AGW Update: AGW on Ellesmere Island - 2 Million Years Ago

[GostHacked]

Okay, I'm going to try and examine your reasoning here. You say that evidence presented by those trying to disprove AGW is usually dismissed as 'anecdotal' or 'not peer-reviewed', correct?

Your opinion is that those reasons are insufficient to legitimately dismiss the evidence, I gather?

Now I'm not a scientist, but I would say that if someone presented evidence that they claimed challenged a well-established and overwhelming accepted theory (such as AGW) and their evidence IS actually anecdotal that's a pretty damn big problem.

In the same vein, if a study comes out that challenges the main theory of AGW, and it isn't peer-reviewed, that's a pretty damn big problem too. From what I understand, if a study isn't peer-reviewed than it loses a lot of credibility (it may not be wrong per se, but it needs to stand up to a review before we can seriously consider it).

That seems to be how science works... you can't just say that your study doesn't have to be peer-reviewed in order to be legitimate.

Spot on.

[Saipan]

Anyone can check actual temperatures of the past, very easily.

Without "peer review"

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

[jbg]

Logically, if this snow and freezing weather is caused by global warm up, then hot and dry summers must be caused by global cool down.

Actually not too far from the truth, especially for the U.S. Northeast through Ottawa and in some cases a bit further north. During strong La Niña episodes, during with the tropical Pacific, generally from Peru out to the dateline cools significantly, sometimes as much as 2C below normal. That triggers the formation of an exaggerated "Bermuda High", which sometimes retrogrades inland as far as Tennessee. That fosters temperatures in places like NYC as high as 39C (this past July 5, for exapmle). Overall, we had 35 days over 32C, which is well above the average.

Similarly, it also favors mild, relatively low-snow winters.

[wyly]

The point about the Ellesmere forests is that the most likely explanation is either some earlier warming, or perhaps another location for the North Pole. Neither was caused by nor preventable by man. And that's why I posted the article.

no the reson you posted the article is you were trolling, you know the find on ellsmere has nothing to do with man but labeled it such anyways...

to claim there are only cyclical warmings/coolings is beyond stupid...

[Michael Hardner]

And yet every single heat wave is taken as evidence of AGW. A double standard?

Absolutely. I`m in favour of dispelling myths on both sides.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. That's why Michael continues to be the double standard king around here.

Shady, Shady, Shady,

You would love for that to be true, but it is not.

Check out my post from Jan 14 where I admonish Waldo for using weather.

There are many people here who slavishly line up on one side of a political line or another. Maybe you`re one of them, but I`m not.

[Saipan]

In other words, nothing unusual.

Weather as always.

Changing.

[Slim]

To call them alarmists is kind. What is really happening is that these people are willful fraudsters. Little better than Bernie Madoff.

Good point. And their fraud involves a lot more money than Mr. Madoff.

It's fairly simple, follow the money. Without this panic thousands of scientists and other alarmists would be looking for job.

See this is where you folks start to lose me... you're implying a massive conspiracy on a global scale amongst the scientific community (that's been going on for decades). You're implying that nearly every major scientific organisation around the globe is in on it.

This is really really really hard for me to take seriously. If my options are basically:

a ) The consensus of the majority of climate science experts

or

b ) An international conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before

Well, it's kind of a no-brainer.

[wyly]

Absolutely. I`m in favour of dispelling myths on both sides.

but the long term frequency and intensity of warm spells are...el Nino's make us feel nice and toasty but AGW and long term trends should show they are getting warmer...same for winter, are average temps going up or down, are we getting more snow or less, each individual event by itself is a meaningless point on chart, add a hundred more points and you'll have a trend showing that each individual point is part of a whole..

[Saipan]

....el Nino's make us feel nice and toasty but AGW and long term trends should show they are getting warmer...same for winter

Where?

Is it good or bad?

[Slim]

but the long term frequency and intensity of warm spells are...el Nino's make us feel nice and toasty but AGW and long term trends should show they are getting warmer...same for winter, are average temps going up or down, are we getting more snow or less, each individual event by itself is a meaningless point on chart, add a hundred more points and you'll have a trend showing that each individual point is part of a whole..

But it may be too early to get enough information from weather trends, right? I was under the impression that while AGW is expected to alter weather patterns in a noticeable way, in order to be definitive about it we would have to wait to gather enough data... by which point, it would be too late.

Basically, we can't really take a weather event happening right now and say "A-ha! Global warming strikes again!"

But we could in a decade or two say, "A-ha! Those increasingly longer and harsher droughts across the globe are most likely a direct result of global warming!"

Granted, one isn't as fun to say. IOW, we can't really use weather patterns to judge the progress of climate change (yet). Or am I off base?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Slim

[Michael Hardner]

but the long term frequency and intensity of warm spells are...el Nino's make us feel nice and toasty but AGW and long term trends should show they are getting warmer...same for winter, are average temps going up or down, are we getting more snow or less, each individual event by itself is a meaningless point on chart, add a hundred more points and you'll have a trend showing that each individual point is part of a whole..

But - `gee it`s HOT today... gotta be that global warming` is as wrong-headed as `there`s no global warming because it snowed today`. Lazy thinking cuts both ways.

[Saipan]

Which brings us back to ACTUALLY checking the temperatures around the globe ourself. Just because some scientist claims the sky is green doesn't make it so.

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

[Michael Hardner]

Which brings us back to ACTUALLY checking the temperatures around the globe ourself. Just because some scientist claims the sky is green doesn't make it so.

http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

Maybe you can tell me which temperature sets the climate scientist skeptics use ?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Saipan]

The real one, I hope.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/thxx0002

This one for example should be higher - even if no "global warming" is going on. Same in Europe etc.

If every year, for the last decade, my grape vines are doing worse I know there's no global warm up HERE.

[Michael Hardner]

The real one, I hope.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/thxx0002

This one for example should be higher - even if no "global warming" is going on. Same in Europe etc.

If every year, for the last decade, my grape vines are doing worse I know there's no global warm up HERE.

What is the real one ? I suspect that there are basic data sets that all the climate scientists use, including the skeptics.

[GostHacked]

See this is where you folks start to lose me... you're implying a massive conspiracy on a global scale amongst the scientific community (that's been going on for decades). You're implying that nearly every major scientific organisation around the globe is in on it.

This is really really really hard for me to take seriously. If my options are basically:

a ) The consensus of the majority of climate science experts

or

b ) An international conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen before

Well, it's kind of a no-brainer.

Follow the money. Where is it going, and what is it being used for.

[Slim]

Follow the money. Where is it going, and what is it being used for.

I'm... sorry, but that doesn't really respond to my point.

I can't very well go expecting some evil scheme based on a wink and knowing look from some random internet forumgoer, no offense.

[Saipan]

What is the real one ?

Yearly heating bill, for example.

The indian chief here predicted longer winter; "Look at that huge pile of firewood this white man has"

[wyly]

I'm... sorry, but that doesn't really respond to my point.

I can't very well go expecting some evil scheme based on a wink and knowing look from some random internet forumgoer, no offense.

ahh but Margret Thacher, Al Gore and David Suzuki are involved

[GostHacked]

I'm... sorry, but that doesn't really respond to my point.

I can't very well go expecting some evil scheme based on a wink and knowing look from some random internet forumgoer, no offense.

It should, because some people are making a lot of money from all this.

http://www.carbontradeex.com/CarbonTradeExAmerica/AboutTheShow/2010Speakers/tabid/278/Detail/True/UserID/383/Default.aspx

http://www.theglobalcarbonbank.com/

http://www.cpholdingsllc.com/know_resources.php

With an interesting side quote..

News

The global carbon credit markets were over $110 Billion in 2008. The USA is expected to account for 50% of a $2 Trillion global market by 2020.

Edited December 19, 2010 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Yearly heating bill, for example.

The indian chief here predicted longer winter; "Look at that huge pile of firewood this white man has"

You want to use your yearly heating bill as a predictor of temperature, huh. Okay, go ahead.

[Slim]

It should, because some people are making a lot of money from all this.

Okay, so your proof of this conspiracy is the fact that there are businesses out there that plan to profit on global warming-based initiatives?

[GostHacked]

Okay, so your proof of this conspiracy is the fact that there are businesses out there that plan to profit on global warming-based initiatives?

Yes. Solving the environmental problems of the planet seems to be a growing and profitable industry.

[wyly]

Okay, so your proof of this conspiracy is the fact that there are businesses out there that plan to profit on global warming-based initiatives?

ya and this scheme was all hatched some 30 years ago by Margret Thacher, wowzer that woman was mastermind super villian, what a visionary...that she could put all this together a conspiracy involving millions of politicians, scientists and business people and no one has yet revealed the secret master plan.... Edited December 19, 2010 by wyly