"global warming" scientists stranded in North Pole

[LegendofNation]

:rotfl:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

As I tried to explain to you a few months back.....the temp trend the past ten years has been cooling, not warming. While the drop was minor until last year....last year was significant.

At some point folks will stop crapping thier pants about co2 and start paying attention to Pacific Decadal Currents where there is a direct linear correlation (unlike with co2 where there isn't)........

[LegendofNation]

I know all that Munchie.

I was trying to play Polio since he was absent, you know, for arguments sake, and it made me sick.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

You know for years I would say that there's no way in hell a .01% change of co2 (of all gases in the atmosphere) could be that big a factor and I often had to admit that I really had no idea what could be causing it.....perhaps a conglomeration of things - but this Pacific Current thing has real legs. If you track the current shifts, it's dead on the same as the cooling/warming trends. So co2 might be a very,very minor player but when the co2 levels continue to cllimb for ten years while the temps go the other direction........just like the 40's - 70's....but the currents match perfectly - my money's on the currents.

[stonersboners]

Hope they stay stranded. Environmental zealots deserve what they get. Maybe it is currents that impact weather. I dont know. I do know it is not CO2 that drives global warming, or climate change or what ever Al Gore calls it. It bothers me more than a little bit that climate idiots have declared CO2 a pollutant (basic building block for life on planet earth). Can people not see that cap and trade is just another tax? And for what?? We will all pay and it will finish industry in the US. There will be nothing left but to sell each other insurance once they have wrecked our economy.

[Polemicvol]

Society was meeting here today.

Weather causes scientists to get snowed in at the North Pole at a particular time. Climate (and climate change) is the reason that most scientists agree that the North Pole will be completely ice free by the end of this century. Weather and climate are two completely different things.

There is no "Pacific decadial whatever" that is causing the extreme climate warming at the North Pole and the global increases seen in temperatures over the last 50 - 100 years. Serious climate scientists agree that it's due to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily CO2 due to man's activities.

You climate reality deniers just crack me up.

[stonersboners]

Good Gawd al mighty???

So 50 to 100 years is a basis to decide the earth is going to hell?? Ohh, of course the serious scientist have decided it is true. End of debate, huh comrade? Let me tell you, earth has been warming and cooling for 1000s of years....you guys kill me! You take a few atmospheric models, make a few assumptions, and declare end times. Having actually done some work with these types of models, I know I can make them say what I want based on my assumptions. Im for clear air, but CO2 is a ruse...We should not be making energy or economic policy based on CO2 fantasy.....

[volchef]

Good Gawd al mighty???

So 50 to 100 years is a basis to decide the earth is going to hell?? Ohh, of course the serious scientist have decided it is true. End of debate, huh comrade? Let me tell you, earth has been warming and cooling for 1000s of years....you guys kill me! You take a few atmospheric models, make a few assumptions, and declare end times. Having actually done some work with these types of models, I know I can make them say what I want based on my assumptions. Im for clear air, but CO2 is a ruse...We should not be making energy or economic policy based on CO2 fantasy.....


Yes, models that are notoriously wrong 10 days out...much less years. Not to mention the serious discrepancies in placement of thermometers and other devices used for data input. Follow the money. Same as everything else in this world....where there is money the sheep will follow. It's no different for the "enlightened" liberals than anyone else. The only difference is that conservatives earn the money to pay for the research themselves. Liberals ask someone else to earn it for them. Name me a something the government has fixed or made better. The solutions to man's problems aren't found in bureaucracy they are found in the ingenuity of a FREE thinking society.

[Polemicvol]

That's a "socialistic success story" for ya.

Government control of the economy won World War II as well. So that's two.

Europe provides top notch health care for their citizens in a government controlled system. Higher life expectancy, better health at all ages, lower infant mortalities, all brought to you by liberal socialist medicine and health care. Shoot, it looks like I'm up to three.

Forecasting rain 10 days out is forecasting WEATHER, not CLIMATE. We aren't very good at forecasting weather after about 5 days out. But we have an excellent track record of over 30 years of forecasting climate changes. The predictions of the climate models from the early 1980s are being realized today. The North Ice Cap is melting, just as predicted. The Gulf Stream is slowing, just as predicted.

I know the climate change denialists search for alternative explanations and a great many of them make a great living from funding from fossil fuel extraction industries. But most independent or non-partisan funded climate research has concluded that anthropogenic CO2 is the climate culprit.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

1) The models have NEVER been accurate. The ones cited by the IPCC kind of forgot to predict that the there would be a ten year lull in our impending doom.

2) Talk abouit a "flat earth" mentality....even your side now acknowledges the PDC's are impacting the climate.

Let me help you here.....your side is supposed to say that co2 is still a much stronger influence and that these naughty PDC's are just masking the impact right now....you know, just like you blamed aerosols for the thirty year dip in temps that ended in the 70's (which just happened to be the last time the currents shifted).

If you really want a good chuckle, take your graph of co2 emissions over the past 100 years and overlay it with a graph of the temps. Then take a graph of the PDC current shifts and overlay it with the temps.........

You really need to get googling to get up speed.......

[WestPointDad]

I've asked this question before of the climatic doomsdayers and have never gotten a serious answer, so Polie, have at it:

Why did the global warming crowd decide to put all of their efforts behind a man who has absolutely no scientific training or background? Al Gore knows nothing about science. His claim to fame, besides inventing the internet, was growing up in a Washington, DC hotel penthouse, attending exclusive DC prep schools for the children of silver spoon providing government types, sliding by with C's at Yale, and then flunking out of Vanderbilt Divinity School. How in the world does that qualify him to be the "expert" on whether our climate has been adversly affected by man?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[10 uh C VOL]

in the 1970's. Please see the hyperlink for the Time Magazine article from June 1974. Oh, it this is one of my favorite snippets:

"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html)

[stonersboners]

I've asked this question before of the climatic doomsdayers and have never gotten a serious answer, so Polie, have at it:

Why did the global warming crowd decide to put all of their efforts behind a man who has absolutely no scientific training or background? Al Gore knows nothing about science. His claim to fame, besides inventing the internet, was growing up in a Washington, DC hotel penthouse, attending exclusive DC prep schools for the children of silver spoon providing government types, sliding by with C's at Yale, and then flunking out of Vanderbilt Divinity School. How in the world does that qualify him to be the "expert" on whether our climate has been adversly affected by man?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Nice post West Point. Al Gore scares the hell out of me (Divinity school drop out turn climatologist).

[Polemicvol]

Placing one graph onto another means absolutely nothing. Their apparent similarity isn't proof of causality or any true valid linkage between the two groups of data being graphed.

Regarding PDOs. Are you refering to ENSOs (El Nino/Southern Oscillations) in the Southern Hemisphere, or Walker circulations which is a Eastern/Western Pacific oscillation. Or Northern Hemisphere Pacific Decadal Oscillations? There are a lot of regional climate events.

The problem with hitching your climate denialist horse carriage to PDOs, is nobody understand what causes them. Until we do, any claim that they are the real driving force in climate change is just rank speculation.

We've got lots of evidence that anthropogenic CO2 increases are causing long term heating of our global climate. We've got zero evidence (that I'm aware of) that PDOs do the same.

[Polemicvol]

I've asked this question before of the climatic doomsdayers and have never gotten a serious answer, so Polie, have at it:

Why did the global warming crowd decide to put all of their efforts behind a man who has absolutely no scientific training or background? Al Gore knows nothing about science. His claim to fame, besides inventing the internet, was growing up in a Washington, DC hotel penthouse, attending exclusive DC prep schools for the children of silver spoon providing government types, sliding by with C's at Yale, and then flunking out of Vanderbilt Divinity School. How in the world does that qualify him to be the "expert" on whether our climate has been adversly affected by man?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The simple answer is, no one "put all their efforts" behind Al Gore. I reject your premise as completely inaccurate. Mr Gore is but one voice among thousands regarding climate change. The real authorities are the thousands of climate scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports, published by the UN. This is where Al Gore gets his data, for the most part, and where most climate research is aggregated.

[Polemicvol]

I read it as a news magazine.

It is a complete fallacy that scientists were in agreement that the earth was cooling in the 1970s. There were a few articles in contemporary popular magazines and a book or two. And some speculation by a few scientists...But not the kind of scientific concensus we now see on anthropogenic climate change caused by increased CO2 levels.

The UN wasn't issuing climate reports written by thousands of scientists after decades of study, in the 1970s, saying that our climate was cooling. But they are doing so now, saying that our climate is heating up.

There is simply no valid comparison to a few articles in popular magazines in the 1970s, with the current level of real scientific research on climate change. It's disingenuous to attempt to link the two "predictions" as anything similar whatsoever.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

as Pacific Decadal Currents are neither of the two things you mention.

So the first thing you need to do is google up some stuff on them so you can figure out that they are clearly a phenomena that tends to follow roughly a thirty year cycle. Not knowing their exact cause and therefor saying they couldn't drive the climate is silly. They clearly impact the climate - that's not even something that anybody disputes. So you go ahead and keep on thinking that increased co2 has a great effect, when in reality the co2 keeps rising while temps don't. I've got lots of time...the evidence will continue to accumulate and more and more scientists (it's already happening) will change their minds as to the cause (in fact several IPCC contributers are already off of the co2 bandwagon) - it's just that the IPCC doesn't like to keep those guys around - it just doesn't fit the agenda at all.

So are you really going to continue to contend that the IPCC models are correct and they fortold of the cooling???? You know the good thing about being willing to consider ALL evidence as opposed to just the evidence you like - is that you don't look stupid for as long before you go with the flow.......

[Dog of Orangebutt]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

[Polemicvol]

I got nothing on PDCs. I've got a lot on PDOs. I think you are talking about PDOs, which is a Northern Hemispheric Pacific climate event. I think you are mixed up on your terminology.

If you don't know the cause of the PDO climate event, you can't link it to global climate change as a climate forcing factor. All you can say is you might have a corrolation with global temperature flunctuations. As I stated before, you've got corrolation without causality.

Global warming is a positive accumulation of energy in the Earth's biosphere. In the ocean, atmosphere, and land. A PDO or PDC or whatever event you want to point to, doesn't provide any evidence that more or less energy is being accumulated or lost in the Earth's biosphere. You've just got a regional temperature flunctuation. In fact, the graph below shows clearly the difference, with PDO and global temperatures both graphed, showing long term changes in temperatures. You can see that PDO temperatures remain constant over time, as global temperatures increase.

http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu113/pvol/pdo_temp.gif

[Polemicvol]

Which might even rise to the level of a specious theory.

Again, corrolation isn't proof of causality. You gotta have more than corrolation to formulate any theory regarding climate change.

[WestPointDad]

The simple answer is, no one "put all their efforts" behind Al Gore. I reject your premise as completely inaccurate. Mr Gore is but one voice among thousands regarding climate change. The real authorities are the thousands of climate scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports, published by the UN. This is where Al Gore gets his data, for the most part, and where most climate research is aggregated.

You can reject it all you want, but that doesn't make it so. The fact is that the global warming crowd had very little attention until the attention whore Al Gore took up the cause as his life's work after he couldn't get enough support from even his own supposed home state to win the Presidental election. Gore had to find a "cause" to keep himself relevant, which turned out to be the global warming farce. Gore is no more a scientist than Phil Fulmer is the next coming of General Neyland.

[10 uh C VOL]

I will somewhat agree with you on the fact that the magazine is a new magazine and not a scientific jounal...I will, however, tell you that the data that backs up the global warming claim is a fixture in those same news magazines and agendas. The data that contradicts global warming is seemingly missed by these outlets. I wonder why that is...but I bet if you chase the money trail, you will see why this is. The news organizations all have an agenda and will stick to it till death. For example, whether or not we should be in Iraq is a whole 'nother thread for a whole 'nother day, but there is no doubt that these news organizations want to make us [USA] look bad, so they will lead with any story that looks bad on us but none that shows the good (http://www.americanheroesbook.com/) we are doing over there.

So, if you feel guilty about global warming, go ahead and spend your money on carbon credits so you can feel good about yourself and in a few years when this whole mess is proven to be the farce that it is, I will be sitting back and laughing at all of you "Global Warming Yahoos"

[Dog of Orangebutt]

You don't even have correlation....

[Dog of Orangebutt]

It would also be nice if you could provide a source for your graph...which you comically provide after stating in the previous post that overlaying graphs doesn't tell you anything (which is not correct, but I wish you'd make up your mind).

They are called currents as well as oscillations and they cause GLOBAL climate changes. That is well documented. Stop guessing and read up and then you'll come back with the response I said you would in my first post to you......

[Polemicvol]

Is almost all their work is not original, but rather derivitive. They do regression analysises of other studies, or meta-analysises of other studies, but as far as original content scientific studies, the record is almost completely absent of contributions by climate skeptic scientists.

When editors of scientific magazines or of popular news magazines are deciding what to include in their magazines, they just don't have much or any original content to choose from published by climate skeptics. Almost no peer reviewed studies, and I would state no peer reviewed studies in recognized academic journals pertinent to climate science.

The defenders of the skeptics say mainstream climate scientists shut down the skeptics due to political reasons. But that doesn't really hold water, as the quickest route to fame and fortune as a scientist is to blaze a new path different than others in a field. If someone could present solid and original factual evidence that anthropogenic climate change was incorrect, they would be nobel prize winners and gain worldwide fame. No political leanings can possibly trump the individual desire of scientists for fame and fortune.

No, I'm forced by the overwhelming preponderance of factual evidence, and the lack thereof on the side of the skeptics, to discount the position of the climate skeptics.

[Polemicvol]

You keep saying Al Gore is trying to be a climate scientist. That's just completely inaccurate. He is an educated layman regarding climate change and to my knowledge has never attempted to state otherwise.

Does Mr. Gore feel climate change is a very important issue and has he spoken out publicly about climate change? Yes, he has, since the early 1970s when he was a young Congressman from Tennessee. As a US Senator in the 1980s, he chaired hearings on climate change where Dr Hanson from NASA famously predicted the global warming we are now witnessing 30 years later.

Al Gore didn't just start talking about anthropogenic climate change. He has always talked about it. The biggest difference is the world and nation has now caught up to his position and realizes the pickle we are in. And concensus has begun to arrive that we have to slow the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

This will be done for our children and grandchildren's future, in spite of the climate skeptics who reject solid science.

[Blacksheepvol]

How anyone can defend any member of that strip mining family is beyond me. The Gores should be nobody's environmental hero. period.

Go to Carthage and talk to the locals.

[Polemicvol]

Until smoking killed Al Gore's sister and they stopped raising tobacco.

Nobody knew CO2 derived from coal was problematic back during the era that perhaps the Gore family strip mined coal. I seriously doubt Al Gore was involved in strip mining in any significant way.

People can change when new facts present themselves, just as the Gore family changed. I hold out the same hope for change for the climate skeptics who posted in this thread.

I certainly don't believe that the sins of the fathers should plague their sons.

[Polemicvol]

I posted a single graph that shows an index for temperature ranges for both PDO events and Global temperatures. Which clearly shows temperatures for PDO events haven't changed in 100 plus years, while global temperatures increased steadily.

You were the one talking about overlaying graphs, to search for corrolations in peaks and valleys of temperature ranges between global temperatures and PDO events. But you avoided and didn't mention that one of those graphs (global temperatures) had a steady upward trend in tempertures, despite any fluncuations, and the other (PDOs) didn't show an upward temperature trend.

I'll be happy to share the source of that graph. But you likely won't read the article and will dismiss it's conclusions.

Here it is... (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html)

[Orangebutt]

whether you overlap them or put them beside each other assuming that the axis is TEMPERATURE and you're comparing the two....it's the same thing...good golly....

Unsurprisingly, you've misinterpreted your own graph, and I haven't bothered to read you link yet, but I will....

[Dog of Orangebutt]

and first of all, you're going to have to explain your graph....as I can't figure out what the heck is providing the two lines and why they should realistically even be sharing the same rectangle.

Secondly, whatever they guy thinks he's showing with the graph...he's conveniently only showing the past 100 years, when the over trend has been positive. Since they can track the pdos back much further, he'd be much more credible if he went back and took into account a much wider span of time when it would show a much stronger cooling period vs oscillation. The thing that is still missing is that these oscillations are obviously not the same intensity or length....the intensity of the sun must be accounted for as well...and we can probably give co2 a .009 or so part in climate change...so you won't feel left out altogether.

[10 uh C VOL]

I think this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html) is an interesting read. I think Bill Gray as a skeptic is pretty big [in case you are unaware of who Bill Gray is, he is the one that they go to for hurricane predictions every year] Bill Gray in the article states:
"I am of the opinion that this [Global Warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

The fact is that there are many great scientists/climatologists out there that have data and there own expert opinions but are being hushed because so much money is being poured into "going green". Just like Bill Gray had been "disinvited" from a public debate in opposition to global warming, many other voices have been shut down or not given as much attention as the global warming "pushers" have been getting (e.g. John Cooper (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx), founder of The Weather Channel.)

The other problems is that people such as Heidi Cullen make frivolous comments and then when asked to debate another meteorologist, James Spann (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFU-zCAf0LE&feature=related), she goes into hiding.

Global warming is only an issue because the people behind it are making way too much money.

Oh and by the way, the word is analyses, not analysises

[Polemicvol]

They are meteorologists, trained in weather prediction, but not necessarily trained in climate analysis. Remember, weather is a different thing than climate.

Bill Gray and John Cooper, simply don't have any real bonafides to claim any real expertise in climate science. Do they have any published papers on climate science? Or are they more media types, like Al Gore, who speak out on their personal perspective on the global warming debate.

They aren't published climate scientists nor are they published climate researchers. Their expertise is in telling you if it's going to rain in 5 days, or to run away if a hurricane is coming. They don't have any expertise in climate science, so it's proper that most of the media ignores their attempted "transference of expertise" to climate science.

[10 uh C VOL]

A snippet from Bill Gray's presentation at a Climate Audit.

2. WHO AM I TO COMMENT?

I am a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where I have been employed since 1961. I have been performing meteorological research, teaching, and forecasting for the last 53 years. I have participated in many tropical field experiments over the last 50 years. These experiments were directed to the study of cumulus convection, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, sea-air energy-moisture exchange, hurricane formation, etc. These are topics of crucial importance to the physics of global temperature change. But they are not well understood by the human-induced global warming proponents. The incorrect handling of these moist processes is responsible for the major flaws in the human-induced global warming scenarios.

I hold MS and PhD degrees in meteorology and geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. Few professors of atmospheric science have had a finer group of graduate students than I have over the last 40 years (50 MS graduates and 20 PhD graduates).

I am well known for my Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 23 years. Making public verified seasonal hurricane climate forecasts (2 to 6 times per year) for 23 years demonstrates, I believe, an in-depth knowledge of the atmosphere. My overall 53 years of experience in weather forecasting, atmospheric research, and teaching is, I believe, more than sufficient to justify the credibility of my comments on hurricanes and global warming. I am more than willing to discuss or debate with any of my critics provided there is an impartial moderator.

I have never had a grant from the fossil-fuel industry. I presently do not draw a salary. I live off of my retirement income. To support my small Colorado State University research project I presently have two quite modest research grants, one from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for hurricane research and the other from Lexington Insurance Company (Boston) for US hurricane landfall probability prediction.

My main motivation to continue my research is to help maintain the integrity of American science which, in my view, has been badly compromised by the global warming issue and now recently by the issue of global warming causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Having received federal support for my meteorological endeavors for over 50 years and having devoted my entire career to atmospheric science, I also feel I have an obligation to speak out on issues involving my expertise. I would feel guilty if I did not do so.

I believe that he is more qualified than most.

[OBs Dogs Nutsack Flea]

It's very convenient for this guy to have a graph that begins with a warming period, so his graph shows two warming periods and one cooling period and then claim that the temps have gone up. Why didn't he show a time period where there were two warming periods and two cooling periods?

If I don't answer back anytime real soon, I'm taking a trip from the left nut to the right rear paw to visit my cousin Lee. I'll be back later on.......

[Polemicvol]

In climate science are where?

Like I said, he's a meteorologist. He does weather prediction, not climate prediction. These are two very different things. I would love to read his "moist papers" in peer reviewed journals, if you could link them or tell me where they could be found.

I seriously doubt there are any. Real research is published in peer reviewed journals. I'm not sure what Dr. Gray has published or where. If he hasn't, he just isn't a factor in climate change debate. He's just a guy that knows a lot about weather and hurricanes.

[Polemicvol]

Is that observed global temperatures have steadily increased since 1900. But the observed temperatures of the PDO events haven't increased over the same time period.

If you overlay the last 100 years of global temperature fluctuations with the last 100 years of PDO temperature fluctuations, they show a corrolation. Which is what has gotten the CO2 skeptics all worked up.

But the fact that there is no upward trend in PDO temperatures, shows that it's highly unlikely PDOs are a driving force of increased global temperatures, as the PDO temperatures didn't increase. Unless Buttdog has invented a new theory of thermodynamics to fit his model.

[Orangebutt]

how in the hell do you ascertain exactly what temp change is the fault of pdo's? That's what I don't get.....again, 100 years is a very disengenious span of time to try to use.....

[10 uh C VOL]

You continue to say because he is a meterologist and not a climatologist he has no credence to be a skeptic. Please look at this link (http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingCensored_execsum.asp). I have included a snippet below:

• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

The truth is, most of the proponents of "global warming" are alot less qualified to be discussing the matter than Dr. Gray is. For example, one of the "leading experts" in global warming is James Hansen (who received the highest honor the American Meterological Society gives) is trained in astronomy, not climate change.

[Dog of Orangebutt]

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/10/roy-spensor-on-pacific-decadal.html

I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the mainstream news media now refuse to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely.
We need to consider the very real possibility that carbon dioxide - which is necessary for life on Earth and of which there is precious little in the atmosphere - might well be like the innocent bystander who has been unjustly accused of a crime based upon little more than circumstantial evidence.

Hmmm.....could it be? Open you mind a bit Poley.....consider alternatives.....don't be a flatearther:ar15:

[duckbutt]

Tell you what, find a way to get the sun to pay for all this nonsense and leave the rest of us alone. Solar activity has and will, until the end of time, continue to be the source.

Man-made global warming will prove to be the biggest joke of the modern era.