About That Global Warming Thing: Um, Nevermind

Proof • November 14, 2008

It has plagued scientists and politicians for decades, but scientists now say global warming is not the problem.
We are actually heading for the next Ice Age, they claim. British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice.
Most of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England could be covered in 3,000ft-thick ice fields. The expanses could reach 6,000ft from Aberdeen to Kent – towering above Ben Nevis, Britain’s tallest mountain.

I like this part:

And what’s more, the experts blame the global change on falling – rather than climbing – levels of greenhouse gases.
Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – could actually be the key to averting the chill.
The warning, published in the authoritative journal Nature, is based on records of tiny marine fossils and the earth’s shifting orbit.

But, let’s not panic, m’kay? We have plenty of time to decide what to do:

Professor Crowley said the stark findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming. But he urged: ‘Don’t push the panic button.’
‘There’s no excuse for saying “we’ve got to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,”’ he told Reuters. ‘Geologically it’s tomorrow, but we have lots of time to argue about the appropriate level of greenhouse gases.’

Funny, isn’t it, that when the politically correct crowd could use global warming as a means to get you to change your lifestyle it was NOW. We’ve got to act NOW. We’re doomed.
But….since it’s starting to look like the whole man-made global warming thing was bunk from the start, well, relax. We’ve got plenty of time. Heh.
Al Gore and Chicken Little were unavailable for comment.

Tags: Uncategorized

http://Array Colin Henshaw

“What I’m saying is you are an idiot, because what the data actually says and what you think it says are miles apart.”

Anyone resorting to this kind of verbal abuse is obviously scraping the bottom of the bucket.
Colin Henshaw

Maybe the AGW naysayers should look at this:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178

If they still have a problem with AGW, they should argue with them, not with me.
carrick

Woah, Colin.

What a comeback!

Prove to us that the data don’t say one thing and you another.

Or STFU.
carrick

ore on the Antarctica ice shelves:

Ice expanding in much of Antarctica
Eastern coast getting colder
Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast.

Unfortunately the BBC is in the tank for the global warming alarmists. Probably it is reflecting the official government position, and this demonstrates mostly the danger in letting the government own and control the main media outlet.

But the bottom line is in aggregate that Antarctica sea ice (read “ICE SHELVES” for the scientific illiterate worshipers of the Latter Day Global Warming Church of Al Gore) is growing not shrinking or “breaking up”.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Carrick’s chart looks like there’s been an increase of about 1Â° Celsius in the Northern Polar region from its high in the fifties, and a decrease of about 1Â° Celsius in Antarctica from its high in the seventies.

Maybe you could find the missing data if you gave them the third degree?

(joke)
carrick

Colin:

I said “The Antarctic Ice Shelves are breaking up.”

I read what you said, and you’re still wrong.

Ice shelves calve off occasionally. You’re acting like that’s something new. On average, the shelves are getting larger, not smaller.

The study behind that BBC story averages from 1960-current. When you do that you get a slight upwards trend in temperature, when in practice it should be divided into two periods, one with a warming trend (prior to 1980) and since then a cooling trend for the Antarctica melting.

The exception to this is the Antarctica peninsula, which has been experiencing warming.

The study is flawed in my opinion, in that it incorrectly smears the warming of the peninsula across the entirety of the continent. This is in part because they are trying to infill a very sparse, non uniform array of temperature measurements—a fundamental flaw of their method—and in part because they truncated their series at N=3 with no justification.

Regardless, the study does not call into question the satellite measurements in temperature, which started in 1979, so the statement that since 1980 the Antarctica has been cooling is in agreement with their paper. So, when AGW was supposed to have kicked in with “unexplainably large warming”, the Antarctic mainland has been cooling.

As I noted above that is one (of many) problems with the attribution to the dominant global warming since 1980 to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

However those AGW naysayers probably do have a political agenda

Too Funny!

Um, no. It’s the pro-global warming crowd that is continually being caught lying that has the agenda.

Here’s the deal. All the global warming nuts have is a model that predicts global warming.

How do we evaluate said models? We measure them against real world conditions.

They fail, every time. If they are no good for predicting short term climate change then they surely are no good for longer predictions either.

action to mitigate AGW is a veiled attempt to undermine their business activities.

You mean like provide consumers with products and services they want at prices they can afford.

Do you really think that businesses will pay the “global warming” tax?

Of course they won’t! Consumers will have less choices and a lower standard of living.
andophiroxia

Actually, all over the world there is a general trend to cooling. I don’t know where you have been, but you must have smoked something. Historically, there have been cycles of global warming and cooling. They even found citrus tree seeds in Ireland that are a few hundred years old as well as wine grapes in England that would require warmer weather than it does today.

Basically, we don’t know enough about the climate and weather cycles to really pinpoint source, but it is beginning to show that it is highly doubtable we have any control. Plus, the fact that I think Dr. Hansen of NASA was caught inputting the same information from September into October numbers of last year, has me thinking that it is definitely a “man-made” calamity or issue.
HG

(Al Gore was at his most incoherent last week when he ranted about corporations fighting AGW.)

Isnt’ that the truth. Is that what he is down to? A 14 year old corporate study that couldn’t possibly take into account the last 8 years of cooling? What an idiot.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I see your links use the same pictures as I used in this post to show where Antarctica is warming (and where it’s cooling.)

My post on the subject is better because I also include a picture OF WHERE THE ANTARCTIC VOLCANOES ARE ACTIVE.

Now it’s entirely plausible that volcanic activity can affect local temperatures.

On the other hand I want to see a verifiable theory before I believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere would warm ONE side of Antarctica while cooling the other.

I suppose it’s some kind of strange coincidence that Antarctica is only being warmed by the enhanced greenhouse effect where there happen to be some innocent bystander type volcanoes around.

But, but, but, Algore said….
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Might be a good time to re-read Fallen Angels by Niven and Pournelle. There was a little global cooling in that one as I recall…
carrick

Also this picture is misleading:

The white area is actually cooling as is mild pink. Why do think that “gltich” occurred?

And why do you think that trained climate scientists would include a period in which we know anthropogenic CO2 emissions were not a significant contribution to warming in order to get a net warming trend?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Even the part of being stuck in the truck full of cheese?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I thought that Alderman guy seemed familiar.
Socks

How about penguin wings?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Even the part of being stuck in the truck full of cheese?

Dude! I was there for that part!
FedUp

It takes a really intelligent person to narrate a movie

Ah I see…so that’s why he received the award instead of Irena Sendler. Anyone can save children during the Holocaust.
http://www.lightpollution.org.uk/ Colin Henshaw

I think that it would take a rather large degree of global warming and Carbon dioxide emisions to avert the next glaciation. What is more likely in my opinion is that global warming melting the polar ice, thereby changing the albedo of the Arctic Ocean. This will increase evaporation, leading to more preciptation. The fresher water from melting polar ice will then deflect the Gult Stream further south so it no longer warms North America and North West Europe. This will result in cooling, and once the snowfall persists throughout the summer the next glaciation will kick in very rapidly.

Global warming and climate change resulting it from are serious threats that can’t be denied and need to be redressed urgently.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I decided to actually post the pictures because many people who aren’t willing to challenge their fixed positions just won’t click on a link because it’s too hard.

So here’s the Antarctic volcano locations.

And here’s where Antarctica is warming. This picture was used in your BBC link.
http://www.freshenvironment.com/featured-articles/what-children-should-know Fresh Environment

i cant remember where i found this great article on the temp changes caused by global warming over the last few years. Ill post if i find it.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Baked, deep fried or Cajun styled?
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

And we know that whatever the cause is, it’s manmade and directly related to greenhouse gases.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/some_hints/ AKAJOEL

Rainforestman
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

If the facts don’t match your socialistic agenda, then come up with your own.

I suppose some will remind me of glass houses and stones. However the burden of proof surely is on the crowd that wants to restructure society because of a supposed effect of CO2.

They need to a) prove their theories are right. What they have are some models that have been proven completely unreliable when subjected to real world conditions.

They also need to make a convincing case that their “fix” will actually make things better.
welder4

you give an alarm but no solution , any one can sound the alarm bell but charging taxes on Co2 is not an answer it is just a way of getting more tax from the citizens so what should we do ? I await your wonderful solution . I think if the warming trend is not going to happen then the alarmist were wrong so why would any one believe that it is cooling because of man. The alarmist tried cooling before even front paged the news of another ice age ? that did not happen so we are subject to scientist who want federal dollars to make a good pay check and do what the government wants them to do. I just wished we could just have the courage to do nothing. It is hard to get it to rain by mans means so we are gong to change the weather period , I don’t think we are that smart yet.
FedUp

Does this mean they’ll take back Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize and give it to someone that actually contributed to society? I never understood why he received the award to begin with. He’s not one of the scientists that studied Global Warming, he was a friggin narrator.
di butler

Oh FedUp,

It takes a really intelligent person to narrate a movie, especially one so grounded in fact. I liked the “authenic” scenes from Al’s movie, you know, the ones from the big Hollywood movie that he used? Only someone who has a house that is burning up power at warp speed while he tools around in his jet can truly explain why it is so important that we all ride damn bicycles! Yep, I truly can see why Al deserved that Nobel award.

Whistler,

I’ve never had the crane fricasse, how about you bring that to the meeting as your hot dish contribution??
docdave

Global warming and climate change resulting it from are serious threats that can’t be denied and need to be redressed urgently.

Tell it to the sun, the principle villian of climate change. Your other theories are wild speculation.
http://www.lightpolution.org.uk/ Colin Henshaw

I think that it would take a rather large degree of global warming and Carbon dioxide emissions to avert the next glaciation. What is more likely in my opinion is that global warming melting the polar ice, thereby changing the albedo of the Arctic Ocean. This will increase evaporation, leading to more precipitation. The fresher water from melting polar ice will then deflect the Gult Stream further south so it no longer warms North America and North West Europe. This will result in cooling, and once the snowfall persists throughout the summer the next glaciation will kick in very rapidly.

Global warming and climate change resulting it from are serious threats that can’t be denied and need to be redressed urgently.
Socks

Deep fried penguin wings… mmm.

State of Fear anyone?
Old Retired Petty Officer

Guess what? It’s cold here in Wichita! Smack in the middle of the country. The last look on the Weather Channel was 42 degrees with a wind chill of even freezing, yes 32 degrees wind chill. Global warming?!?!?!?! My Ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!
welder4

The Gore so called scientist were wrong on this and they are wrong on the ice age ,that has already been tried , didn’t work out so they went for the warming effect instead, it is just a way to tax the heck out of us and get all of our money, Back a long time ago the front page was an ice age is coming the end of the world is coming . that was a lie or just bad science which ever , the weather man can not predict the weather for more then three days and sometimes that is wrong . . One bright scientist (Monkton) said “we need the courage to do nothing”
Colin Henshaw

“….you give an alarm but no solution , any one can sound the alarm bell but charging taxes on Co2 is not an answer….”

The cause of the problem is over-population and energy wastage. Here is the solution.

This planet has exceeded its human carrying capacity by 200%. We need to promote rigorous birth control in order to reverse current trends. If we self regulate we won’t reach the point where the environment will do it for us. We are no different to a bacterial culture on a Petri dish. Their numbers increase exponentially until their resources run out and they start poisoning themselves in their own waste products. The Earth is our Petri dish.

We should also stop wasting energy. As the population increases so does energy consumption. The problem is we are wasting it. Casual glances at NASA images taken at night shows how this is happening. Around twenty percent of all energy produced is consumed on lighting, much of which is wasted. Yet this is one of the easiest problems to solve. Switch off unnecessary, inessential lighting. Lighting should only be installed sparingly, on a needs must basis, where needed, when needed, and in the correct amounts. Better lighting technology, such as 45 degree full cut-off street lighting and motion operated security lighting is available to reduce its impact.

Further savings can be made by weaning ourselves off petrol driven vehicles and changing to those that are electrically powered. We should use more public transport so more people can be carried using less energy. When less energy is needed, less energy needs to be produced, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

If we chose to ignore the warnings we have seen, then the result will be untold human suffering and conflict. Increased greenhouse emissions are causing global warming, and this may well bring on the next glaciation much sooner than we realise. The mechanism behind this is known and it is not rocket science. The threat is real, and will start suddenly if it happens at all.

I just hope I’m wrong.
HG

Banking crisis = gov’t bailouts with a view to nationalization.

Health care crisis = socialized medicine

Climate crisis = higher regulation, higher taxes (cap & trade), gov’t choosing which energy sources to bankrupt and which to subsidize, etc, etc.

Yeah, liberals never met a crisis government couldn’t royally screw up. Even if they have to imagine a crisis.
http://rotstar.blogspot.com/ LifeTrek

‘(B)ut we have lots of time to argue about the appropriate level of greenhouse gases.’

Um, hello — the debate is over — at least that is what they keep telling us. The audacity to think we can actually argue about appropriate levels, this guy has big brass ones for a scientist!
Colin Henshaw

Read what I said.

I said “The Antarctic Ice Shelves are breaking up.”

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer99/science.html
carrick

To expand on Exxon-Mobil, they get slammed for stuff like their opposition to the Kyoto protocol.

Well isn’t that precious?

The Kyoto Protocol was utterly flawed and should never have been adopted by any nation (except those third world countries looking for a hand-out) because it would never actually have mitigated anthropogenic CO2 emissions enough to matter. The only thing it would have been effective at is the redistribution of wealth from industrialized to developing nations, and that was it.

If you actually cared about AGW and thought anthropogenic CO2 emissions posed a serious risk, you would demand that the Kyoto Protocol get shit-canned, and that the world nations would adopt a workable framework that could lead to significant reductions in CO2 emissions.

The fact that you types glom on to the Kyoto Protocol without giving a damn that it was fatally flawed is proof that this is entirely about a political agenda and not about really “saving the planet [tm].”

I’m no big supporter of corporations (one way or the other), but Exxon-Mobil was exactly on target when they criticized the KP for not requiring that all nations reduce CO2 emissions (biggest CO2 producer right now is China) and for campaigning for new technologies to replace the use of fossil fuels, rather than just place a cap of CO2 emissions and hope for a miracle to happen.

Why is it that the European nations that were signatories of the KP actually have been increasing their CO2 production while the US who is not, has actually been reducing ours?
Colin Henshaw

The Greenland ice cap and mountain glaciers are retreating. Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up. The four hottest summers have occurred since 2000. Sea levels are rising and low lying nations like the Maldive Islands are investing in sea defences. That doesn’t look like a cooling trend to me.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

The article is talking about events that are going to happen 50,000 years from now!

You mean like when he said:

We have plenty of time to decide what to do:

I don’t know if that’s right though. I guess there’s geological evidence that England went from a nice climate to an ice age in around 100 years last time.

Global warming isn’t about climate anyway, it’s about socialism.
HG

However those AGW naysayers probably do have a political agenda, and believe that action to mitigate AGW is a veiled attempt to undermine their business activities.

Absolutely. My political agenda is liberty. The action to mitigate is an attempt to advance a flawed political model. No doubt about it.

Have you ever seen a problem, real or imaginary, liberals haven’t proposed a government solution for?

Hello… McFly
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

No, I think the real idea is to herd us all into public transport.
carrick

Imagine the reaction if this image were from 2009 instead of 1959:

Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959. Image from NAVSOURCE

More here.
carrick

Colin:

. Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up.

The Antarctica sea ice is growing. Check your facts.

The current excess sea ice compared to the 1980-2000 average is roughly 2/3 the size of Alaska, and since the Antarctica was warming from roughly 1950-1980 (a period where the Earth as a whole saw cooling), it is likely that current ice levels are even greater compared to “pre-anthropogenic global warming” numbers.

Yes the Earth is warmer now than it was in 1850, but nearly all of the warming from 1850-1980 is natural in origin: That is in fact what the climate models tell us, namely the heating effect for anthropogenic CO2 was nearly completely balanced by the increase in anthropogenic sulfate emissions.

The only other warming natural forcing we have is solar activity so when you say ” The Sun is not responsible,” you’re at least not representing what the science says. We need to attribute the warming prior to 1980 to an increase in solar forcing, or we can’t explain any of the data prior to then.

From roughly 1450-1850 we were in a Little Ice Age (meaning that we were experiencing glaciation in both the northern and southern hemispheres) so how do we know what is “normal”? If we compare now to 1450, how different are we? The science isn’t “in” on that one yet, in my opinion.

Since 1980, the Antarctica has been experiencing cooling. That most definitely is not what the climate models predict (the warming is supposed to be the greatest at the poles). In fact, the warming we saw from 1980-2000 can mostly be explained by an increase in the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO), which is a global atmospheric current pattern not directly related global warming. And the cooling from 2000-current? Appears to be more related to a weakening of the AMO:

I love how people read Al Gore’s fictionary work and assume that it represents science.

Hell, even the honest scientists among us called him on his shit.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Does this mean I can quit apologizing to all the trees and rocks, now?

No. Your ancestors abused trees! It will be at least several generations more before you can atone for what they did!
We in the Sierra Club have several more meetings scheduled in my redwood hot tub to decide just how long is long enough!
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

It takes a really intelligent person to narrate a movie, especially one so grounded in fact.

di: Do I detect just the slightest whiff of sarcasm in your comments?

If Whistler brings the crane fricassee can we count on you for some snail darter canapÃ©s?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

What time are the meetings?

After sunset, so we uses Al Gore’s tiki torches. Get here around five for the spotted owl roast!
sayanything-5371

No, I think the real idea is to herd us all into public transport.

I totally agree. All government planners have been working diligently to create urban growth boundaries that limit development to urbanized areas where they can create population densities where people are crowded together and herded and managed like sheep. And you know what? Its working.
sayanything-5371

All these global warming theories are just wrong, wrong, wrong. Clearly global warming can’t be caused by volcanoes spewing tons of gases and ash into the atmosphere. And just as clearly changes in the radiation levels from the sun can’t effect global temperatures. Its those soccer moms driving SUVs and we can easily fix that by implementing CAFE standards on cars being manufactured that nobody is buying. Voila!
Colin Henshaw

As I said, if you still have a problem with AGW, argue it out with them, (The British Antarctic Survey), and not with me. The programme they had discredited was a Channel 4 programme that was supporting the arguments against AGW. Furthermore they added that carbon dioxide emissions from vulcanism do not compare with those caused by humans.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the BAS, and I don’t believe they or any other self-respecting scientific organisation would deliberately fudge data at the request of a government or political party.

However those AGW naysayers probably do have a political agenda, and believe that action to mitigate AGW is a veiled attempt to undermine their business activities.

Please don’t get me wrong. I am not a socialist or raving Marxist. I have nothing against the corporate world provided it acts responsibly. In the interests of the environment it should take heed of environmentalist concerns and self regulate.

Amen to the story.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Now on the menu, polar bears.

Polar bear tends to be a little gamey unless you throw a freshly clubbed baby seal into the pot!
carrick

Colin:

As I said, if you still have a problem with AGW, argue it out with them, (The British Antarctic Survey), and not with me.

Colin.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the BAS, and I don’t believe they or any other self-respecting scientific organisation would deliberately fudge data at the request of a government or political party.

I don’t either. You didn’t notice I was posting their data (rather than the chicklet regurgitated form you read)?

What I’m saying is you are an idiot, because what the data actually says and what you think it says are miles apart.

There is a terrible sort of irony in you trying to lecture me on the sanctity of the science, while I’m the one resorting to the science, and you are the one resorting to press releases and layman level literature.

However those AGW naysayers probably do have a political agenda

I’m with Whistler on this one.

This was just hysterically funny. Like you AGW types don’t have an agenda.

Why is it, when you go to see Al Gore speak, you are asked to sign a pledge that includes “promote world justice” as one of the things you are pledging for?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

The best part was when the scoopship crashed into ND.

I understand it was based on actual events!
Except it wasn’t a scoopship, it was a school bus! Other than that…word for word!
Jerry

Everything’s going to be just Oakie-Dokie!

The Democrats have found a whole NEW way of detroying the economy.

Yabba Dabba Doo!…. We’ll have a gay old Time…
Dana

Hey genius, maybe try reading the whole article next time. You missed some pretty critical information.

“The team says we are approaching a turning point, in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years, which will lead to the new ice sheets smothering much of Europe, Asia and South America.”

The article is talking about events that are going to happen 50,000 years from now!

But hey, I guess it’s more fun to see if we can take selected quotes out of context to make the scientists seem like they’re saying something completely different, right? And then blabber about Al Gore and Chicken Little. Because that makes you sound smart.

Brilliant.
Pilgrim

Dana babbled:

But hey, I guess it’s more fun to see if we can take selected quotes out of context to make the scientists seem like they’re saying something completely different, right? And then blabber about Al Gore and Chicken Little. Because that makes you sound smart.

Ah, shucks. I reckon he (she?) put me in my place, eh?

Except for the fact that I quoted EXACTLY what they said and linked to the article and all that, he (she?) really nailed me.

Global warming = sacred cow. Do NOT discredit. The Al Gore cultists don’t want to admit just how stupid they’ve been in their hysteria.

Embarrasing, no?
di butler

Proof,

What time are the meetings?
Zakk

For the love of God! Someone tell me what temperature the planet is supposed to be? Otherwise, how do I know if we are really changing anything. Now maybe, just maybe, the planet is doing what it does.
And all of the arrogant humans who think that we are so high and mighty that we may somehow control the destiny of this planet.
After a nuclear war, we will all be dead, but you know who or what will still be here, The Planet. That’s right, so Mr. Gore why don’t you go find another way to make money and leave us the hell alone.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

The best part was when the scoopship crahed into ND.

Damn tourists.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

They’re probably hiding the data?

(Joke)
robert108

The observed degree of global warming…

There is none; for the past ten years, it’s been getting cooler, due to solar variation.
Colin Henshaw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm
carrick

This was a follow up comment on the other thread where I posted my question about satellite temperatures of the antarctica:

You [know] this already, but the winds in the Antarctic can be ferocious and the surface obscured by high velocity wind-driven snow and ice. So what the satellite IR system sees at a particular time might have acquired its temperature some grid cells away from where it is observed and gained or lost heat in transit. The “apparent” relocated grid cell temperature might not equal the true surface temperature. I have no quantitative measures to help you, I’m sorry.

Sounds like temperature measurements of the Antarctica by satellite are tough…

Notice the difference in the type of discourse between real scientists and True Believers like Colin?
carrick

Here are the temperature trends, based on Hadcrut numbers (sorry I don’t have time to process RSS right now… that is a much better data set for this due to the sparsity of records in the hadcrut data set):

The rapid warming 2003-current is probably associated with shifts in ocean circulation. The period 1980-2000 is a better measure for “all things being the same” for the warming of the northern polar region (e.g. latitudes > 70Â°N).
http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

No problem. All the liberal press needs to do now is to recycle the 1975 TIME Magazine story on global freezing. The Truth.
eneils Bailey

Al Gore and Chicken Little were unavailable for comment.

As of earlier today, after algore predicted overnight total destruction to everything environmental(cooling, warming, or just plain ignorance) before George Bush left office; the Chicken Little campaign has refused comment and is no longer taking calls from algore.

Chicken Little later released a press statement, saying, “Damn, you can only take this extravagant ruse so far.”
“It’s getting cold in here, anyone have any extra feathers?”
di butler

Now what the hell am I going to do with all these carbon credits??? Does this mean I can quit apologising to all the trees and rocks, now?
Colin Henshaw

No it isn’t. The observed degree of global warming is substantially greater than can be blamed on natural cycles alone. Fact. The Sun is not responsible. Instead we have to look in the mirror to see what is responsible. Do you own a gas-guzzling car? Do you keep outside lights switched on all night? Are they motion operated? Does your office building keep its lights on all night when no-one is in it? Is your town overlit? And so on….

Colin Henshaw.
Socks

You know, the liberals have never been able to figure out that in geological terms a century is a second… Now if only they were that bad when it came to getting elected.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Are they less fattening than the whooping crane fricase?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

We should start a restaurant together. We can call it the Endangered Cafe. Now on the menu, polar bears.
carrick

Colin:

…action to mitigate AGW is a veiled attempt to undermine their business activities.

Actually, I’m sure you’re ignorant of this too, but businesses have an opportunity to make a huge amount of money off of the “green industry.” For every dollar that goes to AGW “skeptics” something like 10 more dollars go to pro-AGW researchers.

What has happened is by demonizing companies like Exxon-Mobil when they give any money to AGW skeptics, is you’ve ensured that they only give money to AGW supporters.

Funny how that works, eh?

The people who claim that the oil companies are fighting global warming are at the same level of intellectual processing as the 9/11 or holocaust deniers. The facts are in one place (they stand to make a huge fortune off of it, just like Al Gore has already done), and the paranoid rantings of the AGW crowd are in another. (Al Gore was at his most incoherent last week when he ranted about corporations fighting AGW.)
carrick

Re this:

(sorry I don’t have time to process RSS right now…

I looked it up and there is no “surface” (tropospheric lower temperature) satellite data available for the Antarctic mainland. So a very sparse temperature grid is as good as it gets
carrick

Colin, what was the point of that link?

Who was talking about the “Great Global Warming Swindle”?

If you want me to be “fair and balanced” I am willing to talk about that piece of tripe.

However, everybody has an agenda even scientists like the ones from the Antarctica survey. When I read somebody’s research paper I start with the figures, tables and description of methodology.

About the last thing I read are their conclusions, and that is just a check to see whether I agree with their interpretation or not.

In the case of these scientists, there is a very good chance if they were to advance a non-mainstream view on global warming, they would lose their funding. Things are even progressing to the point where there are politicians now discussing taking away people’s freedom for daring to speak out against the creed of AGW.

I am more alarmed by the misuse of science than I am the very real effects of anthropogenic CO2 on world climate. Yes humans affect our environment, but there are many more immediate concerns than CO2 emissions.

Here’s the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus.

When people put AGW in perspective with other problems, it’s funny how AGW comes in around 29-30th in the list (absolute bottom).
carrick

I checked with somebody (Jeff “AC” ID) on the question of satellite measurements.

What he sad was:

The data used in this reconstruction is IR emission (TIR) which is different from the microwave data from the lower troposphere used in TLT by UAH and RSS. It’s a heck of a lot noisier too, because it can’t sort out what is cloud and what is ground. The whole continent is covered though.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Well that definately should be an option, for an extra charge over and above the standard polar bear tenderloin.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I think what we know is that doing something or doing nothing could be bad or good.

Or was that doing nothing or doing something could be bad or good?

Or was that doing something AND doing noting could be good and bad?

Anyway whatever it is on climate change that we do do (something or nothing) we must do it right away or wait.
di butler

Proof,

I actually prefer bald eagle on a stick, but I guess the owl will have to do.
Pingback: RealTime - Questions: "Survey: Have you ever noticed when you're hiding.........?"

SayAnythingBlog.com

About That Global Warming Thing: Um, Nevermind

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments