The world has never seen such freezing heat

[friendly_jacek]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

In case someone missed that, there are opposing man-made and natural forces at play that determine temps and climate. While everyone is familiar with global warming due to CO2 pollution, there is also a global dimming due to particulate pollution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

So this above discussion is not unlike the inflation/deflation controversy or even trying to figure out timing of marker bears and bulls.

[Tim T]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I thought the classic hockey stick figure showing recent temperature rises went back to 900 AD? You are not going to see that formation in your chart that goes back to only 1976. Maybe I have something wrong here, let me know if I do.

[tsetsefly]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Oh, and by the way, the way to fix it is with massive new taxes that provide governments and the U.N. with trillions of dollars of revenue and just happen to choke off much of the economic activity that the environmentalist fringe has their knickers in a knot over.

These environmental catastrophists readily buy into that stuff because it meshes with their contempt for modern society and for the free market and individual liberty. I know because I was one of those people throughout my 20s, joining all the right causes and ranting about Republicans and the environment. And none of the disasters predicted back then came true.

Agree, how ironic that every problem the environmentalist find has to do with modern society and free markets. And the solution is massive government intervention. IN this case world intervention through a corrupt organization like the UN.
No thanks...

[roxtar]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Boys in white lab coats, come up with something more meaningful for Joe and Jill Sixpack. Pronto.

That would entail Joe and Jill Sixpack actually pick up a book or newspaper, or change the channel from "Judge Hatchett" to any of the news networks. I really don't think they have the attention span to pay enough attention or the capacity to absorb and understand the information. Hence, you get the 5 second soundbite about the Earth warming by 2 degrees.

[Master Shake]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I was going to post here what I believe are the inarguable facts about global warming. Then I realized there's no point in discussing it here.

The day I go to itulip for advice on global warming will be the day I go to church for advice about investments.

Let's all stick to what we're here for, eh?

(EDIT: I apologize if my attitude is a bit cynical, but I've seen this discussion play out on many other forums. Lots of people chime in to say very intelligent things on both sides of the debate, and everyone generally leaves unconvinced of the opposing side's argument. Just doesn't seem like a productive use of time.)

Dave,

Two things. One, beliefs about global warming (specifically, the degree of anthropogenic global warming) are going to have a very large impact on decisions made that will affect our economy. The pro-AGW forces will willingly hobble the US (and the developed world's) economy by greatly restricting the use of coal, along with other hydrocarbon sources, and by expanding the power of government in energy markets, all based, imo, on a false notion of the degree to which mankind's activities contribute to global warming. Some very well-connected players (the ones who got us into this financial mess) will make out like bandits by setting a market in carbon credits and cap-and-trade schemes, and we will see greater and greater international governmental control, all in the name of "saving the planet." A compliant media will play right along.

Two, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you your inarguable fact that global warming is occurring, despite the fact that temperatures have remained flat over the past decade. The fact is that we are still warming from the last period of glaciation, and a review of the climate record show large changes in temperature and CO2 levels over geologic time that pre-date the emergence man, let alone the internal combustion engine. The planet warms and the planet cools, and mankind, despite our hysterical hubris, has little effect on it all.

I'll close with some mixed analogies. The concept of anthropogenic global warming is the Piltdown Man hoax of out time, and the James Hansen's of the world are the Trofim Lysenko's of the movement. Saying that doesn't mean that we should not develop environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources and reduce our demand on foreign oil that helps fund Islamic terrorism. But we should not rely on hype and hysteria when developing policies and we should not cripple ourselves by refusing to exploit all sources of energy, including coal.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Wow, quite a number of personal attacks in your post. Can we please stick to the issue at hand and refrain from the use of red herrings and labels.

By the way, are you a scientist or do you have a technical background, as I only think that it is fair that you qualify your ability to assess this issue on a scientific basis, especially given that you claim that those who do not share your opinion have "no understanding of how science works."

Personal attacks? Who did I attack personally?

More right wing B.S.!

People who deny the climate is warming at this point are simply incapable of a reasonable thought process and have no understanding of how science works.

These are statements of fact. When there are thousands of peer review journal articles on one side of an argument, when 99% of the scientists who study a subject are in agreement, and a person chooses to contradict this without any supporting data or facts, then that person TRULY doesn't understand how science works.

Although my background is irrelevant (who's getting personal now?) and you should be concerned with the facts and the reasoned arguments of those who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject; I have an undergraduate degree in physical geography and took a few graduate level remote sensing classes. I worked 7 years at a NOAA research lab dealing with a wide variety of climatological and meteorological data. I also worked 7 years with some of the worlds leading sea-ice, glacial, permafrost, ice-shelf... researchers at a NASA data center. I was involved in data discovery and presentation concerning sea-ice melting, bore holes from Antarctica and Greenland, permafrost melting, glacial retreat and so many other types of data it became an almost impossible task to organize and manage it all. I am not a scientist. But after having too many discussions with these scientists and others from around the world, and finding them all in strong agreement over the broad concept of man made global warming, and after seeing the overwhelming quantity of supportive data at one small data center, no reasonable person could conclude anything but that man made global warming is as real as the sun rising in the east.

DaveBrown42:
I was going to post here what I believe are the inarguable facts about global warming. Then I realized there's no point in discussing it here.

The day I go to itulip for advice on global warming will be the day I go to church for advice about investments.

Let's all stick to what we're here for, eh?

(EDIT: I apologize if my attitude is a bit cynical, but I've seen this discussion play out on many other forums. Lots of people chime in to say very intelligent things on both sides of the debate, and everyone generally leaves unconvinced of the opposing side's argument. Just doesn't seem like a productive use of time.)

Ahhh, here's why this discussion on an economics forum is important.
This isn't really about global warming; it's about how people think, and how they reach conclusions.

If someone were to come to you one day and tell you that the moon landings were faked, or that Eintstein was wrong and E=MC^2 should be E=MC, what would you think? You would think the person was irrational or unreasonable because there is an overwhelming amount of facts and informed opinion contradicting their claims. Now if the next day they came to you and said we are in a deflationary spiral and you should sell your inflationary gold hedge, what would you do? Would you take the advice of someone who the day before demonstrated, at best, that they didn't do a minimal amount of work to find the information that qucikly disproved their argument, or at worst, are incapable of determining factual information from uninformed opinion, or are unable or unwilling to draw reasoned conclusions from factual information.

The world is in great turmoil. I need to make financial decisions that will have a great impact on my life. I come to iTulip because I lack the financial and economic knowledge I need to make those decisions. Fortunately, here on iTulip there are posters like EJ, Fred, Finister, Bart, jk and many others who present good data and make well reasoned arguments based on those data. They most certainly aren't always correct, but I don't seek impossible perfection from people, only their best reasoned argument based on the best data they have. Some are even kind enough to answer questions and point out a misguided line of thought I might be taking.

And like all public forums, there are those who express uninformed opinions based on an emotional need or maybe a political agenda. But that's ok. I really do appreciate ALL the posters here at iTulip. But when it comes to making those life changing decisions, I really need to be able to distinguish the uninformed opinions from the well reasoned, data supported opinions.

A thread like this can be very helpful. ;)

[jtabeb]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Dave,

Two things. One, beliefs about global warming (specifically, the degree of anthropogenic global warming) are going to have a very large impact on decisions made that will affect our economy. The pro-AGW forces will willingly hobble the US (and the developed world's) economy by greatly restricting the use of coal, along with other hydrocarbon sources, and by expanding the power of government in energy markets, all based, imo, on a false notion of the degree to which mankind's activities contribute to global warming. Some very well-connected players (the ones who got us into this financial mess) will make out like bandits by setting a market in carbon credits and cap-and-trade schemes, and we will see greater and greater international governmental control, all in the name of "saving the planet." A compliant media will play right along.

Two, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you your inarguable fact that global warming is occurring, despite the fact that temperatures have remained flat over the past decade. The fact is that we are still warming from the last period of glaciation, and a review of the climate record show large changes in temperature and CO2 levels over geologic time that pre-date the emergence man, let alone the internal combustion engine. The planet warms and the planet cools, and mankind, despite our hysterical hubris, has little effect on it all.

I'll close with some mixed analogies. The concept of anthropogenic global warming is the Piltdown Man hoax of out time, and the James Hansen's of the world are the Trofim Lysenko's of the movement. Saying that doesn't mean that we should not develop environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources and reduce our demand on foreign oil that helps fund Islamic terrorism. But we should not rely on hype and hysteria when developing policies and we should not cripple ourselves by refusing to exploit all sources of energy, including coal.

Right things for the right reason? What a concept.

BTW, I'm still agnostic because I see a lot of conflicting theories and information.

But this "Some very well-connected players (the ones who got us into this financial mess) will make out like bandits by setting a market in carbon credits and cap-and-trade schemes, and we will see greater and greater international governmental control, all in the name of "saving the planet." A compliant media will play right along."

leaves me, at the very least, highly skeptical of the claims being made. Esp. since there is now GLOBAL consensus in the body politique. That always worries me when it occurs, because the group think that exists is rarely correct.

Final point, doesn't solar output drawf all other global warming effects by like two orders of magnitude?

(someone who is smarter than me, please show me why that is incorrect because I only read it somewhere and I am not in any position to actertain the validity of the claim).

Yes, that was a request to help educate me.

A fool KNOWS, a wise man knows what he DOESN'T know. And I for one don't know, even with having read a lot of material on the subject.

[Judas]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

The day I go to itulip for advice on global warming will be the day I go to church for advice about investments.

Then it's somewhat funny that you come here for investment advice. Eric Janszen has specifically stated that he relies on his personal review of data, conclusions, judgement, and even hunches :eek:. This site is based entirely around the concept of looking at information and thinking for yourself when almost all the experts and professionals, best mathemetical models of a complex system, government sponsored (and therefore non-commercial and non-partisan of course) research, and even Nobel Prize winners and laureates and the "consensus" tell you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Not only are you wrong, you are stupid and likely an unstable "doomer" with psychological issues. You are probably one of those fools who doubted statin drugs or millions of male children on ritalin.

You sir, are a dyed-in-the-wool "denialist"! :p

Come back to your senses and watch CNBC!

(As an aside, I hate using that "denialist" term because I can almost feel millions of Holocaust victims curse me from their graves :eek

[c1ue]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Sorry, links to right wing Global denialist blogs with no data supporting their denials, nothing but wild claims, misquotes, and outright lies are not acceptable. Show me a peer reviewed article in an accepted scientific journal and I'll take a look. Ohh, excuse me! There are none! Because all they have is crazy claims and no defendable data.

Been through this more times than I can count, with the same result;
Deniers use the same type of arguments as UFO nuts, flat earth nuts, Big foot witnesses. Thousands of publications in scientific journals and libraries of data on one side, and blurry pictures and Rush Limbaugh on the other.

Toast,

You clearly did not look at any of the links.

The second one in particular looks at the specific science behind a number of the main AGW tenets.

There are no personal attacks nor are there a bunch of statements saying "this is wrong" or "that is wrong".

But to paraphrase yourself:

Thousands of publications in scientific journals and libraries of data on one side, and Bush-esque 'directed studies' (a la Hansen) and Al Gore on the other

[we_are_toast]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Toast,

You clearly did not look at any of the links.

The second one in particular looks at the specific science behind a number of the main AGW tenets.

There are no personal attacks nor are there a bunch of statements saying "this is wrong" or "that is wrong".

But to paraphrase yourself:

Thousands of publications in scientific journals and libraries of data on one side, and Bush-esque 'directed studies' (a la Hansen) and Al Gore on the other

Indeed I did look at the 1st 3 links. Icecap.com is NOT a peer reviewed journal. It is one of a gazillion global warming denialist web sites that present the same taken out of context, misquoted, and twisted information which has been debunked by the real science.

This is about science and facts! I'm still waiting for a link to an accepted peer reviewed journal article presenting evidence and an argument that man made global warming is not taking place.

[don]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

"That would entail Joe and Jill Sixpack actually pick up a book or newspaper, or change the channel from "Judge Hatchett" to any of the news networks. I really don't think they have the attention span to pay enough attention or the capacity to absorb and understand the information. Hence, you get the 5 second soundbite about the Earth warming by 2 degrees."


If you're not in advertising, you should consider it. You show great potential in influencing others in buying into your point of view :p

[xtronics]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

I thought the classic hockey stick figure showing recent temperature rises went back to 900 AD? You are not going to see that formation in your chart that goes back to only 1976. Maybe I have something wrong here, let me know if I do.

The hockey-stick-team shows a 2degC/century increase that is not in the satellite data. In real science, if the observed data doesn't fit the theory, we throw the theory out, we don't massage the data.

The long term hockey-stick-team graphs are based on reconstructions based on tree rings, but tree rings may better represent rain fall than temperature. But even that data is highly manipulated - many versions have the MWP removed (they are now some putting it back). The graphs are based on cherry picked data using computer routines that they refuse to publish and data that they refuse to share (inspite of FIA requests!). The fact that the HS graphs shows a very steep continuous incline and the satellite data does not, should cause one to pause and think.

To give higher confidence to inferred interpretations of tree rings, bore holes, ice cores where there source data is not open compared to satellite data that is open, all software available etc. is just silly.

Anyway, the hockey-stick-team got caught using a custom data filter (unknow in the science of statistics) that returned hockey-stick graphs on most red-noise. http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcin...trick.2003.pdf

To quote Richard Feynman:

The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. Richard Feynman

The Hockey-stick-team has not done the part about looking at "what's bad about it".

To either claim or to deny global warming, infers a claim of special knowledge that doesn't exist - as in a belief. Man does not have the information to know one way or the other. Real science is humble.

Doing something about a problem that may or may not exist may have unintended consequences that can kill a huge number of people. Here are two sites that neither claim nor deny global warming - but simply say we don't know:

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

http://climateaudit.org/

What I saw as a political move by the hockey-stick-team, was to go from 'Global-warming' to Global-change. Now they are trying to move to "Climate-disruption" (disruption has a more sinister tone - don't you think?). If warming isn't happening they are still covered. Is this an attempt to hedge their bets?

[D-Mack]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Lawyers call for international court for the environment

A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.

Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.
...

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...vironment.html

I'm glad Brown cares so much;)

[Master Shake]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.

Yeah, but is Sean Penn on board?

[sunskyfan]

Re: The world has never seen such freezing heat

Why don't we call it Global Melting? That is undeniable and has undeniable consequences from fresh water shortages to ocean level adjustments to ocean current worries.