Climate Change Consensus?

[FireFox]

How much should Canadians pay to the industrializing world to slow man-made global warming?

Zero.

[chockalicious]

In terms of the main thrust of my argument, once again, The U.N. now wants us(industrialized world) to pay trillions to the developing world in an attempt to slow global warming. This will have a big influence at the Copenhagen meeting in my opinion. Do you at least support this or am I correct in my earlier prediction of nobody in the man-made global warming camp will answer the bottom line questions.

A report by one comitte of the UN said this. This does not extrapolate to the UN wanting us to pay trillions to the developing world.

Your earlier prediction had nothing to do with nothing except for the tenuous logical leaps that you made.

The world fund of Chockalicious admirers has deemed that all airline employees should pay a tax of one case of beer to hear my ramblings on the internet.

WHY WON"T YOU TELL ME HOW MANY CASES OF BEER YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest woxof]

A report by one comitte of the UN said this. This does not extrapolate to the UN wanting us to pay trillions to the developing world.

From Mitch...expected input(won't lower myself to his level).

From Chock....I'll agree with your point about it being one committee. Expect the industrializing world to leap onto it's recommendation in the negotiations in Copenhagen. Actually, the article says China feels double the committee selected amount is appropriate.

I am glad to see that you felt Kyoto was bad from the beginning. I suppose that might mean you felt Harper was bang on in ignoring it.

So....is anyone going to tell me what they feel is appropriate?

How much should we as Canadians on average send to the industrializing world in order to slow man-made global warming?

[Guest rattler]

From Mitch...expected input(won't lower myself to his level).

From Chock....I'll agree with your point about it being one committee. Expect the industrializing world to leap onto it's recommendation in the negotiations in Copenhagen. Actually, the article says China feels double the committee selected amount is appropriate.

I am glad to see that you felt Kyoto was bad from the beginning. I suppose that might mean you felt Harper was bang on in ignoring it.

So....is anyone going to tell me what they feel is appropriate?

How much should we as Canadians on average send to the industrializing world in order to slow man-made global warming?

You would have to come up a way to be able to lower yourself to Mitch's level. I don't always agree with Mitch nor do I agree with his almost complete acceptance of what might be the mirth of global warming but both of you, as do most people in the debate, are completely intransigent when it comes to your viewpoints.

so perhaps you should all agree to disagree and meet back here in 50 or so years to see who was right.

[Mitch Cronin]

Where do I exhibit intransigence Rattler?

[boestar]

all the petty bickering aside. Until someone proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that global warming or climate change as its now called because we are not getting warmer anymore, is in fact man made, I for one will not give one red cent to China or anyone else in the name of climate change.

Did the dinosaurs cause the ice age and pay someone to fix it? not bloody likely.

Look at all sides of the climate change debate and there are almost as many "scientists" saying it is a natural cycle or that watervapour is the largest cause (something we can do NOTHING about by the way so no money to be made). The arguments on both sides is compelling but the arguments are not based on FACTS but "Models" based on historical data that really is not fully or completely interpreted. I could make an ice core sample support the theory either way and that is actually what is happenning. Different interpretations of the same "evidence".

In my view the whole Climate Change, Carbon Credit etc. is fear mongering in order to channel funds to certain parts of the populace. I may sound like a conspiracy theory but thats the way I see it.

"Give me money and I will give you ......NOTHING in return" Utter Bull CRAP.

/rant

[Guest rattler]

Where do I exhibit intransigence Rattler?

there you go again.....

[Guest woxof]

Quote by Mitch '' Where do I exhibit intransigence Rattler?''

Quote by Rattler ''there you go again.....''

Ha Ha...that was funny eh, Rattler?. Like the drunk alcoholic denying any problem.

Of course, all I am interested in is the hard truth no matter how much it hurts, so when you accuse us both of intransigence, Rattler, an honest analysis makes me tend to agree with you. That doesn't necessarily make someone wrong, though. Of course there is no right in this part of the debate (except for my accusation of childish insults instead of thoughtful reply)

My question has no right or wrong. It is just this....how much do the man made global believers feel that Canada as a country, Canadians as families or individuals on average should have to pay to industrializing countries per year? I can guarantee you that I have been exactly right so far when I said that there would be dancing around this issue. I predict that it will continue.

Chock accused me of posting an article that was only from one committee from the U.N. inferring that it didn't mean much. Well the EU itself now says and I quote......

''the EU estimated that developing countries will need to find around 100 billion euros (145 billion dollars) per year to tackle climate change by 2020''. This is no one off committee as the initial 15 billion is being put in now. And of course they say that any delay(which we know will happen) will mean an increased amount of money required.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090910/sc_af...tclimatewarming

And that is a starting point. Oh, by the way...on top of that Sarkozy just forced through a carbon tax in France(this is a separate thing). Count on the opposition in Canada supporting both ideas here.

Woxof...who has the backbone to answer my question? Remember this in the upcoming election.

[Mitch Cronin]

Rattler, perhaps you and I understand the word "intransigence" differently?

Clearly some of you didn't thoroughly read through this thread before commenting. (I've been guilty of the same thing elsewhere... it's sometimes pretty tedious and can require effort)

I think if you do read my comments on this subject, here and elsewhere, you'll find no intransigence on my part whatsoever.

In fact I feel quite befuddled by the whole notion that a great number of scientists are predicting very dire circumstances for us all, should we, as sole guardians of this planet, fail to somehow seriously reduce our contributions to CO2 emissions. AND, I've learned through several links posted here and elsewhere, that there are apparently some number of scientists who completely disagree. Like all of you, I'm no expert! I'm no scientist! How the hell would I know what's the truth?

Like all of you, all I can do is continue to read and listen to what I can... and I know that, like all science, there is always more understanding yet to come.

The scary thing is that if those who do predict such potentially cataclysmic results, are right... ....it could be really ugly for our grandchildren.

Given that potential, I'm all ears!!! ....and when I read what appears to me to be uneducated, or ill-informed certainty, ... or thoroughly wrong logic is printed to back a dedication to one side of the issue, if I don't see any well-informed, logical rebuttals, I have a very hard time remaining silent.

It's exactly the certainty which folks like woxof and some others post, that I challenge.

This is too big an issue to wash off with conspiracy theories or faulty logic.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Now you can all ignore the following, as you wish [if anyone's even still listening?]:

Woxof, I'm sure I should just let this go, but that's not in me these days....

This round started with you saying: "IFG, Mitch, Don, Chock? How much per year is reasonable per family?

Let the silence(or dancing around the issue) begin.

You'd clearly made up your mind that "climate change [is the] scam of the century" (your words)... Your mind appeared, from that post and many others, closed. Would you really disagree with that?

So I suggested to you the silence you may receive (and you may have noted the lack of response to your question?) "may have more to do with the notion that some people see little point in engaging in dialogue with closed minds."

You chose to take that as a "childish insult"? ...and you attacked my character.

How would you describe your mindset on this Global Warming/Climate Change issue?

Now, for your faulty logic.... Belief in, or even simply a willingness to listen and reserve judgment on, Man made Global Warming, does not automatically make one a believer in either the Kyoto accord, or any notions of buying carbon credits from anyone at all.

So your insistence that responses to your question, or lack of same, is telling of anything at all, is as far out in left field as your assumptions of my character.

To my mind, there is nothing either "petty" or trivial to bicker about here... one involves the fate of the planet (or potentially so), and the other is all I have.

[Hadji Ramjet]

Another nail in the "the science is settled" coffin?

Mojib Latif stated last week that the world has NOT warmed for a decade, and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

His opinion might not matter much, if he weren't a lead author for the IPCC.

[Mitch Cronin]

Another nail in the "the science is settled" coffin?

Mojib Latif stated last week that the world has NOT warmed for a decade, and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

His opinion might not matter much, if he weren't a lead author for the IPCC.

It would appear your conclusions are not quite correct:

From this page: http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/09/1...des-of-cooling/

"Fred Pearce wrote a recent column for New Scientist claiming climate modeler Mojib Latif predicted that up to two decades of cooling were coming: “We could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures, according to one of the world’s top climate modellers.” Pearce’s claim was promptly picked up by the denialosphere and has been cited by “skeptics” as well as those who believe climate science is undergoing some sort of shake up, like Mr. Berger. Pearce’s story is greatly misleading both in terms of what Latif actually said and the role climate scientists believe natural variability plays in the climate system.

First a bit of background: Pearce’s story was written about a recent climate summit: the World Climate Conference-3. Part of the summit was dedicated to Advancing Climate Prediction Science; Latif’s presentation was concerned with decadal-scale climate predictions- concerning not only their potential value and viability but also the significant challenges that remain before we can make useful ones.

On interannual (more than a single year) and decadal (tens of years) scales, natural variability swamps the long term anthropogenic warming trend. That is to say that variations in naturally occurring aspects of the climate system have more of an impact on the ultimate value of, say, global average temperature over a span of 10 or so years than man-made global warming does. For example, changes in ENSO are one of the largest sources of natural variability and thus influence on global average temperatures in the climate system on interannual scales. In 1998, a very strong El Niño boosted the global average temperature much higher than the overall trend, while in 2008, a persistent La Niña in cahoots with a solar minimum ensured that temperature was in the top 10 (#9 for NASA, #10 for Met Hadley) hottest years on record, but not a record breaker.

While this might be surprising for some readers, let’s be clear: This is not “new” information. This does not represent a “shake up” of the climate science community’s understanding of the system, or a blow to “settled science”. This is acknowledged in the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report (AR4 WG1 8.3 and 9.4) as well as in the relevant primary literature. For example, the AR4 Synthesis Report states:

On scales [smaller than 50 years], natural climate variability is relatively larger [than human influences], making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external [e.g.man-made] forcings.

Latif begins the section of his presentation misrepresented by Pearce by confirming that the media incorrectly believes that global warming is monotonic- something that we know the warming is decidedly not; something not claimed by “climate science” or “climate scientists”. Significant natural variability is superimposed on the long term man-made warming trend. Although the press might expect for us to set new temperature record every year, the existence of natural variability means that we could in theory wait a long time (~17 years) before setting a new temperature record. Latif imagines ‘what if’:

It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two- you know- when the temperature cools- alright- relative to the present level- alright?

And then- you know- I know what’s going to happen -you know? I will get- you know- millions of phone calls- you know:

“Eh, what’s going on? So, is global warming disappearing?” You know? “Have you lied on [sic] us?”

So- you kn0w- and therefore this is the reason why we need to address this decadal prediction issue.

[ed. note: "entering... two [decades]” depending on the usage can take as little as 11 years, “enter[ing]” a decade” as little as one]

This was not an explicit prediction by Latif- it was a hypothetical scenario that is a real, if not necessarily likely, possibility. Latif is saying that because people don’t understand that global warming isn’t supposed to be monotonic, and that there could be periods where temperatures pause or even dip below the present, the media and/or public will incorrectly believe that global warming has stopped/was wrong/etc. even though such “pauses” in warming are decidedly not contrary to our understanding of the climate system and how we anticipate it will respond to emissions driven warming.

Of course this is like cat nip to the denialists and their fellow travelers like Roger Pielke Jr. It feeds into the caricature, enabled by sloppy journalism, that nearly everything can happen because of global warming [often phrased, "Global warming, is there anything it can't do?" Sometimes with 'global warming' stricken out and replaced with 'climate change'].

Latif goes on to describe a number of phenomena that have an overall trend but are dominated on the interannual and even decadal scales by natural variability: Sahel rainfall, Atlantic tropical cyclones, regional sea levels. Again, none of this is new, none of it was presented as new. This represents no paradigm shift within climate science.

Latif then switches gears to model initialization. When the IPCC offers projections of global temperature change into the next 100 years, these are not predictions- as previously discussed. And dealing with interannual or decadal predictions instead of looking at the changes to temperature trends 100 years out is a difference between an initial value problem and a boundary value (or in Latif’s words, a “boundary force”) problem. Uncertainties about emissions scenarios (how much carbon we decide to burn) and model biases are the dominant areas of uncertainty for end-of-century projections of changes of how temperature will trend.

However, on much shorter scales, such as interannual or decadal scales, can you guess what the largest source of uncertainty becomes? Yep, that’s right, natural variability. Prediction on such short timescales then becomes at least partially an initial value problem. Latif rightly understands that such short term predictions depend on accurate understanding and modeling of initialization factors like variance in the North Atlantic Oscillation. You might remember when a team he was part of made some waves in predicting a temporary pause in warming/global cooling in their attempt to initialize a climate model to make a deliberate prediction (rather than say an end-of-century projection) of temperature for the next few decades. Suffice it to say that not everyone has found the basis of their prediction (of no immediate warming) particularly compelling.

Latif’s warning, garbled though it became regarding the reality and difficulty in predicting natural variability deserves to be acknowledged. It’s exceedingly difficult for me to see, however, how or why the presentation was subsequently spun in the manner that it was, or why science journalists like Mr. Berger would accept said spin so uncritically.

Pearce’s article gives the false impression that there is a “new” or “growing” dissent from the broad strokes consensus on climate change. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I appreciate Pearce’s concern (that the existence of natural variability can embolden denialists), but it sounds like this concern has caused him to unnecessarily and inaccurately frame Latif’s presentation as a challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. Natural variability is of course real. It can and will overwhelm man-made warming on shorter timescales. That journalists are beginning to pay attention to this simple fact is not a reflection of a sea change in our understanding of climate science.

Latif’s presentation and audio are available for anyone to examine."

[chockalicious]

WHY WON'T WOXOF TELL ME HOW MUCH HE IS DONATING TO THE CHOCK APPRECIATION FUND.

I did not accuse you of anything, just stated that a committee on the UN does not automatically mean that what it wants will have any meaning, as someone on the constant search for the truth I would have thought you would have investigated all of the UN proclamations and and set your life accordingly for their effect.

I will tell you what, if these things come to pass, including the EU somehow getting it's memeber countries to cough up the cash for these schemes, I will tattoo WOXOF =TRUTH on my forehead as a constant reminder of my doubting your diligence in truth hunting and the general truthiness and hunt of the truth that guides your truth loving way of life.

I would dontae cash for China but the problem is that I would just want to donate again an hour later.

[Guest woxof]

For Chock...no donation...sorry.

Notice folks how at first, the U.N. report is just one committee, now when the EU pledges 15 billion of their own money is whitewashed away. A little common sense will tell you that these money demands will come our way. No doubt they will be enthusiastically supported by the opposition. Remember that in the upcoming election.

For Mitch....I think any unbiased observer would likely be of the opinion that each of us are as adament about our beliefs as the other. That would make you as closed-minded as me if that is what I am. Although, I have refrained from the grade 3 insults.

Finally, I will post an article from the newspaper I read yesterday which quoted this scientist named Mojib Latif that was mentioned earlier.

Here are the highlights.....

''Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.''

''Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."''

''The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land. But as Prof. Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.''

I stromgly suggest that you read this article. Now a leading global warming scientist is all of a sudden predicting global cooling for the next 10-20 years. This would fit in perfectly with the natural cycles Professor Plimer from earlier post talked about.

Now you know why I call this the scam of the century.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f.../11/322904.aspx

[Guest woxof]

Lorne Gunter: Global warming takes a break

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice never body-checking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted out of the blue that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.)

But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not give more prominence?

Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Prof. Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers every predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Prof. Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. "People will say this is global warming disappearing," he added. According to him, that is not the case. "I am not one of the skeptics," he insisted. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

In the past year, two other groups of scientists -- one, like Prof. Latif, in Germany, the second in the United States -- have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans. It will resume, though, some day.

But how is that knowable? How can Prof. Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot.

It's true the supercomputer models Prof. Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. A major breakthrough last year in the modelling of past ocean currents finally enabled the computers to recreate the climate history of the 20th century (mostly) correctly.

But getting the future equally correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes to real-world climate or further modifications to the UN's climate computers will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

[Mitch Cronin]

For Mitch....I think any unbiased observer would likely be of the opinion that each of us are as adament about our beliefs as the other. That would make you as closed-minded as me if that is what I am. Although, I have refrained from the grade 3 insults.

As a matter of fact, you have not refrained at all! You've continued with such demeaning comments as "childish" "incapable of informed responses" "grade 3 insults" ...and now you admit your mind is closed. So where, I ask, was the insult?

My mind is most certainly NOT closed, by the way. I continue to listen and read. It appears to me that you do not.

You obviously did not listen, for instance, to Latif's words at all (nor apparently, did you read what I posted in response to Hadji) His words have been taken completely out of context in both what you've quoted and what others have written. He is most definitely not "batting for the other side"!

Listen for yourself to the words out of his own mouth - in their correct context!

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site...tionScience.mp3

I would appreciate it if you'd now discontinue the ad-hominem attacks. Thank you.

[Guest woxof]

Not imterested in childish debate about who insulted who, even if you did say I could quote you as calling me an ass. I'll just maturely(as usual) ignore and post relevent stuff. However, all undecided voters should look through the posts of the last three days and look at the resposes to what can only be a legitimate question. I think it is representative of opposition party thinking on the subject.......Disdain and insults to those who question this subject.

The fellow who wrote this article is Fred Pearce. Here is his description....

''Fred Pearce is an English author and journalist based in London. He has been described as one of Britain's finest science writers and has reported on environment, popular science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. He specialises in global environmental issues, including water and climate change.''

HERE IS HIS ARTICLE IN NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE....

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

Nature vs humans

This is bad timing. The UN's World Meteorological Organization called the conference in order to draft a global plan for providing "climate services" to the world: that is, to deliver climate predictions useful to everyone from farmers worried about the next rainy season to doctors trying to predict malaria epidemics and builders of dams, roads and other infrastructure who need to assess the risk of floods and droughts 30 years hence.

But some of the climate scientists gathered in Geneva to discuss how this might be done admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term climate changes from global warming. "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope from the UK Met Office.

Cold Atlantic

Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

Another favourite climate nostrum was upturned when Pope warned that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

In candid mood, climate scientists avoided blaming nature for their faltering predictions, however. "Model biases are also still a serious problem. We have a long way to go to get them right. They are hurting our forecasts," said Tim Stockdale of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

The world may badly want reliable forecasts of future climate. But such predictions are proving as elusive as the perfect weather forecast.

[Guest woxof]

So there you have it folks....one of the leading global warming scientists is now, all of a sudden predicting 10-20 years of global cooling as a strong possibility. Of course it is just a possibility because, as I said earlier, if they can't even predict this summers weather, who would be folish enough to believe these long term forecasts.

More and more carbon has been going into the atmoshpere at greater rates. You know as well as I do that if it had continually gotten warmer over the last few years, the man made global warming proponents would have leapt all over that as proof of their theory. Now, as our relatively brief natural warming period apears to have stagnated and even started cooling off, they are flailing for excuses. The antarctic ice is increasing, yet an excuse is made. The overall temperature is cooling, yet more excuses are made. Global cooling is now part of global warming they say.

And there are still all kinds of scaremongering, nightmare scenario forecasts out there. A I suspect the people most upset at this cooling are some of the people supposedly concerned about global warming. It threatens their other agendas. Of course there is the panick-stricken thought of ''what if we are wrong and don't spend trillions? How will our grandkids survive? Rational thought please.

I always wondered how these Nigerian scams we hear about could be so successful. While somewhat different, I no longer wonder why.

[Canus Chinookus]

So if I'm reading woxof's previous article right, the scientists are saying the oceans are cooling and causing a global cooling cycle. Makes perfect sense, yet they don't explain or think to question why the change in ocean temperatures since I've yet to see water as a source of heating or cooling as it sits in a glass.

Is it still a dirty word to point to the only major source of heat for our little planet? Our little rock hurtling through space? Wouldn't it be shocking to see a sunspot cycle compared with an ocean temperature cycle? Just a speculation on my part as I haven't done any research on the matter.

[Mitch Cronin]

...as posted above:

Pearce’s article gives the false impression that there is a “new” or “growing” dissent from the broad strokes consensus on climate change. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I appreciate Pearce’s concern (that the existence of natural variability can embolden denialists), but it sounds like this concern has caused him to unnecessarily and inaccurately frame Latif’s presentation as a challenge the scientific consensus on climate change. Natural variability is of course real. It can and will overwhelm man-made warming on shorter timescales. That journalists are beginning to pay attention to this simple fact is not a reflection of a sea change in our understanding of climate science.

Latif’s presentation and audio are available for anyone to examine."

(emphasis added)

....and yes, sun cycles do affect decadal variation. ...as does volcanic activity.

[Guest woxof]

Another of the many myths starts to fall apart.....Someday, they will wonder how so many were duped. How much of your money per year are you willing to transfer to China, etc.

STUDY SAYS GLOBAL WARMING NOT WORSENING HURRICANES

WASHINGTON (AP) — Global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming’s wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.

He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues “against the notion that we’ve already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming.”

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

#####################################################

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo202.html

Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions

Thomas R. Knutson, Joseph J. Sirutis, Stephen T. Garner, Gabriel A. Vecchi & Isaac M. Held

Letter abstract

Increasing sea surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and measures of Atlantic hurricane activity have been reported to be strongly correlated since at least 1950 (refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), raising concerns that future greenhouse-gas-induced warming6 could lead to pronounced increases in hurricane activity. Models that explicitly simulate hurricanes are needed to study the influence of warming ocean temperatures on Atlantic hurricane activity, complementing empirical approaches. Our regional climate model of the Atlantic basin reproduces the observed rise in hurricane counts between 1980 and 2006, along with much of the interannual variability, when forced with observed sea surface temperatures and atmospheric conditions7. Here we assess, in our model system7, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations.

[Guest rattler]

Interesting articles on the topic (my apologies if they have been posted previously).

Not being quoted because they are to be considered definitive but rather to allow others to read and consider.

Global Warming or Global Cooling ?

May 17, 2009, 2:00PM

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/...lobal-cooli.php

Second Article:

Global Cooling is Here

Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

by Prof. Don J. Easterbrook

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

And then of course there is todays news story on the Oil Sands.

Greenhouse gas emissions from Alberta oilsands higher than some countries:report

Not having access to the report along with the data / sources used, it is impossible to access the validity of it. The author is not a scientist though

Greenpeace commissioned author Andrew Nikiforuk, a business and environmental reporter, to write the report

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n123290629

[Guest woxof]

Thanks Rattler.

However, I would like to make an admission about how wrong I have been in the global warming debate. I have been adament about the fact that we are in fact experiencing Global Warming but no proof that it is man-made.

Now the new studies and statements by scientists have me believing that global cooling is here, at least for a few decades. No longer will I hesitate to leave the car running for hours when it is -30 and below(as is common in some areas). I won't feel guilty about the smoky exhaust I have emitted out the jetpipes for years at work. I'm proud to say that I have flown in support of the oilsands. I was considering giving up the pick-up truck, but gas prices are somewhat lower than last year. I do like the house quite warm in the winter but love the air conditioning in the summer and I always have been a bit lazy when it comes to turning off lights. And who doesn't like a good smoky BBQ? Heck, I can even stop planning on taking Beano after a meal(http://www.fitsugar.com/181312) and enjoy rrriping a few now and then as I always did. Life is good and Suzuki was right after all....back in the '70's.

Woxof....heading off to buy a new set of skis.

[boestar]

Buy your global cooling offset credits here....I will sell them in advance and when someone dicides that we are urinating too much or some such thing I will off set it by cutting down tropical rainforest.

[Airband]

A-l-l aboard the Armageddon Express

[Guest woxof]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/china-...article1297854/

China diminishes hope for global climate deal

Copenhagen summit set for failure as major polluters fail to break new ground toward a treaty

World leaders have failed to break new ground in climate talks, making the chance of finalizing a full global treaty in Copenhagen in December remote.

The stalemate followed brief optimism that China's President had travelled to a one-day UN climate summit in New York with firm commitments to reduce the growth in the emissions China produces.

But the hype about a new direction from the biggest developing economy – which would have pressured developed countries, notably the United States, Europe and Canada, to commit to binding cuts and offer huge sums to compensate poorer nations for restraining emissions – was not fulfilled.

Instead, Chinese President Hu Jintao left his promises vague or emphasized domestic measures rather than binding international commitments – and the focus for December's negotiations turned toward a pared-down, Plan B agreement-in-principle, rather than a treaty.

Yesterday's summit was more speeches than negotiation, but there had been speculation that China would offer a new direction that could spark stagnant talks before formal negotiations in Copenhagen.

But neither China nor the United States, the world's two biggest emitters, offered a way to bridge gaps between rich nations and fast-developing ones.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper skipped most of the proceedings, attending only a leader's dinner last night, saying Canada will march alongside U.S. policy.

Mr. Hu outlined some specific, ambitious measures to combat greenhouse-gas emissions within China – such as targets for using renewable energy sources – but he did not set any overall targets for emissions, or indicate that China would be willing to commit to goals in an international treaty.

He said China would “endeavour” to reduce the amount of emissions it produces per unit of gross domestic product “by a notable margin” by 2020 – in other words, to pollute relatively less as China's economy grows, but perhaps not cut overall emissions.

“That can be good, but it all depends on what the number is,” said President Barack Obama's climate change adviser, Todd Stern. He said the United States still wants to get as much of a deal as it can in Copenhagen, but all the details will not be done there.

Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice said: “China has said they would sign on to an agreement, but whether they would take on binding targets is the essential question.”

This week, major players had already started to discount a complete treaty being struck in Copenhagen. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Monday it's too late to complete an agreement with detailed target numbers for all emitters.

In interviews this week, diplomats expressed concern that expectations must be lowered or a stark failure in Copenhagen might doom progress to an eventual treaty, perhaps next year.

“We're generally moving beyond Plan A,” Michael Levi, a New York-based expert on climate-change negotiations at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview after Mr. Hu's speech.

“Plan B is still a very difficult plan. I don't think the basics for that are in place. But if we focused on that, it would be doable.”

Plan B, he said, is an interim step – a set of political principles, and basic legal forms, with the details to be negotiated later.

The Copenhagen talks were supposed to be the final negotiations for a treaty, and the basic principles had emerged: Developed countries would agree to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, and growing developing countries would restrain the growth of their emissions so they would be lower than if they took no action.

And the richer countries would finance a pot of money – Mr. Barroso suggested €100-billion a year – to finance the transfer of clean technology to poorer ones.

But developing countries such as China and India are so far unwilling to commit to legally binding targets, which richer nations insist upon – arguing that developed nations, bigger per capita emitters, should set the example.

The amount and source of the green funds for poorer nations – to be discussed by world leaders at a G20 summit later this week – is also in dispute. Developing countries want wealthier governments to commit predictable funds, but the United States and Canada want much of it to be generated from future trading in emissions credits.

Now, Mr. Levi said, success lies in moving toward interim steps, forgetting the sum of money for green financing, for example, and fleshing out the principle: that richer nations will provide funds, tied to developing countries' concrete actions to curb emissions. Whether every country is taking on some binding commitment could be set, even if the specific numbers are different. “All countries must be taking on similar types of commitments, or there's no progress,” he said.

Despite the indications that many players are scaling back goals for Copenhagen, the Canadian government has not shown any sign of shifting gears – though it has taken criticism as a mere spectator.

Mr. Harper made a brief visit to the summit, and was blasted by environmentalist as “missing in action.” He insisted that what is key for Canada is close co-operation with the United States.

“We want to see an effective international accord, one that includes all the major emitters of greenhouse gases, and of course, we're working continentally with the Obama administration on a truly integrated approach,” Mr. Harper said after an afternoon visit with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Diplomats from other nations say Canada's credibility at international negotiations is weak, because it didn't come close to meeting its Kyoto Protocol targets, and has set targets for 2020 that are among the weakest of large, wealthy nations. Instead, seems content to let the United States and China dictate the agenda.

“Those two countries are 50 per cent of emissions,” Mr. Prentice said. “They are the two countries that are going to have to bridge those differences.”