Funny this didn't make many popular headlines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...again.html

Quote:The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Now what are peanut and max going to say? This is "science".

Now, here's what Rutan says about the climate "rogues."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/bu...more-55598

Quote:In general, if you as an engineer with normal ethics, study the subject you will conclude that the theory that man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (a trace amount to an already trace gas content) cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor. You will also find that the real feedback is negative, not positive!

Note, this is exactly what Coyote presents. You know, the trained engineer who Mach dismisses b/c he's not a formal "climate scientist."

Quote:The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier.

You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized. He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.

(01-30-2012 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Now what are peanut and max going to say?

They're going to say this is proof of climate change.

My question for advocates of "man-made climate change" is this. Suppose I accept for the sake for argument that the earth is warming, or climate is changing, or whatever (not granting that for any other purpose, although I believe it is more likely true than not).

So my question is this: How and why is man causing it, and how can you prove that?

(01-30-2012 09:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My question for advocates of "man-made climate change" is this. Suppose I accept for the sake for argument that the earth is warming, or climate is changing, or whatever (not granting that for any other purpose, although I believe it is more likely true than not).

So my question is this: How and why is man causing it, and how can you prove that?

I think you should add to your question "and if it is changing, why is that bad?"

I'm not going to delve too much into the why or how of subject because I haven't studied climate science. (Of course I know this doesn't stop some of you.)

What I do know is this: there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; polar icecaps are melting; and there has been substantial warming over the past century and we've just had 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded, even if it has been leveling off. The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are of the opinion this warming is occurring and man is at least contributing to this warming. This is enough for me to support taking whatever reasonable steps we can to reduce emissions. And to be completely honest here, I don't trust the right propagandists on the whole.

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not going to delve too much into the why or how of subject because I haven't studied climate science. (Of course I know this doesn't stop some of you.)

What I do know is this: there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; polar icecaps are melting; and there has been substantial warming over the past century and we've just had 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded, even if it has been leveling off.

All wrong.

Quote: The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are of the opinion this warming is occurring and man is at least contributing to this warming.

Wrong.

Quote: This is enough for me to support taking whatever reasonable steps we can to reduce emissions. And to be completely honest here, I don't trust the right propagandists on the whole.

Because you're bred stupid and willfully ignorant.

I'm telling ya....it's a good thing we never bought into all that global cooling crap back in the 80's

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not going to delve too much into the why or how of subject because I haven't studied climate science. (Of course I know this doesn't stop some of you.)

What I do know is this: there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; polar icecaps are melting; and there has been substantial warming over the past century and we've just had 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded, even if it has been leveling off. The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are of the opinion this warming is occurring and man is at least contributing to this warming. This is enough for me to support taking whatever reasonable steps we can to reduce emissions. And to be completely honest here, I don't trust the right propagandists on the whole.

Why do you feel that warming is bad? No hyperbole please.

I have a tiny request. Can we please stop the silly semantics when someone offers a counterpoint. It devalues the debate and topics that could potentially raise everyone's awareness spiral quickly out of control.

There is a 12-13 year solar cycle where the sun will ramp up and down. The sun is in the second year of the ramping up stage. I do think this has some noticeable effect. Have you guy's ever heard of the chaos theory. Butterfly effect? Sometimes small changes in one area have disatrous effects in another area that seemed unrelated. No one can question or shouldn't question that CO2 has the ability to trap heat. Leaving your car door closed in the summer without cracking the windows has the same effect. CO2 traps long wave radiation. We are currently putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than any other time in our earth's history. We can measure this. There really is no debate on that. Where the debate begins is how much will this tip the scale. What's the cost of trying to fix it? Can any one country fix it?

I'm convinced you can't attack the problem this way. You have to tie it in with other problems. Kill 3 birds with one stone approach. Tie it to national security and economic recovery. But reality there is even a cold temptress. It's not good.

(01-30-2012 11:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I have a tiny request. Can we please stop the silly semantics when someone offers a counterpoint. It devalues the debate and topics that could potentially raise everyone's awareness spiral quickly out of control.

There is a 12-13 year solar cycle where the sun will ramp up and down. The sun is in the second year of the ramping up stage. I do think this has some noticeable effect. Have you guy's ever heard of the chaos theory. Butterfly effect? Sometimes small changes in one area have disatrous effects in another area that seemed unrelated. No one can question or shouldn't question that CO2 has the ability to trap heat. Leaving your car door closed in the summer without cracking the windows has the same effect. CO2 traps long wave radiation. We are currently putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than any other time in our earth's history. We can measure this. There really is no debate on that. Where the debate begins is how much will this tip the scale. What's the cost of trying to fix it? Can any one country fix it?

I'm convinced you can't attack the problem this way. You have to tie it in with other problems. Kill 3 birds with one stone approach. Tie it to national security and economic recovery. But reality there is even a cold temptress. It's not good.

Why do you feel that warming is bad? No hyperbole please.

(01-30-2012 11:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I have a tiny request. Can we please stop the silly semantics when someone offers a counterpoint. It devalues the debate and topics that could potentially raise everyone's awareness spiral quickly out of control.

There is a 12-13 year solar cycle where the sun will ramp up and down. The sun is in the second year of the ramping up stage. I do think this has some noticeable effect. Have you guy's ever heard of the chaos theory. Butterfly effect? Sometimes small changes in one area have disatrous effects in another area that seemed unrelated.

Stay on target. Citing some mathematical theory acting like that justifies the argument is NOT science. It is in fact, anti-science. It's superstition, no different than people arguing that a full moon causes an increase in ER cases.

Or why some fool like Craig Williams can cost the country $5-$10 BILLION, and get awards for it, all while making things MORE dangerous for people and the environment.

Quote: No one can question or shouldn't question that CO2 has the ability to trap heat. Leaving your car door closed in the summer without cracking the windows has the same effect.

WRONG! It has a similar effect, not the same effect, and the degree of the two are vastly different. Especially since you're talking about changes of a few hundred ppm for CO2

Quote: CO2 traps long wave radiation.

Traps SOME wavelengths of radiation. Really, are we going to ignore quantum mechanics for all of this? Throwing out known science is hardly doing science.

Quote: We are currently putting more CO2 in the atmosphere than any other time in our earth's history.

Completely misleading. What "we" are doing, versus what the environment has seen are two different things. The Earth's CO2 concentration has been higher, much higher at times, in the past. So while "we" as humans, may be putting out more CO2, it doesn't mean there is more CO2 than ever. It also ignores that huge forest fires that occurred with regularity on sparsely inhabited American continents or volcanic eruptions, both of which also put out huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases...that wasn't something "we" did, but it happened.

Quote: We can measure this. There really is no debate on that.

Actually there is some debate on this, just showing the need to be careful w/ measurements.

Quote:Where the debate begins is how much will this tip the scale.

No, the debate begins on whether this will have any noticeable effect on the scale at all!

Quote:What's the cost of trying to fix it? Can any one country fix it?I'm convinced you can't attack the problem this way.

"Fix" what? You've already leapt ahead, making any number of assumptions and pretending they are scientific conclusions.

Nothing even remotely close to science in this post Mach. That's tragic.

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are of the opinion this warming is occurring and man is at least contributing to this warming.

If there isn't a crisis, they don't get paid... Hardly unbiased sources.

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not going to delve too much into the why or how of subject because I haven't studied climate science. (Of course I know this doesn't stop some of you.)

Quote:there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods

Hurricanes (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml):

150 Year Average - 17.7 (Major 6)
150 Year High Decade - 1940's 24 (Major 10)
Past Decade Pace 2001-2006 - 18 (Major 6)

polar icecaps are melting (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-here.html)

Quote:According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Warming over 100 years

Lets put aside the improvements that have been achieved in the field of instrumentation. Let's put aside that the number of global temperature monitoring posts in 1900 was a fraction, of a fraction, of those in place today. Let's even put aside the fact that many of these stations were in fields 100 years ago but are in concrete cities today.

Putting all that aside you call .5 degrees in 100 years "substantial warming". In the past 1000 years the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is today.

Quote:We've just had 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded

Considering that world wide temperature records have been standardized for, at best, 100 years I should hope so!

Please also consider that NASA, who produces that list, has had to revise it several times as scientist, and lay scientist, find problem with their methodology.

(01-30-2012 11:25 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not going to delve too much into the why or how of subject because I haven't studied climate science. (Of course I know this doesn't stop some of you.)

What I do know is this: there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; polar icecaps are melting; and there has been substantial warming over the past century and we've just had 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded, even if it has been leveling off. The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are of the opinion this warming is occurring and man is at least contributing to this warming. This is enough for me to support taking whatever reasonable steps we can to reduce emissions. And to be completely honest here, I don't trust the right propagandists on the whole.

Why do you feel that warming is bad? No hyperbole please.

Indeed. A bit off topic and speaking locally... the mild winter we're currently experiencing is saving millions of homeowners on cheaper heating bills, the city coffers on less need for salt trucks and plowing, fewer cases of hypothermia and pulled backs from shoveling, and fewer insurance claims on highway car wrecks. Those are just a few micro-examples.

I've read and understand the laundry list of negative outcomes of an uptick in temperatures, and I'm not disputing many of those. But the upside of a little milder weather is nearly always dismissed.

(01-30-2012 12:08 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 11:25 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I'm not going to delve too much into the why or how of subject because I haven't studied climate science. (Of course I know this doesn't stop some of you.)

What I do know is this: there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; polar icecaps are melting; and there has been substantial warming over the past century and we've just had 9 of the 10 hottest years ever recorded, even if it has been leveling off. The vast majority of scientists who study this stuff are of the opinion this warming is occurring and man is at least contributing to this warming. This is enough for me to support taking whatever reasonable steps we can to reduce emissions. And to be completely honest here, I don't trust the right propagandists on the whole.

Why do you feel that warming is bad? No hyperbole please.

Indeed. A bit off topic and speaking locally... the mild winter we're currently experiencing is saving millions of homeowners on cheaper heating bills, the city coffers on less need for salt trucks and plowing, fewer cases of hypothermia and pulled backs from shoveling, and fewer insurance claims on highway car wrecks. Those are just a few micro-examples.

I've read and understand the laundry list of negative outcomes of an uptick in temperatures, and I'm not disputing many of those. But the upside of a little milder weather is nearly always dismissed.

Let's also consider an earlier planting season and increased agricultural footprint in nations with huge landmasses.

My thoughts have always been, and continue to be...

- I believe the temperature has risen a degree Celsius or so over the past several decades.

- I'm uncertain what proportion (if any) is caused by man, and what proportion is caused by natural occurances and solar cycles.

- I'm highly skeptical of future climate "forecasts," some of which have already been proven wildly inaccurate.

- In any event, finding ways to lower pollutants and harmful emissions, and investigating cleaner energy and recycling, is always a good idea, regardless of whether climate change is driven by man's activities or not.

(01-30-2012 10:56 AM)Max Power Wrote:  What I do know is this: there has been freakish weather occurrences lately, specifically the prevalence of hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods;

The question one must ask is... how much of this is actually "freakish," and how much of this perception is born out of the Internet and 24/7 cable news networks? This doesn't just pertain to the topic of climate, either. When bombarded with so much constant information compared to just 15-20 years ago when we only had one AM news station, one daily paper newspaper and the 6 o'clock news, it's easy to believe things are exponentially worse (or better) based on the exponentially greater access to information - some propogated by those with agendas.

(01-30-2012 12:19 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  - In any event, finding ways to lower pollutants and harmful emissions, and investigating cleaner energy and recycling, is always a good idea, regardless of whether climate change is driven by man's activities or not.

I agree. That's why I am so opposed to things like light rail and subways. They don't lower emissions or energy costs. So why are "progressives" always pushing such nonsense?

Similarly, the drive to the suburbs by "progressive" urban policy that has harmed families and increased crime. Moreover, the micro-governments that exist with the establishment of the HOA are rife with control freaks (both right and left) that never consider environmental factors.

"Planning commissions" are equally harmful, rarely coming up w/ environmentally friendly policies, rather they typically default to ones that offer control and higher taxes. For instance, I rarely see sensible options for bicyclists being championed.

I have posted and re-posted the WaPo article on how labor unions oppose construction of fuel-efficient cars, b/c the margins are low and don't support their pay aspirations.

(01-30-2012 11:10 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'm telling ya....it's a good thing we never bought into all that global cooling crap back in the 80's

It was the cover-story ("THE COMING ICE AGE") in one issue of Newsweek in 1975. And there were many other high-profile examples of the elite media treating the story as if it were "scientific": http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-...Age-Claims

Does anyone know of something like Dropbox where I can drop this Understanding Global Climate Change for people to download? The file is too Big for Dropbox. It's created by NASA and there's two Chapters including animations that I think would be helpful here. It goes into detal how we know the CO2 levels of the past and where they are at today. They measure temp by using Isotopes of Oxygen. CO2 levels have NEVER been higher than they are today and next year they will even be higher. So on and so forth. I'm sorry Torch but there is no debate here. Show any link where CO2 levels have been higher. You won't find it.

Or does anyone have a for pay Dropbox account where I can drop this in for us to look at.