Saving the planet one tropical vacation at a time;
Leaders talk climate change at Hawaii conference [….] Delegates met behind closed doors for a two-day global climate change conference in Hawaii but were not expected to make major progress on setting limits for greenhouse gases.
And not a moment too soon…
 |
The Mauna Kea Weather Center forecast snow flurries and possibly heavy snow today and into tomorrow night on the 13,796-foot mountain. […] Haleakala National Park officials said snow reached much lower elevations than normal, down to the 7,000-foot level in the general area where the park headquarters is located. |
As global warming continues to strike around the globe…
In Tehran…
In China…
Tokyo…
Saudi Arabia…
Baghdad…
And hardest hit of all – the northern hemisphere…
When will it all end?
Addendum: Members of the Church of Kyoto are advised to read this comment before posting.
http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=6970
Fruit-fly boy jumps shark:
“Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki
Environmentalist denounces economists’ obsession with GDP”
To Kate and ET @10:45: You appear to be confused about the meaning of some of the terminology in use by the new theology. You need the correct dictionary, found here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/vocabulary.htm
Thank me after you’ve absorbed the Green meaning of sustainable development.
john cross. will you heat my home as it gets colder? asshole.
“Climate Science” is a fairly newly invented academic discipline emerging in the past several years to support the findings of those who believe in Global Warming and provide for them a career-niche.
As such its current thrust as an evolving academic bureaucracy is to secure long-term funding and a place for itself at the University/Government feed-trough. It’s as much hard “science” as Anthropology is “hard culture” (ask an anthro-major) – and it exists within a framework that supports it only because of all the post-modern relativism that infuses the whole teetering edifice of Academe.
;it is just what the science supports;~ jc
Funny how jc cannot find one thing wrong with the data from the ‘consensus,’ but can’t find a single thing right with the science of the skeptics. Even when some of those skeptics used to be PART of the ‘consensus,’ and an increasing number of the ‘consensus’ are jumping ship, saying the science is wrong.
otter,
This is religious belief, not science. The scientists are priests. If a priest no longer believes, they can’t be a priest anymore – they’re heritics. As we know, heritics have to be shunned – not listened to. Their opinions are considered dangerous. They are to be punished.
The fruit fly guy illustrates this behaviour – and then some.
“Members of the Church of Kyoto”
Sean’s blogger bio states that his Industry is: Science, Occupation: Ph.D. Candidate, he has a M.Sc. (UNB) but he diligently gives his astrological info:
Astrological Sign: Taurus
Zodiac Year: Sheep
Important stuff if you’re running a blog like “Czech Girls Are Way Cute” but a blog that argues science?
as•trol•o•gy -the study of the positions of the Moon, Sun, and other planets in the belief that their motions affect human beings
It’s ultimately an anti-human ideology, much like the Islamic ideology. Hasn’t Maurice Strong, et al, admitted as much?
In the 21st century, paleo-religious, fanatical, misanthropes abound.
‘Keell the infidel,’ isn’t any different than ‘kill the denier.’
Ahh, irwin daisy. Even when it’s about weather, it’s about Islam. Keep pounding on that deceased pony, man!
Yukon Gold,
I thought we were talking ’bout religion. What a mixup.
Sean in Saskatchewan and other AGW Believers: please don’t sneer, enlighten us. Be a force for good!
Explain to us why THIS time, with oh so many scientists claiming AGW and oh so many “peer-reviewed” papers claiming AGW, these IPCC scientists are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they have ALL of the facts straight and can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that AGW is occurring…when there are SO MANY previous examples (occurring on an almost bi-weekly basis) where scientists annouce new findings that “fundamentally change our understanding of __________” (fill-in the blank).
Why should we believe THESE scientists saying the science is settled, when other scientists had said the science about the cause of ulcers was settled and had stacks of “peer-reviewed” papers to prove it…until some “ulcer-cause-denier” proved it was a bacterial infection.
Same with all the scientists who knew that dinosaurs were the forerunners of lizards…until someone convinced them that they were forerunners of birds?
How do you know that they’re right THIS TIME?
Ya, point to the IPCC science…and we’ll point to science that refutes the IPCC science. But you dismiss THAT science because…because…because…?
I don’t know for sure one way or the other…but if their science is so sound proving AGW, then why do they try to shut down debate and refuse to listen to new theories?
Please, enlighten us.
*sigh*
And yet… as anyone can plainly see, things are getting warmer. Fall comes later, winter is shorter and generally warmer, most glaciers are shrinking, pine beetles are ravaging forests, and the pole ice retreats further every year.
So can you tell me… are you guys seriously so crazy that you continue to deny that the world is getting warmer? Or are you at least smart enough to follow the latest memo from oil companies saying that “we can’t be sure the warming is due to human causes”?
*sigh*
Global temperatures have levelled off this century and are NOT rising.
There have been much warmer and much colder years than now (in cycles) the last 20,000 years (a thing called an “ice age” occurred and then the ice retreated). Recently, years have gotten warmer…it may very well be getting ready to get colder according to some studies/scientists.
Anyone who looks at the historical records can plainly see cyclical climate changes. So can you tell me… are you seriously so crazy that you continue to deny that the world’s climate varies in a cyclical manner? Or are you at least smart enough to follow the latest memo from the dictators at the UN saying that “we have to stop global warming by crippling the western economy and giving the developing countries money for nothing while the developing countries will soo produce more CO2 than the western world”?
Please, John…do tell.
Global warmists tend to look in the rearview mirror while most on this site tend to look ahead at what is on it’s way.
La nina is holding, solar flux is down. China has worst winter in half a century, Russia has had a hard winter, Canada has had the coldest winter in thirty years, Nov. Dec.very cold. South America had a record setting winter. antarctica had the highest level of sea ice ever recorded, and the arctic had the fastest refreeze ever recorded.
If CO2 is the problem why do deserts get so cold at night when they say that CO2 is evenly mixed? Desert air is dry air. Water vapour is THE major greenhouse gas. Without it the heat radiates into space.
…snow.
Proof positive that Global Warming is a fact!
Spot-on Eeyore.
Look, Ive said it before; there is science for two or three tenths of a degree of warming and if we double the CO2 you can get a couple of tenths more. The rest is speculation, henceforth known as computer models, and/or scare mongering. It is imperative to the AGW catastrophocists (okay, I made up a word) that this warming is unprecedented. It has to be unprecedented or else the polar bears would have died in the previous cycle. The GISS temperature recons show no medieval waming period, yet we test recently exposed tree roots in Greenland showing they grew there 1000 years ago. Wine grapes grew in England where they don’t grow now. And as the owner of this site pointed out, they (AGW politicians) obviously don’t believe a catastrophy is coming so why should I?
“Wang, 25, rode the rails as China’s worst blizzards and ice storms in five decades”.
Mao Stlong say, no fighting bloke out in communist paladise. This stoly not tlue.
Edward Wang say, “Fighting broke out,”.
“”Sometimes people had to go to the bathroom to breathe because that was the only place with any fresh air,” he said. “It’s funny because you normally don’t want to do that in a train bathroom.”
Wang said the toilets did not back up despite the lack of water. Most Chinese train toilets are just holes in the floor, with everything falling onto the tracks. People also threw trash out the windows, leaving a trail of toilet paper, beer bottles, instant noodle containers and other junk, he said.”
…-
Train journey becomes 61-hour nightmare
By William Foreman, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
GUANGZHOU, China – First, the food aboard the train ran out, then the water.
When record blizzards hit China last month, what began as a 36-hour train trip for Edward Wang became an ordeal lasting nearly twice that long.
He described fighting among drunken passengers and staff armed with knives, fears of being robbed by those desperate for food, and breathing air so foul that some people became dizzy.”
“He said the crisis brought out the worst in China’s system during what turned out to be a 61-hour journey from the southern city of Guangzhou to his hometown of Lanzhou, capital of Gansu province. […]
Wang said train staff reverted to the communist habit of blocking bad news, refusing to say why the train was stalled on the tracks for up to 10 hours at a time.
“I didn’t mind getting stuck on the train, but the way they were treating people was terrible,” said Wang, who insisted on using his English name because he feared he might run afoul of the authorities for his criticism.”
http://tinyurl.com/2c3qbl
John:
“…as anyone can plainly see, things are getting warmer…”
Even the head of the IPCC agrees there’s been a “temperature plateau” so far this century. Why can’t you?
Regards, BRK
“He said the crisis brought out the worst in China’s system ”
…what was that 70’s study on lab rats in condo’s? The more you added, the more aggressive they became.
Wait for the mentality to start happening in our cities.
Oh wait, it already has.
Coldest winter in China in 100 years:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22993177/
Nathan Schmidt – 14 years is only significant if your talking a about long-term global warming. In all other matters 14 years is simultaneous or before.
[quote]The rest is speculation, henceforth known as computer models, and/or scare mongering.[/quote]
The “TEST” for a Climate Computor Model is that it acuratly predicts weather, globally, in real-time.
They need to prove their model!
Posted by: John at February 4, 2008 6:07 PM
“And yet…
(snip)
and the pole ice retreats further every year.
So can you tell me… are you guys seriously so crazy that you continue to deny that the world is getting warmer? Or are you at least smart enough to follow the latest memo from oil companies saying that “we can’t be sure the warming is due to human causes”?”
John,
I haven’t seen anyone here deny that the world is getting warmer. I have seen people debate the CAUSE of that warming. Do you understand the difference?
So, let us begin with the basics. You say the following: “pole ice retreats further every year”.
Please tell me: when did that retreat toward the pole actually begin? Was the initiation of that retreat caused by man?
Thats well put ,if you use computer models to predict global warming ,similar computer models should be able to predict the weather tommorow accurately.
Yoop: while your comment was not addressed to me I really have to wonder about your statement: “I haven’t seen anyone here deny that the world is getting warmer. “ Reading back over this thread, I picked out these quotes.
And my personal favourite:
Those don’t seem to back up your assertion.
Regards,
John
Bob: you said “Thats well put ,if you use computer models to predict global warming ,similar computer models should be able to predict the weather tommorow accurately”
Let me put the issue this way. You can pick a city on the earth – anywhere you like. You predict the average temperature for a particular day next year. I will predict the average temperature for the earth for the whole of next year. How much do you wish to bet? If you think it is a fair bet then we have a deal. If you do not, then you understand the difference between weather and climate.
Regards,
John
It’s funny that Sean recommends we read the latest IPCC report. Funny, I don’t think he has. Otherwise he’d notice that they’ve truncated the Hockey Stick so that you don’t have to look at that roller-coaster prior to 1850. Also I’m sure he’s just read the Summary for Policy Makers, as the body of the report doesn’t support the SPM recommendations. Strange . . . it’s almost like their Summary completely ignores their own data for some reason.
John,
Being someone who spends a good deal of time outdoors and who summated 3 peaks out west this summer, I can tell you that most glaciers in the Northern hemisphere have been receding since 1850 or so (athabasca included.)
To put this into perspective, the horseless carriage wasn’t invested for another 35 years.
The world’s population was 1.2 Billion.
Canada wasn’t formed for another 17 years.
Pasteurisation was 6 years off.
The bicycle was 11 years off.
The typewriter (not computer, those old things with the letter-shaped hammers) was 17 years off.
The telephone was 26 years off.
The internal combustion engine was 26 years off.
Moving pictures was 27 years off.
The LIGHT BULB was 29 years off.
The steam Turbine was 34 years off.
Coca Cola (the original cocaine-laden drink) was 36 years off.
The idea that humans cause glacier melts is something it takes a special level of ignorance to believe.
Sean and his lemmings fling names at SDA simply to relieve their uneasy feelings about being led astray by Goracles and Fruitflies.
Comments there pop up with a directive to consult *Blogger Help*.
What an Idiot. Who has time to fool around with his silly cuteness.
Nothing at all informative or constructive there. Total waste of time. = TG
Mount pinatubo released more CO2 in one eurption then all the factory smokestacks ever did
Mount pinatubo released more CO2 in one eurption then all the factory smokestacks ever did
[quote]Let me put the issue this way. You can pick a city on the earth – anywhere you like. You predict the average temperature for a particular day next year. I will predict the average temperature for the earth for the whole of next year. How much do you wish to bet? If you think it is a fair bet then we have a deal. If you do not, then you understand the difference between weather and climate [/quote]
John Cross,
So you have a trend line, a carbon (weight) scale, and a cash register!
Weather is a product that is predictable by a theoretical accurate climate Model.
John Cross:
“…Let me put the issue this way….”
You’re missing the point with your any day next year. Bob’s comment was tommorrow. So I think what he’s trying to say is that if models can’t get weather right 5 days from now, perhaps similar models can’t get climate right 10 years from now.
Let’s change the bet so the scaling is proportional. I’ll predict the weather in North Bay 4 days from now, and you predict the global climate 10 years from now. Fair enough for you John?
By the way, I still do contend that there hasn’t been significant warming for the last 6 years, and it looks like the Chair of the IPCC agrees with me.
Regards, BRK
Brian: My point was that if you think there is no difference between weather and climate then the bet I proposed would be reasonable. If you do not think it reasonable, then you see that there is a difference between weather and climate.
By the way, I know your penchant for statistical analysis so here is an interesting link regarding the recent trend.
Regards,
John
PS How’s that Russian factory working out for you?
John Cross:
“…no difference between weather and climate…”
Actually, climate is just weather averaged over a longer times and bigger areas. So yes there is a difference between climate and weather, much the same way a month is different from a day, although both represent different scale increments in time. So Bob’s proposition is a reasonable one.
As for your link, I don’t think we’ll have to wait till 2015 to prove or disprove the computer trends. A shorter time period, but with more severe deviation from the model predicted trend would have the same upsetting effect to the statistics as a slower longer deviation, right?
And as noted above, I’m not the only one to note the “stalled warming”. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC has committed to looking at the “temperature plateau” so far this century. As in what natural causes might be negating AGW. So apparently he’s not waiting till 2015 to look into the matter.
But the bad news doesn’t stop there for believers. Check out the recent post at realclimate.org on the Cretaceous ice age. Here’s a tantalizing quote:
“Could it be that the glaciation is telling us that we are completely barking up the wrong tree with the CO2 theory of hothouse climates? Perhaps, but somebody will have to pony up a quantifiable alternative before that avenue can be pursued.”
What you just read verges on heresy doesn’t it John? And this is coming from the pro-AGW science community, not the contrarians.
Regards, BRK
John Cross:
I didn’t forget your PS. Here’s a link to a paper which calculates by isotopic changes and contrary to your assertion, not all the growth in the atmospheric CO2 may be from fossil fuels.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
Regards, BRK
Brian: I find your quote “What you just read verges on heresy doesn’t it John?” curious. What I see are scientists look at data and observations, questioning things that need questioning and accepting where the data leads. If you wish to call that heresy then so be it, but I tend to think of it as the way science works.
In regards to Dr. Spencer’s work – well as he himself says “Most, if not all, experts in the global carbon cycle will at this point think I am totally off my rocker. Not being an expert in the global carbon cycle, I am admittedly sticking my neck out here.” I think I am still on pretty firm ground.
But as an aside, the link you posted above started by referring to some work by Joe D’Aleo. This is an excellent review of his work.
Regards,
John
John Cross:
Anyone who doesn’t think that musing that the CO2 theory of hothouse climates might be wrong, is NOT heresy, hasn’t spent much time on this planet recently. It’s a radical thing to say, especially from realclimate.org.
As for your theory that ALL the recent increase in CO2 is from human sources, you’re not on firm ground John. Spencer is sticking his neck out because he is hypothesizing that most of the recent CO2 increase can be subscribed to non-anthropogenic sources. I don’t agree with that, although his arguments are intriguing. However, you stubbornly hold to the concept that NONE of the CO2 increase is from non-anthropogenic sources, which makes no sense in the face of Spencers observations.
I find Spencers comments on mechanisms kind of hard to follow, but I think he’s talking about the same linkage in time and space (and lack of linkage) between CO2 sources and sinks that I was trying to explain to you back in 2006. But never mind the CO2 source argument. It’s a dead horse and I give up trying to argue with you on that point.
More to the point is the “temperature plateau” issue. You (and Tamino) have been arguing that statistically speaking it’s still warming. But both of you seem adverse including the MSU data in that analysis (Taminos “bet”). However, why would the Chair of the IPCC talk about a “temperature plateau” if such a thing didn’t exist? It does exist John.
And what is the red herring reference to d’Aleo about anyway? Stick to the topic.
Regards, BRK
Hi Brian: Again, what I see are scientists looking at data and following where it leads. The topic of climate science is like any other scientific topic. There are some fundamental points that all serious people agree on and there are some further points that are in contention.
You said “And what is the red herring reference to d’Aleo about anyway? Stick to the topic.” Well, considering it was the first topic mentioned in a link you posted I feel justified in bringing it in. You don’t need to respond to it but if you read through the comments, you will rarely see such a “smack-down”. I actually felt sorry for Joe.
In regards to the CO2 argument. I have made my case and nothing in Spencer’s discussion changes it.
Regards,
John
John:
When I get a chance I will review the alleged “smackdown” of Joe’s article.
So if scientists follow where the data leads them, where do you think AGW theory is headed John? I mean in light of this Cretaceous glaciation discovery.
As for feeling sorry for Joe, I doubt he needs your sympathy. After all it almost looks like right now he’s on the “winning” side of things, smackdown or not.
BRK