Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

On-Topic

Quote:

10 July 2008
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is experiencing further disintegration that is threatening the collapse of the ice bridge connecting the shelf to Charcot Island. Since the connection to the island in the image centre helps to stabilise the ice shelf, it is likely the break-up of the bridge will put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk.

http://www.esa.int/images/ASAR_IMP_HH_Animation_L.gif

End of the world? No.

A good thing? No.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

161.
Australian climate data analyst John McLean authored a September 2007 study which found the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." A September 2007 analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process entitled "Peer Review? What Peer Review?" revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. According to McLean's analysis, "The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story." The paper continued, "In [the IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all." The analysis concluded, "The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process."

0 Replies

June GIS global average comes in at 0.26 C above global mean for June, which continues in general to head lower than the past few months and years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsGISTEMP.html

I am sure if the House of Hansen could find a way to explain why the numbers could and should be re-calculated to a higher number, they would.

0 Replies

LA NINA, okie, LA NINA. We keep telling you.

Some denialists claim global temp has been going down since 1998 (which was an EL NINO year, which hikes temp UP a bit). Not so. NASA says 2005 was the warmest year on record, and the first eleven months of 2007 were on track to beat 2005, WITHOUT THE SMALL ADDED LIFT OF AN EL NINO. Those who claim temps have been going down for the last decade are flat out wrong. Over the winter and spring of 2007-2008 a pretty strong la Nina developed, which brings temps down but is transient, which is the mark of weather, not climate, and which has the characteristic signature in the global temp record of short-term onset and departure, i.e. less than a year in duration, rather than continued change over years.
The trend in the temperature is still up overall, and that's what you have to deal with. And you're not.

0 Replies

Coolest June since 1996, 12 years ago, user.

0 Replies

La Nina, okie.

0 Replies

You point out one phenomenon that is cyclical. Virtually everything in nature is cyclical, user, including climate, not just weather, whether we are here or not.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You point out one phenomenon that is cyclical. Virtually everything in nature is cyclical, user, including climate, not just weather, whether we are here or not.

That's the thing. When we've had record heat or uncommon warm spells, you don't see the AGW religionists even mentioning an El Nino or other periodically reoccurring phenomenon. It's proof of global warming, they say. But when the reverse occurs, it is just La Nina and therefore temporary and has no effect on overall global warming.

I've lived a pretty long time now, and I don't believe there has been a single year in all that time where record heat and record cold were not reported someplace. The fact that we are still routinely recording record temperatures should tell us that such records are most likely not records at all but simply testify to the very short time, environmentally speaking, that we have been recording and tracking global temperatures.

The global warming scientists who are skeptics are those who don't dismiss inconvenient facts or data but who consider all there is to know. I think even the strongest global warming advocates who are willing to give honest consideration to all the scientific data, as Ican has been demonstrating, almost always become skeptics.

0 Replies

The kicker, okie, comes in those things that are not cyclical (or, better, periodic). Volcanos, for example, and periods in the past when chains of volcanos were erupting, rather than single ones like the present, or asteroid strikes, or in the current case, humans returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that had been sequestered over millions of years. Plant carbon sequestration is one of the processes that has kept CO2 essentially constant over millenia. We're overloading the system massively. That's a new acyclic process that we've introduced (not the only one--concrete production, burning of limestone, is a significant fraction of CO2 increase; methane from land use and animal use is another; as are ozone-depleting chemicals, aerosols, and changing albedo from land use changes, to mention a selected few). That's the problem here--not what repeats, but what IS NOT a repeat of what's happened before. And that's us, this time around.

0 Replies

Even volcanoes and asteroid collisons are periodic if not cyclical. They have been occuring for all of recorded history and, according to the geological record, for all time on Earth. It all factors into the total record of Earth climate and ALL the variables included in it. Is human generated CO2 one of those variables? Certainly. Is it a problem for humankind or the Earth in general? I think the evidence is at best inconclusive about that and the preponderance of the evidence is that it is having minimal if any effect with more evidence that there is more indication that it is causing no harm than there is evidence that it is.

If anything, the huge amount of pure water vapor human activity is pumping into the atmosphere is probably having more effect. (And, if true, that should certainly give the environmental religionists pause for thought about vehicles and processes that emit water vapor in lieu of CO2.)

0 Replies

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

162.

0 Replies

Good old conservative tactic: repeat something over and over and over and over and over again. If you repeat it often enough, people will get bored and stop discussing it. If you repeat it often enough, other people will think that it is of enough value to be repeated that often, and will start believing it.

We've seen this with the current Republican administration in the run-up to the war with Iraq: repeat, over and over and over and over the words WMD, mushroom cloud, 9/11, terrorists, Saddam, Al Qaeda, and eventually, people will start to believe that there must be some truth to it, just because it's being repeated that often. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

ican is using a slight variation of this old tactic: instead of simply telling a lie over and over again, he cites somebody else; and it's not actually a lie, it's just 'dissent'. Very well.

Number of times ican has posted the above bit on this thread: 69

0 Replies

But that isn't arguing about what Dr. Ball said.

And the number of times it has been posted has nothing to do with the matter either.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

But that isn't arguing about what Dr. Ball said.

It certainly has been discussed the first couple of times it has been posted.

spendius wrote:

And the number of times it has been posted has nothing to do with the matter either.

In a way. It appears that ican is more interested in propaganda than in any kind of discussion.

Of course, that's merely my subjective impression - based on the fact that when ican decides to re-post this, it is usually completely unrelated to the topics discussed, or even to the wider discussion, or, judging from the fact that he drops it without ever coming back to discuss it or without addressing any poster, without even the intention to generate discussion.

But given that ican and others here are continuously complaining how the current scientific consensus is being stuffed down their throat, preached as a fact and never actually discussed, there's certainly some kind of irony in the way ican posts this bit over and over again. And there's the connection with the content....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Number of times ican has posted the above bit on this thread: 69

Actually, had you been paying attention, you would have noticed each is different, by different authors covered the topic of the thread.

I guess that would be too much to hope though.

0 Replies

Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

0 Replies

I guess if you make 300 posts, each a paragraph, all from the same suspect source, it should count as 300 sources.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Uh, sure.

That's pretty similar to the variations of "terrorists attacked us on 9/11, and Saddam's regime has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people" that we have heard from the administration.

It's preaching.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yup, Timothy Ball is #162. If OE had actually been reading the content--something he almost certainly has not done--he probably would have noticed that each is a different scientist assigned a different number on the list. But that would be sooooooo inconvenient to a AGW religionist who still contends that almost all bonafide climate experts claim AGW is a terrible problem that must be addressed immediatley.

Hey, Foxy, aren't you the one who is so easily offended when people "misquote" you, or "quote you out of context", or simply make sh!t up and attribute it to you?

Just wondering...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Good old conservative tactic: repeat something over and over and over and over and over again. If you repeat it often enough, people will get bored and stop discussing it.

Conservative tactic? Laughing

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know