Any doubts about Climate Change?

**Takeovers** · 18-12-2014, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Mr Landreth.

What is your thoughts then on obomba getting his mates in Saudi to massively increase oil production to crash the oil price purely to continue the US hegemonic plans against Russia? Surely you would abhor this as these carbon heavy fuels are one of the principal accelerators of "glodal warming"?

That's bullshit. Nobody increased oil production. It is the world economy that is producing and consuming less. True that politics played a role in not reducing oil production with the result and intent to hurt Russia. A very clever way of dealing with an aggressor that invaded and keeps violating Ukraine sovereign land. It really does hurt Russia and Putin, and Putins cohorts who cream the country.

**pseudolus** · 18-12-2014, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

A very clever way of dealing with an aggressor

\\

How is this hurting the US and the Bankers?

**Seekingasylum** · 18-12-2014, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by blue

Climate Change is “the most important challenge facing the world” ?

the UN poll:
My World 2015 | Vote for the world you want to see

Of course it isn't. Stupidity is the greatest challenge.

**Takeovers** · 18-12-2014, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Originally Posted by blue

Climate Change is “the most important challenge facing the world” ?

the UN poll:
My World 2015 | Vote for the world you want to see

Of course it isn't. Stupidity is the greatest challenge.

Greened. Well deserved green.

**S Landreth** · 18-12-2014, 07:02 PM

It’s a Lock: 2014 Will Set New Temp Record

Global Land and Ocean

I can make this pronouncement even before the end of the year because each month, I collect daily global average temperatures. So far, December is running about 0.5°C above the average. The climate and weather models predict that the next week will be about 0.75°C above average. This means, December will come in around 0.6°C above average. Are these daily values accurate? Well the last two months they have been within 0.05°C of the final official results.

What does this all mean? Well, when I combine December with the year-to-date as officially reported, I predict the annual temperature anomaly will be 0.674°C. This beats the prior record by 0.024°C. That is a big margin in terms of global temperatures.

Snip

These climate science deniers have had a bad year. It has been shown that in many cases, their science is in error and their understanding of the Earth’s climate faulty. This record temperature, according to NOAA, has made their life even more difficult. The so-called “halt” to global warming was never true in the first place, as I wrote recently. But now, a claim that global warming has stopped cannot be made with a straight face.

Of course, the science deniers will look for something new to try to cast doubt on the concept of global warming. Whatever they pick will be shown to be wrong. It always is. But perhaps we can use 2014 as a learning opportunity. Let’s hope no one is fooled next time when fanciful claims of the demise of climate change are made.

**Latindancer** · 19-12-2014, 06:04 AM

The extreme Winters that froze North America for the last 2 years may have been partly caused by the melting of Arctic ice. Climate models suggest that shrinking sea ice forces heat into the upper atmosphere, which weakens the jet stream and allows chilly arctic air to spread South (Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5646)

Reported in New Scientist magazine, 6 September 2014, page 5.
.
.
.
.
.

**Umbuku** · 19-12-2014, 08:06 PM

The psychology of climate change denial.

**Umbuku** · 20-12-2014, 11:59 AM

Geophysicist Peter Doran's TED talk on Climate Denialism.

**Boon Mee** · 22-12-2014, 08:22 AM

Yep, the science is in!:

New Study: Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures Show a Downward Trend

From Watts Up With That? comes a report on a new tree-ring study that covers the last 2,000 years. Are tree-ring analyses valid? MMGW alarmists use them all the time, and they are certainly more reliable over a relatively reasonable time frame like 2,000 years. The study finds that global temperatures have been gradually declining over that time:

In a paper published in the Journal of Quaternary Science, Esper et al. (2014) write that tree-ring chronologies of maximum latewood density (MXD) “are most suitable to reconstruct annually resolved summer temperature variations of the late Holocene.”

The late Holocene is the geologic era in which we are living.

As the international team of researchers from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Sweden and Switzerland describes it, this history depicts “a long-term cooling trend of -0.30°C per 1,000 years over the Common Era in northern Europe” (see figure below). Most important of all, however, they note that their temperature reconstruction “has centennial-scale variations superimposed on this trend,” which indicate that “conditions during Medieval and Roman times were probably warmer than in the late 20th century,” when the previously-rising post-Little Ice Age mean global air temperature hit a ceiling of sorts above which it has yet to penetrate.

This graph shows the long-term cooling trend as well as the relatively wide variations on smaller time scales

New Study: Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures Show a Downward Trend | Watts Up With That?

**pseudolus** · 22-12-2014, 08:46 AM

Welcome back BM. Problem is you have forgotten the faux ice core analysis.

Not to worry, they will rebrand it "GLOBAL COOLING" again soon and say that we will all be living in igloos soon.

**Boon Mee** · 22-12-2014, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Welcome back BM. Problem is you have forgotten the faux ice core analysis.

Not to worry, they will rebrand it "GLOBAL COOLING" again soon and say that we will all be living in igloos soon.

Well, if they rebrand it "Global Cooling" at least they'd be right for once.

Glad to see you're out of jail!

**Umbuku** · 24-12-2014, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

New Study: Two Thousand Years of Northern European Summer Temperatures Show a Downward Trend | Watts Up With That?

The first thing that concerns me about Boons article is that it comes from Whatsupwiththat, a known oil funded denialist mouthpiece that is not to be trusted or considered in any way reliable for information on climate change. That being said they are reporting on an article in the Journal of Quaternary Science which is an accredited peer reviewed journal. The implied interpretation that the article somehow proves global warming is false is the denialist webpages perspective not the authors of the article. They are merely concerned with the scientific results of a new method of dendrochronology in conifer trees.

The article gives mean temperature shifts for a regional climate, northern Europe, a region with particular weather systems influenced by the cold jet stream air current that comes off Greenland and the Arctic. A region that in recent years has suffered extreme weather events at both ends of the spectrum because of global climate change. Using data from one small region of a continental land mass and applying it to the entire globe is incorrect. I have no doubt that if there has been a slow decrease in the temperature of Northern Europe then those temperatures are well documented by both historical sources and modern day instrumentation, and that that data is included in the overall calculations of the global mean temperature. How could it not be given that Europe is the oldest settled land area with archival records of any thoroughness and the birth place of modern science. I know that climate and temperature records were kept with sometimes daily accuracy form the middle ages on and reconstructions of these are incorporated into studies of the paleoclimate of Europe. A 0.3C drop across northern Europe does not directly correspond to a drop in mean temperature globally.

What would it take for this study to be representative of global mean temperature?

Replicate it across the globe including all the strata of the oceans.

What's that? There are no conifer trees or indeed trees of any kind in the oceans, and there are vast regions of the continents that have never had trees or continual tree coverage.

Well that's that idea shot down then isn't it.

**Neo** · 25-12-2014, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Fixed that for ya

**Neo** · 25-12-2014, 03:26 AM

Searching for snow as the ski season grinds to a halt in the French Alps | Daily Mail Online

**jerrywade** · 25-12-2014, 12:24 PM

Carbon dioxide is 0.04% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Water is 70% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
So which gas would be more likely to be significantly involved in climate change?

I already tried googling this and could not find any explanation why climatologists prefer CO2 as the evil one of greenhouse gasses.

**S Landreth** · 25-12-2014, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by jerrywade

Carbon dioxide is 0.04% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Water is 70% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
So which gas would be more likely to be significantly involved in climate change?

I already tried googling this and could not find any explanation why climatologists prefer CO2 as the evil one of greenhouse gasses.

Your question/s can be answered here: Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

or real easy. it is explained in this video (3:28),......

**Ozcol** · 25-12-2014, 02:54 PM

At least its keeping all the scientists and "experts" firmly entrenched at the public trough and they will stay there untilthegovernments wake up that climate change has been happening for millions of years , volcanoes pump out more CO2 than humans ever could.

**Umbuku** · 25-12-2014, 09:06 PM

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas___check
Climate has always changed___check
Volcanoes did it___check

You are missing 'The Sun did it' and 'It's a global conspiracy' for the denialist quinfecta.

**ENT** · 25-12-2014, 09:40 PM

The sun's in on the act.

There's no "global conspiracy" re. climate change except in the petro-chem industrialist camp.

**Neo** · 26-12-2014, 02:34 AM

**blue** · 26-12-2014, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

Global average temperature anomaly (1850-2014)
Difference from 1961-1990 average (C)

Please explain the context:
why 61-90 ?

**Neo** · 26-12-2014, 03:19 AM

I don't know exactly, but that period was 'flat' in terms of climate change and so is used as a statistical norm I think. The graph is from the WMO's latest figures and shows that 14 of the 15 warmest years since records began have occurred in the 21st century, the last fourteen years.

you can find more info here 2014 on course to be one of hottest, possibly hottest, on record

**Neo** · 26-12-2014, 03:20 AM

Coral Davenport wrote an eye-opening piece for the New York Times last week about one of the most puzzling recent refrains from Republican politicians. Why, when asked about climate change, has nearly every key Republican started responding, “I’m not a scientist”?

The piece includes quotes from Republican strategists and lobbyists highlighting just how ridiculous this response really is:

“It’s got to be the dumbest answer I’ve ever heard,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who has advised House Republicans and conservative political advocacy groups on energy and climate change messaging. “Using that logic would disqualify politicians from voting on anything. Most politicians aren’t scientists, but they vote on science policy. They have opinions on Ebola, but they’re not epidemiologists. They shape highway and infrastructure laws, but they’re not engineers.”

So why do Republicans continue to default to that line, when everyone seems to agree that it’s an idiotic one? Two words: Koch brothers. Here’s how the Times explains it:

For now, “I’m not a scientist” is what one party adviser calls “a temporary Band-Aid” — a way to avoid being called a climate change denier but also to sidestep a dilemma. The reality of campaigning is that a politician who acknowledges that burning coal and oil contributes to global warming must offer a solution, which most policy experts say should be taxing or regulating carbon pollution and increasing government spending on alternative energy. But those ideas are anathema to influential conservative donors like the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and the advocacy group they support, Americans for Prosperity.

And then Americans For Prosperity’s President, Tim Phillips, parses no words in laying out how they AFP would react to a Republican who was willing to work to address climate change: “They would be at a severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process. …We would absolutely make that a crucial issue.”

This is the clearest example yet of the complete stranglehold the Koch brothers have over today’s Republican Party. There is no scientific debate that climate change is real and that human beings are contributing to it. Experts agree that we should take action immediately. Public polling indicates that there is very broad support for taking these actions.

And still, GOP candidates just keep saying, “I’m not a scientist,” because they know the climate-denial-funding, self-serving, oil-made billionaire Koch brothers will spend millions to crush their political careers if they stand up and support commonsense actions.

Needless to say, this is a dangerous reality — one in which the GOP policy agenda is determined not by elected officials concerned about the well-being of their constituents, but by billionaires concerned about the well-being of their bank accounts.

**Boon Mee** · 26-12-2014, 08:47 AM

Yup...the Science is settled!

**beazalbob69** · 28-12-2014, 11:02 PM

Blame the Rodents!

http://www.weather.com/science/envir...climate-change

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Confirmation That For The GOP, Koch Cash Trumps Sound Policy

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions