Another post on Global Warming

[getalife]

Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway


By David Tirrell-Wysocki, Associated Press Writer
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.

Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.

"We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes," writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D'Aleo. "Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future."

Thats interesting, the Old Farmers Almanac has been accurate 80-85% of the time.

What do you say, Jeff C, is Joseph D'Aleo qualified to comment on this subject?

[CharlieS.]

Great ..Now Gore will look back and say " I was president ,invented the internet....and solved earths problems"

[Marty]

Getalife,

I read your post early today and it started me to thinking about this year and the fishing so far. I really don’t believe we had a normal summer this year – we had a few days when it got hot but nothing like years passed. I really believe it effected the fishing not only on the Delta but also other lakes.

Just reviewing this year, make you wonder about Global Warming and when it is going to start for we can get some real fishing in! Take today, it is 10 degrees lower then it was this weekend. The environment has not been real reliable to predict the actions of the fish.

Well that is my excuse for catching the bass this year – you can put lipstick on me but it don’t make me no Pro.

[getalife]

Well Marty, I wish I knew how the fishing was this year. I haven't been out since the Holder Ford Tourney many months ago, I just don't have time. What I do know is that I was accused (by Jeff C) of not being qualified to comment on Global Warming because I was not a Climatologist. Well... here is a climatologist that is saying the same things I have said. The Old Farmers Almanac has no dog in this race (that I know of), they call it as they see it without agenda... and they agree with us when it comes to Global Warming. I never did like cool-aid!

[Ringer]

Al didn't invent global warming but he did foster a lie and promote fear to the world at the same time he was investing in a business that would make money on clean alternatives. What a surprise that an overfed politician would lie to the public in order to line his own pockets. I predict the global warming farce will set the environmental movement back to the dark ages. People are sheep being led around by the nose by Hollywood freaks and envirowhackos. Anyone "invest" in the carbon credits scams?

[getalife]

Nothing to say Jeff? I thought so!

[MikeD]

What a surprise that an overfed politician would lie to the public in order to line his own pockets.

curious - how do you connect the dots between lying politican using global warming as a means to line his pockets?

I predict the global warming farce will set the environmental movement back to the dark ages.

i predict not

People are sheep being led around by the nose by Hollywood freaks and envirowhackos.

i think people are making their own minds up about what level of involvement in global warming solutions they want to take, part of the freedom of choice that we enjoy by being americans. ain't the usa grand?

you've chosen to do nothing to change global warming as is your right -- but why must you resort to ridicule and name calling to make your point? do you think that it will somehow bring people around to your point of view? or does it just make you feel better?

sincerely,

tree hugger

[Jeff C.]

There you go again Getalife. Won’t you ever learn that you can’t win this argument?

So I'm still waiting for those peer reviewed scientific papers supporting your view. Oh yeah, that won’t happen because they don’t exist, Hah!

Okay, here goes. As I've explained many times, I prefer to get my information from the thousands and thousands of people with PhDs in climate science. Funny thing about Joseph D'Aleo, is that he isn’t one of those people. So let’s see, we have the vast majority of the top climate scientists in the world saying that man made global warming is a reality, and then we have a few isolated individuals many of which don’t even have PhDs in climatology claiming the opposite. Then of course if you follow the money, you’ll find that most of the dissenters are financed by the fossil fuels industry. Geez, are you really that gullible in real life?

So, once again your argument is dismissed as being nothing but bullsh!t. Give it up, you can't win because you don't have the evidence to prove your point. You can't produce the legitmate scientific papers supporting your view. All you can produce are a bunch of right wing hacks for the energy industry.

Here are the abstracts of 5 legitimate peer-reviewed scientific articles providing evidence for man made global warming published since the first of the year. Where are your matching articles?

Prospects for future climate change and the reasons for early action.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1858 ... d_RVDocSum

Ice cores record significant 1940s Antarctic warmth related to tropical climate variability.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1869 ... d_RVDocSum

High latitude changes in ice dynamics and their impact on polar marine ecosystems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1856 ... d_RVDocSum

Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1855 ... d_RVDocSum

10th Anniversary Review: a changing climate for coral reefs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1817 ... d_RVDocSum

So come on, show me the real scientific articles that support your view.

So once again you lose. Is this where you call me a name since you have no real evidence to support your case?

[getalife]

The Old Farmers Almanac, while not a peer reviewed scientific document, is not, that I know of, financed by the fossil fuel industry, nor are they right wing hacks for the energy industry.

I thought it was interesting that they would make this prediction for a cooling cycle, rather than a warming cycle, and I was truly interested in what you had to say about that. Granted, they have been wrong approximately 15% of the time, but they also appear to offer an independent and non-biased, opinion. You are on one side of the political spectrum and I am on the other... You have your opinions and I have mine. What do you think about this unbiased opinion from an organization that is right, when it comes to predicting what mother nature will do, way more often than not.

As far as those peer reviewed scientific papers in support of my theory... well to be honest I don't have time to hunt any down (although I suspect you are right and that there are few/none in existance).

When the catastrophic warming doesn't occur, and the seas don't rise 20 feet, and you realize that you have been misled or scammed by the likes of Al Gore... I will expect you to get on this forum and admit your own gullibility. I, of course, will do the same as soon as I see some proof that A) the earth is truly warming at an alarming rate (6/10ths of a degree over 100 years does not alarm me), and B) that man was the cause of such warming.

I have seen no PROOF of A or B above in any of the links you provided.

[CharlieS.]

Wasnt there some information long ago..somewhere ,,was regarding other planets...even the sun.(ie..about half way thru its life ,sunspots..etc..etc..).about changes .Mars I think..NASA said over all the years has had warming occur ? Cmon...my driving caused that? Joke,being a smart A . sry

[getalife]

Yeah, there have been many documents, and many scientists, and many organizations such as NASA and the Weather Channel, but JeffC will only accept "peer reviewed scientific research", which is so typical of those in academia. You know what they say... "those that cant do, teach!"

[Ringer]

Let's see Mike, our consumption of fossil fuels is way down due to price and people are actually taking mass transit. We are paying 15% more for groceries so we can use ethanol. I noticed the air in the US is already cearing up and it is much cooler than last month. Oh, it is also september. Any reasoning person knows that the US is one of the greenest countries in spite of the number of vehicles we have. If you want to solve your so called problem how are you going to halt volcanoes from erupting or China and India from polluting or poor people from hacking down the rain forests? I believe those things are definitely contributing to global pollution. You surely read that a THIRD of Southern California's pollution is drifting around the globe from China. Go hug those polluting little bastards or pay off the poor who are decimating the rain forests but don't point your finger at America and say we should pay the bill.

[MikeD]

wha?!? none of this on topic with what I wrote before, staying on topic is your friend, shotgunning topics as a means of avoidance of the issue is not.

but I'll respond to your post with my thoughts/opinion.

Let's see Mike, our consumption of fossil fuels is way down due to price and people are actually taking mass transit.

agree, generally a good thing. but we didnt have to be here given a bit more planning years ago. saudi's/opec have us by the balls right now and they know it. see price increases based on pending oil export reductions coming soon to a gas pump near you.

[quoteWe are paying 15% more for groceries so we can use ethanol.[/quote]

you're prob paying more than 15% given the stress on food sources that rely on corn but thats another conversation.

I noticed the air in the US is already cearing up and it is much cooler than last month. Oh, it is also september. Any reasoning person knows that the US is one of the greenest countries in spite of the number of vehicles we have.

actually the US is the #3 world polluter behind china and india if I recall correctly.

If you want to solve your so called problem how are you going to halt volcanoes from erupting or China and India from polluting or poor people from hacking down the rain forests?

well #1 above is clearly not within our control. poor people hacking down rain forests due to their desire to use the lands to make money - coffee and beef being the 2 largest crops with the majority of the exports going to the US

I believe those things are definitely contributing to global pollution.

yes

You surely read that a THIRD of Southern California's pollution is drifting around the globe from China.

no, have not read that - source?

Go hug those polluting little bastards or pay off the poor who are decimating the rain forests but don't point your finger at America and say we should pay the bill.

I will point my finger and say that we should be doing a much much better job, and setting a much much better example. It is within our means and our capabilities. doing nothing and sitting around saying everything is fine is very naive and irresponsible and seeks to take the easy way out. I think that offering a hug as a means of solution is a bit condescending regardless of if it was offered in jest or not.

[Marty]

Come on Jeff,

We had this same discussion back in November and I don’t remember you winning any discussion!
http://www.westernbass.com/forum/viewto ... =34154&f=8

Back then I listed reference that you did not answer – why not? I will tell you why because you have accepted everything that is put out by the Untied Nations.

You keep using the same reference all from the IPCC which I stated last time is from the Untied Nations and they are pushing Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Of course they will make a case for global warming, they all want to transfer wealth away from America. Besides IPCC is full of eco-maniacs that has accepted saving the world as their “Religionâ€

[Jeff C.]

Back then I listed reference that you did not answer – why not? I will tell you why because you have accepted everything that is put out by the Untied Nations.

What reference is that Marty? You have to be careful because there are several fake journal articles being circulated about global warming. It is a common tactic of the anti science crowd.

It is a real article if it is in a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. You can tell it is real if it is listed in the same search engines that scientists use to do literature reviews. Here is a link to one that is available on the web:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

Actually Roy Spencer is one of the few climatologists that disagree with man made global warming. However his view on the topic is not respected among his scientific colleagues. And the best evidence of that is that he hasn't published much on the issue at all. As a scientist myself I can tell you that means that he is either 1. not actively involved in doing research on the topic, or 2. not doing competent research on the topic.

Does it surprise you out of tens of thousands of people with PhDs in climate science that there are a handful of people who disagree?
Do you know that there are a few physicians in the world that believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS? Just because a few people believe that does not make it true. Science is a process of consensus. When a theory receives enough empirical support to convince nearly all the experts in the field, then that theory is considered valid until new evidence comes along to dismiss it.

Getalife's main premise is that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. I have shown you abstracts of just a few of the articles published in the last year that support the premise of man made global warming. If you want to prove your point that there is still debate on its existence then you will have to show me a similar number of scientific articles promoting your view.

You can use this link to search most of the major scientific journals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

Come this November when we will bring in McCain-Palin administration and they start work in January we will not have to worry about this bull for the next 12 year because Sarah does not believe that man causes global warming – that should piss you off.

Huh, am I missing something? I thought McCain was the presidential candidate. Have you forgotten that already? Have you already forgotten that McCain is on my side on this issue. It's actually pretty sweet, because no matter who is elected, we'll finally get a president who believes in science again.

Both Obama and McCain have pledged to do something about global warming AND have pledged to allow embryonic stem cell research.

Obviously McSame isn't as in line with my views on the issue as Obama, but either way, I win on this issue and you lose.

No Marty, I think it will be you who is pissed, no matter who is elected.

p.s. please don't forget to post links to those legitimate peer reviewed scientific articles that discount global warming.

[Greg_Cornish]

A friend of mine sent me "absolute proof" there was no such thing as global warming, period. It was a paper about 4 pages long filled with big words and convincing terminology.

I was finally able to find the guys credentials. He was an electronics engineer. My buddy owes me 15 minutes of my life back for reading that garbage.

[Jeff C.]

You keep using the same reference all from the IPCC which I stated last time is from the Untied Nations and they are pushing Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Actually, Marty, not one of those 5 articles I submitted were from the IPCC. They were from scientists who are actively doing research on the topic. The IPCC doesn't do their own research, they review and interpret all the research that is perfomed world wide.

Look, I'm done with this. But before I leave, Marty and Getalife, I'll give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is.

If there is truly a significant number of climate scientists in the world that believe your view, you shouldn't have a problem finding legitimate scientific articles supporting your cause. If you're that confident I will bet you $1000 that I can find at least 5 times as many peer reviewed scientific articles published in the last 10 years that provide evidence favoring the existence of global warming than you can find disputing it.

Come on guys. If you truly believe in what you've been saying it should be easy money, right?

[Marty]

Jeff,

I'll accept your observation but not your conclusions. The passion of global warming is fueled by greed. Money. Funding for ongoing studies. Job security for those PhD’s of yours. Why doesn't the Science have a debate about this? I tell you why because their model they are using is not shared or does not have enough data to support their theory. Now granted I don’t have a PhD which you hold in great esteem, but I do work with few PhD’s who are not supported by research funding and each are skeptic because of the reason I have just listed. One told me this story:

In the Star Trek episode about a library on a planet orbiting a sun soon to nova, Captain Kirk finds himself in what we would think of as the 16th Century. Naturally, because he can speak to Dr. McCoy, who along with Spock is trapped in some distant ice age, the jailer believes Kirk is speaking to spirits, i.e. "Bones", and he's accused of witchcraft. One of the leaders, also having escaped the doom imminent in his time period, knows Kirk is not a witch. But, he loudly declares, "There are witches. There are!"

In much the same manner, scientists who today doubt the existence of global warming know better than to fall down laughing at their colleagues who posit such idiocy. They must, for their own futures, run away from the skeptic and loudly proclaim, "There is global warming. There is!"

Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? No.

I was lead to this report from The Heritage Foundation by Ben Lieberman (I don’t think he has his PhD but it is a must read)

“A summary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC Report) was released on February 2, and many in the media and Congress are citing it as further (I repeat further) evidence that global warming is a dire threat. The full report, with accompanying scientific assessment and detailed assumptions, will not be released for some time. However, caution is warranted in drawing policy conclusions based on this summary, as the full scientific debate over the IPCC report has not begun. And while the summary strongly emphasizes mankind's role in global warming, it has retreated on a number of important assertions from past reports.

Just a Summary

It should be emphasized that only a short "Summary for Policymakers" has been released, not the actual report which contains the underlying scientific assessment. The final version of the full report is scheduled to come out later this year. IPCC summaries are written at the direction of political appointees representing member nations. The limitations and potential biases of such summaries give reason to withhold judgment until the scientists actually weigh in--both the IPCC scientists and especially the independent scientists who will comment on the final report. That the summary is being so aggressively marketed ahead of the science is itself reason for caution.

The Findings

That said, the summary is the only thing most journalists, politicians, and educators read (educator is that you Jeff), and the finding that has received the most attention is that the IPCC is now more certain than in its 2001 report that mankind has contributed to global warming since 1750. In truth, few so-called skeptics dispute that there has been some human contribution, so the fact that the summary says the likelihood is 90 percent or more is not as newsworthy as it first appears. This upward revision in the certainty that mankind has impacted the climate should not be confused with an upward revision in the predictions of consequent harm. The more important questions have always been the extent of warming, the seriousness of the consequences, and what responsive policies make sense. (my note – do we stop the world for less then 1%?)

The summary includes a wide range of assumptions and outcomes, and thus it is hard to generalize about its predictions. However, it does appear that estimates of future sea level rise--likely the greatest concern from warming--are being revised downward. Estimates range from 0.18 to 0.59 meters (about 7 to 23 inches) over the course of a century, about a third lower than in the previous report and well below popular fears of 20 feet or more. (My note – the tide in the Delta is more than that!)

Again it is still too early to speculate what the final scientific assessment will say (and how well it will hold up to scrutiny), but the summary does appear to have backtracked on other points as well. For example, the last IPCC report emphasized the so-called "hockey stick" notion that earth's temperature was relatively stable for a thousand years (the shaft of the hockey stick) and then shot up in an unprecedented manner in the 20th century (the blade). Thus, the previous IPCC report discounted the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, implying that current temperature increases are not due to natural variability. The hockey stick (and its conclusion that current temperatures are unprecedented throughout most of recorded history) has come under scientific attack in recent years, and based on the new summary, it appears that the IPCC has deemphasized it. How the deletion of the hockey stick from the upcoming report squares with IPCC's claims of increased certainty over mankind's impact on climate will be a significant source of contention.

On the question of whether global warming contributes to powerful hurricanes like Katrina, the summary hedges quite a bit, calling the hurricane-warming link "more likely than not" rather than "very likely" or "likely," as used elsewhere in the summary. The summary concedes in a footnote that the magnitude of mankind's contribution was not assessed and that the attribution was based "on expert judgment" and not formal studies. Again, depending on what the final report says, activists and politicians who unequivocally blamed Katrina's devastation on global warming may have to back off.

Is a Kyoto-Like Solution Wise?

Whatever the risks of global warming identified in the IPCC Report, global warming policies also carry risks--especially those policies that emphasize energy rationing as a solution. Separate from the scientific discussion sparked by the IPCC Report is the discussion about the appropriate response and, in particular, the actual merits of a costly program to cap carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. This was the approach taken in the Kyoto Protocol, the multilateral treaty to address global warming. Kyoto is proving so prohibitively expensive that most of the developed nations that have signed onto it (Western Europe, Canada, Japan, but not the United States [Thank you Bill Clinton]) have little hope of meeting its looming targets. The economic burdens of Kyoto, especially on already-stagnant economies, have proven unacceptable.

Estimates of the cost for U.S. compliance ranged from $100 to $400 billion dollars annually--enough to have a serious impact on employment and economic growth. America wisely rejected this approach. And even assuming the IPCC is right, the Kyoto Protocol would only avert 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050, an amount too small too measure.

The economic damage of energy rationing to developing nations would be severe, strangling growth and imposing hardships on billions who are already barely subsisting. It would also slow the spread of electrification to the nearly 2 billion who do not yet have it. On the other hand, exempting developing nations from any Kyoto-style requirements means that carbon emissions will continue to increase regardless of what the developed world does.

Science should play a big role in global warming policy, and the full IPCC Report should be a part of that. But economics must also play a role, lest the U.S. embark on a course that does more harm than good."

I leave you with a writing from Karl Raimund Popper who is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century.

"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment."
-- Karl Raimund Popper

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

I'm Marty and I approve this Post!

[Marty]

Jeff,
Well, I for one am glad McCain bought into this global warming hoax enough that it will allow some who might not have voted for him to do so. Once they're in the White House, Sarah can straighten him out. Or maybe, just maybe, McCain doesn't believe in global warming at all, and talked about it just so the Obama wouldn't be able to hog all the tree huggers to himself.
I’m Marty and I approve this Post!

[Jeff C.]

Why doesn't the Science have a debate about this?

Of course they have had a debate. You yourself have mentioned that there have been people like Spencer who have attempted to dispute global warming. The essence of science IS debate. And if there was enough evidence to suggest that Spencer and his ilk are right, he would have much more company. But he doesn't, because the overwhelming body of evidence says that he is wrong.

I believe you are right on one thing though, the debate on the consequences of global warming is probably less resolved than the debate on the existence of global warming. I don't know that for a fact but I expect that to be the case because it is likely harder to estimate future consequences than past events.