Your comments about a recent inactive hurricane season have been proven wrong since last year a record two category 5 hurricanes made landfall in 2007 .... Also, please think globally. China, Japan and Australia were all hit by typhoons and cyclones last year. The global weather pattens are becoming very aggressive around the globe. Climate change is here and if nothing is done it will get worse.
Nonsence. Look at the history of hurrican records and you will see we have had cat 5 hurricanes for centuries. Go to worlclimatereport[dot]com and search hurricanes. The IPCC said itself that there is no global warming signal in the hurricane record.
So in other words, you won't believe in AGW until it is already too late and we're in the midst of a global disaster. Can't you see how foolish that is?
Prove that Carbon is incapable of warming the atmosphere, human activity isn't injecting carbon into the atmosphere and the rising temperatures can be 100% explained by some other phenomenon.
So, isn't it fare to say that we should be finding other energy sources because it benefits the climate AND our economic stability?
You didnt answer my question. I'll answer yours. Its an ASSUMPTION that the current rising temps will be a global disaster. Past changes including the medieval warm period was warmer than today and was a boon to humans. More crops. Wild life thrived. Prove this time it will be different!
I didn't say that global warming would lead to a global disaster. I don't really know if it will or not. But given that AGW is real and the uncertainty of the outcome given the risk, it makes sense that we should do something about it if we can. You'd only accept AGW if it causes a catastrophe like significant sea level rise, massive climatic changes and the like.
So, you'd rather sit on you bum so you have th chance of pointing your finger and say "I told you so"
Precautionary principle says that one should not act unless those that postulate the action can show their actions will work, will not cause harm. Can you show that?
It does NOT say that. It says unless there is a lack of scientific consensus that says that there would be no harm, then we should not do it. There is a clear scientific consensus by all the most prestigious and historically accurate scientific organization. Enough said.
There is no clear consensus. There is mounting scientists who are becoming more vocal who do not agree with the "consensus." Check Wiki on the definition of the Precationary Princple.
That is a ridiculous argument. Any action taken has the potential of not working and doing more harm than good. That's why we do a risk analysis. Based on my careful analysis, to not take action has the greater cost than taking action does so it is better to take action. But, being a computer guy you think in binary terms. Either we take action or we don't. In reality it is much more complicated as we should take action but not enough that it will take us into an economic crises.
I already have, you don't pay attention. I am not climatologist I am another type of scientist and my field of expertise is statistics and risk assessment. My analysis, given that AGW is real, and the most prestigious and historically accurate scientific organizations say that we need to do something to curb it. Run the analysis and the expected value of inaction is far less than taking action. Enough said.
Better read this: "UN SUPPORTS INDIA'S POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE" If CO2 is so bad, how come the UN supports India's continued emissions? "they cannot be forced to compromise to set emission targets at the cost of their development." It's a big scam.
Yea, I've read more. The UN is definitely not interested in curbing CO2 for China or India as they claim their PER CAPITA CO2 emissions are still less than the US, even though in 20 years China will emit more CO@ that everyone else COMBINED! BTW, see worldclimatereport and co2science recent posts.
"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined. "
Of course - if they can adequately prove that all the temperature rise can be attributed to another cause other than the additional carbon in the atmosphere, then I would be very willing to listen to their results.
Tell me, if these scientists show that the sun makes little difference and can not account for the entire rise in global temperatures, then will you listen to them or dismiss them as you do others? I am willing to listen, but as you lead by example and turn away from my previous arguments (like this one) to try to prove a point and you fail to prove your point, then I think the later is more likely.
Um, nope - I am afraid that is not the case. There is a recored rise in temperatures since 1998, though at a slower rate than before, but still a noticeable upward trend.
Then how come your friends at RealClimate have admited it has not changed, and if it continues to not change for the next 5 years they will have to "rethink" their whole climate model?
It has changed - no doubt about it. I can read charts fairly well (I make a living out of it) and I see changes in temperatures. The hottest year on record thus far? 2005
I would expect to see up and downs, but on an average, the temperatures are without a doubt trending upwards. So, are you going to answer the original question or change the subject?
Show me the refs. What do you mean "so far" as "so far" the "hotest temp is still 1934. I have the references to back that up. So how come the guys are realclimate admit it's been flat since 1998?
Maybe you don't say that now, but the alarmists do. As you have already seen sea level rise has not changed, so unless that changes there is no threat from it at all. Give examples of "massive climatic change" and evidence to support it.
I'll repeat myself - you have yet to dispute this. If we have the significant sea level rise as you are waiting for as proof, then it would be too late. Also, rise in sea level is not indicative of AGW, Rise in temperatures is. Also experiments proving carbon in the atmosphere will increase the atmosphere's ability to retain heat and that human activities is injecting huge amounts of carbon in the atmosphere is proof that AGW is a contributor to global temperature increases. Enough said.
In science the onus is on those who promote the positive. I do not have to disprove AGW will not be disasterous, your side has to provide the evidnece to be scrutinized. None of those are "proofs", they are evidence. BTW, the earth average temp has been flat since 1998, but we've been there before. All your "proofs" are evaporating.
Other than a shrinking ice cap and significant glacier meltdown. The famed Northwest Passage may actually become a reality in the next 10 years or so. But, since I look at photographs - they're just all lying to us right? Those must be fake photos, right?
The north west passage was free during WWI navigated by an RCMP ship, made several trips over several years. The melting ice is exposing fora that was exposed during the medieval warm period. So what, just a normal cycle.
You're something else - the train could be coming down the tracks at full speed whistle blowing lights flashing and you'd say "what train? Google 'There's no train' or 'She ain't comin 'round the mountain" That is until you dance on the tracks until it smacks you hard.
Insults does not provide evidence you are right. I've not insulted you, why to you insult my intellegence? Common tactic of people who cannot defend their position.
I am just pointing out to you that the only way you'll accept AGW is for it to already be to late to avoid a disaster. You've made that perfectly clear, just like a guy dancing on the tracks ignoring all signs until he gets hit by the train. Until you unfreeze your mind to the possibility that it is happening, then there is no point in arguing with you about it. I have presented arguments in support of AGW that you ignore. So it's about the same as teaching a cat to talk.
I can just as equaly claim that you refuse to see contradictory evidence that does not support AGW theory. We now have people saying the sever cold in China is because of global warming!!! PROVE IT!
You haven't presented any. You keep coming up with saying that there isn't any proof of AGW because of no rise in sea levels. However, that isn't proof of AGW. Rising temperatures is - not rising sea levels. You have yet to show me anything that will convince me otherwise.
Ok, new items recently published: Actic sea ice LARGEST in 15 years this winter. Average temps falling or level since 1998, there has been no warming since then. Antartic ice largest in 50 years. So where's the warming?
You don't fully understand the mechanics of AGW and climate otherwise you wouldn't ask this question. Specific weather events can't be attributed to AGW. AGW adds energy to the system and you would expect to have vast changes from cold to hot, in a better term, it essentially destabilizes the weather patterns which lead to dramatic differences. You'll see deep cold spells as well as prolong droughts. If you can't understand the basic mechanics than you'll never see the train coming at you.
Pure speculation. Problem for you is you are not looking at the new data. You hang on the notion that the planet MUST be warming up, and ANY contradictory evidence, like it hasn't warmed since 1998, is just an "anomoly" of AGW instead of the contradictory evidence it is. There is no contradictory evidence in dogma is there? Everything is rationalizable.
Still don't get it. I think the terminology is confusing. Climate destabilization is probably a better term. Again, I ask, what do you get when you add energy in a chaotic system? You have a very typically narrow view and if you broaden your view, you might see it better. You, instead, focus on every bit of evidence that leads to your own pre-established conclusions. So, like the guy dancing on the train tracks, you only will listen when it is too late. Such a pity.
So explain then where this energy is coming from, what evidence you have that this energy is changing the climate. So far the evidence is that the climate is cooling and/or stable. So your "theory" is flawed, no matter how much you try to insult my intellegence.
Ultimately, from the sun. In a normal energy cycle on Earth, the sun's rays hit the Earth and a portion, called the albedo rate, is reflected - the other portion is radiated as infrared radiation. That infrared radiation is being trapped by green house gases. Since human activity is releasing tons of carbon bases gases and carbon based gases are proved to trap infrared radiation, the energy that would normally escape does not, and thus the additional energy. So what would you expect to see?
So why has the temp not increased since 1998 even though CO2 has continued to increase? It's stopped increasing just as the sun went into a new cycle.
Do you doubt anything I said about green house gases or do you want to continue to change the subject? I have no doubt the sun cycle has an impact on the temperatures, but it doesn't explain the entire temperature change. If you're argument is true, then we should be cooling rather than flattening out.
And that is EXACTLY what some climatologists are now predicting. I have several new papers that suggest we are headed into a new mini-ice age. Additional greehouse gasses? Most significant is water vapour.
There is no alternative that can be scaled up to replace oil. We're doomed from this, not AGW that is hundreds of years from now. One can argue that warmer climate will allow more people to survive the coming crash due to oil depletion.
There are reasons to be alarmed, you have to justify your alarmist position. Do some serious reading on oil depletion and alternatives. Get The Long Emergency and read it. Then visit TheOilDrum and read the daily posts. There are no scalable alternatives to oil.
There are no scalable alternatives to oil ...yet...
There are many such alternatives but the infrastructure is not yet ready to convert to it. The rising cost of oil does, however, carry the benefit of increasing the likelihood that businesses, consumers and governments will invest more into these technologies.
Nuclear (powering electrical cars), Geothermal in certain areas and Tidal currents turbines come to mind. Hydrogen can be made by other means but it is just not economically viable. Solar energy has a great potential.
Ethanol and other biofuels are not a very good alternative but biofuels can play a small role.
When you add all of these together, you get a viable source of energy other than fossil fuels. Who's the doom and gloom guy now?
Have you calculated how many nuke plants would be required in the US to replace gasoline? Try several thousand. There isn't enough uranium minable to supply them. Solar is minimal as the metals required for the panels is in short supply.
I have no doubt you're a great computer software developer. You are wrong when it comes to probabilities v. possibilities. In reality there are an infinite number of columns and rows. He was using the extreme examples and was careful to point that out. You're thinking of a binary system that have a finite number of outcomes. Your arguments have no bearing on a natural system with an infinite number of outcomes.
If I were to develop a database to classify the peer reviewed papers i would not be able to have an infinite number of possibilites. The more cells you have the greater the fineness of the results. My suggestion would actually be a cube.
It would be very easy to have an infinite number of outcomes. For instance our economic response, we can choose to spend $0.01 or $1,000,000,000,000 to solve the problem or any number above or between the two. Also the economic results will be drastically different depending on where you are on the planet. Some place will actually benefit while others have the potential of suffering greatly. It is a natural system, thus an infinite number of outcomes.
And hence there is no way to predict how the future will unfold. You just acknoledged that the system is chaotic and hence any predictions cannot be a "will be". That any action is nothing more than a hopefull guess.
That's where the probability has to be applied. How likely is that AGW is occurring. For me, there is no doubt at all - you'll be hard pressed to and you haven't at all) show me that isn't the case. Where it gets tricky is the results, so you have to apply probability in that part of the equation based on passed observations and try to make your best, or rather, most educated guess. This is how we deal with the unknown - take calculated risks.
With no doubt at all, how do you reconcile that sea level rate has not changed, that the arctic and antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking, that temps have been constant since 1998. New report shows that hurricans will be FEWER with warmer seas. What's left?
Sigh. You just don't get it do you? AGW doesn't mean more hurricanes - it doesn't make the hurricane, it may help fuel them but it doesn't make them. Again classic example of confusing weather with climate.
The Satellite altimetry that I trust shows a clear shrinkage of the polar ice caps on both ends of the Earth.
So then why does Gore claim therew ill be more harder hurricanes? Who's the one who's confused? Ice is growing in both the antarctic and greenland, faster than the rate of peripheral melting. Globally coldest winter in past 10 years. Arctic ice melt due to change in currents, nothing to do with warmer temps.
Again, you're stating things that aren't true. You'd like them to be, but they are not. Looking at satellite altimetry and there is no doubt the ice caps are shrinking. But of course, any photo graphic evidence is immediately ignored. Show me a photo of the ice caps growing and your argument may have merit.
There are stronger hurricanes than before. If the conditions are right and a hurricane is formed it is much more likely to be massive than before. 2 category 5 hurricanes making landfall in 1 year is unprecedented and it happened in 2007. I thought the ice was growing, not shrinking? Now who's confused?
Check your facts. We've had cat 5 hurricanes in the past many times, the 1930s for one. Check worldclimatereport they have many articles on hurricanes.
Not two in one year that made land fall. We've had 8 cat 5 storms since 2000, only 2 during the 1990's and 3 in the 1980's. The cat 5 storms used to be exceedingly and rare now they are very frequent. Check your facts sir, that evidence is very compelling. No decade has had more than 6 and we still have 2 more hurricane seasons to go in this decade.
I disagree and I've shown you why. Hurricanes are likely to be stronger with AGW and the evidence I see seems to support that conclusion. A better way, because you still get hung up on weather v. climate, is to say that AGW will make the weather more unpredictable. You'll see dramatic differences year over year in weather events and global temperatures. AGW fuels weather, it doesn't cause it. It will make cold spells last longer and cyclonic storms more severe.
Then you better email the head of the IPCC and take that disagreement of yours to him. Also worldclimatereport has an article about storms in Europe over the past 5000 years. No change in intensity or nuumber.
"This paper uses observational data to demonstrate that the attribution of the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity to global warming is premature and that global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States."
Wang, C., and S.-K. Lee (2008), Global warming and United States landfalling hurricanes, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L02708, doi:10.1029/2007GL032396.
I have and can find plenty of evidence that disproves everything they say. I guess it is, again, who do you trust? The most prestigious and historically accurate institutions and organizations of science in the world or a bunch of rouge scientists most of which are speaking out of their area of study and expertise. Things that make you go hmmmm..
I am skeptical of AGW but I am not hostile to it. I simply do a risk analysis and determine that AGW is likely to be a very bad thing and if we can do something about we certainly should. I leave the science to the scientists in that area of study and once again, The most prestigious and accurate scientific organizations say that there is a likely chance that we are heading toward a major crises and especially when doing something about it carries no probable harm to humanity and many benefits.
And I claim that these same organizations have their own hidden political adgenda for making these statements. Many sciencists in those organizations disagree with the politics and direction of those statements.
You used a ref analogy so if you know one ref who makes quick judgments and calls, you'd expect that ref to have a higher error rate. If you have another ref that doesn't make calls but only chimes in when the evidence is overwhelming and as a result has never been wrong. The cautious ref may miss a few things but when s/he makes a call you better believe it is correct. Such is with these organizations. These organizations I speak of rarely make a call but when they do, it is smart to listen.
IPCC in their 2007 report clearly states "Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region" (in fact, Antarctic sea ice extent has recently set record highs for both total areal extent as well as total extent anomaly
IPCC tells the world (and we wonder if anyone is listening) "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."
I love the fact you say "current" as based on "current information" but who's the say that won't remain constant. You're right it is likely it is the case right now. However, who's to say that it won't be the case in the future? Also, as most scientists will quickly point out, if you wait for the melting you want to see - it will already be too late.
In what way? It doesn't in any way hype what is going on today. All the scientists say that it points to probable future if it continues to rise as the rate it is. They also say that once it begins it will be too late as "There will be few options for us to curb a catastrophe."
If you think that what is expected to happen should be happening now, I can see why you're confused.
It is not ALL scientists. That is blatantly false. It is a FEW scientists with highly questionable motives. Thus the alarmism is make believe and not what the future will be. You stated yourself it is infinitely complex, hence there is no way of predicting the future.
It isn't a few but I can't say that it is all of them (and I haven't). You say it is false because that's what you believe. I say it is not false because the most prestigious organizations and universities say it is. I little reason to doubt them because of their history and I can see no obvious bias. Most studies that point the other way are well funded by organizations that have an obvious bias and I tend to weigh that evidence less than from other sources.
Compare funding. For climate change research past 20 years = $50,000 MILLION. Against climate change same period $18 Million. So who has the incentive to keep the myth going?
First it isn't a myth, AGW is real there isn't any doubt about it. Where do you get these numbers and how can you say for or against anything? Research is research to me, it makes more sense to say that $68 BILLION spent on research on climate change, if that figure is even accurate which I highly doubt.
AGW is a THEORY! It is NOT fact. There is CONSIDERABLE doubt in many aspects of the theory, which I have presented to you and you have agreed to them. If you have issue with the numbers take it up with newsweek, they had a big issue about it.
A theory is as good as you get with science as it can never be 100% about anything. The laws of motion are a theory and gravity is a theory. You have not given any evidence to deny AGW at all. Your arguments are only focusing on the results of AGW, not the cause. Increasing temperatures is proof of AGW, not rising sea levels. Higher CO2 levels is proof, not hurricanes. Experiments proving that CO2 causes the atmosphere to hold more heat is proof, not cold winters. You don't deny any of these.
The sun does impact the rate of temperature rise but it not explain all of the temperature increase. Experiments in labs are what proved that we can fly and almost every other scientific discovery. Experiments in labs and models are not reality but they are much better at finding out the truth then listening to a non-scientist who refuses to acknowledge any evidence which contradicts his preconceived ideas about how things are.
bad analogy. Those experiements were successful only because we understood the science. You cannot then jumpt to climate as, as you have verified, there are unlimited possibilities, hence a system of chaos which we cannot model, only approximate.
Again you're confusing weather with climate. Until we're on the same page, there is little else I can say to you. You have not grasp the concepts yet and its like talking to a wall.
Weather is controlled by chaos theory, climate is not. Simple is back ad no book you mention or argument you make will change that. Climate is a study of the weather patterns and answers questions like why is the Sarah Desert dry? There is nothing chaotic about the fact that the Sahara Desert is dry.
Then take that argument to climatologists as they are the ones who say that climate is controled by chaos theory. Since they are the experts then your position is not correct.
Let me be clear. We're not taking about the climate of a single area of the earth, we're talking about the entire climate system including ocean patterns, sun input, continental configurations, etc. That's where the chaos comes in.
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system"
To see the rebuttal to this video, watch the "How it all Ends" series by wonderingmind42. jrwakefield,
Thanks for your criticism. It cuts through a lot of the exaggerations by the media and Al Gore. It also went a long way towards making "How it All Ends" as good as it was.
I like the cockatoo in the background!
gumsrx64 3 years ago
Your comments about a recent inactive hurricane season have been proven wrong since last year a record two category 5 hurricanes made landfall in 2007 .... Also, please think globally. China, Japan and Australia were all hit by typhoons and cyclones last year. The global weather pattens are becoming very aggressive around the globe. Climate change is here and if nothing is done it will get worse.
antcitrix 3 years ago
Nonsence. Look at the history of hurrican records and you will see we have had cat 5 hurricanes for centuries. Go to worlclimatereport[dot]com and search hurricanes. The IPCC said itself that there is no global warming signal in the hurricane record.
jrwakefield 3 years ago
What would it take for you to be convinced that:
1. AGW is real and
2. AGW has the potential of bringing on a major economic and social crises?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Waiting for it to actually unfold. Predictions mean squat if they are not based on evidence.
What would it take to convince you that AGW is not real?
Economic and social crisis? Read up on peak oil. Within 10 years we will be 20% short in world wide production.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
So in other words, you won't believe in AGW until it is already too late and we're in the midst of a global disaster. Can't you see how foolish that is?
Prove that Carbon is incapable of warming the atmosphere, human activity isn't injecting carbon into the atmosphere and the rising temperatures can be 100% explained by some other phenomenon.
So, isn't it fare to say that we should be finding other energy sources because it benefits the climate AND our economic stability?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
You didnt answer my question. I'll answer yours. Its an ASSUMPTION that the current rising temps will be a global disaster. Past changes including the medieval warm period was warmer than today and was a boon to humans. More crops. Wild life thrived. Prove this time it will be different!
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I didn't say that global warming would lead to a global disaster. I don't really know if it will or not. But given that AGW is real and the uncertainty of the outcome given the risk, it makes sense that we should do something about it if we can. You'd only accept AGW if it causes a catastrophe like significant sea level rise, massive climatic changes and the like.
So, you'd rather sit on you bum so you have th chance of pointing your finger and say "I told you so"
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Precautionary principle says that one should not act unless those that postulate the action can show their actions will work, will not cause harm. Can you show that?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
It does NOT say that. It says unless there is a lack of scientific consensus that says that there would be no harm, then we should not do it. There is a clear scientific consensus by all the most prestigious and historically accurate scientific organization. Enough said.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
There is no clear consensus. There is mounting scientists who are becoming more vocal who do not agree with the "consensus." Check Wiki on the definition of the Precationary Princple.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Can you show that the actions you want taken will actually work and not do more harm than good?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
That is a ridiculous argument. Any action taken has the potential of not working and doing more harm than good. That's why we do a risk analysis. Based on my careful analysis, to not take action has the greater cost than taking action does so it is better to take action. But, being a computer guy you think in binary terms. Either we take action or we don't. In reality it is much more complicated as we should take action but not enough that it will take us into an economic crises.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
"Based on my careful analysis, to not take action has the greater cost than taking action does so it is better to take action."
Let's see it so I can evaluate it as being viable or not. Post your evidence!
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I already have, you don't pay attention. I am not climatologist I am another type of scientist and my field of expertise is statistics and risk assessment. My analysis, given that AGW is real, and the most prestigious and historically accurate scientific organizations say that we need to do something to curb it. Run the analysis and the expected value of inaction is far less than taking action. Enough said.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Does yoour analysis take into account what's happening in Europe with the carbon trading system? People loosing their jobs?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Better read this: "UN SUPPORTS INDIA'S POSITION ON CLIMATE CHANGE" If CO2 is so bad, how come the UN supports India's continued emissions? "they cannot be forced to compromise to set emission targets at the cost of their development." It's a big scam.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Um, you might want to read that one again.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Yea, I've read more. The UN is definitely not interested in curbing CO2 for China or India as they claim their PER CAPITA CO2 emissions are still less than the US, even though in 20 years China will emit more CO@ that everyone else COMBINED! BTW, see worldclimatereport and co2science recent posts.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
So, what's your point?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Point is obvious, any actions by "rich" nations to curb CO2 will be futile and will do nothing more than kill our prosperity.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
So, in other words, you believe in AGW - case closed, thanks for listening. Why would you care if you didn't believe in AGW?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Because I do not want to loose our life style on some leftist plot to kill capitalism.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Well, as you can plainly see, this point of your argument is going no where, as it contradicts your argument to begin with.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
"THE SUN ALSO SETS"
"Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined. "
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Great, give them the money, I'd be interested in their results.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Question is, if they show that this is happening would you give up AGW?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Of course - if they can adequately prove that all the temperature rise can be attributed to another cause other than the additional carbon in the atmosphere, then I would be very willing to listen to their results.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Tell me, if these scientists show that the sun makes little difference and can not account for the entire rise in global temperatures, then will you listen to them or dismiss them as you do others? I am willing to listen, but as you lead by example and turn away from my previous arguments (like this one) to try to prove a point and you fail to prove your point, then I think the later is more likely.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
What rise in global temps? It's been flat since 1998.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Um, nope - I am afraid that is not the case. There is a recored rise in temperatures since 1998, though at a slower rate than before, but still a noticeable upward trend.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Then how come your friends at RealClimate have admited it has not changed, and if it continues to not change for the next 5 years they will have to "rethink" their whole climate model?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
It has changed - no doubt about it. I can read charts fairly well (I make a living out of it) and I see changes in temperatures. The hottest year on record thus far? 2005
I would expect to see up and downs, but on an average, the temperatures are without a doubt trending upwards. So, are you going to answer the original question or change the subject?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Show me the refs. What do you mean "so far" as "so far" the "hotest temp is still 1934. I have the references to back that up. So how come the guys are realclimate admit it's been flat since 1998?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Maybe you don't say that now, but the alarmists do. As you have already seen sea level rise has not changed, so unless that changes there is no threat from it at all. Give examples of "massive climatic change" and evidence to support it.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I'll repeat myself - you have yet to dispute this. If we have the significant sea level rise as you are waiting for as proof, then it would be too late. Also, rise in sea level is not indicative of AGW, Rise in temperatures is. Also experiments proving carbon in the atmosphere will increase the atmosphere's ability to retain heat and that human activities is injecting huge amounts of carbon in the atmosphere is proof that AGW is a contributor to global temperature increases. Enough said.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
In science the onus is on those who promote the positive. I do not have to disprove AGW will not be disasterous, your side has to provide the evidnece to be scrutinized. None of those are "proofs", they are evidence. BTW, the earth average temp has been flat since 1998, but we've been there before. All your "proofs" are evaporating.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
One more evaporating:
Google "MORE ICE THAN EVER" Look at the references and specifically read The American Spectator article. So much for melting Antartic ice.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Go to CO2Science and read "The American Geophysical Union's Official Position on Global Warming"
jrwakefield 4 years ago
You also need to read worldclimatereports new bit "1,500 Years of Cooling in the Arctic" Nothing extraordinary going on today.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Other than a shrinking ice cap and significant glacier meltdown. The famed Northwest Passage may actually become a reality in the next 10 years or so. But, since I look at photographs - they're just all lying to us right? Those must be fake photos, right?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
The north west passage was free during WWI navigated by an RCMP ship, made several trips over several years. The melting ice is exposing fora that was exposed during the medieval warm period. So what, just a normal cycle.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
More bad news for you:
Google:
"Industry shelving investments over EU emissions plans" and "Green laws and regulation risk energy crisis, say Europe's power companies"
So much for your cost benefit analysis.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
You're something else - the train could be coming down the tracks at full speed whistle blowing lights flashing and you'd say "what train? Google 'There's no train' or 'She ain't comin 'round the mountain" That is until you dance on the tracks until it smacks you hard.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Insults does not provide evidence you are right. I've not insulted you, why to you insult my intellegence? Common tactic of people who cannot defend their position.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Better read this: "COLLAPSING ICE SHEET MAY NOT HAVE BEEN VICTIM OF GLOBAL WARMING"
"our new study shows that ice shelf break-up is not controlled simply by climate"
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I am just pointing out to you that the only way you'll accept AGW is for it to already be to late to avoid a disaster. You've made that perfectly clear, just like a guy dancing on the tracks ignoring all signs until he gets hit by the train. Until you unfreeze your mind to the possibility that it is happening, then there is no point in arguing with you about it. I have presented arguments in support of AGW that you ignore. So it's about the same as teaching a cat to talk.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
I can just as equaly claim that you refuse to see contradictory evidence that does not support AGW theory. We now have people saying the sever cold in China is because of global warming!!! PROVE IT!
jrwakefield 4 years ago
You haven't presented any. You keep coming up with saying that there isn't any proof of AGW because of no rise in sea levels. However, that isn't proof of AGW. Rising temperatures is - not rising sea levels. You have yet to show me anything that will convince me otherwise.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Ok, new items recently published: Actic sea ice LARGEST in 15 years this winter. Average temps falling or level since 1998, there has been no warming since then. Antartic ice largest in 50 years. So where's the warming?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
You don't fully understand the mechanics of AGW and climate otherwise you wouldn't ask this question. Specific weather events can't be attributed to AGW. AGW adds energy to the system and you would expect to have vast changes from cold to hot, in a better term, it essentially destabilizes the weather patterns which lead to dramatic differences. You'll see deep cold spells as well as prolong droughts. If you can't understand the basic mechanics than you'll never see the train coming at you.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Pure speculation. Problem for you is you are not looking at the new data. You hang on the notion that the planet MUST be warming up, and ANY contradictory evidence, like it hasn't warmed since 1998, is just an "anomoly" of AGW instead of the contradictory evidence it is. There is no contradictory evidence in dogma is there? Everything is rationalizable.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Still don't get it. I think the terminology is confusing. Climate destabilization is probably a better term. Again, I ask, what do you get when you add energy in a chaotic system? You have a very typically narrow view and if you broaden your view, you might see it better. You, instead, focus on every bit of evidence that leads to your own pre-established conclusions. So, like the guy dancing on the train tracks, you only will listen when it is too late. Such a pity.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
So explain then where this energy is coming from, what evidence you have that this energy is changing the climate. So far the evidence is that the climate is cooling and/or stable. So your "theory" is flawed, no matter how much you try to insult my intellegence.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Ultimately, from the sun. In a normal energy cycle on Earth, the sun's rays hit the Earth and a portion, called the albedo rate, is reflected - the other portion is radiated as infrared radiation. That infrared radiation is being trapped by green house gases. Since human activity is releasing tons of carbon bases gases and carbon based gases are proved to trap infrared radiation, the energy that would normally escape does not, and thus the additional energy. So what would you expect to see?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
So why has the temp not increased since 1998 even though CO2 has continued to increase? It's stopped increasing just as the sun went into a new cycle.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Do you doubt anything I said about green house gases or do you want to continue to change the subject? I have no doubt the sun cycle has an impact on the temperatures, but it doesn't explain the entire temperature change. If you're argument is true, then we should be cooling rather than flattening out.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
And that is EXACTLY what some climatologists are now predicting. I have several new papers that suggest we are headed into a new mini-ice age. Additional greehouse gasses? Most significant is water vapour.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
"SUN STAYS SLUGGISH AS SCIENTISTS FIGHT FOR ANTI-ICE AGE FUNDING" Sun has major contribution to our climate, future might be cooler not warmer.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
There is no alternative that can be scaled up to replace oil. We're doomed from this, not AGW that is hundreds of years from now. One can argue that warmer climate will allow more people to survive the coming crash due to oil depletion.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Who is to say that there isn't an alternative to oil that can scaled up to replace it? Who is the alarmist now?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
There are reasons to be alarmed, you have to justify your alarmist position. Do some serious reading on oil depletion and alternatives. Get The Long Emergency and read it. Then visit TheOilDrum and read the daily posts. There are no scalable alternatives to oil.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
There are no scalable alternatives to oil ...yet...
There are many such alternatives but the infrastructure is not yet ready to convert to it. The rising cost of oil does, however, carry the benefit of increasing the likelihood that businesses, consumers and governments will invest more into these technologies.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Ethanol: Will take more land than there are farms in the US, squeezing out all foods.
Wind: Would require the builing of nearly one MILLION turbines taking hundreds of years to build.
Hydrogen: net loss in energy, not viable
What's left?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Nuclear (powering electrical cars), Geothermal in certain areas and Tidal currents turbines come to mind. Hydrogen can be made by other means but it is just not economically viable. Solar energy has a great potential.
Ethanol and other biofuels are not a very good alternative but biofuels can play a small role.
When you add all of these together, you get a viable source of energy other than fossil fuels. Who's the doom and gloom guy now?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Have you calculated how many nuke plants would be required in the US to replace gasoline? Try several thousand. There isn't enough uranium minable to supply them. Solar is minimal as the metals required for the panels is in short supply.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I have no doubt you're a great computer software developer. You are wrong when it comes to probabilities v. possibilities. In reality there are an infinite number of columns and rows. He was using the extreme examples and was careful to point that out. You're thinking of a binary system that have a finite number of outcomes. Your arguments have no bearing on a natural system with an infinite number of outcomes.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
If I were to develop a database to classify the peer reviewed papers i would not be able to have an infinite number of possibilites. The more cells you have the greater the fineness of the results. My suggestion would actually be a cube.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
It would be very easy to have an infinite number of outcomes. For instance our economic response, we can choose to spend $0.01 or $1,000,000,000,000 to solve the problem or any number above or between the two. Also the economic results will be drastically different depending on where you are on the planet. Some place will actually benefit while others have the potential of suffering greatly. It is a natural system, thus an infinite number of outcomes.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
And hence there is no way to predict how the future will unfold. You just acknoledged that the system is chaotic and hence any predictions cannot be a "will be". That any action is nothing more than a hopefull guess.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
That's where the probability has to be applied. How likely is that AGW is occurring. For me, there is no doubt at all - you'll be hard pressed to and you haven't at all) show me that isn't the case. Where it gets tricky is the results, so you have to apply probability in that part of the equation based on passed observations and try to make your best, or rather, most educated guess. This is how we deal with the unknown - take calculated risks.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
With no doubt at all, how do you reconcile that sea level rate has not changed, that the arctic and antarctic ice is growing, not shrinking, that temps have been constant since 1998. New report shows that hurricans will be FEWER with warmer seas. What's left?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Sigh. You just don't get it do you? AGW doesn't mean more hurricanes - it doesn't make the hurricane, it may help fuel them but it doesn't make them. Again classic example of confusing weather with climate.
The Satellite altimetry that I trust shows a clear shrinkage of the polar ice caps on both ends of the Earth.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
So then why does Gore claim therew ill be more harder hurricanes? Who's the one who's confused? Ice is growing in both the antarctic and greenland, faster than the rate of peripheral melting. Globally coldest winter in past 10 years. Arctic ice melt due to change in currents, nothing to do with warmer temps.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Again, you're stating things that aren't true. You'd like them to be, but they are not. Looking at satellite altimetry and there is no doubt the ice caps are shrinking. But of course, any photo graphic evidence is immediately ignored. Show me a photo of the ice caps growing and your argument may have merit.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Go to WorldClimateReport, they have a number of articles on ice at the poles. This has been the coldest winter in the south for decades.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
There are stronger hurricanes than before. If the conditions are right and a hurricane is formed it is much more likely to be massive than before. 2 category 5 hurricanes making landfall in 1 year is unprecedented and it happened in 2007. I thought the ice was growing, not shrinking? Now who's confused?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Check your facts. We've had cat 5 hurricanes in the past many times, the 1930s for one. Check worldclimatereport they have many articles on hurricanes.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Not two in one year that made land fall. We've had 8 cat 5 storms since 2000, only 2 during the 1990's and 3 in the 1980's. The cat 5 storms used to be exceedingly and rare now they are very frequent. Check your facts sir, that evidence is very compelling. No decade has had more than 6 and we still have 2 more hurricane seasons to go in this decade.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
There is a specific article in worldlimatereport that addresses this very issue I suggest you read it.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Also note that the IPCC latest report says there is no climate change signal in the hurricane record.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I disagree and I've shown you why. Hurricanes are likely to be stronger with AGW and the evidence I see seems to support that conclusion. A better way, because you still get hung up on weather v. climate, is to say that AGW will make the weather more unpredictable. You'll see dramatic differences year over year in weather events and global temperatures. AGW fuels weather, it doesn't cause it. It will make cold spells last longer and cyclonic storms more severe.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Then you better email the head of the IPCC and take that disagreement of yours to him. Also worldclimatereport has an article about storms in Europe over the past 5000 years. No change in intensity or nuumber.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
"This paper uses observational data to demonstrate that the attribution of the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity to global warming is premature and that global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States."
Wang, C., and S.-K. Lee (2008), Global warming and United States landfalling hurricanes, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L02708, doi:10.1029/2007GL032396.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Go to co2science [dot] org and read
A Global Temperature History of the Past Two Millennia
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I have and can find plenty of evidence that disproves everything they say. I guess it is, again, who do you trust? The most prestigious and historically accurate institutions and organizations of science in the world or a bunch of rouge scientists most of which are speaking out of their area of study and expertise. Things that make you go hmmmm..
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Not disprove, but is contrary, does not mean your refs are right. Which is why one must remain skeptical of AGW theory. You just admited it.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I am skeptical of AGW but I am not hostile to it. I simply do a risk analysis and determine that AGW is likely to be a very bad thing and if we can do something about we certainly should. I leave the science to the scientists in that area of study and once again, The most prestigious and accurate scientific organizations say that there is a likely chance that we are heading toward a major crises and especially when doing something about it carries no probable harm to humanity and many benefits.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
And I claim that these same organizations have their own hidden political adgenda for making these statements. Many sciencists in those organizations disagree with the politics and direction of those statements.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
You used a ref analogy so if you know one ref who makes quick judgments and calls, you'd expect that ref to have a higher error rate. If you have another ref that doesn't make calls but only chimes in when the evidence is overwhelming and as a result has never been wrong. The cautious ref may miss a few things but when s/he makes a call you better believe it is correct. Such is with these organizations. These organizations I speak of rarely make a call but when they do, it is smart to listen.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Just like everyone listened to these organizations about Piltdown man. AGW will go down in history as the biggest science mistake of all time.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Ice sheet melting: Check out CO2Science [dot] org "Ice Sheet Mass Balance"
And:
worldclimatereport [dot] com on antarctica doubling its snow fall.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
IPCC in their 2007 report clearly states "Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region" (in fact, Antarctic sea ice extent has recently set record highs for both total areal extent as well as total extent anomaly
jrwakefield 4 years ago
IPCC tells the world (and we wonder if anyone is listening) "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."
jrwakefield 4 years ago
I love the fact you say "current" as based on "current information" but who's the say that won't remain constant. You're right it is likely it is the case right now. However, who's to say that it won't be the case in the future? Also, as most scientists will quickly point out, if you wait for the melting you want to see - it will already be too late.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
But it contradicts what is hyped today. Puts a huge question mark on the future predictions.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
In what way? It doesn't in any way hype what is going on today. All the scientists say that it points to probable future if it continues to rise as the rate it is. They also say that once it begins it will be too late as "There will be few options for us to curb a catastrophe."
If you think that what is expected to happen should be happening now, I can see why you're confused.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
It is not ALL scientists. That is blatantly false. It is a FEW scientists with highly questionable motives. Thus the alarmism is make believe and not what the future will be. You stated yourself it is infinitely complex, hence there is no way of predicting the future.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
It isn't a few but I can't say that it is all of them (and I haven't). You say it is false because that's what you believe. I say it is not false because the most prestigious organizations and universities say it is. I little reason to doubt them because of their history and I can see no obvious bias. Most studies that point the other way are well funded by organizations that have an obvious bias and I tend to weigh that evidence less than from other sources.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Compare funding. For climate change research past 20 years = $50,000 MILLION. Against climate change same period $18 Million. So who has the incentive to keep the myth going?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
First it isn't a myth, AGW is real there isn't any doubt about it. Where do you get these numbers and how can you say for or against anything? Research is research to me, it makes more sense to say that $68 BILLION spent on research on climate change, if that figure is even accurate which I highly doubt.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
AGW is a THEORY! It is NOT fact. There is CONSIDERABLE doubt in many aspects of the theory, which I have presented to you and you have agreed to them. If you have issue with the numbers take it up with newsweek, they had a big issue about it.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
A theory is as good as you get with science as it can never be 100% about anything. The laws of motion are a theory and gravity is a theory. You have not given any evidence to deny AGW at all. Your arguments are only focusing on the results of AGW, not the cause. Increasing temperatures is proof of AGW, not rising sea levels. Higher CO2 levels is proof, not hurricanes. Experiments proving that CO2 causes the atmosphere to hold more heat is proof, not cold winters. You don't deny any of these.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Rising temps: cause? Sun intensity, not co2.
Rising CO2: Cause? humans, mayby, but the planet has had higher CO2 in the geological past.
Experiments in labs and models: = reality? Hardly.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Co2 holding more heat: Only slightly, water vapour by several orders of magnitude.
Issues that do not support AGW theory: Rain fall buffers temps, changes in sun output.
Issues contrary to AGW predictions: Lack of accelaration in sea level, More snow fall at polls, polar bear population is rising not falling.
the list goes on.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
The sun does impact the rate of temperature rise but it not explain all of the temperature increase. Experiments in labs are what proved that we can fly and almost every other scientific discovery. Experiments in labs and models are not reality but they are much better at finding out the truth then listening to a non-scientist who refuses to acknowledge any evidence which contradicts his preconceived ideas about how things are.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
bad analogy. Those experiements were successful only because we understood the science. You cannot then jumpt to climate as, as you have verified, there are unlimited possibilities, hence a system of chaos which we cannot model, only approximate.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Again you're confusing weather with climate. Until we're on the same page, there is little else I can say to you. You have not grasp the concepts yet and its like talking to a wall.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
How is noting that climate is run by the laws of chaos confusing it with weather?
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Climatology answers questions such as: Why is the Sahara desert dry? Why is Arizona hotter than Colorado? Why is Canada colder than Hawaii?
It is not chaotic, easily demonstrated and explainable.
Weather is chaotic and difficult to predict.
Since climate fuels weather, changes in the climate will eventually lead to changes in the weather patterns hence why you get them confused.
What should you expect when you add energy into a chaotic system?
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Then you better read "TAKEN BY STORM" as they beg to differ. Climate is controled by chaos theory.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Weather is controlled by chaos theory, climate is not. Simple is back ad no book you mention or argument you make will change that. Climate is a study of the weather patterns and answers questions like why is the Sarah Desert dry? There is nothing chaotic about the fact that the Sahara Desert is dry.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
Then take that argument to climatologists as they are the ones who say that climate is controled by chaos theory. Since they are the experts then your position is not correct.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Let me be clear. We're not taking about the climate of a single area of the earth, we're talking about the entire climate system including ocean patterns, sun input, continental configurations, etc. That's where the chaos comes in.
jrwakefield 4 years ago
Wiki:
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
jrwakefield 4 years ago
These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system"
jrwakefield 4 years ago
So then, I am correct - thanks for pointing that out. Didn't answer my question though.
PhxFlyr 4 years ago
To all viewers:
To see the rebuttal to this video, watch the "How it all Ends" series by wonderingmind42. jrwakefield,
Thanks for your criticism. It cuts through a lot of the exaggerations by the media and Al Gore. It also went a long way towards making "How it All Ends" as good as it was.
aurelia314159 4 years ago