GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/02/08/global-warming-is-surely-to-blame/trackback/

  1. Oh remember! It’s not Global Warming anymore, it’s “Climate Change”! ‘Cause you know, the Earth’s climate never changes, and because of this we must destroy capitalism and wear stupid Che shirts.

    Comment by Blaster_84 — February 8, 2011 @ 10:53 pm - February 8, 2011

  2. Hi Dan,
    On the basis of your anecdotal evidence, one would be within their rights for claiming that the anecdotal evidence of unprecedented flooding in Oueensland, Australia, and Cyclone Yasi, must then be evidence of global warming, eh, change (sorry), right?

    Comment by Cas — February 8, 2011 @ 11:57 pm - February 8, 2011

  3. Aww, poor animals. :^(

    Comment by American Elephant — February 9, 2011 @ 2:43 am - February 9, 2011

  4. #2 Whatever creams your twinkie. It’s all about making shit up anyway.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 2:55 am - February 9, 2011

  5. It’s all about making shit up anyway.

    Technically, ‘Climate Change’ is about making sh-t up and then claiming the only solution is to vastly increase the power of government and institute global socialism.

    One notes that fear of a hot planet has not stopped Al Gore from maintaining several ginormous homes or traveling by private jet and SUV caravan wherever he goes.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2011 @ 5:42 am - February 9, 2011

  6. I’m sitting here at my laptop this morning, unable to go to work for the FIFTH day in two weeks because of ice and brutally cold temps. Global warming SURELY is the culprit. No, wait! Global warming will be the culprit when we hit 70 degrees as we’re due to on Saturday. Or maybe it’s just typically crazy Texas weather. You know the saying: if you don’t like the weather in Texas, wait a minute. Sorry, Al.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — February 9, 2011 @ 8:12 am - February 9, 2011

  7. Correction, we’re due to hit 70 here on Sunday, not Saturday. Saturday we’ll only hit 60 for the high, after having ice, snow, and lows in the teens–with wind chills near zero–today. Damn that global warming, er, climate change!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — February 9, 2011 @ 8:26 am - February 9, 2011

  8. Call it an educated guess, but I’m guessing that some of you folks have never actually read anything about climate change other than right-wing echo chamber blogs and press releases from the GOP’s religious right allies on the subject of global climate change.

    Comment by Auntie Dogma — February 9, 2011 @ 8:32 am - February 9, 2011

  9. I’m guessing that some of you folks have never actually read anything about climate change other than right-wing echo chamber blogs

    Says the entity whose comments consist of nothing but hackneyed talking points from left-wing echo chamber blogs.

    I’ve actually read several books on “climate change” including ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ and many articles on paleo-climatology which demonstrate that the climate a. has always been changing and b. was much, much warmer in the past than it is today.

    Whereas you have people on the left like Thom Friedman who apparently get their ‘Global Warming Science’ from the movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow.’

    My view is that people who fall for the hysteria are chumps and rubes. I mean, anyone who can look at the private jets lined up at ‘Climate Change Conferences’ (which always seem to be held in top-tier, exotic locations) and still believe the elites are sincere in their professed concerns about carbon emissions has to be a complete drooling idiot.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2011 @ 9:49 am - February 9, 2011

  10. Au contraire. It is precisely because several of us have a scientific background and compare multiple sources that makes it easy to call out “global warming” as simply an attempt to put lipstick and a wig on an ugly Keynesian socialist pig.

    Perhaps if you did the same, Cas, instead of merely repeating left-wing talking points, you would avoid the regular screwups you make that ruin your credibility, such as your claim that senior citizens in Texas don’t have to pay a nonexistent state property tax. But since you’ve made it obvious that you only think and recognize leftist ideology, we can expect much more entertaining foulups from those like you and Levi that claim to be our betters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2011 @ 10:03 am - February 9, 2011

  11. has to be a complete drooling idiot.

    Civility, V the K, civility. Perhaps you might amend this to read: “A complete idiot with fascinating talents involving saliva.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2011 @ 10:06 am - February 9, 2011

  12. Point taken, Heliotrope. :-)

    Ain’t it funny how the actual behavior of the Earth’s climate is dismissed as “anecdotal,” but the computer models that have so far been grossly inadequate at predicting climate behavior are to be taken as proof of global warming, and thus make imperative the complete reordering of the global economy along… I am sure this is just a coincidence… the same socialist/communist lines the progressive left has been pushing for the last fifty years?

    Ain’t it passing strange how the left insists that the only cure for global warming is socialism? You would think such a severe crisis would warrant the consideration of multiple approaches, and not merely the ones that involve the implementation of a centrally planned, political economy.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2011 @ 10:12 am - February 9, 2011

  13. Hi Cas,

    must then be evidence of global warming, eh, change (sorry), right?

    It is evidence of change from the cycles of the recent past which created the “norm.” So, are you connecting this with man made global warming or not? Do you have some Gore inconvenient truth to lay on Dan that will make him wriggle and squirm and admit his post is lame, unscientific and in defiance of all scientific consensus?

    Hi, hey, ho, Cas: have you read up on the shifts in the magnetic poles? What must we stop doing immediately to calm the magnetic poles god? Growing glaciers want to know.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2011 @ 10:20 am - February 9, 2011

  14. V the K: Socialism is good for what ails us. Almost all of us (except the politburo and relatives) will go down the crapper together in a kumbaya social justice festival moment singing in perfect harmony and dressed in our very best tie-dyed robes. A regular Jonestown ceremony for the ages. Fat Albert Gore will read from his scripture as we flush away.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2011 @ 10:30 am - February 9, 2011

  15. Morons….

    Comment by Levi — February 9, 2011 @ 11:00 am - February 9, 2011

  16. Interesting. There is a climate change conference going on in Central America. They are convinced that the heavy rains that fell and caused flooding that washed away homes in El Salvador and Honduras last August through the beginning of November is a result of climate change. Between big gulps of kool-ade they´re looking for solutions. They haven´t heard the news yet that the glaciers are growing not melting. It´s a few bucks more the the coffers of Al Gore. Since global warming has been proven to be a hoax, hasn´t he broken a law for which he should be tried? If he were a tele-evengelist he´d be doing time as did Jim Baker.

    Comment by Roberto — February 9, 2011 @ 11:28 am - February 9, 2011

  17. Are you people on crack?? The glaciers ARE melting! Climate change IS happening, and while we can debate the causes, I don’t think there is any debate (except among the loony fringes) that it is happening. Get your heads out of the sand and face facts. Or wait…maybe you don’t believe it “facts,” since it’s all just about “making shit up”? Apparently, that is something the right wing specializes in.

    Have a nice day! :)

    Comment by Linda — February 9, 2011 @ 11:37 am - February 9, 2011

  18. Um, Linda, I just presented you with a fact.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 9, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - February 9, 2011

  19. Biting and insightful reply from Levi, fact free as always.

    Guys, I have to say it’s my fault. My buying a Honda Insight apparently was just enough to tip us over from global warming to global cooling.

    My next car wil be an Expedition, to balance the environmental scales.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 9, 2011 @ 12:18 pm - February 9, 2011

  20. Stranger: “Do you think it will rain?”

    Mark Twain: “It always has.”

    Linda:

    Climate change IS happening

    And, these guys are ecstatic:

    http://www.hriyc.org/current.html

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2011 @ 12:31 pm - February 9, 2011

  21. Hi Levi,

    We are having Moroni made global warming here on Pluto. Could you do something about getting our planet status restored?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2011 @ 12:46 pm - February 9, 2011

  22. So, Linda, at which Ivy League debating society DID they teach you that putting verbs in ALLCAPS was equivalent to proving an assertion to be a fact?

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2011 @ 1:01 pm - February 9, 2011

  23. Oh remember! It’s not Global Warming anymore, it’s “Climate Change”!

    No, it’s now Global Climate Disruption! Get it right people!

    Are you people on crack?? The glaciers ARE melting!

    Glaciers have been melting since as early as 1860. And not all glaciers are retreating. Some glaciers, including some in the Himalayans and in Greenland, are advancing. This is NOT proof that AGW isn’t happening, but that it isn’t as simple and certain as many believe.

    Climate change IS happening, and while we can debate the causes, I don’t think there is any debate that it is happening.

    Climate change has ALWAYS happened. Climate has never been a fixed and stationary thing. It changes, sometimes rapidly. And you’re wrong… We CAN’T debate the causes! Have you tried to “debate the causes” at Real Climate? Anyone who has tried, gets their comments cut from the dialog and deleted.

    Example. A few lukewarmists (those who think we may be part of the cause of recent rise in temps, but not fully responsible) had recently had a paper published in a peer review journal, rebutting a previous paper by ES, one of the climate scientists who contributes to RC. Not only do we learn that ES was allowed to be a reviewer – Reviewer A – of a paper rebutting his own work, but he tried keep the paper out of publication. Remember, ES is NOT an unbiased reviewer. It is not unheard of to let a researcher see and comment on the work rebutting his, but it is extremely unseemly to have that person be a reviewer, wielding the power it influence and reject that paper. ES also had the authors include technical changes in their paper, changes that ES is now trying to criticize them for!

    And even though those at Real Climate say they don’t support the notion that “The Science Is Settled”, their actions speak louder than their words.

    Get your heads out of the sand and face facts. Or wait…maybe you don’t believe it “facts,” since it’s all just about “making shit up”? Apparently, that is something the right wing specializes in.

    Provide examples of where one of the participants is “making shit up”. It shouldn’t be hard.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 1:33 pm - February 9, 2011

  24. Where were all the leftists in November of 2009 when the news broke from Esat Anglia University that global warming scientists cooked the numbers to bolster their argument. All evidence to the contrary was suppressed. That makes it a hoax. It becomes obvious that it is not the planet that is the real focus of interest but government control of industry and our lives. Well, we can be thankful for one thing, at least the leftist aren´t insisting that the world is flat.

    Comment by Roberto — February 9, 2011 @ 1:48 pm - February 9, 2011

  25. PS. Remember how everyone was up in arms because the Arctic sea ice was reaching a tipping point, and we had to “do something NOW to stop global warming from melting the Arctic away”?????

    File under “Another scare tactic destroyed by better research“.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 2:33 pm - February 9, 2011

  26. #8 – Pot, meet kettle.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 9, 2011 @ 3:45 pm - February 9, 2011

  27. I’ve actually read several books on “climate change” including ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ and many articles on paleo-climatology which demonstrate that the climate a. has always been changing and b. was much, much warmer in the past than it is today.

    Yep. And there is no evidence in the entirety of the geologic past where high CO2 levels have either driven up temps, or, more importantly, once the CO2 levels were elevated, kept temps from dropping. The 40 year period where the warmers assert that CO2 is the prime driver in the temp rise of the late 20th Century is a very VERY short time to make assertions with such certainty.

    PS. Thought I didn’t finish my BS in the field, I’ve have some geology training under my belt, so I’m not a science novice by any means. (I was specializing in seismology, and calc killed the dream)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 4:01 pm - February 9, 2011

  28. Yep. And there is no evidence in the entirety of the geologic past where high CO2 levels have either driven up temps, or, more importantly, once the CO2 levels were elevated, kept temps from dropping.

    My bad… Should have said “very little evidence”. There is one paper that tries to explain the CO2 lag in temp rises in ice core samples, but it’s pretty weak.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 4:03 pm - February 9, 2011

  29. after having ice, snow, and lows in the teens–with wind chills near zero–today.

    I’m guessing Amarillo or thereabouts.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 4:08 pm - February 9, 2011

  30. but I’m guessing that some of you folks have never actually read anything about climate change

    We have and here’s the thing: Whatever claims are made today will be contradicted tomorrow. For example, hurricane Katrina was supposed to be the harbinger of more frequent and larger storms created by global warmism. Now that we haven’t had any, that’s proof of global warmism.

    Any “proof” that’s held up will be contradicted in short order. There’s an article out there somewhere listing many examples of contradictory “evidence”, but I can’t seem to find it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 4:19 pm - February 9, 2011

  31. Here we go. Just a few things global warmism is supposed to cause:

    Agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa hit hardest, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic lakes disappear, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds return early, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, boredom, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, cancer deaths in England, cardiac arrest, caterpillar biomass shift, challenges and opportunities, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, cod go south, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), computer models, conferences, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cold spells, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cremation to end, crime increase, crocodile sex, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cyclones (Australia), damages equivalent to $200 billion, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, dermatitis, desert advance, desert life threatened, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, drowning people, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning out of control, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, bats, pandas, pikas, polar bears, pigmy possums, gorillas, koalas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, famine, farmers go under, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, Florida economic decline, food poisoning, food prices rise, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frostbite, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, hazardous waste sites breached, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, illness and death, inclement weather, infrastructure failure (Canada), Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insurance premium rises, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, Kew Gardens taxed, kitten boom, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers’ income increased (surprise surprise!), lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, lush growth in rain forests, Lyme disease, Malaria, malnutrition, mammoth dung melt, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, marine dead zone, Meaching (end of the world), megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, more bad air days, more research needed, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains taller, mortality lower, mudslides, National security implications, new islands, next ice age, Nile delta damaged, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, oyster diseases, ozone loss, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychosocial disturbances, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainfall reduction, rape wave, refugees, reindeer larger, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, riches, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, rivers dry up, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, rockfalls, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, salmon stronger, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, sex change, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, spectacular orchids, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, suicide, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, tree beetle attacks, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, tsunamis, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus displaced, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, wars threaten billions, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, white Christmas dream ends, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine – harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine – more English, wine -German boon, wine – no more French , winters in Britain colder, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

    Links here:

    http://tinyurl.com/35fb7s

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 4:40 pm - February 9, 2011

  32. One more.

    Speaking of making shit up, how about this gem in which we learn the left has been inflating the AIDS numbers for years:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - February 9, 2011

  33. Here is the problem. The scientists who reside in the “warmist’ camp, are more often than not, guilty of extreme hubris. Here is one example – global warming causing more hurricanes:

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, was among several climatologists who made such claims. He said in 2004 that the intense hurricane season that year was “a harbinger of the future.” His prediction prompted the resignation from the panel of Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, who said there was no basis to make such a prediction.

    Landsea resigned because no one at NOAA would have his back. Yet, observations of hurricane activity since 2004 has proven Landsea to be right.

    Yet, you will never see a retraction or apology from Trenberth, because he “KNOWS” he’s right, even if actual real-world observations say differently. And this goes for the whole crowd at Real Climate. They really don’t have much in the way of integrity, it seems.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 4:52 pm - February 9, 2011

  34. TGC… Remember…. Global warming causes more sex!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxicwiBQ7Q

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 4:57 pm - February 9, 2011

  35. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — February 9, 2011 @ 5:58 pm - February 9, 2011

  36. Sonicfrog

    Really? I can go for that. Let´s have a global tropical warming with 90 degrees at the North Pole and much warmer along the equator. Thinl of it; the earth as one giant nudist colony. Will the left support that?

    Comment by Roberto — February 9, 2011 @ 6:02 pm - February 9, 2011

  37. #35

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12532

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 6:22 pm - February 9, 2011

  38. NASA: “It’s the Sun, Except it isn’t.”

    While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

    The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

    http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2011 @ 6:28 pm - February 9, 2011

  39. Comment by Rob Tisinai — February 9, 2011 @ 5:58 pm – February 9, 2011

    So, how does it feel to be a chump? Can I sell you some carbon credits?

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2011 @ 6:50 pm - February 9, 2011

  40. TGC, did you read the article that you link pointed readers to:

    Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth’s climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate.

    V the K, the chumps are the people who rely on political analysts for info on climate change rather than listening to science.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — February 9, 2011 @ 7:17 pm - February 9, 2011

  41. Rob,

    I hope you accept the discovery of the Viking SUVs on Greenland in the 10th century.

    Computer modelling can’t model *past* weather patterns, let alone predict current ones.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 9, 2011 @ 7:25 pm - February 9, 2011

  42. Rob:

    I’m not a fan of The Daily Tech. In this case… They screwed up the links! Click on the first one, and you’ll get to the study they are referencing.

    Keep in mind. This is one study, and you never want to put all your marbles on just one study. HAs anyone else replicated the results?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 9, 2011 @ 7:53 pm - February 9, 2011

  43. Rob the Chump is apparently unaware of a little something called ‘The Little Ice Age.” the emergence from which readily accounts for any perceived temperature increase over the last 150 years.

    C’mon Rob, … I’ve got 10,000 carbon credits I’ll sell you for five… no… ten dollars each. C’mon Rob, buy my carbon credits. Unless you really don’t believe in Global Warming. You do believe in Global Warming, don’t you?

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2011 @ 8:57 pm - February 9, 2011

  44. Hi Dan,
    “Um, Linda, I just presented you with a fact.” And so did I Dan–a bit more damaging then some freezing in Mexico. Not that it got addressed amongst the early name calling! :)

    The question I have for you guys who don’t buy into human influenced global weather change is this: What would constitute sufficient evidence for you? I can understand that you choose to be skeptical about the evidence you have been presented with–after all, some scientists disagree with it; it doesn’t have a 100% consensus, so I get the point that the majority consensus could be wrong. However, having said that, what would make you change your minds? What evidence would tip the balance for you? And if you did get this evidence, would it be at a time too late to really ameliorate the cascading effects of human influenced global weather change (if it happened to be true)?

    Comment by Cas — February 9, 2011 @ 10:57 pm - February 9, 2011

  45. The term ‘Scientific Consenus’ qualifies for weasel status. The Latin phrase used to describe this LOGICAL FALLACY is; ‘Argumentum Ad Populum’.

    All science is based on the Scientific Method. The scientific method makes it’s methodology and data available to any third party who wishes to recreate the findings. This produces purely objective data.

    A consensus of OPINION, of any group of people, represents a subjective set of data. All opinion is subjective.

    The problem with the “science” of Global Warming is that it doesn’t exist. The findings fail (miserably) to conform to the Scientific Method.

    ———–

    “The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

    Bertrand Russell
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — February 9, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - February 9, 2011

  46. Cas:

    What evidence would tip the balance for you? And if you did get this evidence, would it be at a time too late to really ameliorate the cascading effects of human influenced global weather change (if it happened to be true)?

    So should we shoot the suspected child abuser before he might, perhaps kill the kid or should we wait until he kills the kid at which time it would be too late to save the kid? Is that really your question?

    We know unfunded entitlements are strangling us. That is not supposition, like “human influenced weather change.” So, should we start the biggest unfunded entitlement boondoggle in history to finish off the whole economy or should we just succumb to a deep religious belief in the gods of hope and change?

    Cas, could you please tell us about how cap and trade will save the planet? Please. Wouldn’t high speed rail pretty much make cap and trade a sure thing for getting off fossil fuels and creating harmony in the sheng fui of bipartisan civility as envisioned by the Chicago School of Political Dialogue Through Body Language and Tacit Threat?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2011 @ 11:31 pm - February 9, 2011

  47. Hi Heliotrope,
    I ask my question because I haven’t seen an answer to it. You ask some interesting questions, and on another thread, i might be drawn to answer them, but I want to stay with the topic as first introduced. To me, this is a critical issue–the nay sayers have been very diligent about saying “no.” But I haven’t seen anything about what they think would constitute evidence that they could accept. Its OK if you just point me to a link that you like that deals with the queries I have raised. You know the “no” side better than I do, and I am interested to explore the question I have raised with you.

    Hi gastrogarb,
    I am at a loss as to what you think all those scientists (who make up the scientific consensus) are doing, if not following the scientific method. Science moves, on occasion I grant, with a paradigm shifting lead (e.g., Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend), but normal science is done by large numbers of scientists replicating results, via the scientific method, and publishing their results. What we have here are a whole lot of scientists using the scientific method, and by looking at the data, agreeing as to what it means. This is not an argument to popularity. I have looked at some of the research (and lord knows there is more than anyone is likely to read), e.g., http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html, as an interested layman, and come to a different conclusion than the one that you do. If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, I am unsure how anyone on this blog would not also be guilty of the argumentative fallacy you put forward.

    On this note, I am interested in your sense of the scientific method in action–what evidence would you accept as evidence of global weather change; evidence that would make you change your mind, since you are left unconvinced by what a majority of scientists in this field hold?

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 12:15 am - February 10, 2011

  48. “evidence of global weather change”

    What an interesting term. Cas, you do realize that term is generally not used in climate science at all. And as I have already pointed out, skeptics at WUWT say this about weather events and global warming:

    It has now become all too common. Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can’t possibly be to blame. The reality, as we’ve often remarked here before, is that absolute statements of neither sort are scientifically defensible. Meteorological anomalies cannot be purely attributed to deterministic factors, let alone any one specific such factor (e.g. either global warming or a hypothetical long-term climate oscillation)….

    Oh, my bad. That isn’t from WUWT… That’s from Real Climate!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 2:12 am - February 10, 2011

  49. TGC, did you read the article that you link pointed readers to:

    Rob, did you not know that the hockey stick was tossed out years ago? It’s cute that NASA bitterly clings to that. No wonder they were chosen to reach out to the archaic Muslims.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 10, 2011 @ 3:38 am - February 10, 2011

  50. Global warming doesn’t mean it gets noticeably hotter everywhere on Earth. It means that it gets hotter by an average of a few degrees all over Earth.

    Average means that some places can get hotter and some places can get holder.

    That’s why they started to call it climate change. Because it seems that some people can’t understand the concept of “average”.

    Comment by Joe Earth — February 10, 2011 @ 5:19 am - February 10, 2011

  51. I am at a loss as to what you think all those scientists (who make up the scientific consensus) are doing,

    Fishing for grant money. I mean, let’s face it, scientists are human beings. If politicians and activists group offer them millions in grants money to find ‘Global Warming,’ and if their continued wealth and celebrity depend on continuing to find evidence of ‘Global Warming,’ then a number of scienticians are going to come up with Global Warming, even if they have to fudge the data and “hide the decline.”

    Or, is all that research done by the Tobacco Institute suddenly rehabilitated?

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 5:46 am - February 10, 2011

  52. I propose that Levi, Karen and Rob show some leadership and save the planet by ceasing to use the internet. Computers and such devices use up a great deal of energy, not just in use, but in production, shipment, etc. The plastics are made from oil, the copper (electronics use lots of copper) come from mountaintop strip mines. The raw materials are from one continent, refined on another, shipped to another for assembly, and shipped back to the US for distribution and sale.

    What an enormous carbon footprint, all to fulfill your greedy, selfish lust for entertainment. Cant get much less essential than that!

    So put your money where your mouths are. Save the environment! Turn off your earth-destroying computers, and go away and never come back.

    rationalization for why THEY should not sacrifice even their most frivolous energy use, but other people should lose their entire way of life in 3…2…1…

    Comment by American Elephant — February 10, 2011 @ 5:59 am - February 10, 2011

  53. AE, I think it’s safe to assume that unless Rob, Levi, and Karen each send me $10,000 to buy my carbon credits, they hate the Earth and want it to burn up. (Using the time-proven liberal formulation, “If you don’t support my policies 100%, you are a hater.”)

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 8:24 am - February 10, 2011

  54. “I am at a loss as to what you think all those scientists (who make up the scientific consensus) are doing, if not following the scientific method.”

    ———–

    These ‘impartial scientists’ are much more biased that anyone on the left is willing to admit. In some cases they are down right bigoted.

    It’s as if they believe that the label of ‘Scientist’ nullifies all their human flaws. It reminds me of religious fundamentalism.

    Social Scientist Sees Bias Within – New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=2&hp

    “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

    Comment by gastorgrab — February 10, 2011 @ 9:15 am - February 10, 2011

  55. Cas at #47 cleverly tries to ooze the argument into shooting at cans on fence posts:

    To me, this is a critical issue–the nay sayers have been very diligent about saying “no.” But I haven’t seen anything about what they think would constitute evidence that they could accept. Its OK if you just point me to a link that you like that deals with the queries I have raised. You know the “no” side better than I do, and I am interested to explore the question I have raised with you.

    Let us say that, oh, I don’t know … that Keynesian economics will fix our economy. Up pop the nay-sayers diligently saying “no.” So, Cas in his best matter-of-fact manner asks what he could provide to win the case on Keynesian economics. And he says he will actually review any evidence that has tainted helped inform my view. How kind of him.

    Well, Cas, much of economics is opinion driven drivel. If it had ever reached anything close to a “system” of analysis, you could buy programs that would beat the market every time and make you a sure winner in Vegas and catch Soros, Madoff, Enron, derivatives, and bundlers in action.

    You know what? Weather “best-guesses” are a lot better than they used to be, but what accuracy do we have for nailing hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, etc. a year out? So, we start with the hole in the ozone and all of the CFC stuff and Montreal Protocol and even look at a way to crack the carbon-fluorine bond by using a silicon-based catalyst that recycles itself, so it can spark the breakdown reaction over and over again. Except, like massive use of DDT, we do not understand the unexpected consequences of seeding the atmosphere to do one thing and, oops, causing something that is potentially worse.

    Your man-made global warming guess is based on incomplete science and has morphed into a huge political food fight complete with secret data, manipulated data to achieve desired results and Al Gore and the carbon credit exchange and storm door company.

    And you would like me to point out what costume you could wear that would elicit my trust in this? Look at this way. Science has been working hard and long in curing cancer. Hooray for science. But you want me to believe that a bunch of long-haired maggots with computers and an agenda can analyze the atmosphere of the entire globe and shoot it with magic treatments and make it better?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 9:24 am - February 10, 2011

  56. Helio, I am pretty sure Cas is being disingenuous rather than merely lazy. A quick search would lead him to websites like ‘Watts Up With That’ that collect the scientific evidence contra the case for catastrophic man-made Global Warming, primarily focusing on deficiencies in the methodologies used to reach the conclusion that ‘the Earth has a fever.’ Cas just wants us to waste our time doing his homework for him, only to dismiss whatever we link to as “anecdotal” or tainted because one of the scientists used to have a Texaco gas card and is therefore part of the Global Oil Cabal.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 9:44 am - February 10, 2011

  57. No doubt about it, V the K. I am amused at his debutante at the stable mucking event persona. “How interesting that you do not agree with me, could you possibly educate me more? I simply thirst for knowledge.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 9:58 am - February 10, 2011

  58. I thought Cas was a girl???

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 11:10 am - February 10, 2011

  59. I thought Cas was a girl???

    Genderist!

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - February 10, 2011

  60. The weather report for El Salvador is that a cold wave is coming from the north and will last for several days. Global warming in action. It is recommened that we wear heavy jackets to avoid becoming ill. The beautiful 90 degree days and warm nights are slipping away.

    Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - February 10, 2011

  61. Sonic: Who knows? Probably not even Cas. He could be a Cassandra in drag. Or maybe he is Cassiopeia in drag. Or maybe he is Castor of the Gemini or Castor of all things beaver. But to us, he/she/it is just predictable.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 12:10 pm - February 10, 2011

  62. Roberto!

    Get a life! Cold waves just recharge man-made global warming. Next week you will have droughts and deserts right after the locusts strip the forests and the oceans rise to cover two-thirds of your land mass. Good luck!

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 12:13 pm - February 10, 2011

  63. Hi all,
    I ask a simple question. What evidence would you accept as proof for the human induced climate change model? I grant that it is a conceptually difficult question, but one that I think works within the range of normal science. It is not a question of anecdotal evidence, but of experimental design, VK. Surely someone, a scientist perhaps, who supports the views you espouse, has given it some thought? All I want is a clear link to read that source.

    Heliotrope points me to a website that collects a lot of articles posted that cast a negative light on climate change theory but which as far as I can tell, wading through them, doesn’t actually offer anything to answer the question I have asked.

    “Your man-made global warming guess is based on incomplete science and has morphed into a huge political food fight complete with secret data, manipulated data to achieve desired results and Al Gore and the carbon credit exchange and storm door company.” For sake of argument, let me grant you your premise, Heliotrope. I still ask my question and it still goes unanswered.

    For example: Would the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet be a crystallizing event that would make you change your mind? If not, what proved experimental prediction would?

    Also, here is my prediction for the coming Atlantic hurricane season–it is going to be active, and hurricanes will land with greater frequency in the Americas then they did last year. Why? La Nina conditions prevail.

    And thank you Sonicfrog, “Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can’t possibly be to blame.” I agree with you. That was the point that I raised with regards to Dan’s original post: using anecdotal evidence for either side is not very helpful, and proves nothing in itself. That is why scientists have been doing observational work to nail this issue down. Even with some concerns about methodology and “Climategate,” the majority of scientists have reached a consensus, one that many here actively disagree with, that human activity is a cause of climate change–based on these observations.

    Finally, for gastrogarb, I agree with you that scientists can be biased. That is the whole point of the scientific method–to take that bias out of the results, so that scientists can examine a set of observations and agree on what they might mean (Unless you are arguing about bias given Kuhn’s or Feyerabendi’s framework of scientific progress?) What is going on now is an argument about methodologies and models. But even with that ongoing argument, the majority of scientists agree that there is plenty of evidence supporting the contention of human induced climate change. A minority of scientists are unconvinced. OK. I do not think that either of these two sides are arguing in bad faith.

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 12:31 pm - February 10, 2011

  64. What evidence would you accept as proof for the human induced climate change model?

    It would be persuasive if any of their computer models, (using verified data and modeling algorithms that were peer reviewed by outside skeptics and not fellow members of the cult), actually predicted an outcome that was verified in nature as demonstrated by reliable data that was released for public scrutiny.

    None of these conditions has ever been met by those propagating the Global Warming Hysteria. The fact that NASA pointedly refuses to release its raw climate measurement data does little to inspire confidence.

    And maybe if all the celebrity global warming activists gave up their private jets and actually modeled the lifestyle they want to reduce everyone else to, that might persuade me that they really believe the fable they’re promoting.

    Also, Cas and Rob could just buy my carbon credits, if they are so concerned about the environment. Mine are certainly as good as any of the other ones being sold out there. And as long they refuse to buy my carbon credits, I will conclude, using standard liberal logic, that they hate the environment.

    Comment by V the K — February 10, 2011 @ 1:12 pm - February 10, 2011

  65. Cas, I didn’t direct you anywhere. I am not playing your prove God exists game.

    As to the Greenland ice shelf collapsing, it did sometime in the 1300′s to the early to mid 1400′s. You could circumnavigate Greenland and the Vikings had active sheep farms which are now slowly emerging from the ice that has covered them. That would be the ice that starved the Vikings out. The Germanic people worked silver mines in the 1300′s that were exposed recently when a glacier in the Alps receded.

    When the scientists have determined what happened and why completely figured out, modeled and then applied to other periods of climate change with near perfect accuracy, then I will begin to think they know what they are doing. Right now, we are in the climate change alchemy stage.

    Wow! The goddess La Nina appears. What is the clear, scientific understanding of what causes La Nina, when where and how it will appear and how specifically will it effect the rice crops in Arkansas?

    Can you beat the Farmer’s Almanac in your hazy predictions?

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 10, 2011 @ 1:20 pm - February 10, 2011

  66. Cas,

    If there was any consistancy in the predictions, then maybe I’d give the alarmists some credence.

    Back in 1990 ZZ Top released Recycler. Back then, they parroted the line “We have only 10 years to save the planet. It starts with you and it’s easy: buy environmentally sound products; pressure political leaders; love and respect all life; turn off lights; car pool; recycle.”

    21 years later and, mysteriously, we still have ten years to save the planet.

    In the 1970′s and 80′s we had the mass starvation, famine and depletion of resources predicted in the Population bomb.

    Oh wait, we didn’t.

    Despite being made a fool of with his doom and gloom, the doom sayers still get their words across.

    So what would I need to see as ‘proof’?

    Actual proof of climate change linked to human activity. So far there is none.

    Actual steps to address this ‘issue’. I see no new nuclear plants, no real action taken for China and India, and no proof the draconian methods suggested for the west will do anything but destroy livelyhoods and income.

    The people who preach doom and gloom actually taking meaningful steps to change their own lifestyles to match what they wish to impose on us

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 10, 2011 @ 1:28 pm - February 10, 2011

  67. What evidence would you accept as proof for the human induced climate change model? I grant that it is a conceptually difficult question, but one that I think works within the range of normal science.

    Cas, here’s the problem. I can’t speak for the others here, but for me, this is a false dichotomy. The big problem here is that the question is set up as a scenario where you either accept all, or nothing. The alarmist side of the AGW proponents, who are the scientists embedded within NASA, NOAA, and especially the IPCC, many of those all being the same group of guys “The Team” have taken away the middle ground. You’re either completely with them, completely, and don’t question them, or you are labeled anti-science and a denier.

    I’m not sure if you are familiar with climate scientists such as Rodger Pielke Sr or Judith Curry. Even though both believe that man-made CO2 (not quite the right term, but I’ll use it her) does influence the current warming trend, both, especially Pielke, point to other factors that also are contributing. Pielke has published over 350 peer reviewed papers in climate journals documenting how changes in land use has also contributed to the warming trend of the 20th Century. And for his work, by point to other sources of warming, he gets labeled, in no uncertain terms, a denier. Curry points out that, based on actual observation, there is NO DISCERNIBLE LINK between hurricanes, their strength or frequency, and global warming, And for this, she is labeled a denier.

    Some here may not believe that the extra CO2 emitted by humans have actually had much to do with the current warming trend. I can’t put myself in that camp. BUT, being a former geology major, knowing the epochal history of the Earth concerning the lack of correlation between CO2 and temp, where several multi 100 million year periods have had much much high CO2 and low temps, and vise-a-versa, it is very difficult to ignore 3.5 billion years Earths history, and the general lack of a firm causal relationship between CO2 and temps, to suddenly find that CO2 is a main driver of the worlds climate.

    You ask:

    “Would the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet be a crystallizing event that would make you change your mind? If not, what proved experimental prediction would?”

    Horrible example. We already know the glaciers are melting, as we are coming out of the little ice age. Just because the ice is melting does not mean that we are causing it. You still have to prove that the warming itself was caused by us. We also know, due to irrefutable anthropological evidence, that 7 to 9 Centuries ago there was also much less ice on the continent of Greenland than there is today. And no one has, despite best efforts, provided a firm reason why it was so much warmer then. That warm period was caused by natural variability, and we really don’t have a firm grip scientifically on exactly what that looked like. There are a number of hypothesis being worked on, but nothing solidly agreed on.

    Also, here is my prediction for the coming Atlantic hurricane season–it is going to be active, and hurricanes will land with greater frequency in the Americas then they did last year. Why? La Nina conditions prevail.

    That prediction is based on research done by one Dr. William Gray. From NOAA:

    Dr. William Gray at the Colorado State University has pioneered research efforts leading to the discovery of La Niña impacts on Atlantic hurricane activity, and to the first and, presently only, operational long-range forecasts of Atlantic basin hurricane activity. According to this research, the chances for the continental U.S. and the Caribbean Islands to experience hurricane activity increases substantially during La Niña.

    Do note, , Dr William Gray is a confirmed “denialist“!

    “I think the whole human-induced greenhouse gas thing is a red herring. … I see climate change as due to the ocean circulation pattern. I see this as a major cause of climate change. … These are natural processes. We shouldn’t blame them on humans and CO2.”

    He has been a long time opponent of the idea of a causal relationship between hurricanes and ocean phenomenon such as El Nino and La Nina, and supports research that concludes the oceans are the prime driver in long term warming and cooling events, not CO2.

    But… Again. Dr. William Gray is marginalized… Why? Because he is not a “true believer” in the man-made hypothesis of global warming.

    Gotta go now.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 3:20 pm - February 10, 2011

  68. Hi all,
    Heliotrope, “What is the clear, scientific understanding of what causes La Nina, when where and how it will appear and how specifically will it effect the rice crops in Arkansas?” I have no idea about rice crops in Arkansas, though I imagine a hurricane’s remnants might be helpful, though too much of a good thing…? As for a nice explanation, check out: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/elnino/mainpage.html, or, http://factoidz.com/all-about-la-nina/. The bottom line is that there is still a lot of work needed to understand why these phenomena occur; but that they occur, with some regularity has achieved the status of “scientific consensus.”

    Hey VK, thank you: “It would be persuasive if any of their computer models, (using verified data and modeling algorithms that were peer reviewed by outside skeptics and not fellow members of the cult), actually predicted an outcome that was verified in nature as demonstrated by reliable data that was released for public scrutiny.” Here is hoping that such an event occurs, and does so quickly.
    As for, “As to the Greenland ice shelf collapsing, it did sometime in the 1300′s to the early to mid 1400′s.” I do not think we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about ice around the edges of the land (where the vikings had their settlements), or the ice in the sea, but the ice on the land itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Greenland.

    “Also, Cas and Rob could just buy my carbon credits, if they are so concerned about the environment.” Actually, perhaps in time, we could both buy publicly traded carbon credits in this country’s national market, and both help the environment and make some money at the same time…

    Hi TL,
    You raise good points about doomsayers. I agree about a lot of them. They didn’t take into account that we do change our behaviour in the face of scarcity. As oil prices rose, we used less oil, and used oil saving technologies. So, these predictions are made, not allowing for the manner in which we change behaviour, in response to price. Capitalism is good that way. One aside: One way the market allocates this scarce resource is to just price it out of the reach of those who would like it, but cannot afford it. That goes for individuals and also for countries (especially in Africa, at the moment). What capitalism is not good about is what happens when we get changes in relative scarcity that move too quickly to be reflected effectively in prices. The main worry, I think, about global climate change is that–if true–it will cause a series of catastrophic events that we will not be able to “smoothly” factor into price changes. The best example I can come up with right now is the impact of various natural disasters we are having with the ability of private companies to insure against those disasters. If climate change advocates are right, there will be more and more disasters with greater power, which means that there will be more and more areas where one cannot get private house insurance in this country because of perceived risks due to prevailing weather conditions; or were insurers will be more and more keen to push insured members off their rolls. With regards to oil, there is evidence to suggest that we have seen the end of plentiful oil, and that oil production is on a downward trend. As long as that decline in production is a slow and graceful one, we can adapt as a capitalist economy. But that is an “if.” I wonder what would happen to gasoline prices in this country, if there is a major political convulsion in Saudi Arabia, that lasts three months?

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 3:26 pm - February 10, 2011

  69. Hi Sonicfrog,
    Thank you for your great reply!
    My claim about hurricanes is not based on Dr. Gray’s work, but on my own reading of the implications of what La Nina means. It is nice though to see that my intuitions have scientific support from those who know much more about this stuff than I do!

    “I’m not sure if you are familiar with climate scientists such as Rodger Pielke Sr or Judith Curry.” I am not familiar with their work, but I will take the time to check out some citations, and see if some of their papers are on-line. If you have one or two that you think would be most helpful, I would appreciate the heads up.

    I just want to be clear–I am not arguing that humans alone are causing the problem. I understand that we have variability in climate, but I also believe that humans are a significant factor in the changes we are experiencing in global climate at the moment.

    As for Greenland, I will hold back on agreeing with your assessment of my claim. The main reason I have is that the milder climate that Greenland experienced before our “mini-Ice” had its main impact on the coastal areas, and that the middle of Greenland was not strongly affected. From what I have read the extent of melting has accelerated. This could be an anomaly, but it is consistent with steadily rising temperatures we have experiencing over the last thirty years. The question, as always: is this increase in temperature (and thus the melting) something that was caused (to some extent) by human activity?
    Thanks for the conversation.

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 3:56 pm - February 10, 2011

  70. Cas,

    Very glad we can converse and not yell at each other. I usually simply don’t reply to those, as they are never an exchange of viewpoints on a respectable level.

    On Greenland. The warming and melting was much more than a coastal phenomenon. You have to have a long term warm period to even melt the coastal ice. In our current status, we have had a sustained warming of 150 years to get to the point where we are now. As far as the entire continental sheet melting? That is on the very extreme of climate predictions, the type that Al Gore loves to trot out. Yet, the likelihood of that happening, as it appears in both the scientific lit and in the IPCC report, is not considered to be high.

    And, the latest research seems to suggest that the ice movement we have seen is due less to global warming than to other factors:

    Greenland ice sheet flow driven by short-term weather extremes, not gradual warming: UBC research

    And

    Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage

    This is a harder paper to wrap your head around. If I understand it, they are saying that the glacial flow is less than they would have expected under current warming conditions. The paper is behind a paywall, which is really annoying (unless you are a head honcho for Nature! :-)

    So, any way, a melting Greenland may turn out to be less of a threat than many have painted it to be.

    PS. The same might be said for the Arctic, as it looks like similar mechanisms may be at play in that region, and their may be no Arctic tipping point after all..

    Declines in the summer sea ice extent have led to concerns within the scientific community that the Arctic Ocean may be nearing a tipping point, beyond which the sea ice cap could not recover. In such a scenario, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap outgoing radiation, and as the Sun beats down 24 hours a day during the Arctic summer, temperatures rise and melt what remains of the polar sea ice cap. The Arctic Ocean, now less reflective, would absorb more of the Sun’s warmth, a feedback loop that would keep the ocean ice free.

    However, new research by Tietsche et al. suggests that even if the Arctic Ocean sees an ice-free summer, it would not lead to catastrophic runaway ice melt. The researchers, using a general circulation model of the global ocean and the atmosphere, find that Arctic sea ice recovers within 2 years of an imposed ice-free summer to the conditions dictated by general climate conditions during that time. Furthermore, they find that this quick recovery occurs whether the ice-free summer is triggered in 2000 or in 2060, when global temperatures are predicted to be 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer.

    Granted, this is just one study, and it needs replication by others. But it does give pause to many assumptions about the behavior of the colder regions.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 4:42 pm - February 10, 2011

  71. Heliotrope,

    I have a life and good one at that. This is the wrong time for a cold wave. As for the forrests, they were stripped years ago, not by locausts but by communists. If the oceans rise and cover the land and takes a bunch of the FMLN out to se, that would be a good thing.

    Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - February 10, 2011

  72. The Greenhouse Effect -> Global Warming -> Climate Change -> Temperature Goblins -> Humidity Vampirism -> Charles Nelson Reilly

    Comment by JervisTetch — February 10, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - February 10, 2011

  73. Correction, line three s/b locusts
    line four, s/b sea.

    Comment by Roberto — February 10, 2011 @ 4:47 pm - February 10, 2011

  74. PS. On the question “what would make me change my view”?

    For the first time since in the last 40 years, we are entering a phase where several natural variations are entering into colling phases at the same time. The PDO has turned negative, as has the AMO. The 11 year solar cycle has also unexpectedly ended up lagging in strength, and we may see something akin to the Dalton minimum. These are know natural events which should bring temps down as least some. If these factors stay in their current configuration and do not change – ceteris paribus – AND global temps do not go down but instead go up….. That will go a very long way to providing confidence in the man-made CO2 global warming link.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 4:53 pm - February 10, 2011

  75. Hi Sonicfrog,
    “For the first time since in the last 40 years, we are entering a phase where several natural variations are entering into colling phases at the same time. The PDO has turned negative, as has the AMO. The 11 year solar cycle has also unexpectedly ended up lagging in strength, and we may see something akin to the Dalton minimum. These are know natural events which should bring temps down as least some. If these factors stay in their current configuration and do not change – ceteris paribus – AND global temps do not go down but instead go up….. That will go a very long way to providing confidence in the man-made CO2 global warming link”

    Thank you so much for a really useful, empirical, and potentially verifiable experiment. As for your other points, I will have to read them and get back to you on them. And I too appreciate the opportunity for a cordial conversation! :)

    Comment by Cas — February 10, 2011 @ 5:15 pm - February 10, 2011

  76. There is another potential NV that has also turned south… but I don’t remember what it is at the moment.

    Another thing to keep in mind. Here is a post by Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate, concerning the predicted warming by GCM’s, and the observed. It is still within the margin of error.

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/model10.jpg

    Yet, if climate temps follow the trend the typically do during a La Nina conditions (1999, 2008) then temps will continue to migrate out of the bottom end of the predicted margin of error. That will mean there will have to be a very sizable warming shift that is not caused by an El Nino pattern for the temps to realign with IPCC predictions. As it stands now, if the 15 year trend continues, observations will fall through the bottom end of the error bars, and that will put a serious strain on the theory that extra CO2 has a high dominance on global temperatures.

    Again, the question isn’t whether or not CO2 has an effect, the question is, after sifting through the natural variations and positive and negative forcings… how much does it contribute to the warming signal we see.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 5:42 pm - February 10, 2011

  77. A few errors in the last two posts.

    Here is the Gavin link

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

    One of these days I’m going to actually proof read my comments… But not today!!! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 10, 2011 @ 5:52 pm - February 10, 2011

  78. I am not talking about ice around the edges of the land (where the vikings had their settlements), or the ice in the sea, but the ice on the land itself,

    Considering the Greenland Ice Cap has survived several thousand years during temperature periods that were much, much warmer than the Earth is today, I am not worried.

    And so what if the climate does change? We’re humans. We’ll cope. Certainly adaptation is a more viable strategy then attempting to control nature, if evolution teaches us anything.

    Comment by The Narrative — February 10, 2011 @ 6:03 pm - February 10, 2011

  79. It all boils down to this:

    Proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming made a claim based on their observations, and they presented evidence to support that hypothesis. Their evidence was later found to be corrupted.

    Now all that remains is their unsupported claim. It doesn’t matter how many “scientists” agree with the original premise. Consensus is not evidence. Speculation is not evidence. Only that which conforms to the Scientific Method can be said to be an ‘Objective Truth’.

    Their original suspicions weren’t proven or disproven by the corruption of their data, or by the inconsistency of their methodology. Likewise, if a man was accused of murder because all of the evidence pointed in his direction, but only later was it discovered that the lab had mixed up the results of the testing, it is NO REFLECTION on the man’s character. It doesn’t matter that everyone on the police force thinks he’s guilty.

    The American people have been accused of a ‘Carbon Crime’, and the prosecutors case has fallen apart. Why should there be any sentencing phase?

    We don’t care what the moral implications are of releasing a “potentially guilty” person back into society. We are trying to establish guilt or innocence, not to speculate about the after-effects of our actions.

    ——–

    We are already past the point where anything could be done to prevent the destruction of all life on earth due to Anthropogenic-Warming. The most meager efforts to slow the production of carbon dioxide in this country will economically devastate the US, and will be insignificant compared to the projected increases in carbon production in India and China.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — February 11, 2011 @ 10:00 am - February 11, 2011

  80. [...] our upside-down, record-breaking cold and snow, “AGW, uh, causes global warming AND global cooling” world, battling “global warming” is high on the Department of Homeland Security’s [...]

    Pingback by Cold As Ice: Global Warming Political Cartoon “Son of Scam” Roundup « Frugal Café Blog Zone — February 13, 2011 @ 8:58 pm - February 13, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.725 Powered by Wordpress