Ed The latest on climate science/Climate Conspiracy Theories

[r-j]

There's an aspect of global warming that a lot of people don't seem to grasp.

Yes yes old chap. These heathens think global warming means it will become warmer, and their tiny minds can't grasp the larger picture.

 

[ehcks]

That's why it was renamed climate change. People say "It's cold in in Canada in the winter so where's "global warming?""

Right here.
Global Temperature Trend Update: Fifth Warmest July in Satellite Record

 

[DC]

and r-j is still running away from the posts that debunk his woo woo, not that i expect anything else from a woo woo pedler.

the same guy that once claimed to make only scientific posts lol. comedy gold

 

[threadworm]

I am actually undecided as to how much climate change is entirely anthropogenic, how much natural, how much a mixture of the two.

However, anyone who thinks that we can pump out over the space of a couple of hundred years gases that took millions if years to lock away without some sort of environmental consequence is a moron.

 

[DC]

I am actually undecided as to how much climate change is entirely anthropogenic, how much natural, how much a mixture of the two.

However, anyone who thinks that we can pump out over the space of a couple of hundred years gases that took millions if years to lock away without some sort of environmental consequence is a moron.

Oh well according to the vast majority of experts, we are the sole driver of warming since the 1960's. natural factors are towards cooling.

 

[a_unique_person]

While there are all kinds of reasons for adjusting data, all of which make the past colder, and the recent period warmer

Quite a claim there. Evidence?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That's why it was renamed climate change. People say "It's cold in in Canada in the winter so where's "global warming?""

Right here.
Global Temperature Trend Update: Fifth Warmest July in Satellite Record

Nah, the "climate change" reference is just more generic. The trend for skepticism on the subject has slowly been shifting from an outright denial that the climate is warming to a partial acceptance of the science data and the newer terminology creates enough ambiguity to fit it in. I remember the debate used to be much more of a warming vs no warming thing.

Not that I necessarily doubt the data (I don't), I've just been on a "don't care, just address it" mood most of the time.

I am actually undecided as to how much climate change is entirely anthropogenic, how much natural, how much a mixture of the two.

However, anyone who thinks that we can pump out over the space of a couple of hundred years gases that took millions if years to lock away without some sort of environmental consequence is a moron.

That fits closest with my thinking, though there's enough tangible "other Issue" factors in terms of pollution, deforestation, urban design, etc. that would conceivably lead to at least some effect and that's what I've based a lot of my thinking on when trying to reconcile the science I view as still being relatively incomplete with the objective modern data.

I suppose the biggest question I have is what's the solution in the event of "natural" change? How do you get a consistent policy internationally with countries like China and India still relying heavy on fossil fuels...? There's actually some intriguing questions in those categories too.

 

[bit_pattern]

1.11 C does not sound like a lot to me , at least not enough to use phrases like ... "very hot angry summer" ....

Well that's probably because you weren't here to experience it - it resulted in rolling heatwaves of unprecedented extent and duration, massive wildfires, and a dome of heat in the centre of the continent that pused temps up to and beyond 50 degrees C.

Believe me, it was hot and it was angry.

 

[bit_pattern]

While there are all kinds of reasons for adjusting data, all of which make the past colder, and the recent period warmer

That's not even close to being true - you can cherry pick a handful of sites were data were homogenised down but, as can be seen in the Australian record - if you look at the country as a whole homogenisation has removed a distinct WARMING trend from the raw data

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

 

[bit_pattern]

Nah, the "climate change" reference is just more generic.

Yup. 'Global warming' was coined by Wallace Broecker in 1975 to describe the current situation:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf

Whereas 'climate change' has been in use since at least 1911:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.html

The only person ever to have tried to encourage the use of one phrase over the otther was, ironicallyy enough, Frank Lutz - a GOP strategist who suggested that politicians use 'cliamte change' over 'global warming' because it sounded less threatening:

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."

Luntz went on to advise:

"The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

 

[r-j]

That's not even close to being true - you can cherry pick a handful of sites were data were homogenised down but, as can be seen in the Australian record - if you look at the country as a whole homogenisation has removed a distinct WARMING trend from the raw data

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

That is the sort of thing you need evidence to show. Note how BOM limits what can be viewed using their data
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps

Why would they do that? Using other trend generating software shows the recent trends, and it's not all warming, not at all.

 

[bit_pattern]

Note how BOM limits what can be viewed using their data
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps

Um. No?

Why would they do that?

Oooh! Let me guess? Because CONSPIRACY? Amirite?

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/

 

[DC]

R-j is still running away from his debunked lies. As one would expect from a troll

 

[hgus]

Is it just me, or doesn't if feels as if r-j is just anomaly hunting? His obsession with the Chicago station, for example, strikes me as a bit odd. Even if, which I don't believe, something fishy has been going on here, what would it prove?

 

[DC]

Is it just me, or doesn't if feels as if r-j is just anomaly hunting? His obsession with the Chicago station, for example, strikes me as a bit odd. Even if, which I don't believe, something fishy has been going on here, what would it prove?

it is the only thing the deniers have left. the amount and quality of evidence is so overwhelming, the only way to get around this is to claim it is all faked.

 

[bit_pattern]

God of the gaps, all over again