The North Pole:- we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish.

And you keep worshiping Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. I'll go with scientists from NASA, NCAR and Scripps.

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So your saying GW is based on sound, understood science.

Yes.

Quote

GW is a theory.

Correct, it is based on theory in the scientific sense. That is, we can take data inputs and make accurate predictions based upon them.

Quote

You can post thousands of links pointing to scientific research that shows GW is real and I can post thousands of links to the contrary.

True, but it's not about the number of links. It's about the preponderance of scientific evidence. The evidence is overwhelmingly one sided, favoring the claim of anthropogenic global warming. The debate is in popular culture, where emotion and political ideologies play a bigger role than scientific evidence. But you can ignore the hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed scientific studies if it makes you feel better.

Quote

The climate has been changing for thousands of years and will continue to do so.

True. No one disputes that. However, we are now seeing climate change on a timescale not before seen in many centuries for which we have data.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,070]

>You can all look foolish together, I dont care

Fair enough. It's Friday. Get your friends together, go somewhere and get a beer and talk about climate change and all those idiot scientists and PhD's who just don't get it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You can all look foolish together, I dont care

Fair enough. It's Friday. Get your friends together, go somewhere and get a beer and talk about climate change and all those idiot scientists and PhD's who just don't get it.

Fair enough We can talk about those with the PhD's that disagree with you then too.

Oh, but they are all just deniers, I forgot this is settled through consesus. You know, the best kind of science

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

>You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish.

And you keep worshiping Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. I'll go with scientists from NASA, NCAR and Scripps.

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

Guys? Why don't we all just worship NASCAR and call it a day?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish.

And you keep worshiping Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. I'll go with scientists from NASA, NCAR and Scripps.

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

Guys? Why don't we all just worship NASCAR and call it a day?

I like it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You can keep bowing at the feet of idiots like Hanson if you wish.

And you keep worshiping Newsmax and Rush Limbaugh. I'll go with scientists from NASA, NCAR and Scripps.

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

Guys? Why don't we all just worship NASCAR and call it a day?

Because there will be no NASCAR in 2012.

Sorry $140 a barrel and no end in sight. Wake up. The Fossil fuel age is at its end.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Funny, a well-reknowned statistician actually shows that MANN'S calculations are bogus.

Does he address the fact that other scientists have used alternate methodology only to reach the same conclusions as Mann?

In my testimony here today, I would like to emphasize the following key points:

1) Numerous independent studies using different data and different statistical methods have re-affirmed the most important conclusions of the work my colleagues and I began more than a decade ago. All published studies show that late 20th century average Northern Hemisphere warmth appears to be unprecedented over at least the past 1000 years. Several studies now suggest this holds over an even longer timeframe.

2) Our main conclusions have recently been endorsed by an expert non-partisan report issued by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) just weeks ago. The NAS endorsed our conclusion that the late 20th century Northern Hemisphere average warmth was likely anomalous in the context of at least the past 1000 years. “Likely” means having a slightly better than even probability --- i.e., a probability of roughly two-thirds. (See 2001 IPCC Report). In their press conference, the authors of the NAS report stated that they too believe a roughly two-thirds probability can be attached to this conclusion. The NAS report also noted that our conclusions are supported by multiple independent studies and independent lines of evidence.

3) The precise details of our early work have been independently reproduced and confirmed by climate scientists Dr. Eugene Wahl and Dr. Caspar Ammann based on the data used in our study and the algorithm descriptions that have been available in the public domain for years. This work also confirms that my co-authors and I fully adhered to scientific standards by making our data available to other researchers.

4) Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer
reviewer.

5) The evidence for human-induced climate change does not rest solely or primarily on paleoclimatic evidence generally, or on my work in particular.

Testimony of Dr. Michael E. Mann
before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
July 27, 2006

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

So, a climatologist knows more about statistics than a statistician...thank for proving the point.

Care to explain WHY, if Mann is so unassailably correct, why the bristlecone pine data for 1934 is a DOWN trend, seeing as 1934 was the hottest year of the century?

Here's a link to ANOTHER scientist looking at global warming - the difference is, when the results didn't fit the theory, he didn't re-write the program to select for a specific set of information.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

The short story is that the GW advocates have hitched their wagon to Mann's faulty (in amplitude) 'hockey stick' and proof of CO2 forced warming, and so they have to defend it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,070]

>Because there will be no NASCAR in 2012.
==========================

Cleantech Blog
May 11, 2007

General Motors has apparently recommended that the U.S. stock car race sanctioning body NASCAR switch from gasoline to ethanol as the fuel for its race series.

. . .

NASCAR’s reaction to a proposed switch to ethanol has been described by Charlotte Observer newspaper as ‘lukewarm’, with a NASCAR spokesman saying because ethanol is not as efficient as gasoline, larger fuel tanks or more frequent pit stops for refuelling would be necessary, and that would constitute a safety concern.
============================

Something tells me it will get a slightly warmer reception nowadays.

[billvon 3,070]

>Here's a link to ANOTHER scientist looking at global warming . ..

Below is a graph showing _ten_ different studies attempting to reconstruct the "hockey stick." Oddly they all seem to show a similar trend!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Here's a link to ANOTHER scientist looking at global warming . ..

Below is a graph showing _ten_ different studies attempting to reconstruct the "hockey stick." Oddly they all seem to show a similar trend!

Strawman - nobody is saying that the 'hockey stick' doesn't exist, only the amplitude of it....that and the fact that the medieval warm period seems under-represented.

Makes a good way to shout down the ones that don't agree with the 'consensus', though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,070]

>Strawman - nobody is saying that the 'hockey stick' doesn't exist, only the amplitude of it . . .

Fair enough. If your point is that everyone agrees that the "hockey stick" exists, and the remaining arguments are details of the slope etc then I'd agree.

The converse is also true, though. Any claim that people "worship" Mann's study is another strawman. His work is simply one of dozens of studies that all say basically the same thing. There is an odd theory among a few deniers that if you can "tear down" Mann's study climate change will "go away" and that, of course, is nonsense.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Strawman - nobody is saying that the 'hockey stick' doesn't exist, only the amplitude of it . . .

Fair enough. If your point is that everyone agrees that the "hockey stick" exists, and the remaining arguments are details of the slope etc then I'd agree.

Well, slope and the argument if CO2 is *actually* the main driver - I'm still not convinced. *A* driver, yes... the main one? Color me skeptical.

Quote

The converse is also true, though. Any claim that people "worship" Mann's study is another strawman. His work is simply one of dozens of studies that all say basically the same thing. There is an odd theory among a few deniers that if you can "tear down" Mann's study climate change will "go away" and that, of course, is nonsense.

I see Mann's work being touted as the prime evidence of CO2 forced GW - in that sense, yes, it's held as 'gospel'. I still find it telling that Mann doesn't release his full data - that and the 'modified' PCs from the original work leads me to believe that he tweaked the data to fit the theory and not the reverse. First impressions and all that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

From CNN :-

Quote

The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

Good Show Chap

Quote

Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

http://www.hoystory.com/?p=5029&referer=sphere_related_content

An international team of researchers was able to provide evidence of explosive volcanism in the deeps of the ice-covered Arctic Ocean for the first time. Researchers from an expedition to the Gakkel Ridge, led by the American Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), report in the current issue of the journal Nature that they discovered, with a specially developed camera, extensive layers of volcanic ash on the seafloor, which indicates a gigantic volcanic eruption.

Volcanic eruptions under the Arctic couldn't possibly melt the ice now could it?

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[mnealtx 0]

There's also evidence of atmospheric soot and ice crystal size having effects on arctic ice.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050328_arctic_soot.html

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk. Ice melts, ice freezes. That happens when the climate changes naturally. But keep preaching your GW gospel of fear. We will see 50-100 years down the road that things will be no different climate wise.

Ummm newly DISCOVERED vulcanism doesn't mean the vulcanism itself is new.

Serious FLAW in your logic there. Seems a bit like desperation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Let's see.

(a) The amount of CO2 humans pump into the atmosphere each year is known.
(b) the increase in atmospheric CO2 each year is easily measured and agrees very closely with item (a).
(c) CO2 is a PROVEN greenhouse gas.
(d) the Earth IS warming (even since "GW stopped in 1998").

How exactly do the deniers in their desperation explain that away?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Let's see:

(e) While still warming, the RATE of warming has decreased in recent years even WITH the increased CO2.

How exactly do the zealots in their desperation explain that away?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[stitch 0]

Quote

It's the liberals and Al Gore! HE'S melting the pole with all his emissions!

I didn't know Al Gore was a skydiver.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It's the liberals and Al Gore! HE'S melting the pole with all his emissions!

I didn't know Al Gore was a skydiver.

He's not - it's just an inconvenient truth that he's full of hot air.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,070]

>I see Mann's work being touted as the prime evidence of CO2 forced GW . . .

Ah! Well, if you believed that, I could see how you would be skeptical. That is no longer true.

[billvon 3,070]

>While still warming, the RATE of warming has decreased in recent years
>even WITH the increased CO2.

The 11-year solar cycle is currently at a minimum. It peaked in 2000 and has been unusually low for 8 years now. That results in about 1.2 watts/sq m less insolation. Since greenhouse gas forcing (mainly CO2 and CH4) is between 1.6 and 2.4 watts/sq m, warming has slowed a bit.

That's just one factor, of course. This year should be cooler overall because of a strong La Nina cycle.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

And how many 500 year or 1000 year floods has Iowa had in the last 20 years that GW has been accelerating in???

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Maybe the federal government/congress should go after Al Gore for the "windfall profits" that he had made with his bogus global warming movie and his lectures/rants.

Gore donated the profits from his book and movie to a foundation/institution devoted to understanding and mitigating global warming.

But why should anyone let facts get in the way of their Gore bashing?

Because of the $100k per appearance he makes.

Plus - show me a film that makes a "net profit.". Because the Gross Profit is lessened by the cost of transcontinental flights on a Gulfstream. They cost a pretty penny and eat into profit margin. And less taxes paid - dig it?

And when authors take, oh, 20 percent of the proceeds. Those aren't profits. Those are "salary."

My wife is hotter than your wife.