Climate change.... not so much?

[KaptKaos]

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Too long to copy, read it yourselves.

[imcarthur]

"Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

"Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term. The big question is: When will it start getting warmer again?

If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years."

And then there are all of those pesky glaciers that are melting around the world . . .

Ian

[The Gaijin]

First is was "global warming" and that become "climate change". Now it is becoming "just you wait!".

One day, maybe the real science of cycles, within cycles, within cylcles - and the added effects of human activity will tell us something - without an agenda or political influence.

[RWebb]

meanwhile, the oceans are getting acidified & plants are being out-competed by other plants that 'like' high CO2 (causing animals to head towards extinction if they rely n the former type of plants)

but - hey - keep on a fiddlin' boys!

[The Gaijin]

Ocean pollutions and invasive plants may very well be problems.

But foisting an all compassing theory to square all of you circles is not on other peoples agendas.


Sorry if the world is a bit more complicated than that..

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

First is was "global warming" and that become "climate change".

It's funny. The doubters (and I'm not saying you are one) have become so wrapped up in the terminology. Keeping pickin’ those nits, laddies! Forest and trees kind of thing. They also expect to see the 'change' & feel it outside their own door every morning. And then there is that idiot from Tennessee who grasped onto it to try to make himself more than an also-ran . . .

But backing up a bit from the nauseating rhetoric, there IS an issue. ~ 200,000 years of modern human manipulation has changed things. No reasonable thinking person can deny that.

As for what to do or how fast to do it, well, that is the political football. I don’t have any answers but the continued discussion is important. Reasonable & seemingly non-partisan articles – like the link above – help to keep the subject alive & out of the veritable cesspool of the whack jobs on BOTH sides.

However, I don’t expect a sympathetic audience exists in this forum . . .

Ian

[IROC]

Among scientists, there is basically no doubt that climate change is occurring and is the result of man's activities. Among internet forum posters it's a big conspiracy.

Gee, scientists on one hand and anonymous non-technical guys posting on an internet forum on the other.

I think I'll stick with the scientists...

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by IROC

Among scientists, there is basically no doubt . . .

Cue the usual rebuttal from the flatearthers . . .

Ian

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

Ocean pollutions and invasive plants may very well be problems.

But foisting an all compassing theory to square all of you circles is not on other peoples agendas.


Sorry if the world is a bit more complicated than that..

why, yes it is.

but if you are implying that the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere is NOT a major cause of ocean acidification & competitive advantages of C4 plants, then you are dead wrong

[legion]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

Cue the usual rebuttal from the flatearthers . . .

Ian

Sorry, but that line is BS. There are plenty of scientists (excluding our resident expert on EVERYTHING) who think the politically-fueled current "consensus" is wrong, and they are repeatedly shouted down, threatened, and punished for their views. Just because the dissent is quietly excluded, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.

[RWebb]

just a tad over 2 hours, Ian!

[imcarthur]

It's called The Theory of Inevitability.

In PARF, it also means a devolution into naming calling on the 1st page. So come on guys. Step up to the plate. You have to do it on the 1st page or it doesn't count.

You will notice that I DIDN'T put this in a green font.

Ian

[slakjaw]

Humans will be long gone someday.

Anyways, I am off to go do something that will cause more climate change.

[fintstone]

Got to love the way that resident "scientists" believe that they can have a "global warming" problem...when the global temperatures are not going up. Weird science. Then they attempt to preempt any discussion by attacking those with differing positions...before they even post. What are they afraid of?

[IROC]

Originally Posted by legion

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS.

When most of your knowledge on this subject comes from the internet, it is relatively easy to pick and choose what you read and draw this conclusion. Luckily, the actual science being done in this field doesn't rely much on sitting around and reading the internet all day.

This whole discussion kind of parallels the "theory of evolution" deniers. The situation is the same - if you disagree with the currently held scientific findings on climate change - present your case! Scientists continue to present their case every day. Simply saying "there is no consensus" or calling it "weird science" isn't a very compelling argument. Where's your data? Where's your evidence?

[legion]

I'm not the one advocating using massive amounts of tax dollars and severly restricting individual freedom in the name of "the planet".

I'm yet to see any data from the "global warming" crowd. All I've seen from them is their conclusions neatly packaged with the statement that the science is settled, everyone agrees, the discussion is over. If the science really could stand on its own, I'm curious why those advocating spending so much of my hard-earned money spend more time trying to quash dissent than actually debating.

The fact is that the people that are pushing this agenda stand to benefit from it directly...at my expense. Excuse me if I want A LOT more debate before my money is confiscated and my rights abridged. So far, I've seen absolutely nothing compelling. I've seen some nice graphs generated from models whose inner workings are closely guarded. I've seen A LOT of emotional appeals based on little or no actual science. I've seen some very simplified small-scale tests that allegedly "prove" certain mechanisms, with no explanation of how they behave on a large scale with more variables and interactions. I've seen disillusioned people who occassionally are part of the "inner circle" of climate alarmists come out with statements that the politics trumps the science, that the models produce the same results regardless of the input, and the "data" used to produce predictions had things like the medieval warm period purposefully excluded and the methods of collecting data (like using tree-ring sizes) were purposefully selected because they were most likely to support the desired conclusions. Of course, these occurrences are largely ignored by the media (who is largely sympathetic to the climate alarmists, instead of being appropriately skeptical).

[rcecale]

Randy

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by RWebb

meanwhile, the oceans are getting acidified & plants are being out-competed by other plants that 'like' high CO2 (causing animals to head towards extinction if they rely n the former type of plants)

but - hey - keep on a fiddlin' boys!

Yes!!!

From 12-11-2008, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Well yes they claim so but the important thing to note is that the mantra is morphing again. It was global warming, then it was climate change and now it's rolling into the area of general pollution. I predict a term like "Global Toxicity" to take roots soon as the new alter of worship.

[legion]

That's funny. This whole "movement" started as opposing pollution! Then it morphed into fighting "global warming". When that couldn't actually be defined, it morphed into fighting "climate change". (When has the climate NOT changed?) Now that their hand has been overplayed with requests for huge sums of money and severe restrictions on individual rights to fight a vaguely defined foe, they are circling back around to pollution...

[rcecale]

You can watch Lord Monckton's entire speech (1:26:31 in length)here.

Randy