Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Saipan]

will the economy matter when everything is dead?...it's a matter of priority there is no alternative...when the Nazi's brought war to the world was cost a factor in deciding to combat it? no, there was no alternative it had to be done regardless the price...

Absolutely yes!

We need to build better National Defence and piss on NDP.

you're in serious denial now there is absolutey concensus on CC and even what needs to be done...there is only footdragging and stalling that prevents progress....

No one is denying that, as far as I can see. Why would anyone?

[waldo]

It happens that snow in UK corresponds to warmth in the Arctic. Both have to be looked at but I believe this relates to a North Atlantic Oscillation cycle, not human activity.

yes... Arctic warmth - as attributed to a combination of AGW and natural influences. A compelling direction of study suggesting an attribution related to the significant and ongoing loss of Arctic sea ice extent/volume... and the effect it has on atmospheric circulation. Hmmm... I wonder how that ice is melting - hey?

Influence of low Arctic sea‐ice minima on anomalously cold Eurasian winters:

Influence of low Arctic sea‐ice minima in early autumn on the wintertime climate over Eurasia is investigated. Observational evidence shows that significant cold anomalies over the Far East in early winter and zonally elongated cold anomalies from Europe to Far East in late winter are associated with the decrease of the Arctic sea‐ice cover in the preceding summer‐to‐autumn seasons. Results from numerical experiments using an atmospheric general circulation model support these notions. The remote response in early winter is regarded as a stationary Rossby wave generated thermally through an anomalous turbulent heat fluxes as a result of anomalous ice‐cover over the Barents‐Kara Seas in late autumn, which tends to induce an amplification of the Siberian high causing colder conditions over the Far East. The late‐winter cold anomalies over Eurasia are also reproduced in our experiment, which is associated with the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

Winter Northern Hemisphere weather patterns remember summer Arctic sea‐ice extent:

The dramatic decline in Arctic summer sea‐ice cover is a compelling indicator of change in the global climate system and has been attributed to a combination of natural and anthropogenic effects. Through its role in regulating the exchange of energy between the ocean and atmosphere, ice loss is anticipated to influence atmospheric circulation and weather patterns. By combining satellite measurements of sea‐ice extent and conventional atmospheric observations, we find that varying summer ice conditions are associated with large‐scale atmospheric features during the following autumn and winter well beyond the Arctic's boundary. Mechanisms by which the atmosphere “remembers” a reduction in summer ice cover include warming and destabilization of the lower troposphere, increased cloudiness, and slackening of the poleward thickness gradient that weakens the polar jet stream. This ice‐atmosphere relationship suggests a potential long‐range outlook for weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.

Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes are associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice:

Recent loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic is directly connected to shifts in northern wind patterns in the following autumn, which has the potential of altering the heat budget at the cold end of the global heat engine. With continuing loss of summer sea ice to less than 20% of its climatological mean over the next decades, we anticipate increased modification of atmospheric circulation patterns. While a shift to a more meridional atmospheric climate pattern, the Arctic Dipole (AD), over the last decade contributed to recent reductions in summer Arctic sea ice extent, the increase in late summer open water area is, in turn, directly contributing to a modification of large scale atmospheric circulation patterns through the additional heat stored in the Arctic Ocean and released to the atmosphere during the autumn season.

A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents:

The recent overall Northern Hemisphere warming was accompanied by several severe northern continental winters, as for example, extremely cold winter 2005/2006 in Europe and northern Asia. Here we show that anomalous decrease of wintertime sea ice concentration in the Barents-Kara (B-K) Seas could bring about extreme cold events like winter 2005/2006. Our simulations with the ECHAM5 general circulation model demonstrate that lower-troposphere heating over the B-K Seas in the Eastern Arctic caused by the sea ice reduction may result in strong anti-cyclonic anomaly over the Polar Ocean and anomalous easterly advection over northern continents. This causes a continental-scale winter cooling reaching -1.5°C, with more than three times increased probability of cold winter extremes over large areas including Europe. Our results imply that several recent severe winters do not conflict the global warming picture but rather supplement it, being in qualitative agreement with the simulated large-scale atmospheric circulation realignment. Furthermore, our results suggest that high-latitude atmospheric circulation response to the B-K sea ice decrease is highly nonlinear and characterized by transition from anomalous cyclonic circulation to anticyclonic one and then again back to cyclonic type of circulation as the B-K sea ice concentration gradually reduces from 100% to ice free conditions. We present a conceptual model which may explain the nonlinear local atmospheric response in the B-K Seas region by counter play between convection over the surface heat source and baroclinic effect due to modified temperature gradients in the vicinity of the heating area.

[waldo]

No one is denying that, as far as I can see. Why would anyone?

what about those types who think they're contributing by repeatedly asking inane variants of, "Where's the warm-up?"

[lukin]

The Global Warming movement - a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass . This is a great article ghosthacked.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass

[Saipan]

So why it's warming where no one lives, and cooling in places with human population?

[lukin]

hey lukin... don't stretch yourself too far with your "interesting perspective" analysis - hey? For those of us less inclined to pour through another of your blind links dropped without comment, is there actually anything noteworthy in it? Is there actually something that might instill a desire to read the slop/hash from the fake Lawdee Monckton, something to allow one to get beyond Monckton's charade and the most basic of facts that he's simply another of those frothing squawkers railing on about "new world order" and a "world government"... notwithstanding, of course, he's just another clown who can't fathom the distinction between world governance and world government!

but hey, kudos to you though lukin... given what's happened to Monckton's standing over the past year, very few have the chops to actually reference anything he has to say/offer anymore...

whaaa! Pliny likes his "science" served from the fact-plate of the charlatan Monckton! Here, Pliny... Monckton at his worst... well, actually... his worst is his best! - there be some good quotes in there, hey Pliny?

Monckton exposes left wing kooks.

[waldo]

I think the hockey stick is still debatable. However, I don't think it really shows the whole story. I don't have much 'faith' in it. Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist. He was a politician, meaning he knows what lobbying is all about. And if you want something, you grease some hands with some money. Al Gore is set up for the hugest windfall ever. Gates' money will look like chump change.

and you're categorically wrong... the very fact your go-to is to mention Gore, shows your lack of any attempt to address the scientific based historical attachments/challenges to the actual hockey-stick science. Any weak-minded denier can trot out Gore, rather than presume to address the actual related science and challenges to it.

Unlike other shit throwers, I am actually taking the time to educate myself on it. Some of these books are not freakin cheap either.

buddy, if your education pursuits are represented by your willingness to buy a POS book from an avowed denier "journalist", I doubt you're sincere. And yes, I've been all over that book each time it's been trotted out by the MLW usual suspects... starting with the absolute fraud perpetuated by Solomon - despite your obvious biased leaning, none of the scientists profiled are deniers of AGW - yet, Solomon chose that title... and ran with it... throughout the denialsphere. Yes, I linked to details of 2 of those scientists launching formal efforts against Solomon, against the National Post... yes, I linked to the formal retraction/apology printed in the National Post. Solomon, the hack "journalist" whose trash writings have been soundly rebuked... over and over... and, yes, I've linked often to the refutations of Solomon's fabrication/distortion. Solomon, the hack "journalist" with known ties to industry (see UofC and Friends of Science, as one of many examples). Solomon, of course, he's your guy... the guy you're holding up as a testament to your wanting to better educate yourself!

I may actually still come out on your side. But when you post I instantly want to glaze over them, because I know what I am getting from you.

If I get to your side, do you have solutions that we can try or are you simply going to shoot me down some more with some crap like 'I told you so'. Simply juvenile.

I could give a rats patooey where you personally land in your adventure to "educate yourself"... meanwhile, don't hesitate to continue showing your over bias and denial, uhhh... in the face of your self-aggrandizing.

[waldo]

Monckton exposes left wing kooks.

lukin, Monckton has even less credibility than you!

[lukin]

lukin, Monckton has even less credibility than you!

Why won't Al gore debate him. According to you, Gore should be able to make Monckton look like a fool. Yet, Gore refuses to debate.

Edited December 12, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

Why won't Al gore debate him. According to you, Gore should be able to make Monckton look like a fool. Yet, Gore refuses to debate.

ok, ok... it's hard to go up against the trifecta!!! Beck, Monckton and the Walrus Bolton.

as I said, you're an absolute neophyte if you presume to leverage Monckton as any authoritative source. Whether your particular example... or others... there is a general lack of wanting to give any credence to the shit-throwers... because they are nothing but charlatans; however, if you do your research you can find recent examples in Australia where Monckton was handed his ass on a platter.

of course, legitimate scientific debate does occur... it plays out daily, like clockwork... in the arena of peer-review/peer-response. Alternatively, it sometimes plays out where we get to see actual exchanges between denier and proponent... like the recent testimonies before the U.S. Congress... search for proponent Santer trouncing denier Michaels... it's a classic!

[waldo]

How is legislation an Inventor of the internet? When did that happen? No matter how much I search I can't find Al Gore's name anywhere that indicates he invented the Internet. And when did he invent it?

oh please! Are you really that obtuse?

snopes on the Gore Internet meme:

make sure you read the linked referenced article by Vint Cerf... make sure you actually take the effort to determine who Vint Cerf is and acknowledge the important role(s) Gore did play - hey?

[lukin]

ok, ok... it's hard to go up against the trifecta!!! Beck, Monckton and the Walrus Bolton.

as I said, you're an absolute neophyte if you presume to leverage Monckton as any authoritative source. Whether your particular example... or others... there is a general lack of wanting to give any credence to the shit-throwers... because they are nothing but charlatans; however, if you do your research you can find recent examples in Australia where Monckton was handed his ass on a platter.

of course, legitimate scientific debate does occur... it plays out daily, like clockwork... in the arena of peer-review/peer-response. Alternatively, it sometimes plays out where we get to see actual exchanges between denier and proponent... like the recent testimonies before the U.S. Congress... search for proponent Santer trouncing denier Michaels... it's a classic!

Waldo, waldo, waldo...la la la la la

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass

Edited December 12, 2010 by lukin

[jbg]

Waldo, waldo, waldo...la la la la la

http://www.climatede...rld-middleclass

Broken link.

[GostHacked]

oh please! Are you really that obtuse?

snopes on the Gore Internet meme:

make sure you read the linked referenced article by Vint Cerf... make sure you actually take the effort to determine who Vint Cerf is and acknowledge the important role(s) Gore did play - hey?

Well even your link agrees with me.. again he did not invent the internet, he did allow legislation through that helped it out, which I stated before. Methinks you have some reading comprehension issue.

Are you being obtuse in your argument for AGW ?

[lukin]

Broken link.

Sorry jbg. Here it is.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass

[GostHacked]

buddy, if your education pursuits are represented by your willingness to buy a POS book from an avowed denier "journalist", I doubt you're sincere. And yes, I've been all over that book each time it's been trotted out by the MLW usual suspects... starting with the absolute fraud perpetuated by Solomon - despite your obvious biased leaning, none of the scientists profiled are deniers of AGW - yet, Solomon chose that title... and ran with it... throughout the denialsphere. Yes, I linked to details of 2 of those scientists launching formal efforts against Solomon, against the National Post... yes, I linked to the formal retraction/apology printed in the National Post. Solomon, the hack "journalist" whose trash writings have been soundly rebuked... over and over... and, yes, I've linked often to the refutations of Solomon's fabrication/distortion. Solomon, the hack "journalist" with known ties to industry (see UofC and Friends of Science, as one of many examples). Solomon, of course, he's your guy... the guy you're holding up as a testament to your wanting to better educate yourself!

It's a pretty good book so far, about 1/3 of the way through it. My next books in the queue is about geo engineering techniques that are currently being researched and tried out. But everything is facetious ans suspect to you. It's like you have a paranoia of some kind. I don't quite understand all the graphs that are in the book, because I am no statistics major, but they do indicate it is getting warmer, but it's not by humans. Seems to be a natural cycle of the planet.

Also it is important to note the author of the book was a believer in the AGW before he started his investigations.

In the book he also debunks those ties. So who is right here waldo? The money trading IPCC hustlers or the scientists who have the data that does not show anything that supports the overall theory of AGW.

I could give a rats patooey where you personally land in your adventure to "educate yourself"... meanwhile, don't hesitate to continue showing your over bias and denial, uhhh... in the face of your self-aggrandizing.

I won't, and again, I won't make any apologies about it. In the end I could be wrong. But by the time anyone figures out what the hell to do about it, it will be too late.

And the fact you can't dispute the money trading aspect of the whole scheme indicates that you have no idea where the money is going after a company pays for the extra pollution it can put into the air. What are they calling it now instead of carbon credits?? Do you realize there is a BANK set up and a network to trade said carbon credits? Pollution to the highest bidder. Problem solved.

[wyly]

That seems to be the premise of this book exactly. The author does state that the majority of the scientists he investigated/talked to for the book show exactly what I am saying. They all do believe in AGW, but their independent studies do not show what the overall data is showing. Why is that?

and a number of the scientists he discussed say he misrepresented his work and asked/demanded retractions...even mentioning this book is silly, no one cites al gore's work/opinion as a definitive source but here you are citing the conclusions of a journalist...he is no more an authority than you or I are...

How is legislation an Inventor of the internet? When did that happen? No matter how much I search I can't find Al Gore's name anywhere that indicates he invented the Internet. And when did he invent it?

it's you're myth you bought into it really it isn't that hard to find the truth if you're being objective...even the people who involved in the technical end of the internet credit gore's work...

No an economy won't make a difference if people are dead. IF we are on this course, then we will be forced to go along with it weather we believe it or not. I think that is dangerous as well.

lets weigh these two options against each other with one option being wrong, you decide which is the lesser evil you don't get a do over if the wrong choice is made....

1st-we do nothing because it's inconvenient and expensive and civilization and maybe life as we know it disappears...

vs...

2-we spend a hell of a lot of cash for something that never materializes and we end up with a cleaner healthier environment and rid of our dependency on fossil fuels with an economic problem....

being wrong with one option kills you the other is merely inconvenient...

The only stalling is by those who want to trade money to keep polluting or by going to nice spots in the sun to discuss where they are going to hold the next summit.

host countries choose the location each host will want to show it's best for tourism...insinuating these meetings are just for vacations is disingenuous on your part...

last meeting was in sunny Copenhagen in December oh ya copenhagen is such a great place in december...and the next meeitng is in S africa ya there's another attractive destination, bring your kevlar armor...

Do you believe the item that is carbon cap trading solves any issue of pollution of CO2 that contributes to global warming? IF so, how much do I need to spend to continue polluting at the rate I am currently at?

i prefer a carbon tax but try find a politician that has the balls to say the T-word...you don't want cap trading, you'll scream if the t-word is mentioned, really is there any solution you will find attractive? you won't because there is no easy solution that won't cost a lot of money.... Edited December 13, 2010 by wyly

[GostHacked]

1st-we do nothing because it's inconvenient and expensive and civilization and maybe life as we know it disappears...

vs...

2-we spend a hell of a lot of cash for something that never materializes and we end up with a cleaner healthier environment and rid of our dependency on fossil fuels with an economic problem....

being wrong with one option kills you the other is merely inconvenient...

Hey, don't get me wrong I am all for cleaning up the environment and using environmentally friendly products and services. I think we all are. However, going after just CO2 is only but one element of the whole equation. There are many other things we need to do in conjunction with reducing toxic emissions (which you can throw the CO2 in there as well, it really does not matter in the end).

I really like your second proposal. And now let's say we have the money, how do we solve it?

I don't even think the likes of you and waldo are actually prepared to change your life style so drastically as to help prevent AGW. All you know it costs more to do so. And then you don't do it. Put the money where your mouth is.

i prefer a carbon tax but try find a politician that has the balls to say the T-word...you don't want cap trading, you'll scream if the t-word is mentioned, really is there any solution you will find attractive? you won't because there is no easy solution that won't cost a lot of money....

Still everything looks like an economic problem and not a scientific problem. All I see is money trading hands and no real reductions in emissions overall.

[wyly]

Hey, don't get me wrong I am all for cleaning up the environment and using environmentally friendly products and services. I think we all are. However, going after just CO2 is only but one element of the whole equation. There are many other things we need to do in conjunction with reducing toxic emissions (which you can throw the CO2 in there as well, it really does not matter in the end).

agreed...CO2 is critcal though, nothing else matters if that isn't dealt with...

I really like your second proposal. And now let's say we have the money, how do we solve it?

bite the bullet and stop using fossil fuels for energy...that's the primary...

I don't even think the likes of you and waldo are actually prepared to change your life style so drastically as to help prevent AGW. All you know it costs more to do so. And then you don't do it. Put the money where your mouth is.

i can't speak for waldo but I have changed my life, I use urban transport when practical, I drive less, I use less energy, I compost, I recycle, I conserve water, I've spent tens of thousands making my home more energy efficient(it's on going)...when the auto manufacturers come up with a green vehicle that can meet my requirements I'll buy it...

Still everything looks like an economic problem and not a scientific problem. All I see is money trading hands and no real reductions in emissions overall.

I see opportunity and profit, those in traditional CO2 producing industries see loss...this scenario has played itself out through history many times before, technical innovations change our world those left behind lose, those who that adapt thrive... Edited December 13, 2010 by wyly

[GostHacked]

agreed...CO2 is critcal though, nothing else matters if that isn't dealt with...

It's but one of many GHGs that could use a reduction.

i can't speak for waldo but I have changed my life, I use urban transport when practical, I drive less, I use less energy, I compost, I recycle, I conserve water, I've sent tens of thousands making my home more energy efficient(it's on going)...when the auto manufacturers come up with a green vehicle that can meet my requirements I buy it...

Fantastic, I hope to do the same when I can afford to buy a house.

I see opportunity and profit, those in traditional CO2 producing industries see loss...this scenario has played itself out through history many times before, technical innovations change our world those left behind lose, those who that adapt thrive...

Why does everything need to be for a profit if we are told we are going to die by it? Still seems like someone is holding a gun to my head telling me to pay up and he'll go away.

[Guest TrueMetis]

What tribe is that? And where are they? I know it's off-topic.

The Tarahumara known for being long distance runners.

Monckton exposes left wing kooks.

You know you have problems when your using that idiot as a source. He's a known liar.

Every time you use Monckton as a source, or state the hockey stick is false or any of the other foolish arguments you use you are just showing how little you know about this subject. There are actual scientist making actual valid arguments about global warming how about citing one of them?

[jbg]

Why won't Al gore debate him. According to you, Gore should be able to make Monckton look like a fool. Yet, Gore refuses to debate.

Gore also accepted then withdrew from a debate on the topic with Bjorn Lomborg.

[jbg]

Every time you use Monckton as a source, or state the hockey stick is false or any of the other foolish arguments you use you are just showing how little you know about this subject. There are actual scientist making actual valid arguments about global warming how about citing one of them?

Since all of the outstanding proposals are economically and politically impossible what do you suggest? Panic?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Since all of the outstanding proposals are economically and politically impossible what do you suggest? Panic?

What the hell are you talking about? They aren't even close to impossible.

[lukin]

The Tarahumara known for being long distance runners.

You know you have problems when your using that idiot as a source. He's a known liar.

Every time you use Monckton as a source, or state the hockey stick is false or any of the other foolish arguments you use you are just showing how little you know about this subject. There are actual scientist making actual valid arguments about global warming how about citing one of them?

Truemetis, those videos are weak. You should be embarrassed.