Chief Mogrifier
Posts: 8,795 
March 16th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Quoting Walter
Completely childish reply. Walter if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, we could debate about the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses and the corresponding rise in global temperatures, but ignorant one-liners are not debate.
What do you expect government hacks to say; they won't bite the hands that feed them.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,542
March 16th, 2008, 01:36 PM
Quoting #juan
I ain't so smarts as you thinks i'se is/
Completely childish reply. Walter if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, we could debate about the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses and the corresponding rise in global temperatures, but ignorant one-liners are not debate.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,542
March 17th, 2008, 06:02 AM
March 14, 2008
Reality Check On This Year’s Cold and Snowy Weather - Implications For Global Warming
Filed under: Climate Change Metrics — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
There has been considerable discussion with respect to whether the large number of cold waves and snow this winter in the Northern Hemisphere and last winter in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. see Dot Earth and the several excellent posts on this subject at Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and ICECAP). They have accurately described this very unusual weather over vast areas of the Earth including the recent sharp cooling in the troposphere. This is clearly climate variability that has not been accurately captured by even the seasonal weather prediction models, much less the longer term global climate models.
Global Warming, of course, is just a subset of the more general issue of climate variability and change. Nonetheless, the political focus has been on global warming using the global average surface temperature trend as the metric.
Climate Science has repeatedly emphasized, however, that the proper way to assess global warming (or cooling) is with diagnoses of global average ocean content; e.g. see
A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement
Important New Paper In Press by Willis And Colleagues On Sea Level Rise And Ocean Heat Content Changes
The recent cooling in the atmosphere does not demonstrate that global warming has stopped for multi-year time periods. It does, however, highlight a major failing in that the multi-decadal global model predictions (and even the seasonal weahter prediction models) have predicted no such behavoir.
Moreover, as reported on Climate Science, global warming requires a more-or-less monotonic increase in the accumulation of heat (in Joules) within the climate system. The use of a global average surface temperature, regardless if it is increasing or decreasing is an inadequate and inaccurate metric of global warming as the heat is not only a function of temperature but also mass over which the heat change occurs! This is why the ocean is the dominate reservoir of heat content change.
With respect to the change in upper ocean heat content, as reported on a Climate Science weblog on February 15 2008, the paper
Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (in press),
reports on no upper (700m) ocean warming since 2004.
Thus while we cannot state that the recent widely distributed cold waves or overall cooling of the troposphere are evidence of the end of global warming over decadal and longer time scales, we can state that global warming has not occurred in the last 4 years. This is a major issue for both climate science and for policymakers, as only those who blindly (or deliberately) ignore the scientific evidence can still accept the 2007 IPCC conclusions as settled science.
March 14, 2008
Reality Check On This Year’s Cold and Snowy Weather - Implications For Global Warming
Filed under: Climate Change Metrics — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
There has been considerable discussion with respect to whether the large number of cold waves and snow this winter in the Northern Hemisphere and last winter in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. see Dot Earth and the several excellent posts on this subject at Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and ICECAP). They have accurately described this very unusual weather over vast areas of the Earth including the recent sharp cooling in the troposphere. This is clearly climate variability that has not been accurately captured by even the seasonal weather prediction models, much less the longer term global climate models.
Global Warming, of course, is just a subset of the more general issue of climate variability and change. Nonetheless, the political focus has been on global warming using the global average surface temperature trend as the metric.
Climate Science has repeatedly emphasized, however, that the proper way to assess global warming (or cooling) is with diagnoses of global average ocean content; e.g. see
A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement
Important New Paper In Press by Willis And Colleagues On Sea Level Rise And Ocean Heat Content Changes
The recent cooling in the atmosphere does not demonstrate that global warming has stopped for multi-year time periods. It does, however, highlight a major failing in that the multi-decadal global model predictions (and even the seasonal weahter prediction models) have predicted no such behavoir.
Moreover, as reported on Climate Science, global warming requires a more-or-less monotonic increase in the accumulation of heat (in Joules) within the climate system. The use of a global average surface temperature, regardless if it is increasing or decreasing is an inadequate and inaccurate metric of global warming as the heat is not only a function of temperature but also mass over which the heat change occurs! This is why the ocean is the dominate reservoir of heat content change.
With respect to the change in upper ocean heat content, as reported on a Climate Science weblog on February 15 2008, the paper
Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (in press),
reports on no upper (700m) ocean warming since 2004.
Thus while we cannot state that the recent widely distributed cold waves or overall cooling of the troposphere are evidence of the end of global warming over decadal and longer time scales, we can state that global warming has not occurred in the last 4 years. This is a major issue for both climate science and for policymakers, as only those who blindly (or deliberately) ignore the scientific evidence can still accept the 2007 IPCC conclusions as settled science.
No party affiliation
Posts: 1,333
Location: Oshawa
Location: Oshawa
March 30th, 2008, 10:51 AM
Let's clear the air here
Climate denier? Oil industry shill? Moi? Nah. Cutting through the bunk? You bet
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
fctAdTag("bigbox",MyGenericTagVar,1);dcmaxversion = 9dcminversion = 6DoOn Error Resume Nextplugin = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFl ash." & dcmaxversion & "")))If plugin = true Then Exit Dodcmaxversion = dcmaxversion - 1Loop While dcmaxversion >= dcminversion
It's amazing what gets you labelled as a climate denier and/or oil industry shill these days.
For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:
That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.
That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.
I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.
I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy.
These aren't radical views. From the overwhelmingly positive response to my columns, I'd venture to say many Canadians share them.
However, in the bizarro world of the climate hysterics, I'm evil incarnate.
For one thing, I don't support the Kyoto Accord, which really is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it, a socialist, money-sucking scheme.
Worse, it's a scheme whose purpose is not to lower man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
China's skyrocketing, coal-fuelled GHG emissions alone over the next few years -- exempt from Kyoto because it's a developing nation -- will more than wipe out all GHG reductions prescribed by Kyoto, even if the few dozen developed nations to which they apply, including Canada, achieve theirs. Many, including us, won't.
That's just China. India and the rest of the developing world are also exempt.
The United States, either the world's largest or second-largest GHG emitter, along with China, depending on whose figures you use, is unaffected by Kyoto because it has refused to ratify the treaty dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration. Yes, you read that right.
Leaving aside the developing world, even if every Kyoto target in the developed world was hit over the next four years, it would represent about one-twelfth of what the science says needs to be done.
Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular.
Beyond that, the scientific "consensus" on man-made global warming breaks down once you start looking at how long it will take, how severe it will be and what we should do about it, which is not a scientific decision but a political one.
Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."
They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing.
Given their concerns about GHG emissions, they irrationally oppose nuclear power, which does not emit them.
EXTREME WEATHER KILLS
They act as if there were no hurricanes or glacier retreats before mankind started burning fossil fuels and that extreme weather never killed anyone before industrialization.
They confuse carbon monoxide, a poison, with carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth.
They insist we know far more about climate than we do.
They aren't interested in saving the planet, they want to control human behaviour.
They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything -- ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.
They can, however, write e-mails.
Sorry old boy but even your hero believes in climate change just not some of the solutions.
Let's clear the air here
Climate denier? Oil industry shill? Moi? Nah. Cutting through the bunk? You bet
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
fctAdTag("bigbox",MyGenericTagVar,1);dcmaxversion = 9dcminversion = 6DoOn Error Resume Nextplugin = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFl ash." & dcmaxversion & "")))If plugin = true Then Exit Dodcmaxversion = dcmaxversion - 1Loop While dcmaxversion >= dcminversionIt's amazing what gets you labelled as a climate denier and/or oil industry shill these days.
For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:
That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.
That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.
I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.
I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy.
These aren't radical views. From the overwhelmingly positive response to my columns, I'd venture to say many Canadians share them.
However, in the bizarro world of the climate hysterics, I'm evil incarnate.
For one thing, I don't support the Kyoto Accord, which really is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it, a socialist, money-sucking scheme.
Worse, it's a scheme whose purpose is not to lower man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
China's skyrocketing, coal-fuelled GHG emissions alone over the next few years -- exempt from Kyoto because it's a developing nation -- will more than wipe out all GHG reductions prescribed by Kyoto, even if the few dozen developed nations to which they apply, including Canada, achieve theirs. Many, including us, won't.
That's just China. India and the rest of the developing world are also exempt.
The United States, either the world's largest or second-largest GHG emitter, along with China, depending on whose figures you use, is unaffected by Kyoto because it has refused to ratify the treaty dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration. Yes, you read that right.
Leaving aside the developing world, even if every Kyoto target in the developed world was hit over the next four years, it would represent about one-twelfth of what the science says needs to be done.
Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular.
Beyond that, the scientific "consensus" on man-made global warming breaks down once you start looking at how long it will take, how severe it will be and what we should do about it, which is not a scientific decision but a political one.
Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."
They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing.
Given their concerns about GHG emissions, they irrationally oppose nuclear power, which does not emit them.
EXTREME WEATHER KILLS
They act as if there were no hurricanes or glacier retreats before mankind started burning fossil fuels and that extreme weather never killed anyone before industrialization.
They confuse carbon monoxide, a poison, with carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth.
They insist we know far more about climate than we do.
They aren't interested in saving the planet, they want to control human behaviour.
They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything -- ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.
They can, however, write e-mails.
Sorry old boy but even your hero believes in climate change just not some of the solutions.
