A final warning from the Arctic

[John99]

What's that?
1.166.079.217 inhabitants..

or anyone reading this.

 

[kira]

Here in Canada, I'm wondering why our freezers and refrigerators don't have some sort of heat-conducting pipe connected to the outdoors. You could have a lever or knob you twist so you could connect and disconnect this pipe at will (i.e. when winter rolls around), that way you don't have it draining or supplying heat from outside when you don't want it to. It just doesn't seem to make sense that we spend so much money to heat our homes, and then spend so much more on top of that to keep our foods cold in these same homes.

Good point. I guess -some time in the future- buildings will start to be designed by builder/contractor experts which can incorporate the concept of environmentally [friendly] buildings in which the basic specifications will be enacted by law. Something like here in Germany, where many residential buildings are already equipped with household-scale greywater treatment plants.

 

[spidergoat]

They do have something like that. They used to call it a "root cellar".

 

[Mr. G]

"The Greenland ice sheet is five kilometres thick and melting fast. The effect of adding all that water to the oceans may become terrifyingly apparent around the world in the coming decades, but the effects of climate warming are already clear in the Arctic itself. Here's the evidence, in words and pictures by Alun Anderson, former editor-in-chief of New Scientist and author of After the Ice: Life, death and politics in the new Arctic (published this month by HarperCollins-Smithsonian in the US and Virgin Books in the UK)."

http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/the-future-of-the-arctic

Is that your scientific data set?

Anecdote?

Show us the actual numbers. Show us your actual analytic processes. Let us make up our own minds, without having to necessarily "trust" that you know what you're talking about, based only on your own assertion that you do; and no one else can.

Let the numbers and the processes speak for themselves, on their own merit.

Why do you insist on inserting yourself into our deliberations? Some parenthetical sense of authoritarian superiority, or something?

How creepy is that?

 

[nietzschefan]

look guys the ice is absolutely melting, no doubt about that. Why...is another story. I find it a fucking piss off that all the solutions suit the multinational corporations(arguably the biggest potential "human cause") so well though...

 

[James R]

Is that your scientific data set?

No, as stated in a previous post of mine in the current thread.

Show us the actual numbers.

For what?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to prove something in this thread. These photos don't need "numbers". Enjoy them for what they are.

Let the numbers and the processes speak for themselves, on their own merit.

Now you're getting it! Let the photos speak for themselves.

Why do you insist on inserting yourself into our deliberations? Some parenthetical sense of authoritarian superiority, or something?

No idea what you're rambling on about. I've never seen you deliberate anything.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Here's an interesting graph:

Why is the adjusted data adjusted up so much? Makes one wonder how much of the purported warming is simply due to "data adjustments". Convenient that the raw data from the recently hacked climate research center was thrown out.

Adjustment is definitely rising. I put it down to human causes.

 

[madanthonywayne]

One year's weather, of course, is no proof of a real change; but has anyone noticed all the recent reports of record breaking cold lately? Check out these reports all out today:

East Coast Faces Deep Freeze; Florida Oranges Threatened...

CHILL MAP...

Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...

Peru's mountain people 'face extinction because of cold conditions'...

Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...

World copes with Arctic weather...

No doubt the raw data from this year will require an even bigger "adjustment" than normal.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

You're making the simple mistake of assuming that climate change means hotter temperatures everywhere. It doesn't. Some climates will get colder. More to the point, the incidence of things like "record-breaking cold" is likely to increase.

 

[iceaura]

One year's weather, of course, is no proof of a real change;

You can stop there, if you want.

but has anyone noticed all the recent reports of record breaking cold lately?

That isn't even one year's weather - it's one month, tops.

And not to get technical, since you never sweat the details anyway, but your links don't report much "record breaking cold". The records, even in these dramatic December cold snaps that have become routine in midwestern US regions lately, remain unbroken for the most part.

So once again you lead off with a misstatement in furtherance of a deception.

 

[Norsefire]

Okay, so the climate is changing; everybody knows this already.

 

[madanthonywayne]

madanthonywayne:

You're making the simple mistake of assuming that climate change means hotter temperatures everywhere. It doesn't. Some climates will get colder. More to the point, the incidence of things like "record-breaking cold" is likely to increase.

First of all, this catch all term "climate change" is complete bullshit. The climate is, always has been, and always will be changing. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a much better term for what global warming alarmists allege is occurring. Climate change is simply the normal state of things.

All of that aside, I simply felt these reports of record cold and people facing extinction due to said cold weather were as pertinent to the discussion as ice melting in greenland. As you yourself said, the climate in any particular area is no indication of global climate.

 

[James R]

First of all, this catch all term "climate change" is complete bullshit.

We use it for lack of a better term. "Global warming" confuses people like you, who think that it means the whole globe will warm equally.

All of that aside, I simply felt these reports of record cold and people facing extinction due to said cold weather were as pertinent to the discussion as ice melting in greenland. As you yourself said, the climate in any particular area is no indication of global climate.

When was the last time the Greenland icesheet melted?

 

[iceaura]

First of all, this catch all term "climate change" is complete bullshit. The climate is, always has been, and always will be changing. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a much better term for what global warming alarmists allege is occurring. Climate change is simply the normal state of things.

The term "climate change" was an invention of a Republican media tactician - Frank Luntz - to make the whole thing sound less scary. Before he did managed that coup, everybody was just saying "global warming".

All of that aside, I simply felt these reports of record cold and people facing extinction due to said cold weather

You linked to no reports of record cold, and the people being extinguished were suffering from rain and snow in the winter, not so much cold (and lack of water in the summer, for reasons not given in the article).

It was their animals that were in trouble, alpacas - alpacas handle cold temps very well.

 

[Trippy]

One year's weather, of course, is no proof of a real change; but has anyone noticed all the recent reports of record breaking cold lately? Check out these reports all out today:

East Coast Faces Deep Freeze; Florida Oranges Threatened...

CHILL MAP...

Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...

Peru's mountain people 'face extinction because of cold conditions'...

Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...

World copes with Arctic weather...

No doubt the raw data from this year will require an even bigger "adjustment" than normal.

You do understand what increased variance implies don't you?

 

[madanthonywayne]

You do understand what increased variance implies don't you?

Of course. The claim is that the increased energy in the system as a result of global warming will yield increased variability in weather patterns. Of course the practical result of that is that whether the temperature goes up or down it's proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You do understand what a non falsifiable theory implies, don't you?

We use it for lack of a better term. "Global warming" confuses people like you, who think that it means the whole globe will warm equally.

When have I ever stated such? I clearly stated when posting the reports of extreme cold weather of late that I was aware that it wasn't proof of anything. I am aware of the arguments on both sides. In fact, here's a nice summary I just came across on another web site:

Anthropogenic pros:

- Apparant temp rise of 0.4-0.8 °C over the last 100 years
- Unusual in the past 1000 years (MBH Hockeystick)
- Principle of greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing (Arrhenius)
- Correlation CO2 Greenhouse gas with temp now, as well as in the ice age (Pleistocene)
- Climate models using GHG forcing predict a lot more warming.
- Planet Venus is excellent example of Greenhouse Gas forcing

Conclusion: Anthropogenic Global Warming must be mitigated by emission cutback
Hence: Kyoto necessary

Cons:

- Temp rise of 0.4-0.8 °C over the last 100 years debatable due to Urban Heat Island effect and closure of urban weather stations worldwide
- Not unusual in the past 1000 years (MBH Hockeystick has been debunked by Storch)
- Principle of greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing is far too weak due to absorption saturation in the IR band (roughly logarithmic proportional) The first 100 ppm CO2 is some 100 times more effective than a 400-500 ppm increase
- Cause - effect relationship of CO2 with temp is debated especially during the ice age (Pleistocene). Claimed mechanisms are falsified by several contradictions
- No correlation CO2 in the last 500 million years with CO2 levels up to 30 times higher than nowadays.
- Climate models are not taking clouds into (full) effect
- Early Predictions of warming for 2000+, made around 1995, prove to be highly exaggerated, falsifying the claims made in that period.
- Global temperatures have stabilized globally as of 1998
- Strong changes in several atmospheric, oceanic and solar cycles the last decades coincide to produce abnormal yet natural warming.
- Soot and haze absorb more visible light than it reflects, also causing warming
- Stratosphere and Troposphere temperatures do not behave according to increased GHG forcing and show stability (Kärner)
- Scaremonger claims about ice melting, sea level raising, aridity, flooding etc, pertain climate change as such and do not prove its cause. You could easily start a narration on natural climate changes also with melting ica and sea level rise.
- Consensus is not proving anything.

Conclusion: Anthropogenic Global Warming (as in Greenhouse gas effect) is minimum and emission cutback is not serving any purpose.
Hence: Kyoto waste of valuable assets

Physicsforums.com

 

[Trippy]

Of course. The claim is that the increased energy in the system as a result of global warming will yield increased variability in weather patterns. Of course the practical result of that is that whether the temperature goes up or down it's proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You do understand what a non falsifiable theory implies, don't you?

This, however, is not a non falsifiable theory, because it does in fact make verifiable predictions regarding the frequency of extreme events, so to try and argue this point is, to put id succinctly disingenous.

 

[madanthonywayne]

This, however, is not a non falsifiable theory, because it does in fact make verifiable predictions regarding the frequency of extreme events, so to try and argue this point is, to put id succinctly disingenous.

Yes, but so is claiming record breaking cold as proof of AGW. While such an event is within the realm of possibility under your increased variability theory; that's certainly not the only possible cause of such an event.

 

[Norsefire]

Climate change is occurring; nobody is denying this.
The real question is whether or not it is natural or caused by man.

 

[Scaramouche]

I haven't updated this in ages, but: http://accidentalhuman.livejournal.com/26189.html