FARK.com: (6968178) Less Arctic sea ice = more US blizzards, therefore polar bears will be roaming Oklahoma by next Christmas

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Less Arctic sea ice = more US blizzards, therefore polar bears will be roaming Oklahoma by next Christmas (content.usatoday.com)		330
		More: Interesting, Arctic ice, Arctic, polar bears, lead author, climate variability, air masses, National Academy of Sciences, Arctic Ocean

• • •

5473 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Feb 2012 at 12:01 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6968178

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

330 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

tomWright		2012-02-29 08:06:12 AM

Baryogenesis: UnspokenVoice: Guessing the temperature based on ice cores is, for example, unacceptable when then used as evidence to bolster another theory.

Exactly why do you think using ice cores as proxies for temperature is unacceptable? Why do you think climate scientists (you know, educated professionals) use them?

UnspokenVoice: How is that whole search for phlogiston coming anyhow?

The scientific process discarded an old theory in favor of a better one and this is a knock *against* science? Huh?

No, that is the great thing about science. Constantly seeking to improve knowledge and understanding.

The problem with AGW/ACC is that since the theory is a settled consensus there is supposedly no reason to even consider other hypothesis, let alone other theories. And that is NOT science, that is politics.

Baryogenesis		2012-02-29 08:07:33 AM

Animatronik: The really amusing point is that "use of ice core data is acceptable unless it doesnt support our theory, in which case it may be safely ignored". For example, where temperatures go up and CO2 rises 500 to 1000 years later.

CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. In the case of CO2 following an increase in temperature, the initial forcing is from changes in the Earth's orbit. The planet warms and this causes CO2 to be released from the oceans which causes a positive feedback. CO2 causing a temperature increase is simply the greenhouse effect. Both of these mechanisms are well understood. I encourage you to read up on the subject.

Link (new window)

Animatronik: The errors in the analysis include selective interpretation of historical data and assuming that things that clearly have large feedback effects, like water vapor, need not be explicitly accounted for or can be dealt with more carefully later.

Hmm? AFAIK, water vapor feedback (warmer air holds more moisture) is one of the main factors taken into account when calculating climate sensitivity (temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2). Could you be more specific with your criticisms?

Animatronik: Thats why its so inportant to eradcate 'denialism', to stomp it out. If the theory seems a little shaky, people need that extra push to make them right thinking citizens.

Skepticism is the hallmark of science. Denialism is something different entirely and it should be fought against. You brought up the CO2 lags temperature talking point which is something that has been thoroughly explained and debunked by climate scientists and even by folks in fark threads. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't aware of that information as I don't recall seeing you in previous climate threads. How will you react to evidence contradicting your original position? A skeptic's mind can be changed. A denialst will find any excuse to continue to believe their original idea even when the evidence clearly shows they are wrong.

joe not appearing in this picture		2012-02-29 08:14:04 AM

CavalierEternal: "Many have died from starvation due to the difficulty of finding enough food, such as seals"

They couldn't find any penguins either?
These bears need to be more bi polar.

Animatronik		2012-02-29 08:14:35 AM

Baryogenesis: Animatronik: The really amusing point is that "use of ice core data is acceptable unless it doesnt support our theory, in which case it may be safely ignored". For example, where temperatures go up and CO2 rises 500 to 1000 years later.

CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. In the case of CO2 following an increase in temperature, the initial forcing is from changes in the Earth's orbit. The planet warms and this causes CO2 to be released from the oceans which causes a positive feedback. CO2 causing a temperature increase is simply the greenhouse effect. Both of these mechanisms are well understood. I encourage you to read up on the subject.

Link (new window)

Animatronik: The errors in the analysis include selective interpretation of historical data and assuming that things that clearly have large feedback effects, like water vapor, need not be explicitly accounted for or can be dealt with more carefully later.

Hmm? AFAIK, water vapor feedback (warmer air holds more moisture) is one of the main factors taken into account when calculating climate sensitivity (temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2). Could you be more specific with your criticisms?

Animatronik: Thats why its so inportant to eradcate 'denialism', to stomp it out. If the theory seems a little shaky, people need that extra push to make them right thinking citizens.

Skepticism is the hallmark of science. Denialism is something different entirely and it should be fought against. You brought up the CO2 lags temperature talking point which is something that has been thoroughly explained and debunked by climate scientists and even by folks in fark threads. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't aware of that information as I don't recall seeing you in previous climate threads. How will you react to evidence contradicting your original position? A skeptic's mind can be changed. A denialst will find any excuse to continue to believe their original idea even when the evidence clearly shows they are wrong.

Lol, thanks for making my point about denialism, no sense of irony there.

And no, the point about ice core data has NOT been debunked, unless there was some correction in the data that I havent seen.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores /

This is what bad science looks like, kind if like a photoshop pretending to be a Salvador Fali.

joe not appearing in this picture		2012-02-29 08:17:49 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost		2012-02-29 08:27:24 AM

Jake Havechek		2012-02-29 08:27:37 AM

I heard polar bears might be developing a nuclear weapon.

joe not appearing in this picture		2012-02-29 08:29:08 AM

Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: FTFA:
However, scientists attribute the overall loss of sea ice "in large part to warming temperatures caused by climate change," the ice data center reports.

Uhm....yeah, that must be it.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for 177 straight months...probably just weather

You mean "How the paranoid read global warming"
We are still coming out of the last ice age.

Baryogenesis		2012-02-29 08:29:53 AM

tomWright: Baryogenesis: UnspokenVoice: Guessing the temperature based on ice cores is, for example, unacceptable when then used as evidence to bolster another theory.

Exactly why do you think using ice cores as proxies for temperature is unacceptable? Why do you think climate scientists (you know, educated professionals) use them?

UnspokenVoice: How is that whole search for phlogiston coming anyhow?

The scientific process discarded an old theory in favor of a better one and this is a knock *against* science? Huh?

No, that is the great thing about science. Constantly seeking to improve knowledge and understanding.

The problem with AGW/ACC is that since the theory is a settled consensus there is supposedly no reason to even consider other hypothesis, let alone other theories. And that is NOT science, that is politics.

Is there a hypothesis you've read or heard about that isn't getting a fair shake? Is there an alternative theory that better explains observed phenomenon? Please be specific.

joe not appearing in this picture		2012-02-29 08:37:18 AM

smitton: I get a kick out of people that seek to extrapolate climate trends from less than 100 years of data. Climate is long term ... tell me we have anthropomorphic global warming after you've studied thousands of years .... not 20 or 30.

You mean from the last 20 to 30 days?
When I was studying geology I was taught the the climate was not static but dynamic.
Its always changing and we got to ride with it.

elkraf		2012-02-29 08:43:04 AM

This could be a titanic problem.

Phobos_		2012-02-29 08:43:08 AM

Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: FTFA:
However, scientists attribute the overall loss of sea ice "in large part to warming temperatures caused by climate change," the ice data center reports.

Uhm....yeah, that must be it.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for 177 straight months...probably just weather

[i39.tinypic.com image 500x341]

How Geologists view Global Warming:

www.geocraft.com

Baryogenesis		2012-02-29 08:43:59 AM

Animatronik: And no, the point about ice core data has NOT been debunked, unless there was some correction in the data that I havent seen.

I explained that CO2 can both lead and follow a temperature increase. The former due to the greenhouse effect and the latter due to orbital fluctuations. The fact that a CO2 increase can follow a temperature increase doesn't undermine anything about the greenhouse effect or CO2 *causing* a temperature increase. That's what has been debunked.

And that link didn't go to anything specific about CO2 and temperature. I see summaries of 5 different articles, but nothing about the current topic. You may have had the wrong url.

Animatronik: Lol, thanks for making my point about denialism, no sense of irony there.

The point that I brought forth evidence that disputes what you said and you shrugged it off because you were certain you were right?

dready zim		2012-02-29 08:50:16 AM

Remember when people were all like "It`s the sun man" and other people were like "DENIER! The last 10 years of data don`t match your theory and that`s significant thereby disproving your theory!" and the first people were like "Aww, there were years of data that matched our theory but if you say that 10 years of data disproves it then so be it" (and after some grumbling eventually dropped the issue) so then later the first people went "Hey man, the data has deviated from *your* theory for 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 years" and then the second people were like "Yeah but that`s not a statistically significant time period" and the first people were like "hey man, isn`t that double standards?" and then the second people are all like "DENIER!!!"

Memory, it works biatches.

osucycler		2012-02-29 08:53:16 AM

Great another possible random thing to add to Oklahoma's stunning resume.

dennysgod		2012-02-29 08:56:51 AM

Maybe it's because I'm a Yooper, but I don't recall last year being particularly cold or snowy.

SlothB77		2012-02-29 08:57:53 AM

like this year? Squaw Valley ski resort total season snowfall: 109" at 8200 ft, 74" at 6200 feet.

Folks, usually Squaw gets 4x that in snowfall.

Pro Zack		2012-02-29 09:02:28 AM

joe not appearing in this picture: Its always changing and we got to ride with it.

NOOOOO! we have to find some way to profit off of it!

SVenus		2012-02-29 09:07:54 AM

dennysgod: Maybe it's because I'm a Yooper, but I don't recall last year being particularly cold or snowy.

Calvinball rules: Predict the weather that already happened.

SlothB77		2012-02-29 09:09:03 AM

Last year Squaw Valley had 810" of season snowfall; through the end of February they had hit 450". this year: 109".

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:13:01 AM

dready zim: Remember when people were all like "It`s the sun man" and other people were like "DENIER! The last 10 years of data don`t match your theory and that`s significant thereby disproving your theory!"

I'm just going to paste in what I wrote the last time some gerbil-brained derp-peddler vomited this out.

Over the last few decades, the temperature trend has been positive, even as changes in solar irradiance, cosmic ray flux, sunspots, etc. all point towards cooling. (See http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.full) You can get more sophisticated than that, and point out that known cyclical components in the irradiance show up as only weak components of a Fourier analysis of recent temperatures, suggesting that they are a minor player in temperature. But it's probably sufficient for now to just look at the solar trends and temperature trends and note that they go in opposite directions. Greenhouse forcings are much larger than the small drifts in solar irradiance.

The issue isn't how much power the sun puts out. We know that-- by the time it's spread out over 93M miles (unlike the pants-on-head retarded graphic above showing the Earth right next to the Sun), it's about 1366 W/m² before it hits the atmosphere. We're not talking about "no sun" vs. "sun". We're talking about "sun in 1980" vs. "sun now", and the difference is:

1) Tiny
2) Pointing in the opposite direction of the temperature trend.

science.nasa.gov

(Satellite measurements from NASA, showing solar variance is ~0.1%.)

So, the sun fluctuates by ~+/- 0.1 W/m2 over time. How large is the change in greenhouse forcings in recent years relative to those solar effects? In terms of temperature, what you care about is the integrated area under the curve, and greenhouse forcings dominate there.

www.giss.nasa.gov

(Data courtesy of NASA.) That yellow line hugging "no change"? The change in solar forcings. Green line is from greenhouse gases.

SpinStopper		2012-02-29 09:17:47 AM

LaughingRadish: I highly recommend you all read "Fallen Angels" by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn.

FANS TO THE RESCUE!

Just don't forget that it's the fault of the air thieves when the global cooling starts.

Also, don't forget to stop at YNGVI'S DE-LOUSING STATION ;)

mitEj		2012-02-29 09:18:06 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
However, scientists attribute the overall loss of sea ice "in large part to warming temperatures caused by climate change," the ice data center reports.

Uhm....yeah, that must be it.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for 177 straight months...probably just weather

you are farking retarded.

1998 hottest year on record.

since 2000 8 of the hottest 10 years on record.

If you extend your chart out a decade or more in the past your chart looks a fark load different.

I am tired of stupid disingenuous bullshiat like that.

Go fark yourself.

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:20:16 AM

BolloxReader: The problem is that one side is paid to lie about the numbers, and we all are bickering over whether it is the pro climate change scientists or the anti climate change scientists.

Funny thing about that. Let's say that you stop caring about what media whores like Fred Singer (who was also happy to defend the tobacco companies about the link between smoking and lung cancer, by the way) or Al Gore yell in front of cameras. Instead, you decide to look at the evidence published in professional, primary scientific journals. Well, as published in the journal Science, it's been done:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Funny how once you take the cameras away, the false balance of "there has to be two equal sides!" fades away.

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:23:15 AM

mitEj: SevenizGud: FTFA:
However, scientists attribute the overall loss of sea ice "in large part to warming temperatures caused by climate change," the ice data center reports.

Uhm....yeah, that must be it.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for 177 straight months...probably just weather

you are farking retarded. 1998 hottest year on record. since 2000 8 of the hottest 10 years on record. If you extend your chart out a decade or more in the past your chart looks a fark load different. I am tired of stupid disingenuous bullshiat like that. Go fark yourself.

SevenizGud is either a troll or a shill, not that there's a functional difference. Easy summary of why his "we must look only at exactly 177 months" argument is nonsense:
i39.tinypic.com

litespeed74		2012-02-29 09:23:45 AM

Sweeeeet...just bought a new K2 board this winter...

Guelph35		2012-02-29 09:24:48 AM

If the sea rises enough to wipe out 3 billion people the overpopulation problem is solved, and there's 40% fewer people to emit CO2, which in turn should lower temperatures and bring us right back to 1850 or whatever year's temperature is considered normal.

When the sea levels return to normal, the remaining people can spread out into the larger land mass and try to stop it from happening again. It's probably too late to do anything about it this time.

/What if we've been in a cooler than average period geologically and what we perceive as warming is a return towards true normal?

Thunderpipes		2012-02-29 09:34:02 AM

Baryogenesis: tomWright: Baryogenesis: UnspokenVoice: Guessing the temperature based on ice cores is, for example, unacceptable when then used as evidence to bolster another theory.

Exactly why do you think using ice cores as proxies for temperature is unacceptable? Why do you think climate scientists (you know, educated professionals) use them?

UnspokenVoice: How is that whole search for phlogiston coming anyhow?

The scientific process discarded an old theory in favor of a better one and this is a knock *against* science? Huh?

No, that is the great thing about science. Constantly seeking to improve knowledge and understanding.

The problem with AGW/ACC is that since the theory is a settled consensus there is supposedly no reason to even consider other hypothesis, let alone other theories. And that is NOT science, that is politics.

Is there a hypothesis you've read or heard about that isn't getting a fair shake? Is there an alternative theory that better explains observed phenomenon? Please be specific.

Ice ages, climate is always changing, we don't have accurate records going back very far, scientists don't have a clue and cannot predict anything.

Seriously, saying something, and then never even exploring any other options really is not science. If that was the right way to do things, we would still be cave men. We are in a natural interglacial period. Climate changes. Who cares. a lot of good can come from climate change as well.

Thunderpipes		2012-02-29 09:36:13 AM

Pirate attacks are up dramatically this decade. Does this mean we are all doomed to die by the hands of pirates? This is how silly you alarmists sound. I mean, make a hockey stick graph showing pirate attacks, push it out a few decades, and we are in serious trouble. Oh Noes!

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:38:50 AM

CruJones: This article needs more statistics. All I know is it snowed a lot last year, and none this year. So it averages out. Beyond that, show me stats. Im sure they exist, bad article needs more info.

The sea ice portion is pretty clear cut, both in terms of modeling it and observing it:

nsidc.org

(Data courtesy of NSIDC.)

Predicting specific regional outcomes (like where blizzards will show up as the sea ice continues to fade) is harder, and the uncertainty bars are wider.

Little.Alex		2012-02-29 09:39:56 AM

chimp_ninja: mitEj: SevenizGud: FTFA:
However, scientists attribute the overall loss of sea ice "in large part to warming temperatures caused by climate change," the ice data center reports.

Uhm....yeah, that must be it.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Hey, it's only the entire surface of the earth for 177 straight months...probably just weather

you are farking retarded. 1998 hottest year on record. since 2000 8 of the hottest 10 years on record. If you extend your chart out a decade or more in the past your chart looks a fark load different. I am tired of stupid disingenuous bullshiat like that. Go fark yourself.

SevenizGud is either a troll or a shill, not that there's a functional difference. Easy summary of why his "we must look only at exactly 177 months" argument is nonsense:
[i39.tinypic.com image 500x341]

Nonsense.

Why only look back to 1973? Why not look at the last couple thousand years? Oh, yeah, that's why. If you include the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period your religion falls apart.

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:40:00 AM

Thunderpipes: scientists don't have a clue and cannot predict anything.

It's funny because you're posting this on the Internet.

Thunderpipes		2012-02-29 09:44:37 AM

chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: scientists don't have a clue and cannot predict anything.

It's funny because you're posting this on the Internet.

And yet I am 100% right, and you know it. Scientists cannot predict a damn thing, because not one of them anywhere knows what all the effects will add up to. They do not address feedback effects and there is real evidence out there that shows it is entirely possible some of the things that happen because of warming will trigger cooling effects. And you STILL CANNOT explain the Little Ice Age of medieval warm periods or anything else. If it fits your theory you call it fact. If it raises questions you dismiss it.

It is just political, nothing more. Sloppy, sloppy attempt at science.

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:45:26 AM

Little.Alex: Why only look back to 1973?

Because the study looks at cosmic ray flux and other variables that are recorded by satellites. If you read the paper I referenced, it's covered in some detail, and you'll learn something about the topic. Glad I could help.

Why not look at the last couple thousand years? Oh, yeah, that's why. If you include the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period your religion falls apart.

www.pnas.org

Overlay of fourteen temperature reconstructions (from multiple groups) of the last millenium or two, compared to the modern instrumental records (red line). Data is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Glad I could help.

memtastic		2012-02-29 09:50:11 AM

iheartscotch: Hey! Kansas is a nice place. Granted; not much happens here. Granted that we're all about as republican as a Texan, riding in a cattle themed limo, with a shotgun in one hand and a bible in the other. Does that really mean that we get sentanced to the same fate as Oklahoma? I mean, come on; at least we have our own identity. Where as, Oklahoma is just Texas' hat.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

canyoneer		2012-02-29 09:50:56 AM

Guelph35: sea level

Aquifer drawdown or overdrafting and the pumping of fossil water increases the total amount of water in the hydrosphere, and may be responsible for up to one quarter of the Earth's total sea level rise since the beginning of the 20th century.[5] (new window)

scut207		2012-02-29 09:55:36 AM

I am honestly on the fence about ACC/AGW/ Acronym of the week. However, I am a conservationist in the sense that I like to fish and eat what I catch. I would also like to shoot the bird to entire middle east, we've been fighting over sky fairies too long.

I think that trade deals brokered by every president from Nixon on(NAFTA, Favored Nation crap) has done more to ruin the economy of the US than the EPA ever has.

In conclusion, if AGW is all made up and the result we pollute less and get cleaner waters/environment, reduce our dependance on foreign resources, then I am OK with this.

Jake Havechek		2012-02-29 09:56:16 AM

Thunderpipes: chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: scientists don't have a clue and cannot predict anything.

It's funny because you're posting this on the Internet.

And yet I am 100% right, and you know it. Scientists cannot predict a damn thing, because not one of them anywhere knows what all the effects will add up to. They do not address feedback effects and there is real evidence out there that shows it is entirely possible some of the things that happen because of warming will trigger cooling effects. And you STILL CANNOT explain the Little Ice Age of medieval warm periods or anything else. If it fits your theory you call it fact. If it raises questions you dismiss it.

It is just political, nothing more. Sloppy, sloppy attempt at science.

So just put your faith in Jesus, right asshole?

Thunderpipes		2012-02-29 09:57:13 AM

Jake Havechek: Thunderpipes: chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: scientists don't have a clue and cannot predict anything.

It's funny because you're posting this on the Internet.

And yet I am 100% right, and you know it. Scientists cannot predict a damn thing, because not one of them anywhere knows what all the effects will add up to. They do not address feedback effects and there is real evidence out there that shows it is entirely possible some of the things that happen because of warming will trigger cooling effects. And you STILL CANNOT explain the Little Ice Age of medieval warm periods or anything else. If it fits your theory you call it fact. If it raises questions you dismiss it.

It is just political, nothing more. Sloppy, sloppy attempt at science.

So just put your faith in Jesus, right asshole?

Hate religion, you moron. I just don't put my faith in liberal politicians and activists, like you do.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-29 09:57:33 AM

chimp_ninja: Little.Alex: Why only look back to 1973?

Because the study looks at cosmic ray flux and other variables that are recorded by satellites. If you read the paper I referenced, it's covered in some detail, and you'll learn something about the topic. Glad I could help.

Why not look at the last couple thousand years? Oh, yeah, that's why. If you include the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period your religion falls apart.

[www.pnas.org image 424x440]

Overlay of fourteen temperature reconstructions (from multiple groups) of the last millenium or two, compared to the modern instrumental records (red line). Data is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Glad I could help.

what you have here is a lovely chart that shows a slight increase in temperature. It does not explain that all data prior to 1850 is proxy data (not at all accurate) and your lovely chart does not explain WHAT is causing this ever so tiny increase in temperature.

The Voice of Doom		2012-02-29 09:57:50 AM

ProdigalSigh
Theaetetus: And here, if you extend his data source to the 1800s, you get a vastly different picture than if you just look at the past decade:

What the fark happened in 1950(ish) to cause that first drop? Not casting doubt, it's just weird.

The cozy warmth created by WWII bombings and burning corpses had ended and the rubble formerly known as industrialized Europe had cooled down?

Jake Havechek		2012-02-29 09:58:46 AM

Thunderpipes: Jake Havechek: Thunderpipes: chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: scientists don't have a clue and cannot predict anything.

It's funny because you're posting this on the Internet.

And yet I am 100% right, and you know it. Scientists cannot predict a damn thing, because not one of them anywhere knows what all the effects will add up to. They do not address feedback effects and there is real evidence out there that shows it is entirely possible some of the things that happen because of warming will trigger cooling effects. And you STILL CANNOT explain the Little Ice Age of medieval warm periods or anything else. If it fits your theory you call it fact. If it raises questions you dismiss it.

It is just political, nothing more. Sloppy, sloppy attempt at science.

So just put your faith in Jesus, right asshole?

Hate religion, you moron. I just don't put my faith in liberal politicians and activists, like you do.

No, you put your faith conservative politicians and activists.

Thunderpipes		2012-02-29 09:58:57 AM

chimp_ninja: Little.Alex: Why only look back to 1973?

Because the study looks at cosmic ray flux and other variables that are recorded by satellites. If you read the paper I referenced, it's covered in some detail, and you'll learn something about the topic. Glad I could help.

Why not look at the last couple thousand years? Oh, yeah, that's why. If you include the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period your religion falls apart.

[www.pnas.org image 424x440]

Overlay of fourteen temperature reconstructions (from multiple groups) of the last millenium or two, compared to the modern instrumental records (red line). Data is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Glad I could help.

From your own citation:

Conclusions are less definitive for the SH and globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the SH. Given the uncertainties, the SH and global reconstructions are compatible with the possibility of warmth similar to the most recent decade during brief intervals of the past 1,500 years.

So basically, nothing special about one warm decade now. Probably happened many times.

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 09:59:16 AM

Thunderpipes: And you STILL CANNOT explain the Little Ice Age of medieval warm periods or anything else.

Small, primarily regional shifts in temperature. See above for a sense of their magnitude. There are plenty of reputable scientific articles on this topic. I'll recommend Goosse, et al. as a useful read. Helpful excerpt:
"The analysis of climate variations during the past millennium can help to establish whether or not late 20th century warmth is unusual in a long-term context. Such an analysis can, in turn, help inform any determination of the relative roles of human activities and natural processes to the recent observed warming. At the Northern Hemisphere scale, the available annual mean temperature reconstructions reveal that the last decade of the 20th century has been likely the warmest period of the past thousand years. The increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations over the past two centuries appears to have played an essential role in this recent warming.

Roughly one thousand years ago, some regions such as Europe, may also have exhibited relatively mild conditions, although the geographical extent of the warm conditions during this period was smaller than during the 20th century. This has led to the introduction of the term "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Warm Epoch", which originated from the examination of primarily western European documentary proxy evidence."

This is in no way incompatible with greenhouse forcings driving the recently observed climate change, as discussed in detail in the link I'm providing. Glad I could help.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-29 10:00:14 AM

scut207: I am honestly on the fence about ACC/AGW/ Acronym of the week. However, I am a conservationist in the sense that I like to fish and eat what I catch. I would also like to shoot the bird to entire middle east, we've been fighting over sky fairies too long.

I think that trade deals brokered by every president from Nixon on(NAFTA, Favored Nation crap) has done more to ruin the economy of the US than the EPA ever has.

In conclusion, if AGW is all made up and the result we pollute less and get cleaner waters/environment, reduce our dependance on foreign resources, then I am OK with this.

You need to look into the UN proposals before you buy off on this scam. It has NOTHING to do with cleaner water/environment and it does not reduce our dependence on foreign resources.

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 10:01:52 AM

chuckufarlie: what you have here is a lovely chart that shows a slight increase in temperature. It does not explain that all data prior to 1850 is proxy data (not at all accurate) and your lovely chart does not explain WHAT is causing this ever so tiny increase in temperature.

Scroll up a bit and look over the provided data from NASA.

www.giss.nasa.gov

chimp_ninja		2012-02-29 10:07:51 AM

chuckufarlie: You need to look into the UN proposals before you buy off on this scam. It has NOTHING to do with cleaner water/environment and it does not reduce our dependence on foreign resources.

Aaaaaaaaaand, here come the black helicopters.

chuckufarlie: Another piece of the Global Warming Agenda is to create one worldwide government and the UN is ready and willing to serve
chuckufarlie: The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.
chuckufarlie: They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-29 10:08:04 AM

chimp_ninja: Thunderpipes: And you STILL CANNOT explain the Little Ice Age of medieval warm periods or anything else.

Small, primarily regional shifts in temperature. See above for a sense of their magnitude. There are plenty of reputable scientific articles on this topic. I'll recommend Goosse, et al. as a useful read. Helpful excerpt:
"The analysis of climate variations during the past millennium can help to establish whether or not late 20th century warmth is unusual in a long-term context. Such an analysis can, in turn, help inform any determination of the relative roles of human activities and natural processes to the recent observed warming. At the Northern Hemisphere scale, the available annual mean temperature reconstructions reveal that the last decade of the 20th century has been likely the warmest period of the past thousand years. The increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations over the past two centuries appears to have played an essential role in this recent warming.

Roughly one thousand years ago, some regions such as Europe, may also have exhibited relatively mild conditions, although the geographical extent of the warm conditions during this period was smaller than during the 20th century. This has led to the introduction of the term "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Warm Epoch", which originated from the examination of primarily western European documentary proxy evidence."
This is in no way incompatible with greenhouse forcings driving the recently observed climate change, as discussed in detail in the link I'm providing. Glad I could help.

You (in all three of your identities) are trying to push this scam on people - why? Do you still have carbon credits to sell??

chuckufarlie		2012-02-29 10:11:07 AM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: You need to look into the UN proposals before you buy off on this scam. It has NOTHING to do with cleaner water/environment and it does not reduce our dependence on foreign resources.

Aaaaaaaaaand, here come the black helicopters.

chuckufarlie: Another piece of the Global Warming Agenda is to create one worldwide government and the UN is ready and willing to serve
chuckufarlie: The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.
chuckufarlie: They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry.

All you need to do is read what the IPCC members have to say about this. I especially like the one where the HEAD of the IPCC said that this is not about climate, it is about economics.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-29 10:12:03 AM

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: what you have here is a lovely chart that shows a slight increase in temperature. It does not explain that all data prior to 1850 is proxy data (not at all accurate) and your lovely chart does not explain WHAT is causing this ever so tiny increase in temperature.

Scroll up a bit and look over the provided data from NASA.

[www.giss.nasa.gov image 287x237]

Correlation does not imply causation

Displayed 50 of 330 comments