Climate Change continues....

ckm8 wrote: From the article Resident Troll kindly posted on another thread:

That snow outside is what global warming looks like

Unusually cold winters may make you think scientists have got it all wrong. But the data reveal a chilling truth

There is now strong evidence to suggest that the unusually cold winters of the last two years in the UK are the result of heating elsewhere.

and-

A global warming trend doesn't mean that every region becomes warmer every month. That's what averages are for: they put local events in context. The denial of man-made climate change mutated first into a denial of science in general and then into a denial of basic arithmetic. If it's snowing in Britain, a thousand websites and quite a few newspapers tell us, the planet can't be warming.

According to Nasa's datasets, the world has just experienced the warmest January to November period since the global record began, 131 years ago; 2010 looks likely to be either the hottest or the equal hottest year. This November was the warmest on record.

Sod all that, my correspondents insist: just look out of the window. No explanation of the numbers, no description of the North Atlantic oscillation or the Arctic dipole, no reminder of current temperatures in other parts of the world, can compete with the observation that there's a foot of snow outside. We are simple, earthy creatures, governed by our senses. What we see and taste and feel overrides analysis. The cold has reason in a deathly grip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... al-warming

Exactly my point. This snow was caused by global warming.

For example, even though it sounds counterintuitive, global warming likely played a bit of a role in "Snowmageddon" earlier this year, Holland said. That's because with a warmer climate, there's more moisture in the air, which makes storms including blizzards, more intense, he said.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20101219/D9K734FG0.html

The "Snowmageddon" countries are going to need to paid from the nascent UN global warming funds too to be able to deal with the hot end of the world. This really needs to be addressed if the proponents of AGW are to have any credibility.

There is absolutely no scientific proof that hell is any hotter today than it was 2,000 years ago. Nor any cooler.

residenttroll wrote:

ckm8 wrote: Does calling science spin make you feel better about ignoring it?

When you can stop the spinning of the earth and predict weather ten years out....call me.

To call this global warming a science, is like calling dung a brownie.

Maybe you should do some research about the history of the Ozone Hole. It has many parallels to the current global warming debate. It was predicted by scientists back in 1974, and was later proved in 1985 (and continuously observed by satellites since then). The methods of fighting the idea of the Ozone Hole back at that time are so similar to today , and included many of the same groups who attack climate researchers now.

Here's a pretty good short read on the subject...

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

And here are the techniques of the skeptics back then, so very similar to today's skeptics...

Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence

Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.

Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.

Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

You really don't see a lot of people disputing the Ozone Hole anymore. At least not since the mid 90's. And the wordwide limits on CFCs now seem to be keeping it in check.

you need to remember global warming is a working hypothesis. It is not proven or a law, merely an interpretation of selected data. One of the things that bothers me is the CO2 concentrations measured in ice. While these measurements provide data for ice house times, nothing of the sort is available for the interglacials when there was no ice. What was CO2 like then? There are lots of other unanswered questions. The Pleistocene ice ages are attributed to earth axis wobbles augmented by CO2 variations, at least that is what some suggest. Earth's axis wobbles don't just start and stop. If so why is it that ice ages (ice house periods in earth history) are not more regular? We do have ancient ice age records in earth history (eg During the Ordovician, Pennsylvanian etc. Periods. Why is it that we have earth history records where the earth was significantly warmer for millions of years? What controls this global climatic changes? None had man's help, yet they took place. I cite this to highlight that climatologists do not have answers for these, not even good working hypothesis. This illustrates a lack of critical questions and a lack of understanding of why climate change occurs. CO2 is perhaps part of the story, but it is not THE cause. Until we can explain past climate change, I remain skeptical of the proposed working hypothesis for the alleged current climate change. I see minor temperature increases, but the cause and affect is what really bothers me.

Our understanding of sea level changes throughout geologic time shows that there are long term sea level changes, intermediate and short term raising and lowering of sea level. How these various length SL changes express themselves depends on how they add up at any one moment. It is likely that climate change also has long, intermediate and short term trends and how these are expressed depends on how these trends add up.

Rockdoc you may appreciate this link:

http://www.theclimatebet.com/?p=376#more-376

Our research findings challenge the basic assumptions of the State Department’s Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR 2010). The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods. Furthermore, there have been no validation studies to support a belief that the forecasting procedures used were nevertheless appropriate for the situation............

daisypusher wrote: Rockdoc you may appreciate this link:

http://www.theclimatebet.com/?p=376#more-376

Our research findings challenge the basic assumptions of the State Department’s Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR 2010). The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods. Furthermore, there have been no validation studies to support a belief that the forecasting procedures used were nevertheless appropriate for the situation............

While highlighting the most detrimental issue (i.e. the politically motivated scientific investigations) the article is just another opinion, no more valuable than my own opinion. This is really where we are these days, in a political forum throwing scientific opinions back and forth. Those with political backing get the majority of headlines while contrary views and research gets politically debauched. Climate change is not a political issue and scientists ought to stay the hell out of the political arena as there are too many dishonest scientists whose only mission is getting their ego stroked instead of digging into data to work ones way toward the truth and understanding.

Certainly, I do not find the revelation published in your link surprising. Real science i becoming evaluated in opinion poles rather than critical thinking and review by the non political scientific community. I'm no climatologist, but even as an earth scientist, the espoused opinions are clearly way off base.