Global cooling

mac · Posted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:41 am Post subject:

GT--I certainly don't know enough about the debate on global warming in England to disagree with your perceptions of integrity in that debate. As a matter of principle, I heartily agree that the only antidote for dishonest representation of facts is honesty, not countervailing spin. I am active enough in the environmental community in the United States to know that there are people who are alarmist by nature, and overreact out of paranoia rather than dishonesty, as well as those who spin because they are convinced the other side does so.

But I am also involved, and have been for many years, in steering research into coastal management issues. In that role I see primarily scientists; people of unquestionable integrity, who are doing cutting edge research into the actual impacts of global warming today, and are attacked by a well-funded disinformation campaign. Responding to those lies with lies is not just wrong, it is counterproductive. But the carbon industry, like sow bugs, hides their role in disinformation under the rocks of secrecy. We need to turn over those rocks and see who thrives under the light of peer review.

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Truce Mac. I don't question your integrity.

As you know, our British climate is a chaotic battle field between maritime, continental, and polar air masses. As a nipper I had an atlas (My First Atlas) which showed Britain as a riot of bright greens and blues and purples, with the legend 'Well Watered Lands' boldly pointing out the obvious. That always made me laugh.

Whether that rainfall will be warmer or colder in years to come remains to be seen. But it sure as heck will keep on falling!

Coincidentally, there was a fascinating article in todays paper, concerning the demise of the Mammoths. The latest research from British and Swedish sources, using genetic analysis on scores of remains across Northern Europe, Asia, and North America, indicates that global warming 'did them in!'

Apparently, 120,000 years ago, the warming drastically reduced their numbers, only for an increase in numbers of a slightly different (or adapted) species with the onset of the final phase of the last ice age. 10,000 yeras ago, with the retreat of the ice, and the renewed onset of global warming, they finally gave up the ghost.

So it was NOT man (that wicked and troublesome species) that 'saw them off' by hunting, after all. Nice to know our ancient ancesters weren't all bad. (Except, of course, those raping and pillaging Vikings!)

MalibuGuru · Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/#ixzz2eqSxuU8F

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

Steve, you mentioned Fox and climate in the same month. That makes you a lying ignorant racist denier slut in the eyes of every liberal here.

That's reassurance that you're on the right track.

nw30 · Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:35 am Post subject:

September 13, 2013, 8:57 p.m. ET
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

By MATT RIDLEY

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.

For the rest~
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I didn't mention FOX, so hopefully that won't make me a lying ignorant racist denier slut in the eyes of every liberal here. Wink

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598

The model is a way of putting together a huge mass of data that points every direction and is constantly being updated with similar conflicting data.
Those who made up their minds for partisan reasons can pick data going any direction and pretend like it proves that human action is heating the world or not.
This can be done right until there is only one human left, but there will still be data going both ways on that last day.
I attended a lecture not long ago with a group who denies that the earth revolves around the sun, preferring older Hindu astronomy. They wanted us to take home brochures explaining all the conflicting data.
I prefer the consensus among scientists that modern astronomy is the most likely model, but I am sure these outliers have at least a some data on their side and always will

mac · Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:15 pm Post subject:

NW--you are an endless source of laugh-out-loud amusement to me! Those of you who think I am angry would be surprised to see me laughing at you again. But of course, not surprised that you would cite a source with no credibility to rationalize your belief structure!

Ridley is not at all credible: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

pueno · Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598

Every now and then I enjoy hearing Iso call one of us a liar in response to a post he constantly lies about not being able to read.
He spices it up with phony quotes like my saying " right wing hacks" to keep all the lies in one post. Does Harvard have a School of Public Health?
He will endlessly do it no matter how foolish it makes him look, perhaps just to keep pueno amused
LOL