Climate Change Consensus?

[Mitch Cronin]

....But but but but but.... weather ain't climate! ....and seems to me, what we have been told that is proving to be reasonably truthful, is that most places are in for more variety, and more extremes, in terms of weather, due to climate change.

....and if you'll forgive me for saying so, .... I don't think woxof has nailed a darned thing unless he's built a deck recently or something.

[Guest rattler]

And the experts say:

What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?02.01.05 The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather. Today, children always hear stories from their parents and grandparents about how snow was always piled up to their waists as they trudged off to school. Children today in most areas of the country haven't experienced those kinds of dreadful snow-packed winters, except for the Northeastern U.S. in January 2005. The change in recent winter snows indicate that the climate has changed since their parents were young.

If summers seem hotter lately, then the recent climate may have changed. In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/c...te_weather.html

[Guest woxof]

....But but but but but.... weather ain't climate! ....and seems to me, what we have been told that is proving to be reasonably truthful, is that most places are in for more variety, and more extremes, in terms of weather, due to climate change.

There you go folks....now that I have NAILED down the reality that our brightest and best in the scientific field can't predict the whether it will be warmer or cooler for more than a few days in advance and therefore how can the predict for 10-100 years in advance.........Guess What?

You get told that "weather ain't climate". So the predicted nightmare scenarios must be true.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4587881_what-def...on-climate.html

"The definition of climate is the long term weather patterns of a specific area, usually measured for 30 years."

Folks...I suggest you use a little common sense when forming an opinion on this man-made global warming debate. Don't let extreme fear tactics play on your guilty conscience because life happens to be relatively good and you therefore must do SOMETHING.....ANYTHING to make up for it.

[chockalicious]

I think you may have missed the point Mitch was making.

[Mitch Cronin]

You get told that "weather ain't climate". So the predicted nightmare scenarios must be true.

Who said so? ... I've yet to read a single comment on here saying "the predicted nightmare scenarios must be true. - until you just said so that is...

Most folks here appear to me to be somewhat more open minded than that.

As discussed much earlier, there are likely as many "expert opinions" available on the internet that argue for global warming as there are that argue against it. Global climate change seems, however, to be something of a reality accepted by a majority - whether that's man-made or not is evidently still being debated.

Running around accusing all who disagree with your apparent adamant assertion that 'global warming is a farce' of loving Suzuki and Gore seems somewhat pointless to me woxof. ...and with your repeated references to what weather is happening where, it does look to me as though you continue to confuse current weather with climate.

But then, who knows, maybe it's me that reads funny.

[Pivot]

No, you don't read funny Mitch. I'm reading the same thing. This thread reminds me of a religion and god, thread we had here a few years ago.

[Guest woxof]

Who said so? ... I've yet to read a single comment on here saying "the predicted nightmare scenarios must be true. - until you just said so that is...

Most folks here appear to me to be somewhat more open minded than that.

As discussed much earlier, there are likely as many "expert opinions" available on the internet that argue for global warming as there are that argue against it. Global climate change seems, however, to be something of a reality accepted by a majority - whether that's man-made or not is evidently still being debated.

Running around accusing all who disagree with your apparent adamant assertion that 'global warming is a farce' of loving Suzuki and Gore seems somewhat pointless to me woxof. ...and with your repeated references to what weather is happening where, it does look to me as though you continue to confuse current weather with climate.

It is interesting. We had a podcast by Gwynn Dyer posted on a different thread(same subject) that gives various hypothetical scenarios. Mass refugees, future wars, possibly even nuclear is hinted at, etc. It is all just potential scenarios as Mr. Dyer says but after listening to the podcasts, which are very professionally put together, one could easily believe that this is likely and specifically because of what humans are doing to the atmosphere.

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtopic=387233&hl=gwynn

Then there is a book by a scientist posted on another thread giving all sorts of awful scenarios likely due to man made global warming. For example...."billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century. He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years(source:Wikipedia).

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtop...0entry1541953

Of course when I challenge this general line, there is the reply of "I've yet to read a single comment on here saying "the predicted nightmare scenarios must be true' ". You are absolutely correct Mitch, but when these doomsday scenarios are posted, I should think that there is an intention by those posting them to sway opinion.

A look through old postings will easily show that I have never said that global warming is a farce(or equivalent to that). What I am saying is that this is a natural cycle, not man made. It will eventually cool just like it will eventually warm up again and then cool again(and I have posted links to credible sources saying that).

Finally, just because weather is different than climate doesn't mean that the climate predictions are correct. There is a close relationship between the two. The scientists have proven they are a joke when it comes to relatively short term weather predictions. How can we be expected to believe the long term predictions.

My prediction....The global warming predictions are likely to be at least as accurate as the global cooling/ice age predictions of the 70's.

[Guest woxof]

  This thread reminds me of a religion and god, thread we had here a few years ago.

Thanks for bringing that up Pivot.

http://www.abnnewswire.net/multimedia/en/6...h_Brian_Carlton

Professor Plimer in his famous interview, whose link I have posted here before(suggest watching the whole thing), says similar....

In chapter eight I go into a comparison between the hallmarks of fundamentalist religions and deep green politics, and I once wrote a book on fundamentalist religious; I'm moderately familiar with the way they operate. In this book I argue that the failure of European socialism, the failure of European Christian causes and the fact that a lot of people are now wealthy they need something to believe in, they need something to hang onto.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Jammu University released a study a week or two ago that contradicts the belief that changes in the Himalayan glaciers are due to "climate change." Sorry, don't have a link.

[Guest woxof]

Bottom line...it is just another study, but perhaps there are a lot of other "hyped up" rapid melting theories.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/10/new-...aciers-melting/

Ganjoo and Koul dubbed as “hype” some earlier studies which suggested that the Himalayan glaciers were melting fast and caused serious damage to the Himalayan ecosystem.

There is sufficient field and meteorological evidence from the other side of Karakoram mountains that corroborate the fact that glaciers in this part of the world are not affected by global warming, they said.

Ganjoo said that the east part of the Siachen glacier showed faster withdrawal of the snout that is essentially due to ice-calving, a phenomenon that holds true for almost all major glaciers in the Himalayas and occurs irrespective of global warming.

Ganjoo contended the Siachen glacier shows hardly any retreat in its middle part and thus defies the “hype” of rapid melting.

[Guest rattler]

Woxof: I think the subject is a little like those on politics and no matter the reasoning behind the rebuttal, those who believe will continue to believe in what they believe.

The reality is that in Canada we can do little to affect global warming (if it is happening) as long as the largest emitter's of C02 (if that is a cause) continue to do so and I don't mean on a per capita basis. Total tonnes is the only measurement that should be taken into consideration.

[Mitch Cronin]

.....sigh ....if anyone sees me posting in this thread again, swat me in the noggin, will ya? Thanks.

[Guest rattler]

Talking about real weather.

Flood waters burst through an embankment in southern Taiwan on Thursday as rescue efforts continue amid the devastation left in the wake of Typhoon Morakot.

More than 300 villagers in the southern township of Toayuan were advised to move to higher ground about 30 minutes before a lake created by the storm's flood waters burst its banks, officials said Thursday.

Two more lakes in the same area are also expected to burst through their embankments, officials said.

"There would be a massive amount of water flowing down the Laonung River and we have alerted villagers around to flee," relief official Hsu Chin-biao said.

Criticism has been mounting that the Taiwanese government is not doing enough to rescue the survivors or provide relief to the south in the aftermath of the typhoon.

The Taiwan military sent 4,000 more troops into the region on Thursday to aid the 10,000 already in the area dealing with survivors who have been left stranded by the storm.

Morakot struck Taiwan on the weekend and dumped more than two metres of rain before moving on to China.

The storm washed out roads and bridges and triggered devastating mudslides that have engulfed entire villages.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/13/t...47.html?ref=rss

[Guest rattler]

New Report coming out re the arctic

Arctic climate change may be forcing faster warming on entire globe: report

You can read the news article at: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/greenpage...be_-report.html

[Guest rattler]

And on a lighter note and in particular for WOXOF, here is a book that you might enjoy

Greensword by Donald J. Bingle (fiction of course but what isn't)

It was a good read but here is the colesnotes version

http://www.greensword.org/

[Guest woxof]

This gives me enough enjoyment. Please watch.

Make sure to hook up your speaker.

[Guest rattler]

[boestar]

OK with all this Climate Change hysteria and a different opinion from everyone who has an a$$h*^e. Who the heck do we believe.

Even if there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere that has caused all this global warming / climate change. How do we get rid ofit. Sure we can sto adding to it but that doesnt fix the problem does it? If... IF this is really as big a problem as some say it is then we have built it up over the last. well lets just say 100 years. Can we stop it in less than that amount of time? Doubt it. Prevent it from getting worse? Maybe. I still have not seeen one convincing argument (compelling yes) that WE infact are causing any change at all. The earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. some worse thatn others. Heck wasnt most of this country under an ocean at one point. What makes us think we can have any control over mother nature by lining the pockets of the scare mongers with cash. Sorry I just don't give in to fear tactics that involve paying for some intangable "thing" that has no real proof to back it up and certainly no proof that it can be fixed with money.

Peole are getting rich off this carbon credit crap while nothing is actually changing. Sure they are planting some trees so people feel greeny flying over the atlantic but hell we are cutting them down 1000 times faster than we are planting them. Sorry not buying it at all.

if we are doomed to suffer global warming (not here in ontarion BTW coldest summer I can remember) then so be it. We are humans we will adapt and survive.

End incoherant rant

[Guest woxof]

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.

A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. The link is at the bottom. Haven't read it yet but any comments are welcome.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/...iew_OISM150.pdf

[chockalicious]

LINKSFEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ten myths about global warming

[Steam Driven]

Cold Water on Global Warming

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks Chock.

This is from your link (just for woxof):

The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:

In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental assertions:

In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush asked for the assistance of the US National Academy of Sciences "in identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties," and for its "views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC Reports and the IPCC summaries." The NAS was given only a month to respond but did so nonetheless:

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

Despite the fact that the committee producing this report includes a notable skeptic who allegedly colludes with industry* (Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T.), the NAS report states:

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. … Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years" (p.3).

...and from further linked pages:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/sci..._Scientists.pdf

From 2005 to 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) conducted five surveys of federal scientists to evaluate how U.S. agencies use—and misuse—science to make policy decisions. These surveys gave voice to scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

...among their results:

Scientists Report Interference in Their Work

Large numbers of scientists reported political interference in their work:

• 1,028 scientists (60 percent of respondents1) from a survey of climate researchers at seven agencies and a separate survey

of EPA researchers reported that they had personally experienced at least one incident of political interference in their work over the last five years.

• 213 scientists (7 percent) across all five surveys said that agency decision makers had directed them to “provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information” to the public.

Interference in federal science has taken many forms:

• 285 EPA scientists (22 percent of respondents) had

personally experienced frequent or occasional “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.”

• 69 FDA scientists (9 percent) had frequently or occasionally

“been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information

or my conclusions in an FDA scientific document.”

• 72 scientists (15 percent) at the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the NMFS, a part of NOAA) had been “directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that are protective” of endangered or threatened species.

• 57 climate scientists (21 percent) had personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming,” or similar terms from their communications.

[boestar]

we are but sheep being led to the slaughter.

[Guest rattler]

There is no doubt in my mind that our global cimate is changing but of course that has always been the case. Is this latest change caused by Humans? Don't know but nothing wrong with doing what we can to reduce our energy use, reduce actual pollution etc but there is no way that I can buy into the whole carbon credit scheme that is simply a way to transfer money around the world and for those running the brokerage houses to collect enormous sums in handling fees.

If C02 is indeed the root cause of our climate change then I fail to see how there would be any overall world reduction if large emitters can simply pay for the privilege and continue on their way. Also of course if the largest emitting countries, and I don't mean per capita continue to pump out mega tonnes , how any per capita reduction in smaller countries will have any positive effect on the problem.

Of course those of us who question the whole C02 issue are in the same position as those in the middle ages who questioned the Church, damned if we do.

[chockalicious]

Of course those of us who question the whole C02 issue are in the same position as those in the middle ages who questioned the Church, damned if we do.

I agree with everything you said up until here.

What frustrates me somewhat about the Co2 debate is the politicizing of it and the atitude that "NO DAVID SUZOOOKEEE IS GONNA TELL ME WHAT TO DO!!!!!"

There should be an honest debate about this however I think it gets couched within viewpoints that ultimately are more reflective of a person's personal politics rather than an honest question about the science.

I am not saying this is always the case but it seems prevelent to me.

I could not agree more that carbon credit trading is a scam, just wish I had thought of it.

Of course comparing people who were burned at the stake for defying the church to those who question Co2 as a contributor to global climate change may be a bit of a stretch