With The Latest In Weather Forecasting...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

If you figure the Earth's temperature has not gone any higher than in 1998...so in 11 years we have been getting colder...does this not PROVE global warming does not pose a threat insofar as human influence is concerned? The world has been generating more and more CO2 in the last 11 years but to no avail... WE HAVE NOT INCREASED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH...

 

So what is the cause?

 

As far as problems are concerned...spending money on finding suitable crops and water resources to help offset natural climate change...warming AND COOLING...makes sense.

 

Spending billions of dollars on carbon sequestration and CO2 trading is just going to make Al Gore's company rich. It will do nothing to help the rest of the world and neither will it save lives or feed kids or cure illness.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

 

You all have to realize now... The tide is changing and global cooling and the impending ice age is where the research money is going to go to next. To all scientists...start thinking of new hypothesis's. As for computer models...they are worth the code they are printed on.

 

It is cold...so let's start the heated discussions

 

[dryfly]

Prologue: The MOST significant thing about the current cooling trend in global temperatures is that none of the IPCC models predicted cooling. None. We are constantly bombarded with dire warnings of how hot it will be based on computer models and these models were (and are) wrong. They were wrong because they do not take into account all of the myriad of variables that affect climate. They were focused on carbon dioxide as a primary driver of climate which is (and was) utter nonsense. The models did not place enough emphasis on the sun and oceans. But climate is so very complex it will never be modeled accurately even in the lifetimes of the younger set here. Just too complex.

 

And we are planning to waste trillions of dollars based on bad computer models. What a crime, when so many in this world don't have clean water and good health care. Anyone who continues to support the concept of man-made global warming is part of the world's greatest crime against humanity.

 

Yes the world's climate is changing. It always has changed and always will change. The climate in our region (and in the world) is always going one way or another in a quasi random fashion or part of natural cycles governed by things we don't comprehend...can't comprehend. The world's oceans and sun energy being two often cited causes of change.

 

Deal with change. Don't try to fight it ... because that is a war that can't be won.

 

Clive

===============================================================

A Cherry-Picker’s Guide to Temperature Trends

by Chip Knappenberger

 

Accusations of cherry-picking—that is, carefully choosing data to support a particular point—are constantly being hurled around by all sides of the climate change debate. Most recently, accusations of cherry-picking have been levied at analyses describing the recent behavior of global average temperature...

 

Figure 1 illustrates the various cherry varieties that you have to choose from. It shows the global temperature history during the past 20 years as compiled in five different datasets (three representing surface temperatures, and two representing the temperatures in the lower atmosphere as measured by satellites—the latter being relatively immune form the data handling issues which plague the surface records).

 

Global temperature anomalies from September 1989 through August 2009 as contained in five different data compilations. The GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), NCDC (National Climate Data Center), and CRU (Climate Research Unit) data are all compiled from surface records, while the RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (University of Alabama-Huntsville) data are compiled from satellite observations of the lower atmosphere.

 

 

Figure 2. Cherry-Pickers Guide to Global Temperature Trends. Each point on the chart represents the trend beginning in September of the year indicated along the x-axis and ending in August 2009. The trends which are statistically significant (p<0.05) are indicated by filled circles. The zero line (no trend) is indicated by the thin black horizontal line, and the climate model average projected trend is indicated by the thick red horizontal line.

 

....

I also include several other items of potential interest to the cherry harvesters; first is the dotted horizontal line representing a trend of zero—i.e., no change in global temperature, and second, the thick red horizontal lines which generally indicates the average trend projected to be occurring by the ensemble of climate models. Bear in mind that red line only represents the average model expectation, not the range of model variability. So it shouldn’t be used to rule out whether or not a particular observed value is consistent with model expectations, but does give you some guidance as to just how far from the average model expectation the current trend lies (a cherry picker is not usually worried about the finer details of the former, but, instead, the coarser picture presented by the latter).

....

General Conclusions

 

Here are a few general statements that can be supported with using my Cherry-Pickers Guide:

 

• For the past 8 years (96 months), no global warming is indicated by any of the five datasets.

 

• For the past 5 years (60 months), there is a statistically significant global cooling in all datasets.

 

• For the past 15 years, global warming has been occurring at a rate that is below the average climate model expected warming

[Taco]

Clive and Sundance's winter hobby

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Clive and Sundance's winter hobby

 

Hey...at least we are trying to add some hot air to offset the cold shoulder from the global warming fanatics who are hiding from the scrutiny...

 

[dryfly]

"Clive and Sundance's winter hobby"

 

Yeah cause it's too damn cold to fish.

 

We are actually hitting a river today ... might be just a nice drive and lunch. Who knows?

[Taco]

:D

 

Too damn cold for this time of the yr is right so I'm internet fishin'

 

Floated one over and got 2 rises

 

 

[alhuger]

 

Sundance, Clive,

 

Have you guys thought about getting an AD&D club going? You seem to have a committed estrangement to reality and commonly accepted science and I'm sure that alone would put you ahead of the curve for pretty much any fantasy based role playing game. I think you guys would have a good time with it. If not, then maybe you might consider the Flat Earth Society? I hear their doors are always open.

 

al

[dryfly]

Ah alhuger.

 

A great example of an ad hominem attack.

 

You can't argue the science so you attack the messengers.

 

Well done.

 

Clive

[canadensis]

You seem to have a committed estrangement to reality and commonly accepted science

 

There is a HUGE difference between commonly accepted science and looking at the factual data from an unbiased perspective.

 

You are saying just because something is commonly accepted we should accept it?

 

[Ricinus]

Well, David Suzuki," NOBEL PRIZE WINNER" says.......

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sundance, Clive,

 

Have you guys thought about getting an AD&D club going? You seem to have a committed estrangement to reality and commonly accepted science and I'm sure that alone would put you ahead of the curve for pretty much any fantasy based role playing game. I think you guys would have a good time with it. If not, then maybe you might consider the Flat Earth Society? I hear their doors are always open.

 

al

 

I am glad to see you rely on facts in front of you to present your arguments. The IPCC is now fully admitting that for the last 11 years we have been cooling.

 

Do you disagree with your climate bible? Is the IPCC lying now? What I did not point out is that the IPCC has "redone" their models (which means ran 1 million permutations until one kinda fit this new hypothesis). The new hypothesis is that climate warms and climate cools but soon...or eventually we will cause global warming. Now that is a last case attempt to protect current studies. But just like in the 1970's when people were worrying about a new ice age and governments were panicing (because global cooling is way more dangerous to the Earth's inhabitants (human or otherwise) than warming). So soon, very soon alhuger...you will be complaining that not enough is being done to promote warming.

 

Anyways...as per your commend above...

 

So...explain how 11 years of pumping out more and more CO2 has caused the climate to cool? Now people are just asking the smart questions and not falling for "cause David Suzuki said so" response. In the immortal words of Tom Cruise..."SHOW ME THE WARMING"...

[SupremeLeader]

[Smitty]

There is a HUGE difference between commonly accepted science and looking at the factual data from an unbiased perspective.

 

You are saying just because something is commonly accepted we should accept it?

 

EXCELLENT!

 

Wasn't too long ago my church (raised Catholic) rejected both the heliocentric theory and, later, evolution. It was commonly accepted that the earth was the center of the universe, and evolution was a just hot air from a guy studying blue footed boobies. Now, funnily enough, papal encyclicals have embraced both scientific positions/theories/facts.

 

I think the greatest tragedy, the most abhorrent outcome of the GW debate is the vast amount of time, energy, money, and resources that are diverted from other, more factual, less sensational, more pressing causes. I don't know, like food supply, water quality, access to basic health services, you know, stuff for the poor people of the world? (Did I just surprise some of you who though I was merely the corporate-defending capitalist pig? )

 

Frankly, I'm all for cost-effective renewable energy, and I look forward to a day when the world starts to lessen its addiction to carbon based economies. But in the meantime, how about Greenpeace and other organizations spend more time helping people, rather than chaining themselves to smokestacks? I'd have an easier time supporting environmental groups if they weren't so...wasteful. Wasteful of resources and people's time.

 

Smitty

[Guest Sundancefisher]

EXCELLENT!

 

Wasn't too long ago my church (raised Catholic) rejected both the heliocentric theory and, later, evolution. It was commonly accepted that the earth was the center of the universe, and evolution was a just hot air from a guy studying blue footed boobies. Now, funnily enough, papal encyclicals have embraced both scientific positions/theories/facts.

 

I think the greatest tragedy, the most abhorrent outcome of the GW debate is the vast amount of time, energy, money, and resources that are diverted from other, more factual, less sensational, more pressing causes. I don't know, like food supply, water quality, access to basic health services, you know, stuff for the poor people of the world? (Did I just surprise some of you who though I was merely the corporate-defending capitalist pig? )

 

Frankly, I'm all for cost-effective renewable energy, and I look forward to a day when the world starts to lessen its addiction to carbon based economies. But in the meantime, how about Greenpeace and other organizations spend more time helping people, rather than chaining themselves to smokestacks? I'd have an easier time supporting environmental groups if they weren't so...wasteful. Wasteful of resources and people's time.

 

Smitty

 

I am all for Greenpeace's right to bring issues to light. Problem is they go to far and actually then detract from their message. Then they go a step to far and infringe on people's right to decide and try and force their ideals down the throats of others. Opinions are often just opinions. Some groups can never say "we agree to disagree". They have to beat you with a stick until they get hit back...

 

[trailhead]

Well put Smitty. The envirnmentalists are just as bad as any other lobby group. The original intention was well meant, but then the organization became bigger than the cause. Lots of fat salaries at Greenpeace et al.

[SupremeLeader]

Well put Smitty. The envirnmentalists are just as bad as any other lobby group. The original intention was well meant, but then the organization became bigger than the cause. Lots of fat salaries at Greenpeace et al.

 

 

I would venture to guess that the salaries are much fatter in all of the anti-environmental oil company funded lobby groups.

 

On the other side of this issue, one can't deny the bias and incorrect data that has been pushed to debunk climate change. Exxon hired the same 'scientists' to disprove climate change as the tobacco companies did to disprove a cancer link to smoking; and there research has been completely discredited.

 

Clive, c'mon..you can do better than Knappenberger? The consulting firm he is a part of is funded by fossil fuel companies.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I would venture to guess that the salaries are much fatter in all of the anti-environmental oil company funded lobby groups.

 

On the other side of this issue, one can't deny the bias and incorrect data that has been pushed to debunk climate change. Exxon hired the same 'scientists' to disprove climate change as the tobacco companies did to disprove a cancer link to smoking; and there research has been completely discredited.

 

Clive, c'mon..you can do better than Knappenberger? The consulting firm he is a part of is funded by fossil fuel companies.

 

ahh.. the conspiracy theory.

 

But if the IPCC says that 1998 was the last temperature high and that we have been cooling for 11 years...what does your common sense tell you? Did the oil companies secretly decrease the temperature through some nefarious means?

 

The IPCC is the mesiah of the global warming threat... Certainly you must of wondered why they suddenly changed their tune and stopped calling it global warming and changed the "official" term to "climate change"? There is a reason for that. They can then more quickly switch from "the sky is falling due to warming" to "the sky is falling due to cooling". The only conspiracy is that the IPCC is trying very hard to keep their jobs as the Earth climate fluctuates and with out any ability to predict it or really doing anything constructive to help areas with normal fluctuations.

 

Facts:

 

11 years of additional increasing release of CO2 by man has cause ZERO temperature increase and in fact a DECREASE

 

IPCC changed their terminology from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE

 

GLACIER studies are localized and have not focused on all glaciers at once. Facts are some glaciers are growing, some are shrinking, some are staying the same...

 

Arctic ice has not hit a new low this year...in fact ARCTIC ice is growing in 2009. The ice melts...the ice grows...as it has more millions of years

 

Predications of hurricanes...totally wrong

 

and on and on...

 

Without a doubt climate is changing. It warms and it cools. We can not change that. We can reduce true pollution and live greener however. I just don't want Stelmach spending $1 billion dollars on global warming as the Earth is cooling. Absolutely rediculous. Spend the money on studying what crops grow best in Alberta in various years. Better farming practices. True pollution controls. Clean up the pulp mills. Their effluent release is based upon volume of water flushed through their plant... Increase the water...increase the pollution release. Diluted pollution is still pollution. Let the plants deal with the CO2 during the day.

 

IMHO

[dryfly]

There you go SupremeLeader. WOW! Another ad hominem attack. A guy reports the data from the main sources of temperatures used by IPCC and you slag the guy for presenting the data from these agencies. Wow! Shoot the messenger .. again.

 

But perhaps you condone the likes of Suzuki and Gore making money off this .. a lot of money. Gore makes a reported $200,000 a speech and sells carbon offsets after scaring the beejeezus out of people (including children) with his bloody lies and fear mongering in his sci-fi movie AIT.

 

But you slag a guy who reports some facts from accepted agencies because he is a consultant. It is okay for the "green" side to have consultants but it is not okay for the "fossil fuel" side to have consultants. YOU can argue any way you want but will not allow the other side to have experts and argue back.

 

WOW! Can you say "Double standard"? Can you say eco fascism?

 

So all we've had in reply so far sundancefisher are two attacks on messengers and no countervailing arguments about the science of cooling which as you noted has now been accepted by IPCC and NASA as fact. The earth has indeed been in cooling mode for about ten years...like it did in the 50s 60s and 70s. After it was warmer in the 30s..and in the Medieval Warm Period. And in the LIA.

 

Goes around and comes around ... hotter and colder ... just like forever.

 

Stay tuned folks.

 

[Ricinus]

Meh!!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/...49466&tsp=1

 

It just keeps getting murkier.

 

Regards Mike

[Ricinus]

And another one

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

 

Regards Mike

 

[SupremeLeader]

There you go SupremeLeader. WOW! Another ad hominem attack. A guy reports the data from the main sources of temperatures used by IPCC and you slag the guy for presenting the data from these agencies. Wow! Shoot the messenger .. again.

 

But perhaps you condone the likes of Suzuki and Gore making money off this .. a lot of money. Gore makes a reported $200,000 a speech and sells carbon offsets after scaring the beejeezus out of people (including children) with his bloody lies and fear mongering in his sci-fi movie AIT.

 

But you slag a guy who reports some facts from accepted agencies because he is a consultant. It is okay for the "green" side to have consultants but it is not okay for the "fossil fuel" side to have consultants. YOU can argue any way you want but will not allow the other side to have experts and argue back.

 

WOW! Can you say "Double standard"? Can you say eco fascism?

 

So all we've had in reply so far sundancefisher are two attacks on messengers and no countervailing arguments about the science of cooling which as you noted has now been accepted by IPCC and NASA as fact. The earth has indeed been in cooling mode for about ten years...like it did in the 50s 60s and 70s. After it was warmer in the 30s..and in the Medieval Warm Period. And in the LIA.

 

Goes around and comes around ... hotter and colder ... just like forever.

 

Stay tuned folks.

 

 

Calm down Clive.

 

And where did you dig up that magazine article.......1973. Weren't they still using leaded gas back then? And geez, that's the year I was born.

 

Look at the data; it's selective. If the first graph showed the temperatures recorded over the last 100 years you would see an upward trend; you and I both know this. And you didn't address Exxon's research and the tobacco 'scientists'.......the biggest corporation in the world had to resort to using bunk science in it's arguments against climate change?

 

The thing about the vast majority of science regarding climate change is that the studies are grant funded and peer reviewed at Universities. Scientific research in universities doesn't set out to prove something, it's function is to research the truth. Consulting firms on the other hand, are asked to prove something. A few great examples come to mind....like the firm hired by Telus to prove using cell phone while driving is safe. Exxon hired their scientists to prove global warming is false; they didn't hire them to report the data.

 

To compare the money made by Gore or Suzuki to Exxon Mobil is ridiculous....seriously.

 

My wife works in scientific research at the U of C, and my father-in-law is a PhD with his own lab and research funding. I have mentioned to both of them some of the arguments regarding grant funded scientific research and the idea, apparently, that the data is altered so that they can make money.....they always get a good laugh.

 

You're a smart guy Clive as are a lot of people on this board, but none of you are climatologists. Who should I trust, a grant funded climatologist at a University, or a climatologist at a firm funded by oil companies???? By the way, if you want to make money as a climatologist you don't work in a public funded research institution, you work for a consulting firm hired by big oil.

 

The one thing that is scary is the deniers are kind of building their own Jones town....stringing' people along until the final cup of purple kool aid.

 

Unfortunately, climate change will effect food production in most of the poorer nations of the world, and it will displace an enormous amount of people; it's already happened to one island in the South pacific.

 

I guess the thing that bothers me most is the shortsightedness of people in Alberta. When the deniers aren't plastering their nonsense all over the place, they're saying how global warming will be great for Canada......how selfish.

 

Stay tuned.

[Ricinus]

Last but not least. Lots of good stuff here

 

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

Regards Mike

[DonAndersen]

Oh God - it isn't even February and already we're into GW.

2" of snow and Calgarians go nuts.

Let's get back to something like fishing.

Seems like there is enough BS from both sides to fuel an ethanol plant.

 

 

 

Don

 

 

[Ricinus]

Don,

Haven't you got some bamboo to split or somethin' ?

 

Regards Mike

[reevesr1]

Now that we seem to be getting into the "my scientist is better than your scientist" season, I'd like to help everyone with some definition of terms:

 

Fair and reasoned scientific research:

Research that confirms the views of the poster

 

Junk or vodoo science:

Research that does not confirm the views of the poster

 

Reasonable warnings to general public

Warnings from scientific community or informed spokeperson warning the general public of dangers of some possible upcoming event...confirming the views of the poster

 

Fear mongering

Warnings from scientific community or informed spokeperson warning the general public of dangers of some possible upcoming event...refuting the views of the poster

 

Reasonable and impartial debate

Debating with people who believe the same thing you do

 

Arguing with morons

Shouting your views at people who do not believe the same as you

 

I suppose rational debate is theoretically possible, but statistically unlikely.