-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3384/spring-flood-threat-keeps-towns-on-alert/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
- Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
- Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
- Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
- The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
:)
(P.S. unless sunspot activity increases significantly in the near term, we'll all be terrified of global COOLING).
Plus, one year does not make a trend. Let's talk about the weather 20 years from now.
Speaking of one year not making a trend, how does measuring temperature change over the last 100 years make a trend either? We know that there are natural cycles where conditions are warmer and cooler. These occured long before humans we even on the scene.
Leslie, you're correct: communication about climate change has included the term "global warming", which obviously leads to numerous assumptions as to what will likely occur in the mind of the public. There is nothing in the science of climate change that says every region across the globe will experience the exact same shifts in climate. To the contrary, it has been expected for some time that some places would get warmer and some cooler. At the same time, some places would get wetter and some drier. Note that those regions need not overlap. Larger snowfalls, especially in mountainous areas, are well within the expected range of phenomena we'll likely experience under a different climate regime.
Sunspots? Negligible effect on our climate. Limited data sets? 600,000+ years of data tell quite the story. No reputable scientist is saying that the sky is falling. If anything, recent observations indicate we're still not taking this problem seriously enough.
OH, PUH-LEAZE.
"No reputable scientist" with actual knowledge of the solar cycle would ever try to claim that.
Who are you trying to kid?
And "600,000+ years of data?" Yeah, I'm sure that there are accurate records of every meteorlogical event from even, say, 2000 years ago? What's that, you can't seem to find them on the Internet? Gee, what a surprise.
Stop trying to pass off speculation based on the geological record, which EVERY geologist will admit is incomplete, as fact.
See, this kind of thing is EXACTLY why you can't believe the hype about "global warming" and "climate change." Because people will lie to forward a political agenda using such wild nonsense. Unfortunately, too many people buy off on the lies, not knowing any better. If the hype and BS weren't such serious threats to our economy and way of life, it would all be laughable. As it is, it's scary and pathetic at the same time.
Sunspots: Lassen (1999) said that the solar cycle model could no longer be considered as the dominant cause of the long-term variation in N.H. temperature. Other scientists have confirmed that recent warming trends are better explained by greenhouse forcing. And those studies came out almost 10 years ago now. Warming has continued since then, even as the solar cycle reached its most recent minimum.
I don't recall writing about accurate meteorological records either. I did mention data. But thanks for jumping to conclusions to fit your preconceived notions. How scientific of you.
The records that exist are not speculative. They are detailed and well vetted. Conclusions drawn from their analysis always include the use of careful language to put things in context.
And then there's the oft-repeated claim of "lie to forward a political agenda". That would entail a world-wide conspiracy of not only scientists across multiple disciplines but a similar effort by every world government to perpetrate it on us. Adapting to lifestyles that don't impinge so heavily on the Earth's resources will not wreck economies. On the contrary, current efforts underway have been shown to expand economies.
I say better to act now, while we still might have a chance to mitigate some of our effects. By the time the denyers come around, the crises will have grown exponentially.
which comes from your belief in your Invisible Friend in the Sky, Who's going to use magic one of these days to make the Earth perfect again for His Best Pals.
Thank Heaven the God I believe in is much more sensible and gave us humans brains so we have a fair chance of working it out ourselves before it's too late.
Real good scientific argument, all those personal perjoratives and feeble attempts at sarcasm, not to mention the out-and-out namecalling. Thanks for the terrific demonstration of just what is so completely wrong with the Global Warming crowd. That kind of thing is EXACTLY why they can't be believed. Appreciate it.
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Last year, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists
skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather
event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming
advocacy.
SUMMARY OF LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL
WARMING HOCKEY STICK
First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations,
environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called `hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.
This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.
The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the
"hockey stick." http://epw.senate.go...
The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly
impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the
inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's
climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an
assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College
of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr.
Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global
warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that
noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he
was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming
alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the
Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first
appeared in 1998, it did just that.
END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING
The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.
Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions
could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?
The Canadian Space Agency's radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue.
Like the number of sunspots, the Flux Density Values reflect the Sun's magnetic activity, which affects the rate at which the Sun radiates energy and warmth. CSA project director Ken Tapping calls the radio telescope that supplies NASA and the rest of the world with daily values of the Sun's magnetic activity a "stethoscope on the Sun". In this case, however, it is the "doctor" whose health is directly affected by the readings.
This is because when the magnetic activity is low, the Sun is dimmer, and puts out less radiant warmth. If the Sun goes into dim mode, as it has in the past, the Earth gets much colder.
Tapping, who was originally from Kent, says that "Typically as you go through the ten or eleven year solar activity cycle you see the numbers go up or down. The lowest number is 64 or 68. The numbers 71 or 72 are very low, but they usually start to go up. We are at the end of a cycle, but the numbers still haven't gone up. We have been joking around coffee that we may be seeing the Sun about to shut down." (To date Tapping has been far more concerned about global warming.)
These were the values released yesterday -
Density Values in sfu for 22:00 on 2008:01:30
Julian Day Number : 2454496.406
Carrington Rotation Number : 2066.207
Observed Flux Density : 0073.6
Flux Density Adjusted for 1 A.U. : 0071.4
URSI Series D Flux, Adj. x 0.9 : 0064.3
According to NASA, "early, well-documented records indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century" from about 1645 to 1715, during the Maunder Minimum.
Source: http://www.britsatth...
Inhofe has absolutely no credibilty on climate science so don't waste your pixels on him.
But, do you really expect to win an argument about global warming by throwing a few data points out especially when one of the people commenting is a climate scientist?
Do you really want to get into a link throwing war?
How great that you direct us to a press release by Inhofe.
Here's a study that backs the hockey stick theory:
http://www.umass.edu...
The link is only a press release but since you couldn't be bothered to show us the actual report, I won't either.
There's also this:
http://climateprogre...
The IPCC has stated, using older data that underpredict the problem, that the warming seen in the 20th century is as attributable to anthropogenic causes as is possible. Discounting the work of decades' worth of climate science is willful ignorance to an extreme. There was *no* forecast of global cooling in the mid-20th century. Global temperatures stopped increasing for a short time, but they were not forecast to start decreasing (neither did they actually decrease on a global scale). You've been subjected to hearing about partial quotes from what studies actually said during that time. You're simply wrong that global temperatures decreased. Try reading actual literature instead of spreading biased rumors.
Similar scientific studies in the mid-20th century warned that cigarettes would cause cancer. There was a huge industry led effort to discount those results as well. The "studies" Sen. Inhofe and other denyers cite are paid for by extractive industry. Who really has the agenda?
The "hockey stick" is broken only in the minds of denyers. It's funny how denyers continually cite the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warming Period" (which were regional in effect, not global), which appears in long-term temperature graphs, but refuse to believe warming of a similar magnitude in the past 100 years (global temperatures are actually 0.4C warmer than they were in the "Medieval Warm Period"). Really, either use it or don't. But it can't be right twice and wrong once at the same time. Besides, don't we only have 100 years of accurate meteorological records to cite anyway? Either the methodologies are bad or they're good, but they can't be bad for climate scientists and good for denialists. (There's that pesky agenda again.)
And let's concentrate on the science, not the media. Warming has occurred on the order of 1 degree Centigrade (globally), not 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century (with additional warming, at a faster rate since then, by the way). I wish there were advocates in the media on this subject. It never would have gotten to the stage where so many denyers had confused the public on the situation. Your Little Ice Age/20th Century Warming - summer/winter analogy falls very flat and it's incredibly disingenuous. You're comparing climate and weather - their timescales are too different.
Again, the magnitude of temperature change (positive) from a historical baseline in the 20th century is equal to the magnitude of temperature change (negative) of the Little Ice Age. Either both or real or both are not real. You cannot cite one and discount the other.
The problem becomes clear when one realizes that the most recent warming has been underforecasted, not overforecasted by climate models. Denialists claims that scientists' models don't perfectly capture every aspect of the system is true. But it's not true in the way that they think. The problem is worse than what the "advocating media" has reported on.
Advocates of alarmism exist on one side of the issue: yours. This assault on science is a sad chapter in our country's history. Nowhere else in the world is this problem being ignored. The longer the largest emitter of GHGs continues to pooh-pooh to problem, the larger the impact on the rest of the planet will be. How typically selfish of America.
http://mediamatters....
http://mediamatters....
But let's look at the solar cycle, shall we?
http://solarscience....
We're currently at the bottom of the sunspot cycle. First, every agency I'm aware of is predicting that their numbers will again increase in the short-term future. Second, if low sunspot activity caused cooler temperatures, why wasn't cooling observed in the mid 1990's or in the past few years? Instead, global temperatures continued to increase regardless of the mode of the solar cycle. From the above site:
Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.
Hmm. Sunspots can produce changes in the UV part of the EM spectrum. Well that's where we get all of the energy that drives our weather and climate, correct? No. No, it's not. UV energy is largely removed in the upper atmosphere. Which means another portion of the EM spectrum must be responsible.
Interestingly, the NASA site also includes this: "This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age"..." The last time I checked, correspond has a different definition than cause. They occurred at the same time. Does that mean the low number of sunspots caused the localized cooling recorded? There's no evidence to suggest that it did. Research into the case continues, but there's no documentable evidence that sunspots caused the cooling. There's an important difference.
If you're welcome to your opinion of scientists and realists, neonnurse is certainly welcome to their opinion of den(y)ers.
Wake up and small what you're shoveling.
OH, but hey, don't let me confuse you with any facts, since your minds are so clearly made up. Just go ahead and label people "deniers" to associate them with Holacaust Deniers and keep right on with what you're doing, not matter how based on false assumptions and limited data it might be. After all, who am I to question your new religion, right?
But keep playing the victim, please. Starting off a conversation throwing around insults and then complaining about the same behavior from other people does so much to advance your argument. If "extremists" works for you, "denyers" works for me. Thanks for the permission.
It would be nice if you structured those arguments from a single standpoint. Either the data are limited or they are not. Denyers typically want to extend data sets only to the point that they think it helps their argument. Anything else is off-limits.
Who are you to question my religion, indeed. Despite not being a factor in the scientific basis of the subject at hand, it's incredibly rude.
He's won simply because it's no longer worth my time to respond. I'm sure he'll have plenty to say to this but it will only echo in the blank space of those that care.
The other set are the greedy, selfish cynics who cling to any Authority's "facts" that back them up because they dread the thought of losing anything they think of as THEIRS: goods, money, social status, power and the illusion of being RIGHT.
If you are not one, you must be the other.
Oh, and by the way, when you yourself use sarcasm and name-calling from your first post on, you don't get to say later that your opponent's use of same means you win. Just FYI.
However, the four major organizations that track the global average temperature have now released their results for 2007. They are the Hadley Centre in the UK (Hadley), the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., in Santa Rosa, CA, (RSS) and the Christy group at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). The first three have been alarmed about GW for years, while the UAH group (which uses satellite MSU measurements) has tended to be skeptical.
All four of these studies report an astonishing drop in global temperature during 2007, between 0.59 and 0.75 degrees C. You can see graphs of their data at
http://wattsupwithth...
02/19/january-2008-4-
sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ .
This is by far the fastest change in global temperature on record. It is probably just a blip - but if the climate stabilizes at this level, it will have wiped out all the increase since 1920, and the whole GW thing will have gone away. Moreover, if 2008 shows another decrease of this magnitude, we will have to consider seriously the possibility that the 20-year transition to the next Ice Age has begun.
To paraphrase Eugene O'Neill, The Ice Age Cometh?
If this is true, the consequences are appalling. Most of North America and all of Europe north of the Alps will be under a mile of ice by 2030. This means that most of the advanced countries except Australia will cease to exist. There can be little doubt that the need to survive will trump any international norms of behavior: I would expect that Europe would invade Africa and the US would invade Mexico, accepting genocide of the indigenous populations as an unfortunate necessity, given the absolute need for lebensraum.
Perhaps we could delay or stop the transition by using nuclear explosions to release floods of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) from the hydrate deposits under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, and/or by mounting a major effort to reduce the albedo by shoveling dirt over northern snowfields. Unfortunately, the reputations and income of far too many influential people now depend on the existence of the GW threat, and they will resist recognizing the truth as long as possible. In any case, I don't expect politicians to have the chutzpah to act before it is too late.
Until we find out whether the present cold is transient or getting worse, the Precautionary Principle demands that we all do our duty by guzzling as much gasoline and emitting as much CO2 and CH4 as possible. Flatulence is now a patriotic duty.