Climate change another name for Weather

[basilio]

Ask a bunch of people in a pub and you'll get these sorts of satirical contructs easily. I could easily ask a bunch of people in a pub and get equally asinine answers why we'll all be swimming in boiling seas in about 3 1/2 weeks if we don't stop driving our cars

Certainly the average bunch of people in a pub- particularly after a few beers - could give you plenty of asine answers. But the analysis on issues I posted comes from the scientists who actually know something about the topic.

I'll take concrete steps to try and change the world we live in for the better, while your lot just provokes depression in the youth of this world

.

Taking concrete steps to improve the world is absolutely critical. In fact it is one of the real antidotes to the depression that could/would overtake most people if they faced what is coming up. The focus on GW is just a recognition that this is the biggest problem we face and that when we are working out how to redirect our energies most effectively reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere has to a critical factor.

There is an excellent book called The Geography of Hope by Chris Turner. Worth a read for inspiration and action.

After the fierce warnings and grim predictions of The Weather Makers and An Inconvenient Truth, acclaimed journalist and national bestselling author Chris Turner finds hope in the search for a sustainable future.

Point of no return: The chilling phrase has become the ubiquitous mantra of ecological doomsayers, a troubling headline above stories of melting permafrost and receding ice caps, visions of catastrophe and fears of a problem with no solution. Daring to step beyond the rhetoric of panic and despair, The Geography of Hope points to the bright light at the end of this very dark tunnel.

With a mix of front-line reporting, analysis and passionate argument, Chris Turner pieces together the glimmers of optimism amid the gloom and the solutions already at work around the world, from Canada’s largest wind farm to Asia’s greenest building and Europe’s most eco-friendly communities. But The Geography of Hope goes far beyond mere technology. Turner seeks out the next generation of political, economic, social and spiritual institutions that could provide the global foundations for a sustainable future–from the green hills of northern Thailand to the parliament houses of Scandinavia, from the villages of southern India, where microcredit finance has remade the social fabric, to America’s most forward-thinking think tanks.

In this compelling first-person exploration, punctuated by the wonder and angst of a writer discovering the world’s beacons of possibility, Chris Turner pieces together a dazzling map of the disparate landmarks in a geography of hope.


While most of the world has been spinning in stagnant circles of recrimination and debate on the subject of climate change, paralyzed by visions of apocalypse both natural (if nothing of our way of life changes) and economic (if too much does), Denmark has simply marched off with steadfast resolve into the sustainable future, reaching the zenith of its pioneering trek on the island of Samsø. And so if there’s an encircled star on this patchwork map indicating hope’s modest capital, then it should be properly placed on this island. Perhaps, for the sake of precision, at the geographic centre of Jørgen Tranberg’s dairy farm.

There are, I’m sure, any number of images called to mind by talk of ecological revolution and renewable energy and sustainable living, but I’m pretty certain they don’t generally include a hearty fiftysomething Dane in rubber boots spotted with mud and cow ****. Which is why Samsø’s transformation is not just revolutionary but inspiring, not just a huge change but a tantalizingly attainable one. And it was a change that seemed at its most workaday–near-effortless, no more remarkable than the cool October wind gusting across the island–down on Tranberg’s farm.
””from The Geography of Hope and action.

 

[wayneL]

Not a scintilla of "intelligent debate" from you.
You have consistently avoided debating matters I have asked about.
You just trot out the same old tripe.
How, for example are the latest West Antarctica findings "debunked"?
The truth is you just blindly followed a lost leader.
Had you explored the article in Nature you would have been quite pleased with the findings.
But rest peacefully in ignorance if that's your pleasure.

[sigh]

Well that would all be really hurtful Rob... if it were true.

But as it's the intellectual equivalent of a five year old stamping his feet, it's a bit of a laugh. Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't make it true.

Now, please go pester somebody else with your lies, distortions and BS. I've had enough... and I'm 100% satisfied of my opinion on this matter. So until new data comes up for me to consider, it's over and out.

 

[Terry Dactil]

Stick with it WaynL. The tide is turning and there is some pretty impressive support now on your side.

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus."

On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

Full text here http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

 

[spooly74]

[sigh]

... and I'm 100% satisfied of my opinion on this matter. So until new data comes up for me to consider, it's over and out.

Consider this to be sure!

Leprechauns cause Global Warming

Now, we all know that Leprechauns are Irish, and it’s logical that the Irish population should make a good proxy for the population of Leprechauns (as you yourself suggested), given that Leprechauns are invisible thus and we cannot count them accurately.

After retrieving the historic population of Ireland from Wikipedia which, despite its obvious pro-AGW bias due to the efforts of that disreputable scallywag William Connelley, has good data on other subjects. I plotted Irish population and GISS temperature data from 1930 to present, and the results were astounding!

As you can clearly see, there is an amazing match between global temperature and Irish population. However, we all know that graphs can be deceptive; we need real statistics to tease this out. So I plotted the ordinary least squares regression of Irish population on GISS temperature, as shown below.

Again, the results are extraordinarily robust. The r^2 value of the correlation tells us that a full 75.5 percent of the variance in global temperature can be explained by Leprechauns. While some skeptics have argued that galactic cosmic rays, rather than Leprechauns, are responsible for the observed warming, we can clearly see that there is a much better relationship between Leprechauns and warming than GCRs and warming:

If we could only find a journal (perhaps E&E?) in which to publish this pathbreaking analysis, it may be the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming, and the beginning of the ascent of leprechagenic global warming!

On a serious note.

This site dares to do the unthinkable, and compare real world observations to predictions

http://rankexploits.com/musings/

 

[rederob]

Well that would all be really hurtful Rob... if it were true.

I find avoidance is the usual ploy of people who profess one thing, and are incapable of matching it with substantive action.
You have not proven yourself capable of debating this topic at all.
I won't repeat the challenges I have put to you as it's clearly a waste of your valuable time.
As for the rest of the gallery of skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you want to wear, if there is anything meaningful you want to debate, I'll be watching for it.
Regrettably Wayne proved not to be a challenge at all.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I find avoidance is the usual ploy of people who profess one thing, and are incapable of matching it with substantive action.
You have not proven yourself capable of debating this topic at all.
I won't repeat the challenges I have put to you as it's clearly a waste of your valuable time.
As for the rest of the gallery of skeptics, deniers, or whatever label you want to wear, if there is anything meaningful you want to debate, I'll be watching for it.
Regrettably Wayne proved not to be a challenge at all.

Red,
What are your thoughts on bifurcations?

Just on the challenge part, what challenge are you looking for? If a thousand scientists debated you and you had different opinions would that be a challenge? What do you mean by challenge in your context?

 

[rederob]

Red,
What are your thoughts on bifurcations?

Just on the challenge part, what challenge are you looking for? If a thousand scientists debated you and you had different opinions would that be a challenge? What do you mean by challenge in your context?

I'm not a systems theorist, nor a mathematician, so bifurcations are not in my thoughts.
A "challenge" would be a debate where one or more points could be put to the test.
If any scientists had a different opinion to me, they would be most welcome to it. I'm interested in how opinions are formed, however, and this might become the basis for some debate.
In the context of this thread, a "challenge" would be where someone was actually interested in following through with a particular line of discussion on climate, ideally to a conclusion.
To say something is "debunked", for example, without showing how or why, is not a challenge.

 

[Calliope]

The debate is over. Penny Wong has decreed that the heat wave in SA and Vic. is a result of man-made global warming. QED.

 

[long$$]

Consider this to be sure!




On a serious note.

This site dares to do the unthinkable, and compare real world observations to predictions

http://rankexploits.com/musings/

Perhaps the cause and effect are in fact reversed ..... more balmy summer nights...perishing prophelactics?

 

[Pat]

How, for example are the latest West Antarctica findings "debunked"?

[sigh]

Well that would all be really hurtful Rob... if it were true.

But as it's the intellectual equivalent of a five year old stamping his feet, it's a bit of a laugh. Just because you keep repeating something, doesn't make it true.

Now, please go pester somebody else with your lies, distortions and BS. I've had enough... and I'm 100% satisfied of my opinion on this matter. So until new data comes up for me to consider, it's over and out.

Come on Wayne, at least answer rederob's question above.

 

[wayneL]

Come on Wayne, at least answer rederob's question above.

I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.

BTW it was nothing to do with West Antarctica, which has some other studies involved. Mine was about the recent continent-wide extrapolation, which was thoroughly trashed.

Read up.

 

[explod]

I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.

BTW it was nothing to do with West Antarctica, which has some other studies involved. Mine was about the recent continent-wide extrapolation, which was thoroughly trashed.

Read up.

"Read up", you are a joke waynel. You have been given some good authentic references in the past month or so and you dismiss it all without any examination or desertation; or alternatively, as we were taught at media school, you change the subject or answer a quetion of your own making to achieve your own point. Its classic, have you ever seen Peter Costello in full force, brilliant at saying nothing.

Anyway for me, Global Warming or Climate change, whatever it is labelled, this planet has far too many wastfull humans on it. It is unsustainable and no science is required to see the bleeding obvious with our own eyes.

 

[rederob]

I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.

BTW it was nothing to do with West Antarctica, which has some other studies involved. Mine was about the recent continent-wide extrapolation, which was thoroughly trashed.

Read up.

It was always about West Antarctica:

Significant warming of continental West Antarctica in the last 50 years
Authors: Steig E.J, Schneider, D P,
Abstract: We use statistical climate field reconstruction techniques to determine monthly temperature anomalies for the near-surface of the Antarctic ice sheet since 1957. Two independent data sets are used to provide estimates of the spatial covariance patterns of temperature: automatic weather stations and thermal infrared satellite observations. Quality-controlled data from occupied instrumental weather stations are used to determine the amplitude of changes in those covariance patterns through time. We use a modified principal component analyses technique (Steig et al., in review, Nature) to optimize the combination of spatial and temporal information. Verification statistics obtained from subsets of the data demonstrate the resulting reconstructions represent improvements relative to climatological mean values. We find that significant warming has occurred over most of continental West Antarctica. This is an area much larger than previously reported; most studies have concluded that warming is limited to the Antarctic Peninsula. An updated version of the recent temperature reconstruction of Monaghan et al. (2008, JGR) independently confirms our results. Warming in continental West Antarctica in the last 50 years exceeds 0.1 °C/decade, and is strongest in Spring. A possible explanation is an increase in storms in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea, resulting in enhanced warm air fluxes to the continent. Increased storminess in this sector is associated with the positive phase of the zonal wave-3 pattern, which independent observations suggest has increased since the 1970s (Raphael, GRL, 2004). The substantial negative sea ice anomalies in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea may also play a role. Our results suggest that changes in the wave-3 pattern dominates over (possibly anthropogenic) changes in the Southern Annular Mode in explaining recent Antarctic temperature variability.

The article in Nature borrows significantly from this paper.
And for those concerned about "balance", read the last sentence of the abstract again. It suggests that natural climate patterns may be having the greater impact on Antarctic temperature variability.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Nice rain in Townsville, more like the old wet seasons but bloody hot they say in southern cities.

I hope we don't end up with all the basket weavers fleeing north to avoid the heat.

gg

 

[Pat]

I'm going to suggest something really novel... read the links I've provided.

I was hoping you could elaborate, so I didn't have to read a novel.

Contradictory evidence does not disprove nor "de-bunk" a hypothesis.

 

[Pat]

Anyway for me, Global Warming or Climate change, whatever it is labelled, this planet has far too many wastfull humans on it. It is unsustainable and no science is required to see the bleeding obvious with our own eyes.

Agree explode, It just comes down to the fact efficency is not profitable. An example... the bank I work for does not recycle paper, It is much much cheaper to throw it out... for the time being anyway.

I saw a doco on Nikola Tesla, apparently he was one step away from wireless electricity transmission. It was scrapped by JP Morgan as they had no way of charging the users... (not sure how accurate this is, haven't looked into it, still it's interesting)

good site anyway- http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/

 

[explod]

I saw a doco on Nikola Tesla, apparently he was one step away from wireless electricity transmission. It was scrapped by JP Morgan as they had no way of charging the users... (not sure how accurate this is, haven't looked into it, still it's interesting)

good site anyway- http://www.onlinedocumentaries4u.com/

Amazing you bring this up. My Father many years ago marvelled at this, lit up a light globe some 50 miles away but it got buried very quickly.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Nice rain in Townsville, more like the old wet seasons but bloody hot they say in southern cities.

I hope we don't end up with all the basket weavers fleeing north to avoid the heat.

gg

No chance GG.

Best we stay here and avoid the mass Dengue Fever outbreak afflicting our poor northern folk.

 

[wayneL]

"Read up", you are a joke waynel. You have been given some good authentic references in the past month or so and you dismiss it all without any examination or desertation; or alternatively, as we were taught at media school, you change the subject or answer a quetion of your own making to achieve your own point. Its classic, have you ever seen Peter Costello in full force, brilliant at saying nothing.

Anyway for me, Global Warming or Climate change, whatever it is labelled, this planet has far too many wastfull humans on it. It is unsustainable and no science is required to see the bleeding obvious with our own eyes.

:sleeping:

More ad hominem and fallacious argument.

When you have something other than bluster, post it, as contrary to your assertions, you have nothing.

Re the "too many humans argument". I have long held this view and we chose not to have children. You however, seem to have added to the problem. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. What do you intend to do about this?

I have some suggestions, but I suspect you would take offense.

 

[rederob]

:sleeping:

More ad hominem and fallacious argument.

When you have something other than bluster, post it, as contrary to your assertions, you have nothing.

Re the "too many humans argument". I have long held this view and we chose not to have children. You however, seem to have added to the problem. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. What do you intend to do about this?

I have some suggestions, but I suspect you would take offense.

Replying with ad hominem insults and no argument is an excellent tactic!

But, on topic, yet again you tread the avoidance path: Saying something is "debunked", then say its not about "x" although it's actually based on "x". Saying you want "intelligent debate", and offering tripe.
Why not just stay true to your word and return when there's some new data to ponder. Maybe then you can come with some half decent ad hominem insults to bandy about when you lose your way again.