A Hot Day’s Night: The Beetles

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 03:33 AM GMT em 11 de Abril de 2012

Share this Blog
14
+

A Hot Day’s Night: The Beetles -

The semester is almost over here in Michigan, and I am looking forward to more regularity in writing these blogs. Sorry for the recent infrequency, and the occasional excursions into the arcane. I am looking for well posed, interesting, new questions to focus on, and you know how to find me if you have a good idea. In this entry I want to build of the recent heat and the early spring.

The thread I made through the last blog ended up with Plant Hardiness Zones, which are those maps that gardeners and farmers use to decide when to plant seeds. Over the last 20 – 30 years the warming of the planet has caused the northern migration of these zones. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012. Since I am not so facile, I have taken from this graphic the two extremes, 1990 and 2012.



Figure 1: 1990 U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones. (From Washington Post)




Figure 2: 2012 U.S. Plant Hardiness Zones. (From Washington Post)


What I want to look at here are the very coldest temperatures, the purples. If you look at Zone 2b, the zone below -40 degrees F, it essentially disappears between 1990 and 2012. Zone 3a, which is between -35 degrees F and – 40 degrees F becomes much smaller.

So this past winter, and especially March 2012, was extraordinarily warm in the 48 contiguous states. In fact, I, who fly too much, had one of the easiest winters of travel. Based on Jeff Master’s blogs, I chose several times to go through Chicago, and for the most part I have landed with splendid views of a blue Lake Michigan. There was an interesting piece on Talk of the Nation, noting the relation between a warm winter and the lack of flu. So what is the problem? It’s not below -40 degrees anymore. Air travel is easier. We might have less flu. Does anyone besides me, planting potatoes on a dry 80 degree day in March, worry about this?

I have been spending a lot of time with beetle-killed wood this year. You might recall a couple of blogs back in 2009 where I talked about the pine beetles which are killing millions of acres of pine trees in the western U.S. and Canada. (Climate Change and the Forest, Climate and the Beetle) It is beautiful wood, often with a light blue tint. I am using it to restore a couple of 100 year old out buildings. There is a LOT of it; in fact, more than one can imagine managing. There is some lumber being made, some fire wood being made, but for the most part there are millions of acres of dead trees. I have talked to a couple of people who wonder why there is not more outrage about these massive forest kills. That’s fodder for the comments.

Back up to the maps. The pine beetle responsible for killing the pines in the Rockies is itself killed, controlled, by temperatures less the -40 degrees F. This is at the edge of the coldest temperatures normally seen in the U.S., and these cold extremes have largely disappeared since 1990. In the map below, I have used the interactive version of the map from the US Department of Agriculture to extract the State of Colorado. There are only very small areas of Zone 3a remaining.



Figure 3: Plant hardiness zones in Colorado for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.


We adapt to climate change – or we will. Now, one of the most effective adapters seems to be the Mountain Pine Beetle. In The American Naturalist there is a pre-publication posting of an article on the Unprecedented Summer Generation of the Mountain Pine Beetle. That is, rather than there being one generation of Mountain Pine Beetle during the year, in Colorado, in recent years there have been two broods. The paper is by Mitton and Ferrenberg. There is a press release of the paper here.

They noted in 2008 pine beetles flying and attacking pines more than a month earlier than the historic norm. They set up experiments to test three hypotheses: 1) That temperature had not changed; 2) That the length and timing of the flight season had not changed; and 3) the life cycle of the beetle had not changed. Their results found that there had been significant warming, with spring coming earlier. They found that the behavior of the pine beetle was explained by earlier emergence of the beetles, followed by a second brood of the beetles in the summer. Figure 4 shows this schematically. It is striking to see the move to earlier springs in the figure – as with the hardiness zones.



Figure 4: The historical mountain pine beetle (MPB) univoltine life cycle (above calendar arrows and linked by black arrows) and the observed MPB bivoltine life cycle (below calendar arrows and linked by red arrows). Univoltine means one brood per year, and bivoltine means two broods per year. Calendar arrow colors represent monthly temperature regimes: blue for <0°C, yellow for 0°–4.99°C, orange for 5°–9.99°C, and red for 10°C and higher. From Mitton and Ferrenberg, Mountain Pine Beetle Develops an Unprecedented Summer Generation in Response to Climate Warming.


This research took place in an area that in the 1970s was judged to be “climatically unsuitable for Mountain Pine Beetle development … .” The study is convincing that the devastation of the forest due to the pine beetle is directly related to the warming planet. It points out the vulnerability of the tree populations, as the trees that are being impacted now have not developed a historical resistance to the pine beetle. Since most of the beetles that are born live, this impact is not incremental, as that second generation is enormous.

So, yes, this warm winter has had its advantages - less fuel oil was needed. But in the western forest we are seeing this case study of wide ranging ecological disruption. The consequences of the disruption will unfold in the next decades. Questions of fire and soil erosion will emerge. The impact on tourism will be realized - and, of course, water quality and the change in the ecosystems of the western forests. The Mountain Pine Beetle is adapting rapidly to global warming, what are our strategies to adapt to the Pine Beetle?

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 244 - 194

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Quoting Neapolitan:
Excellent work, Xandra. And yet another denialist hopeful goes down. What's that, #127,918?

In other news, Bastardi seems as though he's about to blow another gasket. This from Twitter a short while ago:

"N hem Sea ice. Norway above normal, US site, near normal. Site s hem. well above. GLOBAL SEA ICE ABOVE NORMAL!!!!"

Proving several things:

1) Bastardi still doesn't know the difference between extent (above average), area (below average), and volume (far below average);

2) These short-lived anomalies happen at times, especially during transitional times of the year (spring and fall), and especially during La Ninas;

3) Antarctic sea ice is subject to vastly different mechanics than is Arctic Sea ice;

4) It's not polite to SCREAM IN ALL CAPS!!!!.


J Bas should stick to something he actually knows about.....like creatine powder weather
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xandra:

Everything that is published by dumbass Inhofe is anti-scientific nonsense and the article by Andrew Orlowski is full of lies.

Theon was never Hansen's "supervisor". Quote Dr. Gavin Schmidt:

”Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations”.


Hansen didn’t embarrassed NASA. The Bush Administration did muzzle Hansen and it is clearly documented in a December 2007 report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The report is based on over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Commerce Department, two investigative hearings, and the depositions and interviews of key officials.


Excellent work, Xandra. And yet another denialist hopeful goes down. What's that, #127,918?

In other news, Bastardi seems as though he's about to blow another gasket. This from Twitter a short while ago:

"N hem Sea ice. Norway above normal, US site, near normal. Site s hem. well above. GLOBAL SEA ICE ABOVE NORMAL!!!!"

Proving several things:

1) Bastardi still doesn't know the difference between extent (above average), area (below average), and volume (far below average);

2) These short-lived anomalies happen at times, especially during transitional times of the year (spring and fall), and especially during La Ninas;

3) Antarctic sea ice is subject to vastly different mechanics than is Arctic Sea ice;

4) It's not polite to SCREAM IN ALL CAPS!!!!.
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting iceagecoming:

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.

Everything that is published by dumbass Inhofe is anti-scientific nonsense and the article by Andrew Orlowski is full of lies.

Theon was never Hansen's "supervisor". Quote Dr. Gavin Schmidt:

”Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations”.

Quoting iceagecoming:

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Hansen didn’t embarrassed NASA. The Bush Administration did muzzle Hansen and it is clearly documented in a December 2007 report from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The report is based on over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Commerce Department, two investigative hearings, and the depositions and interviews of key officials.


Member Since: Novembro 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting iceagecoming:
Giaever, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Giaever declared himself a dissenter in 2008, "I am a skeptic... Global warming has become a new religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money," he added.

Giaever is one of the most prominent scientists named in the 2007 Minority Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700. He was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009, letter to President Barack Obama which criticized his stance on global warming.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/20110915/i var-giaever-global-warming-climate-change-al-gore- ipcc-hoax-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re. htm


You guys need to shutdown, too many joules you are using in your cloud, hmmm?
TRANSLATION: "I'm a doddering old man who will be dead by the time the full effects of warming are felt, so why should I care?"

Now, that's some right solid scientific thinking, if you ask me.
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting iceagecoming:
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss


Hansen supervisor takes aim at thermageddon

By Andrew Orlowski %u2022

Posted in Energy, 28th January 2009 14:18 GMT

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters%u2019 programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.%u201D

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising to the data set:

%u201CMy own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.%u201D

Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.

Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.

%u201CHansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting from the man-made warming hypothesis.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_clim ate_theon/

IF NOBO gets elected then Hansen can become Climate
czar with his own police force to punish polluters.
(and anyone who disagrees)





So what do you think he will write about? AGW?

Orlowski's energy-related articles on The Register are in general highly pro-nuclear, pro-oil and anti-renewable.



The Register

Orlowski is the executive editor[1] and a columnist for The Register. In April 2003, he used the term googlewashing to describe the potential for well-linked weblogs to obscure the original meaning of a controversial expression (e.g., "the Second Superpower").[4] Orlowski later classified this[5] along with "absurd intellectual property claims" as an example of an unwarranted assumption of power or authority to gain sociological advantage on behalf of a particular lobby group.

In December 2004, he was invited to assemble a panel on techno-utopianism at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.[6] Orlowski argues that this form of utopianism distracts attention and diverts capital away from solving real infrastructure problems.[7] "Technology can help us," he writes on his FAQ page.[5] "But we venerate the machines we have, which aren't very good, and worse, limit ourselves to seeing the world through this machine metaphor. Technology is useful when it makes something we already like to do easier. Technology can't tell us something we don't know. Technology cannot solve problems that don't exist."[citation needed]

In a number of articles, he has dubbed activists of the Open Rights Group, the UK Pirate Party, as well as any user of peer to peer services 'freetards'.[8][9]

Orlowski's energy-related articles on The Register are in general highly pro-nuclear, pro-oil and anti-renewable.

Link
Member Since: Janeiro 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting iceagecoming:
I wonder what caused these 2-8 C increases in Temp?

Beats me. Could be a lot of things. Maybe a mastodon caught on fire and ruined everything! One thing we know it wasn't, and that's fossil fuels.

However, fossil fuels are indeed the primary cause of the current warming according to mountains of evidence.

Hey, let me know if I missed any of your spam. It's not exactly high quality...but a guy's gotta eat something. Troll spam will do.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Now, see? This one will be more fun! And it should be a good learning experience for fake skeptics.
Quoting iceagecoming:
My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.

1. What processes specifically?
2. What evidence does Theon have that those processes are relevant to the fact of AGW? Unless they magically remove heat in clear violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then they are just moving heat around --not sending it back out to space.
3. What evidence does Theon have that such poorly-modeled or ignored processes add to the heating in the temperature datasets? Such processes could be neutral to temperature over climatic time periods (and probably are); or those processes could actually cause cooling.

Quoting iceagecoming:
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.

Which data has been manipulated? By what scientists was this data manipulated? What evidence does Theon have? Why hasn't he written a paper on this to put into peer-review so that the innocent climatologists can adjust for the actions Theon alleges occurred?

Why has he not reported this to the authorities, if nothing else? If any of the scientists worked for the government directly or indirectly, then they face rather severe penalties if they perpetrated fraud.

Quoting iceagecoming:
In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

If he's talking about the temperature work of GISS, GHCN, and/or NOAA, then he's talking out his backside. Their information is readily available.


Quoting iceagecoming:
"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

That's utter twaddle in terms of the models. The models have been vindicated time and again. And what does he prefer we predicate our actions on? CO2 is increasing. It's going to get hotter. We don't even need a model to know that. LOL

Quoting iceagecoming:
Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.

More nonsense as is easily proven by the fact that all the major temperature datasets show very similar warming trends --including satellite data. Theon, instead, is attacking Hansen's lack of perfection. I have no doubt that Hansen will make more mistakes, but he's made fewer in his career than Theon has in this one article. LOL

Quoting iceagecoming:
IF NOBO gets elected then Hansen can become Climate
czar with his own police force to punish polluters.
(and anyone who disagrees)


Gosh! That sounds terrible. But lots of things *could* happen. Obama could, for instance, send you to Mars to check out the alleged warming there. Won't that be exciting?
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:
Climate scientists are losing the public debate on global warming

Nope. http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

Scroll down and see for yourself. It ain't looking too hot for denialists. <== pun
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:
Giaever, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc.

Old man yells at cloud.

I'd say more but his babbling was completely vacuous, content-free, drooling. Sorry.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
The Eemian/Sangamon interglacial, 130-115 ka BP - The beginning of the last interglacial is reflected in the marine records by abrupt shift to lighter isotope values. The preceding Saalian/Illinoian glaciation was extremely extensive at both high and middle latitudes, and the onset of the Eemian/Sangamon interglacial is marked at many Arctic locations by marine transgression across isostatically depressed coastal areas. Deposits from this marine transgression are particularly pronounced along the northern Russian and Siberian coastal lowlands. A range of proxy data suggests that the Eemian/Sangamon climate optimum summer temperatures were considerably (2-4oC) warmer than that of the present day, and that vegetation zones on the continents migrated northwards. Regional SST zones also migrated, and sub-tropical warm water was pushed northwards in the North Atlantic. Estimates of SST suggest considerably warmer waters than present in coastal Arctic waters, and even the Arctic Ocean may have been ice-free some summers. Glacier extent throughout the Arctic was probably significantly more restricted than present during the Eemian/Sangamon interglacial, with the Greenland Inland Ice considerably reduced. Global eustatic sea level was 4-6 m higher than today as a result of extensive melting of glaciers on the continents and thermal expansion of ocean water.


https://notendur.hi.is/~oi/quaternary_geology.htm


I wonder what caused these 2-8 C increases in Temp?
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
The Eemian/Sangamon interglacial, 130-115 ka BP - The beginning of the last interglacial is reflected in the marine records by abrupt shift to lighter isotope values. The preceding Saalian/Illinoian glaciation was extremely extensive at both high and middle latitudes, and the onset of the Eemian/Sangamon interglacial is marked at many Arctic locations by marine transgression across isostatically depressed coastal areas. Deposits from this marine transgression are particularly pronounced along the northern Russian and Siberian coastal lowlands. A range of proxy data suggests that the Eemian/Sangamon climate optimum summer temperatures were considerably (2-4oC) warmer than that of the present day, and that vegetation zones on the continents migrated northwards. Regional SST zones also migrated, and sub-tropical warm water was pushed northwards in the North Atlantic. Estimates of SST suggest considerably warmer waters than present in coastal Arctic waters, and even the Arctic Ocean may have been ice-free some summers. Glacier extent throughout the Arctic was probably significantly more restricted than present during the Eemian/Sangamon interglacial, with the Greenland Inland Ice considerably reduced. Global eustatic sea level was 4-6 m higher than today as a result of extensive melting of glaciers on the continents and thermal expansion of ocean water.


https://notendur.hi.is/~oi/quaternary_geology.htm


I wonder what caused these 2-8 C increases in Temp?
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss


Hansen supervisor takes aim at thermageddon

By Andrew Orlowski •

Posted in Energy, 28th January 2009 14:18 GMT

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising to the data set:

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.

Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting from the man-made warming hypothesis. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_clim ate_theon/

IF NOBO gets elected then Hansen can become Climate
czar with his own police force to punish polluters.
(and anyone who disagrees)

Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Climate scientists are losing the public debate on global warming
Green campaigners and climate scientists are losing the public debate over global warming, one of the movement's leading proponents has admitted.

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent

9:00AM BST 08 Apr 2012


Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.

Speaking ahead of a public lecture in Edinburgh this week, he admitted that without public support it will be impossible to make the changes he and his colleagues believe need to occur to protect future generations from the effects of climate change.
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Giaever, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Giaever declared himself a dissenter in 2008, "I am a skeptic... Global warming has become a new religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money," he added.

Giaever is one of the most prominent scientists named in the 2007 Minority Report of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700. He was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009, letter to President Barack Obama which criticized his stance on global warming.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214181/20110915/i var-giaever-global-warming-climate-change-al-gore- ipcc-hoax-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re. htm


You guys need to shutdown, too many joules you are using in your cloud, hmmm?
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting martinitony:
Are you serious? Really are you? Look at your graph, man. Can't you see true flattening for the last decade or more? Stop being an idiot.
It's getting hot in here

About your "stop being an idiot" comment: remember that old saying about people living in glass houses?
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting martinitony:
So, the north hemisphere ice extent is well above the mean now and further above than mean than anytime in the last 6 years at least. Yes, I know what you will say. It is not as thick. It will melt faster. It's the volume,not the extent that matters.
Does it make you a bit uneasy or are you happy that the ice is not disappearing as fast as you thought?




Try this one , too. Seems that the ice now is running in about the middle of the satellite data.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.se a.ice.interactive.html

Extent is above the mean, yes. At the same time, area is below the mean, while volume is far below the mean.

I would take comfort in any type of real recovery. This, however, is nothing close to that; it is, instead, a short-lived anomaly caused by a strong high pressure system setting up and spreading the ice around. As others here have said, get with us in mid-September and gloat about how close to the long-term mean it is

Forecasts are for a major drop in area and extent over the next two weeks. I'll put some good money on that happening...
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting martinitony:


Are you serious? Really are you? Look at your graph, man. Can't you see true flattening for the last decade or more? Stop being an idiot.

There is no way that you can say with any confidence that the trend has been flattening for the last decade. However, if you aren't concerned about being correct, you can say any old thing you like.

Reality tells a different tale. Every temperature data set that can establish a statistically significant trend says it's been warming. Every. Single. One. There's simply no getting around that, tony.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:
So, the north hemisphere ice extent is well above the mean now and further above than mean than anytime in the last 6 years at least. Yes, I know what you will say. It is not as thick. It will melt faster. It's the volume,not the extent that matters.
Does it make you a bit uneasy or are you happy that the ice is not disappearing as fast as you thought?




Try this one , too. Seems that the ice now is running in about the middle of the satellite data.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.se a.ice.interactive.html


Can you point me precisely to any scientific study or statement by the IPCC that says sea ice extent will decrease every year? No, of course you can't. The trend in sea ice will go down, but the area extent and even thickness is still mainly controlled by weather.

Burn, straw man, burn! ;^D
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:


Are you serious? Really are you? Look at your graph, man. Can't you see true flattening for the last decade or more? Stop being an idiot.
Let me make it simple for you, lol.

Trend and Variation
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LowerCal:
Anthropogenic global warming ‘stopped’ in 1997…and in 1996, 1995, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978 and 1972
.... what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account.

Here is a graph of global average annual temperature since 1970, using the HadCRUT3 data published by the Met Office on its website - the vertical axis shows values of temperature anomaly - the difference between the annual global average temperature and the mean value from the period between 1961 and 1990.

....


Are you serious? Really are you? Look at your graph, man. Can't you see true flattening for the last decade or more? Stop being an idiot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So, the north hemisphere ice extent is well above the mean now and further above than mean than anytime in the last 6 years at least. Yes, I know what you will say. It is not as thick. It will melt faster. It's the volume,not the extent that matters.
Does it make you a bit uneasy or are you happy that the ice is not disappearing as fast as you thought?




Try this one , too. Seems that the ice now is running in about the middle of the satellite data.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.se a.ice.interactive.html

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Anthropogenic global warming ‘stopped’ in 1997…and in 1996, 1995, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978 and 1972
.... what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account.

Here is a graph of global average annual temperature since 1970, using the HadCRUT3 data published by the Met Office on its website - the vertical axis shows values of temperature anomaly - the difference between the annual global average temperature and the mean value from the period between 1961 and 1990.

....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
.... mongrels ....
?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:


This a depiction of what the tribe of cannibalistic mongrels known as the Mayans actually believed. It should be the symbol of the New Agers' who worship at the alter of the Church of Malthus that call themselves Pastafarians so they can roll their eyes at organized religion and mock it with elaborate Flying Spaghetti Monster props at their congregations. The irony of that is that many of them take this Malthusian/ atheist stuff just as seriously and practice it with every bit as much militant zeal as any bible-thumping southern evangelical rural simpleton you'll ever meet. The only difference is that the Gods they worship, instead of Mohammed or Jesus, Malthus/Galton are their prophets. The Malthusians just thumps copies of "The Population Bomb" written by one of their Gods, Paul Erlich - like an evangelical would thump their bible. The far left Malthusian loons and the far right evangelicals have far more in common with each other than they'd ever want to admit, they both possess the same authoritarian personality trait- both groups are morally pious hypocrites whom want to control and dominate others under the guise of the "greater good" according to what their respective religions teach. The New Agers say we're entering the mythical age of Aquarius and a new gilded age where the plebs will be bereft of free will for the benefit of Gaia because a tribe of cannibals who hadn't figured out how to use a wheel yet and were about as advanced as what you'll see on an episode of Mark & Olly Living with the Mek says the calender ends on Dec. 21.


Are you sure you're thinking of the same Mayans?The are two tribes, the inland Mayas, for lack of a correct translation, and the peripheral Mayans.

The peripheral Mayans were the races absorbed by Mayan conquest and were actually pretty cool tribes. They were very friendly and had a nice maintainable civilization. If you hang out in guatemala and still on the mosquito coast a bit, the remnants are still there. They have, among other things, very good local dishes if yuo can find a real Mayan restaurant.

Member Since: Junho 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:


Ah, but you start with your own deception, no one said 20 years, more like 10-15 years. No one believes the planet isn't warming. We disagree about the true rate and the cause.

But someone like you doesn't really care about the truth. You have an agenda. You are a collectivist, a socialist, perhaps a communist. A world that must be controlled is what you need. So, if the facts don't agree, attack the fact presenter.

You call me "a collectivist, a socialist, perhaps a communist" with absolutely no evidence or proof whatsoever that I am. Hmmm. Tell you what: if caring about the planet and the people on it, and if thinking that corporatism and runaway capitalism have been unconditional failures, makes me a communist in your eyes, then you'll just have to be happy living that fantasy. It's not true, of course. But, as with your climate change denialism, that shouldn't stop you...
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting martinitony:


Ah, but you start with your own deception, no one said 20 years, more like 10-15 years. No one believes the planet isn't warming. We disagree about the true rate and the cause.

But someone like you doesn't really care about the truth. You have an agenda. You are a collectivist, a socialist, perhaps a communist. A world that must be controlled is what you need. So, if the facts don't agree, attack the fact presenter.


Um, but the facts agree with Neapolitan --at least the relevant and in context facts. You, OTOH, have a terrible problem. The Earth isn't listening to what you want.

Have you considered suing Earth?
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:

Allow me to translate: "Mwa-wa-wa-waaaa." (With all due respect to Charlie Brown's teacher.)



You realize that this a climate change blog, don't you? Politics and religion can be argued almost anywhere else on the intertubes. Knock yourself out, Temples.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:
By the way, that image was from Europe in Feb. 2012, Looks like they hit the age jackpot. It will be interesting to see the pols try to twist that around and claim it is warming.

It is weather.

And, yes, it is influenced by AGW. Google "Arctic Dipole" and enjoy.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:
LOE this morning has guests claiming data is being withheld from researchers.
How can that be with a environmental warrior in charge.
Also, Greedpeace also claims the servers running the cloud are ruining our co2 emissions. I suggest you shut off your computers and storm down to the whitehouse and protest these outrages. I wonder if airforce 1 uses biofuel?
News flash. Three largest solar energy companies laying off.

You guys and gals increasingly remind of the old Dead Milkmen song "Stuart." Seriously.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:



Here are some like yours, cherry picked from, well who really cares where from, to propagandize against your propaganda.

Um, my "cherry picked" chart was chosen by Delingpole's assertion.

Hansen's model was (and is) spectacularly successful. The problem was simply that he chose a climate sensitivity that was too high. When values in the range of what we now know CS to be, Hansen's model is very accurate.

I'm afraid you got a bum steer on the RSS. It in no way confirms a lack of warming. In fact, it really doesn't say anything. There's a tiny upward trend. But it isn't even close to statistically significant. Nor would we expect it to be over such a short time period.


NOAA also shows a small warming trend that lacks any significance.


I understand why denialists concentrate on such short time periods. Really, what else have you got? But read this closely: Every temperature series since 1979 for which we can establish a statistically significant trend shows warming. Every. Single. One. So denialists are left cherry picking short durations and cherry pick different data sets but they will be wrong and are wrong every single time.

Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Neapolitan:
If I earned a penny every time a denialist claims there's been no warming in the past XX years, I could've been the one to buy Instagram. Or maybe even Facebook itself...

Anyway, since you've brought up the world of fantasy, perhaps you can answer this question: if the planet hasn't warmed in XX years, what sort of magic do you suppose is causing the ice to melt, and the seas to rise, and weather to become more extreme, and growing seasons to get longer, and winters to get shorter, and all the other ten thousand signs of warming? Pixie dust, maybe? An ancient curse? Voodoo?

Silly denialists...


Ah, but you start with your own deception, no one said 20 years, more like 10-15 years. No one believes the planet isn't warming. We disagree about the true rate and the cause.

But someone like you doesn't really care about the truth. You have an agenda. You are a collectivist, a socialist, perhaps a communist. A world that must be controlled is what you need. So, if the facts don't agree, attack the fact presenter.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In the world of science denial, anything you want is possible!!

- Peter Sinclair


Member Since: Novembro 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting iceagecoming:
By the way, that image was from Europe in Feb. 2012, Looks like they hit the age jackpot. It will be interesting to see the pols try to twist that around and claim it is warming.


Sorry bro, very few people over here believe global warming is a fraud. More people over here believe the moon landing was fake and that 9-11 was done by the CIA in collaboration with the White House than believe global warming is a fraud.

Certainly, no one over here thinks a bad snowstorm is any proof at all that global warming doesn't exist, not when the rest of the winter was very warm in most places.
Member Since: Junho 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting martinitony:



Here are some like yours, cherry picked from, well who really cares where from, to propagandize against your propaganda.
If I earned a penny every time a denialist claims there's been no warming in the past XX years, I could've been the one to buy Instagram. Or maybe even Facebook itself...

Anyway, since you've brought up the world of fantasy, perhaps you can answer this question: if the planet hasn't warmed in XX years, what sort of magic do you suppose is causing the ice to melt, and the seas to rise, and weather to become more extreme, and growing seasons to get longer, and winters to get shorter, and all the other ten thousand signs of warming? Pixie dust, maybe? An ancient curse? Voodoo?

Silly denialists...
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
By the way, that image was from Europe in Feb. 2012, Looks like they hit the age jackpot. It will be interesting to see the pols try to twist that around and claim it is warming.
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
LOE this morning has guests claiming data is being withheld from researchers.
How can that be with a environmental warrior in charge.
Also, Greedpeace also claims the servers running the cloud are ruining our co2 emissions. I suggest you shut off your computers and storm down to the whitehouse and protest these outrages. I wonder if airforce 1 uses biofuel?
News flash. Three largest solar energy companies laying off.
Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting Birthmark:

Because those who aren't scientific illiterates (like Delingpole) know that the reality looks like this:


You'll note that it has indeed been warming since 1997, so Delingpole is clearly wrong.

Pass this on to him so he'll know why scientists and governments continue to work on the problem. The problem still exists. :)

His whining would probably become unnecessary if he would simply take the time to learn the facts before making such stupid and out of touch with reality comments such as the quote above.



Here are some like yours, cherry picked from, well who really cares where from, to propagandize against your propaganda.





Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:
Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

Because those who aren't scientific illiterates (like Delingpole) know that the reality looks like this:


You'll note that it has indeed been warming since 1997, so Delingpole is clearly wrong.

Pass this on to him so he'll know why scientists and governments continue to work on the problem. The problem still exists. :)

His whining would probably become unnecessary if he would simply take the time to learn the facts before making such stupid and out of touch with reality comments such as the quote above.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:



How green zealots are destroying the planet: The provocative claim from a writer vilified for denying global warming

By James Delingpole
UPDATED: 04:06 EST, 7 February 2012

How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?

Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.

Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.




Read more: Link




They should fund snow plows, not carbon capers.

So Delingpole, one of the most vile of all denialists, makes the following statement:

"...there has been no global warming since 1997"

...but then follows that up with the following lament:

"I've been vilified...as a wicked 'denier' who knows nothing about science."

Gee, I'm sitting her scratching my head, as I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would accuse him of such a thing.

Reciting "there's been no warming since 1997" has become a talisman for denialists; they repeat it frequently in the apparent hope that it will somehow come true. Unfortunately, however, such magical utterances only work in fantasy scenarios like fairy tales and the GOP convention.

Silly denialists.
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting martinitony:


Dr. Rood and the rest of you guys have a way of throwing a bunch of stuff out there to suggest that the AGW case has a leg to stand on. It doesn't. Let me sum up the status of it for your.
The Earth appeared to be warming up rapidly. We believed it might have something to do with man caused discharges of CO2. We came up with theories, models and data that seemed to fit what we thought was happening. Now the models don't seem to be working very well and the latest data doesn't seem to support the rapid warming we thought was happening. It even appears that some of the data was incorrect, maybe even distorted by some of our scientists.
We still wants grants and money. So we will stick with our story as long as we can get away with it.



How green zealots are destroying the planet: The provocative claim from a writer vilified for denying global warming

By James Delingpole
UPDATED: 04:06 EST, 7 February 2012

How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?

Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?

These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.

Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.

Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’

That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.




Read more: Link




They should fund snow plows, not carbon capers.

Member Since: Janeiro 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
Quoting TemplesOfSyrinxC4:
Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes
Writing for Forbes Magazine, climate change alarmist Steve Zwick calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be tracked, hunted down and have their homes burned to the ground, yet another shocking illustration of how eco-fascism is rife within the environmentalist lobby.

So, one guy says something and it applies to a whole class of people automatically?

Howzat work? LOL
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting martinitony:Do you deny that there has been no statistical warming over the last 12-15 years?

Not at all. Why should anyone deny it? It's completely expected and has happened many times during the current warming.

Quoting martinitony:Do you deny that the mainstream warmest models didn't predict that in the context of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?

Yes, I do deny that. It's painfully obvious. Statistics tells us it must be so. That is one reason why climate is defined as 30 years. That is enough time to remove the noise of weather from the signal of warming with very high confidence. Duh.

Quoting martinitony:
Do you really deny, based on Climategate E-mails, that there weren't attempts by warmest scientists to keep skeptic articles from seeing daylight and that there weren't modifications and adjustments made to critical data to get a better fit to graphs that warmists presented to the public to "prove" their case?

Given that there is absolutely no credible evidence to support any of those statements, with one exception, there is no reason not to deny that twaddle. It is vacuous.

The one exception was one scientist in one email said he would stop some paper from being included in the IPCC. That paper was in fact included in the IPCC, so it's rather a moot point.

Quoting martinitony:
If you can deny the above, discussion with you is pointless.

Not pointless by any means, just difficult for you. I insist on relevant, in-context, verifiable facts. That's rather a high bar in normal discourse, but we are discussing science. A higher bar is necessary to weed out the tricksters and paid shills. If that bar is too high for you (and I believe it is), then discussion of AGW and CC is pointless to discuss with you since your standards of "evidence" are so low as to allow innuendo, hearsay, and outright falsehoods. If you want fruitful discussion adopt one set of rules and apply it consistently -to those you like and agree with as well as those you don't. You will be rewarded.


Quoting martinitony:
Keep on believing what you wish. Over the next months and years more and more of your arguments will vaporize.

"More" implies that some of my arguments have already evaporated. That has not yet happened. When or if the next one evaporates it will be the first.

Quoting martinitony:
I have said it before and I say it again, in a few years this blog will disappear because of lack of interest.

One of the great things about America is you can say almost anything that you like anything you choose.

One of the great things about the Universe is that it is under no obligation to make what you like actually occur.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting nymore:
It was not my claim it was dana1981's claim over at skeptical science that wrote about it. If you had any reading skills you would have known that since I posted it.

You posted it. It wasn't a quote of someone else. It was you.

Also, that statement is not contained within the article SkS. You are making things up.

Quoting nymore:
I see you want it both ways when the graph you posted showed cooling since 1998 the margin of error comes into play, when you post a graph showing warming than you get upset when I bring the margin of error up.

Again, you are making things up. That should come as no surprise to anyone since you've admitted that you are a troll. Any problem you have about that graph is yours. Had you said "no statistically significant warming" instead of simply "no warming" you wouldn't be so embarrassed that you would have to make things up. Next time, state what you mean clearly.

Quoting nymore:
You know and I know there has been no warming outside the margin of error in 16 years and counting. I don't believe that was predicted.

What you believe is both irrelevant and wrong. It so happens that only twice in the history of the UAH data has a 17-year period based on calendar years displayed statistically significant warming. That occurred in both 1991 - 2007 and 1992 - 2008. The rest of the time there was no statistically significant warming or cooling.

That means in 14 of the 16 periods of 17 years that we can test for at this point, the warming failed to be statistically significant.

I trust that you now will adjust your belief on this issue. LOL
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Your claim was that "they {satellites} show no warming since 1995." Obviously you were wrong. UAH shows warming. You only bring up statistical significance now to try to distract from the fact that your claim has been refuted.

Next time, if you mean "statistically significant warming" then say so. ;^P

(EDIT: I should have stated that RSS also shows warming.)
It was not my claim it was dana1981's claim over at skeptical science that wrote about it. If you had any reading skills you would have known that since I posted it.

I see you want it both ways when the graph you posted showed cooling since 1998 the margin of error comes into play, when you post a graph showing warming than you get upset when I bring the margin of error up.

You know and I know there has been no warming outside the margin of error in 16 years and counting. I don't believe that was predicted.
Member Since: Julho 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2260
Quoting Birthmark:
Dismembering the latest fairy-tales told by martinitony is actually easier done than said.

That "bunch of stuff"...yeah, they're called facts. Many people, hopefully most, prefer them to fairy tales.


No, the Earth was --and is-- warming. That is a fact that is beyond any rational doubt. Irrational doubts (and doubters) are never in short supply. However, they can be summarily dismissed because...well, they're irrational. :^)


No belief to it. Physics tells us that that must be so. It is also attested to by many lines of independent evidence.


Again, wrong. "We" came up with hypotheses and models and tested them against observation. Turns out we have a reasonably good handle on what the problem is, where it came from, and very generally what is going to happen. However, nothing is science is perfect --ever. Trading on tiny uncertainty and imperfection isn't the mark of someone after truth and accuracy. It is a sure sign that someone is trying to deceive those who don't know science generally and AGW science in particular.


That's utter nonsense that is totally disconnected from reality. That reality is that the models have done pretty well. Again, not perfect but well enough.

Where the models don't do perfectly is actually good news for scientists. It tells them where they can learn something new.


That is a malicious lie. I'll say it again. That is a malicious lie. Further, I challenge you to post any credible evidence whatsoever that that is the case. You can't.

All you can provide is out of context quotes and naked assertions with no facts to back them up. Misunderstanding is one thing, but libeling people is odious and under-handed


See? This is how I can tell that you don't know how to think critically. The truth is, if AGW was wrong there would be even more grant money. Some would be to find out just what the hell really is going on with climate. Some to find out why 150 years of physics is wrong. And some to do things I can't even think of! LOL

But feel free to enjoy your fairy-tales if they make you feel better. I'll only bother you when you attempt to palm them off as reality.


Do you deny that there has been no statistical warming over the last 12-15 years?
Do you deny that the mainstream warmest models didn't predict that in the context of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
Do you really deny, based on Climategate E-mails, that there weren't attempts by warmest scientists to keep skeptic articles from seeing daylight and that there weren't modifications and adjustments made to critical data to get a better fit to graphs that warmists presented to the public to "prove" their case?
If you can deny the above, discussion with you is pointless.
Keep on believing what you wish. Over the next months and years more and more of your arguments will vaporize.
I have said it before and I say it again, in a few years this blog will disappear because of lack of interest.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For the record I saw related damage to the Alaskan Spruce trees in 1998. The great destruction of that species was due to the increase in population and range of the Spruce Bark Beetle in the warming environment. Whole mountainsides of gray dead trees. Disturbing, to say the least.

I've used the pictures in Climate Change lectures as it appears to be something that people can relate to.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate Science Watch Link.

A bit of good news from Washington (you don't see that everyday) with many more informative links.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
I must say,Nea. I might be a little bit more optimistic in my view. Hopefully with advancements being made in the green energy techno field,we can turn the tide a little bit. No pun intended!
I'd like to believe that myself, but time and again we've seen that assuming future technology will save us from ourselves is profoundly foolish...
Member Since: Novembro 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Dismembering the latest fairy-tales told by martinitony is actually easier done than said.
Quoting martinitony:


Dr. Rood and the rest of you guys have a way of throwing a bunch of stuff out there to suggest that the AGW case has a leg to stand on. It doesn't. Let me sum up the status of it for your.

That "bunch of stuff"...yeah, they're called facts. Many people, hopefully most, prefer them to fairy tales.

Quoting martinitony:


The Earth appeared to be warming up rapidly.

No, the Earth was --and is-- warming. That is a fact that is beyond any rational doubt. Irrational doubts (and doubters) are never in short supply. However, they can be summarily dismissed because...well, they're irrational. :^)

Quoting martinitony:


We believed it might have something to do with man caused discharges of CO2.

No belief to it. Physics tells us that that must be so. It is also attested to by many lines of independent evidence.

Quoting martinitony:
We came up with theories, models and data that seemed to fit what we thought was happening.

Again, wrong. "We" came up with hypotheses and models and tested them against observation. Turns out we have a reasonably good handle on what the problem is, where it came from, and very generally what is going to happen. However, nothing is science is perfect --ever. Trading on tiny uncertainty and imperfection isn't the mark of someone after truth and accuracy. It is a sure sign that someone is trying to deceive those who don't know science generally and AGW science in particular.

Quoting martinitony:
Now the models don't seem to be working very well and the latest data doesn't seem to support the rapid warming we thought was happening.

That's utter nonsense that is totally disconnected from reality. That reality is that the models have done pretty well. Again, not perfect but well enough.

Where the models don't do perfectly is actually good news for scientists. It tells them where they can learn something new.

Quoting martinitony:
It even appears that some of the data was incorrect, maybe even distorted by some of our scientists.

That is a malicious lie. I'll say it again. That is a malicious lie. Further, I challenge you to post any credible evidence whatsoever that that is the case. You can't.

All you can provide is out of context quotes and naked assertions with no facts to back them up. Misunderstanding is one thing, but libeling people is odious and under-handed

Quoting martinitony:
We still wants grants and money. So we will stick with our story as long as we can get away with it.

See? This is how I can tell that you don't know how to think critically. The truth is, if AGW was wrong there would be even more grant money. Some would be to find out just what the hell really is going on with climate. Some to find out why 150 years of physics is wrong. And some to do things I can't even think of! LOL

But feel free to enjoy your fairy-tales if they make you feel better. I'll only bother you when you attempt to palm them off as reality.
Member Since: Outubro 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 244 - 194

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Clear
39 °F
Céu Limpo