More on global warming

[Hawkmoon]

I guess global warming is a political topic. IMHO it certainly isn't scientific.

http://www.newser.com/story/158883/despite-unremarkable-temps-more-ice-melt-woes.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_3_2

Here's a key quote from the article:

"The Greenland ice sheet set a new melting record, with 97% of it registering as melting on a day in July (the country saw its warmest summer in 170 years)."

Last week, a newspaper article said something about a certain day having been the warmest since 1918.

Both of these statement, IMHO, give the lie to claims that "global warming" is an unnatural, man-made phenomenon. If November __ was the warmest since 1918, that means only that it took us 94 years to match a temperature that was recorded a centuary before "global warming" became the topic of choice for the Algore. If Greenland this year saw the warmest summer in 170 years ... by definition that tells us Greenland was this warm 170 years ago, which was a long time before there were concerns about "global warming." And on the topic of Greenland, let's not forget that Erik the Red established a settlement on Greenland just before the year 1000 A.D. -- because he found the climate suitable for living. The Norse settlement lasted until about 1360, but by 1300 or so the climate was turning colder and the growing season was getting too short to be viable for farming.

The period 800 to 1200 was called the Medieval Warming Period, or MWP. But back then nobody seemed to be proclaiming that the warming meant the end of the world as we know it. Back then, I suspect, it was probably considered to be "weather."

So perhaps today, rather than facing a cataclysmic climatic event, we are doing nothing more than entering another periodic, cyclical warm period.

Works for me.

[makattak]

The period 800 to 1200 was called the Medieval Warming Period, or MWP. But back then nobody seemed to be proclaiming that the warming meant the end of the world as we know it. Back then, I suspect, it was probably considered to be "weather."

I doubt very much it was merely considered "weather". My guess is they considered it a blessing from God because it meant fewer people dying in the cold and fewer people dying of starvation.

[longeyes]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-evicted-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials

Banish the heretic!

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/18726/Fmr-Thatcher-advisor-Lord-Monckton-evicted-from-UN-climate-summit-after-challenging-global-warming--Escorted-from-the-hall-and-security-officers-stripped-him-of-his-UN-credentials

Banish the heretic!

Thanks. I just saw this article and I was going to post the link.

How's this for junk science: They have a 16-year period during which there has been no statistically significant global warming, sooooo ...

'They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.'

17 years is hardly a round number. I personally don't think that 16 or 17 or 18 years makes that much difference insofar as being able to distinguish signal from noise. No doubt if we get to 17 years with no significant warming, that minimum 17-year figure will morph into 18 years.

[stevelyn]

So now I guess since they can't sell it any other way, is they are now operating on the theory that if they repeat the lie enough times, it'll come true.

[Hawkmoon]

So now I guess since they can't sell it any other way, is they are now operating on the theory that if they repeat the lie enough times, it'll come true.

Repeat after me: "It's all in the spin."

[Jamisjockey]

So now I guess since they can't sell it any other way, is they are now operating on the theory that if they repeat the lie enough times, it'll come true.

They already have won the GW argument.  Plenty of people out there spew it as truth.

[birdman]

They already have won the GW argument.  Plenty of people out there spew it as truth.

Global temperature trends ARE true.  The problem is people spew ANTHROPOGENIC and exponential climate change as true

[Ben]

Global temperature trends ARE true.  The problem is people spew ANTHROPOGENIC and exponential climate change as true

Bin and Go.

[MillCreek]

Global temperature trends ARE true.  The problem is people spew ANTHROPOGENIC and exponential climate change as true

I agree with this.  I also agree with a possible anthropogenic contribution, although I am unsure of the magnitude of this contribution and if any actions taken to reverse it will make a meaningful difference in the overall climate change cycle.  Sensible actions to try and reverse it may be worth it, if we can get data to support this approach.

[AZRedhawk44]

I agree with this.  I also agree with a possible anthropogenic contribution, although I am unsure of the magnitude of this contribution and if any actions taken to reverse it will make a meaningful difference in the overall climate change cycle.  Sensible actions to try and reverse it may be worth it, if we can get data to support this approach.

With only about 100-150 years of reliable data gathering of questionable value (thermometers of today installed on "heat islands" such as concrete airports compared against 100 year old thermometer readings from some Edisonian-era rural installation), and a geological record demonstrating thousands/millions of years of heating and cooling cycles, and the 70's scare over globular coolulation that has been completely abandoned in a 15 year span to be renamed globular warmification, and the new science of heliometeorology only just now beginning to emerge...






(And who's to say these numbers are accurate for 18th and 19th centuries?  Or early 20th?  Were there really any mechanisms to count sun spots back then?  How many astrophysicists were there back then?  How sophisticated were their data collection techniques?  How many did they miss?  Our counting techniques today are different than theirs back then, since we have STEREO satellites, automated computer systems doing the counting, and 24 hour observation around the world.)


I dismiss all globular warmulists.  Period.

If the variances in question were 5 degrees or more, I might give it credence.  Maybe.  And if the data wasn't questionable, like comparing 75 year old temperatures in PHX before we grew a concrete jungle, to today's readings from the center of Sky Harbor Airport.

A degree or two variance inside of a century or so, when we don't even have enough data to formulate a baseline anyways, and have no reasonable expectation of a baseline even being a factual norm in the first place... there's at least 500 years of science that needs to be done before we consider any action at all.

Our current plan for globular changeism is about the same as a newborn baby opening its eyes for the first time and saying the color of the house is wrong, when it has all of about 1 second experience with any colors in the first place.  We're blind and inexperienced in this field.

[brimic]

Q? Why won't you find a capitalist scientist in the corner with Global Warmers?
A: Global Warming is a lie made up by communists in order to get control over global energy and resource supplies.

[SADShooter]

I've watched multiple scientists/climatologists on TV disagree about the potential manifestations of stipulated anthropogenic climate change. How do we know what approaches would actually stabilize temps at "normal"?

[Hawkmoon]

I've watched multiple scientists/climatologists on TV disagree about the potential manifestations of stipulated anthropogenic climate change. How do we know what approaches would actually stabilize temps at "normal"?

More importantly, how do we know that ANYTHING they propose might stabilize temperatures at "normal"?

What IS "normal"? Should we stabilize for conditions that maximize the polar ice sheets, or should we stabilize at a level that allows Eric the Red's descendants to start farming Greenland again? Or should we go all Buddhisty and aim for "the middle road"?

[longeyes]

Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that it exists.  The reality is that the only thing we can do about it is adapt, the same way we adapted to oil, electricity, the internet, and global migration.  Of course we could totally de-industrialize; that might mitigate the worst of the predictions a bit, but it would probably also kill a few billion human beings.  We have so much else to worry about that we can actually control.

[geronimotwo]

I doubt very much it was merely considered "weather". My guess is they considered it a blessing from God because it meant fewer people dying in the cold and fewer people dying of starvation.

and more deaths from malaria, but that just made the european invasions that much easier.

[RocketMan]

Let's stipulate, for the sake of argument, that it exists.  The reality is that the only thing we can do about it is adapt, the same way we adapted to oil, electricity, the internet, and global migration.  Of course we could totally de-industrialize; that might mitigate the worst of the predictions a bit, but it would probably also kill a few billion human beings.  We have so much else to worry about that we can actually control.

That would make more than a few environmental whackjobs happy.

[slingshot]

Talk to any elementary aged kid and they will tell you that global warming and climate change is real.  Al Gore types are winning and Al Gore is profitting emensely from it.  It is all about power and money. 

The UN embraced the concept as a way to gain more power as a global authority is necessary for a global problem.  Some might call them the "Federation".  There time is coming and it is a snowball picking up speed.  In the meantime, the Al Gore types are profitting from the snowball and getting rich.

I believe that climate change is a natural phenomena and there is little that man can do to control it.  We were headed into another ice age in the 60's; now we're going to starve humanity with it getting warmer.  Things will happen whether the UN or Al Gore has any direct say what so ever.  Dinosaurs became extinct, man can also.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Talk to any elementary aged kid and they will tell you that global warming and climate change is real.


don't try it with my kids

they will use bad words

[SADShooter]

Talk to any elementary aged kid and they will tell you that global warming and climate change is real.


don't try it with my kids

they will use bad words

That's truly outstanding, and I salute you. It's cold comfort, though, in the face of how much ecomentalism (thank you, Jeremy Clarkson) has pervaded the popular culture.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think i qualify as an anti gore cult
and my father too.

if you say his name my dads pavlovian response is to yell " pompous moron"
i have got em covering their ass by saying "my dad says global warming is manure"
and i suspect their teachers would prefer being friends. i am a very helpful parent.

with an odd reputation.