A letter and appeal on Climate Change

bit_pattern said:
How is that even relevant? W. Antarctica is warming at a far greater degree than the Pole.
Click to expand...
How is it relevant? Because when we say something like "Antartica warming", it is not a mis statement to include the peninsula in the calculation of the continental average.

It's just that there is no useful information content therein.

Wait.....that's not important.

Sorry, I forgot.:D

Okay, I'll be serioso for a moment. The article is bunko, but it was fun while it lasted. Why? Quoting...
Scott South Pole Station. The average temperature at the South Pole last year was still a bone-chilling minus 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 47.9 degrees Celsius) in 2009, making it the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at the South Pole, as was reported by Peter Rejcek, an editor for The Antarctic Sun, a part of the U.S. Antarctic Program funded by the National Science Foundation.
The previous record high was minus 54.4 F (minus 48 C), recorded in 2002, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station in Antarctica.
​
See, your warmer buddies who drag out these alarming stories have mush for brains. Here is a simple test for the local resident Warmer population.

Which is COLDER?

minus 54.2 degrees F
minus 54.4 degrees F

​
See...THERE'S A REASON Warmers get made fun of more and more. Hey, look, don't blame me. MacDoc trumpeted it and you followed along.:)


 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
How is it relevant? Because when we say something like "Antartica warming", it is not a mis statement to include the peninsula in the calculation of the continental average.

It's just that there is no useful information content therein.

Wait.....that's not important.

Sorry, I forgot.:D

Okay, I'll be serioso for a moment. The article is bunko, but it was fun while it lasted. Why? Quoting...
Scott South Pole Station. The average temperature at the South Pole last year was still a bone-chilling minus 54.2 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 47.9 degrees Celsius) in 2009, making it the warmest year on record since 1957, when temperature records began at the South Pole, as was reported by Peter Rejcek, an editor for The Antarctic Sun, a part of the U.S. Antarctic Program funded by the National Science Foundation.
The previous record high was minus 54.4 F (minus 48 C), recorded in 2002, according to Tim Markle, senior meteorologist at the South Pole Station in Antarctica.
​
See, your warmer buddies who drag out these alarming stories have mush for brains. Here is a simple test for the local resident Warmer population.

Which is COLDER?

minus 54.2 degrees F
minus 54.4 degrees F

​
See...THERE'S A REASON Warmers get made fun of more and more. Hey, look, don't blame me. MacDoc trumpeted it and you followed along.:)
Click to expand...

I am completely clueless about your point and what the error is. The coldest temperature is 54.4 degrees F so the record warmths is 54.2 degrees F. Wasn't that the point of the part you quoted?
 
I think his point is that they are both cold, but that completely misses the real point because climate models didn't predict a sudden warming in the Pole for another couple of decades yet. He can't understand that it is yet another indicator that things are progressing much faster than anticipated and that current predictions are probably too conservative. But all of that is meaningless BECAUSE ANTARCTICA IS STILL COLD HURDY HUR HUR! Proving once again that dim wittedness is a prerequisite for being able to deny reality in the face of all reason and evidence.
 
bit_pattern said:
...dim wittedness is a prerequisite for being able to deny reality in the face of all reason and evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm sorta embarrassed to admit that I'm a fence-sitter on this issue... But - or rather AND - I'm inclined to lean (without a 'logical' reason) towards the 'climate change is a reality' side, merely because I find reading the crap posted by the 'denier crowd' so utterly frustrating...

A sincere request to mhaze, Alfie, mailman and any others on 'that' side of the fence:
If you have nothing to add but inane waffle, please add nothing - you're NOT doing 'your side' of the argument ANY favours - on the contrary, you make the 'denialist camp' look like it's populated entirely by ignorant blowhards​
 
Some posts have, again, been split to AAH. Do not post off topics or make personal attacks. Continuing to ignore warnings and derail any thread that mentions global warming into yet another general discussion thread will likely result in further action, up to and including suspension or banning.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
So does anyone have an actual list of average temps going back to 1957? Id be interested in seeing just how much the temp has supposedly risen in the last 53 years. Im picking...not much!

Mailman
 
mailman said:
So does anyone have an actual list of average temps going back to 1957?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't exist. Did you sleep through climate gate?
Id be interested in seeing just how much the temp has supposedly risen in the last 53 years. Im picking...not much!
Click to expand...

You show way to much interest and knowledge about the issue.

I really have a problem with my group think when experts like you, 3bodyproblem, mhaze, Alfie et all show your expertise.

Don't it exist a single internet AGW skeptic that at least understand negative numbers or how to search the internet?
 
mailman said:
So does anyone have an actual list of average temps going back to 1957?
Click to expand...
Globally or in the Antarctic?

The central Antarctic has experienced only slight warming because of it’s elevation and Ozone depletion (Ozone is the #3 long lived Greenhouse Gas in the Atmosphere)

Globally here are NASA’s monthly temperature anomalies going back to 1880. “0” in this table represents the average temperature from 1951-1981
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

So the 81 for Dec – Feb this year means 0.81 Deg C warmer then the average for those months from 1951-1981 while the -0.34 from 1881 means that period was 0.34 Deg C colder.
 
Mailman and most deniers don't understand that atmospheric temps are a small part of the energy budget and are transient with a number of decadal and multi-decadal local shifts ( NAO, PDO, ENSO ) that are interwoven with the major trends over time.

More energy in the system can often show up as changes in the intensity of rainfall events, shifts in local weather patterns and more extreme events more often.

Temperature average is a tunnel vision approach tho it has some guideline use over along period.

The evidence in dozens of diverse disciplines is overwhelming....but some just refuse to acknowledge reality.

The discussion needs to be about addressing the problem ..there be dragons indeed.
 
This is where the discussion needs to be going - not catering to denier cranks out of step with reality...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-press-us-to-adopt-carbon-tax/article1574856/

Cap and trade is non- starter - I'm very glad to see the science body come out in favour of a carbon tax.

There does need to be some cap on the existing heavy carbon emitters just as there was with S02 but forget the trade *****.
Carbon tax rewards carbon neutral efforts and reduction off fossil use efforts at all levels.

Certainly has not hurt Norway and Sweden where a $50 a barrel carbon tax has been a reality since 1991 and in part has helped Sweden to lead the world in moving to carbon neutral.

Both nations have committed to carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner.

Maybe this oil spill is a kick off point for more than vague promises of action.

National academy says threat of climate change must be met with decisive, concrete action
Click to expand...

'bout *********** time...
 
I agree wholeheartedly on a carbon tax over emissions trading. Dr. James Hansen wrote an editorial for The Australian newspaper a few months back, outlining how such a tax could work, and putting the case that had we gone to Copenhagen with an open mind and not insisting on trying to ram cap and trade through the conference, we could have got an agreement with China.

You can read the editorial here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/03/11/hansen-climate-energy-leadership/
 
macdoc said:
Mailman and most deniers don't understand that atmospheric temps are a small part of the energy budget and <snip/>

The evidence in dozens of diverse disciplines is overwhelming....but some just refuse to acknowledge reality.
Click to expand...
Maybe...

However, I have a hunch that there's a whole gaggle of us lurkers that know squat about the reality of this issue, too - although NOT through willful ignorance...

So...

Please continue to spell it out in bite-sized chunks

:)
 
six7s - I made a short reply earlier to your comment that didn't make it past the Official Censorship Board here, oh well. ;)

Let me just say this, you are the people I aim towards when I argue with deniers/sceptics, because I know their minds can never be changed but the minds of lurkers might be, and that it can really go either way depending on how "we" on this side of the fence prosecute our case. It is comforting to know that people like you are reading these threads so we know we aren't simply banging our heads against the wall, and I for one will definitely make an effort to tone down the rhetoric and try to argue an evidence based, bite sized, case in the future.
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
six7s - I made a short reply earlier to your comment that didn't make it past the Official Censorship Board here, oh well. ;)

Let me just say this, you are the people I aim towards when I argue with deniers/sceptics, because I know their minds can never be changed but the minds of lurkers might be, and that it can really go either way depending on how "we" on this side of the fence prosecute our case. It is comforting to know that people like you are reading these threads so we know we aren't simply banging our heads against the wall, and I for one will definitely make an effort to tone down the rhetoric and try to argue an evidence based, bite sized, case in the future.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I ain't alone when I say that I really appreciate the opportunity (to think and learn) that you and others provide in your determined efforts to put across a balanced, evidence-based case

Oh, and I can't over emphasise the value of 'bite-sized'... as you know, there's a shedload of stuff to read and digest... that link you posted above has kept me busy for the last half hour!

Thanks :)

Kia kaha!
 
six7s said:
Maybe...

However, I have a hunch that there's a whole gaggle of us lurkers that know squat about the reality of this issue, too - although NOT through willful ignorance...
Click to expand...
No one can know everything. Even if you don’t know every argument/counterargument around YEC claims the fossil record is flawed and the earth is only 5000 years old all you have to do is find out if any of these climes are seriously debated in the literature and that every paper involving the fossil record assumes the earth is billions of years old to know the YEC arguments are not supported.

The situation in climate science is quite similar. Even without understanding the details of the argument/counter argument thrown around the internet you can still look to the literature and find out if any of these things are debated by active researchers. In fact they are not, the subjects of debate in forums like this are not even close to what’s debated in the scientific literature.

Consider this Nature article

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Click to expand...

In at least on pole (sorry no link immediately available, though I sure others here have it) 98% of publishing climate scientists agree that the earths climate is changing because of human activity. They may dispute the particulars of that vigorously but on this they speak nearly as one.

I’m certainly open to discussing the evidence as well, but keep in mind that you will be spammed with counter arguments based not on published science but whatever they can find floating around the internet.
 
lomiller said:
... keep in mind that you will be spammed with counter arguments based not on published science but whatever they can find floating around the internet.
Click to expand...
Indeed...

Although I find it rather simple to sort the sheep from the goats :)

For example, following the link to bravenewclimate.com posted ealier by bit_pattern, I was momentarily confuzzled... for a green(ish) resident of a nuclear free country, my knee-jerk reaction (to Hansen's advocacy of nuclear power) was to assume this was one of those big-money sites... However, as I continued to read, I couldn't help but notice the style of writing; clear, concise, rational, calm... i.e the hallmark of reasoned arguments

As I mentioned earlier, I'm sorta embarrassed to admit that I'm still sitting on the fence on the issue of anthropogenic climate change... but I'm sure leaning away from the deniers side - merely because their counter-arguments suck like a very, very sucky thing

Thanks, again, to those who take the time and effort to post clear, concise, rational, calm and sane arguments :)
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
bravenewclimate.com posted ealier by bit_pattern, I was momentarily confuzzled... for a green(ish) resident of a nuclear free country, my knee-jerk reaction (to Hansen's advocacy of nuclear power) was to assume this was one of those big-money sites... However, as I continued to read, I couldn't help but notice the style of writing; clear, concise, rational, calm... i.e the hallmark of reasoned arguments
Click to expand...

Most people who are really concerned with global warming are pro nuclear. My own position is that we should invest extensively in nuclear power, but that fuel reserves are simply not large enough to do the job with current on near future technology. This is a position that usually puts me at odds with most of the other “warmers” who post here, not because I support nuclear but because I’m not pro nuclear enough.

six7s said:
As I mentioned earlier, I'm sorta embarrassed to admit that I'm still sitting on the fence on the issue of anthropogenic climate change... but I'm sure leaning away from the deniers side - merely because their counter-arguments suck like a very, very sucky thing
Click to expand...

As to your original statement Since you haven’t really asked any questions I can’t really answer any of them but maybe this will get you started, it’s a thread from a few months back where we outline what the global warming “narrative” is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161401&highlight=warming+Narrative

For information on actual climate research I’d suggest looking at the following site. The contributors are all working climate scientists with solid publication records.

http://www.realclimate.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom