Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[TimG]

The two positions are not even remotely equal. All of the bluster of TimG is nothing more than an attempt to create a false equivalence.

Actually, I changed from generally accepting the science to a skeptic because I was disgusted by the fanaticism coming from various pro-alarmist groups - some of them supposedly respectable scientific sources. Edited September 10, 2012 by TimG

[PIK]

piss off if you haven't anything to offer other than your tried and true troll input

I threw the bait and waldo bit. LOL That was reported in the papers. GOOGLE IT and see how many stories about that comes up. Everything can be blamed on CC. And you wonder why people just shake there head at it, and quit being the drama queen, it is embarressing.

Edited September 10, 2012 by PIK

[waldo]

As far as the ice extent goes: we have no data and no proxies to tell us what the ice was doing more than 40 years ago. Claims of "record melts" must be taken with a grain of salt since a record over 40 years is meaningless when it comes to climate. There is some evidence that the ice is returning to levels from 3000-5000 years ago so we are well within normal variations for climate.

wtf! "Normal variations" --- put up your evidence that speaks to "normal variations"! And what's this... no proxies??? Wadda bout these guys using a combination of Arctic ice core, tree ring, and lake sediment data to reconstruct past Arctic conditions? => Kinnard et al, 2011, Nature: --- Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years ... graphic image:

or... these guys: Walsh & Chapman, 2001, Annals of Glaciology ... graphic image:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141706.htm

so... without a critical eye and completely accepting your linked study, your 'normal variations' encompasses a look back 5000... 10,000 years! And here I thought you were going to trot out the usual "60 year cycle" blathering nonsense! Hey now - care to actually attribute your linked studies claimed ice extent levels to affecting conditions at the time? Sure you can - it's your ta-da droped link scurry away go-to, right? And, of course, the referenced 2007 minimum is now 'old news', having been shattered by this years, '2012 record Arctic Sea Ice melt'.

notwithstanding I rather brashly pounded your claim concerning, "no proxies", we can't let you distract, purposely distract, from the salient point/focus at hand... none of that looking back 5000, 10,000 years, none of that reflects directly on the known conditions of today - where anthropogenic sourced CO2 from fossil-fuel burning is the cause... today! Of course, this has been one of your standard ploys in the past... where you would purposely take discussion on today's relative warming/effects, and steamroll the discussion back to a paleo focus. Which, of course, fits your sham game and allows you to run your magic against proxy reconstructions... while conveniently shifting away from the more relatively current conditions/observations. It's what you do - it's what you're about.

[waldo]

I threw the bait and waldo bit. LOL That was reported in the papers. GOOGLE IT and see how many stories about that comes up. Everything can be blamed on CC. And you wonder why people just shake there head at it, and quit being the drama queen, it is embarressing.

thanks for reinforcing your troll baiting effort... pointedly delivered with intent to mock. I guess you missed the earlier MLW discussion on the very point that blew up in your face. The "Arab Spring" was driven by more than political and economic aspects... a part of the drive, albeit less visible/significant, was in relation to environmental, population... and climate stresses. Stabilizing these new forging societies requires a 'full meal deal' approach... one that focuses on all the underpinning drivers.

[PIK]

thanks for reinforcing your troll baiting effort... pointedly delivered with intent to mock. I guess you missed the earlier MLW discussion on the very point that blew up in your face. The "Arab Spring" was driven by more than political and economic aspects... a part of the drive, albeit less visible/significant, was in relation to environmental, population... and climate stresses. Stabilizing these new forging societies requires a 'full meal deal' approach... one that focuses on all the underpinning drivers.

Not trolling, you had it coming to you, you seem to be a very angry man and you need to realize that. And drama queens are annoying.

[waldo]

Actually, I changed from generally accepting the science to a skeptic because I was disgusted by the fanaticism coming from various pro-alarmist groups - some of them supposedly respectable scientific sources.

ya, we've heard this same ole song and dance before... like I've said in the past, even if we accepted all your blundering bluster against your selected target crew... those individuals would number a scant few in relation to the thousands of world-wide scientists you conveniently tar & feather with your broad brush... with those, your few selected target individuals, having little comparative impact on the greater whole. Your fake outrage is a self-serving matter of convenience - nothing more, nothing less.

[waldo]

thanks for reinforcing your troll baiting effort... pointedly delivered with intent to mock. I guess you missed the earlier MLW discussion on the very point that blew up in your face. The "Arab Spring" was driven by more than political and economic aspects... a part of the drive, albeit less visible/significant, was in relation to environmental, population... and climate stresses. Stabilizing these new forging societies requires a 'full meal deal' approach... one that focuses on all the underpinning drivers.

Not trolling, you had it coming to you, you seem to be a very angry man and you need to realize that. And drama queens are annoying.

had what coming? If you're so wanting to discuss the Arab Spring, why not dredge up those past related MLW discussions. If you weren't trolling... what was your point in, out of the blue, dropping an illuminating PIKpoint stating, "the Arab Spring was caused by climate change"? Were you simply being your ever present informative self?

[Keepitsimple]

Please. They can't begin to match the sheer, childish lunacy of the denier camp.

The true deniers are those that deny that anything other than humans and anything other than CO2 could be causing what they say is unparallelled warming.

[TheNewTeddy]

This is a waste of time. We argue about what's causing extreme weather without planning for it.

It's like arguing whether it's raining because of the nearby factories or not, all the while standing out in the rain getting wet.

So after this post, there have been 23 additional comments. One of them quoted me but did not respond to me.

We are all sopping wet.

I plan to use this post as evidence whenever someone brings this topic up, so if you end up with people with their first post in this thread, that is why. I'm going to use this for years to come, as all of these discussions always go the exact same way.

Frankly, I believe in climate change, and, I believe we need to act to stop future damage; but there is already climate change and damage in the here and now, and we need to act, in the here and now, for it.

Edited September 10, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[TimG]

Frankly, I believe in climate change, and, I believe we need to act to stop future damage; but there is already climate change and damage in the here and now, and we need to act, in the here and now, for it.

deal with it? how? pass laws that increase the cost of energy, hurt industry and do absolutely nothing about the stated problem? or perhaps look at the real world, identify problems and deal with them as they appear. the latter I can agree with and that does not require that anyone 'believe in climate change'. Edited September 10, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

I don't blame our leaders. We elect them and they are accountable to us, and it's up to us to tell them if changes are necessary.

Are we fiddling while our planet burns?

Do we care?

This is a waste of time. We argue about what's causing extreme weather without planning for it.

It's like arguing whether it's raining because of the nearby factories or not, all the while standing out in the rain getting wet.

Would someone please move this thread to its proper forum?

That way those of us interested in Federal politics can not be bothered by yet another nit-picking, anal retentive climate change argument.

well Wild Bill... you could bring the thread back on track and align it with the OP... you could do that - or you could bitch about something that's a most inconvenient truth for partisan Harper supporters, like yourself. Of course, if you look back from the OP post, you'll quickly gain an appreciation of MLW member, 'TimG', weaving his special kind of magic... away from the OP focus/intent. But, as always, the waldo is here to help... to reinforce just what Harper Conservatives are doing/not doing, while falsely taking credit for Conservative policies that they claim are working to reduce CO2 emissions.

.

.

.

So after this post, there have been 23 additional comments. One of them quoted me but did not respond to me.

We are all sopping wet.

I plan to use this post as evidence whenever someone brings this topic up, so if you end up with people with their first post in this thread, that is why. I'm going to use this for years to come, as all of these discussions always go the exact same way.

Frankly, I believe in climate change, and, I believe we need to act to stop future damage; but there is already climate change and damage in the here and now, and we need to act, in the here and now, for it.

don't be so hard on yourself! Yes, I quoted your post... and also viewed it in relation to the OP intent/focus on personal versus leaders (government) accountability. Your solution want rubs up against a leadership void... rather, an obstructionist Harper Conservative government that, quite clearly, does not recognize or value science/scientists, at large, or more specifically does not acknowledge climate change and the mostly negative impacts it is and will bring directly to Canadians. Here on MLW, we've had no shortage of "solution focused" discussion aimed toward working to manage the affects of climate change following a three-fold emphasis on mitigation, adaptation and prevention. Invariably, this also rubs up against the TimG types who may even offer-up token concern troll acceptance to AGW/CC... while they either emphasize the improbabilities of doing "anything", or they shift to a delay at all costs mode while emphasizing adaption... and only adaption... as the only viable 'solution' approach. Again - do nothing... and if you really must do something, if you're really, really, really going to force something be done, then... it can only be reactionary and only in an adaptive manner. Mitigation? Bah... the TimG's say that's heresy! That will mess with BigOil profits, don't ya know!

[TheNewTeddy]

deal with it? how? pass laws that increase the cost of energy, hurt industry and do absolutely nothing about the stated problem? or perhaps look at the real world world, identify problems and deal with them as they appear. the latter I can agree with and that does not require that anyone 'believe in climate change'.

Exactly, both "sides" can agree to that

[PIK]

[/size]

don't be so hard on yourself! Yes, I quoted your post... and also viewed it in relation to the OP intent/focus on personal versus leaders (government) accountability. Your solution want rubs up against a leadership void... rather, an obstructionist Harper Conservative government that, quite clearly, does not recognize or value science/scientists, at large, or more specifically does not acknowledge climate change and the mostly negative impacts it is and will bring directly to Canadians. Here on MLW, we've had no shortage of "solution focused" discussion aimed toward working to manage the affects of climate change following a three-fold emphasis on mitigation, adaptation and prevention. Invariably, this also rubs up against the TimG types who may even offer-up token concern troll acceptance to AGW/CC... while they either emphasize the improbabilities of doing "anything", or they shift to a delay at all costs mode while emphasizing adaption... and only adaption... as the only viable 'solution' approach. Again - do nothing... and if you really must do something, if you're really, really, really going to force something be done, then... it can only be reactionary and only in an adaptive manner. Mitigation? Bah... the TimG's say that's heresy! That will mess with BigOil profits, don't ya know!

The explain to us mere mortals, how harper is killing the earth? You have been mouthing off quite a bit and I am calling you on it. Start expaining how shutting down canada to save a % or so, saves the world? And yes I believe in CC I just don't think harper is to blame.

Edited September 10, 2012 by PIK

[waldo]

The explain to us mere mortals, how harper is killing the earth? You have been mouthing off quite a bit and I am calling you on it. Start expaining how shutting down canada to save a % or so, saves the world? And yes I believe in CC I just don't think harper is to blame.

calling me on it? Oh my! I have no burning desire to respond to your petulant taunts built upon your strawmen or even acknowledge your heightened exaggerations or your outrageous alarmism.

[PIK]

calling me on it? Oh my! I have no burning desire to respond to your petulant taunts built upon your strawmen or even acknowledge your heightened exaggerations or your outrageous alarmism.

That is what I thought, all talk. When asked to explain your bullshit you run. At least it is now out there that you are a fraud.

[jacee]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/09/11/science-uvic-permafrost-carbon.html

Permafrost soils in Canada's Arctic are melting at a rate that will significantly speed up global warming, according to new research from the University of Victoria.

The study, published this week in Nature Geoscience, predicts that the thawing permafrost will release between 68 billion and 508 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by the year 2100.

As a result of those carbon emissions, researchers say the Earth's temperature will rise by more than 0.5 C by the end of the century.

Although seemingly insignificant, that amount is in addition to the two degrees the Earth's temperature is expected to rise because of global warming from industrial sources.

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria and one of the study's authors, warns that once the planet warms by more than two degrees, the impact could be dire.

"Warming much beyond that puts an unacceptably high probability that we're committed to Greenland melting," Weaver said in an interview. "Rather large percentages of existing species become committed to extinction."

[jacee]

Chrétien told the Hamilton book launch audience he has realized through the council that water supply is a major future problem —in the Middle East over the next 10 years and a big problem in China and India within 10 to 15 years.

“That could lead to wars because it is an essential commodity. There are (already) a billion people today who don’t have clean water.”

Former U.S. president and council member Bill Clinton has suggested world leaders work to solve water problems if they wish to deal with world poverty,Chrétien said.

In less than 20 years,according to the book, the demand for water is expected to exceed supplies in India and China,the world’s most populous countries. And the effects of climate change will result in droughts in some parts of the planet,flooding in others.

The book predicts conflicts may well erupt over scarce water supplies,particularly in unstable regions such as the Middle East and Africa.

But Chrétien said a solution can be found if leaders get to work now. He called the Hamilton book launch very important because “We want the UN to take the lead on this (issue).”

He also added his own flare by referring to this country’s ample water supply and how other countries may covet it in the future by saying,“Suppose they run out of water in the States —they’ll look to Canada.

“It’s not 1812,” he said in reference to the famous war that saw Canada embroiled in a conflict between the British Empire and the United States. “But it is a problem we have to face. We have to develop policies.”

He later added: “Can we resist the pressure of not selling to the U.S. if it ran out of water? We could,but would they accept it? There could be use of force,and they are bigger than us.”

http://m.thespec.com/news/local/article/797745--chretien-says-pending-global-water-crisis-should-be-taken-seriously?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thespec.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Farticle%2F797745--chretien-says-pending-global-water-crisis-should-be-taken-seriously

[JerrySeinfeld]

[/size]

don't be so hard on yourself! Yes, I quoted your post... and also viewed it in relation to the OP intent/focus on personal versus leaders (government) accountability. Your solution want rubs up against a leadership void... rather, an obstructionist Harper Conservative government that, quite clearly, does not recognize or value science/scientists, at large, or more specifically does not acknowledge climate change and the mostly negative impacts it is and will bring directly to Canadians. Here on MLW, we've had no shortage of "solution focused" discussion aimed toward working to manage the affects of climate change following a three-fold emphasis on mitigation, adaptation and prevention. Invariably, this also rubs up against the TimG types who may even offer-up token concern troll acceptance to AGW/CC... while they either emphasize the improbabilities of doing "anything", or they shift to a delay at all costs mode while emphasizing adaption... and only adaption... as the only viable 'solution' approach. Again - do nothing... and if you really must do something, if you're really, really, really going to force something be done, then... it can only be reactionary and only in an adaptive manner. Mitigation? Bah... the TimG's say that's heresy! That will mess with BigOil profits, don't ya know!

ahh yes. "big oil". :lol: :lol:

[waldo]

feeling frisky Jer? Care to dance?

[wyly]

TimG, on 10 September 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

deal with it? how? pass laws that increase the cost of energy, hurt industry and do absolutely nothing about the stated problem? or perhaps look at the real world world, identify problems and deal with them as they appear. the latter I can agree with and that does not require that anyone 'believe in climate change'.

Exactly, both "sides" can agree to that

no we can't agree...dealing with climate change problems as they occur is like changing the oil in your car after the engine has seized up...

dealing with problems as they appear is TOO LATE!...the problems/effects were decades in the making, what we are seeing happen now to the worlds climate began decades if not a couple of centuries ago...climate change that is coming 40 yrs from now is already in progress there is no stopping it, to prevent worse damage a hundred or two hundred years from now needs to be dealt with today...

and if you don't accept climate change is man made then you can't solve or reduce the problem...

Edited September 13, 2012 by wyly

[TimG]

dealing with problems as they appear is TOO LATE!...the problems/effects were decades in the making

Your statement makes a HUGE assumption: that we can do anything now about the stated problem. The fact is we CAN'T. We don't have the technology that can be used to eliminate emissions on a global scale. The various schemes that have been touted are largely all scams. The few that have technical merit (natural gas or nuclear) are either already being used without special policies or are rejected for other reasons.

What is all means is we have no choice but to adapt and it will be easier to adapt if we don't hamstring our economies with useless regulations that accomplish nothing other than making a select group of insiders very wealthy.

Edited September 13, 2012 by TimG

[pete t teepee]

no - you are confusing (purposely?) frequency with intensity. Continued uncertainty exists as to whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency; however, there most certainly is increasing evidence that global warming is increasing hurricane intensity. In past MLW threads, I've detailed several studies that speak to the increased intensity of hurricanes relative to increased global warming... if you persist, I will dig them up and cite even more current like studies. Or, you can just stew over this IPCC AR4 summary position statement that says, "Tropical storm and hurricane frequencies vary considerably from year to year, but evidence suggests substantial increases in intensity and duration since the 1970s"... of course, that evidence is given in detail, fully cited, within the respective/related IPCC reports.

no - there is no formal position that speaks to expected/predicted increases in the severity of tornadoes relative to increased global warming. Again, from the IPCC AR4, a summary position statement: "Observational evidence for changes in small-scale severe weather phenomena (such as tornadoes, hail and thunderstorms) is mostly local and too scattered to draw general conclusions; increases in many areas arise because of increased public awareness and improved efforts to collect reports of these phenomena."

well... you are a most timely denier, if nothing else. That lil' ditty you pump is just days old... but, of course, you must know this, to have referenced it. The article associated with your linked graphic appears within the "Washington Times"... a rag founded by Moonies... the authors of your associated article are notorious deniers, Willie Soon and William Briggs - both lacking any scientific credibility. You will note, your linked graphic/article does not associate with a formal study/paper; rather, this is from nothing more than a denier opinion article published in the BS rag, Washington Times. Most significantly, the two deniers who created/wrote your linked graphic/article improperly used and misinterpreted the data they attribute, by source, to the University of California - Berkely, "Earth Surface Temperature Project"; i.e, BEST. Let me cite this summary statement from the lead author of BEST, Richard Muller:

... so, isn't it special that your referenced deniers chose to use the BEST data, arriving at a completely different result from the one the BEST lead author states he/his team arrived at - go figure! And, again, your denier referenced article is not a published study/paper... it is nothing more than a piece of denier crapola published in a POS rag newspaper.

now, gunrutz, many of the MLW usual denier suspects have tried your same schlock game, many times over... repeatedly trying to flog, "it's the Sun". Of course, I usually trot out something like the following... feel free to challenge it, hey?

as if it wasn't clear earlier, you're obviously a devotee of the fake charlatan TV weatherman's WTFIUWT site! Even if your (rather, Watts' claims/emphasis were true)... so what!... is this really how you guys completely ignore 2012 as the all time record Arctic Sea Ice melt? In any case, the Arctic Ice 'Melt Season' length, in itself, is a measured trend... a trend that shows that over the last 30 years, there has been a 20-day Arctic-wide increase in the length of the Arctic Sea Ice melt season. Focusing in on a single years melt season length is simply a denier cherry-picking tactic.

but I guess what you didn't know, is that it's the Antarctic Ice Sheet melt... not the Antarctic Sea Ice conditions, that is significant... and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting, increasingly. I guess what you didn't know is that the Antarctic Sea Ice regularly melts, every year, almost completely (summer to winter). But yes, there is an increase in the winter-time Antarctic Sea Ice, a small rate increase, one with substantial natural year-to-year variability. More pointedly, per the NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center), "the increase is attributed to a changing climate pattern, one associated with a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds; a condition associated with the loss of ozone and increases in greenhouse gases."

really gunrutz... you should stick to pumping your gun frenzy in gun related threads... at least there you rarely need to deal with inconvenient things... like facts, hey?

Holy citations batman!!! gunrutz..he caught you dood...you got logic-raped. *mental note to self*...study to save your soul before attempting to intellectually "hang" wit waldo. Does MLW have a badass rebuttal of the year award?? If waldo disagrees with me at any given moment, can I just tap-out? lol

[pete t teepee]

Anyway, on a more serious note, in the spirit of Jacee's OP, are we fiddling? Do we care? I don't think it's as much an issue of scientists getting it wrong or caring or fiddling. There's plenty of caring, at least in BC and Manitoba eastwards. Can't speak for Sask. as I've only driven through a half dozen times. I think the real issue is the gross and general underestimation of the almost boundless, money and power, of big oil.

Change is coming. It's a mathematical certainty. We can do it the easy way, a few modest but substantial changes each year, until we have a substantial alternative energy infrastructure, or, we can do it the hard way, burning the oil candle at both ends, with no preparation and an economy centered around oil that will crash, sooner or later, like the world has never seen. Earlier in the thread, someone posed the question, do you really think people in the oil business snort coke and party all day (something to that effect)

Short Answer: YES

Greed, power and money have a way of impairing one's ability to see more than 5 minutes into the future. You will never guilt them into ethical behaviour. Their manner of thinking is more along the lines of "Good?...Bad?...I'm the guy with the gun" because they ARE the guy with the gun. The States has intimate relations with Saudi's (rife with human rights violations) because they have no choice. Without them, OPEC could obliterate north america overnight, with the flip of a switch.

Has anyone done the math on billions poured into solar arrays around Calgary (sunniest place in Canada) instead of billions into tarsands? Yup...only good for the people, environment and sustainability though. No evil profits to be had there! Or converting only a few of the numerous multi-thousand acre farms around Winnipeg (2nd sunniest in Canada by a small margin) to solar? If one put forth a proposal to their MP, how far up the chain of command do you think it would go before big oil caught wind and shot it down in flames. Watch the movie Syriana for a glimpse of what's at stake when dealing with big oil. Sorry for the doom and gloom post but it is what it is. Change is coming, my guess is it will be the hard way.

[pete t teepee]

I laughed so bad at this...relevant to the OP.

[PIK]

Anyway, on a more serious note, in the spirit of Jacee's OP, are we fiddling? Do we care? I don't think it's as much an issue of scientists getting it wrong or caring or fiddling. There's plenty of caring, at least in BC and Manitoba eastwards. Can't speak for Sask. as I've only driven through a half dozen times. I think the real issue is the gross and general underestimation of the almost boundless, money and power, of big oil.

Change is coming. It's a mathematical certainty. We can do it the easy way, a few modest but substantial changes each year, until we have a substantial alternative energy infrastructure, or, we can do it the hard way, burning the oil candle at both ends, with no preparation and an economy centered around oil that will crash, sooner or later, like the world has never seen. Earlier in the thread, someone posed the question, do you really think people in the oil business snort coke and party all day (something to that effect)

Short Answer: YES

Greed, power and money have a way of impairing one's ability to see more than 5 minutes into the future. You will never guilt them into ethical behaviour. Their manner of thinking is more along the lines of "Good?...Bad?...I'm the guy with the gun" because they ARE the guy with the gun. The States has intimate relations with Saudi's (rife with human rights violations) because they have no choice. Without them, OPEC could obliterate north america overnight, with the flip of a switch.

Has anyone done the math on billions poured into solar arrays around Calgary (sunniest place in Canada) instead of billions into tarsands? Yup...only good for the people, environment and sustainability though. No evil profits to be had there! Or converting only a few of the numerous multi-thousand acre farms around Winnipeg (2nd sunniest in Canada by a small margin) to solar? If one put forth a proposal to their MP, how far up the chain of command do you think it would go before big oil caught wind and shot it down in flames. Watch the movie Syriana for a glimpse of what's at stake when dealing with big oil. Sorry for the doom and gloom post but it is what it is. Change is coming, my guess is it will be the hard way.

I wonder if we took the billins dalton watsed on his green energy plan and put that money into battery research, so we all can have a panel on our houses and we can get rid of hydro ,nuclear altogether. In todays world someone should be able to build a batery that is small and will hold enough power to run your house on the cloudy days. Now if the unions got wind of that..............

Edited September 14, 2012 by PIK