By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
You might just as well blame the temperature extremes on little green men from Mars lambasting us with microwaves because there is the same amount of proof.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"The melting ice caps put more moisture into the air. Warmer air with more moister in it means more precipitation."
What think the folks here? Any scientific basis to that claim?
that is true, but only to certain extent: more precipitation -> more snow -> faster build-up on the ice caps -> fewer moisture into the air -> fewer precipitation, etc.
the earth is a far more complicated system, with lots of negative / positive feedback mechanism than we currently understand.
otherwise, the earth would be either extremely hot or extremely cold.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
As gagrice has pointed out many times with the polar bear on the ice floe, it is disingenous to use images like that to say there's proof of MMGW. This was started by the likes of Al Gore, and furthered by the IPCC ridiculous claims that the Himalyan glaciers would melt by 2035. Pro MMGW's are intentionally misleading the press and public.
Any (ANY) institution with a strong emotion/goal/interest in an issue, which for some reason becomes politicized, is going to try and use propaganda in their favor to sway public opinion.
How about the SPCA with their sad, sad commercials of abused animals? Agenda.
Or Sigourney Weaver as a narrator of "Planet Earth" sticking her little political barbs in there now and again.
Drudge does it too. And Glenn Beck.
Both sides of all issues use what they can to grab the hearts and minds of the people.
That does not make it RIGHT, but unfortunately, it's HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED and none of the players are gonna EVER stop playing that way.
I agree with your comment in that has been history for the last billion or so years. It would be very hard to end life and the ecosystems that we know. You could probably wipe life off the top 100m of the Earth, and within a few hundred millenia life would be crawling on the surface again, and evolving into various species.
However if there were some more powerful natural force-event to occur, like a change in Earth's orbit, then all bets are off. There's no guarantee that in the Sun moving thru the Milky Way that we don't come suddenly upon a Black Hole. They're rather hard to detect especially since most of space is a vacuum and you don't necessarily have stuff being sucked in all the time.
Anyway in 1-2 billion years the Earth will not be so hospitable. We're on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy. It wouldn't be so good if we wer lined up to pass thru the center of the galaxy; it's a much more crowded neighborhood where there is no night. And at about that time the Sun will have grown so much, turning into a Red Giant, that the oceans of the Earth will probably boil off.
So the ultimate GW will eventually be all natural. It is not very self-sustaining on a cosmic time-scale.
as to colliding with another galaxy, last time I checked it is more than 3 billion years away. since we have trouble predicting weather in three days, I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about something 3 billion years out.
plus, "dense" in the scale of galaxies has totally different meaning of "dense" as we earthnoids understand it.
Looks like Chicken Little will eventually be justified !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Yep, as I said I agree with you. I'm not the type of person who disagrees with someone on all issues, just because we disagree on others.
as to colliding with another galaxy, last time I checked it is more than 3 billion years away.
What's another billion years when compared to eternity.
I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about something 3 billion years out.
Who's worrying about it. I mention to put nature in perspective of 1) things are always changing, and 2) the scale of the power of nature. Even if we just have our little sun which has burned for billions of years, and the amount of energy that we can feel per sq.in. when we go in the sun, at our distance of 93 million miles.
the same scientists would also tell you that dark matter / energy does not interact with our normal matter (actually weak interaction). that's precisely the reason we have had a hard time detecting both.
so why do you worry about it, again?
Well if you had been here some months you'd realize I use it as an egregious example of the gaps in man's knowledge. There are many people who assume that our modern science understands 99% of everything there is to know. And that includes climatologists understanding of the climate. It is an example, not a worry.
I have also used many historical examples of what scientists thought they knew, only to be proven that fire and air aren't elements, the Earth was round, that Nobel prize winners may not be so bright carrying radioactive elements in their pockets, and that those fuzzy-stars meant there was more to the universe than the Milky Way.
Similarly if you look into climatology modelling, you'll see scientists admit that they're probably 20+ years away (using Murphy's law?) from having the computing-power to run accurate simulations of the global climate.
the same scientists would also tell you that dark matter / energy does not interact with our normal matter (actually weak interaction)
The main reason that scientists know there is dark energy and matter is because it DOES interact with normal matter - gravitational interaction. Astrophysicists could not account for galaxies movements with only the known amount of matter.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/mysteries_l1/dark_energy.html
read a little bit more and talk to some scientists.
this whole dark matter / dark energy isn't a sure thing. At this point, it is a "plug" in the sense that they are used to make our existing theories able to explain the real world.
they may turn out to be true, or they may not. Like ether.
Yes there are other possibiliites. I've previously mentioned that scientists don't know what dark energy or matter is - so the terms are a place-mark for the unknown. Same conclusion - there's a lot left to learn - science is not neatly wrapped up any more than it was 200, 800, or 3,000 years ago.
--Al Gore, Vice President
Maybe larsb is snowed in today, and we could have a friendly side-chat about his weather.
Sunny and 72 deesgrees here in the PHX today.
My solar panels cranking toward a record-high production day......
Aahhhhhhhhhhhhh
the most important distinction between science and faith, in that regard, is that only science is open to the possibility that it is wrong.
There are many software programs out there that will simulate a galaxy collision.
http://burro.cwru.edu/JavaLab/GalCrashWeb/
But I suppose that if you do not think climate models are any good there is a high likelihood that you won't trust Galaxy Collision Simulation software either.
http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html
"Contrarians pose as skeptics, refusing to accept consensus conclusions in science on the ground that there is still some uncertainty. True skeptics raise specific doubts about specific claims and do not try to debunk a whole area of science by an occasional error or by the general lack of absolute certainty, which is unattainable in any area of science. "
The guy gets to the heart of the matter.
"And if that happens, Johnson said, ducks will disappear - and so will hunters."
Hunters are a powerful political group. If the ducks start disappearing we could see a shift in how some hunters view climate change. Time will tell.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Well I'm sure the braintrusts of men like Bernie Madoff and John Edwards (or that governor from IL) are looking for a topic that they can use like Al Gore did, to make some profit. There's no shortage of them.
When a science becomes politicized that's when the caution-flags go up and the alarm-bells go off. Because then the major $ and Type-A politicians start to run the show.
Mr Dunscombe is also chairman of an independent group called Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change, and as such handles over 4 trillion Euros in "ethical investments" in companies that further the cause of global warming. The IIPCC is a group of about 50 institutional investors whose main goal is also to further the cause of the belief in global warming.
Don't believe me? Just do some googling on your own.
This helps explain why the BBC is so biased on the side of global warming. It is simply a money issue with them and all their money is invested in furthering the global warming agenda.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
1. Why has the NCDC been lying to US?
For example, between 1960 and 1980 the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was around 6,000. By the early 1990s, that number had dwindled to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. National Climatic Data Center engaged in deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates. The NCDC lied—repeatedly and intentionally. They used selective data that would skew the results to favor their agenda.
2. Why has the CRU lied to the World?
According to Science & Environmental Policy project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data
3. Why are school teachers Lying to our Children and Grandchildren?
Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children. When in fact here are more polar bears now than in 1950. They’ve taught children about melting glaciers. When in fact many glaciers are growing and most of the stories of receding glaciers have been proven to be speculation.
Your posted article is all based on lies and half truths. Why should I be concerned about the ducks in SD? These statements in your article say it all.
An anticipated rise in temperature of 2 to 4 degrees Celsius - 4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit - between 2050 and 2100 would decimate waterfowl populations in the Central Flyway and all the life that surrounds them.
The new study, which uses data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to construct a new wetland model, stunned researchers on how fragile the region is to a warming planet
So far most of the Global Warming hysteria is built on big fat lies. So why should we be concerned? I would imagine a lot of wildlife disappeared in the Prairie Dust bowls of the 1930s. The Climate changed and they got more snow and water now than they really want. Man had little or nothing to do with those changes. At least according to the Famous Hockey Stick Hoax.
If you watched the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, youy would have learned if you didn't know already, that the vast majority of Canadians live as far south as they can in their country, leaving most of Canada barren. Does anyone want to put forth an idea of why, other than it is too darn cold to farm or ranch there? And just plain miserably cold.
The IPCC and their followers only want to point out the negatives though, to further their cause.
it has been long established that a warmer earth would solve a lot of our basic problems, like hunger, or consumption of fossil fuel, and emission of co2, which itself is a negative feedback / self-sustaining mechanism.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2010-02-10-un-climate-report_N.- htm
While they say the 1st report is without error, I'd like to know who was handling the data that was used to make that incontrevertible conclusion of MMGW. It is most troubling to me if many of the weather reporting stations in the world were cut from the record, and estimates were used instead. Would it be so hard to make a grid of the Earth and place a temperature sensor and transmitter every 100 miles? and have that report in every 6 hours? But I guess that isn't needed since the conclusions already made, and the $$ is better spent on conferences, and carbon-credit trading bureaucracy.
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
AGW a LIE
You posted this: "And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
More stuff that differs from your viewpoint in that story:
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
And this:
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
So, really, nothing has changed.
AGW is not "proven" to be a lie by this one little story, Gary. Sorry 'bout that !!!
Leading edge...I try to keep informed, but usually I end up with more questions than answers. As I have said before, climate is very complex. We are at the beginning of trying to understand the climate puzzle. It may take decades before we can make solid regional projections. People will need to know what is going to happen in their neck of the woods.
And as to the question of hysteria, we have two groups - 1.) the rush to judgment group and 2.) the contrarian group. Both are very hysterical.
You and others like to post about group one. To provide some balance I post about group two.
As an example. the recent comments from Sen. James Inhofe:
" I am the planet's number one worst enemy"
Think about that statement for a minute. It is one of the most idiotic statements ever made. I suppose next he will claim he is the number one enemy of air or water.
Another statement of his was:
“Well, we don’t want to use oil and gas because we think it pollutes” — which it doesn’t ...."
The statement is obviously ridiculous. Will he next tell us that the smog in LA is natural not man made?
The hockey stick is alive and well. It will also likely evolve as scientists collect more information.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph- -has-been-proven-wrong.html
"Your posted article is all based on lies and half truths. Why should I be concerned about the ducks in SD? "
No the article is based on research. Is the research perfect, no, but that is how science works.
You missed the point behind the article. Hunters will obviously be concerned if the local climate changes enough. Some will start to recognize the impact of global change and start asking questions. Some might even change their vote if the right candidate comes along.
"The trend is a warming trend’.
But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
We don't know what is causing the "statistically insignificant" warming, but the trend is still TOWARD WARMING.
It might be "natural phenomenon" and it "might not be."
To me that is the problem. It is a political beach ball. If scientists were left in their Universities to study climate. That is fine. When you give government grants to scientists they will ALWAYS have political strings attached. Many think the right candidates are the ones that say what they want to hear. It is probably just the opposite. Look at a few pols:
GW Bush very non committed to AGW. Yet he lives in a very environmentally sound home on his ranch. drives a LNG PU truck.
Al Gore has a fossil fuel guzzling yacht, jet and home.
The Kennedy clan. All talk big ECO concerns. Yet they have carbon footprints the size of a small city. And block alternative energy when it is in their view.
So who would you vote for?
You absolutely don't have enough data to say that with certainty.
You might BELIEVE it, but that don't make it true.
And no, I did not "miss the part" about the 1000 year ago thing. YOU just misinterpreted it by translating it to "If it was warmer in 1000 AD than it is currently, Man cannot be the cause."
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
So, in essence, there could be "multiple reasons" for the MWP, and "multiple reasons" for the current warming trend.
And NO ONE can definitively say "Man is helping making it warmer" no more than they can say "Man is not having any impact on the warming trend."
There is just not enough data to prove either case.
If that's a valid argument, then why couldn't another person simply state that the hockey-stick of the last 100 years is nothing more than a "Blip"? :P Since the climate goes back a few billion years, the last 100 years is but a blink-of-the eye. The next "blip" may be the Earth cooling very quickly for the next 50 years.
And the trend is warming since the glaciers covered most of N. America.
Then we wouldn't have scientists crying "wolf" at blips; misinforming the public and politicians that they are looking at anything other than coincidence.
Climatologists should go off and do some Better work than they have done so far. They should work just like every other science does, working quietly in the background until they have a more solid understanding of how the climate works.
your sentance "We don't know what is causing the "statistically insignificant" warming, but the trend is still TOWARD WARMING. "
is very different from what you quoted above " But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend." "
The key here is he admits that ove rthe last 15 years there is no warming - where you try to state that there is warming, but it is statistically insignificant.
I read the Entire Sentence to be that there has been no warming over the last 15 years - though the author belives that this flat trend is a blip
Oh, and if 1,000 years ago was warmer, then the trend is cooling, not warming
my thought is the trend depends on who is picking the starting point...
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the collectivists made a brilliant decision to move into the green movement where they could attack capitalism with impunity.
So where will they go next after they increase their dogmatism and flame out I hope.
If the world was warming, why do we assume that would not be beneficial to human kind?
Of course there are many intellectuals who feel the earth would be a much better place without humans, twisted as they are.
I thought by now Al Gore would be in jail on fraud charges and gracie would be touring the country offering to rev his SUV every place that was buried in snow. :P
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Exactly. People and nature in general prefer the warmer climates.
People:
1) try and find some global maps that shows you population density. Is the population density higher in the tropics, sub-tropics and temperate zones, and then gets lower and lower as you get into the colder Arctic areas?
2) where do most of the people in Canada live? Evenly spread north to south, or right along the southern border?
3) Why doesn't the population of northern areas grow much? Areas such as Alaska, Canada, Scandanavia, and Siberia have been sparsely populated and remain that way.
4) In which direction do most U.S. retirees move?
Nature:
1) In what sort of climate do you find the most biodiversity? Ah rainforests you say; not permafrost?
2) In what sort of climate do you find the most organisms per square area? Rainforest again?
The emissions from a few hundred million vehicles in the world is insignificant compared to the forces of nature, especially the energy of the Sun (and other stellar radiation) that hits the Earth's atmosphere and surface everyday.
“It is important that people recognize that weather is not the same thing as climate,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Lubchenco, speaking on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show,” said the planet is warming but that weather is variable. The snowy weather, Lubchenco said, “is not a contradiction and it is not really unexpected.”
Never say die when you are trying to justify your opinion. Hopefully we boot out all the Warmers this November. Get some common sense back into these agencies.
I guess she did not hear that the Top Warmer scientist has confessed of his half truths and fudging data to push the AGW agenda.
Have they put Al Gore in Prison yet for lying to our children with his movie hoax?
Lying in a movie is not an actionable crime.
See the work of "Moore, Michael" and you will notice he is not in jail.
Gary says, "Hopefully we boot out all the Warmers this November."
Are you incorrectly assuming that Warmer=Democrat and Denier=Republican? I don't think that is an applicable line. I know famous people of each party who don't tow that party-based line.
Gary says, "I guess she did not hear that the Top Warmer scientist has confessed of his half truths and fudging data to push the AGW agenda. "
I guess she also did not read the post earlier where I corrected your incorrect summation of the story.
we are clearly warming up, and have been for the last 100 - 300K years, as we did many times before.
the questions continue to be:
1) why is that caused by mankind?
2) why is that bad? or why is it optimal where we are now?
those questions are common sense questions that the warmers have consistently failed to answer based on real facts, not doctored data.
the above argument is sound and scientific.
The unfortunate fact that the warmers have "educated" the public, based on the weather data the last few years, to link warmer "weather" with global warming. and they have been largely successful on that front, in spite of the objection of the anti-warming crowd that warmer weather doesn't mean global warming necessarily.
now, all in the sudden, the weather is cooling off, and it just sounds "funny" that the warmers are making a distinction between weather and climate, something they should have done, consistently, day 1.
so they only have themselves to blame on that one.