Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[Saipan]

Nope. Nor do idiots realize that a particular weather event doesn't make or break a theory on climate.

Theory is always free to theorize. Then come hard questions.

Climate is a very long term look at global shifts in weather.

That's right. As far back 1000 years to Medieval warm period, and even 5,000 years to Holocene Maximum when it was much warmed than now.

Just because the globe is warming

Where?

Edited December 6, 2010 by Saipan

[KeyStone]

Rex is right about one thing and one thing only. Not every person in the world is seeking colder climates.

Dismissing climate change because there is somewhere colder than usual in the world, makes about as much sense as laying off your police force, because we didn't have any murders over the weekend. It's asinine as is this entire column by Rex Murphy whose acerbic attempts at humour seems to have found a home at the National Post, where people prefer trite remarks and one-liners to actual logic and analysis.

That being said, there are a great many reasons to oppose Kyoto, but none of them have to do with the weather in Cancun or England.

[GostHacked]

It's been scientifically proven that face to face meetings get much more accomplished than other means.

While this may be true, these guys get to jet set around the world regardless of emissions to hold these face to face summits. And you can do face to face with teleconferencing, it's quite easily done these days.

And what really have they accomplished so far? I mean how well is Kyoto working out for them? Cap n Trade? Carbon Tax? Beuller?

[Saipan]

That's the whole point of the worry over global warming.

We should worry LOT more about global cooling. Because this planet is MUCH cooler 90% of the time.

[Pliny]

It is faith, not science. Not surprising, when most of the people who believe in man-made global warming are not science people. They are just ordinary citizens who have been trained to accept whatever is spoken by someone in a white lab coat. They believe not because they truly understand but because of faith in the number and appearance of global warming spokespeople.

You're thinking, Bill. No fair.

[Pliny]

It's been scientifically proven that face to face meetings get much more accomplished than other means.

Can't argue that, "scientifically proven". I suppose we should ignore the advices of our leaders to curtail our travel and not meet face to face then as we can get much more accomplished. Do you think then, as a corollary, they are trying to get us to accomplish very little?

It has been scientifically proven that enough people parroting the same thing over and over has greater weight than the phrase "scientifically proven". Check out various things like "political correctness", "Christianity" or "Islam" or "Marxism" or should I???....No, I won't....yes, I will...."National Socialism".

[Topaz]

The Earth is heating and and in 2012 the Sun due for a Sun storm which will heat thing up here on Earth and if we don't protect the protective barrier around the Earth we will heat up too. http://current.com/green/89702139_nasa-warns-catastrophic-sun-storm-possible-by-2012.htm

[lukin]

Not quite we are in a La Nina so the earth should be cooling, but it's not 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record with 2005 being the warmest year and 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009 all tied for second place. My link At most it has been stable, once the La Nina ends I'm anticipating a sharp rise in temperatures.

1998 was a very strong El Nino year, It's a cherry picked number. Anyway 1998-2009 not a statistically-significant period you need to give it more time.

Which is it oh wise one?

[Keepitsimple]

We can argue until the cows come home....but the fact is that China, India, Russia will not be signing onto any mandatory CO2 reduction schemes. Now you can add Japan to that list.....and don't forget that the US never even ratified Kyoto. So.....whine and complain and argue all you like...but we're going full speed down the road to Armageddon, if you believe the Alarmists. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride. Asbestos suits (are they banned?) might be on sale for the faint of heart.

[waldo]

Given the sheer size of the ocean bodies affected by those cycles that idea is not even plausible.

Come on, jbg, do you seriously think climate science missed this ?

yes, of course... this is jbg's favourite go-to... one we've heard from often in other climate change related threads. However, you may have to wait for that answer... jbg has advised he has a time management concern that precludes him from following up on his comments... not from making the actual comments... just the follow-up!

As I ceaselessly point out, the earth goes through 30 year "cold" and "warm" phases on a regular basis.

yes... yes you do... ceaselessly point out your mindless obsession that presumes to attribute global cooling and global warming to a natural 30 year cyclical climatic event... yes you do! Repeatedly - through many climate change related threads.

When last challenged on your nonsense, you suggested your research and advisement would be forthcoming... how's that coming along?

if the PDO is what you're holding up as "proof"... let's be clear... are you suggesting that the PDO, by definition an oscillating temperature pattern, is responsible for the accepted long-term warming trend... you do accept the long-term warming trend, right? Notwithstanding the PDOs oscillating pattern, one would expect you should be able to show a PDO warming trend coincident with long-term temperature trending, right? You should be able to show that, right?

Not sure what point you want to make here.

the point was... you were offering up the PDO as the causal link to global warming... to the global warming impacts mentioned... you were speaking of 30 year cyclical reversals as the causal link for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentioned... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage. The point was... if you're going to offer up the PDO as the causal link to global warming/impacts, you better be able to step up and substantiate that by providing a like association, a like long-term trend, between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies. Otherwise... all you've proposed is that a, by definition, oscillating temperature pattern (the PDO), a pattern that does not hold within it a long-term warming trend, is the "proof you spoke of" for global warming/impacts. Show the

long-term trend correlation

... you can show that correlation between the PDO index and global temperature anomolies - right?

equally, there's just something about it's name... that there 'Pacific' reference... as a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific. Perhaps you could extend upon just how that 'locality' translates into a global affect, one particularly targeted towards your initial post on this subject (i.e. the references to glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice=free NW Passage, etc.).

The Pacific Ocean is the world's largest ocean. Also, being West of the North American land masses, it has a direct impact on much of the Americas' weather, and an indirect impact through teleconnections over a much broader area.

Next.

next?

you're quite funny... you're wanting to take a localized phenomenon, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a phenomenon centered principally in the North Pacific, and suggest it's significant enough to bring forward global temperature impacts... that it's the cause for global warming, that it will result in, as you stated, 30 year cyclical reversals of global warming impacts; specifically those mentioned by Hazeleyes (i.e. glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage). Teleconnections??? Oh, please... let us have some of that D'Aleo wisdom you so freely dispense - we can have some real fun then, hey?

Will research and advise but my recollection is that the PDO and global temperatures move in lockstep.

[waldo]

Have you noticed what the "other guys" seem to believe, Tim? Apparently, observations during a short time span are not an indication that there is no global warming. However, those same observations are used to show that there IS!

Tie always goes to the global warming premise! It's as if this is accepted as an article of faith. You can drag out as many contrary points as you want and you won't change any of their minds. If we have a warm summer, it's proof of global warming. Or a cold summer, for that matter. Or anything in between.

appropriate trending timelines are key – a fraudulent tactic of sceptics/deniers is to purposely cherry-pick start&end points and/or narrow the timeline to one that doesn’t rule out interference from natural occurring events (like solar variation cycles, like El Nino/La Nina, etc.)… notwithstanding actual durations required for statistical significance, climate is recognized as a longer-term ‘event’; one that requires longer analysis durations in the order of 25-30+ years.

What's more, it's not a natural cycle! It HAS to be all Man's fault! Listen up for just a little longer and you'll then hear that the only way to solve the problem is for us guilt-ridden western countries to tax ourselves to death so that we can give buckets of money to third world countries.

there are natural events at play – scientists account for them. Nothing outside of anthropogenic CO2 can be shown to account for the recent accelerated warming. Historical CO2 influence has come from industrialized (‘western’) countries… many of those ‘western’ countries, today, effectively outsource a significant percentage of their emissions to countries (like China & India). Of course, all emission emitting countries need to work to reduce their emissions… and contribute to assist less developed/poorer countries to respond to the effects of climate change (effects being imposed upon them by developed countries). This funding requirement/agreement was the single most important result that came from the recent Copenhagen accord.

This reasoning is accepted as scientific. Any contrary view is considered heresy. Any contrary evidence that is especially strong is ignored, such as when the number of seals or polar bears in an area is noted as far higher than normal by the people who have lived there for centuries, contrary to the result expected from global warming. Or when we are told that because of global warming we are going to be hit with far more vicious hurricanes and then they don't show up, at least not in anywhere the predicted numbers. Islands claim that rising sea levels are going to swamp them out. When someone does an aerial survey they quickly see that it simply isn't true. Yet all the inhabitants believe that the sea level is getting higher and higher!

Of course, about that time we find out that they are asking for our money...

nothing you’ve just stated is accurate. Contrary views are thoroughly scrutinized – science moves forward through challenge, through new discoveries that either add new knowledge, contribute to existing knowledge, or turn-over existing knowledge. Again, no manner of existing challenge to the AGW theory has been able to stand the weight of scientific scrutiny.

- considerable scientific research of polar bear population exists, notwithstanding the anecdotal observances.

According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.

- this years hurricane season was eventful; "one of the busiest on record"... falling in line with global warming related projections… there were indeed a significant number of major storms… they just never, thankfully, reached the U.S. mainland and, consequently, didn’t receive the heightened mainstream coverage.

- the historical record shows that sea level is rising… at a rate that has been increasing since the late 19th century: Church 2008

Abstract

While sea levels have varied by over 120 m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geological and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sealevel rise. Recent satellite-altimeter data and tide-gauge data have indicated that sea levels are now rising at over 3 mm year-1. The major contributions to 20th and 21st century sealevel rise are thought to be a result of ocean thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Ice sheets are thought to have been a minor contributor to 20th century sealevel rise, but are potentially the largest contributor in the longer term. Sea levels are currently rising at the upper limit of the projections of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (TAR IPCC), and there is increasing concern of potentially large ice-sheet contributions during the 21st century and beyond, particularly if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.

It is faith, not science. Not surprising, when most of the people who believe in man-made global warming are not science people. They are just ordinary citizens who have been trained to accept whatever is spoken by someone in a white lab coat. They believe not because they truly understand but because of faith in the number and appearance of global warming spokespeople.

Most of them are too young to remember the 70's. Those of us who lived through it likely remember that we were told that man's use of aerosols and wanton polluting of the planet was about to plunge us into an Ice Age. It was just as popular a view as man-made GW is today.

nonsense – you repeat this same fallacious 70’s global cooling meme again… you know it’s been done, repeatedly, ad nauseum, through assorted MLW climate change repeated threads… and it’s been soundly debunked each time, and yet you bring it forward again. You need to ask yourself why you continue to perpetuate a myth… knowing that it is a myth. Why do you continue to perpetuate the 70’s global cooling myth?

There ARE proponents of GW that are indeed scientific, of course! No generalization is ever absolute. Yet they accept the support of all the unscientific "common" people as somehow adding to the validity of their belief. This is the "Delphic" method, not the scientific method! Five million flies can't be wrong so dig in! The reality is that it doesn't matter if the entire earth believes something or no one does. A fact either is true or it isn't. The Universe simply doesn't care if Mankind is right or wrong.

whatever you think the Delphi method is, it’s not one that can be manipulated by you to link scientists and laypersons towards consensus science… that is played out in actual scientific communities and processes. At a most simplistic analogy level, the Delphi methodology could be said to reflect upon actual scientific peer-review/peer response.

A = A no matter what Al Gore believes. Over the years I've grown weary of even listening to the "doom sayers". I've heard too much of the same old hidden political agendas and outright lies! Too many of these folks are so righteous in their beliefs that they think it's ok to misrepresent evidence, since they think their cause is so right and so important that "that the end justifies the means".

Again, there are exceptions! I'm just saying that we need more Richard Feynmans and fewer David Suzukis!

you need to separate the actual science from your agenda driven catch-phrases… the relevance you give to any particular ‘communicator’ is yours to digest, analyze and manage. There are no shortages of legitimate science-based outlets for you to realize your degrees of expressed “doom saying”.

Before the flames start, some of you folks might appreciate this site:

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

It has a message board where some folks have been debating this issue for a long time. It has members posting from all over the world. It's nice when you read a claim that Baltic sea ice is disappearing you can read a post from someone who lives there and can look out his own window to give you a report! Some pretty eminent scientists contribute as well. Not that the initials after their names guarantee they are right but they do tend to argue with more educated credibility, on both sides of the issue.

and, of course, solar is one of the most studied facets of possible natural influence towards the recent accelerated warming… no manner of solar attribution can account for the recent accelerated warming – none. I do believe we covered off your Baltic sea ice claim earlier – hey? Or do you have updated info... from your 'discussion board'?

Just thought I'd throw another log onto the fire:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/iZeusi+summoned+to+help+break+archipelago+ice/1135252749787

" The Baltic Sea is now under thicker ice than the average in the past ten years. The seven icebreakers of Arctia Shipping are opening sea lanes night and day, but it isn’t enough.

There is so much ice that many freighters have had to wait for days in some cases to get the help of an icebreaker. The state has commissioned the help of the privately-owned Zeus. "

Don't see what all the fuss is about. We have been reliably informed that the recovering ice is actually just "poor quality ice" and not any indication of a recovery side of any natural cycle. Those freighters should stop whining and just sit tight. All that ice should be gone very quickly and they won't be bothered anymore.

unrelated... essentially land-locked, brackish water, average depth of 180 feet (max depth 1500 feet), average of 120 miles wide, no multi-year ice extent exists, on average only 45% will have ice cover... a cold winter brings forward significant ice, just as a warm winter (or a series of progressive warm winters) significantly impacts the Baltic Sea ice cover... as in:

Baltic sea ice cover hits an all-time low

on edit: sp changes

Edited December 6, 2010 by waldo

[GostHacked]

Waldo, you got a good point with this one.

you need to separate the actual science from your agenda driven catch-phrases… the relevance you give to any particular ‘communicator’ is yours to digest, analyze and manage. There are no shortages of legitimate science-based outlets for you to realize your degrees of expressed “doom saying”.

[The_Squid]

Waldo, you got a good point with this one.

Have to agree... his entire post was well thought out and well articulated. Nice job Waldo.

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo has encapsulated a good set of rebuttals to the same anti-warming posts we've seen over and over.

The real skeptics have brought up their arguments in the scientific literature, and all but a few scientists are completely convinced. Those that still have an issue believe there is warming, but some bicker as to the scale of the human element - such as Richard Lindzen who puts it at "only" 30%.

We have a terrible disconnect between the world of science, and the world of mainstream media. A shocking number of people are unaware that global warming is real, and that the consensus is that humans are causing it.

[GostHacked]

Waldo has encapsulated a good set of rebuttals to the same anti-warming posts we've seen over and over.

The real skeptics have brought up their arguments in the scientific literature, and all but a few scientists are completely convinced. Those that still have an issue believe there is warming, but some bicker as to the scale of the human element - such as Richard Lindzen who puts it at "only" 30%.

We have a terrible disconnect between the world of science, and the world of mainstream media. A shocking number of people are unaware that global warming is real, and that the consensus is that humans are causing it.

The rebuttals fall short when he goes on an insult tear against other posters. I agree with the one paragraph, but not the rest of it.

[fellowtraveller]

Nope. Nor do idiots realize that a particular weather event doesn't make or break a theory on climate. Climate is a very long term look at global shifts in weather. Just because the globe is warming doesn't mean winter will disappear. Indeed, as you mentioned, it'll cause severe weather to become worse. Inclusing snowstorms.

Ummm, England has snow storms and cold weather pretty much every winter, this one included.

Speaking of irony.......

Speaking of oblivious.....

[bush_cheney2004]

....We have a terrible disconnect between the world of science, and the world of mainstream media. A shocking number of people are unaware that global warming is real, and that the consensus is that humans are causing it.

Ahem...a lot of us don't care either way. What is it you would have us do? Why do you think such a "revelation" would spur immediate and drastic action?

Edited December 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

It is faith, not science. Not surprising, when most of the people who believe in man-made global warming are not science people. They are just ordinary citizens who have been trained to accept whatever is spoken by someone in a white lab coat. They believe not because they truly understand but because of faith in the number and appearance of global warming spokespeople.

Agreed, I mean come on. Who are all these people in white lab coats telling us about global warming anyway? Surely, not scientists

[Michael Hardner]

Ahem...a lot of us don't care either way. What is it you would have us do? Why do you think such a "revelation" would spur immediate and drastic action?

I presume that you have looked at the data and made a thoughtful choice, based on my experience discussing with you here.

I don't think that a revelation would spur action, but it might. It might also spur more of a "wait and see" mentality, but at least it would happen with the full knowledge that revelation brings.

[scribblet]

We all know that there is no consensus, that there are scientists who disagree, there are many faults etc. etc. The NP has a good article today..

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/06/national-post-editorial-board-government-deserves-credit-for-saying-kyoto-is-dead/

What should be done? We find ourselves siding with Bjørn Lomborg, the famous Danish academic and environmental writer who recently declared that “global warming is real, it is man-made and it is an important problem, but it is not the end of the world.” Mr. Lomborg, who has just released a documentary based on his book Cool It, favours practical strategies to limit emissions, plus technological adaptation to the inevitable rise in global temperatures. (In most cases, adapting to a hotter earth costs far less than preventing the heating in the first place.)

I don't agree that it is all man made, I believe the earth cycles and always, nothing we can do to stop it. So, it makes sense that we quit coming up with ponzi schemes to divert money from the west, clean up emissions and pollution without damaging our economies, and start adapting.

[Saipan]

The Earth is heating and and in 2012 the Sun due for a Sun storm which will heat thing up here on Earth

said Nostrodamus.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't agree that it is all man made, I believe the earth cycles and always, nothing we can do to stop it.

The sad fact is that millions are like you, and their opinions count.

[waldo]

We all know that there is no consensus, that there are scientists who disagree, there are many faults etc. etc. The NP has a good article today..

What should be done? We find ourselves siding with Bjørn Lomborg, the famous Danish academic and environmental writer who recently declared that “global warming is real, it is man-made and it is an important problem, but it is not the end of the world.” Mr. Lomborg, who has just released a documentary based on his book Cool It, favours practical strategies to limit emissions, plus technological adaptation to the inevitable rise in global temperatures. (In most cases, adapting to a hotter earth costs far less than preventing the heating in the first place.)

the consensus exists, whether you choose to accept it, or not. This is simply another standard NP response/position - nothing new here, whether it's from NP contributors Solomon, Corcoran, Gunter, Murphy, etc... same ole, same ole. Obviously, they spin your tune - hey?

if you took a moment to actually examine who Lomborg is you'd quite quickly recognize him for the charlatan he is... of course, quite naturally, the NP would align with anything he spews. There's a veritable debunking industry dedicated specifically to the outright lies of Lomborg (e.g. the Lomborg Deception). In line with his recent book/movie thrust he made a "dramatic" turnaround and suddenly reversed himself... saying he now accepts AGW, with a qualification that "we really don't need to do anything now" - this from his wealth of political science/journalism expertise. How to sell books/tickets, the Lomborg way. Of course, his current tactics align perfectly with the denier right-wing think tanks emphasis on geo-engineering... delay, delay, delay - don`t do anything today, that you can`t do 30, 40, 50 years from now!

I don't agree that it is all man made, I believe the earth cycles and always, nothing we can do to stop it. So, it makes sense that we quit coming up with ponzi schemes to divert money from the west, clean up emissions and pollution without damaging our economies, and start adapting.

of course... you have a basis for your belief... right? Sure you do! Perhaps you'd like to advise how the developing countries should handle the "adaptation" you accept needs to be addressed? (one component of needed response). You know, the impacts thrust upon developing countries... in a scribblet world are developing countries just SOL?

[Saipan]

The sad fact is that millions are like you, and their opinions count.

Makes me happy no sad.

I work hard to get warm

[Michael Hardner]

I work hard to get warm

You can keep doing nothing too, and you'll get warmer.