January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

[Samwell Seed Well]

go washington fuck you all

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

Give it up, the Eco-Loon MMGW dream is dead. How many times have we heard these dolts caution against us against "disbelieving" MMGW because of a cold spell? Now, everyone is supposed to swallow it because of a heat wave that happens to be the highest in a paltry 117 years?

What was the highest average temp for this area of the earth 1, 5, 10, 20 thousand or even million years ago? You know, before our big, bad automobiles and factories were around? If you can't prove this is the hottest the planet has EVER been, stow it. Go find some other hyped up impending disaster you can decry, you political hack.

"The oceans will boil and it's the evil REPUBLICAN'S fault." This ad has been approved by Barak Obama.

Tool.

so small . . . . . ..

 

[ginjawarrior]

The 2010-2011 winter here was terrible. We had one snowfall that was up to my chest (6'1) Not to mention it was fucking cold. Where was global warming then?

underlined the important part

Perhaps you should be asking why your surprised about having such a cold winter

 

[deprave]

underlined the important part

Perhaps you should be asking why your surprised about having such a cold winter

The argument is climate does not equal weather but I digress , this whole argument is stupid as hell from both sides.. see my thread "current temp is 75F"

 

[ginjawarrior]

Wow, it almost sounds similar to what the IIPC did, except that they didn't even bother to tell their climatoligists they were going on theirs. They just stuck them on there.

"frightwing" ? Wow, are you and UB gonna share a milkshake now? I picture the spaghetti scene from Lady and the Tramp.

​

Himalayan glaciers: how the IPCC erred and what the science says

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


IPCC were wrong about Himalayan glaciers

"In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".
Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas." (Fred Pearce)

What the science says...

[TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD]Select a level...[/TD]
[TD="width: 23%, bgcolor: #E2F0D2, align: center"]

Basic[/TD]
[TD="width: 2%, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="width: 23%, bgcolor: #E2F0D2, align: center"] Intermediate[/TD]
[TD="width: 2%, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E2F0D2, colspan: 6, align: left"]Glaciers are in rapid retreat worldwide, despite 1 error in 1 paragraph in a 3000 page IPCC report.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The IPCC made an error about the Himalayan glaciers. Section 10.6.2 of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) states, “the likelihood of [the Himalayan Glaciers] disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” This statement did not come from peer-reviewed literature, nor did it meet the IPCC standards of evidence.
The error has raised some criticisms - both legitimate and illegitimate - about the the IPCC, the AR4, and climate science in general:
Did the IPCC respond to this error quickly and diligently? The answer here is unfortunately no. According to a review by the InterAcademy Council on the IPCC processes and procedures, the IPCC took more than a month to respond to the Himalayan Glacier error, and even then did not explicitly acknowledge the error or issue a retraction. To make matters worse, it has been documented that the IPCC had responded more quickly to other supposed errors in the report (Leake, 2010; Reuters, 2010). Though the IPCC has been recognized for its scientific contributions, there is certainly room for improvement in terms of communications.
Is the AR4 terribly flawed? It is important to note that this is one error in a roughly 3000 page technical document, an error percentage similar to the Encyclopedia Britannica. The 2035 claim was not included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers, or the Synthesis Report.
Does this error show the IPCC has an ‘alarmist’ bias – a tendency to exaggerate the negative impacts of climate change? In fact, there are far more documented instances of the AR4 being too conservative, rather than too alarmist, on emissions scenarios, sea level rise, and Arctic sea-ice melt.
Does this in anyway undermine climate science in general? To claim this error undermines the basic conclusions of climate change is absurd. The error is part of Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, not Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Anthropogenic climate change is still supported by multiple lines of independent empirical evidence, and nearly every national and international scientific body.
So what does the peer-reviewed science say about the Himalayan Glaciers?
Many of the Himalayan Glaciers are retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006) and roughly 500 million people depend on the melt water from these glaciers (Kehrwald 200.
The IPCC made an unfortunate error in a very long technical document. Moreover, the response to this error was far from exemplary. Highlighting this error to undermine climate science, however, is a classic example of cherry picking – a dangerous game to play with 500 million livelihoods at stake.
Last updated on 17 September 2010 by Nicholas Berini.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm

 

[ginjawarrior]

The argument is climate does not equal weather but I digress , this whole argument is stupid as hell from both sides.. see my thread "current temp is 75F"

I had already had that argument I just wanted to point out the strange situation we're in when people are genuinely surprised when we have cold winters

 

[ginjawarrior]

The first chart shows a pattern of lower lows AND lower highs. This is a strong indicator of global COOLING.

​

Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Link to this page
The skeptic argument...


It's cooling
"In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable." (source: Henrik Svensmark)

What the science says...

[TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD]Select a level...[/TD]
[TD="width: 23%, bgcolor: #E2F0D2, align: center"]

Basic[/TD]
[TD="width: 2%, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="width: 23%, bgcolor: #E2F0D2, align: center"] Intermediate[/TD]
[TD="width: 2%, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E2F0D2, colspan: 6, align: left"]All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it's natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and as shown below, every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.


The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event - a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.
Last updated on 18 August 2010 by AdamK.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

 

[ginjawarrior]

It's clear you have already made up your mind so there's little point discussing it further than quoting the prewritten counter arguements

Nice to see you neglecting to quote the prior sentence

 

[ginjawarrior]

Government usually hinders these projects, not advances them.

In some ways I agree over here local government and NIMBY's are trying to block a new plant supported by main government

Its still high initial investment and long term recovery of investment that requires a bit of help tho

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

So I lose credibility because the definition of climate is how I describe climate?

Funny how we are in a thread about the weather but it's not the climate...

So out of billions of possible data points, we have a little over one hundred and that's good enough for you?

That's your choice of course, but I need more data.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

so small . . . . . ..

So predictable...and flaccid.

 

[canndo]

Non partisan? You've got to be kidding. But it's an interesting read.

Here it is, evidence that those who ascribe to rightist "ideology" are incapable of correcting their own assessments of the world around them. They see by way of their already set facts and are unwilling or unable to accept anything different. To this end they will use all sorts of logicaly sketchy "reasoning". Up to and including impugning the source rather than dealing with the information itself. Nor are they at all concerned that they are apt to weigh science through the lens of their own personal politics. This is not about Gore, it is not about consensus of scientific opinion it is about a rather large body of fact that points to global warming and man made global warming at that but we will never ever convince our friends on the right of such things because they are incapable of examining facts on their own merit but rather on how those facts comport witht their predetermined opinions. "if the report agrees with what I have already decided,then it must be correct, if it does not then it must be, by virtue of that lack of comportment - a lie"


In short - The earth isn't warming, but if it is, we didn't do it, but if we did, there is nothing we can do about it anyway, but if there is, it is too costly.

Follow the money. Always follow the money, the reasons those scientist have to lie is because each and every one is doing so in order to preserve their grant money - a grand total of several billions globaly. Of course the only reason the nay sayers have to lie is in order to preserve the status quo - which is worth dozens of trillions.


Now who is likely lying?

 

[ChesusRice]

You answered your own question
Follow the money upstream and you can see who is financing the deniars
Doesnt matter anyway
The Deniers are a very small minority in the scientific community
And all the bouncing around the internet echo chamber by the energy giants isnt going to change scientific concensus
That Global warming is happening and we had a part in making it happen

 

[canndo]

Except it has plenty of bearing if you're going to attempt to apply the force of government to save us from a potential disaster which may not be so horrible after all. I can't help but notice, that in my humble experience, CO2 and plants mix rather nicely.

If the corporate world and corporate history is the cause of this increase in CO2, then it falls to the only real force that curbs corporate activity, government, to save us from this potential disaster.

Try placing a bag over your head for a few minutes and tell me how wonderful CO2 is.

 

[canndo]

Credibility is definitely not the area you want to take your stand on. The doomsday predictions and climate model data is being exposed as bunk every year. There seems to be a new scandal about fudged results, exaggerated consequences or flat out intentional lies every year. And who is always at the center of these scandals? Why, it's the renowned climatoligists whose findings are fueling the entire movement. You know, the ones who have nothing to gain by lying, unless you count billions of dollars of grant money and research funds, except for that, of course.

Man contributes less than one tenth of one percent of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere annually. If as has been stated, the natural cycle can easily handle the emissions of volcanic activity, which is vastly greater, it seems odd it can't handle the PALTRY amount we are responsible for.

REMEMBER THE SPOTTED OWL

One of the newest forms of rightist argument is the "that was debunked" tack - it seems that everything that a rightist believes that can be or is contradicted by facts wind up having been debunked but when asked for references to that "debunking" we are left high and dry or with links to opinion pieces, rightist blogs or claptrap science. Check out all of the "debunking" going on regarding the age of the earth and evolution.

Volcanic activity is "noise" or artifact in calculations it is not an ongoing, non-"natural" set of events that continualy pour carbon which was sequestered over millions of years back into an atmosphere in a matter of hundreds. Remember that.


ginja's post is confusing, the short of it is this, volcanic activity produces about 200 million tons of carbon per year, man produceds carbon at a rate of 26.8 billion tones.

your claim that we produce only a small percentage of volcanic activity has been "debunked"

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

 

[cannabineer]

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
More to the point, the numbers were essentially reversed. In 2003, volcanoes released an estimated 200 Mt of CO2. Human activity, specifically CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel, added 26.8 Gt that year, or more than 130 times as much as volcanoes. Granted, volcanic action tends to be sporadic, but the Pinatubo eruption (a large stratovolcanic event) was estimated to release 234 Mt of total CO2, or one per cent of fosil fuel CO2 at the time. cn

 

[canndo]

Offer a cogent, evidence backed explaination for the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere is actually occurring.

Really? this increase is not in dispute anywhere - are you contending that it is not rising?

 

[canndo]

Just because you don't "know" of any, doesn't prove there are not others. "It wasn't an airplane, so it proves it was space aliens in a flying saucer"

So most of the goings on in our world are just a mystery right? shit just happens? As I Occum is my support for what I claim.

 

[canndo]

"volcanos" Volcanoes can produces more co2 in a day than man releases in thousands of years. So much they cause catastrophic global climate change and major extinction level events. Stating " they are background noise in that system as they are intermitent and easily compensated for by other mechanisms." is foolish.

I posted evidence quite to the contrary to your contention that our ouput is dwarfed by natural sources - not true.

 

[Wilksey]

Victims of global warming.....