Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[wyly]

Is "could" that didn't happen any trend?

Is one season of higher than normal temp a trend?

When we get the warm ones?

none of that makes any sense...

[wyly]

I disagree. Some may be hurt, but there will be some good. For example, maybe finally the Inuit will be able to grow themselves some vegetables. And therefore increase their lifespans significantly. There is always a silver lining.

how nice they can grow veggies in sparse pockets of gravel...they won't mind at all then if their traditional supply of seal disappears due to the lack of stable ice...

Edited October 4, 2010 by wyly

[lukin]

how nice they can grow veggies in sparse pockets of gravel...they won't mind at all then if their tradional supply of seal disappears due to the lack of stable ice...

More BS from wyly.

This will be the fifth time I asked you. What are you doing at a personal level to combat climate change and save our planet? Why are you avoiding this simple question?

[jbg]

What's wrong with filtering the word "jews?" Some consider it derogatory, like "negro" or "civil servant."

You filter the word g*d all the time. Is it because of your deep hatred for the lord?

Very simple.

In Jewish tradition we never spell out "G-d's" name. It's a Ten Commandment violation. As for the filtering of the words "Jews" and "Israel" it was a cheap attempt to stifle response to bigoted statements such as some posters expressing the wish for Jews to die on an exploding Jerusalem bus.

[jbg]

"Could". But actually there's a dusty flood there.

"Could" be Lake Agassiz is coming back. Too much Rain Dancing.

one season of higher than normal amounts of rain isn't a trend, it's la Nina...the prairies should expect a colder winter as well...

As I ceaselessly point out, the earth goes through 30 year "cold" and "warm" phases on a regular basis. The "warm" phases favor El Niños, and thus promoted, among other things, the current "global warming" scare and the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. The "cold" phases favor La Niñas.

Being in a "cold" phase does not mean no El Niños. Thus 1957-8, 1972-3 and 2009-10, notable cold-phase El Niños. Similarly there are warm-phase La Niñas, most notably 1988-9.

What happens during a "cold" phase is the temperatures start out warm, as a result of the accumulated results of the preceding warm phase, and progressively but irregularly cool during the 30 years or so. The process reverses during the ensuing "warm phase". The Pacific Ocean, being the largest ocean, accounts for much of the world's real estate, as well as directly adjoining areas. Thus, Pacific temperatures directly impact on much of the world directly. Indirectly, the Pacific impacts all of the Continental U.S. (CONUS) as well as the southern half of Alaska and much of Canada. Thus, the warm and cold phases do matter directly. Indirectly, effects such as Great Plains dust bowls and matching warm, dry weather in the Prairie Provinces amplify that effect.

Some of the effects of La Niñas perversely lead to warming in certain regions such as the U.S. East Coast. However, over all, the effect is one of progressive cooling.

Thus, Saipan's reference to Lake Agassiz and/or Devil's Lake is spot on.

[wyly]

Thus, Saipan's reference to Lake Agassiz and/or Devil's Lake is spot on.

lake Agassiz was glacial lake that disappeared 8.5K ybp has no relevance to el Nino or La Nina, your definitely the same as saipan, completely lost...

[Michael Hardner]

As I ceaselessly point out, the earth goes through 30 year "cold" and "warm" phases on a regular basis. The "warm" phases favor El Niños, and thus promoted, among other things, the current "global warming" scare and the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. The "cold" phases favor La Niñas.

Well, those cycles are factored in. If you look at the graph over 150-years you can see peaks and valleys along the way.

[waldo]

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.

[Saipan]

lake Agassiz was glacial lake that disappeared 8.5K ybp has no relevance to el Nino or La Nina, your definitely the same as saipan, completely lost...

What has el Nino or La Nina to do with it?

Was it "global warm up" that created Lake Agassiz?

[jbg]

lake Agassiz was glacial lake that disappeared 8.5K ybp has no relevance to el Nino or La Nina, your definitely the same as saipan, completely lost...

Obviously Saipan and I were referring to Devil's Lake.

[jbg]

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

Let's make a few things clear. I have a full-time law practice. I'm married and have two children. I spend some leisure time here. I'm not obsessed with this or any site. I have a life.

I hope you do to. Your posts give no sense of who you are, what you do. They have no humanity. You act as if you're an AGW bot, with a little anti-Israel and anti-US venom thrown in.

[BubberMiley]

As for the filtering of the words "Jews" and "Israel" it was a cheap attempt to stifle response to bigoted statements such as some posters expressing the wish for Jews to die on an exploding Jerusalem bus.

I don't think it was meant to stifle response to bigoted statements; I think it was to stifle the bigoted statements themselves.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a fairly refreshing look at the state of Climate Science and has sections that list what is well established, what is still under debate, and what is poorly understood.

Royal Society Guide: http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

I gave this a thorough skimming, KIS, and I think this is a good document.

[waldo]

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

Let's make a few things clear. I have a full-time law practice. I'm married and have two children. I spend some leisure time here. I'm not obsessed with this or any site. I have a life.

I hope you do to. Your posts give no sense of who you are, what you do. They have no humanity. You act as if you're an AGW bot, with a little anti-Israel and anti-US venom thrown in.

man-up lil' buddy... if you're going to repeatedly, ad nauseum, dispense your anti-AGW bullshit, expect to be challenged on it.

I've often offered comment on U.S. foreign policy and domestic issues I take exception with - it's most unfortunate you fail to recognize a distinction between being against, for example, certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy... and anti-Americanism. Most thinking types can make that distinction.

as for your attempt to marginalize me as being "anti-Israel", I rarely post in your favoured Israel flavoured threads... if I favour resolution of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict that recognizes an equitable treatment for Palestinians... would that make me, by your definition, "anti-Israel"? Now I have posted with an intention that favours Harper Conservatives not muzzling free speech... but since you're a self-proclaimed unabashed lawyer... I'm sure you'll respect the recent Canadian judicial ruling that the Harper Conservative government tried to politically suppress George Galloway's opinions... and not proclaim me as being "anti-Israel", for my George Galloway related thread posts - hey?

[BubberMiley]

if I favour resolution of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict that recognizes an equitable treatment for Palestinians... would that make me, by your definition, "anti-Israel"?

I think if you disagree with jbg on any topic, you're "anti-Israel," and thereby a supporter of Hamas.

[wyly]

Obviously Saipan and I were referring to Devil's Lake.

obviously Saipan was not, he made no mention of Devils lake, that was you alone

Saipan-"Could". But actually there's a dusty flood there.

"Could" be Lake Agassiz is coming back. Too much Rain Dancing.

what Saipan is referring to is the above normal amount of rain on the Prairies this past spring and summer which was product of la Nina...

[lukin]

obviously Saipan was not, he made no mention of Devils lake, that was you alone

Saipan-"Could". But actually there's a dusty flood there.

"Could" be Lake Agassiz is coming back. Too much Rain Dancing.

what Saipan is referring to is the above normal amount of rain on the Prairies this past spring and summer which was product of la Nina...

Wyly, why can't you tell me what you are doing on a personal level to save our planet? You have a hard time answering a simple question. Is it because you won't find the anser on some science website? Come on, answer the question already.

[Saipan]

obviously Saipan was not, he made no mention of Devils lake, that was you alone

Saipan-"Could". But actually there's a dusty flood there.

"Could" be Lake Agassiz is coming back. Too much Rain Dancing.

what Saipan is referring to is the above normal amount of rain on the Prairies this past spring and summer which was product of la Nina...

Saipan is referring to a fact as opposed to what "could" happen and other warmalists speculations.

[wyly]

Saipan is referring to a fact as opposed to what "could" happen and other warmalists speculations.

Saipan I don't think even you know what you're referring to...

[scribblet]

Well, Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

There really is no concensus, which doesn't mean we should keep on polluting, but the hysteria should stop while we look at options and ways to adapt.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-bows-to-climate-change-sceptics.html

The Royal Society is publishing a new document today after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows who questioned mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

[Saipan]

Saipan I don't think even you know what you're referring to...

True, you don't think.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

Than it had suggested ? Or than the IPCC had suggested ?

There really is no concensus, which doesn't mean we should keep on polluting, but the hysteria should stop while we look at options and ways to adapt.

There is wide consensus on the fact that man-made warming is happening, and that's in the document.

If we go for adaptation as an option, then we should commit to helping solve the problem later in proportion to how much we contributed to it. Furthermore, all world representatives need to be locked in a cage until they work out a final agreement on an approach.

The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

There's really nothing that earth shaking in that document. The changes in language aren't likely to be understood by the public in any case. There's no way to predict the future, we know that. There's only educated guesses, and this paper solidly indicates that warming is likely caused my humans.

[waldo]

Well, Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

hey scribblet... that's verbatim from WTFIUWT!

c'mon... try to keep up - hey, scribblet?

...

as for the recent Royal Society 'layman guides' update... Simple, your cautious reserved parroting is noted (the usual suspects are labeling the guide update as a 'bow to skeptics'). Point in fact, the guide does not introduce any change to the prevailing science consensus or accepted uncertainties... it entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarized by the IPCC. The chair of the Royal Society group of scientists that developed the updated guide, John Pethica (Royal Society vice president), has been quoted as stressing the revamped guide approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past..... "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science."

Simple... since you've now twice highlighted the Royal Society 'layman's guide' update and linked to it (twice), perhaps we should hold you to it's key findings on points of scientific consensus. Would you like those quoted and attributed to yourself?

[wyly]

Well, Britain’s leading scientific institution has been forced to rewrite its guide to climate change and admit that there is greater uncertainty about future temperature increases than it had previously suggested.

There really is no concensus, which doesn't mean we should keep on polluting, but the hysteria should stop while we look at options and ways to adapt.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1617-royal-society-bows-to-climate-change-sceptics.html

The Royal Society is publishing a new document today after a rebellion by more than 40 of its fellows who questioned mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

Climate change: a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

amazing how you read into things that aren't there...from a website run by Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist/sports expert, geez maybe I should quote Al Gore as a climatology expert ....the Royal Society has no doubts as to AGW....

Edited October 4, 2010 by wyly

[scribblet]

There ya go, you didn't read, same thing in the papers, there is no consensus, opposing views are stifled and the hysteria goes on. As I said, this is not to say we should keep on polluting, we should clean up our act, but we/man can do nothing to stop earth's changes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1-by-brown-et-al-2008/