• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No global warming since 1995?

Safe-Keeper said:
I can just picture these people during the Cuba Missile Crisis.

Someone watching the news: Applecorped! Mhaze! Alfie! The Soviets have put ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on Cuba!
The aforementioned: There have never been weapons on Cuba before?
SWN: Not with nuclear warheads!
AM: Can you prove they've got nuclear warheads?
SWN: Well, that's what everyone agrees on!
AM: Well, I believe they don't, and that this is just a ploy to get costly reforms into our economic system.
SWN: But we could be weeks or days from World War Three!
AM: Wars are a natural part of human nature, and have happened many times before. Hence, they're totally harmless.
SWN: But-- but--
AM: And even World Wars I and II were proven to be beneficial financially. Hence, a WWIII would be a good thing.
SWN: :speechless:
Click to expand...


:bigclap

Congrats on the worst comparison ever made.
 
Upchurch said:
I have no reading problems. I read the article and understand that extrapolation is not "making stuff up".
...
Click to expand...
.
"Extrapolation" is what is used to -predict- future events based on current data and knowledge.
Many people use it all the time.
It's the only way to say, "see" what current trends in atmospheric events and effects can be reasonably expected to be, if thus and so is or isn't done.
 
GreNME said:
Again, I agree with much of what you're saying here. The logical answer for "to what extent?" is basically "what we are able to economically accomplish without negative consequences." Of course, that's an answer that brings into play a whole separate argument on its own-- and, in my opinion, one we should be having right now--

I can understand and sympathize with what you're saying. A lot of work and study has gone into sustainable farming that keeps useful land fertile. However, just a few changes in temperature globally is going to make a lot of those techniques less effective.

I also wanted to thank you for the approach you're taking and the questions you're asking. In all honesty, these are what the argument that's currently raging should be about. It's a shame that this isn't the focus of the current debate in all of the threads that pop up on the subject.
Click to expand...

Alternative energy needs to be expanded as it currently represents such a small percentage. Unfortunately there are limitations that won't see it move into primary position anytime soon. Wind farms are an excellent way to produce green energy but they tend to be in remote locations, so transmission losses are an issue, they require lots of land and they run intermittently. I won't lecture on the failings of alternative energy, I just want to point out the importance of people not relying too heavily on it as a solution. We need to remember to look before we leap. I'm just saying this because I wan't to avoid a giant facepalm 15 years down the road when 10 million windmills become obsolete.

In the mean time coal is dirty, it needs to be cleaner. It can be done if we give it the chance. We need to give it a chance because we can't get enough nuclear online to simply shut them down and forget about them. People also don't realize nukes are the workhorses of power production. They aren't what we call "peakers", they can't be brought online quickly to meet fluctuating demands. This means we will continue to require coal and natural gas plants to meet our power requirements.

I'm just pointing this out because I've seen people over simplify the issue and point to nuke as an obvious way to quickly reduce green house gas emissions. It's been neglected for too long, it needs to be persued further but not with reckless abandonment. From what I've seen conservation and strategic planning will lead to the biggest reductions in the shortest amount of time.

I'm really curious what effect an increase in temperature would have on crops and farming. From talking with farmers around here, corn and soya benefit from warmer temperatures during the summer growing months. I think the biggest issue with global warming isn't the heat, it's the potential for drought. It's conceivable that global warming might prolong or intensify drought conditions. At the same time warmer weather may increase evaporation from the oceans which might mean more rainfall. Who is to say for sure? What I do know is the temperatures have varied over the history of the planet more than the temperature change projected by global warming. The World didn't come to an end then, why would it do so now? I'm not suggesting this is a reason to do nothing, but it would seem to suggest there is no reason to over react. I can't open multiple windows on my phone to check, but I believe there is a map that shows the different climate "zones" for growing plants. If I'm not mistaken the rise in temperature a degree or two would shift the map towards the north slightly. The question I would ask is what is the overall effect? I think a very large part of the most fertile farming land on the planet would benefit from this change in temperature.

I'm also not certain if a mass migration would result in increased poverty. I think that might result if it were to occur in the urban areas, but if it were to more rural areas I think it might be of benefit. I'm reminded of the last big migration West. Is it possible the North might become the new West? There's plenty of Crown land here in Canada that might be parcelled out to entrepreneuring new immigrants who wish to try and make a new life here in Canada. This might be entirely unrealistic I don't know. What I am sure of is there is no shortage of land here in Canada or the US. I think what's more prohibitive is people's attitudes. I can already see people rolling their eyes at the idea of encouraging immagration. That's unfortunate because it's the reason for the success of North America.

I think I may have gone too far OT for this thread already. The issue of whether or not there has been an appreciable increase in temperature since 1995 isn't clear. I've been paying attention myself and haven't really noticed. It's been a pretty mild Winter here, but Washington DC is only a few hundred miles from here and from what I've heard it's been a doozy. I honestly don't see any reason for the excitement some people feel over the issue. We're taking measures to reduce the levels of green house gases. I'm personally taking measures to reduce my carbon output not because of GW, but because it's the right thing to do.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Alternative energy needs to be expanded as it currently represents such a small percentage. Unfortunately there are limitations that won't see it move into primary position anytime soon. Wind farms are an excellent way to produce green energy but they tend to be in remote locations, so transmission losses are an issue, they require lots of land and they run intermittently. I won't lecture on the failings of alternative energy, I just want to point out the importance of people not relying too heavily on it as a solution. We need to remember to look before we leap. I'm just saying this because I wan't to avoid a giant facepalm 15 years down the road when 10 million windmills become obsolete.

In the mean time coal is dirty, it needs to be cleaner. It can be done if we give it the chance. We need to give it a chance because we can't get enough nuclear online to simply shut them down and forget about them. People also don't realize nukes are the workhorses of power production. They aren't what we call "peakers", they can't be brought online quickly to meet fluctuating demands. This means we will continue to require coal and natural gas plants to meet our power requirements.

I'm just pointing this out because I've seen people over simplify the issue and point to nuke as an obvious way to quickly reduce green house gas emissions. It's been neglected for too long, it needs to be persued further but not with reckless abandonment. From what I've seen conservation and strategic planning will lead to the biggest reductions in the shortest amount of time.

I'm really curious what effect an increase in temperature would have on crops and farming. From talking with farmers around here, corn and soya benefit from warmer temperatures during the summer growing months. I think the biggest issue with global warming isn't the heat, it's the potential for drought. It's conceivable that global warming might prolong or intensify drought conditions. At the same time warmer weather may increase evaporation from the oceans which might mean more rainfall. Who is to say for sure? What I do know is the temperatures have varied over the history of the planet more than the temperature change projected by global warming. The World didn't come to an end then, why would it do so now? I'm not suggesting this is a reason to do nothing, but it would seem to suggest there is no reason to over react. I can't open multiple windows on my phone to check, but I believe there is a map that shows the different climate "zones" for growing plants. If I'm not mistaken the rise in temperature a degree or two would shift the map towards the north slightly. The question I would ask is what is the overall effect? I think a very large part of the most fertile farming land on the planet would benefit from this change in temperature.

I'm also not certain if a mass migration would result in increased poverty. I think that might result if it were to occur in the urban areas, but if it were to more rural areas I think it might be of benefit. I'm reminded of the last big migration West. Is it possible the North might become the new West? There's plenty of Crown land here in Canada that might be parcelled out to entrepreneuring new immigrants who wish to try and make a new life here in Canada. This might be entirely unrealistic I don't know. What I am sure of is there is no shortage of land here in Canada or the US. I think what's more prohibitive is people's attitudes. I can already see people rolling their eyes at the idea of encouraging immagration. That's unfortunate because it's the reason for the success of North America.

I think I may have gone too far OT for this thread already. The issue of whether or not there has been an appreciable increase in temperature since 1995 isn't clear. I've been paying attention myself and haven't really noticed. It's been a pretty mild Winter here, but Washington DC is only a few hundred miles from here and from what I've heard it's been a doozy. I honestly don't see any reason for the excitement some people feel over the issue. We're taking measures to reduce the levels of green house gases. I'm personally taking measures to reduce my carbon output not because of GW, but because it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Nominated.
 
3bodyproblem said:
Alternative energy needs to be expanded as it currently represents such a small percentage. Unfortunately there are limitations that won't see it move into primary position anytime soon. Wind farms are an excellent way to produce green energy but they tend to be in remote locations, so transmission losses are an issue, they require lots of land and they run intermittently. I won't lecture on the failings of alternative energy, I just want to point out the importance of people not relying too heavily on it as a solution. We need to remember to look before we leap. I'm just saying this because I wan't to avoid a giant facepalm 15 years down the road when 10 million windmills become obsolete.

In the mean time coal is dirty, it needs to be cleaner. It can be done if we give it the chance. We need to give it a chance because we can't get enough nuclear online to simply shut them down and forget about them. People also don't realize nukes are the workhorses of power production. They aren't what we call "peakers", they can't be brought online quickly to meet fluctuating demands. This means we will continue to require coal and natural gas plants to meet our power requirements.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is the most common moderate response I've gotten from those who work in the power industry with some capacity of how the grids work. I think there are some ideas out there that will be possible-- things ranging in likelihood of acceptance from the pilot program with electric cars in Israel that I mentioned (which is still in the works) to more radical ideas like Dean Kamen (founder of the Segway scooter) and his "distributed" network of autos charged by a Stirling engine when in use and putting power back into the grid when not-- but are still in the development or planning phase and would still require buy-in from power producers to implement. And by that I mean that it would have to be a proposal that seems cost-effective for the producers, which would include profit capabilities for continued return. There's definitely an economic aspect to future planning that needs to take place, and it's unfortunate that this doesn't make up the main force of the debate at hand-- instead, we have political pot-shots between extremes and constant character attacks on scientists.

3bodyproblem said:
I'm just pointing this out because I've seen people over simplify the issue and point to nuke as an obvious way to quickly reduce green house gas emissions. It's been neglected for too long, it needs to be persued further but not with reckless abandonment. From what I've seen conservation and strategic planning will lead to the biggest reductions in the shortest amount of time.
Click to expand...

Abso-friggin-lutely, and that last sentence can't be shouted from the hills loud enough as far as I'm concerned. What seems to make it difficult for anyone to move beyond the point where the debate stands now is that there is no single silver bullet moving forward, and we've gone for so long with increased consumption based on a very narrow set of stored energy that people seem to be at a loss for how to progress into a period where multiple sources are going to become the norm.

3bodyproblem said:
I'm really curious what effect an increase in temperature would have on crops and farming. From talking with farmers around here, corn and soya benefit from warmer temperatures during the summer growing months. I think the biggest issue with global warming isn't the heat, it's the potential for drought. It's conceivable that global warming might prolong or intensify drought conditions. At the same time warmer weather may increase evaporation from the oceans which might mean more rainfall. Who is to say for sure? What I do know is the temperatures have varied over the history of the planet more than the temperature change projected by global warming. The World didn't come to an end then, why would it do so now? I'm not suggesting this is a reason to do nothing, but it would seem to suggest there is no reason to over react. I can't open multiple windows on my phone to check, but I believe there is a map that shows the different climate "zones" for growing plants. If I'm not mistaken the rise in temperature a degree or two would shift the map towards the north slightly. The question I would ask is what is the overall effect? I think a very large part of the most fertile farming land on the planet would benefit from this change in temperature.
Click to expand...

I honestly wish it were that simple. However, unless there is something I am unaware of in the American northern border and in Canada, there's not a whole lot of new fertile farming land coming about as quickly as the MidWestern and SouthWestern (and even the SouthEastern) is losing stable farmland. This definitely isn't the case in Asia, where India is having more difficult yields year after year already and no notable increases in temperate land is available to the north in China and Russia have been noted. Basically, the shift in the zones you're referencing (I'm aware of them) isn't happening on a 1::1 basis where the world loses some in one place and it shifts elsewhere at a sustainable pace. And even though I would agree that the changing climate is going to result in currently frozen tundra plains that are capable of growing useful crops in the future, it's not appearing to happen now at a rate that's keeping up with our losses. This is one of the core problems with climate change (and not simply "global warming"): the manner in which climates change does not necessitate that any positive outcomes (for us) are going to come as quickly or as uniformly as the negatives are already manifesting, and if historic geological data is any indication it could very well take far longer. If the negatives take decades to affect us while an equal amount of positives takes even twice that long, then the impact on the current food chain is going to be significant.

3bodyproblem said:
I'm also not certain if a mass migration would result in increased poverty. I think that might result if it were to occur in the urban areas, but if it were to more rural areas I think it might be of benefit. I'm reminded of the last big migration West. Is it possible the North might become the new West? There's plenty of Crown land here in Canada that might be parcelled out to entrepreneuring new immigrants who wish to try and make a new life here in Canada. This might be entirely unrealistic I don't know. What I am sure of is there is no shortage of land here in Canada or the US. I think what's more prohibitive is people's attitudes. I can already see people rolling their eyes at the idea of encouraging immagration. That's unfortunate because it's the reason for the success of North America.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is a reason for the success, but the issue of whether immigration is good or bad is a whole other conversation (though I think it's good overall). What I described, though, was the most likely scenario: people who are already poor and can't afford the consumption costs to live in more resource-scarce conditions are going to migrate to areas where there are more resources. This is inevitably going to be overwhelmingly urban areas. Unless some radical changes in civics and economic availability of daily resources occur, people are going to continue the trend that poorer individuals already do, which is to stick closer to urban areas to make a living. I don't disagree that spreading out people increases the possibility of conserving resource consumption to a sustainable degree, but unless some system comes along that's affordable to individuals, feasible and sustainable for the economy, and reasonably supported by the governments of the nations the people live in I honestly don't see such a scenario as a reasonable expectation to have for the future. It would be a gamble to expect such a thing at the least, and irresponsibly naive at worst. The only historically similar situation in mankind's history was the feudal age, and even then there was still a massive imbalance between urban and rural populations. It would be something an order of magnitude greater in difference from a paradigm shift in human civilization for such a change to take place, which is why I think my prediction about the effect of a lower-income (and consequently lower-skilled and lower-educated) migration to more temperate regions on the planet.

3bodyproblem said:
I think I may have gone too far OT for this thread already. The issue of whether or not there has been an appreciable increase in temperature since 1995 isn't clear. I've been paying attention myself and haven't really noticed. It's been a pretty mild Winter here, but Washington DC is only a few hundred miles from here and from what I've heard it's been a doozy. I honestly don't see any reason for the excitement some people feel over the issue. We're taking measures to reduce the levels of green house gases. I'm personally taking measures to reduce my carbon output not because of GW, but because it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest caution in differentiating between climate and weather, because the two are definitely not the same thing. What is fairly clear is that the global climate is warmer today than it was in 1995, but what isn't necessarily clear is whether this has been a constant rise-- in truth, it hasn't, but when something rises five points and drops three, you're still looking at an overall rise in points despite arguments focusing only on the drops. That's a simplification of what's been going on with the global climate, but that's the concept.

I will say, though, that I also prefer taking measures to reduce our footprint because it's the right (and responsible) thing to do, and not simply because of one side or another in this fight. I've grown more conservationist as I've grown older anyway, and considering the science we can be pretty certain of in terms of climate change, it seems logical to me that it's becoming even more a right thing to do from a personal and social responsibility perspective.
 
Biofuels shenanigans, Upchurch!

http://www.grain.org/m/?id=154

from the letter from the 5 scientists...
---------
"10. The Summary for Policy Makers, table SPM.7, p20 refers to "biofuel blending" as a
policy, measure or instrument "shown to be environmentally effective… in at least a number of national cases" - a Brazilian tabled amendment.

This claim is of extreme concern, since no justification for it appears elsewhere in the
report, and, bearing in mind the issues set out above, we are unaware of the studies
that can be used to justify such a claim. Furthermore, inquiries as to the basis for this
claim were made to the Co-ordinating Lead Author Prof. S Kahn Ribeiro in May, and
have not been replied to.

There should be no such non-transparency in public science. We call on you now to
publish the basis for this claim or withdraw it.

In summary, many notes in the Mitigation report give the impression that biofuel
expansion is generally a good way to proceed, with inadequate reference to the
dangers and pitfalls; the SPM further claims that biofuel blending measures have
had proven environmental benefit, yet the Co-ordinating Lead Author concerned has
ignored inquiries as to the basis of this claim.
----------------------------------

NOW can I be skeptical about ANYTHING produced by the IPCC?
 
I Ratant said:
.
"Extrapolation" is what is used to -predict- future events based on current data and knowledge.
Many people use it all the time.
It's the only way to say, "see" what current trends in atmospheric events and effects can be reasonably expected to be, if thus and so is or isn't done.
Click to expand...

But in this case, there was no "current data". The "current data" was invented by extrapolation. Is that sound science?
 
Upchurch said:
I hope you know better than to rely on out-of-context quotes cherry-picked from stolen emails?
Click to expand...

Ok, I picked this page of emails at random. This one..

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=795&filename=1178107838.txt

I have questions..

First one by "Ben Santer" says...

""So I suspect, based on S/N arguments, that it's better to search for an
anthropogenic surface temperature signal over the oceans rather than the
land. Actually showing this might be useful.""
----

I'm concerned that he is TRYING to find some proof of AGW instead of letting the data speak for itself in an unbiased way. Is there bias here? S/N means "signal to noise"?

Next one.....

Phil Jones talking about infilled databases. Is that data extrapolation?

"All infilling has the problem that when there is little data it tends to revert to the 1961-90 average of zero....The infilling is partly the reason they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from the coastal stations."

Uh-oh. It is extrapolation. They took temperature readings only from the coast and said it was that way all across the Arctic? Huh? That doesn't sound good.

More Phil Jones..."In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value."

I don't know what the "61-90 average" means, but excluding some Sea Surface Temps SST is cause for concern? Yes/No?

Santer again..."With some help from Peter, I managed to obtain some preliminary results for the detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed SST data. ""

Trying AGAIN to find proof of AGW in water temperatures (SST)?

Santer again..."This means that, if we had begun monitoring observed SST changes in 1950, we would have been able to identify an anthropogenic fingerprint roughly 30 years later.""

He seems to be looking VERY hard for evidence of AGW? Is this preconceived bias?

And the MONEY QUOTE...Santer again.."and that in the "mean removed" case, we might have more luck detecting an "ANTHRO" fingerprint if go to full space-time optimal detection.""

"LUCK" detecting an anthro fingerprint"? He's hoping for LUCK? What the heck is that!!
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
The 'current data' was not invented, and the two satellite records and surface records are in close agreement.
Click to expand...

Not in that particular study it seems. And the article says that "Some researchers skeptical about the magnitude of global warming overall said that the new study didn't match their measurements from satellites". Maybe you need to read closer.

From USA Today..

"The researchers used satellite data and mathematical formulas to fill in missing information. That made outside scientists queasy about making large conclusions with such sparse information. "This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical," Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. "It is hard to make data where none exist." Some researchers skeptical about the magnitude of global warming overall said that the new study didn't match their measurements from satellites and that there appears to be no warming in Antarctica since 1980.

"It overstates what they have obtained from their analysis," said Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado.
 
Last edited:
easycruise said:
Ok, I picked this page of emails at random. This one..

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=795&filename=1178107838.txt

I have questions..

First one by "Ben Santer" says...

""So I suspect, based on S/N arguments, that it's better to search for an
anthropogenic surface temperature signal over the oceans rather than the
land. Actually showing this might be useful.""
----

I'm concerned that he is TRYING to find some proof of AGW instead of letting the data speak for itself in an unbiased way. Is there bias here? S/N means "signal to noise"?
Click to expand...

He is trying to get the best 'signal' out of a very 'noisy' system. He is wondering if the noise over water is less than the noise over land. What is wrong with that?

Next one.....

Phil Jones talking about infilled databases. Is that data extrapolation?

"All infilling has the problem that when there is little data it tends to revert to the 1961-90 average of zero....The infilling is partly the reason they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from the coastal stations."

Uh-oh. It is extrapolation. They took temperature readings only from the coast and said it was that way all across the Arctic? Huh? That doesn't sound good.
Click to expand...

Do you want to fund very expensive temperature recording stations across the arctic? The scientists are already stand condemned for spending what they do now on research. They have to make do with what they can. If the funds aren't there, the research is limited to what they physically have.

More Phil Jones..."In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value."

I don't know what the "61-90 average" means, but excluding some Sea Surface Temps SST is cause for concern? Yes/No?
Click to expand...

I don't know what he is referring to either.

Santer again..."With some help from Peter, I managed to obtain some preliminary results for the detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed SST data. ""

Trying AGAIN to find proof of AGW in water temperatures (SST)?

Santer again..."This means that, if we had begun monitoring observed SST changes in 1950, we would have been able to identify an anthropogenic fingerprint roughly 30 years later.""

He seems to be looking VERY hard for evidence of AGW? Is this preconceived bias?
Click to expand...

He is looking at a very noisy system, and stating that he thinks he could have detected the anthropogenic signal 30 years earlier using sea temperatures instead of land temperatures. He is looking for a signal, because there is a physical reason for doing so, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases warm the climate. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is on it's way to doubling. You seem to have a preconceived bias that he should not be looking for a signal that should be there on the basis of the physical properties of the CO2 gas.


And the MONEY QUOTE...Santer again.."and that in the "mean removed" case, we might have more luck detecting an "ANTHRO" fingerprint if go to full space-time optimal detection.""

"LUCK" detecting an anthro fingerprint"? He's hoping for LUCK? What the heck is that!!
Click to expand...

MONEY QUOTE? WTF? Research is often tedious and unrewarding, if you have some luck in finding something, good luck to you. The scientists looking for the higgs bosun will be hoping for some luck, too.
 
Those Globalwarming deniers remind me so badly about my 9/11 denial times :( sad to see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom