For The Blind Among Us: [Ok, That'll Include Some Of Those Folks We Love To Call "rednecks"]

[Mitch Cronin]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163

[sNIP]

The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions.

[/sNIP]

[Peter Gill]

Have to love this passage:

‘To conform to the approximate physical relationship between greenhouse gas concentration and temperature, eCO2 was converted to a radiative forcing value using the approximation f(eCO2) = 5.35 loge(eCO2/278) (Myhre et al., 1998). These relationships also imply that temperature (in a closed system) increases linearly with the radiative forcing value of an input, suggesting that a multiple linear regression is a suitable approximation for modelling the global mean temperature anomaly.’

“approximate,” “approximation,” “imply,” “suggesting,” “suitable approximation for modelling”...

Since when is the atmosphere a closed system?

And yet just about 100% certainty.

I'll see your one poorly-conceived statistical analysis and raise you 71 papers published in 2013 that demonstrate the sun controls climate, not man-made CO2: http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

[Mitch Cronin]

Peter? Are you really one of those few remaining silly sods who doubt the reality of AGW? Can you not see the sources of influence you're putting your faith in?

Think it through.... who stands to gain from your continued doubt?

[Guest longtimer]

Some facts even a ... would be forced to accept.

Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by nowSeven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated
By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
Published: 22:04 GMT, 30 August 2014 | Updated: 15:21 GMT, 2 September 2014
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3CTFQCzg8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

and from the folks who should know:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Sea ice extent in August 2014 averaged 6.22 million square kilometers (2.40 million square miles). This is 1.00 million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 August average, but well above the 2012 August average of 4.71 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles). Extent was below average throughout the Arctic except for a region in the Barents Sea, east of Svalbard. The ice edge continued to retreat north of the Laptev Sea, and is now within 5 degrees latitude of the North Pole.

NSIDC's research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies, through competitive grants and contracts.

See Research Projects for a list of major sponsored grants and contracts.

NSIDC is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Enviro

[Peter Gill]

Mitch, maybe you'd care to explain the giant holes in the Arctic ice in 1969, back when the "consensus" was the world was facing a new ice age?

[Mitch Cronin]

You obviously know I'm no such expert that I can explain... so I wonder, what's your aim? ... and perhaps more to the point, what do occasional blips or misfits in an obvious pattern of data mean to the overall picture?

[chockalicious]

http://www.iflscience.com/99999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study

These discussiona always turn into a battle of links but it seems that there is too much overwhelming evidence that humans contribute to clate change.

Unfortunately some people are so dogmatic in their belief that they will not listen to reason.

On a side note this post is basically a bat signal to WOXOf/MIZAR to come and post.

[Guest longtimer]

There is no doubt in my mind that we are seeing some sort of climate change but as to the cause...... Those who say it is human in origin discount short term changes (cooling rather than warming) as being not relevant yet most of the data supporting their position has been gathered in the past 20 + years. In the term of things that is also "short term" In the meantime as individuals we can take some personal action on the basis that it can not hurt.

1. Give up that fuel hog that a lot of you drive (I get 6.8 ltrs per 100km driving in Calgary in sub compact)

2. Turn down your furnace at night so as to conserve power / fuel

3. If you must have an air conditioner then set it at 75F

4. cut back your TVs to one for the entire household.

5. Don't water your lawn in the summer.

6. Eat those left overs rather than throwing them out.

7. Use your municipal blue recycling bin and if you don't have one, consolidate your recyclables and drop them off at a recycling station as part of your normal journey.

8. Use public transit whenever it is available and accept any time penalty for doing so.

9. Take your obsolete electronics, dead batteries etc to a recycling station rather than putting them into the garbage.

10. Use reusable shopping bags rather than the more convenient plastic bags.

11. Ask yourself this question, does every driver in the house need a personal vehicle? (get an outsiders opinion)

12. Pack your lunch including a thermos of coffee / tea and cut out your daily stop at "Tims" for that coffee you just must have in that throwaway container.

13. Clean or replace filters on furnaces and air conditioners once a month ... For furnaces, look for high Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) ratings.

14. Cut out using your clothes dryer in the summer and invest in a clothes line.

and the list goes on

All the above is / can be inconvenient but if saving the planet is your game, then what the hell.

.

[Maverick]

Didn't it just snow in Calgary, Chock, Longtimer? ?

[Mitch Cronin]

On a side note this post is basically a bat signal to WOXOf/MIZAR to come and post.

Uhhh, that'll be a negative, Chock. You know he's not welcome here.

[Guest longtimer]

Didn't it just snow in Calgary, Chock, Longtimer?

it did the other day in Canmore, the WX prophecy for Calgary is calling for possible snow showers on Tue. But such precip is not unusual with our high altitude. In fact on Sept 19th, 1895 there was 23CM of snow recorded. http://past.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/CAAB0049

[chockalicious]

@Mav, that hurts! Spoken like the guy who once told me that windshield wipers were cheaper than shovels.

That being said we got a hot tub this week for apres snowboarding so I am not dreading the white stuff quite as much.

[DEFCON]

Longtimer

Great points, but with a global population already beyond the planets carrying capacity and increasing at an alarming rate, is there really any any point?

[Guest longtimer]

Longtimer

Great points, but with a global population already beyond the planets carrying capacity and increasing at an alarming rate, is there really any any point?

It can not hurt and it also gives one a measurement of how committed to improving things that the folks are who want to shut down "big oil". In my experience, most are only committed until such time as they are asked to demonstrate by altering their life style to help protect the environment.

[Critter]

Personally, I think that overpopulation is the bigger problem. But how do you tell people to stop producing so many kids when the "big family" is deemed to be something to strive for?

[Guest longtimer]

Personally, I think that overpopulation is the bigger problem. But how do you tell people to stop producing so many kids when the "big family" is deemed to be something to strive for?

Big family is of course mostly isolated to undeveloped countries. As far as what we can do:

- ban any group that does not also distribute information on birth control from proving "aid". (that will of course never work)

- hope that mother nature will deal with humans in the same fashion as she deals with overpopulation of her other creatures.

and this might just work, educate and equip those in underdeveloped countries so that they can produce what they need without having to rely on the additional labour provided by their large families.

[Peter Gill]

what do occasional blips or misfits in an obvious pattern of data mean to the overall picture?

71 studies in one year are misfits?

To which obvious pattern of data do you refer? HadCRU3, HadCRU4, GISS, UAH, RSS... which if any support your version of the "overall picture?"

Just what is your version of the "overall picture?" Increasing polar bear populations? Record high Antarctic ice? Record low temperatures? The lack of extreme weather events in spite of alarmist claims to the contrary?

[Mitch Cronin]

You appear to me to be wearing blinders Peter. You'll likely continue cherry picking your own data, so I'm not going to get into that bunfight.

I only humbly suggest you do consider who it is that stands to gain from the continued doubt among some of you...

It is most certainly not future generations of humans.

[Guest longtimer]

Me thinks there may be some confusion as to who is wearing blinders.

[mrlupin]

repost...

[Guest longtimer]

what the debate comes down to, if you accept that the climate is changing (and there is no doubt that it is), it is not the cause but what the hell are you doing as an individual to counter act the change if you believe the change is caused by humans. I await real input from those who support the viewpoint that our climate is changing (due to humans) and individual lists of what they have given up in their attempt to counter act the change.

eg.

-got a smaller car

-reduced the energy consumption of my home by cutting back to 1 tv etc., lowered the heat and started to wear a sweater if my house is too cold ....

-recycle the hell out of everything

-use only multiuse bags when shopping

etc etc.

For some reason a request of this nature is most often greeted by silence.

For my part I don't believe that the change is entirely due to people but just in case:

- all of our appliances are energy-efficient appliances

- electric energy efficient lawnmower

- upgraded the furnace and windows

- I drive a compact car

- 2 drivers, one car and that was the case when I worked.

- 1 tv in the house.

- energy saving bulbs in all light sockets

- In winter our house is heated to a max of 68F during the waking hours and drops down to 62F at night. If we get cold during the day, that is what sweaters are for.

- I brew my own coffee and use a reusable cup

- We use our leftovers (don't throw them out just because it is easy)

- Prepackaged individual foods don't have a place in my kitchen

- When we shop, we use reusable bags.

- I don't buy carbon credits to allow me to feel good while maintaining my carbon footprint.

I could go on but you get the idea.

[Seeker]

The number one thing we should be doing is supporting nuclear power. I do what I can: recycle if at all possible, reuse and REDUCE (that's the big one) but really these things have a small impact - measureable, but small. I suggest watching Pandora's Promise (on netflix). It's a very enlightening documentary about people who where previously strong anti-nuke activists who, after actually doing some research and soul-searching, deciding that the best future for the human race will include nuclear power.

[chockalicious]

Think I have posted this before on here wrt nuclear power, makes a compelling case.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200802/nuclear-fuel-oil-dependence-meltdown

[13820]

As Choc says always turns into a linkfest. This opinion piece in the WSJ sums up my outlook.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855

[DEFCON]

Fukushima is completely out of control and continues destroying the Pacific environment and yet there are still people out there looking for more of the same.....absolutely friggin amazing.

The proponents of this deadly technology have no plan whatsoever for dealing with any nuclear catastrophe and remain unable to save the planet from Fukushima, yet there are still people out there looking for more of the same....absolutely frigging amazing.

I recently came across a picture of Tokyo taken at night from the air. The place was all lit up in neon. Considering Fukushima I'm compelled to ask; do we really need to employ nuclear power to drive this kind of disgusting commercial excess?