With The Latest In Weather Forecasting...

[midgetwaiter]

Facts:

 

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

 

It's unexpected and not predicted by current models. This doesn't indicate anything more than the current models are flawed, it's a complicated thing to model.

 

IPCC changed their terminology from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE

 

The is a reason for this, it was always predicted that there would be parts of the world that would get colder as a result of increased mean global temps.

 

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...

 

It's a big project, it will take time. Some of the glaciers that have been shrinking in South Asia provide water for 2 billion people, it's important.

 

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

 

The thick multi-year ice that forms the northern ice cap was the smallest it has ever been in recorded history during 2007. There is a somewhat larger amount of thin first year ice building this year, that's all.

 

 

Okay I'm going to quit with the last one as I think it illustrates the point I want to make nicely. You take an issue that has been very carefully studied and a trend documented over two centuries and refute it by pointing out that the past two years has shown a very modest increase in seasonal ice accumulation. It doesn't matter what has been happening for 200 years because last year there was a 5% increase in ice mass that lasted for three months.

 

Really? It's like the dictionary definition of intellectually dishonest, I hope you are proud of it.

 

 

 

 

[Ricinus]

OK, It's warmed up and the Nasties are on hold, I'm goin fishin. Have fun guys.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

It's unexpected and not predicted by current models. This doesn't indicate anything more than the current models are flawed, it's a complicated thing to model.

 

Not only complicated but currently impossible based upon ALL attempts so far... Since that is the case...why do you treat it like scientific gold. It is probably the absolutely worst thing to point out to prove your point. When your scientific study involves looking at all the data to date and then running simulation after simulation to create/find/make the best match and calling eureka...it scares me to make policy based upon that. Then when something is proved wrong...no problem...we start simulating again until our hypothesis matches. No questions or concerns about the fact that to date...it has never proved successful. That is not science. That is pure science fiction.

 

The is a reason for this, it was always predicted that there would be parts of the world that would get colder as a result of increased mean global temps.

 

I have always loved that excuse. It is colder "cause" the computer models predictis it warms, then cools, then gets warmer. The first I heard a science guy say that was on the Discovery channel trying to back pedal on the last 11 years being colder...that once thought to be definitive proof of global warming and impending catastrophy. He said that "as the Earth warms...it then cools and then it warms again...which proves global warming" or very similar thereto. In essense...what other climatoligists are saying is that Earth has a temperature cycle. So yes...it warms...it cools...it warms...it cools...it has been going on like this for a billion or more years. It proves nothing to the contrary as far as human influence is concerned...either way.

 

It's a big project, it will take time. Some of the glaciers that have been shrinking in South Asia provide water for 2 billion people, it's important.

 

Yes...but as true scientist should note that fact in the media and their study summary (but they never do)...some glaciers are shrinking...some are growning some are staying the same. We are not sure why but the first step is to know what is happening to what glaciers (as in all) since a subset tells you only local or at most narrow regional conclusions. These are important questions to answer and mitigate natural problems for the sake of water supply. How about spending money on drinking water as opposed to CO2 credits in Gore's company? Once all the glaciers are being studied comprehensively...then one can look to the data to see what the trend is. I absolutely hate slopping and irresponsible psodo science that makes massive jumps and leaps to come to far reaching conclusions without basis in fact.

 

The thick multi-year ice that forms the northern ice cap was the smallest it has ever been in recorded history during 2007. There is a somewhat larger amount of thin first year ice building this year, that's all.

 

The ice has been much thinner prior to the effects of your theory of industrialize influence. Not sure you realize that. Why was that? Extra dino farts :-). There are natural factors that scientists can not fathom or model or predict past, present or future. In am not arguing what today's thickness is compared to yesterday or even this year over last. The cycle trends happen over probably hundreds of years. We are in some kind of trend. The is so many dynamic principles just as it pertains to changing ocean currents that make predictions impossible. These ocean current influence are so dynamic that they affect air currents, temperature, all weather patterns and IMHO is the main reason why meterologists can guarantee our weather forcasting for any certaintly outside of probably 1 day and definitely not 2, 5, 10 or a month let alone 30 years.

 

Okay I'm going to quit with the last one as I think it illustrates the point I want to make nicely. You take an issue that has been very carefully studied and a trend documented over two centuries and refute it by pointing out that the past two years has shown a very modest increase in seasonal ice accumulation. It doesn't matter what has been happening for 200 years because last year there was a 5% increase in ice mass that lasted for three months.

 

Once the biggest argument global warming alarmists used to slap average people into submission was the "fact" that the temperature had been steadily increasing for the past 10 years... Remember the old hockey stick model gone from the IPCC press releases but still falsing referred to today in our school systems as fact. That argument is gone and now you are struggling to scream...but...but...200 years of warming proves...what...that temperatures rise and fall. Please remember that were you stand today was once a mile thick sheet of ice. It was also once a tropical forest full of dinosaurs. The carboniferous period was flush with a ton more CO2 then what you are safely breathing today. So please don't use the 200 years is way more statistically valid than 11 years. I am of the mind set that 500 to 1000 years is probably the temperature cycle and to understand the cycle fully we need to look back into the millions and hundreds of millions of years. Big numbers to comprehend...but 200 years is nothing to quote for proof of anything to do with climate models.

 

Really? It's like the dictionary definition of intellectually dishonest, I hope you are proud of it.

 

I would like to quit...but you have not come up with anything to change the facts...you are just sounding Suzukiized. SL...please jump in to help him on this.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

[midgetwaiter]

I would like to quit...but you have not come up with anything to change the facts...you are just sounding Suzukiized. SL...please jump in to help him on this.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[/quote

 

What if I said that I think that about 90% noise surrounding climate change is just noise? That I think Suzuki is irrelevant? You are making unfounded assumptions. There are compelling things trends shown by the current state of climate science, things that we are going to have to deal with. The noise and BS bothers me just like it bothers you but I have decided to ignore the noise and consider the facts.

 

It's not an all or nothing situation, I can be concerned about the impact of changes in our climate without being an "eco nut". You're position is extreme not mine.

[reevesr1]

So the earth has cooled the last 11 years (or maybe the mean surface temp has cooled while the "earth-including atmosphere, land, water, et al has warmed, depending on the study). And if you believe one of the mind numbing number of articles linked here, this cooling was caused by the Pacific something or other. My question would be is this cooling in line with a typical Pacific thingy? Has it been somewhat mitigated by the amount of CO2? Probably tough to answer because of variances in the strength of the Pacific whatchamacallit. But my strong suspicion is that to say "look, the earth has cooled the last 11 yrs" and tout that as proof GW has been discredited is a bit of a stretch.

 

A couple of other things that I always question. The statement that "the vast amount of money spent on GW could have been spent on world hunger." Really? Explain the logic of this to me please. Is there a history of the world spending vast sums of money on Global Hunger (or insert other worthy cause here) which has stopped recently? The thought that money that goes to GW mitigation would have otherwise gone to (insert worthy cause) is a more than a bit suspect. To me, this is like when people use questionable safety concerns to stop whatever project they want stopped. The concerns are not real, but are convenient devices to sway opinion.

 

There is also a tendency to use short term variations to refute models which are, I think, constructed to estimate long term changes. "It was cold this year" in no way lessens my belief in a model that says temps will tend up for the next 50 (or whatever) years. There will always be variability. It's the trend the is the concern. Now, I will say that an 11 yr cooling is more than a short term variation. If the model is constructed to predict temps on a decade like scale and is shown invalid over a decade, that is cause for questions. But it does not mean the entire model, or it's long term conclusions, are suddenly invalid. And PLEASE do not explain to me how if we can't predict the weather tomorrow we can't predict it years from now. I can't tell you how many people will die today in Calgary with any amount of accuracy. But I bet with a little research I can make a fairly sound guess on how many will die in the next 10 years. My inability to predict short term in no way impacts my ability to predict long term. This is a very simple illustration of a much more complex system, but the underlying premise is the same.

 

This probably seems as if I'm coming down on the GW side. Not really. I don't have the intelligence, or maybe expertise is a better word, to decide one way or the other. But I don't buy the idea that this is being crammed down my throat by ruthless individuals only interested in personal gain. I think most of them are well meaning, dedicated people doing what they think is right. Same could be said of most of the deniers. I'm still at the same place I was before. If the models truly are wrong and GW does not exist, they will be discredited and the scientific community will eventually accept that. Might be a naive view on my part, but I'm ok with that. In the meantime, figuring out ways to limit production and increase storage of CO2 don't sound like a bad thing to me.

 

Finally, to the view that this topic is tired, well maybe. But this is page 3 and 50 some odd posts. A lot of posturing by both sides, but a lot of interest too. Not a bad thing either, probably.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

What if I said that I think that about 90% noise surrounding climate change is just noise? That I think Suzuki is irrelevant? You are making unfounded assumptions. There are compelling things trends shown by the current state of climate science, things that we are going to have to deal with. The noise and BS bothers me just like it bothers you but I have decided to ignore the noise and consider the facts.

 

It's not an all or nothing situation, I can be concerned about the impact of changes in our climate without being an "eco nut". You're position is extreme not mine.

 

Or maybe I just misinterpreted your comment "Really? It's like the dictionary definition of intellectually dishonest, I hope you are proud of it." It sounded kinda like you are on the extreme side of the argument. A buddy of mine is on the extreme side to the point where he seriously thinks I am killing my kids by not believing in global warming will 100% mind, soul and body. The scientist in me...and rightly so is sceptical without quality data and proof. Unfortunately all that the media reports or that the IPCC seems to put out is a watered down version that does not tell the whole picture nor points out appropriately the flaws and limitations of their mass histeria news flashes. It would be great if they could post the full study on a website for each story they produce. I find it frustrating that they never publish reports that are contrary to their opinion (and as a scientist you know there are always contrary opinions) or else they media spin it by say...yes it shows we are cooling but here is someone to say that it proves before it warms it has to cool. Very suspiciously poor science IMHO.

 

Anyways...based upon your last statement I suspect you and I are similarly trying to find the facts in a sea of bs. I am not making assumptions but rather being force to critically review what is commonly available as well as the logic around it and try and take out the emotion and religion from both sides. I make my judgements on common sense and fact...the noise that you and me both agree on is just noise. Probably 99% of what you and I and other have said on this forum is noise... The facts seem to be clouded in a lot of mystery and politics. I also feel money is becoming increasingly important to BOTH sides.

 

I have one open question for people out there... The conspiracy theorists feel that the oil companies are backing the anti warming side. What damage would global warming cause to the oil industry if it was deemed to be totally bad and needing punative measures? I would like to think on that for a while.

 

I appreciated your comments and opinions to my points but I feel I seem to be looking closer to the facts and less to the media reports than you might be. Maybe not but that is how it seems.

 

Do you work in or were you train in post secondary science?

 

 

[trailhead]

[

Milankovitch's data is excellent, but try to understand it, it would never support the rate of temperature change that had occurred over the last 100 years.

 

It does support the rate of change as his work shows a 100 year periodicity, it's just not accepted by the "peer group", because it casts doubt on their "research". I hate faulty science, when your mandate is to prove manmade global warming at the exclusion of all other factors, that is faulty science. A true hypothesis takes all factors into consideration and reaches a conclusion based on this.

[midgetwaiter]

Anyways...based upon your last statement I suspect you and I are similarly trying to find the facts in a sea of bs. I am not making assumptions but rather being force to critically review what is commonly available as well as the logic around it and try and take out the emotion and religion from both sides. I make my judgements on common sense and fact...the noise that you and me both agree on is just noise. Probably

99% of what you and I and other have said on this forum is noise... The facts seem to be clouded in a lot of mystery and politics. I also feel money is becoming increasingly important to BOTH sides.

 

See this is why I responded. I've read lots of things you've posted, and your write up on the Lake Sundance problem and you seem to be a reasonable educated guy so I couldn't figure out why you posted the little facts bulletin points. Each one of those points is far too complicated to summarize that quickly and to do so is intellectually dishonest.

 

The thing that burns me about this is that there has been evidence to suggest that the changes to our climate have been accelerating for 20 years and it took all this media crap before anyone paid any attention. I don't think there is anyone who actually participated in one of those IPCC conferences that doesn't realize there are problems with climate models. The problem is that unless it is presented as a iron strong fact nobody will listen to what they have to say so I think they get caught up in a lot of junk. NASA has decades of data on the ice pack but it isn't real until Al gore makes a movie, noise.

 

I have one open question for people out there... The conspiracy theorists feel that the oil companies are backing the anti warming side. What damage would global warming cause to the oil industry if it was deemed to be totally bad and needing punative measures? I would like to think on that for a while.

 

Well they have funded some really obnoxious stuff on the subject. I think most of the O&G players have moved away from that strategy in the last few years but the coal companies are stilling putting those CO2 grows trees commercials out there. That doesn't make everyone who has a problem with a climate model an Exxon shill, again with the noise. It would be a mistake to destroy the energy industries but honestly is that even on the table?

 

I appreciated your comments and opinions to my points but I feel I seem to be looking closer to the facts and less to the media reports than you might be. Maybe not but that is how it seems.

 

Do you work in or were you train in post secondary science?

 

I read what I can follow, I don't have a science background. I took the upswing of the dot com bubble right out of high school rather than university, it was a mistake. I pay the rent with the computer and work for an aquarium company because I like it, always wanted to be a fisheries biologist but I got a programming job when I was 18 and followed the bucks. So that's the thing, you should be better at this than I am, that's why I didn't like what you wrote.

 

There is a reasonable middle path here and it seems to me like you are taking on the tactics (or maybe just language) of one extreme view to fight the other. Maybe I'm wrong and you think it's all garbage but I doubt it, the acceleration of the change is compelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bigbowtrout]

"I think that all good, right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of being told that I am."

 

— Monty Python

 

[dryfly]

Mike..."OK, It's warmed up and the Nasties are on hold, I'm goin fishin. Have fun guys."

 

Geez man, I was going to Bullshead and beed called when I was half way there. BH is frozen wall to wall this morning. Hopefully it will clear by Tuesday.

[Ricinus]

Clive- Frozen out about 30 ft, but we had a nice drive and pleasant lunch. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!!

 

Regards Mike-- muttering and kicking at the dogs.

[headscan]

Hopefully the weather will warm so we can get a bit more fly fishing in before perch ice fishing season hits...

If it does can I blame it on global warming?

[SupremeLeader]

One thing about trying to debate anything on this board is the community on FFC is, metaphorically speaking, incestuous. There is such a Neo-Con corporate agenda (the Mods included) that challenging the FFC status quo views on the environment is impossible; the views are so myopic it's ridiculous...they'll challenge widely excepted views in academia as self-serving and bias, and then when it suits their agenda quote the view of one or two opponents and their University credentials.

 

Clive, and anyone else using your 11 year trend is yet another example of the type of science used to support the opinions on this forum. To put that information (11 year cycle) into perspective...it's like when people quote or manipulate sources to support one's conclusions....

 

Example 1: "The was not the best documentary I've ever seen" John Smith.

 

Example 2: John Smith said it was the "best documentary I've ever seen"

 

The trend is going up and the difference in the last 11 years is barely worth noting as the variance is minor.

 

Clive, I can accept the data you wrote or quoted concerning ocean levels, but you posted that chart concerning the last 11 years? You and I both know it's bunk selective statistics that are 'intellectually dishonest ' (good one btw Midgetwaiter).

 

I'll go back to what I said earlier, I trust the type of people I know who work in academia, and who I know would never manipulate data.

 

Fringe scientists and privately corporate funded firms don't cut it, and neither do people online.

 

Midgewaiter, tonyr, don't bother, these guys don't believe in anything unless it serves their interest.

[bigbowtrout]

Points and counterpoints have been made names have been called and this thread is now CLOSED.

 

If you would like to continue with your Global Warming debate please move it to the PM function.