Remember all the Global Warming hysterics in the US?

[vision]

The last 15-20 year flat line would indicate that is not the case.

The last 10,000+ years indicate that it is the case. By focusing on the last few years you are making a classic error in interpreting data (again). Realistically, we won't know if this is a long term trend until we have decades more data. Meanwhile, all the ice is still melting.

[woodchip]

You might want to wait on the climate data during the Holocene and forward as it appears there is new research going on. Summation:

"The new paper concludes, “If the [Holocene temperature] reconstruction is correct, it will imply major biases across the current generation of climate models. To provide a credible benchmark for future climate models, however, the proxy reconstructions will also need to be reexamined critically.”

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/08/ ... 000-years/

Interesting bit of research if you care to take the time to read it.

[vision]

Woodchip, nothing in that article even comes close to refuting or even dampening what we know about climate change today. A single study is a good start and hopefully it can add value to future climate models. Us "warmers" welcome the data freely! But even with a new Holocene reconstruction, we are still talking about Milankovitch cycles over thousands of years. Regardless what the temperatures were back then it has no bearing on the current situation. I'll say it again for what seems like the thousandth time. It is not the temperature that is the problem, it is the rate of change. Nowhere in history have we seen this rate of temperature change except where there was a natural catastrophe and a mass extinction event. This is why anthropogenic climate change is so scary. Does any of this make sense?

[callmeslick]

that 'mass extinction' thing(and it is a very valid correlation between current trends,current meaning 100 years or so and past temperature changes) and prior mass die-offs should be a warning to us all.

[woodchip]

Vision, I understand that the climat has warmed up rapidly. The problem I see is rise stagnation all the while increased amounts of pollutants continue unabated. If the rise had continued I might be more amendable to your thinking.
Also if you look at linked chart you will see a cool off (little ice age) that is nearly as rapid as our temp rise and the resultant temp rebound was also near as rapid:
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

So I wonder what todays climate models would of shown back then

[woodchip]

that 'mass extinction' thing(and it is a very valid correlation between current trends,current meaning 100 years or so and past temperature changes) and prior mass die-offs should be a warning to us all.

If you mean temperature changes due to giant asteroids, I guess you have a point. Otherwise.....

[Top Gun]

No, slick, Thorne and I are not denying the climate is getting warmer (predicated on the data not being wholesale massaged) but that man is the cause of it. The last 15-20 year flat line would indicate that is not the case. So stop saying we are denying warming.

The last 15-20 years have produced the warmest seasons and years on record. Soooooo...

[Sergeant Thorne]

Serious question: what would it take for you to believe in climate change?

For me I would have to be satisfied that it wasn't being pushed by liars, whores, and special interests. If there is something to a change in our terrestrial climate, I would say the topic got off to a bad start, and continues to be pursued by all the wrong interests. Personally, without doing a whole lot of study (I do not consider this a topic that is crucial to settle, personally, at this point), I tend to be of the opinion that if there is something to this it is only as irreversible as the active presence of it's causes--I believe the earth would probably snap back very quickly, baring any real pollution (CO2 does not count, by any rational definition--I'm talking large quantities of refined waste that does not easily break down or use up). Kind of like in the case of smog or other localized air pollution, which I believe I learned has more to do with the lay of the land around cities which suffer from poor air causing them to exist in a relatively tightly contained environment (Salt Lake City, Utah). I call that poor planning and living in your own squalor, but everything I have ever seen on the tube about it seems to present it as damage to the planet.

Thorne, you are essentially denying a proven fact(that the climate has changed, to the warm side, for decades) because you didn't like how it was presented, or by whom? Are you joking? That is your excuse for an intellectual basis for thought?

For now I'll just point out that my reply cannot be construed to be specifically denying anything. Language is a wonderful thing, when used properly. Much better to just take me at my word. If you boys had anything like a fair share of intelligence or integrity you would focus your efforts on presenting the issue in as lucid a manner as you know how, rather than engaging in a witch hunt to prosecute people who are not true believers. Just the fact that you went after me for that should tell you something about your motives if you stop and think about it. If Climate Change is the issue that it's been built up to be, than your greatest enemies are lack of information and misinformation, and you should have some good resources up your sleeve. If you prosecute this issue as a good people VS bad people conflict I think you will find yourself on the wrong side in the end, regardless of the truth of climate change.

[callmeslick]

that 'mass extinction' thing(and it is a very valid correlation between current trends,current meaning 100 years or so and past temperature changes) and prior mass die-offs should be a warning to us all.

If you mean temperature changes due to giant asteroids, I guess you have a point. Otherwise.....

or steep declines due to volcanic ash, to mention one of the other prominent changes of rapid nature.

[vision]

Also if you look at linked chart you will see a cool off (little ice age) that is nearly as rapid as our temp rise and the resultant temp rebound was also near as rapid:
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

My god, did you seriously just link to a chart with no values on the y-axis? Are you kidding me? hahaha. It just says "warm" and "cold!"

Anyway, that whole page is dedicated to the well known Little Ice Age in Europe, which appears to be regional in scope and not on the same level as the problems we have today. Yes there are unanswered questions, and we won't likely to know all the answers, but the LIA does not seem to be comparable with today's events.

If the rise had continued I might be more amendable to your thinking.

Keep in mind it is the average surface temperature that look stagnant. Surface temps are undeniably important, but it is just one of the spheres (lower hydrosphere, upper atmosphere, etc...) that are affected by global warming. It's still looking bad everywhere else (given the spotty, hard to collect data). I wish it were not the case.

Just because everyone needs to be reminded: us "warmers" don't want to be right about climate change. It's an absolutely horrible thing. We all desperately want to be wrong, but any challenging theories must stand up to the best science we have. Right now the best science says things are grim and we must act accordingly.

[Will Robinson]

... Right now the best science says things are grim and we must act accordingly.

"Accordingly" is the flag being wrapped around a bunch of crap that isn't appropriate.

[callmeslick]

things like further study, and 'crap' like that? Because it is those type of things which the GOP and denyers wish to block, consistently.

[Spidey]

No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

[callmeslick]

No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

pushing towards cleaner, more efficient electrical consumption in this nation is just prudent economic policy going forward. Neither really has much to do with global warming effects, at all, nor are either touted to be such primarily.

[Will Robinson]

slick is given an example, like the very real linking of global warming and energy saving lightbulbs ie; done under the flag of Proper Steps to Combat Global Warming, and immediately declares the example null. same tactic every time...rinse repeat.
never mind that he is blatantly denying the reality of factual events...he has debate skills...don't question him...

[woodchip]

No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

pushing towards cleaner, more efficient electrical consumption in this nation is just prudent economic policy going forward. Neither really has much to do with global warming effects, at all, nor are either touted to be such primarily.

And is packing light bulbs full of mercury prudent also?

[callmeslick]

I don't think so, myself, Woody, but then I was trained as a chemist and biologist. LEDs are the best option, but some folks get a sort of neurological feedback from them(same with some daylight fluorescent or so I've heard, and regular incandescent cause minor vision issues, too). Pushing the CF bulbs without planning for safe mercury disposal was always something I felt was a mistake. That doesn't invalidate either the concern or the overall effort around lowering our bloated electric consumption, and the CO2 it generates in high volume.

edit--upon thinking about it, I haven't yet HAD to dispose of any of the CF bulbs I've installed. Now, most of them were put into the house in VA, where I reside less often, so they will be around for a decade or more. Still, I've been converting the incandescents in my Delaware house(well, about 3/4 of them) over, and haven't had one go, yet. Perhaps, the rationale was that they'd figure out the disposal thing before many WERE disposed, but I'd still feel more at ease had the cart been behind the horse, so to speak.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Perhaps, the rationale was that they'd figure out the disposal thing before many WERE disposed.

That is such a foolish thought...

[callmeslick]

it was kinda tongue in cheek, Sarge.

[callmeslick]

ahhh, this starts to make some sense:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... .html?_r=0

[Sergeant Thorne]

ahhh, this starts to make some sense:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ti ... .html?_r=0

I'd call that a fairly effective smear piece. That's what it looks like when the facts take a journalist 20% of the way to their intended destination, and their experience with shaping opinion allows them to bring most readers 100% of the way. So many legitimate questions left unanswered along the way, and I'm certain it left us with a very lopsided picture, but by golly it got us there!

That's a win for the Climate Change team which the truth could not have granted. I'm thoroughly disgusted...

[callmeslick]

umm, Sarge, you fail to note what facts were left out. It isn't a smear piece if it's accurate. The guy is a shill for the oil and gas folks.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It is a total smear piece for this man and his position against man-made climate change, slick. And yes he is a shill, but to paint him as some kind of major villain in this topic is, in my view, very hypocritical, since he certainly isn't the only one involved who has a horse in the race. Any one of a thousand climate scientists would bring a quick end to their career by recanting and going against the main body of thought. So I'm not denying that this guy has done wrong, I just don't think he's the Disney villain among a whole bunch of upstanding citizens, so to attempt to use him to sink the anti-climate-change ship is very dishonest. Also I happen to agree that his articles published without citing his financial backing should be pulled, but even here I wonder if it ultimately asks perfection from this one man in an environment that tolerates a certain degree of corruption. In short, anyone who wants to crucify anyone else, IMO, should be suspect in their motives.

The pot calls the kettle black, so now everyone uses pots to boil water for their tea. Are we better off, or is the pot the only real winner?

[CUDA]

My sister in law works for NASA at the University of Maryland. Her job is geological mapping, she tells me there is no doubt that the ice caps are shrinking. She also tells me that there is not enough recorded data to show that this is not a natural occurrence. You are taking only 150 years of recorded data over the millions of years of this planet, there is noway to prove that this is being caused by man. She also tells me that a single volcano eruption dumps more co2 into the atmosphere then years and years and years of man induced emissions. And how many volcanoes have erupted in the last 20 years.
she tells me yes there is climate change, but those that claim it's man induced are liars, there is not enough evidence to prove it . "climate change" is just a poltical agenda.

[callmeslick]

I agree with her that one cannot clearly assign all blame, or causation, but the matter for me is HOW to address it, without the populated parts of the planet(which tend to be near water) getting submerged. This, for me, is where man-made effects come it. We CAN address man-made stuff which we KNOW does cause warming effects(like CO2 overload, pollution, methane, etc). So, don't lump me in with those who are CERTAIN that man is the root cause of what we see, although I strongly suspect man plays a HUGE role. What is certainly suspicious is the role the carbon based energy producers play in purposefully squashing research into the matter. Any reason you can think of for THAT?

[CUDA]

Carl Wunsch, late-career professor emeritus at M.I.T. was pretty frank about the new research and the state of climate science:

"The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up."


he says follow the money. He says that those that expouse "man caused" climate change, do so to get their government grants renewed

[CUDA]

.

[Spidey]

Maybe if the industries didn’t feel like they were under attack, they wouldn’t resort to these kinds of things.

On one side you have the deniers, on the other side you have the alarmist exaggerators…what the hell is someone like me supposed to think.

I was watching a show that was discussing a deer tick outbreak, and they admitted that they didn’t know the cause…but right at the top of the list was…you guessed it…climate change. Everything and anything is now caused by…climate change.

I’m sick of it…you know what happens when people get sick of something…they stop caring, and that is where I’m getting to.

[vision]

Any one of a thousand climate scientists would bring a quick end to their career by recanting and going against the main body of thought.

BUUUZZZZZZ! Wrong. Scientific inquiry relies on on a body of scientists that question everything especially their own findings and the findings of their peers. The reason so many climate scientists are convinced in man-made warming is precisely because of those who disagree. You can't disagree without data, and that data helps create better models of the world. The current model with all the best data suggest a man-made contribution. We all welcome new data because the truth is more important than politics (and besides, we all want man-made climate change to be wrong).

My sister in law works for NASA at the University of Maryland.

Cool, where are her climate related publications? I would like to read them.

I’m sick of it…you know what happens when people get sick of something…they stop caring, and that is where I’m getting to.

It's Ok to stop caring. None of us make important decisions in the matter anyway. The good news is, most of the rest of the world is smarter than the US and there is momentum building. Of course, nothing can stop climate change now because we missed the window to make things right years ago. Today it's all about planning for the future. Whether or not you believe in climate change doesn't matter at this point. You can still have a government with programs in place to cover things like disasters and food shortages, which is what we should be focusing on anyway (provided we avoid the worst case scenario — total ecological collapse, but pollution already plays a big part of that and is also related to climate change).

[Tunnelcat]

No, like carbon taxes and banning light bulbs.

pushing towards cleaner, more efficient electrical consumption in this nation is just prudent economic policy going forward. Neither really has much to do with global warming effects, at all, nor are either touted to be such primarily.

You know slick, Republicans must love to live in pollution, filth and poisoned air and water. Why else would they eschew sensible practices that encourage a cleaner environment for a slightly higher cost? I'd think living without getting poisoned would be high on their list. They also must like paying for wasted electricity, or they'd be more into those cheaper electric bills from using LED bulbs.

[Nightshade]

With record heat (and drought) in the west and record cold (wet and snow) in the east, the global warming game-playing continues every day but the climate-gate rhetoric has increased vociferously since we first noted three weeks ago, the data that has been so relied upon to 'prove' global warming's trend was in fact manipulated. What The Telegraph called "the most extraordinary scandal of our times" - that of the "seasonally-adjusted" seasonal raw global temperature data - is about to be investigated by Congress. As Daily Caller reports, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher exclaimed "expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise."

This began, as The Telegraph previously noted, with claims that the underlying data used to justify practically every study p[roving global warming has, in fact, been manipulated...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-2 ... -tampering

Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming.

How have we come to be told that global temperatures have suddenly taken a great leap upwards to their highest level in 1,000 years? In fact, it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.

This belief has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-0 ... ed-seasons

[callmeslick]

Zerohedge, along with being a sensationalist, conspiracy focused rag, is flat out wrong.

[woodchip]

"The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky – has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century"

"Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase."

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/02/17/29475/

[woodchip]

The big snow storm from space: The NASA satellite Terra has snapped the picture of the Eastern U.S. from 200 miles up - and in the words of the space agency, it "looks like a deep freeze." (NASA Goddard MODIS Rapid Response Team)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimed ... 6201kmjpg/

Yup, those lying s.o.b.s have got it all wrong and the truth seekers at East Anglia are giving us the straight poop.
And slick...prove what you say or you are just lying once again

[Jeff250]

Zerohedge, along with being a sensationalist, conspiracy focused rag, is flat out wrong.

Moreover, if you look closely, it's the same drivel that Thunderbunny already shamelessly tried passing onto us.

[woodchip]

You mean like the George Soros backed Media Matters drivel that slick tries to foist on us?

[callmeslick]

boy, that Soros guy gets around doesn't he?I don't hit you with made-up stuff.....twice, no less.

[woodchip]

And TB's post does not contain facts? You know this how?

[callmeslick]

And TB's post does not contain facts? You know this how?

because that was debunked the FIRST time it was posted.

[Top Gun]

You mean TB doesn't even bother to stick around and read a thread, instead content to produce utterly-laughable drive-by bull★■◆●? What a shocking development!

Oh, and here's a real gem from woody's link:

Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live.

So if the Sun is indeed in an extended period of minimal activity, and yet we still continue to produce the highest temperatures on record, that's pretty much direct evidence that solar activity isn't the main driving force behind climate change. Thanks for shooting your own argument in the foot, buddy!