more than a theory. But that doesn’t stop them from supporting the teaching of evolution in their schools. And it will not stop them from supporting policies to reduce carbon emissions — so long as the costs are reasonable and the benefits, both economic and environmental, are well-defined.

Link: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2210

[waldo]

Here's a previously unknown component of Climate Change - it doesn't appear that we know how this will affect all of the modelling that goes on - but it's interesting - there's probably many more discoveries to be made before the science is settled.

Link: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Scientists+measure+powerful+ocean+current+Antarctica/2951674/story.html

ya ya, AABW, that previously unknown Simple component... why here's a previously unknown 1970 abstract that speaks to one of Simple's linked article's referenced sea shelves, the Ross Sea shelf... with similar measured flow rates - "Bottom current measurements revealed strong westerly and northerly flows down and along the continental slope, with magnitudes exceeding 15 cm/sec at eight locations"

Simple... is it your desperation that pushes you to repeat the fabricated "science is settled" meme? Perhaps you could elaborate on your meme, particularly as it relates to your linked article... you blindly throw out an implication towards modeling. How so, in what way... which models?

[waldo]

This 9 minute video captures a lot of where we stand today on Climate Change in general. It's a very "comfortable" video - Carter is an easy guy to listen to.

Link:

of course... in the interests of full disclosure on your 'easy listening guy' and your presumptuous "where we stand" proclamation based on your 'easy listening guy', it must have simply slipped your mind to advise your 'easy listening guy', Bob Carter, is just another skeptic gadfly:

...noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." He is a well known climate change skeptic.

Carter was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Carter is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change.

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

[Keepitsimple]

Waldo....we've missed you. I thought perhaps that narcissistic side of yours finally did lead to suicide when your world started falling apart. I've failed to mention this before but your use of the term "meme" is interesting; no one in their right mind uses that word - but I notice it often appears on your biblical websitre - Real Climate. I haven't made up my mind as to whether you are a Real Climate shill - or whether you're just an obsessive cut-and-paster trying to look a little smarter than he/she is. Welcome back.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Simple, keeping with your latest reply's religious theme... speaking of your faith based denier position... in the face of that veritable mountain of support and evidence that backs the theory of AGW climate change, and your inability to parrot even a semblance of alternative natural variability causes, you... truly... are the one praying at the denier alter, reading from your denier talking points bible, projecting on your faith based denier position... livin la denier vida loca meme!

[waldo]

the U.S. EPA has just released it's "Climate Change Indicators in the United States" report (full report), intended to present a set of important indicators to better understand climate change... 24 indicators, each describing trends related to the causes and effects of climate change, focusing primarily on the U.S., although some global trends are presented for contextual or comparative purposes. A slideshow presents a summary view of the report... with links provided to full report details:

[Pliny]

the U.S. EPA has just released it's "Climate Change Indicators in the United States" report (full report), intended to present a set of important indicators to better understand climate change... 24 indicators, each describing trends related to the causes and effects of climate change, focusing primarily on the U.S., although some global trends are presented for contextual or comparative purposes. A slideshow presents a summary view of the report... with links provided to full report details:

Yeah! Yeah! You fail to mention your EPA is fully on board with all you alarmists. I haven't read the report but I bet it's chalk full of great alarming facts perhaps deserving of it's own chapter in the climate change Bible. Is that what it's about, Waldo?

[waldo]

Yeah! Yeah! You fail to mention your EPA is fully on board with all you alarmists. I haven't read the report but I bet it's chalk full of great alarming facts perhaps deserving of it's own chapter in the climate change Bible. Is that what it's about, Waldo?

my EPA, Pliny? Mine?

noted: include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Pliny's conspiracy roundup!

(I'm sure the report itself is a bit much for your fragile underpinnings; perhaps just start with the slideshow as a pacifying smoothee for your denial bent... baby steps for you, Pliny... baby steps!)

[Shady]

noted: include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Pliny's conspiracy roundup!

It's not a conspiracy. The EPA is now full of Obama cronies, who are also Albert Gore Jr cronies.

[waldo]

my EPA, Pliny? Mine?

noted: include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Pliny's conspiracy roundup!

(I'm sure the report itself is a bit much for your fragile underpinnings; perhaps just start with the slideshow as a pacifying smoothee for your denial bent... baby steps for you, Pliny... baby steps!)

It's not a conspiracy. The EPA is now full of Obama cronies, who are also Albert Gore Jr cronies.

lil' buddy... are you and your keyboard making any headway in your battle against your algoreaphobia (it's unfortunate you found that EPA slideshow a bit of an inconvenient truth - hey?)

[Keepitsimple]

Yeah! Yeah! You fail to mention your EPA is fully on board with all you alarmists. I haven't read the report but I bet it's chalk full of great alarming facts perhaps deserving of it's own chapter in the climate change Bible. Is that what it's about, Waldo?

Same old stuff........but at least it doesn't say that doomsday is upon us. I'll wait for the "realist" rebuttal to put things in context.

[waldo]

Same old stuff........but at least it doesn't say that doomsday is upon us. I'll wait for the "realist" rebuttal to put things in context.

is that your "realist" rebuttal... ala your denier blog "scientists"?

c'mon... just who/what would you anticipate putting together a rebuttal to refute the U.S. government agency's presentation of U.S. focused climate change indicators?

for perspective, accuracy and reference... why not step up and express what you base your, as you say, "doomsday is upon us" statement. C'mon, you're so flippant with your bombastic uttering, why not frame that so-called "doomsday is upon us" reference around your personal denial. You tried to weasel out of accepting that warming has occurred... but you finally relented in the face of the incontrovertible evidence of warming. You tried to deny your actual denial of AGW climate change; however, we managed to finally coax your measly acceptance of AGW climate change to a 10% acceptance level... so, you're only in 90% denial! So, we're on a roll - let's take it home now! Let's have you state the basis for your "doomsday is upon us" reference... what's it based on, who/what has made the basis for that reference - and how will we... or won't we... get there - to doomsday!

[bush_cheney2004]

c'mon... just who/what would you anticipate putting together a rebuttal to refute the U.S. government agency's presentation of U.S. focused climate change indicators?

US agencies focused on "US climate"....somebody loves the US!

[waldo]

the U.S. EPA has just released it's "Climate Change Indicators in the United States" report (full report), intended to present a set of important indicators to better understand climate change... 24 indicators, each describing trends related to the causes and effects of climate change, focusing primarily on the U.S., although some global trends are presented for contextual or comparative purposes. A slideshow presents a summary view of the report... with links provided to full report details:

Same old stuff........but at least it doesn't say that doomsday is upon us. I'll wait for the "realist" rebuttal to put things in context.

is that your "realist" rebuttal... ala your denier blog "scientists"?

c'mon... just who/what would you anticipate putting together a rebuttal to refute the U.S. government agency's presentation of U.S. focused climate change indicators?

US agencies focused on "US climate"....somebody loves the US!

Rhasida from Regina - have you no shame with your lame game? But… hey now… did you miss the reference to the EPA report also presenting global trends for contextual or comparative purposes… I guess you must have missed that reference – hey?

besides, since the Harper Conservatives have outsourced Canada’s emission policy to the U.S., it’s only fitting proper deference is bestowed – hey?

and thanks for the opportunity to further highlight some of the leading EPA work coming forward… of course, we’ve previously discussed the progression from the U.S. Supreme Court, that’s led to the EPA releasing it’s formal Endangerment Finding declaration that, “CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels poses a threat to human health and welfare of current and future generations, a designation that set the U.S. federal government on the path toward the regulating of emissions from power plants, factories, automobiles and other major sources.”

what’s very illuminating in the beginning of the EPA roll out progression, is reading the professionalism in the EPA’s response to it's call for comment/submission concerning it’s lead up to issuing that formal Endangerment Finding declaration… EPA’s response to public comments received on the Proposed Findings and accompanying Technical Support Document. Of course, the denialsphere reaction to the EPA handling of public comments is a study in itself… one could suggest deniers and their parroted echo chamber are, “thrashing and gnashing” about in fine form - yes, indeed!

[bush_cheney2004]

Rhasida from Regina - have you no shame with your lame game? But… hey now… did you miss the reference to the EPA report also presenting global trends for contextual or comparative purposes… I guess you must have missed that reference – hey?

I don't care about what they are doing, but I do get a fine giggle out of your recurring smooch of American ass in the quest to slay climate change windmills. This, the very same nation that refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Here is my American adoration points system for you:

"US" = 100 pts

"EPA" = 50 pts

"NASA" = 25 pts

"NOAA" = 20 pts

"GISS" = 15 pts

"GISTEMP" = 10 pts

[waldo]

Rhasida from Regina - have you no shame with your lame game? But… hey now… did you miss the reference to the EPA report also presenting global trends for contextual or comparative purposes… I guess you must have missed that reference – hey?

besides, since the Harper Conservatives have outsourced Canada’s emission policy to the U.S., it’s only fitting proper deference is bestowed – hey?

I don't care about what they are doing, but I do get a fine giggle out of your recurring smooch of American ass in the quest to slay climate change windmills.

ever since Bubber outed your Saskatchewan ass, your game is moot. You can presume to bark madly into the dark night... but few are buying into your act anymore, Rhasida from Regina. The real question begs to your motivation - why do hate America so?

[bush_cheney2004]

ever since Bubber outed your Saskatchewan ass, your game is moot. You can presume to bark madly into the dark night... but few are buying into your act anymore, Rhasida from Regina. The real question begs to your motivation - why do hate America so?

Bubber couldn't find his own ass with a global warming flashlight, let alone mine. Why do you love America so? Because you got nothing else...that's why!

"America" = 75 pts !!!

Edited May 5, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Bubber couldn't find his own ass with a global warming flashlight, let alone mine. Why do you love America so? Because you got nothing else...that's why!

"America" = 75 pts !!!

truly, what motivates you, a closeted, obviously disturbed, twenty-something Saskatchewan female, to spend years on a somewhat smallish and obscure discussion board - posing as an "ugly American male"?

[Michael Hardner]

truly, what motivates you, a closeted, obviously disturbed, twenty-something Saskatchewan female, to spend years on a somewhat smallish and obscure discussion board - posing as an "ugly American male"?

Is this true ? I hope not.

I don't see any rules against misrepresenting ones self on the board but it speaks to the credibility of the poster.

[Keepitsimple]

As I've said many times, I believe the world is warming - ever since the last "Little Ice Age". Temperatures have been going up - then down - then up - then down......but always upward. That's why it's not surprising that the last 10 or 15 years have been amongst the warmest since the MWP....in spite of the fact that they have been relatively stable recently. And I'll say again, I think there has been some amazing work done in understanding many of the components of Climate Change. I've also conceded that humans play.

But all arguments on APG Climate Change are dependent on one thing - are Global temperatures really going up at a rate never before encountered.....in other words - how accurate are our temperature readings. Sceptics argue that historical temperatures have been "adjusted" to show that they were cooler and recent temperatures have been adjusted to show more warming. Small variations at both ends of the scale will create a scenario that supports a higher rate of warming than natural variability would suggest - because we're only talking about tenths of a degree to create that scenario. Is there a possibility that there is some truth to this argument?

Lets take Canada as an example. We all know that the globe is divided into grids and cells. Global temperatures are calculated by filling in the cells with temperatures from the nearest Weather Station - even if the weather station is hundreds of miles away and is at a different altitude. These cells of course, are "adjusted" to supposedly account for the geographic and terrain differences. Now I ask, if scientists are given grants specifically to support the theory of APG, would any "adjustments" err on the side of warming - or cooling?.....or would you believe that these tremendously complex "adjustments" are perfect? As an example - look at how weather varies between Toronto and Barrie - just 50 miles apart.

Here's what has happened to Canadian Weather stations....and keep in mind - this is only one country - there is absolutely no reason to believe that things are different in other countries - Russia being the largest having similar integrity problems.

In Canada, the number of stations dropped from 600 to less than 50. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced by half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a simple average of the available stations shows an apparent cooling.” The warming was artificial and created by reducing the number and then selecting specific stations.

This was especially true for the single Arctic station. DW wrote, “That station is Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” thanks to the flora and fauna abundant around the Eureka area, more so than anywhere else in the High Arctic. Winters are frigid but summers are slightly warmer than at other places in the Canadian Arctic.” These refugia have distinctly different climate conditions and are well-documented areas in the Arctic.

Figure 2: Stations (black diamonds) in 1975 and in 2009 in GHCN (enlarged here)

The Eureka problems don’t end there. A shift to fewer stations involved wider use of a system called METAR that Watts reports creates warm anomalies in temperature maps due to ”Such errors were found at Eureka. Equally troubling was the fact they only take readings for 22 hours. There are no readings for the period from 2200 to 0100 local time.

Finally, physical evidence completely contradicts the warming claim. Arctic sea ice continued to expand into April (Figure 3) and beyond the average melting point for the period of record (1979 - 2006).

Here's a link to the article - make sure to look at the before/after picture of Canadian Weather Stations: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22728

Edited May 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

As I've said many times, I believe the world is warming - ever since the last "Little Ice Age". Temperatures have been going up - then down - then up - then down......but always upward. That's why it's not surprising that the last 10 or 15 years have been amongst the warmest since the MWP....in spite of the fact that they have been relatively stable recently. And I'll say again, I think there has been some amazing work done in understanding many of the components of Climate Change. I've also conceded that humans play.

But all arguments on APG Climate Change are dependent on one thing - are Global temperatures really going up at a rate never before encountered.....in other words - how accurate are our temperature readings. Sceptics argue that historical temperatures have been "adjusted" to show that they were cooler and recent temperatures have been adjusted to show more warming. Small variations at both ends of the scale will create a scenario that supports a higher rate of warming than natural variability would suggest - because we're only talking about tenths of a degree to create that scenario. Is there a possibility that there is some truth to this argument?

Lets take Canada as an example. We all know that the globe is divided into grids and cells. Global temperatures are calculated by filling in the cells with temperatures from the nearest Weather Station - even if the weather station is hundreds of miles away and is at a different altitude. These cells of course, are "adjusted" to supposedly account for the geographic and terrain differences. Now I ask, if scientists are given grants specifically to support the theory of APG, would any "adjustments" err on the side of warming - or cooling?.....or would you believe that these tremendously complex "adjustments" are perfect? As an example - look at how weather varies between Toronto and Barrie - just 50 miles apart.

Here's what has happened to Canadian Weather stations....and keep in mind - this is only one country - there is absolutely no reason to believe that things are different in other countries - Russia being the largest having similar integrity problems.

Here's a link to the article - make sure to look at the before/after picture of Canadian Weather Stations: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22728

and you just keep on barking madly over Anthony Watts' completely discredited surfacestations.org and SPPI nonsense... we've highlighted Watts' outright fabrications, and you still have the unmitigated gaul to trot this out (referencing denier extraordinaire Tim Ball, no less). Check around Simple ton... I've mentioned it a couple of times already... there are at least a half-dozen recent credible and independent initiatives that have completely and absolutely debunked Watts' nonsense over surface station dropout... and note: those half-dozen+ analysis reviews include a couple of deniers/skeptics who took it upon themselves to actually do the analysis - the analysis Watts never did... again, the analysis Watts never did! Or... we could get into the actual studies/comments from NOAA that have also responded to Watts' dishonest fabrications. Keep on barking madly over Anthony Watts, Simple ton - you certainly wear him well!

[Keepitsimple]

and you just keep on barking madly over Anthony Watts' completely discredited surfacestations.org and SPPI nonsense... we've highlighted Watts' outright fabrications, and you still have the unmitigated gaul to trot this out (referencing denier extraordinaire Tim Ball, no less). Check around Simple ton... I've mentioned it a couple of times already... there are at least a half-dozen recent credible and independent initiatives that have completely and absolutely debunked Watts' nonsense over surface station dropout... and note: those half-dozen+ analysis reviews include a couple of deniers/skeptics who took it upon themselves to actually do the analysis - the analysis Watts never did... again, the analysis Watts never did! Or... we could get into the actual studies/comments from NOAA that have also responded to Watts' dishonest fabrications. Keep on barking madly over Anthony Watts, Simple ton - you certainly wear him well!

I'd appreciate it if you could link me to a study or analysis of the specific reasons for the cutdown in Canadian Weather stations and why I should feel comfortable in how they can extrapollate Eureka's temperatures to cover all the the Canadian Arctic. Canada's a good example - it's big and it's our home town. I'm willing to be swayed if you can find something like that.....or even if you could explain it in your own words. Oh by the way - who is "we" - you said "we've highlighted......". Thanks.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple