Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Tonington]

The critical point would be the loss of the Arctic ice cover, not the rise in sea level it produces. But still, I think every little bit hurts, so that's useful information.

Absolutely. More insolation means more thermal expansion, and fewer thermal niches for polar poikilotherms and many other megafauna in the Arctic.

Somewhat off topic, I read an interesting article in the Chronicle Herald that was talking about 2012. Not some abstract numerology or Mayan mythology, but related to storm surge. The Saros cycle produces a half meter higher tide in the Bay of Fundy every 18 years, when the Sun, Moon, and Earth are aligned. Where I type right now, is on a flood plain...Truro would be underwater in 2013 (actual peak of the cycle) were a storm like that which hit Saint John in 1976-the Groundhog Day Gale- to ride up the Bay.

 

[big]

Absolutely. More insolation means more thermal expansion, and fewer thermal niches for polar poikilotherms and many other megafauna in the Arctic.

Somewhat off topic, I read an interesting article in the Chronicle Herald that was talking about 2012. Not some abstract numerology or Mayan mythology, but related to storm surge. The Saros cycle produces a half meter higher tide in the Bay of Fundy every 18 years, when the Sun, Moon, and Earth are aligned. Where I type right now, is on a flood plain...Truro would be underwater in 2013 (actual peak of the cycle) were a storm like that which hit Saint John in 1976-the Groundhog Day Gale- to ride up the Bay.

In the most populated countries of the world, the story is quite different than the one in Canada. For example, in the Philippines, the coast lines are already very densely populated by slum dwellers.

http://www.pbase.com/ira_morenberg/philippinestondo

 

[barney]

Somewhat off topic, I read an interesting article in the Chronicle Herald that was talking about 2012. Not some abstract numerology or Mayan mythology, but related to storm surge. The Saros cycle produces a half meter higher tide in the Bay of Fundy every 18 years, when the Sun, Moon, and Earth are aligned. Where I type right now, is on a flood plain...Truro would be underwater in 2013 (actual peak of the cycle) were a storm like that which hit Saint John in 1976-the Groundhog Day Gale- to ride up the Bay.

Maya predictions are not "mythology:" they have been misinterpreted. The predictions are based on highly accurate astronomical data--like what you are describing--collected by them well prior to the arrival of Europeans on the continent.

And since we're on the topic, the predictions are not about the end of the world but rather another planetary phase or something like that (that will presumably have environmental effects--unrelated to future anthropomorphic effects, of which they could of course have no knowledge).

 

[EagleSmack]

I admit I have taken a piss in it every now and then.

That explains everything!

 

[AnnaG]

Yep. There is also saline factor in polar waters that plays a role in the process but I've forgotten how it works.

Yeah. Well, ice is more voluminous than water, although I am not sure of how much volume the salts add either.
hehe I forgotten the name of the pond in the Antarctic, but it is so salty it is usually still liquid even at Antarctic temperatures. No swimming there I don't think. The water is probably denser than humans though and you'd likely bob around on top of it.

 

[AnnaG]

I admit I have taken a piss in it every now and then.

8ORaw sewage in the ocean? You nasty person you. ;-)

 

[big]

It always was a scam. It was a way to force the oil companies to do what the liberal whackos wanted. To squeeze money out of them and force them to pay carbon credits en masse. Gore is one of the biggest offenders of this and he parades around the world telling everyone to be carbon neautral buy buying credits like he does.

But does he buy carbon credits? Let's see. Gore's purchases of carbon credits are actually purchases of stock in a company which he is a huge stockholder in.

What does this company do? Well they sell carbon credits! That means they go around trying to shake people down through guilt and the notion that by making themselves carbon neutral they are saving the planet. This company collects the money, sends the poor sap a certificate good for a year of unlimited energy use.

Where does the collected money go? Whereever the company wants. Companies that collect money for carbon credits are at this time non-regulated. That means they can collect millions, give a small portion of it to some wind farm and keep the rest for themselves. It is a beautiful way to get lots of money from good intentioned people.

To recap, for you, a scam is a non-regulated business. Communist!

 

[Cliffy]

8ORaw sewage in the ocean? You nasty person you. ;-)

Whales poop in it too!

 

[big]

Whales poop in it too!

How many of them remain? Is it too late to get serious?

 

[Walter]

From The Times

November 6, 2009

Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown

Hannah Devlin
Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.
They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.
“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.
Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word” that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species.

 

[Liberalman]

It's hot in here
Must be global warming

 

[big]

Solving local problems by creating global ones is the problem.

 

[AnnaG]

From The Times

November 6, 2009

Experts say that fears surrounding climate change are overblown

Hannah Devlin
Alarming predictions that climate change will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species may be exaggerated, according to Oxford scientists.
They say that many biodiversity forecasts have not taken into account the complexities of the landscape and frequently underestimate the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changes in their environment.
“The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” said Professor Kathy Willis, a long-term ecologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the article.
Professor Willis warned that alarmist reports were leading to ill-founded biodiversity policies in government and some major conservation groups. She said that climate change has become a “buzz word” that is taking priority while, in practice, changes in human use of land have a greater impact on the survival of species.

Yeah, the decline of biodiversity is a result of a variety of factors. Factors such as, reducing natural habitat, chemical pollution, etc. Warming is only a part of the disastrous effects of humans.

 

[Walter]

2009 shaping up to be a “normal” temperature year in the USA
9 11 2009 While we find cooling trends now in RSS and UAH global data from 2002, the US contiguous temperature record for 2009 seems to be returning to very near the normal baseline for temperature in the last century.
From World Climate Report: Another Normal Year for U.S. Temperatures?

Early last January, when the final 2008 numbers were in for the U.S. annual average temperature, we ran an article titled “U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?” in which we noted that “The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.”
2009 seems to be following in 2008’s footsteps.
The national average temperature had been elevated ever since the big 1998 El Niño, which was leading some folks to clamor that global warming was finally showing up in the U.S. temperature record. “Finally,” because prior to 1998, there was little sign that anything unusual was going on with U.S. average temperatures (Figure 1). The end of the record was hardly any different than any other portion of the record. The slight overall trend arose from a couple of cool decades at the start of the 20th century rather than any unusual warmth towards the end.

 

[big]

The national average temperature had been elevated ever since the big 1998 El Niño, which was leading some folks to clamor that global warming was finally showing up in the U.S. temperature record.

Like if the big 1998 El Niño was not a manifestation of global warming!

 

[Tonington]

Why on Earth would he put a graph on his page that stops at 1997, when there are 11 full years, and 3/4 of another afterwards in the same database? Because it makes it look like there has been no warming. If you go for the full database, and compute trend, this is what you get:

What dumbass Watts has done is called????

Cherry pick

Here's Watt's graph, with a trend line:

 

[big]

If I was a denier, I would argue that cherry picking occurs anyway when a linear regression is chosen as a definition of what is a trend since linear regression is only one statistical method, on par epistemologically, with other methods.

 

[Tonington]

How can it be cherry picking? A cherry pick is when you exclude available data so as to fit your hypothesis. What method, if you were a denier, would you use to determine a trend for the dataset? In any case, the linear regression is the best fit of that data for a trend analysis. Least squares, goodness of fit...again I would ask what reason do you have to suggest anything other than a linear regression of that data for trend analysis?

For purposes here, the regression is more than enough I'm sure. It tells the story with respect to, is the data increasing or decreasing as time moves forward.

 

[Walter]

Why on Earth would he put a graph on his page that stops at 1997, when there are 11 full years, and 3/4 of another afterwards in the same database?

Mea culpa

 

[AnnaG]

So what if the US had a cool October?

The UK experienced temperatures 5º C above average for October.

BBC - Weather - UK Review - October 2009