Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Icebreaker Is Stuck In Ice After Antarctic Research Vessel Rescue
New submitter Cochonou writes "In an unforeseen turn of events, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long is now stuck in heavy Antarctic pack ice, just a day after its helicopter was used for the rescue of the passengers onboard the ice-trapped MV Akademik Shokalskiy. The Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis, which is now carrying the passengers of the Shokalskiy, has been placed on standby to assist. The Chinese vessel is waiting for favorable tidal conditions on Saturday to make another attempt at freeing itself."
We heard you needed an ice rescue, so we're sending you an ice rescue for your ice rescue.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Yo Dawg, I herd you like to break ice, so I put an ice breaker in your ice breaker so you can break ice while you break ice.
You can't handle the truth.
could an icebreaker break, if it could actually break some freakin' ice!
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
In Soviet Russia, missing ice find you!
The Irony of global cooling;)
If you send a ship to rescue another ship from ice, and that ship gets stuck in ice... I don't think that's exactly an "unforeseen" event. They knew the ice was there. And building up fast. It's a humorous turn of events, sure, but hardly unforeseen.
Thats all I have to say, China. Just lol.
"A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
What a fiasco.
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
I just think it is cool there is such cooperation between Russia, China, and Australia on this "saving" of essentially Antarctic party animals, on a Russian drinking and discovery cruise.
JJ
That's the problem with Chinese ice breakers. You get stuck again in an hour.
Trolling is a art,
If only climate change sceptics (most of them republitards/tea baggers) would try to learn the difference between climate and weather.
That would be nice and quite helpful.
How much ice would an icebreaker break if an icebreaker could break ice?
Or how the frackin antarctic works. It's much more relevant here that we're talking about the single coldest region of the planet. What everyone needs to remember is that deniers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, and the idea of the south pole being cold or it snowing anywhere is somehow relevant.
Their minds do not work correctly, because even a trivial examination of the ideas here would reveal the problem with this thinking. They do it anyways.
Chaotic systems are HERESY!
So, how many icebreakers would it take to form a continuous bridge back to Australia?
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
Sorry about the mess.
Really, if I was them I'd just hold tight, wait it out. That ice should melt away any minute now. I've already bought my beach front time share on Antarctica.
As I'm sure you've been told, climate isn't weather and weather isn't climate.
Sea ice has been receding for decades. Or do you deny that?
If not, read this. At the very lease, watch the attached video showing arctic sea-ice, 1987 to present.
A bridge over troubled waters.
How is this news? Sorry, but this sort of thing probably happens on a rather regular basis so this isn't exactly newsworthy.
Oh. Wait. It involves China and makes them look bad (for anyone eager to view something like this as a failure by China rather than just another day at the office for an icebreaker in the Antarctic) so it's obviously newsworthy, right?
Yawn.
Remember kids, when it supports ecofascism, it's climate, when it supports skepticism, it's weather. When a huge storm does a ton of damage, don't go thinking that's just weather, it's climate change, boogah boogah! But when temperature delta flatlines for years, don't go thinking that's climate, it's just weather. Yay! (Political) "science"!
(I'm so glad I have more karma than Ghandi. Bring on the downmods fascists!)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Arctica !== Antarctica.
Actually he said it in 2007, and it was by 2014, and it was summer ice in the north pole. So, basically, you got everything wrong. Posting AC because of previous mods.
Mainly climate activists and a few professors to observe the effects of global warming first hand. The "real scientists" started their annual research projects in October at the begining of Antarctic spring. (delayed a few weeks by the US government shutdown)
Both poles have been cooler than average the last year with a lot more ice. The long term trend at least in the north still appears to be warming.
Throw the Jonah overboard and the problems will be solved...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We apologize for the icebreaker rescue. Those responsible for the rescue will need a rescue. An icebreaker ønce bit my sister.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
They are making fun of you. You and your people have been spouting nonsense and they are ridiculing you for it because what you have said in the past is obviously wrong. Its not that they are the idiots, its that you are, and they are pointing it out. Gore said the Artic would be ice free by 2013, and we have read stories by the hundreds here on /. about how the Antarctic ice shelves keep falling off and the Antarctic will soon also be ice free. Ice breaker after ice breaker being stuck in the ice, in the SUMMER, is not the thing you would expect if any of those claims were true.
So its not them that are the idiots, they are merely making fun of the real idiots.
It's icebreakers all the way down
I'd still like to see a citation.
It seems unlikely that he would make that kind of declaration.
It seems more likely that he would refer to the results of peer-reviewed papers. And that he would give at least some context.
What everyone needs to remember is that believers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, Man is causing the problem and there are no possible other reasons
FTFY
Look, there are idiots on both sides of the isle You got the people who are no matter what going to say that man caused all the problems, there are those who will claim that the climate is not changing even when its clear that there is change, what is not clear is whether or not we caused the changes or if they are natural, and is there anything we can actually do to combat the change without causing unintended consequences or going broke from spending everything we have to make no difference whatsoever.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Remember kids, when a poster uses words like ecofascism, you'll be much better off ignoring the rest of what they type. Spend that time doing something constructive, like scratching your balls.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
I doubt that's true. All ice melting would mean many cities under water. Should happen eventually, but not by next week.
Zealots are those who insist their beliefs are right despite scientific consensus* to the contrary. Zealots are those who believe evolution did not take place, despite it being consensus* among biologists, as are those who believe the average temperature of the Earth has not been rising despite it being consensus* among climatologists.
* consensus in this case means 90% or more, as there are always guys who disagree.
I, for one, welcome global warming. It's always too cold where I live, and I wouldn't mind going from land-locked to beachfront property. California was going to fall into the ocean on its own anyway...
And I still can't get a goddamn ice cube for my gin & tonic. WORST ECOTOUR EVER!
LMGTFY
The reduction in the polar ice packs is critical. Should have listened to Al Gore.
Cold day in January: Crowd #1 sez "There's no global warming!" Hot day in August: Crowd #2 sez "There's global warming!"
Ah, one of those zealots I see.
What everyone needs to remember is that believers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, Man is causing the problem and there are no possible other reasons
Except that's a stupid proposition that is just untrue. Of course people who understand global warming don't think it's "All or nothing". It's cold where I am today, and that has nothing to do with the fact that this winter is still, on average, almost a degree warmer than a decade ago. Your placing yourself right in-between scientifically accurate and idiotically wrong just makes you wrong too. It doesn't make you a "reasonable moderate" it just makes you another willfully ignorant person who doesn't even begin to understand the basic science in question.
The presence of idiots doesn't even begin to justify that one "side" is entirely idiotic positions.
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that. The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
Don't forget that Antarctica was void of ice during the Mesozoic era. It was pretty warm then.
And sea ice is different then the ice sheet covering Antarctica. It's on the land. Duh.
Is it melting. Sure looks that way. What is the cause? Well there is where the debate and political affiliation comes into play. Can it be stopped? Not if history is any indicator of how much the Earth likes to change it's surface. The question of carbon footprint appears to me to be more politically motivated then anything else. The problem here is science has to know that the ice will melt. So what happens to the massive amount of populace that occupies the coast lines of the world? We better be more mobile then we are now, that is for sure.
I do not think that word means what you think it means
I'd still like to see a citation.
I can't find his actual quote offhand, reported in original context. I can find, however, that he was apparently citing Zwally, as also cited by National Geographic. Ggiven that it is going down by steps and not in a continuous flow, however, I think the real year that the arctic will be free of ice in the summer will happen sometime between next year and 2040 (one of the more realistic original estimates), but we can't really be sure which year it'll be. It'll also be interesting to see what the impact of the new solar cycle will be.
Just because supporter of an idea "X" is saying stupid shit doesn't necessarily make idea "X" wrong. Gore is frankly doing the climate science a disservice.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Instantly thought of this. Ok, so the second crane didn't actually go in the water, but still funny nonetheless!
Yeah, Antarctica had subtropical climate IIRC.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Yes, don't consider the argument on its merits, instead consider its presentation!
If you'd like to read more about the Antarctic ice and how hard it is to survive down there, I highly recommend the book Endurance. It's about the voyage of Ernest Shackleton and crew in 1914. Their purpose-built ship got stuck in the ice for months then ultimately crushed. They survived on the ice floes for many more months before finally escaping. It goes into lots of detail and is a fascinating read.
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
"Don't forget that Antarctica was void of ice during the Mesozoic era. It was pretty warm then."
As I recall, Antarctica as also north of Australia at that time, and just south of Africa and South America (as in you could walk from one to the other).
>> Their minds do not work correctly, because even a trivial examination of the ideas here would reveal the problem with this thinking. They do it anyways.
THIS, I have to listen to my conspiracy theorist friend parotting the worst brain damage, before you can point out how implausible the first item is, he's rattled off another 8 nonsensical things.
Ok, so the 72 passengers believe people are evil, are ruining earth, are defeating Gia, are causing global warming. That the 72 passengers, "scientists", only consider their belief, not prudent weather predictions is a given. Problem is the Captain must have believed in global warming also, must have ignored maritime weather wisdom & charts. Willfully ignoring normal Antartic December conditions, endangering passengers and ship, is not in captains job description.
What merits?
That, my friend, is known as the gish gallop where you propose so many wrong headed ideas(each of which a reasonable explanation of would take 10 times as long as spewing out) so quickly as to appear to have an undeniable point.
Yes, but what about the problem of Global Tilt -- Caused by the mass of all the icebreakers stuck in the Antarctica
In Soviet Antartica ice breaks you!
Why do they keep using that term? I do not think it means what they think it means.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Thats the probrem with liberals they don't believe in the Markets!
It's Xue Long time!
there are idiots on both sides of the isle...
So, is that Gilligan's Isle you're talking about?
Proverbs 21:19
Geography fail!
I suggest you watch THIS instructional video.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
The "system" is determinist, not chaotic. If the weather is hot, its caused by global warming. If the weather is cold, its caused by global warming. If the predictions are wrong, there is still global warming. The "science" is settled, but if it has to be fudged to match predictions, then there is still global warming. If the predictions are right, it's, "Yeah! We were right. It's global warming!"
And, the followup is always, "give us money and your freedom because global warming!"
The winter has just begun.
Where the hell, did you get your 1 degree warmer average?
And are you talking about your little tiny local area or globaly?
Seriously, can we at least make it half-way through a season before saying its average anything?
Just like gravity
Go outside and look up. What do you see? Birds! Gravity isn't stopping them. If gravity were real why do we see things like dust floating around seemingly freely. Gravity is just a scam to keep airline profits sky-high.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious- I hope.
You're doing the exact same thing that you are accusing the other side of doing. You're pointing to anecdotal events and claiming it as proof of your own hypothesis.
Without data backing up your theory it's worth about as much to the scientific consensus as anything said by the random alcoholic down at the local tavern. That guy thinks he has everything figured out too.
Doesn't that require that the person be intelligent enough to recognize that they are, in fact, spouting off lies and half-truths?
Kid-proof tablet..
Funny how advocates were sailing down there to "prove" global warming...I mean global climate change. Apparently THEY don't understand how chaotic systems work.
| I'd still like to see a citation.
Why? That's almost the worst vehicle Chevy has ever made!
the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
If you throw out a thousand predictions, then, statistically speaking, one will occasionally be correct. That's how psychics work and that's how "climate change scientists" work. I applaud your convenient qualification by using the term "mainline". That allows you to dismiss the numerous wildly wrong predictions as being outside of the mainstream. I would respect you more if you would simply acknowledge that ACC is a self-serving religion, not science or if you would start a Climate Change Hotline and charge users $4.99 a minute to listen to you rattle off predictions of doom.
So, is that Gilligan's Isle you're talking about?
So THAT's why I can never get off!
To tie this to another Slashdot story, this is exactly the reason I fear the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. I have no doubt that Bill Nye knows his stuff, but I fear that the creationist will toss a hundred "arguments" out and Bill will only tackle one or two successfully (simply because spreading information/proof takes more time than spreading unfounded assertations). Thus, he will be seen as having "lost" the debate because he "couldn't" counter all of Ken Ham's talking points.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Globally. Obviously, I don't have detailed data on my particular microclimate, and the data is leaning towards cooler than last year, but way warmer than a decade ago. obviously december isn't done yet, check back in a week
No, once one shill prepares an item on the list, a thousand suckers can repeat it easily.
Most of the people arguing against global warming are confused by statements like this.
I'm thinking it's because it displays an ignorance of something so intrinsic and basic (continental shift) that cognitive dissonance kicks in.
True story - I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh show the other day, and the guest host thought it was hilarious that the tourists on the ship would not get to see the polar bears...
Funny how the systems are only "chaotic" when they don't give answers that fit the agenda. When will you morons realize you've been duped by Gore and Soros and their plan to depopulate the Earth so only the elite survives?
But they won't get me! I've got my water filter and a pile of gold!
IPCC is generally considered mainline, due to scope, scale, and review levels. We've been trending just a hair warmer than "most likely warming" predictions(but well below "worst case") for a while now.
Its not easy to validate when you cannot get your hands on their raw data. You only get summary reports from the "climate scientists"!
staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories
Oh? Show me one.
I think you just described Reddit around the time when /r/atheism was a default sub. Europe may not have had a "Dark Age" after all but Reddit sure did.
This is where the IPCC chairman and his bobbleheads need to be. Is there any way to fly them and leave them on the abandoned ship? I realize that Climate Change is a reality however these guys are not the experts we're looking for.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
No one is seriously doing that.
Except when they do.
Like when a Lack of snowfall becomes a sign of global warming. Until it gets cold, then cold winter is a sign of global warming. And those are scientists quoted in both those articles, it's not just some 'unscientific journalists.'
Every time some 'weird weather' happens, it's a sign of global warming. If you don't realize this, it's because you aren't paying attention. Hurricane Sandy, Japan Tsunami, whatever it is, you see articles popping up about global warming.
The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
The core principles are sound. We know that CO2 can have an effect on the atmosphere. We know that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
The mainline predictive theories are not staggeringly accurate (as the snow problem in England, mentioned above, shows). As graphs like this and this and this show, it's seeming more and more like the climate change models are overly pessimistic (which of course is a value judgement; if you like warm weather, then you might say they are overly optimistic).
There is also plenty of unscientific behavior among scientists, as the Chris Landsat hurricane situation shows, and the CRU emails show.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We have the start of the ice breaker equivalent of the La Brea tar pits. Millennia from now scientists will carefully peel away the layers of ancient ice breaking vessels and revel at the pre-anti gravity era technology. (or we just wait until the ice melts in a few months, but where's the fun in that?)
Apparently these "climate scientists", their families and friends on this tour of Mawson’s camp site can't tell the difference between weather and climate. It appears they so believed in declining Antarctic ice they forgot to look at the weather and recent trends. There's an unprecedented amount of ice down there and these fools ignored that and went ahead and tried to complete their tour of a historic site. Exactly who are the idiots here?
It all starts at 0
You would do well to remember that the scientists:
1. Did not go down there to prove anything. That is not how scientists work.
2. Did not captain the boat. The crew of an icebreaker are experienced at... SURPRISE... travelling in arctic and/or antarctic environments. When THEY get stuck in the ice, you know some unusual things are happening.
But don't let that stop your circlejerking.
This comment — and its "insightful" moderation — are really telling...
Why would not neither TFA nor the /. write-up even mention, that the people, who needed to be rescued from the ice, went there in search of proof, the ice is melting?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
All of those scientists must be clueless too, seeing as that was the whole point of their expedition.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Its not easy to validate when you cannot get your hands on their raw data. You only get summary reports from the "climate scientists"!
You have to ask nicely.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'll go with:
I don't think "unforeseen" means what you think it means...
Of course this is Australia, up is down, black is white, and sending a ship to rescue a ship stuck in ice and by doing so also gets stuck in ice is unforeseen.
That's what happens when you send a snow dragon to do an ice dragon job.
Ideally you would think they would have a Fire Dragon that might be a lot more effective.
I'm pretty sure reddit is just mostly comprised of uninteresting people repeating the same 5 "jokes" forever on every subreddit.
No, that's a statistical change in precipitation over time, which is one of the things that does change. That's not the same as going "it's 32C today, therefor we have global warming".
You're still conflating the long-term with the short term, which is the problem with your attitude.
BTW if China ever builds a nuclear icebreaker they totally have to name it Fire Dragon, which Google translate tells me is: Hulóng.
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that.
Except of course for those stuck scientists, entire expedition was to 'study' how much warmer south pole got since last expedition (sweet sweet AGW grants). Oops.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
What's needed: Now get a name tag and put your name on it. The person at the front will give you a number. If you are a boy you have to find a girl with a number larger than yours (the first one you find), tell her your name, and dance with her one dance. Then you have to find a girl with a number lower than you, introduce yourself, and dance one dance. It might seem like Jr. High, but it sure does break the ice. If that doesn't work, mount a large chain saw to the back of a skidoo, and put a 48 inch (deep) cut into the ice. 4-5 sleds doing this will weaken the ice enough for it to break.
No, the expeditions to the south pole are primarily(i mean they do do other things too) concerned with ice core data, and looking at very long ago carbon dioxide and temperature variations, which deepen our understanding of the natural component of temperature variation.
Because that's not what they were there for? That can be done with satellites, and they're more interested in things like ice core data, and plenty of non-climate research.
And drink some koolaide first.
* consensus in this case means 90% or more, as there are always guys who disagree.
Consensus != Fact
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
This goes to the fallacy that we (humans who are alive right now) have solved all the problems and now know everything worth knowing. Think about it. The elites who persecuted Copernicus thought themselves wise and modern at the time.
Thus: while I will not necessarily assert that today's climate "consensus" is wrong, I do maintain that there is a very real possibility that we will someday discover it to be, at the least, inadequate. Every generation finds previous generations to have held some pretty stupid ideas.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
I love a good straw man argument in the morning!
Your logic appears to be the equivalent of this:
1. Some people who believe in evolution are idiots who believe Lamarck was completely right about how traits evolve.
2. Ergo, evolution is wrong.
Now, as far as the "It's naturally caused" argument, there's lots of evidence that it isn't, and to claim otherwise is to be deliberately misleading.
I am officially gone from
What'r the chances of getting stuck in ice in Antarctica during the summer months of 2013-2014, when global warming is at it's peak (tongue in cheek) - not once, but TWICE? Imagine having to be carried by a helicopter over all that ice, just to set down on another ship that's stuck in the same ice.
On a side note, I live in Alabama (USA) and where it's generally been, for the past 8 years or more, 70+ degrees in January, it's 35 today. I wonder if the last 8 years or so have been hotter due to the sun's cycle. Because supposedly it just ended (last summer was the coolest it's been in 8 or more years) and now it's cold as shit this year.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
That's still a more desirable state than being from Errmurrrika.
It was especially bad at the time because every dimwit from every side of the issue had to ride his particular hobby-horse into every single goddamn thread.
It's what drove me to r/askhistorians with its rather strict moderation policy and people who actually know what they're talking about. In my experience, the more knowledgeable someone is, the more they are likely to be humble and willing to patiently explain a topic without being and arrogant prick about it.
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
You know, I'd really like to know why you have so much invested in the truth of AGW.
You're still conflating the long-term with the short term, which is the problem with your attitude.
Observing that models are inaccurate when compared to data is not a problem of attitude, it's a matter of reading a graph.
Scientists predicting 'no snow as a result of global warming' and then predicting 'there will be snow as a result of global warming' is a problem of scientists predicting when they really shouldn't have (possibly in their overeagerness to push the AGW hypothesis).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Its not easy to validate when you cannot get your hands on their raw data. You only get summary reports from the "climate scientists"!
You can't?
Have you tried?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw
What exciting analysis are you going to do with this data now I've told you how to get it?
How come you didn't find it using Google? It's the first result.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Okay, so we're talking British Isles here.
There's one very very very important factor in that region. It's the gulf stream. It's a major subatlantic current that moderates temperatures in the U.K. in the winter it brings warm water and moisture from the south atlantic. This causes a more moderate winter, with lots of snowfall(compared to similar latitudes elsewhere).
There's a lot research about it but the summary form is that the greater subatlantic currents that drive the gulf stream are dying as a result of climate change, which for the UK in particular means less snow and more cold.
Those aren't antithetical statements.
The AGW bigots are kind of like Jehova's Witnesses. JWs, several times throughout their history, asserted the end of the world was coming. When the end failed to materialize -- each time -- the church would sidestep their inaccuracy with things like "well, we have 'new light' now." Or they'd flatly deny they ever said the end was coming, instead claiming they only meant a change of some sort was coming... and oh look, some kind of change did happen!
So how does this apply? When I was a wee lad, the "settled" climate science was that Earth was cooling, and we were careening head-on into a new Ice Age that was going to destroy us all. It wasn't just a tale, either -- they had mountains of data and the most sophisticated models the computers of the day allowed.
Then, as the science progressed a bit (and as the Coming Ice Age had failed to raise the requisite amount of alarm in the populace) it was decided that no, we're not cooling -- we're warming. In point of fact, the phenomenon was called "Global Warming". Pretty specific, that. Not, "we're not sure what's happening but it ain't good," but "it's definitely getting, and will continue to get, warmer, and we're all gonna fuckin' die!"
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
So now, every time something odd, unusual, rare, extreme, or even normal happens with weather, it can be attributed to "Climate Change" -- because something changed, see? Climate Change equals different weather, so something in weather that didn't happen last year or the year before is now because of Climate Change.
This, kiddos, is what we call circular reasoning.
Go ahead, Climate Change bigots. Mod me down. I've got karma to burn. I could post AC, but I'm thumbing my nose at you.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
Okay, so we're talking British Isles here.
That's one example. Take any major weather event (even non-climate events like earthquakes) and people will use it to try to push AGW.
And you know it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The whole climate Warming or Change issue reminds me of the old story of four blind men meeting an elephant for the first time. One feels its truck and says "An elephant is a snake", another man feels the leg and say "An elephant is like a tree trunk". The third feels an ear and exclaims "An elephant is like a leaf and the fourth, having not moved in time says, just before getting crushed by its feet, an Elephant is like a huge rock". What they perceive is just a part of the whole and when put completely together becomes something quite different.
I will accept that mankind has effected the overall climate of the planet. I say this not as a Scientist, but as a reasonably intelligent human that understands when you shit in your own house, something stinks. How bad it sticks is not the issue. The issue is why keep shitting in the house if there are better alternatives like using an outhouse or bathroom. The Earth is very big, very complex and we have only scratched the surface of what we understand about how it works. We are the four blind men and I think it may take time to get the complete picture of what is in the room.
In the mean time, is it so bad to think we could just stop shitting in our own home, do something about the stink and maybe make living here a more pleasant experience? I would think Capitalistics could figure out all sorts of ways to make money cleaning up our shit instead of just making more air spray to cover up the smell.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Next seasons big made for TV movie is being readied for us.
But that's speculation, of course... Yet, here, for example, is what MSNBC had to say about them (emphasis mine):
But, of course, MSNBC aren't a reliable news-source... How about from the web-site of the expedition's main scientist — Chris Turney? He is a "Professor of Climate Change" (wow! a real scientist, not some nonsense-subject like "Womyn Studies"). And the "Latest News" from his very own front-page (last updated Oct 28, 2013) says (emphasis mine):
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If only people could discern the difference between propaganda and fact.
The few thousand years of recorded history we have are not encouraging, though.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
I don't know, those people looked like liberals to me.
I was arguing against it being used as "proof". I have to repeat endlessly that I'm aware of idiots who attribute things, and that doesn't justify being wrong about climate change from a scientific perspective. All you have to do is stop being wrong according to staggeringly good data, and then we work on the misunderstandings some people have, but as long as the debate is "it doesn't exist" that's the much wronger position.
Whee, wikipedia shows another one the door:
The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change
All you have to do is stop being wrong according to staggeringly good data,
Well, that's another point, we don't really have staggeringly good data.
Staggeringly good would be if you could run a double-blind test on multiple earths.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, we don't know that life can evolve since we only have one planet to study that one too: durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
IPCC is generally considered mainline
No it isn't. Politicians, courtiers, ideological fellow-travellers and rent-seekers who support the political goals of IPCC declare it to be mainline. The IPCC's executive report was concocted in a meeting which specifically banned the presence of media. There is no explanation for such a ban except that the IPCC report was fabricated with a political, not a scientific process, a fact which the IPCC wanted to hide from the public and from its critics. Real science doesn't fear the light of day.
In other news, heroin addicts declare heroin use to be mainstream and transsexuals declare that it is mainstream for people to want to get shot full of hormones and have themselves sexually mutilated.
Except that the models do NOT match reality. When empirical data and models collide, it's the models that are wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
Observed data does not support the models. Exactly opposite of what you just claimed.
You cannot toss out data that does not fit into your model; you have to change your model to explain/include the observed data. Data trumps every time. The IPCC models do not reflect actual, measured data - and thus they are wrong. Go ahead, explain the data in that graph - how temperatures haven't come close to the levels of warming reflected in even the most conservative IPCC model.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yeah, tell me about how they faked the moon landing to spread chem-trails on your JFK assassination plot.
Yes, we don't know that life can evolve since we only have one planet to study that one too: durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
That's a good parallel (although you said it in a silly way).
We definitely know life can evolve, but there are huge holes: we don't know how it evolved, and abiogenesis is still missing pieces. If we had multiple earths for double-blind tests, these questions could be answered and the holes filled.
Likewise, with the earth, we know that CO2 does effect the earth's temperature, but there is a lot of missing information. For example, we don't know the warming effect of the atmosphere with more accuracy than ~10degrees (which is why scientist use radiative forcing as a measurement instead of total energy, which you could do if you'd had multiple earths).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
More importantly, every climate scientist will readily agree that the PDO, ENSO, NAO, and ADO have huge impacts on the global climate. And they will also readily agree that those oscillations are on the order of 30-60 years for a complete cycle. Given that we have less than one cycle worth of good data (satellite based, so as to accurately and consistently measure temperature across the globe), it is rather unwise to build "science is settled" models from that incomplete data set. No engineer or scientist would suggest building models based on less than a single cycle of data...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Funny how advocates
You would do well to remember that the scientists:
1. Did not go down there to prove anything. That is not how scientists work.
2. Did not captain the boat.
.. and you would do well to remember that the poster you responded to wrote "advocates", not "scientists", and that the captain of the boat was paid to venture where he did. The idiots who paid him were the ones who believed their own myths and they were the ones who went there to "prove" their preconceived notion, not to observe and then draw a conclusion. Don't believe me? Then wait for the "scientists" to publicly announce how their experiences on the trip argue against the theory of global warming. Yeah, like that would ever happen.
You know, I'd really like to know why you have so much invested in the truth of AGW.
Just like we'd like to know why you have so much invested in denying the findings of climate science.
Its a crude but effective amplification technique for denial of service.
I'm shocked at the comments from people who don't realize it is summer down there; who really should have enough shame to keep their ignorant mouths shut.
Climate Science deals in long term trends, they are not meteorologists. Just as it doesn't cause bad weather it contributes to the severity of it (since weather is the result of temperature differences.) Also embarrassing are the people who don't realize winter is caused by the tilt of the earth, not how close we are to the sun (right now, in the winter we are closer to the sun.)
It doesn't cause boats of mostly tourists (plus some desperate scientist guides) to not get stuck when being reckless in one of the most dangerous areas of the ocean. The rescue ship has no choice but to take risks they would not otherwise to reach them, no surprise they risked getting trapped.
This news story was brought to you by BP, Exon, etc. It's not really a big news item; there is so much more important news.
To freeze ocean waters takes a lot of COLD, which has to come from somewhere... Ice cubes melt in your drink but it gets colder... point is, to assume that the surrounding area is nice because it's warmer is rather simplistic-- the relative warmth of the top of the ocean is going to dissipate quickly as cold flows into it or the ocean current shifts direction. One should expect more extreme conditions in that area with an increased temperature difference... If it wasn't being impacted by global warming it would be more predictable and less active.... because the energy input to the system down there IS the temperature difference it's obvious that more input energy is going to be expressed (before you say wind and water currents also input energy into the system down there, think about where those two come from.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
What utter nonsense.
If you had the slightest knowledge of how science works, you would know that while climate change is real and provable, anthropogenic climate change is anything but.
CC has been and will be happening as long as the planet has climate. ACC is 90% political folderol and 10% confusion between correlation and causation and could not be a better screen of rational vs. emotional thought if it had been designed as such.
And you fail.
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
You mean before the use of the scientific method was the consensus?
You've set up a false equivalency comparing superstition and folklore to scientific inquiry. Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process. But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
no, I am simply stating that there is not enough proof either for OR against AGW. We need to understand the system better. Instead of one side saying "its happening you are stupid" and the other side going "na-ahh its not and you are stupid" how about we make some scientifically based decisions to continue to monitor the situation, and slowly, SLOWLY work on doing what we can to make a change in our footprint on the earth instead of knee jerk reactions from the likes of both the hardcore supporters and deniers
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Proof of concept.
goes unpunished!
No, the expeditions to the south pole are primarily
_this one_ was all about agw
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Grandparent clearly stated it was summer in Antarctica....
Put some lasers on those things and cut a path out.
They'd have been able to do a u-turn and just drive off, but some say the ship was Xue Long
That would be this guy?
Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[24][25] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.
source
He used to be an actual climate scientist, which is more than many skeptics can say, but it would seem he already has his conclusion and it is not science.
Your .sig -- I get it and sympathize. Still, decided to post AC because it would have been a waste of good mod points not to. If it matters to you, I am ~erikkemperman.
Captcha: iceberg, I kid you not.
Congratulations. You have just set the 2014 benchmark for a predictable Slashdot response.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Come on! It's "made in China"
Hah! The CRU emails were just an exercise in quote mining.
Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process.
That, sir, is exactly my point. There can be no such thing as "settled science" because of this. There was no false equivalency; I was alluding to the fact that humans are arrogant when it comes to their place in the time-line. We always think we're not only smarter than those who came before us, but it carries forward such that we think we're not going to get any smarter than we are now. *That* fallacy is why we have people saying absurd things like "settled science". (Yes, I know more politicians than scientists are saying that; it does not, however, disprove my point.)
It's like this: my old man had some rather... interesting... ideas about things. I had my science education, and I could scoff at some of his ideas. Haha, I'm superior in knowledge to my parents. Thing is, though... my kids and grandkids are going to do the same thing to me someday, unless I have already somehow achieved omniscience. Since I'm not certain I have achieved omniscience (I would know if I had, right?) I can assume, safely, that there is more yet to learn.
But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
It's not the equivalent, and I didn't say that. Kindly let me put my own words in my mouth. Here, I'll spell out exactly where I'm going with this:
I am strongly environmentalist, precisely because of science -- science that is of course not settled, but solid enough that I'm comfortable taking action on it.
For instance: I support, very strongly, alternative energy sources. Why? This is simple math. We live on a planet of a finite size, therefore, oil, gas, and coal must be of finite supply. Also, air pollution is an obvious factor -- more so in the developing world. Car exhaust, say. While the battle rages over the danger of C02, I already know that CO, NOx, and HC emissions are unhealthy. Duh, right? So THAT is why I follow biofuel research.
Coal plant emissions are unhealthy. Soot, acid rain, etc... we've been through this, and we have people working on it. Dear gods, look at China. You have to swim through the smog. It doesn't take much scientific data to prove to me that it's not a good thing. It's not that I see solar power as a panacea, but I'd call it a step in the right direction. I'm torn on nuclear. It rarely goes wrong, but when it does... hoo boy.
I live where a lot of fracking for natural gas goes on. There is debate on how much harm it causes, but again, it's not a pure process by any stretch. We use gas to heat our houses. Could we do something different? Sure. Passive solar design for newer houses. I have seen houses in the Colorado mountains heated through entire winters, with nights down to -30F, without fuel -- only passive solar heat and thermal mass and good insulation. This is scientifically sound stuff here, as well as economically.
I hope these examples will illustrate my position. There are many things, easy and hard, that we can and should be doing, to improve our environment. If (and I do mean, IF) AGW people are right, then I have already taken steps in the right direction. If not, I've still done the right thing. Simply put, I refuse to waste time arguing over whether more CO2 is bad, or whether polar bears are drowning, or whatever other ManBearPig lunacy the Algores of the world are spouting. I'm working with what we DO know. And unlike Algore, I'm not flying around in a private jet or spending a small country's GDP to heat my house.
I plant trees, not because Global Warming, but because I like trees for shade, bird habitat... it also turns out that trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Nifty, eh? I drive a fuel efficient car, not because Climate Change, but because I'm chea
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Except of course for those stuck scientists, entire expedition was to 'study' how much warmer south pole got since last expedition ...
I think it would be more accurate to say they intended to study how things had changed since the Mawson expedition in 1912 and your assumption of a predetermined outcome is unwarranted.
Jesus, Roy, we get it. God will make it all better anyway.
Uh huh, and you're going to deliver this research now? Piles upon piles of things that aren't slightly offhinged blogs or right leaning editorials of newspapers?
I'm a proponent of intelligent falling, you insensitive clod!
As with everything ever said by deniers this is triviially proven false with the barest examination of facts.
In 2013 Akademik Shokalskiy was chartered by the Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013-2014 to celebrate the centenary of the previous expedition under Douglas Mawson, and to repeat his scientific observations.[14] The expedition had nine scientific goals related to observations, mapping, and measurements of environmental, biological, and marine changes associated with climate change.[15]
That's multiple goals only some of which are applicable to the category. So, even in the off-topic, completely irrelevant to the accuracy of science discuss, you are unable to be correct.
Gore said the Artic [sic] would be ice free by 2013,
This is just another example people putting words in Gore's mouth that he never said. It is apparently derived from this quote from Gore:
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. cite
Notice that Gore was only reporting the results of studies that he was aware of, not making an absolute statement.
Good thing it's summer down there, otherwise all those ice breakers would be stuck in the ice.
So much for AGW, which, BTW, almost caused a hurricane during the hurricane season last year.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Do I make sense? There is solid (not "settled") science behind all of my positions here. To me, AGW/Climate Change is a red herring at best and a huge power grab at worst. It ignores simple solutions, while it demands massive taxes, regulations, and government programs. (One example -- a multi-billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded plant that sucks CO2 out of the air and stores it in underground tanks.
I"m sorry but the words you put in your mouth sure sound like the words I put in your mouth. You cite as an example something that doesn't exist and really isn't likely to ever exist - co2 storage in underground tanks. You dismiss climate change by associating it with extremists which is pretty much the opposite of consensus.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Science is all about testable predictions. The predictions from the CAGW guys have failed. We have busted out of the 95% confidence interval on the models, and we busted out on the low end. The models have been shown to overpredict warming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/
No serious person can dispute that there has been warming. However, the CAGW guys are saying that, based on their models, that future warming will be catastrophic (hence the 'C' in CAGW). Given that we are now outside the 95% confidence interval, I am no longer worried that the models will prove to be correct.
You cite as an example something that doesn't exist and really isn't likely to ever exist - co2 storage in underground tanks.
It is indeed hypothetical -- the idea was in Popular Science. It's a beautiful example, however, of the difference between a government/corporate solution, and a good solution. Many things from Popular Science do become reality eventually, and kindly note that I did not state it was an extant thing. Maybe someday when there are "<supposition>" or "<illustrative>" HTML tags, I'll use them to help you out.
You dismiss climate change by associating it with extremists which is pretty much the opposite of consensus.
Again, I did no such thing. Honestly, I had hoped you'd actually read, if not understand, what I wrote, because you seem bright enough. I guess that was too much to hope for. I put a not insignificant amount of time and thought into my post, and you pretty much ignored nearly all of it.
I'll not waste time conversing with someone who won't bother with anything more than torturing a straw man out of one of my sentences. Good day.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
I'm shocked at the comments from people who don't realize it is summer down there; who really should have enough shame to keep their ignorant mouths shut.
Who are you talking about? I didn't read every comment on this topic, but I didn't see anyone that seemed confused about this fact. If you're talking about me (you are responding to me) then you may need to re-read my first sentence. Either way, you seem like you're having a bad day. lighten up bro, it's Friday.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I am simply stating that there is not enough proof either for OR against AGW.
What exactly constitutes "enough"? Consider an argument of this form:
- A happened.
- B happened after A happened.
- In lab tests, A leads to B.
- Causes C,D,E,F,... that experts in the field proposed for alternative reasons why B might be happening have been ruled out.
Would you consider the statement "A causes B" to be probably true, or probably false?
Substitute in "anthropogenic CO2 release" for A, "increasing global average temperature" for B, and a whole bunch of natural causes for C,D,E,F,..., and that's exactly where the global warming "debate" is. There's a reason why almost all scientists who actually study this stuff (including a guy hired by global warming skeptics to try to prove their point) believe that AGW is real.
I am officially gone from
IPCC is generally considered mainline, due to scope, scale, and review levels. We've been trending just a hair warmer than "most likely warming" predictions(but well below "worst case") for a while now.
But we havent warmed in a over a decade! Are you saying that the IPCC predicted that?
It is indeed hypothetical -- the idea was in Popular Science. It's a beautiful example, however, of the difference between a government/corporate solution, and a good solution.
You can't take random bullshit and say "that's what government thinks is a good idea." It is intellectually dishonest. The strawman here is the cockamamie scheme you brought up (which I couldn't even find mention of in 3 pages of google results for "sequester co2 in underground tanks.")
Again, I did no such thing. Honestly, I had hoped you'd actually read, if not understand, what I wrote,
I did read it and what I took away from it was a bunch of talking about your personal belief systems which were really irrelevant to the point at hand - that the scientific consensus on global warming isn't something you can dismiss with "the science is not settled yet because leaches."
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You stated in your comments the problem with your ideas:
There is no money in common sense.
The money is in AGW Grants, and CO2 Sequestration plants, and Cap and trade.
I like and agree with your solutions better. I am more concerned about pollution than CO2 (i.e. plant food). Lets focus on doing what we can efficiently, promoting research into future tech, and weaning ourselves off dirtier fuels, fertilizers, packaging, etc, and stop paying people to tell us what we want to hear so that the government can regulate more and more of our lives.
To tie this to another Slashdot story, this is exactly the reason I fear the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. I have no doubt that Bill Nye knows his stuff, but I fear that the creationist will toss a hundred "arguments" out and Bill will only tackle one or two successfully (simply because spreading information/proof takes more time than spreading unfounded assertations). Thus, he will be seen as having "lost" the debate because he "couldn't" counter all of Ken Ham's talking points.
Only by morons.
If one person is stating then abandoning positions in rapid succession, and the other is constantly maintaining one position and explaining why the former's points are wrong, it's the later person who looks more intelligent.
For example:
Person 1: Because the sky is green, evolution is flawed.
Person 2: the sky is not green
Person 1: ah, but even so, it make a lot more sence that the world rides on the back of a turtle than the alternative
Person 2: and what does the turtle stand on?
Person1: never-mind the turtle the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn will have a gravitational effect on tides causing personality altering effects
person 2: many studies have...
Moderator: I'm sorry we're out of time.
First, it is important to note that Dr. Roy Spencer has a track record of providing misinformation on climate issues.
Looking at his graph and notes, I don't understand why he chose 1979 as the starting period for his graph, and what he's done to model runs that start after 1979 to extend their trend lines backwards. I would expect a single line with many points of divergence along it to show where each model begins to overestimate warming, the fact that they all seem to start overestimating by 1982 is a clue that someone is playing games with the data. Furthermore, just from looking at the graph it appears to be indicating that the average of the models is between 0.3 and 0.4 degrees per decade. That is significantly higher than the average from the IPCC1 report (which was between 0.15 and 0.3 degrees per decade) so where are these numbers coming from? Did Spencer cherry-pick the worst performing models for his graph or did he alter the results produce by the models in some way? The attached commentary doesn't provide the data or explain the methodology used to generate the graph.
Additionally, the only two reference points are an average of two sets of satellite data and 4 balloons? Where are the ground temperature series in this graph?
Skeptical Science has posted several blog posts that show a much closer match between models and observation, so I'm inclined to believe that Spencer screwed it up unintentionally or otherwise.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Just another dose of the traditional American mid-winter P.R. flashes that look like "funny news" so we think the planet is not really getting hotter. I've seen them coming right on time for the west coast snow season.
What other explanation could apply for such long time standing headline? ...global-warming deniers = oil cartels.
2cts
Agreed. In a debate between Einstein and a used car salesman the former would lose his shoes, belt and pants. Knowledge and intelligence are no match for quick verbalisms.
As I previously posted, it's also possible that the comparison was done incorrectly. For instance, NASA's GISS temperature series shows an increase of around 0.5 degrees between 1979 and 2013, while Dr. Spencer's "satellite" and "balloon" temperature series show an increase of barely 0.2 degrees. And it's unclear how Dr. Spencer retrofitted models to all have a start date of 1979 and whether he did so correctly, the trends given in his other post seem to grossly overstate the actual predicted warming by the models.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Dr. Roy Spencer has as much credibility in regards to climate science as a prostitute preaching celibacy. If you're citing him as a source, your argument is already non-existent.
~X~
Actually, the point of the expedition was to see what changes had taken place in the last 100 years. You and some others are the ones claiming that they went there with a forgone conclusion with no evidence to support it other than your prejudice.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Well he's certainly trying to start an argument, but other than accusations of double-standards with no evidence to support them, there doesn't seem to be anything there.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
When I was a wee lad, the "settled" climate science was that Earth was cooling, and we were careening head-on into a new Ice Age that was going to destroy us all.
No, it wasn't. What this statement shows is that you don't know the difference between a new reporter and a scientist. There was a little media hysteria over the possibility of a ice age, but the science supported warming over cooling at nearly 6 to 1 already by that point. The debate at that time was over whether the natural cooling effects that causes ice ages could overcome anthropogenic emissions (which were quite a bit lower at that point).
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
This is also false, the IPCC has never been the IPGW. Many people don't understand this, but global warming is a specific effect of climate change. Just like warming is just one type of temperature change. The IPCC's mandate is to study climate change, whatever it is. Global warming is what we're currently getting from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The only people I'm aware of who tried to change the name for the phenomenon from global warming to climate change are George W. Bush's political advisors who suggested that climate change was less likely to disturb voters.
So now, every time something odd, unusual, rare, extreme, or even normal happens with weather, it can be attributed to "Climate Change" -- because something changed, see? Climate Change equals different weather, so something in weather that didn't happen last year or the year before is now because of Climate Change.
That is not at all what climate change means. Climate change is about changes in the long-term baseline for weather, so yes if new events are possible because the average amount of rain fall or temperature (for example) has changed over the long term, then climate change may be partially responsible for a new extreme weather event. For instance if you increase the average temperature by 1 degree over the long term, you also increase the maximum reachable temperature by one degree and the minimum reachable temperature by 1 degree (simplistically, it's actually a lot more complicated that). Regardless of that change, individual events aren't general regarded as scientific proof of climate change but changes in the distribution of events can be. For instance, in a stable climate you would expect a roughly 50-50 split over time between record highs and record lows and that the number of new records overall would decrease over time. For the last 20 years or so we've been looking at around 66-33 for the high/low split, and the difference between the number of record highs and record lows is increasing, plus the number of record highs is not falling off at the rate we would expect for a stable climate.
Go ahead, Climate Change bigots. Mod me down. I've got karma to burn. I could post AC, but I'm thumbing my nose at you.
You know, it'd be more effective if anything you wrote was actually correct.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
For one, there are no lab tests for AGW.
On top of that, as the OP mentioned above, it's willfully ignorant to suggest that causes C,D,E,F can yet be ruled out when we don't even have a full cycle/set of climate data to work with. At this point we're about half way through our first real observation of the climate "cycle", and while AGW may be true, at lot can also happen in the next 30 years.
By the way, "science" is not done purely with deductive reasoning. There has to be a leap to inductive testing or it's speculative bullshit. That's where AGW is today. Also see: show me a single climate model from 15 years ago that's not dangerously near it's error bands.
We should still take sensible steps to protect our environment today though. I'm just not for promoting mass coastal city migrations just yet.
Our lives depend on our climate continuing to support us. We should act if any of our actions have the possibility of damaging our climate, not wait for evidence that the climate is being damaged.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Not just that, all those UV rays from the sun that get absorbed at the ionosphere by oxygen has the effect of converting that oxygen into ozone. So for there to be ozone depletion, the sun would have to disappear. Never mind that if the sun expands, then over time, warming would be automatic, and there's nothing man can do about it, other than move to Mars or a space station whose distance from the sun can be adjusted as the sun expands.
Of course, it's only with Liberal climatologists that the sun has nothing to do with global warming, as noted here on /.
P.S. Posting as AC since all posts skeptical of global warming get modded down. GFY, mods!!!
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
The term "climate change" has been around a lot longer than "global warming". For example "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change" by George S Benton from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in October of 1970.
This reminds me a bit of the point made yesterday regarding the creation-evolution debate with Bill Nye, that Creationists generally toss out a rapid-fire series of completely illogical and scientifically illiterate statements that anyone trying to seriously discuss the issue with any degree of scientific integrity gets bogged down in replying to each point, essentially playing whack-a-mole with idiocy.
If you really, truly want a refutation of Spencer's graph, I will give it to you.
The editor of the journal in which it was published resigned in protest (or penance?) for such a bad paper making it past peer-review.
The problem is not that global warming could lead to either warmer or colder winters, the problem is that BOTH during a warm winter AND during a cold winter, exactly opposite explanations are used to claim that both are caused by global warming. I can understand that some parts of the world warm up while others cool down, through mechanisms like gulf streams etcetera, but you can't claim cold winters one year, and warm winters the next year, in the same place, are both unequivocal signs of global warming.
FYI, the Earth has been known to be round for a long, long time. The Ancient Greeks came up with a pretty good estimate of its circumference. The reason nobody took Columbus seriously was that he was planning based on an estimate of the circumference that was way low, and therefore people quite correctly expected him to fail to reach Asia.
Now, can you provide a scientific consensus about carefully observed data that proved to be wrong? Not about stuff that wasn't studied (and I doubt your statement about citrus fruits is accurate), or interpretations, but the data itself.
Moreover, while scientific consensus isn't a guarantee of truth, the scientists involved are the brightest people around who have seriously studied the subject, and going with what most of them think is the way to bet.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're a closed-minded fucker, I've had conversations with you in the past, but if you think the CRU emails showed that those researchers followed good scientific behavior, then you also don't know what good scientific behavior is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes, the ancient Greeks, etc etc. I'm referring to a time, centuries *later* when the Catholic church burned people at the stake for it. Sometimes knowledge is lost, regained, suppressed, ignored. Round Earth was not by any means common knowledge for large stretches of human history.
(and I doubt your statement about citrus fruits is accurate),
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/125350-overview
The relevant story is under the header "Woodall and Lind". It took 170 years for the Royal Navy to adopt what the East India Company knew. That's the short of it; you can Google more if you wish.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
I found a citation for the source of the Gore quote and posted it way up stream but here it is again:
"Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." cite
So it appears that Gore never actually said the Arctic sea ice would be gone in 2014. He just mentioned some U.S. Navy research that indicated it was possible that would happen. He first mentions a study that finds the Arctic sea ice could be gone in the summer in less than 22 years. Accusing Gore of saying the ice would be gone in 2014 is spinning to the max.
Consensus in science happens when the scientists in a field consider it a waste of time to argue some point because they all* agree on it. The basic points that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming and the increase in CO2 is primarily of human technological origin are consensus opinions.
*With the exception of a few obtuse contrarians that you can find in any human endeavor.
Protip: Any time you use the term "CAGW" you label yourself as a denier.
There was a little media hysteria over the possibility of a ice age, but the science supported warming over cooling at nearly 6 to 1 already by that point.
In terms of what scientists talked about with other scientists, you may be correct. However, it was not the public perception driven by the media. My (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is asking older folks what they remember about the time -- preferably people who were well mature, 30-40+ adults -- and the overwhelming majority remember hysteria about cooling/Ice Age, and not warming. Remember that most people did not seek out scientific papers; they watched TV or read newspapers. The message they heard was cooling. Accuracy of media is another story, not the point here.
This is also false, the IPCC has never been the IPGW.
The IPCC, Wikipedia reports, was founded in 1988. 1988 was not the beginning of history. (Was that before you were born? Just asking.) Here, again, media presentation comes into play... and even well past 1988 the buzz words were definitely "global warming". It is also reasonable to suppose that the UN would choose the more neutral-sounding "climate change" to avoid the appearance of presupposition.
That is not at all what climate change means. Climate change is about changes in the long-term baseline for weather, so yes if new events are possible because the average amount of rain fall or temperature (for example) has changed over the long term, then climate change may be partially responsible for a new extreme weather event. For instance if you increase the average temperature by 1 degree over the long term, you also increase the maximum reachable temperature by one degree and the minimum reachable temperature by 1 degree (simplistically, it's actually a lot more complicated that). Regardless of that change, individual events aren't general regarded as scientific proof of climate change but changes in the distribution of events can be. For instance, in a stable climate you would expect a roughly 50-50 split over time between record highs and record lows and that the number of new records overall would decrease over time. For the last 20 years or so we've been looking at around 66-33 for the high/low split, and the difference between the number of record highs and record lows is increasing, plus the number of record highs is not falling off at the rate we would expect for a stable climate.
I have read this paragraph 5 times, and it's still gobbledygook. It sounds like (correct me if I misunderstand) you are saying that climate change, whatever it may be, may or may not influence the weather. That's a pretty vague thing on which to base worldwide government policy.
As to your last phrase there, "stable climate", I would not suggest that climate is stable. Climate does indeed change -- I just oppose the alarmism, and question the tenets of what has already become a religion for many people. Heck, 12,000 years ago, there was a mile of ice over where I'm sitting right now. A mile of ice! If we reflect on what the climate was like in the Northern Hemisphere 12 millenia ago, we'd say "thank the gods for global warming!"
But as you must know, man did not cause that mile of ice to melt. Thus, factors other than (or in addition to) man affect climate. Thus, I remain skeptical -- not a denier, but not jumping on the bandwagon either. Why are the AGW people here so insistent that everyone must *believe*, or be branded a heretic?
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
And even worse than that, Fact != Correct Response.
I have not heard one single suggestion from those that associate themselves favorably with the idea of "climate change" that wasn't foolish, irrelevant, or even outright destructive. So what if they are right, it just means we are all fucking doomed. They are wasting all of their vast media exposure, grassroots support, and political clout on things that won't make a damn bit of difference if the Earth's future is anything like its past. We will just be another species in the 98% column.
I am not a "believer", nor am I a "denier". I am a realist. As a realist all of the causes, predictions, models, and wild empassioned gesticulations around the subject of "climate change" are inconsequential. I will say this again, the causes, at our current level of preparation, are irrelevant. What is relevant is the Earth has been both hotter and colder than it currently is, intolerably so, and innumerable times in repeating cycles. We are living in a generouosly temperate era, a fortunate anomoly that has given us the ability to cover this planet with people. Regardless of what we do, this Elysian comfort we are so dependent on will eventually end. A realist knows that the only logical result of these facts is to prepare for the worst our planet has to offer, or suffer extinction.
Of course a realist also knows that a species that uses the spectre of global climate change to manipulate markets, expand taxation, circumvent rights and priviledges previously guaranteed, and as a political power grab deserves whatever it gets. Stupid humans.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
*With the exception of a few obtuse contrarians that you can find in any human endeavor.
Like Semmelweis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
The overwhelming consensus, among the educated doctors and scientists of his day, was that washing your hands was pointless. We look back now and laugh at the folly of Semmelweis's detractors. But then, he was laughed at, driven to madness, and beaten to death.
My point was simple: just because there is consensus (which may or may not be manufactured*), does not mean that the consensus is correct.
Hence:
Consensus != Fact
* See Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
If you really, truly want a refutation of Spencer's graph, I will give it to you.
The editor of the journal in which it was published resigned in protest (or penance?) for such a bad paper making it past peer-review.
And this refutation follows the scientific method how? And for the other responses to the graph are classic ad hominem, awesome! All I want is data which shows Spencer's graph to be incorrect.
For example the extent of sea ice around the North pole, and the fact that most glaciers are retreating big time - all support global warming. But there is far more evidence than just the above, that supports global warming.
1979 is a great starting point as that's the start of the satellite record. Choosing an earlier date isn't possible, and choosing a later date would willfully edit part of the record. Starting in 1979 includes ALL the data, and also is covered by the models.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Is the data in error? Rather than focus on the messenger, address the message: satellite data does not show the warming that has been predicted by the models. When data and models conflict, it is always the model that is wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You won't get it because the data is, in fact, correct. His graph is correct. So rather than address the data they will attack the messenger.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because polarisation. For example, your initial post was confrontational - just like the posts of those you called "bigots". If someone takes an extreme position, there's a tendency to either agree or to take an extreme opposite position. And extreme positions, regardless of "side", are much more noticeable than all the other intermediate positions combined. And most people like being noticed.
Is the NASA GISS data uncorrected? What does the raw data show? The satellite and balloon data is raw - and covers the entire world. GISS has some very large holes in its cover, resulting in extrapolation distance up to a few thousand kilometers.
As far as the models go - do ANY models show the essentially flat-line that the data does? If not - it doesn't matter how they were retrofitted to match a 1979 starting date - a function with a slope will never match a function without a slope, regardless of the intercept.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How do we know the suggested actions (cutting CO2 emissions) are the right thing to do? We simply do not have enough data to decide either way. Would your boss allow you to make a decision with less than half the required data in hand? Would he bet the company on that decision? That's what is happening here.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We know that not burning coal (for example) has worked for the planet for a long time. Obviously stuff has always been on fire, but the sort of energy use we are engaging in is unprecedented.
We can have industry, but we should not be loading down our atmosphere to do it. We should not use it as a source of industrial inputs (oxygen) or a dumping ground for our waste products.
The fact that it was mostly okay for each of us to light a fire 100 years ago does not make it okay when our population is six billion and our individual energy consumption is hundreds of times higher.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
How about when the atmosphere is considerably cleaner today, than it was 100 years ago? Lung/respiratory issues are considerably less today than they were even 30 years ago (at least here in the US). Even though energy consumption is way up.
But how about climate effects? That's a different issue. I'm all for clean air - and it is considerably cleaner now than it was 30 years ago (and, in the populated areas, probably 100 years ago). But making wholesale changes because of incomplete data about climate? It is too early to tell - we simply do not have even a complete cycle of data to work with, and that is really the reason the models are all quite a bit off from the observed data.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
But making wholesale changes because of incomplete data about climate?
Our own industry makes wholesale changes to our environment in the absence of complete climate data. We have to research the consequences after the event.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
We now have two ships locked in ice, many helicopter trips... who pays for all that mess?
The epic fail for the science deniers trying to use this as an excuse to push their luddite barrow is that all that pack ice is trapped by a huge iceberg that has broken off the ice sheet. If anything it's an argument for warming if you want to stretch as far as the science deniers are with their ice in summer "proof" of no warming. I'd recommend not - see weather as weather and climate as the long term, just like the experts do.
So I suggest listening to them instead of economists and sudoko puzzle writers.
We could build a very interesting and incriminating model of yourself using slashdot quotes out of context. It could be skewed in all kinds of directions to the point of even having opposing viewpoints of yourself. That's the sort of "quote mining" you can get from slightly informal communication such as emails or slashdot posts.
Emails are not published papers.
That's how the media is skewing it. A dumbed down "lie to children".
A lot of it was really about redoing stuff from a century ago in the same place to see what is different. Ice has moved, the magnetic pole has moved a lot to almost on top of the site, there's a huge glacier tongue that was next door that is gone which is likely to have changed a lot in the sea there, and probably the weather as well.
Seeing what has happened over a century is more about increasing understanding what is going on than specifically about global warming. Considering that Antarctica has a huge effect on weather as far north as California it's a place that's worth understanding (and the magnetic stuff has a global effect).
I find it amusing that science deniers are now using a large iceberg, and the pack ice trapped around it, as some sort of evidence that it's not warming up enough for large icebergs to split off. Since you guys are arguing from the direction of morality instead of logic it's worth considering that such a "win in any situation" line is also devoid of morality.
Thus setting a bad example in the field of religion just to get off a few cheap shots against what is seen by extremists as some sort of rival to extremist religion.
Indeed they aren't. Go read them, in context, and you will see, they are from people who are not acting scientifically.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Meanwhile it's 39C (102F) where I'm sitting, inside, with fans blasting, and the temperature heading for 41C (105F) before sunset. I envy your cold snap.
Fine particulates actually cool stuff down as you should have worked out by yourself by seeing how much darker it gets when it is smoky.
Either way this increasingly common railing against experts is a recipie for a new dark age. If whatever someone does well is of no value then things are no longer done well.
Convenient viewpoint - shift the goalposts to the point where nothing can ever score.
What everyone needs to remember is that most deniers are useful idiots - as in Stalin's "useful idiots".
It's about political manipulation to provide the warm bodies to push the views of a few that are inconvenienced by what the experts are reporting and the likely responses to the bad news. Thus the Murdoch press reporting the people rescued as "global warming scientists" and other press not using the same loaded terminology.
They were stuck in the pack ice trapped by an enormous iceberg that came off because the ice is melting. Faster or slower - that's one of the things they were down there to measure but either way melting off is what floating bits of ice shelf eventually do.
How is it denying science to note that measured, empirical data is at odds with models?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
One article that got into the mainsteam press (because it was unusual) and was rejected by the scientific community is not "settled" in comparison to the report on climate change that was dumped onto President Johnson's desk at around the same time.
It's easier than that. A general attitude that nothing has changed since creation is upset by biology, geology and climate science. Geology is just not considered as much by people as climate so attracts less denial at this point.
It's not about religion since two out of the three that overthrew the idea of a young earth were ordained. It's about liking your Christianity "Lite" and not having to think too much about things that may challenge the "Muffy makes a reality" picture book view of the universe. Change challenges such a viewpoint. They like the idea of God giving them a world to use but not the idea of having to be responsible for it, so the idea that their actions in consuming may be changing things is something they violently argue against. That's hitting them from two directions since not having a magic unchanging world that God will fix for them if they don't take responsibility for their actions is seen as a direct attack on what they see as their faith.
The merchants in the temple turned all this into a political and religious argument since it threatens their cashflow.
Try a different article.
To be fair, even though the poster has no clue and is writing about tanks, there has been some CO2 sequestration in geological structures. It's been done to get more oil out of the ground by pushing gas in.
However it does call to mind an analogy of trying to use a teaspoon to drain the ocean (when there isn't the option of using a lot of teaspoons).
Except they didn't. The "flat earth society" thing is just an insult dreamed up not more than a century ago. That's a long time after the Catholic church stopped burning people at the stake for anything.
The pack ice is trapped by a huge iceberg so the science deniers shouldn't be using this as "proof" that the sort of warming that speeds up iceberg calving is not happening.
That's why the models are changing. Denying that such a process is going on is specifically denying that science is happening.
The thing that annoys me the most is the common science denial assertion that experts are not experts but a sudoko puzzle writer or economist is somehow magically an expert. The denial of the idea of expertise in general is a dangerous tactic to use because if it gets traction then whose word is worth anything?
You are correct in that they are from people writing emails and not writing scientific papers at the exact time the words are getting typed in. That is my point! That is the context!
Of course a realist also knows that a species that uses the spectre of global climate change to manipulate markets, expand taxation, circumvent rights and priviledges previously guaranteed, and as a political power grab deserves whatever it gets.
That's where I'm aiming with this. (And well said, by the way.)
It seems to me that many otherwise decent scientists are being used by politicians and fat-cats to seize more power for themselves. Well, power and money.
Al Gore, golden sales boy of Global Warming: The Movie, is ever the humanitarian to warn us all, right? Ah, follow the money. Gore is heavily invested in companies that stand to profit from carbon 'credits', as well as other proposed regulations and taxes created in the name of Global Warming. Okay, sure, it's smart to invest in possible trends; it's business savvy, right? Gore is smart! But I'd believe him more if he wasn't poised to make millions, possibly billions, from the implementation of his proposed solutions to Global Warming. We all know that rich people get to buy laws that make them richer; let's not kid ourselves. (I dream of owning my very own Congressman someday!)
More and more are piling on, too. Global Warming has generated whole new industries, and spawned an epidemic of "greenwashing". Every business that can build a profit model on Global Warming are rushing to get in. Just look for the corporate sponsors behind any GW advertising/websites/newsvertisements/etc.
It's really the same reason I never bought in to the "War on Terror". There's too much money involved for too many people for any truth to be heard over the beating of the war drums.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
To be fair, even though the poster has no clue and is writing about tanks, there has been some CO2 sequestration in geological structures. It's been done to get more oil out of the ground by pushing gas in.
Yes, in researching his claims I read up on proposals for directly injecting CO2 into the ground. One study out of the DOE showed a theoretical total cost of about $70 per metric ton of CO2. Compared to 1 metric ton every 40 years per tree.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
How interesting, you should bring up Stalin... Scratch a Global Warming "activist" and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath.
And so the spin begins... But still, why not mention, what these people were doing there — especially if such a handy explanation exists, huh?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No, not you. you were just the one near the top. I didn't have a score filter on and was moderating until I posted this reply. You don't have to live around people who are willfully ignorant (because their faith is threatened) and I do - I'm still hearing their BS about global dimming they haven't read a thing about. The amount of unjustified confidence in this society is disgusting.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I have no hope that you'll understand, but I'll leave this here:
Uncritical faith in authority is the greatest enemy of truth. --Einstein
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Translation: The mark did not fall for the petty trick so here is an appeal to authority (about not apealing to authoity no less!) just in case the next mark decides they will not fall for the trick either.
You disgust me. A petty luddite attempting to use the authority of Einstein to justify you appeal against authority shows how little you think of the readers on this site.
If you can't figure out what an analogy is WTF are you doing on this site?
Also please don't pretend to be as stupid as a dog that can only figure out key words, it's demeaning.
But I did!
You seem to be doing a very good idiot impersonation. Once again it's demeaning. Doing such a thing just to follow some political dogma is limiting yourself and making yourself look far more stupid than I am sure you are.
Eight different investigations of the matter in the UK and USA found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. The worst they found was a reluctance to share data. That has since been remedied.
What the CRU hack amounted to was an attempt to smear some scientists reputations because they weren't able to challenge the science they produced. It didn't work very well except among those predisposed to believe it. I'll admit I'm probably predisposed to not believe it but if any of those 8 investigations had found any bad scientific behavior I wouldn't have rejected their findings.
I'm going to bookmark your post above that one and use it as an example of an appeal to authority.
Thank you for that you have made my day.
Yeah, imagine if we cleaned up all our pollution and developed all that new, efficient technology, made our energy supply more secure and robust, all for nothing...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or it's them being quoted out of context. Snow at a particular place and time doesn't necessarily mean the same as snow at another one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think i would be more concerned about the world i live in if there was no change at all .3 degree is well within the damn error margin for these measurments at the time.
> Look, there are idiots on both sides of the isle
Which one? Capri? The emerald one?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Or it's them being quoted out of context.
A true possibility but in this case they are just making predictions without having solid scientific evidence to back them up.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Eight different investigations of the matter in the UK and USA found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud.
Yeap, and they still suck as scientists.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A month after setting 40+ new low temp records across the U.S. ....??
(Locally -- south-central Montana -- the new record was 3 degrees below the old, and the daily temps were already way at the bottom of the range.)
Followed by probably the warmest Jan.1st I've seen.
I think I've moved to Australia by mistake.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
if they make a movie of this it could be brutally funny with dry humor. if anybody dies it could be dry and dark but still funny as a movie. even if it's not funny that those people died in real life. there's nothing wrong with me, i'm comPLETEly normal.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Thank you for the scurvy reference, but it says nothing about scientists resisting evidence on scurvy; the organization that refused to act was the Royal Navy. Despite what Britannia fans may think, the practices of the RN do not constitute a scientific consensus.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
[whispering] Global Warming. That's what the "scientists" on the Shokalskiy were doing down there. But, shhhh, we don't want the average Joe to know about the real reason for their mission. It's really hard for the typical unscientific mind to understand how there could be *that* much more ice than ... than ... there should be ... in the *summer* ... if the sky is really falling.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
Well, my first comment would be a question: Why has Spencer graphed model outputs that are estimates of global temperature change against tropical observations? That's either deceitful, or stupid. It has long been established that the greatest shifts in temperature are polar, not tropical. In essence, Spencer is saying that the poles are not as hot as the tropics, and therefore humans cannot affect climate.
He also asserts (in his book) that Milankovich cycles have nothing to do with planetary climate, and that everything is due to atmospheric forcings of chaotic cloud behavior, specifically the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). He then dismisses all historical data like ice cores as irrelevant and uninformative, partly because he can't make his 1-box model fit those data without deviating from his premise (wasn't it you who commented you can't just leave out data because they don't fit your hypothesis?). His model also uses a uniformly mixed ocean depth of 700 meters, ignoring the thermocline, which enables him to produce feedback and PDO forcing parameters that fit with his hypothesis because he gets to use 700 meters of planetary ocean as a heatsink to show the climate is not sensitive to CO2.
I think it is a big and arrogant assumption to say that man is affecting the environment enough to affect it fatally. Yes I do think there is more that we could do to build closed systems that dont leak excrement or energy, and that these may have some effect on the ecosystems in our immediate vicinity. It always amuses me that the environmentalists seem assume that man and his effects are somehow unnatural and outside natural systems instead of being just another part of them. I recall a book title about soldiers in the malaysian jungle which was simply "The Jungle is Neutral". Man just another player in global affairs and to assume we are superior enough to outweigh natural tides and forces is just a little bit arrogant and in the scheme of things, to my mind , quite amusing.
What does the raw data show? The satellite and balloon data is raw - and covers the entire world.
If it's the raw satellite data then Dr. Spencer is being wilfully obtuse or deliberately misleading, he should know by now that the raw data has errors due to satellite drift. From a paper from one of his fellow climate change "skeptics", John Christy:
If he's using known bad data, then it should be no surprise that he's getting the wrong results.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I have read this paragraph 5 times, and it's still gobbledygook. It sounds like (correct me if I misunderstand) you are saying that climate change, whatever it may be, may or may not influence the weather.
It's pretty complicated. When someone says climate change is responsible for a storm, it's like saying that the "1" in 4+1=5 is responsible for the 5. You would only have a 4 without the 1, but you'd still have a 4. So, for example, without any human-induced climate change we'd still have heat waves but they would generally not be as hot and wouldn't last as long, and fewer people would die. However, if 30 people die, it's unlikely anyone can tell you exactly how many would have died if we hadn't increased the average global temperature. However, we can gauge the trends to determine how things are changing over time. Generally speaking if we are breaking more hot records than cold records, that's evidence that the climate is warming.
As to your last phrase there, "stable climate", I would not suggest that climate is stable. Climate does indeed change -- I just oppose the alarmism, and question the tenets of what has already become a religion for many people.
It's without human activity, the climate wouldn't be stable, but the natural trend in climate is something on the order of -0.3 degrees per 1000 years. Which is much more stable than the warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. They're increasing the temperature at around 17 degrees per 1000 years. Of course we'll run out of fossil fuels long before we could reach a 17 degree increase or 1000 years, but I'm putting them in the same units so you can see the difference between what's natural and what's going on now. We're moving things at around 50 times the speed in the opposite direction.
Why are the AGW people here so insistent that everyone must *believe*, or be branded a heretic?
I don't care whether you believe or not, I just correct people when they say things which are contradicted by the best available science. Personally, I don't like it when people spread misinformation. That goes for people who hype global warming too much, as well. We're not actually likely to turn the planet into a cinderball, but I rarely have to correct people making claims like that because there are so few of them and usually someone else has already corrected them.
Fanatically anti-fanatical