Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[waldo]

You appear to misunderstand something called reality. We had a downward trend worldwide all year, only to have Jones and Hansen call that an increase. Who is their statistician, George Orwell?

just who is your statistician? Yours is the ridiculous of the absurd! You're speaking of a "trend" in the absolute shortest of shortest of shortest trending interval periods - 12 months... and then you presume to use that as a comparative reference/comment on a completely unrelated aspect... annual temperature comparisons (for the warmest year on record), while referencing and alluding to absolute temperatures - not (global mean) anomolies... absolute temperatures! And... you're doing it in the context of land-only inferences... gee, did you bother to think about how much of the world is... not land? Oh my!

again, your trending reference is ludicrous (but since you want to play stoopid bugger, look at the 2010 temperature anomalies within this NASA GISTEMP land-only temperature anomaly record... sea-surface temperatures are separated out in this record presentation)... notwithstanding you obviously don't know the purpose of anomalies, let alone baseline references. Do you note the highest of temperature (anomalies) for the Jan - March period... representative of the strong El Nino presence? Do you also see the gradual decrease from April-May on through to July... and the continued upward increases from August on through to November... do you see all that? Yes... just who is your statistician?

[Michael Hardner]

You appear to misunderstand something called reality. We had a downward trend worldwide all year, only to have Jones and Hansen call that an increase. Who is their statistician, George Orwell?

Seriously, the temperatures from the source you yourself posted all show 2010 as the warmest year. Are you denying your own source is correct ?

You misunderstand what is meant by statistically significant warming. The warming wasn't significant at the 95 per cent threshold, but it was there at 80 per cent. That doesn't mean that there was no warming, only that it's only 80 per cent likely that that warming wasn't due to chance.

[waldo]

... bleating non-stop about runaway warming.

runaway warming??? Who speaks of runaway warming… and in what context? Name the names… quote the quotes.

I thought this was one of the things the AGW supporters and scientists are warning us about.

yes - and your references supply the needed context (I impressed the point for)... where the term usage is then apropos - in the context of "tipping points".

The effect never goes to zero but the danger does decrease over time. In order to make the armageddon claims climate modellers introduce 'tipping points' which are best described as 'crap we made up in order to scare people for which we have zero actual evidence'.

what... danger... decreases over time?

ya, ya... those positive feedbacks and threshold behaviors are just benign annoying circumstance - hey? Are you really suggesting the concept of tipping points doesn't fit within physical systems... say, like... Arctic Sea Ice loss, Greenland Ice Sheet melt, Amazon Forest dieback, Permafrost & Tundra loss, Boreal Forest dieback... the Antarctic Ozone Hole, etc., etc., etc.

[waldo]

Seriously, the temperatures from the source you yourself posted all show 2010 as the warmest year. Are you denying your own source is correct ?

You misunderstand what is meant by statistically significant warming. The warming wasn't significant at the 95 per cent threshold, but it was there at 80 per cent. That doesn't mean that there was no warming, only that it's only 80 per cent likely that that warming wasn't due to chance.

I know you know this... but let's reinforce the point - hey? Trending over a single year period is ludicrous... extending to reference the statistical significance of a warming trend over a single year period is asinine. 80%???

[Michael Hardner]

I know you know this... but let's reinforce the point - hey? Trending over a single year period is ludicrous... extending to reference the statistical significance of a warming trend over a single year period is asinine. 80%???

I'm not talking about a single year, but about the longer time period that was mentioned in the Climategate emails, which is often misinterpreted by people like Bryan - who think it means that there's cooling happening. Trending within a year makes no sense. If you take the numbers from 2010, you have the warmest year yet according to his own sources.

[Bryan]

Seriously, the temperatures from the source you yourself posted all show 2010 as the warmest year. Are you denying your own source is correct ?

Considering that was the point of the post, yes.

[waldo]

Considering that was the point of the post, yes.

... don't hesitate to actually make a case for your point... you know, substantiate it - what a concept! Make sure to bring your statistician(s) along - hey?

You appear to misunderstand something called reality. We had a downward trend worldwide all year, only to have Jones and Hansen call that an increase. Who is their statistician, George Orwell?

just who is your statistician? Yours is the ridiculous of the absurd! You're speaking of a "trend" in the absolute shortest of shortest of shortest trending interval periods - 12 months... and then you presume to use that as a comparative reference/comment on a completely unrelated aspect... annual temperature comparisons (for the warmest year on record), while referencing and alluding to absolute temperatures - not (global mean) anomolies... absolute temperatures! And... you're doing it in the context of land-only inferences... gee, did you bother to think about how much of the world is... not land? Oh my!

again, your trending reference is ludicrous (but since you want to play stoopid bugger,

look at the 2010 temperature anomalies within this NASA GISTEMP land-only temperature anomaly record

... sea-surface temperatures are separated out in this record presentation)... notwithstanding you obviously don't know the purpose of anomalies, let alone baseline references. Do you note the highest of temperature (anomalies) for the Jan - March period... representative of the strong El Nino presence? Do you also see the gradual decrease from April-May on through to July... and the continued upward increases from August on through to November... do you see all that? Yes... just who is

your

statistician?

Edited December 22, 2010 by waldo

[Bryan]

... don't hesitate to actually make a case for your point... you know, substantiate it -

I already did, go back and read it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Christ and I thought Shady, Tim and Lukin were bad. Are we sure this guy isn't a troll?

[WIP]

If human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 are not causing global temperatures to rise, and oceans to acidify, what are the causes of this:

1.Scientists may have found the most devastating impact yet of human-caused global warming — a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures. If confirmed, it may represent the single most important finding of the year in climate science.

2.Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. Research published in Friday’s journal Science finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.”

3.Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find ScienceDaily (May 5, 2010) — Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.

4.Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”

5.Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred Unrestricted burning of fossil fuels threatens a new wave of die-offs

I don't see any sensible reason why there are people still following the oil company-financed propaganda to prevent real action to stop rising greenhouse gas emissions! We already know from the conduct of BP executives management of offshore drilling, that these people are psychopaths, who are just on a reckless quest for more money and power, and have no regard for the consequences of their business practices!

Anyone who has children, or has any interest in how future generations will manage, should be aware that global mean temperature will rise between 4 C and 8 C by the end of this century. The minimum figure will be catastrophic for the majority of Earth's inhabitants -- especially in the tropics. The high number means extinction for the human race in less than 200 years!

A book I picked up recently is Climate Wars by Gwynn Dyer. Since his expertise is in foreign policy and military intrigues, it was a little surprising to see him venturing into this territory two years ago. But apparently Dyer decided to explore the human side of climate policy when he became aware that Pentagon, CIA, and Bush Administration officials took the climate change issue very seriously, and were secretly trying to map out strategies for dealing with climate-caused droughts, famines, wars and massive refugee crises that they see occurring in the near future, despite Bush's official policy of global warming denialism. The one big unanswered question I was left with after reading the book is what does this tell us about the motives of the Pentagon planners? It struck me that -- rather than forcefully lobby for action to save the planet, these people had signaled that they view most of Earth's inhabitants as expendable! Some sort of collateral damage of the climate wars I suppose; since a do-nothing strategy of saying nothing and allowing our present course to continue spells doom for the large populations living in the tropical regions closer to the equator.

Looking ahead towards the end of this century, our children and grandchildren are likely to be crowded out by waves of Americans, Chinese, and whoever else is trying to push their way north to try to stay alive in a desperate post-apocalyptic world......have a nice day!

[Guest TrueMetis]

And now I'm depressed. That's got to be the most damning evidence against the conspiracies of deniers, you have to believe that we want a potential mass-extinction ending life as we know it on this planet. Again really depressing.

[WIP]

And now I'm depressed. That's got to be the most damning evidence against the conspiracies of deniers, you have to believe that we want a potential mass-extinction ending life as we know it on this planet. Again really depressing.

I have to call it the way I see it! I am convinced that some of our leaders are well aware that increasing droughts, loss of topsoil, and dwindling supplies of fresh water are going to cause the green revolution agribusiness to break down during this decade....and that will be just the beginning of our problems!

Most people are just living for today, and put little or no thought into the implications of how we are living -- increasing the population, using more and more natural resources, and things are supposed to somehow just keep on going the way they are.....only problem is we are living in a finite world that cannot grow larger to meet the increasing wants and desires of an increasing population!

[Guest TrueMetis]

I have to call it the way I see it! I am convinced that some of our leaders are well aware that increasing droughts, loss of topsoil, and dwindling supplies of fresh water are going to cause the green revolution agribusiness to break down during this decade....and that will be just the beginning of our problems!

Most people are just living for today, and put little or no thought into the implications of how we are living -- increasing the population, using more and more natural resources, and things are supposed to somehow just keep on going the way they are.....only problem is we are living in a finite world that cannot grow larger to meet the increasing wants and desires of an increasing population!

And now I'm more depressed, thanks. OK optimism time there are a lot of people who realize the potential problems and while some of the tactics may be overblown there is a lot of interest in alternate technologies which may not return everything to normal should mitigate the impact. Not just alternate energies but way to capture carbon and rapidly plant hundreds of trees. (Saw a program on that one a while back the concept works but it needs some tweaking to be effective I should try looking into it to see if they have made any progress)

[WIP]

And now I'm more depressed, thanks. OK optimism time there are a lot of people who realize the potential problems and while some of the tactics may be overblown there is a lot of interest in alternate technologies which may not return everything to normal should mitigate the impact. Not just alternate energies but way to capture carbon and rapidly plant hundreds of trees. (Saw a program on that one a while back the concept works but it needs some tweaking to be effective I should try looking into it to see if they have made any progress)

Unfortunately.....Planting trees to save planet is pointless, say ecologists. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved with a quick fix so that we can merrily continue on our way. Real solutions will require changes in the way we live, and that's not likely to happen until there is a total collapse and change is forced upon us by factors out of our control.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Unfortunately.....Planting trees to save planet is pointless, say ecologists. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved with a quick fix so that we can merrily continue on our way. Real solutions will require changes in the way we live, and that's not likely to happen until there is a total collapse and change is forced upon us by factors out of our control.

Damn it, now I've got nothing. I'm going to bed before you post something that drives me to drinking.

[WIP]

Damn it, now I've got nothing. I'm going to bed before you post something that drives me to drinking.

I got to go to work now. I think there comes a point where you end up learning more about an issue than you wished for. But if there's bad stuff on the horizon, I'd rather know about it now than be caught completely by surprise five or ten years from now.

[GostHacked]

A book I picked up recently is Climate Wars by Gwynn Dyer. Since his expertise is in foreign policy and military intrigues, it was a little surprising to see him venturing into this territory two years ago.

Not to be a dick here, but is this guy sanctioned by the NOAA or the IPCC??? Can he really be used as a qualified source?

Edited December 22, 2010 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

Unfortunately.....Planting trees to save planet is pointless, say ecologists. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved with a quick fix so that we can merrily continue on our way. Real solutions will require changes in the way we live, and that's not likely to happen until there is a total collapse and change is forced upon us by factors out of our control.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/12/13/forest.restoration/index.html?hpt=C2

London (CNN) -- Forests covering an area almost the size of Russia could be restored around the world, according to a global partnership of scientists.

The researchers, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have drawn up a world map showing 1.5 billion hectares where there are opportunities to replant degraded or cleared forests.

Carole Saint-Laurent, IUCN's senior forest policy advisor, said: "There's no one-size-fits-all blueprint. The restoration would need to be driven by the community needs in each area.

"We know it can be done. There are people all over the world who are doing it already."

[Michael Hardner]

Damn it, now I've got nothing. I'm going to bed before you post something that drives me to drinking.

Don't be depressed. The Cancun summit may indeed be the turning point: 193 out of 194 (thanks for nothing, Bolivia) countries have agreed on a framework to address the problem moving forward.

The Climategate red herring didn't amount to anything. The world is still warming and the governments of the world agree.

“The Cancun agreement will eventually be recognized as the decisive turning point when all countries – small and large, rich and poor – responded to the imperative of de-carbonizing their economies in order to reduce greenhouse gases generated by human activity. Not all at the same speed, but all in the same boat, rowing together as much as possible. Environmental groups won’t admit it: As with UN officials, they dreamed in ten years of joining together the ‘parallel tracks’ of Kyoto and the Convention that the United States was proposing. Nor will they acknowledge – other than perhaps grudgingly – that it was the insistence of ‘foot-dragging’ countries like the U.S., Japan, Canada and others in the umbrella group, who threatened to drop out of the process, that brought about the unexpected unity at Cancun.”

If you are a climate sceptic and you do not think global warming is real, man-made and a mortal threat to us, which must be tackled …Cancun was all a waste of time and money, a giant and fatuous junket in the sun for government officials and ministers. Discussion may also be limited if climate change seems so far in the future that it is no concern of yours, and it may be difficult if you feel that addressing climate change is going to be prohibitively expensive. … But consider: who does think that it is real, man-made and a mortal threat which must be urgently addressed, as detailed in the most recent report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? The answer: all the governments of the world.

Globe & Mail

[Saipan]

The world is still warming

Where?

[Michael Hardner]

Where?

See previous posts where we have discussed this.

[jbg]

If human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 are not causing global temperatures to rise, and oceans to acidify, what are the causes of this:

1.Scientists may have found the most devastating impact yet of human-caused global warming — a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures. If confirmed, it may represent the single most important finding of the year in climate science.

This ignores the impact of the decadal trends affecting El Niño and La Niña, otherwise known as "ENSO", for "El Niño Southern Oscillation". The "warm phases" and "cold phases" have a roughly 30 year alternation with perhaps some short "neutral" periods in the mix.

The last "cold phase" lasted from 1947 to 1977 and the last "warm phase" ended somewhere between 1998 and 2007. I personally think we were neutral from 1998 to 2007 in terms of the long term phase. Thus, it is no surprise that there'd be a gain in ocean temperatures as a result of natural forces.

[Saipan]

See previous posts where we have discussed this.

So why it's cooler?

[WIP]

Not to be a dick here, but is this guy sanctioned by the NOAA or the IPCC??? Can he really be used as a qualified source?

You seem to have totally missed the point! Gwynn Dyer writes about world affairs issues, not climate change. As I mentioned previously, he says the reason he was drawn into this issue was because five years ago, the U.S. government officials that he talks to regularly, were giving him a much different story off the record, than the official Bush Administration talking points. They seemed to take climate change seriously, and were trying to map out how it would impact U.S. foreign policy over the coming decades.

[WIP]

This ignores the impact of the decadal trends affecting El Niño and La Niña, otherwise known as "ENSO", for "El Niño Southern Oscillation". The "warm phases" and "cold phases" have a roughly 30 year alternation with perhaps some short "neutral" periods in the mix.

The last "cold phase" lasted from 1947 to 1977 and the last "warm phase" ended somewhere between 1998 and 2007. I personally think we were neutral from 1998 to 2007 in terms of the long term phase. Thus, it is no surprise that there'd be a gain in ocean temperatures as a result of natural forces.

El Nino's and La Nina's have been happening in the Pacific for eons, and does not explain the recent trends, like melting glaciers and permafrost. The contradictory claims that global warming has stopped recently ( previous to a record year 2005, it was claimed to have stopped in 1998) are based on measurements restricted to land and atmospheric measurements -- and ignore the energy accumulating in the world's oceans, not to mention the heat energy being absorbed by polar glaciers which are melting at an increasing rate of speed as a result. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance created by rising carbon and other greenhouse gases.