# Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather



## Abubob (Feb 17, 2014)

As far back as 1978 I've been hearing that Global Warming aka Climate Change is causing big winter storms. I say bring it!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-sick-of-winter-blame-the-long-and-winding-jet-stream-20140216,0,639334.story


----------



## Nick (Feb 17, 2014)

Here we go.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 17, 2014)

Abubob said:


> *As far back as 1978 I've been hearing that Global Warming aka Climate Change is causing big winter storms*



That's not very likely.  Back in 1978 the fledgling field of climate change was worried about Global Cooling, not Global Warming.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 17, 2014)

^not really. Global warming linked to CO2 emissions first postulated in the 19th century.  Revisited in the 1920s, 40s, 50s, and started gaining more widespread understanding and acceptance in the 1980s.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> That's not very likely.  Back in 1978 the fledgling field of climate change was worried about Global Cooling, not Global Warming.



The increase in aerosols concentration led some scientists to worry about potential cooling in the sixties but this was never mainstream.  In 1978 the consensus about warming was already strong.  

And characterizing 'climate change' as a fledgling field is simply ridiculous.  Giants like Fourier, Arrhenius and Milankovitch and numerous others dedicated part of their life to climate change, generations before you were born.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 17, 2014)

Aerosols and gases are the wrong path. The heat generated fom millions of barrels per day used  and all of the dark road surfaces ,roofs and automobiles (little green houses) generate more heat...That being said the Earth is an adaptable entity and we don't really know what will happen. 
While I'm one for contolling pollution there is a great deal of money being made....ex
I had to get a EPA refrigerant certification in the 90's when HCFC phase out, during the class I was informed that Chlorine component is whats destroying ozone. I raised my hand an asked when Chlorine would be phased out?
The instructor launched into a tyraid on Rush Limbaugh. He then proceded to tell me chlorine was ok and did not off gas into the atmosphere!!!But they haven't been able to prove chlorine destroys ozone?
The phase out put a lot of money in the big co's who manufactred HFC's
So if you don't want to give up your car...paint your roof white


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 17, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The increase in aerosols concentration led some scientists to worry about potential cooling in the sixties but this was never mainstream.  In 1978 the consensus about warming was already strong.



No, it was definitely well into the 1970s. 



fbrissette said:


> And characterizing 'climate change' as a fledgling field is simply ridiculous.  Giants like Fourier, Arrhenius and Milankovitch and numerous others dedicated part of their life to climate change, generations before you were born.



I'm talking specifically about the rebranded use of the term, "Climate Change", aka man-made Global Warming - AGM is most certainly a fledgling field.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 17, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> AGM is most certainly a fledgling field.



How's life in black and white ?


----------



## flightschool (Feb 17, 2014)

I tend to think the whole debate is stupid.  Both sides are required to prove the impossible, much like there is god there is no god.  Unless you could live simultaneously in parallel worlds yet separated in time by a 1000 years, you would not be able to support the theory with evidence that would stand up against the level of scrutiny that is the norm for all other areas of scientific endeavor that are subsequently used to alter public policy.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 17, 2014)

flightschool said:


> I tend to think the whole debate is stupid.  Both sides are required to prove the impossible, much like there is god there is no god.  Unless you could live simultaneously in parallel worlds yet separated in time by a 1000 years, you would not be able to support the theory with evidence that would stand up against the level of scrutiny that is the norm for all other areas of scientific endeavor that are subsequently used to alter public policy.



Please, none of this "historical science" nonsense. There are numerous, peer reviewed, methods for recording historical climate data which are supported by lots and lots of empirical evidence. If you can test it, then its scientific. You can test theories for global climate change. You can make predictions with those theories and see if your hypothesis is supported by data you collect. You cannot test the existence of the supernatural. It's not scientific. The two are not comparable.


----------



## flightschool (Feb 18, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Please, none of this "historical science" nonsense. There are numerous, peer reviewed, methods for recording historical climate data which are supported by lots and lots of empirical evidence. If you can test it, then its scientific. You can test theories for global climate change. You can make predictions with those theories and see if your hypothesis is supported by data you collect. You cannot test the existence of the supernatural. It's not scientific. The two are not comparable.



We can't account for all of the variables, and for many others we have poor metrics.  Furthermore, there is no way to know if warming is certain or a lesser pace of cooling because 90% of what drives change is likely outside of our atmosphere.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> How's life in black and white ?



I noticed a correlation with alarmist or people who believe in AGW with name calling or simple phases as above. 

What I will add to this topic is that CO2 is the hyped up molecule due to political activism and has been use as the cause to any climate change. Holdren who supports the hypothesis that AGW is causing the polar vortex is the political adviser to the Pres has written politically driven papers in the past.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> The instructor launched into a tyraid on Rush Limbaugh. He then proceded to tell me chlorine was ok and did not off gas into the atmosphere!!!But they haven't been able to prove chlorine destroys ozone?
> The phase out put a lot of money in the big co's who manufactred HFC's




According to the latest satellite observations, the ozone depletion/hole has not closed. Leading scientist is saying that it should close around 2060. How's that for job security..... that's a great setup.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> ^not really. Global warming linked to CO2 emissions first postulated in the 19th century.  Revisited in the 1920s, 40s, 50s, and started gaining more widespread understanding and acceptance in the 1980s.



The postulation in the 19th century was motivated by competing technologies, an engineer who had an interest in steam engines started to measure co2 since he believed it be harmful.

The late Stephen Schnieder wrote papers in the lat 70's that CO2 would cause global cooling and then changed his hypothesis that it would cause global warming.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 18, 2014)

Well epics snow storms coming I hear for us so that I welcome just need a truck to be able to drive home to my mountain road in the Shawngunks of NY.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

You win. I finally get it.

The earth is not warming, and if it is, we are definitely not part of the problem.  
CFCs did not destroy the ozone layer, and the good chemical industry tried very hard to save us money in the face of lying scientists who were getting tons of money out of this lie.

How about we debate something more basic.  Are we really sure the earth is going around the sun ?  Galileo made lots of money out of this one.  1 american out of 4 does not think so.  Surely there's a few on this Forum.   

Did we really evolve from earlier ape-like species ?   1 american out of 2 does not believe it.  

I mean it's like trying to prove that god exists.  Enough with the tyranny of bad lying scientists.  Let's return to the dark ages.




http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/02/16/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 18, 2014)

flightschool said:


> We can't account for all of the variables, and for many others we have poor metrics.  Furthermore, there is no way to know if warming is certain or a lesser pace of cooling because 90% of what drives change is likely outside of our atmosphere.



And because of this I'm sure you reject evolution as well, and plate tectonics?


----------



## Tin (Feb 18, 2014)

This is going to go nowhere fast.

And if you cite or quote historical science, I'm mad at you for hunting the dinosaurs to extinction.


----------



## Nick (Feb 18, 2014)

Yup. 

My view: Climate change is clearly happening. Whether its caused by humans or not, I don't know. Nor do I particularly care. I think we should invest money in trying to minimize our impact because even if it's not the root cause of climate change taking care of the earth is important, at least for my kids and their kids. 

I seriously doubt the human race will last another 5,000 years anyway.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 18, 2014)




----------



## Cannonball (Feb 18, 2014)

Sometimes we have to change our thinking as we learn....


----------



## Puck it (Feb 18, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Sometimes we have to change our thinking as we learn....
> 
> View attachment 11306



True.  But it was the irony of the two side by side.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


>




You do realize that this is a hoax right?  That cover is from 2007 and actually says this.....



Feeling like you've been played?  That's the game of the deniers.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 18, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> You do realize that this is a hoax right? That cover is from 2007 and actually says this.....
> 
> View attachment 11307
> 
> Feeling like you've been played? That's the game of the deniers.




Did not know that I have not read Time in about 30 years. Should have known irony is never that good.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Did not know that I have read Time in about 30 years.  Should have known irony is never that good.



Oh, it's still plenty ironic.


----------



## Abubob (Feb 18, 2014)




----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 18, 2014)

I can't speak to climate change, but I can speak to "controversies" within my own field. The past several years have seen lots of "Was Darwin Wrong?" attention grabber headlines in the media. Does this lend any credence to such a "controversy"? No. There is none to speak of within the actual field, but if you only got your info from popular news outlets you might not get the same impression.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 18, 2014)

It's like a weapon of mass destruction.


----------



## snoseek (Feb 18, 2014)

I still for the life of me have no idea why the topic of climate change ever had to become a political issue, with both sides firmly taking their stance. It doesn't make for good rational discussions and decisions.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

Puck it said:


>



The 1977 cover is a FAKE.  

Repeat after me:  Global cooling was NEVER mainstream science.  Not in the 60s and not in the 70s.

Edit: sorry cannonball should have kept on reading instead of jumping on this.


----------



## Nick (Feb 18, 2014)

snoseek said:


> I still for the life of me have no idea why the topic of climate change ever had to become a political issue, with both sides firmly taking their stance. It doesn't make for good rational discussions and decisions.



^This


----------



## Tin (Feb 18, 2014)

Oil, tax breaks, etc...


----------



## WJenness (Feb 18, 2014)

Tin said:


> Oil, tax breaks, etc...



Wu-Tang said it best...


----------



## Abubob (Feb 18, 2014)

What interested me about this article is the effect that climate change or whatever you want to call it has on our weather.

I'm not interested in proving whether man is responsible for climate change. Mankind is ruining the planet in more ways than merely poisoning the air. 

But this is pretty cool (found in Youtube Gems thread):


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

Nick said:


> ^This


All environmental issues are political.  All of them.  Everyone wants a clean environment but a clean environment is really expensive and ultimately, very few are willing to pay for it.   I'll give you a very simple example:

Quebec water drinking standards are below that of EPA for several contaminants.   Because of concerns from various family and environmental groups, the provincial government decided to match EPA standards.  You might think that this is a very simple issue, but the union of municipalities immediately lobbied against this.  They were not against it per se, but they wanted the provincial government to pay for the updating of treatment plants.  If forced to pay for it, they would have to cut services and jobs.  The provincial government does not want to pay for the upgrading and did not want to cut services or jobs or raise income taxes.  10 years later, we are still stuck with our sub-standard drinking water regulations.  There are lots of examples like this one.

Reducing our dependence to greenhouse gases will demand important and extremely costly measures.  A shitload of money in the short term.  Although this is not a settled issue, consensus is that we'll save money in the long run, and mostly it is the right thing to do, if only in fairness to the most vulnerable nations that played no role in this situation.    However, there are very large companies and a large sector of the economy that have a strong economic interest in the status quo.  Very large profitable companies must keep shareholders happy and are not interesting in changing their business model, or would like to do so as slowly as possible.  Hence the intense lobbying and disinformation (there is also some disinformation at the other end, but on a much smaller and less organized scale).  They denied warming for as long as they could.  Now that everybody agrees on the warming trend, they argue that humans play little to no role in it.  Eventually, they'll move to their last stand - that reducing greenhouse gases will be more costly than adapting to a warmer planet.

In the end it is all about money.  The more money, the more political it gets.  Read about the tobacco lobbying against cancer to understand the extent to which companies are willing to go to keep their lucrative business model intact.   The chemical industry lobbying effort against the ban of CFCs and the science behind it is another good example.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> *You do realize that this is a hoax right?*  That cover is from 2007 and actually says this.....
> *
> Feeling like you've been played?  That's the game of the deniers*.





fbrissette said:


> *The 1977 cover is a FAKE.  *
> 
> Repeat after me: * Global cooling was NEVER mainstream science.  Not in the 60s and not in the 70s.*



You're both right, that cover IS a fake.  

TIME never had that "Another Ice Age" cover in the 1970s............

It was just a big feature article from TIME in the 1970s.....

*Another Ice Age?*

TIME Magazine
Monday, June 24, 1974  


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html


Though fbrissette is still wrong about "Global Cooling" not being a mainstream scientific climate theory in the 1960s/1970s.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2014)

Or perhaps you favor Newsweek?

*The Cooling World*

*Newsweek, April 28, 1975                *



> [SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]here are ominous signs that the Earth’s            weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes            may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious            political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop            in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.            The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing            lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of            marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan,            Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season            is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
> 
> The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to                  accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to                  keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season                  decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall                  loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.                  During the same time, the average temperature around the equator                  has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in                  some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the                  most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters                  killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’                  worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent                  the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.                  The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of                  extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.*                 Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend*,                  as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. *                 But** they are almost unanimous in the view *that the trend will                  reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.                  If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists                  fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major                  climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on                  a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National                  Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food                  production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent                  on the climate of the present century.”



Feeling like you've been played?

Even employs the same "Unanimous" and "there is no doubt" bull**** tactics today's warming fearmongerers use.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2014)

Here's a cool one (no pun intended).   Internet wayback searches are fun!  There's plenty more 1970s examples if you're into this genre.

_*Trends Arouse Fear That A New Ice Age Is Coming*_
March 2, 1975

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R7ITAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mNkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6865,188682



> One statistic stands out: A study of temperatures around the world shows the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for 30 years.  The total drop is less than one degree, but in terms of meteorology, that is significant........


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Or perhaps you favor Newsweek?
> 
> *The Cooling World*
> 
> ...




I have been pretty clear in other threads that my opinions are based on science.  Newsweek ???   Come on.   Climate scientists were never warm on global cooling.   It was mentioned and discussed in some papers but there was NEVER a consensus about global cooling,not even close.  The papers about global cooling were debated and quickly dismissed.  Go read the scientific papers !!!  Science is NOT debated on the internet. 

 And while it may be hard to comprehend, meteorologists are NOT climate scientists.   The opinion of meterologists is of little interest.  If you ever have a heart problem, I suggest you trust the cardiologist and not the proctologist, even though they both shared a few classrooms together.  Educate yourself properly.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> _One statistic stands out: A study of temperatures around the world shows the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for 30 years. The total drop is less than one degree, but in terms of meteorology, that is significant........_



There are so many things wrong with this quote that I don't know where to begin...  Newsweek....


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 18, 2014)

There are way to many environmental nerds on this board!


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> There are way to many environmental nerds on this board!



I don't like being called a nerd.  I'm challenging you to a ski-off !


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 18, 2014)

Warming ....Colling? In the end who knows what will happen.....But Here's another thought.
If another larger metor hits the earth in an area that harbors large amounts of hydrocarbons the secondary explosion could cause mass extiction.Use it in a contolled manner over time and as clean and efficent as possible possibly, the use of hydrocarbons could save the human race.
So I'm coming down on the side of fossil fuels vs Climate change , in the end the Earth will adapt as it has for millions of years.
And if you think this theory is crazy wip out your I phone an Google "Manicougan resivoir" not to far north of Maine....a 47 mile wide hole!


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

during the AGU 2013 meeting held in San Fran, a panel of solar physicist observed that the sun is going into a phase of lowest activity. All agreed that this is something they have never seen in their lifetime. In the coming years, the system (meaning climate) will have a new stimulus, something no living scientist has observed. This may prove or disprove the sun is one of the dominating factors in our climate. 

For the scientist and activist who are concern and want to stop the melting glaciers... beware they might get their wishes and more.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Though fbrissette is still wrong about "Global Cooling" not being a mainstream scientific climate theory in the 1960s/1970s.



Since I feel generous with my time, why don't you start educating yourself with this.  This was peer reviewed in a very good journal and cited more than 50 times over the past 5 years.

Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus." _Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89.9 (2008): 1325-1337.

_


> There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then


_
_
This figure shows results from a thorough review of literature of the time.   Global cooling was NEVER a consensus.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Since I feel generous with my time, why don't you start educating yourself with this.  This was peer reviewed in a very good journal and cited more than 50 times over the past 5 years.
> 
> Peterson, Thomas C., William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus." _Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89.9 (2008): 1325-1337.
> 
> ...




haha... the famous or infamous peer review process of the IPCC. Yet another political process.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

btw... talk about media hype. Here's a blast from the past. 


WFT? The late Stephen Scheinder of IPCC fame involved in show about the coming ice age.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha... the famous or infamous peer review process of the IPCC. Yet another political process.



Why don't you go read the 1960 to 1979 literature and figure out on your own ?   There was no IPCC at the time.  But no, you won't do it.  It's so much easier to pass on second hand information without any critical judgment.


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 18, 2014)




----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 18, 2014)

Who cares what was said in the 70?  That's when you know a polarizing subject has gone epic.......40 year old history of the subject is argued with no one giving an inch on their position. :lol:


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

jack97 said:


> btw... talk about media hype. Here's a blast from the past.
> 
> 
> WFT? The late Stephen Scheinder of IPCC fame involved in show about the coming ice age.



What I get from this video is that you get your scientific information from youtube while dismissing the peer-review process which is the universally accepted way of diffusing results in all fields of science.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> *There was no IPCC at the time.*



Life was tough back when there was nobody around to hide the conflicting data.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Life was tough back when there was nobody around to hide the conflicting data.



You really don't know anything about the scientific world and scientists in general if you think that it is indeed possible to operate a conspiracy involving thousands of large-ego scientists.   

Since the IPCC was formed after 20 years of an ever growing body of evidence about global warming, can you tell us who was leading the conspiracy and hiding the conflicting data prior to the IPCC ?


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> What I get from this video is that you get your scientific information from youtube while dismissing the peer-review process which is the universally accepted way of diffusing results in all fields of science.




like a politician, resort to ridicule to for the mudslinging remarks.

As it turns out, universities have video taped lectures for their graduate courses, so I have grown to accept this new media.  Even s/w vendors have started using ytube as means to show new features and have to navigate the new menus. 

In terms of the peer review process.... if the peers are politically driven toward AGW then they will accept and agree to such thought. How else can you explain that AGW is still widely accepted among the alarmist when surface and  troposphere temp have been at a pause for 17 years. BTW, I sure you know about the remote sensing satellite web site. Kinda of dry and it not as much fun as slinging mud....

http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You really don't know anything about the scientific world and scientists in general if you think that it is indeed possible to operate a conspiracy involving thousands of large-ego scientists.




Some of the scientist have been lead authors of past IPCC chapters and they do not believe in AGW. Again they have been cast out. Funny thing is that most of these scientist are tenure professor who don't need to make their bones and they have the professionalism to stand for there scientific belief.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

jack97 said:


> How else can you explain that AGW is still widely accepted among the alarmist when surface and  troposphere temp have been at a pause for 17 years.



Go read the scientific literature.  You'll find why 98% of all climate scientists (the so called alarmists) still believe in AGW, despite the pause.  You'll also find some good stuff in the IPCC working group I.  

But of course you won't.   I for the life of me cannot understand why you would totally bypass reading the science and instead choosing to solely rely on second-hand information from dubious websites in most cases.

The frickin data about the warming pause comes from the so-called alarmists.  Wouldn't it be easier to doctor the data like they supposedly do all the time ?


----------



## Not Sure (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The frickin data about the warming pause comes from the so-called alarmists.  Wouldn't it be easier to doctor the data like they supposedly do all the time ?



You mean Doctor like this http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Go read the scientific literature.  You'll find why 98% of all climate scientists (the so called alarmists) still believe in AGW, despite the pause.  You'll also find some good stuff in the IPCC working group I.
> 
> But of course you won't.   I for the life of me cannot understand why you would totally bypass reading the science and instead choosing to solely rely on second-hand information from dubious websites in most cases.
> 
> The frickin data about the warming pause comes from the so-called alarmists.  Wouldn't it be easier to doctor the data like they supposedly do all the time ?




Having one or a set of documents from a political organization such as the IPCC is not scientific proof.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 18, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> You mean Doctor like this http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html




or like this from a Berkeley prof who believes in AGW.... haha another ytube link


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 18, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The frickin data about the warming pause comes from the so-called alarmists.  Wouldn't it be easier to doctor the data like they supposedly do all the time ?



Impossible.   Their failure is so complete that it became scientifically implausible to hide behind "soon", and "you'll see" much longer. 

 For YEARS they denied that the warming that was predicted wasnt occurring.  They couldnt deny and hide any longer.  It was a completely untenable position.



fbrissette said:


> You really don't know anything about the scientific world and scientists in general if you think that it is indeed possible to operate a conspiracy involving thousands of large-ego scientists.



Who said anything about a conspiracy?



jack97 said:


> *Some of the scientist have been lead authors of past IPCC chapters and they do not believe in AGW. Again they have been cast out. *Funny thing is that most of these scientist are tenure professor who don't need to make their bones and they have the professionalism to stand for there scientific belief.



BIG TIME.   Same with Al Gore in the early 1990's. 

 If you didnt believe in man-made Global Warming, your ass was tossed out of NOAA.  He purged anyone with a dissenting belief........because.......you know....that's exactly how science works.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> He purged anyone with a dissenting belief........because.......you know....that's exactly how science works.



You're confusing science with religion.   

And frankly, looking back at the last 300 years of technological and biomedical advances, I thinks it's safe to say that science works just fine and it needs no fixing from you and your friends.   

This has been entertaining but it's obvious we're wasting our time.  We are clearly living in parallel scientific universes.  I'll stick to the one that lives through the process of science.  You can stick to yours, where dubious websites, youtube videos and conspiracy theories rule.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Impossible.   Their failure is so complete that it became scientifically implausible to hide behind "soon", and "you'll see" much longer.
> 
> For YEARS they denied that the warming that was predicted wasnt occurring.  They couldnt deny and hide any longer.  It was a completely untenable position.
> 
> ...



When you got tossed from NOAA did they have an air bag for the person to land on?


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You're confusing science with religion.
> 
> And frankly, looking back at the last 300 years of technological and biomedical advances, I thinks it's safe to say that science works just fine and it needs no fixing from you and your friends.
> 
> This has been entertaining but it's obvious we're wasting our time.  *We are clearly living in parallel scientific universes.*  I'll stick to the one that lives through the process of science.  You can stick to yours, where dubious websites, youtube videos and conspiracy theories rule.



Running the multiple scenarios with flawed climate models which has not predicted the pause is bad. Basing these scenario to dictate public policy is plain idiot. I prefer to live in the parallel universe where theories correlates to the observations. 

At least the alarmist such as Trenberth and England are looking into natural causes but are still looking at ways to tied this to the save their precious greenhouse gas theory.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> * We are clearly living in parallel scientific universes.  I'll stick to the one that lives through the process of science.*



The _"process of science"_ that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.

What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The _"process of science"_ that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.
> 
> What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.



You're adorable


----------



## Nick (Feb 19, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> That's when you know a *polarizing* subject has gone epic.......



Pun intended?


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The _"process of science"_ that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.



No university teaches the process of science at the Bachelor level and it's barely done at all at the MSc level, as is painfully obvious from your arguments.



BenedictGomez said:


> What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.



It is mind boggling to me how anyone can come up with such a distorted view.  What you are describing is indeed a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the government of taxpayer money.


----------



## flightschool (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> All environmental issues are political.  All of them.  Everyone wants a clean environment but a clean environment is really expensive and ultimately, very few are willing to pay for it.   I'll give you a very simple example:
> 
> Quebec water drinking standards are below that of EPA for several contaminants.   Because of concerns from various family and environmental groups, the provincial government decided to match EPA standards.  You might think that this is a very simple issue, but the union of municipalities immediately lobbied against this.  They were not against it per se, but they wanted the provincial government to pay for the updating of treatment plants.  If forced to pay for it, they would have to cut services and jobs.  The provincial government does not want to pay for the upgrading and did not want to cut services or jobs or raise income taxes.  10 years later, we are still stuck with our sub-standard drinking water regulations.  There are lots of examples like this one.
> 
> ...



2 Things.  First, I agree with money driving politicization, but you seem to only observe it playing a role on the side of those who claim not to believe in AGW.

Second, my first posts were merely an attempt to examine how staggering the requirements are for either group to support their hypothesis enough to make logical and well-intentioned disagreements seem unfounded.

My stance is no one knows, I don't know, but I find it concerning that many people claim clairvoyance based solely on "strong scientific consensus".


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The _"process of science"_ that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.
> 
> What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.



If my hypothesis was wrong it only means I was wrong. I have still learned something even if my results are negative. What usually happens next is I form a new question "why did this come out a way I didn't expect?" and generate a new hypothesis to continue the investigation. 

It would be bad science to simply give up without trying to answer your question. Nobody in climate science is going to go "oh the world isn't warming, we can go home now". They will continue to find ways of explaining why the climate behaves the way it does, and how we can use that knowledge to make predictions about the climate, and our potential impact on it. What a lot of deniers are dong _is_ bad science, because they want the debate to be over. They aren't attempting to learn anything new about how the system works, only refute and reinterpret data and models others are using in that attempt in order to discredit anything that contradicts with a non-warming or non-AGW view. You cannot enter an experiment with a preconceived notion of what you want to find, and warming deniers do this constantly. They are not interested in explaining how the climate behaves, warming or not, they are only interested in reaching a certain foregone conclusion. 

I see the same thing in all sorts of "controversies" in science. I'm most familiar with evolution deniers, but the pattern is the same. They go in saying "I dont agree with this theory" an there's usually a non-scientific ulterior motive. Then they will present data in a way that supports their argument. No original work, no attempt to explain the system, only trying to find gaps or contradictions in the current literature. If you wanted to refute global warming, then collect data that supports an alternative explanation. Is the world cooling, is it staying stable? Can you explain how a cooling or stable system behaves? Do you have a way of modeling that? These are the experiments your camp has to conduct, but hasn't. All the experiments that have been done support a warming model. You need to do more than criticize that model, you need to produce evidence that supports your theory. You need to explain how the system is working, not just throw your hands up and say the other guy is wrong.

I know you might think there is a conspiracy to put down that kind of work, but I can tell you as a scientist its simply not possible. There is no way to censor thousands of independent researchers around the world, with many different sources of funding. The way the data is collected and interpreted is open to public scrutiny as well. The idea that scientists are in collusion is laughable, especially when the research climate is one where everybody wants to be the first to come out with the next breakthrough. It's just not happening. If global warming is such a bald faced conspiracy, and the actual evidence for a stable or cooling globe are right in front of us, it shouldn't be so hard for somebody to provide an explanation and model that system in a way that predicts climate better than current models do.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

flightschool said:


> First, I agree with money driving politicization, but you seem to only observe it playing a role on the side of those who claim not to believe in AGW.



It plays on both sides indeed.  However, on one side you have the oil companies, the transportation industry at large and the free-market conservatives.  On the other side you have university and research center scientists (core of the IPCC), and the environmental groups.  I think it's pretty obvious who has more leverage and more to lose. 

Just like you had chemicals companies against science in the 1970 CFC debate, or tobbaco industries against science in the cancer debate.




flightschool said:


> My stance is no one knows, I don't know, but I find it concerning that many people claim clairvoyance based solely on "strong scientific consensus".



'Strong' scientific consensus can only be achieved through strong evidence.   Science that goes against mainstream ideas is obviously more difficult to get published because it will naturally be more scrutinized.  But good science always gets published, and there are countless example of that in the scientific literature.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> I see the same thing in all sorts of "controversies" in science. I'm most familiar with evolution deniers, but the pattern is the same. They go in saying "I dont agree with this theory" an there's usually a non-scientific ulterior motive. Then they will present data in a way that supports their argument. No original work, no attempt to explain the system, only trying to find gaps or contradictions in the current literature. If you wanted to refute global warming, then collect data that supports an alternative explanation.



Well said.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> No university teaches the process of science at the Bachelor level and it's barely done at all at the MSc level, as is painfully obvious from your arguments.   It is mind boggling to me how anyone can come up with such a distorted view.  What you are describing is indeed a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the government of taxpayer money.



Your first statement is your opinion if so support it with data.  I think all natural sciences still conduct labs in college to teach the scientific method.

Your second statement is off base also.  I would never call another peer's theory as being mind boggling.  I would try and point out their deficiencies. And support with data.  This is one of the things that I take offense with from advocates.  I am not saying they all do it but the press has blown this up to a cult for the lack of a better word.

Before you slam me, I do think we need to do something dumping hydrocarbons and CO2 into the air.  But not the sacrifice of the economy.  Air and solar are not the answer.  Nukes are but they have other issues.  Invest in new tech is the answer but the level of spending is not there.  Fossil fuels are still the cheapest and safest to producing our energy.  Which we need to live and earn money.  We could go to $8 a gallon gas with taxes.  What would that do the tourist trade let alone our dear ski areas?


----------



## flightschool (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> If my hypothesis was wrong it only means I was wrong. I have still learned something even if my results are negative. What usually happens next is I form a new question "why did this come out a way I didn't expect?" and generate a new hypothesis to continue the investigation.
> 
> It would be bad science to simply give up without trying to answer your question. Nobody in climate science is going to go "oh the world isn't warming, we can go home now". They will continue to find ways of explaining why the climate behaves the way it does, and how we can use that knowledge to make predictions about the climate, and our potential impact on it. What a lot of deniers are dong _is_ bad science, because they want the debate to be over. They aren't attempting to learn anything new about how the system works, only refute and reinterpret data and models others are using in that attempt in order to discredit anything that contradicts with a non-warming or non-AGW view. You cannot enter an experiment with a preconceived notion of what you want to find, and warming deniers do this constantly. They are not interested in explaining how the climate behaves, warming or not, they are only interested in reaching a certain foregone conclusion.
> 
> ...



If the models showing warming are accurate models, they should also be applicable to a cooling system as well since both warming and cooling are historically part of the climate, and there would be no need for other models to be built.  Saying other models need to be built to support a cooling phenomena is admitting your models are incomplete at best, or worse, useless.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Well said.




Not well said,  the whole idea of the scientific method is to verify or refute one's hypothesis.  And that is what some scientists are doing.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 19, 2014)

flightschool said:


> If the models showing warming are accurate models, they should also be applicable to a cooling system as well since both warming and cooling are historically part of the climate, and there would be no need for other models to be built.  Saying other models need to be built to support a cooling phenomena is admitting your models are incomplete at best, or worse, useless.



If you model climate based on your best estimations of whatever climate scientists use to model climate, and you get a warming system, then what? Doesn't mean the model is broken, it just means under current conditions that's what the model predicts. This is sort of my point. If you are a proponent for a cooling climate, for instance, then either you need data that predicts a cooling climate with current models, or you need a way to explain how current conditions will add up to cooling. 

If the models are wrong, and all the climate data and observations we've made so far are not an indication, and there really is no warming trend, then fantastic. But so far, the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise.


----------



## flightschool (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> If you model climate based on your best estimations of whatever climate scientists use to model climate, and you get a warming system, then what? Doesn't mean the model is broken, it just means under current conditions that's what the model predicts. This is sort of my point. If you are a proponent for a cooling climate, for instance, then either you need data that predicts a cooling climate with current models, or you need a way to explain how current conditions will add up to cooling.
> 
> If the models are wrong, and all the climate data and observations we've made so far are not an indication, and there really is no warming trend, then fantastic. But so far, the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise.



I understand your point.  The problem is the models haven't worked very well in the short term but they are probably built for more long term calibration since that is what concerns us the most...  I have nothing more to add that will aid in the discussion.  I'm not a scientist, just a casual and interested observer.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The _"process of science"_ that I learned at university while getting my Bachelor of Science degree taught me that if your hypothesis is broken, it's time to either reevaluate your science or perhaps admit failure.
> 
> What it didn't teach me is to desperately cling to straws, fabricate data to support your hypothesis, hide data that contradicts your hypothesis, rejigger computer models, or move the goalposts for evaluation out at LEAST another 20 or 30 years to ensure that the government money train keeps on rolling into the station.



9/11 was an inside job! False flag!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> *Running the multiple scenarios with flawed climate models which has not predicted the pause is bad. *Basing these scenario to dictate public policy is plain idiot.



It's WORSE than not "predicting the pause***", if you think the failure was in just not seeing a pause you need to go back and look at just how badly the Global Warming scientists computer models and predictions have failed up to this point.


***And "pause" is a humorous, unscientific term the AGM crowd uses, as it discounts any possibility that, although their science is ALREADY wrong as modeled and predicted, that ultimately it's even possible they will continue to be wrong.  You know, there's really just a "pause" in terms of their being right!



fbrissette said:


> No university teaches the process of science at the Bachelor level and it's barely done at all at the MSc level, as is painfully obvious from your arguments.



Right.  And law schools dont teach law.  And architecture degrees dont teach about buildings and construction.



fbrissette said:


> It is mind boggling to me how anyone can come up with such a distorted view.  *What you are describing is indeed a worldwide conspiracy to defraud the government of taxpayer money.*



Hardly.  What I'm describing is various governments using the science to defraud the public and corporations out of tax dollars.  If  you dont believe this happens, then you probably also believe it was the tooth fairy that left those quarters under your pillow when you were a kid.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 19, 2014)

flightschool said:


> *I understand your point.  The problem  is the models haven't worked very well in the short term but they are  probably built for more long term calibration *since that is what concerns us the most...



Nope.  

Worse?    The Global Warming scientists prediction of increasing CO2 levels was actually_* UNDER*_estimated.  

CO2 levels have risen even worse than their dire predictions, partly  fueled via unexpected economic increases in the developing world, and  YET the world's warming didnt even remotely play out as their science  suggested.   Forget a "pause", the warming should have been even worse  than what they predicted!

If you TRIED to be more wrong, it would probably be statistically unlikely.



MadMadWorld said:


> 9/11 was an inside job! False flag!



Then you have posts like this which demonstrate the individual doesnt even have a basic grasp of the issue or its' history.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 19, 2014)

I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?


----------



## flightschool (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Nope.
> 
> Worse?    The Global Warming scientists prediction of increasing CO2 levels was actually_* UNDER*_estimated.
> 
> ...



I knew about the discrepancy of modeled C02 increase and actual being larger...  I was just saying the models may be weak in short term changes(20-50 years) vs long term.  That doesn't mean I'm saying they are going to be validated...


----------



## Puck it (Feb 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?



Yes they did with Raquel Welch in 1000000 BC.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 19, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?



Yes they did with Raquel Welch in 1000000 BC.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> What I'm describing is various governments using the science to defraud the public and corporations out of tax dollars.



Ok.  So it's not the scientists trying to defraud the government to get the flow of research money coming.  It's a global government conspiracy to defraud tax payers and companies.  Or are the scientists and governments both in it together ?  The scientists supply the fake science, the government keep the research money flowing, and they use the fake research to defraud taxpayers. Is that the way it works ?

Well,  Canada ain't part of the global conspiracy. Canada was the first country to opt out of the Kyoto accord.  GHG emissions have gone up markedly.  They've eliminated the Climate change action fund which was the main source of Climate change research.  They've encouraged the rapid development of tar sands and are actively lobbying the US for the Keystone pipeline project.  Not as familiar with the US, but I you are now a net oil exporter for the first time in history.  Sustainable development ain't looking too good.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

flightschool said:


> I knew about the discrepancy of modeled C02 increase and actual being larger...  I was just saying the models may be weak in short term changes(20-50 years) vs long term.  That doesn't mean I'm saying they are going to be validated...



The underlying theory in the climate models is that greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming; mainly water vapor, co2 and methane. Since water vapor can not be controlled then the later are made the villains. The problem is co2 has increased while surface and troposphere temps have remained flat or slightly cooled, this trend has been going on for the past 17 years. The issue is that all physical process must follow cause and effect. If present climates model assumes this type of causality then the model is fundamentally wrong.

There is a group of tenure/semi retired professor who proposed this fundamental issue if cause and effect with AGW and the climate models,  some have testify before congress, UK Parliament and Canadian government. Unfortunately, it has not made the news b/c its not the news media wants to present.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> You're adorable





MadMadWorld said:


> 9/11 was an inside job! False flag!





MadMadWorld said:


> I just want to know.....dinosaurs walked with humans....true or false?




haha..... taken straight out of Al Gore's text book. I expected better.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Ok.  So it's not the scientists trying to defraud the government to get the flow of research money coming.  It's a global government conspiracy to defraud tax payers and companies.  Or are the scientists and governments both in it together ?  The scientists supply the fake science, the government keep the research money flowing, and they use the fake research to defraud taxpayers. Is that the way it works ?



When you have a guy like John Holdren as a science adviser to Obama, then the government is involved. 




fbrissette said:


> Well, Canada ain't part of the global conspiracy. Canada was the first country to opt out of the Kyoto accord. GHG emissions have gone up markedly. They've eliminated the Climate change action fund which was the main source of Climate change research. They've encouraged the rapid development of tar sands and are actively lobbying the US for the Keystone pipeline project. Not as familiar with the US, but I you are now a net oil exporter for the first time in history.  Sustainable development ain't looking too good.



As the pause continues more countries will opt out as Canada did.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha..... taken straight out of Al Gore's text book. I expected better.



Taken straight out of the conversation from 2000. But I didn't expect anything more current or relevant.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Taken straight out of the conversation from 2000. But I didn't expect anything more current or relevant.



Makes sense..... after 13 yrs and going to 14 yrs while the temps have been flatlining.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 19, 2014)

Here's the other thing I haven't seen addressed: you guys are putting a lot of stock in a "global warming pause" without taking into account any of the explanations for that. 

I'm not a climate scientist, but I've some several explanations for this:

-Warming hasn't increased over the last 10-15 years relative to the previous period, but temperatures each of these years was well above average. So its still warmer than average, it just isn't getting more warmer than average each year, at least for now.

-The atmosphere only absorbs so much of the heat. While atmospheric warming hasn't continued to increase, oceanic warming has, which suggests the increased is primarily being absorbed by the ocean. There is a lot of evidence for oceanic warming, besides measurements of water temp. We are also seeing serious ecological damage due to changes in temp, dissolved CO2, and changes in sea level. It's important to point out that another measure of global warming, sea level rise, has increased. Sea ice and the mass of the ice caps has continued to decrease as well.

Like I said, if you want to say there's no warming, then show me data that supports this. Then account for how a cooling or stable system still has loss of the polar ice caps, sea level rise, and increasing oceanic temp. Right now the best theory to account for all these factors are warming models. If you can present a cooling model that fits better, and that makes an accurate prediction about future climactic conditions, then you've overturned global warming. Until then, I will continue to support global warming because it best explains what we currently observe in nature, and that is what science is about.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Here's the other thing I haven't seen addressed: you guys are putting a lot of stock in a "global warming pause" without taking into account any of the explanations for that.
> 
> I'm not a climate scientist, but I've some several explanations for this:
> 
> -Warming hasn't increased over the last 10-15 years relative to the previous period, but temperatures each of these years was well above average. So its still warmer than average, it just isn't getting more warmer than average each year, at least for now.



The major point is, what is the average temp given Earth has experience periods of warm and cold periods. Two hundred years of readings is nothing in terms of how long the earth has existed.  Some have speculated that the roman empire and the medieval periods had local and global averages warmer than now if not close to it. I believe their is some debate on actual temps since their may be issues of accuracy and whether urbanized areas will distort temp reading so that is why I say speculation. 




Rowsdower said:


> Like I said, if you want to say there's no warming, then show me data that supports this. Then account for how a cooling or stable system still has loss of the polar ice caps, sea level rise, and increasing oceanic temp. Right now the best theory to account for all these factors are warming models. If you can present a cooling model that fits better, and that makes an accurate prediction about future climactic conditions, then you've overturned global warming. Until then, I will continue to support global warming because it best explains what we currently observe in nature, and that is what science is about.




I never said there is no warming, what I said was the temps have flatline, the current climate models and the AGW hypothesis can not explain this. My point is, if the flatline is due to natural causes, then AGW does not play a dominate role in this. 

As far as a cooling trend, we may see one given the sun will be at its lowest activity, time will tell. Not sure what to expect and certainly the models did not predict. It couldn't b/c the underlying driver for the model was dependent on co2.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> The major point is, what is the average temp given Earth has experience periods of warm and cold periods. Two hundred years of readings is nothing in terms of how long the earth has existed.  Some have speculated that the roman empire and the medieval periods had local and global averages warmer than now if not close to it. I believe their is some debate on actual temps since their may be issues of accuracy and whether urbanized areas will distort temp reading so that is why I say speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not a climate scientist, I'm a biologist, but I'll try my best to address some of this.

-Climate has never been constant. The main concern now is the rate of change, and that this has been accelerated beyond anything seen naturally. This is a big concern to us biologists, since it could mean a huge loss of biological diversity due to habitat loss. Most species will be hard pressed to adapt to such a rapid change in their environment, and will most likely go extinct. 

-The models aren't constant either. They are refined as better data is available, and more factors are accounted for. Remember, we are still seeing temperatures above our recent average, and this rate of change has been so far unprecedented. 

-You can account for a slow down in warming if you consider oceanic warming, which nobody was factoring in until more recently. 

-Taken together, a warming model still best explains all the observations we have about climate from temperature data, oceanic data, glacier and ice data, and ecological data. This is the point I keep harping on: the models that we have are the best explanation for all these observations. You may be critical of them, but until you can find a better explanation for all these observations you don't have a theory of your own, just criticism. This isn't how science is advanced. Criticism is good, but unless you can point towards a constructive alternative, then we aren't getting anywhere.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Not a climate scientist, I'm a biologist, but I'll try my best to address some of this.
> 
> -Climate has never been constant. The main concern now is the rate of change, and that this has been accelerated beyond anything seen naturally. This is a big concern to us biologists, since it could mean a huge loss of biological diversity due to habitat loss. Most species will be hard pressed to adapt to such a rapid change in their environment, and will most likely go extinct.
> 
> ...



As a biologist, name a biological process that does not obey cause and effect. I'm trying to figure out a physical process the doesn't. And I know of non causal systems but they are not natural processes. 

So if all physical process have to obey cause and effect, how did the warmth get transfer to the ocean around 1997-98? Or what was the trigger that pull out all that man made co2 and make the ocean more acidic? The climate model does not explain this nor does a greenhouse gas hypothesis explain this. In reality, it should be name the ocean acidity hypothesis.

btw, from what I have read, taking the ocean into account can be a major undertaking.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> As a biologist, name a biological process that does not obey cause and effect. I'm trying to figure out a physical process the doesn't. And I know of non causal systems but they are not natural processes.
> 
> So if all physical process have to obey cause and effect, how did the warmth get transfer to the ocean around 1997-98? Or what was the trigger that pull out all that man made co2 and make the ocean more acidic? The climate model does not explain this nor does a greenhouse gas hypothesis explain this. In reality, it should be name the ocean acidity hypothesis.
> 
> btw, from what I have read, taking the ocean into account can be a major undertaking.



The ocean can absorb much more heat than the atmosphere. Excess heat may be more readily absorbed by the ocean than in the atmosphere at a certain point. This is just as I've seen it explained. 

CO2 dissolves into water to raise pH. Increase atmospheric CO2 and you increase the pH of the ocean. Even very small changes in pH can have damaging effects on biologic systems. 

Warming models do offer an explanation because they match our observations. So if we see ocean acidification and rising water temps, along with an unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2, and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, then we form our theory around this. It might not be perfect, but it best explains our observations. If you have a better explanation for atmospheric, temperature, oceanic, ice, and ecological data, then I encourage you to present it.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> I never said there is no warming, what I said was the temps have flatline, the current climate models and the AGW hypothesis can not explain this.



You are right in that climate models cannot model the plateau.  You are however wrong on the second part.  

You guys seem to think that climate modelers have ultimate faith in their models.  They don't.  They know better than anyone that their models have problems -resolution, physical, parameter, numerical wise.   Individual models reproduce some variables OK, some badly, but all are biased to some extent, which is why the ensemble mean is taken as a better indicator.  You focus on temperature, but the models are much better at temperature than precipitation for example !  The inability of even the ensemble mean at modelling the plateau clearly indicates that there is a component of natural variability or a complex feedback effect that is not represented within models.  

Does it mean that AGW does not exist ?  No, because there are plenty of other indicators that the earth is still warming.  And you would know that if you only bothered to read real science.   And believe it or not, there is plenty of research on natural cycles, aerosols, sulphates and solar activity that goes into this.   And all of this research points in the same direction, which is why 97% of climate scientists still believe in AGW, despite the plateau.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

IMO, the ocean effect is still a hypothesis. Research is still being done on it but base lining the temps and ph levels will be a major undertaking. The papers I found so far indicates the measured seasonal variation in ph levels at spot points is much more than what is anticipated due to acification from the man made co2. 

As far as I read no one has shown how or why the oceans took over the warmth or absorb the excess co2 (if such a quantity can be measured in the first place).


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You guys seem to think that climate modelers have ultimate faith in their models.  They don't.  They know better than anyone that their models have problems -resolution, physical, parameter, numerical wise.   Individual models reproduce some variables OK, some badly, but all are biased to some extent, which is why the ensemble mean is taken as a better indicator.  You focus on temperature, but the models are much better at temperature than precipitation for example !  The inability of even the ensemble mean at modelling the plateau clearly indicates that there is a component of natural variability or a complex feedback effect that is not represented within models.




yeah... so every assessment  report the expect temp levels or climate sensitivities have decreased. Note a great assessment unless you want to tank the economy. 



fbrissette said:


> And all of this research points in the same direction, which is why 97% of climate scientists still believe in AGW, despite the plateau.



again with the IPCC 97% number.... you have to read another political paper.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> As far as I read no one has shown how or why the oceans took over the warmth or absorb the excess co2 (if such a quantity can be measured in the first place).



Why don't you start with this.  Sorry, I dont think there is a youtube version yet.

Abraham, J. P., et al. "A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change." _Reviews of Geophysics 51.3 (2013): 450-483._


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> again with the IPCC 97% number.... you have to read another political paper.



Here's peer-reviewed research.  Not an IPCC document.

Cook, John, et al. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." _Environmental Research Letters 8.2 (2013): 024024.
_


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Why don't you start with this.  Sorry, I dont think there is a youtube version yet.
> 
> Abraham, J. P., et al. "A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change." _Reviews of Geophysics 51.3 (2013): 450-483._




I have... its why I stated the measurements for baselining is a major undertaking.


edit: btw, ocean as a heat absorption has been speculated long ago by these tenure professor and that's why in part they never believed in the greenhouse theory. But the nowadays you have to present it as "global warmth hiding in the ocean" to get any media attention let alone any of the trade rags who have been taken over by alarmist.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Here's peer-reviewed research.  Not an IPCC document.
> 
> Cook, John, et al. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." _Environmental Research Letters 8.2 (2013): 024024.
> _



haha... an alarmist quantifying his biased survey


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

duplicate deleted.


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha... an alarmist quantifying his biased survey



What specifically didn't you like in the author's methodology?


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> What specifically didn't you like in the author's methodology?



do your own research and come up with your opinion. 

i have get some sleep and ski tomorrow before the non crystalline precipitation comes. winter has been great so far!


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 19, 2014)

jack97 said:


> I have... its why I stated the measurements for baselining is a major undertaking.
> 
> 
> edit: btw, ocean as a heat absorption has been speculated long ago by these tenure professor and that's why in part they never believed in the greenhouse theory. But the nowadays you have to present it as "global warmth hiding in the ocean" to get any media attention let alone any of the trade rags who have been taken over by alarmist.



May I suggest you read the paper again ?  Because what you are saying about it and what it actually says are not the same thing.



> The total energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere is best assessed by taking an inventory of changes in energy storage. The main storage is in the ocean, the latest values of which are presented. Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming.



Edit: note it says 'multiple studies' whereas you said earlier you did not find any papers about this.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 19, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> May I suggest you read the paper again ?  Because what you are saying about it and what it actually says are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: note it says 'multiple studies' whereas you said earlier you did not find any papers about this.





jack97 said:


> *As far as I read no one has shown how or why the oceans took over the warmth or absorb the excess co2 (if such a quantity can be measured in the first place).*



the paper did not address what the trigger in the ocean cause this pause at 97-98. Trenberth's recent papers at least correlates this to natural causes measured at the ocean.

.... you really need to get off the IPCC bible.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

hmm.... no more replys from the ipcc zealots or political activist? 


Here's an interesting transcript (sorry fbriss... no ytube) from the American Physic Society in that they want to reframe the policy statement on climate science. The last statement caused several resignation from prominent members. From what I have gather, the resignation was due to supporting claims as a result of bad science.

The transcript is from a workshop for framing this statement. Several key speakers were former IPCC lead authors and some are now cast out b/c this didn't drink the koolaid. Its a long read.... but if you're comfortable with dogma just ignore it. 


http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf


btw, some are giving hints that we may experience more cooling... meaning good winters, I had to bring this back to topic.


----------



## flightschool (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> hmm.... no more replys from the ipcc zealots or political activist?
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting transcript (sorry fbriss... no ytube) from the American Physic Society in that they want to reframe the policy statement on climate science. The last statement caused several resignation from prominent members. From what I have gather, the resignation was due to supporting claims as a result of bad science.
> ...



Finally some good news.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> hmm.... no more replys from the ipcc zealots or political activist?





jack97 said:


> like a politician, resort to ridicule to for the mudslinging remarks.



I think you can handle this "discussion" all on your own.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> .*... you really need to get off the IPCC bible*.



It's not even a bible, because the "zealouts" don't even follow it.  They practice "à la carte science", choosing to focus on the bits they see fit, rather than what the actual science suggests.

The fact that according to IPCC data eating meat is FAR worse than driving an SUV *(if you believe the IPCC)*?   

Yeah, THAT doesnt get any attention, even though turning people to vegetarianism would be FAR more impactful than getting people to drive hybrid cars.  But telling people they shouldnt eat meat isnt a winning strategy, and would lose politicians votes.  And you cant get campaign dollars from telling people to not eat meat, unlike what you can grab from the automobile manufacturers and for providing tax subsidies for electric and hybrid cars.

Or how about the fact that according to IPCC data, owning a few dogs and a cat is worse for the planet than driving that big gas-guzzling SUV* (if you believe the IPCC)*?  

THAT doesnt get any attention either, because telling people that owning pets is bad for the planet wont exactly win hearts and minds and get you votes either.

So instead they do the sterotypical leftist thing, attack businesses, call them evil, extract money, and focus on self-righteous phoney "solutions" rather than the actual solutions that would honestly make the most dramatic difference to the problem *(assuming you believe the IPCC data in the first place).*


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I think you can handle this "discussion" all on your own.



yep... the dogma, zealot and activist remark was directly point at you and frbis... after 13 to 14 yrs, you should know was the mud and the condescending remarks start slinging it going to be chucked right back.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's not even a bible, because the "zealouts" don't even follow it.  They practice "à la carte science", choosing to focus on the bits they see fit, rather than what the actual science suggests.
> 
> The fact that according to IPCC data eating meat is FAR worse than driving an SUV *(if you believe the IPCC)*?
> 
> ...




I call this blinded arrogance of the left. UN or IPCC states that 30 % of the greenhouse gasses are due to agriculture of that a significant portion of it transportion and storage. In addition of the grains are for meat, cattle is very inefficient and is still a luxury item in the rest or the world yet we have very cheap forms of it here. And then we throw out 40% of the food we produce.... plain blind arrogance.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> yep... the dogma, zealot and activist remark was directly point at you and frbis... after 13 to 14 yrs, you should know was the mud and the condescending remarks start slinging it going to be chucked right back.



Scotty, can you translate this for me?


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

flightschool said:


> Finally some good news.



within that workshop, Lindzend, Curry and Christy were contributors to the IPCC, they became out casted when they questioned co2 causal relationship to temps  when observations showed there is no causality or at best, very little. Their hypothesis is that the natural uncertainities were masking out man made contributions. The APS and any good scientist is re-examining the policy statements since the AWG hypothesis does to correlate to observations.

btw, causation would imply correlation the inverse is not true. imo, scientist who does states otherwise is second rate.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Scotty, can you translate this for me?



haha... i think you know.

btw, i'm having fun trolling you.... come back and play. but first I have to get some skiing done.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> haha... i think you know.



I'm not sure I do. I'd love for you to take a stroll back through this thread and point out what makes you consider me to be dogmatic, a zealot, or an activist.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> btw, i'm having fun trolling you.... come back and play. but first I have to get some skiing done.



Yikes!!!  Just read Nick's thread that Online Trolls are Actually Sociopaths in Real Life:
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...y-Sociopaths-in-Real-Life?p=826766#post826766

All the signs were there....


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Yikes!!!  Just read Nick's thread that Online Trolls are Actually Sociopaths in Real Life:
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...y-Sociopaths-in-Real-Life?p=826766#post826766
> 
> All the signs were there....



That explains a lot about you.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not sure I do. I'd love for you to take a stroll back through this thread and point out what makes you consider me to be dogmatic, a zealot, or an activist.



In the eyes of jack97, if you believe that man has a role in the warming, or that the earth is warming at all, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you are by definition a radical alarmist.  Any peer-reviewed paper that points to any of the above is also automatically part of the IPCC conspiracy.  Any paper that goes against his belief will either be interpreted in a different way, criticized for not looking at something entirely different, or part of the bible of the IPCC (whatever that is).

I would add that having a polar bear as an avatar automatically makes you an alarmist since we all know polar bears are used as a propaganda tool by the IPCC.  

May I suggest the following avatar ?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 20, 2014)

This shit is so over my head I don't even know who's arguing which side anymore.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 20, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> I would add that having a polar bear as an avatar automatically makes you an alarmist since we all know polar bears are used as a propaganda tool by the IPCC.



HaHa, I just realized that myself!  Jack will probably be perplexed to know that I took that photograph while working for an oil company in the arctic.


----------



## flightschool (Feb 20, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> This shit is so over my head I don't even know who's arguing which side anymore.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 20, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> That explains a lot about you.



Nothing can explain me.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 20, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> I would add that* having a polar bear as an avatar automatically makes you an alarmist since we all know polar bears are used as a propaganda tool *by the IPCC.



Polar bears?  What polar bears?  It's 2014, they're supposed to be nearly extinct by 2035.  They sure better get to dieing!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> HaHa, I just realized that myself!  Jack will probably be perplexed to know that I took that photograph while working for an oil company in the arctic.



You really took that yourself? That's awesome.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> * I took that photograph while working for an oil company *in the arctic.



Could be worse I suppose.  You could work for Smithfield Ham or Tyson Chicken.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 20, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> HaHa, I just realized that myself!  Jack will probably be perplexed to know that I took that photograph while working for an oil company in the arctic.



How far were you?  Tell the sorry!


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

you guys just proved my point.  

btw, cb, doesn't matter if you work for an oil company, got to earn a living. I've known environmental engineers who work for big oil.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 20, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Polar bears?  What polar bears?  It's 2014, they're supposed to be nearly extinct by 2035.  They sure better get to dieing!



I thought we would lose all the ice cover and all this snow we are having as well.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 20, 2014)

jack97 said:


> *I thought we would lose all the ice cover* and all this snow we are having as well.



Meh.......Live by the "record" low ice amounts, die by the "record" high ice amounts.

That's what happens when the media and alarmists scream_* "RECORD"*_, at every turn, but intentionally fail to inform the public that the record keeping for that data is actually younger than Ashton Kutcher. 

  It's not generally difficult to cross a statistical "record" hurdle in either direction when the N's in your data set are so small.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 20, 2014)

let's forget about AGW.  There's a Canada against USA hockey game tomorrow morning (men's hockey).  And as I've heard on the radio, the loser gets to keep Justin Bieber.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> HaHa, I just realized that myself!  Jack will probably be perplexed to know that I took that photograph while working for an oil company in the arctic.





MadMadWorld said:


> You really took that yourself? That's awesome.





fbrissette said:


> How far were you?  Tell the sorry!



Yes, I took that myself while working in the northern Chukchi Sea last year.  I've been working in the arctic since ~2000 and have seen lots of P Bears up there.  



jack97 said:


> you guys just proved my point.
> 
> btw, cb, doesn't matter if you work for an oil company, got to earn a living. I've known environmental engineers who work for big oil.



Thank you Jack.  Yup we all have to earn a living.  Fortunately there is no conflict of interest for this dogmatic, zealot, activist.  Because the oil companies are 100% aware of the science on AGW, they understand it, they accept it, and they are working within its projections. In fact they contribute considerably to the scientific understanding of climate change that you like to deny.  You guys can talk all day long about the corruption of politics and the unfair burden on free-enterprise, but the reality is that these oil companies know a SHITLOAD more than you do. They completely understand that it IS happening, they ARE planning for it, and they WILL profit from it.  I have been spending 2-3 months at sea in the arctic for the past several years.  Do you really think there is 1 second of debate happening about climate change up there? Here's a hint....there isn't.  Yes there is some political wrangling in Anchorage and DC, that's what companies do. But ALL of the planning up there has to do with the ever-increasing access to open-water drill sites. it is just the simple and obvious reality.  Every day up there I work with every range of the political spectrum, natives, "lower-48ers", foreigners, and every range of economic, education, and age categories. We argue about a LOT of things (sports, poltics, music).  But climate change/global warming/sea level rise don't get a lot of attention day-to-day.  Just like we don't ever debate the sunrise.  It is just reality.

The Russians, Canadians, Norwegians, Finns, etc are already embracing an ice-free arctic as a way of life. The US is the only nation stuck in an antiquated debate about the reality of the near-term future (reflected in this thread) that restricts our ability to function in the arctic. As it stands right now the US can neither preserve nor exploit arctic resources thanks to a vocal minority that will not politically recognize reality.  No matter which side of the issue you sit on you are getting F'd by the people who disregard climate change as a reality.  If you are one of the few people still being swayed by the case against AGW, let me give you a heads up.... you are just a disposable piece of a political negotiation stragetgy between 2 sides of a conversation whom both understand the reality and the long-term outcome. 


Here's another one for your enjoyment.....


----------



## Rowsdower (Feb 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Meh.......Live by the "record" low ice amounts, die by the "record" high ice amounts.
> 
> That's what happens when the media and alarmists scream_* "RECORD"*_, at every turn, but intentionally fail to inform the public that the record keeping for that data is actually younger than Ashton Kutcher.
> 
> It's not generally difficult to cross a statistical "record" hurdle in either direction when the N's in your data set are so small.



Point me to the "record high" ice amounts. Arctic sea ice volume and mass has lurched from one record low to another. 

Polar bears are considered a vulnerable species by the IUCN, with a primary threat being habitat loss due to the decreasing extent of sea ice and rising sea levels.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 21, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Because the oil companies are 100% aware of the science on AGW, they understand it, they accept it, and they are working within its projections. In fact they contribute considerably to the scientific understanding of *climate change that* *you like to deny*.



Arrogance & dogmatic.... Never said climate change is not happening just AGW is falsified (bg as well).

BTW, I known long ago big oil has been up there for many reason as well as various militaries of the governments you spoke of. The latter are as well adapting to this change.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 28, 2014)

Until we acknowledge the pink elephant in the sky, I don't think we can assume there are any correlations that can be drawn with certainty regarding modern day natural weather systems.



My opinion is that we are in a period of cooling due to artificially introduced aerosols into the atmosphere which are used to seed clouds, reflect more sunlight into space, and probably poison us one way or another too.

It seems like nobody wants to say "Geoengineering". Even though the Air Force has stated that it intends to completely control the weather by 2025 and there are plenty of documents like this going back to 1966..

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf


----------



## Rowsdower (Mar 2, 2014)

bdfreetuna said:


> Until we acknowledge the pink elephant in the sky, I don't think we can assume there are any correlations that can be drawn with certainty regarding modern day natural weather systems.
> 
> View attachment 11474
> 
> ...



Oh you did not just go full chemtrail...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 2, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Oh y*ou did not just go full chemtrail.*..



I has assumed it was a joke?


----------



## Not Sure (Mar 2, 2014)

I think those are "Contrails" they do reflect some energy....how much?


----------



## jack97 (Mar 2, 2014)

Contrails...Chemtrails, same difference


----------



## Rowsdower (Mar 3, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I has assumed it was a joke?



I hope, hence my reply which was also joking.


----------

