Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Praeses]

Wow, it's winter and it's cold so GW must not be happening.

You should start your own comic strip!

 

[Vegeta]

I always thought temp changes is normal for the earth.. The temp will change from one decade to the next and from one millenium to the next... thats normal.
GW.... donno hey, dont really care either. My carban footprint is tiny i cant do anymore if our source for fuel doesnt change.

 

[Phronesis]

Who would have thought Global Warming causes colder winters? It must be the Gore effect. In other news:
It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the nineties.

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth's temperature rise. But ask yourself -- if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise -- how can it be true?

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

Based on core samples from Russia's Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth's atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.

Apparently, we're headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years -- give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth's temperature rise, not lead it.

It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 -- like opening a warm brewsky.

To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don't have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

I don't know hey, is AGW really such a massive problem to spend 45trillion dollars and give up 5 million jobs, when it looks like CO2 does not have the effect the IPCC and Gore predicted? Yes, let's develop cleaner energy sources and promote more efficient use of it. Is the earth going to melt or freeze if we don't? One has to make up your own reasoning to support your answer to this.

 

[BCO]

Who would have thought Global Warming causes colder winters? It must be the Gore effect. In other news:
It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson

I don't know hey, is AGW really such a massive problem to spend 45trillion dollars and give up 5 million jobs, when it looks like CO2 does not have the effect the IPCC and Gore predicted? Yes, let's develop cleaner energy sources and promote more efficient use of it. Is the earth going to melt or freeze if we don't? One has to make up your own reasoning to support your answer to this.

Why would five million jobs need to be given up if we moved away from burning fossil fuels?

 

[rwenzori]

Why would five million jobs need to be given up if we moved away from burning fossil fuels?

I see Telephrone's article quotes the dodgy "650 scientists" of US Senator Inhofe. That list has been widely discredited. It started out as 400, then grew to 650. Many of them are not scientists, let alone climate scientists, and numbers of whom were shocked at being included. The list has been estimated as "80-90 percent bogus":

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/1/14/231236/019?show_comments=no

 

[BCO]

I see Telephrone's article quotes the dodgy "650 scientists" of US Senator Inhofe. That list has been widely discredited. It started out as 400, then grew to 650. Many of them are not scientists, let alone climate scientists, and numbers of whom were shocked at being included. The list has been estimated as "80-90 percent bogus":

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2008/1/14/231236/019?show_comments=no

Yeah... dodgy contrarian lies.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Oh no, Hansen's old superior says Hansen is full of it:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

This is going to be a good year for the sane people, and by sane, I don't mean people who believe in the scam job of AGW

 

[BCO]

Oh no, Hansen's old superior says Hansen is full of it:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

This is going to be a good year for the sane people, and by sane, I don't mean people who believe in the scam job of AGW

More Inhofe...

 

[Phronesis]

Glacier Slowdown in Greenland: How Inconvenient

So much for Greenland ice’s Armageddon. “It has come to an end,” glaciologist Tavi Murray of Swansea University in the United Kingdom said during a session at the meeting. “There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off” of the speed-up, she said. Nearly everywhere around southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000. An increasingly warmer climate will no doubt eat away at the Greenland ice sheet for centuries, glaciologists say, but no one should be extrapolating the ice’s recent wild behavior into the future.

Global Warming Protests: Serious Business.​

Professor denies greenhouse effect

"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."

- climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.

 

[BCO]

Glacier Slowdown in Greenland: How Inconvenient

From the same article:

All told, it is looking more like the IPCC’s estimates of a few inches of sea level rise from Greenland during the 21st century aren’t going to be that far off

So I'm not sure if we're even arguing about anything on this one.

Professor denies greenhouse effect

de Freitas.... AGAIN.

Repeating soundbytes from the same list of usual suspects doesn't prove anything.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

I am so going to enjoy it as BC's religion is torn to shreds this year.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The cool thing about the Earth is that Man may lie, but Nature is honest to a fault .. every year where it gets cooler, and frost arrives earlier and stays later will mean inflation. Every year that the politicians tax the economy to curb greenhouse gasses will lead to inflation. Eventually the backlash will be quick and severe, payback is da beeatch.

 

[Conradl]

Read this debate with some interest.
Checked carefully and nobody seems to have mentioned the article: Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change (Nature vol 453 15 May 2008).

Its a meta-data analysis of climate change studies that measures the change in temperature of different cells; and the observable change within those cells. It shows that whilst the change of some cells is not consistent with GW, there is a significant number of cells with significant changes consistent with GW.

A lot of people seem to quote news articles in this debate; surely it would be better to debate the merits of the study in question, including the necessary references and methodology, than a journalists interpretation thereof??

Anyway I'm not a scientist; keen to see what others think of the article....

 

[BCO]

Read this debate with some interest.
Checked carefully and nobody seems to have mentioned the article: Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change (Nature vol 453 15 May 2008).

Its a meta-data analysis of climate change studies that measures the change in temperature of different cells; and the observable change within those cells. It shows that whilst the change of some cells is not consistent with GW, there is a significant number of cells with significant changes consistent with GW.

A lot of people seem to quote news articles in this debate; surely it would be better to debate the merits of the study in question, including the necessary references and methodology, than a journalists interpretation thereof??

Anyway I'm not a scientist; keen to see what others think of the article....

One would think...

 

[BCO]

Directly related to BWA's latest bit of Inhofe drivel:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...eception-to-antarctic-warming-story/#more-644

Also, to clear things up further:

Nature magazine recently published a paper showing that Antarctica has actually been warming about .1oC/decade since the 1950's. It was the cover story:

A new reconstruction of Antarctic surface temperature trends for 1957-2006, reported this week by Steig et al., suggests that overall the continent is warming by about 0.1 °C per decade. The cover illustrates the geographic extent of warming, with the 'hotspot' peninsula and West Antarctica shown red against the white ice-covered ocean.

That the antarctic seemed to be slightly cooling despite elevated greenhouse gas levels has been a standard denialist talking point for a very long time.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/01/classic_pielke.php

My "religion" (aka hard science) aint going anywhere this year pal.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

More global warming in the UK:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/02/europe.snow/

About Steig .. well, the analysts are on the case:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

If it keeps on the current warming trend, I may actually freeze to death.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

My "religion" (aka hard science) aint going anywhere this year pal.

That is a joke, right? I mean, you did not even know that biologists and geologists are relevant to the debate. How much hard science do you actually know? I am actually surprised you even know how to spell science.

Tell me the three most important tenets of science work?

 

[BCO]

That is a joke, right? I mean, you did not even know that biologists and geologists are relevant to the debate.

If I recall, I said they were on the fringe of the debate.
Besides, whether or not I'm a scientist or I've made some mistakes or had some gaps in my own knowledge, it's not like everything in this thread is just my opinion or something. EVERY MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BODY IN THE WORLD ENDORSES AGW.

How much hard science do you actually know? I am actually surprised you even know how to spell science.

More ad hominem attacks from BWA, why am I not surprised? Speaking of how much science we both know:

1) Why is it that EVERY contrarian point you've raised in this thread has been comprehensive rebuttal from the accepted science?

2) Why is that that in the year or so that we've been arguing there's been no swing AT ALL from the greater scientific community towards a more skeptical view of AGW?

3) Why is it that you keep rehashing the same list of deniers over and over again?

4) If science was really on YOUR side, why has science not prevailed in the mainstream understanding of climate change?

Tell me the three most important tenets of science work?

Observation, explanation, prediction - all three are clearly seen in the accepted science around AGW.

Mark my words, in another year's time there will still be a loud but small fringe group of deniers (mostly funded by big oil and other industry) and the accepted view among the scientific community will STILL be that people are the main cause of the current climate change.

A final challenge - present to me ONE contrarian argument, just one, that "disproves" AGW and that has not been refuted by mainstream climate science.

 

[BCO]

More global warming in the UK:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/02/europe.snow/

More local weather stories to try and disprove GW?

How bout this one?


Record Heat Wave Hits Australia


Easy to cherry pick huh?

Funny how the deniers can change their tune as and when it suits them though:

some readers remained skeptical. "One swallow does not make a summer -a few stinking awful days doesn't mean the climate is changing either," one person emailed to the Canberra Times. It was not clear where in Australia he lived.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Easy to cherry pick huh?

Who's cherry picking:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...l-warming-sceptics-buoyed-by-record-cold.html
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2008.htm
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/brrrr-record-cold-hits-central-asia-654.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/26/chill-in-the-air-record-low-temps-in-10-states/
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/01/record-cold-temperatures-in-2009.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ffer-record-cold-temperatures-plunge-40C.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090116/ts_alt_afp/usweatherrecord
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/how_cold_is_it_flints_95yearol.html
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/wwlp_local_record_cold_temperatures_200901161640
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...1/16/record_cold_temperatures_hit_concord_nh/
http://www.lifeislikechampagneblog.com/2009/01/record-cold-for-me.html
http://www.wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48709&Itemid=50

If it is GLOBAL WARMING, shouldn't the entire planet be warming? What's with all the record lows?

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Observation, explanation, prediction

Wow, you actually got them .. shocked .. but then again, in these Google times, its easy to pretend to know something eh?

all three are clearly seen in the accepted science around AGW.

Then again, with statements like this, yeah .. you go girl.

Let us see .. AGW stands for what now .. hmm .. oh yeah .. Anthropogenic Global Warming.

You see .. even if Global Warming could be proved (and it hasn't by a longshot), what about the "A" part?

You only have belief in the Hansen, the Schmidt and others like them.

The world temperatures remain in the band as they have for centuries and this "short-term-variability" will continue for a long while.

PS, I expect a little warmening over time -- we are coming out of an ice-age, that is what happens, until, we start going back into an ice-age .. then be afraid, be very afraid.

Until world weather shows dramatic warming .. out of band warming, you don't have jack!