Is global warming causing harsher winters?

Mar 28, 2013 by Richard Ingham, Claire Snegaroff
People are seen taking their dogs for a walk at the Champ-de-Mars near the Eiffel tower, in Paris, on March 13, 2013. Blizzard-like conditions, coming only eight days before the official start of spring, knocked out power to thousands of people in France and left motorists stranded in their cars.

Millions of people in northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when—officially—spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

Yet some scientists, eyeing the fourth year in a row of exceptionally harsh late- in parts of Europe and North America, suggest warming is precisely the problem.

In a complex tango between ocean and atmosphere, warming is causing icy polar air to be displaced southwards, they contend.

"The linkage is becoming clearer and clearer, I think, although the science has not yet been settled," said Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) near Berlin.

The theory derives from a long-studied Arctic phenomenon called a positive feedback—in plain words, a vicious circle.

Rising temperatures are melting the Arctic's floating cap of , especially in summer.

An Iceland supermarket lorry passes a section of icicles and ice-covered hedgerow near Hazeley Bottom, south of Reading, on March 27, 2013. Millions of people in northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when—officially—spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

In 1979, when began, summer ice covered some seven million square kilometres (2.7 million square miles), roughly equivalent to 90 percent the area of Australia.

In September 2012, summer ice hit its lowest extent on record, at just 3.4 million sq. kms (1.31 million sq. miles).

Take away reflective ice, and you have a dark sea that absorbs , which in turn reinforces the melting, and so on.

But the theory suggests the added heat, stored over a vast area of surface water, is also gradually released into the atmosphere during the Arctic autumn.

It increases air pressure and moisture in the Arctic, reducing the temperature differential with lower latitudes.

Here's what happens next: The , a powerful circular wind that essentially pens to the roof of the world, begins to weaken.

A man pushes a jammed car as heavy snow falls in Moscow, on March 15, 2013. Millions of people in northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when—officially—spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

Finding itself released, a mass of moist cold air spills southward, bringing snow and chill down into North America and Europe.

And it tends to stay there, because of what happens to the jet stream.

Instead of encircling the northern hemisphere in a sturdy and predictable fashion, this high-altitude wind takes a lazy looping path, zigzagging over the United States, the Atlantic and Europe. The southern parts of the loops get a bout of cold weather that becomes stalled in place.

"Heat that is stored in the (Arctic) ocean can rapidly transfer to the atmosphere, and this affects the dynamics" of northern hemisphere weather patterns, said Coumou in a phone interview.

"We've had a couple of winters (in Europe) where you've had rather shorter-term cold spells, of a duration of maybe 10, 20, 30 days... It's been the same in the continental US and Canada where they've seen similar quite bizarre cold spells but of a relatively shorter period."

Charles Greene, director of the Ocean Resources and Ecosystems Program at Cornell University in New York, said Arctic warming added a joker or two to the climate pack.

People are seen at a park on a snowy day in Berlin, on March 21, 2013. Millions of people in northern Europe are still battling snow and ice, wondering why they are being punished with bitter cold when—officially—spring has arrived and Earth is in the grip of global warming.

"With the changes in sea ice, we set up a situation where we stack the deck, increasing the probability of these invasions of cold Arctic air," he said.

"But what's less predictable is which regions in the mid-latitudes will get hit. We're not sure yet how it will interact with other parts of the climate system in any given year, for instance how it will interact with El Nino and La Nina."

Greene also postulates that Superstorm Sandy last October wreaked its havoc because of a high-pressure zone over Greenland, possibly strengthened by changes triggered by sea-ice loss in the Arctic.

Like a barrier closing off a street, this mass of air forced Sandy to turn sharply west so that it slammed into the US East Coast. Normally, late-season hurricanes follow a northeastern track and peter out at sea.

The warming-and-winter scenario is far from unanimous in climatology. Other experts call for more evidence, especially from longer-term data.

"Looking at what's happening right now, in early spring, it's too early to say whether it is due in part to a temporary climatic swing," said David Salas-y-Melia of Meteo France, the French meteorological agency.

Jeff Knight of Britain's Met Office pointed to a natural climate variation called the North Atlantic Oscillation, whose phases tend to span 30-40 years.

Several decades of relatively harsher winters alternate with relatively milder ones—but there can also be years within these phases that buck the trend.

"In Europe, the effect of climate variability is quite large," said Knight. "There are possible links to explain why sea ice might influence atmospheric circulation, but the jury is very much still out at the moment."

Explore further: Mediterranean, semi-arid ecosystems prove resistant to climate change

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arctic ice melt sets stage for cold weather

Jun 06, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The dramatic melt-off of Arctic sea ice due to climate change is hitting closer to home than millions of Americans might think. That's because melting Arctic sea ice can trigger a domino effect ...

Record loss of Arctic ice may trigger extreme weather

Sep 17, 2012

Arctic sea ice is shrinking at a rate much faster than scientists ever predicted and its collapse, due to global warming, may well cause extreme weather this winter in North America and Europe, according to climate scientists.

Recommended for you

User comments : 196

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2013
If you accept that the ENSO cycle affects global weather and quite dramatic ways ( and it does ) with sea surface temperature variation of a few degrees - then it is intuitive that exposing large areas of dark ocean to late solar insolation will likely have just as dramatic effect down the line, especially as the NH is about to set up it's circulation patterns for the forthcoming winter. Of course the science will need to be done on the mechanics but there certainly appears to be a tie-in with the early formation of the stratospheric vortex.
Birger
3.8 / 5 (19) Mar 28, 2013
Good comment, Runrig.
I will add a simpler comment. More energy in the system= More nasty surprises.
Thank you, denialbots and shills for getting us into this mess (sarcasm).
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2013
Anyone else here have skin-in-the-game of environmental forecasting, doxastic committment? Good, I do, living on a remote isolated Island. I have four independent power/heat fuel sources, a full-sized 'compact' tractor and a roof rake. My eye is out for a snowblower attachment for the tractor.

Read Taleb (Black Swan, Antifragile) on forecasting and the problem of demarcation.
triplehelix
2 / 5 (20) Mar 28, 2013
Excellent article for one main reason

"The linkage is becoming clearer and clearer, I think, although the science has not yet been settled," said Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) near Berlin."
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2013
Of course you would misinterpret that comment triple, given yor propensity to see only what you have already decided to believe.

The science of whether or not the harsher winters is the result of global warming or of a natural cycle in the NAO is what is not settled Triple.

Taking a term totally out of context and assigning a meaning to it that is not intended is called a misrepresentation triple. A misrepresentation presented in a manner that is intended to decieve is called a lie triple. In your case, the lie is unintentional, only because you cannot seem to grasp English combined with your dogmatic refusal to see beyond your own misguided belief.

How many more times must you have the obvious pointed out to you? Read the WHOLE article triple, don't just cherry-pick out of context statements.
triplehelix
2.3 / 5 (22) Mar 28, 2013
"The science of whether or not the harsher winters is the result of global warming or of a natural cycle in the NAO is what is not settled Triple. "

I know, that's exactly what is said. I wasn't using that quote for support of the entire global warming theory. I know that quote works for this particular article.

You're assuming Maggnus, which is highly unscientific.

How many more times must you have the obvious pointed out to you that SETTLED SCIENCE, DOESN'T EXIST.

Science is about gaining large confidences. Mathematics is about proofs. No science is settled, that is the entire definition of science. To think something is settled and will never change is more ignorant than religious zealots. Yet here you are doing it.

Again, I repeat, envirosciences still LACK, SEVERELY, the capability to PREDICT, which is an important factor of SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.
runrig
4 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2013
...No science is settled, that is the entire definition of science. To think something is settled and will never change is more ignorant than religious zealots. Yet here you are doing it.
Again, I repeat, envirosciences still LACK, SEVERELY, the capability to PREDICT, which is an important factor of SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.

We get into semantics here. Your concept of settled must differ from mine. In this instance I take it to mean that the argument about whether AGW is/is not occurring is settled - It is and it is. No one is saying that the science is settled in the sense that it's possible to forecast exact numbers down the line. Just that an imbalance is present in the climate system and will continue to grow. That is a given and positive feed-back loops can only likely increase its magnitude. AS you say science is never 100% settled - it's just that it's agreed that the principle of AGW is correct. That is the important bit. The bit that the sensible realise action is needed
djr
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2013
"The linkage is becoming clearer and clearer, I think, although the science has not YET been settled," said Dim Coumou of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research" Emphasis added.

So Dim Coumou - by using the word YET clearly feels that science can be settled - but is acknowledging that regarding climate change - we are still working on understanding the system.

But triplehelix asserts that "SETTLED SCIENCE DOESN'T EXIST" In other words - triplehelix is wrong. You see - when I plug my computer in to the wall - SETTLED SCIENCE determines that electrons will come out of the socket - start my computer - and allow me to send a message to the comments section of Physorg. I think settled science is awesome.
Jo01
2 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2013
I'am betting on the next ice age.

J.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 28, 2013
"Is global warming causing harsher winters?"

Of course it is. The beauty of AGW lies in its' inherent flexibility in that - with enough science-speak thrown at it - it can be a reason for any weather-related incident, regardless of the size or duration of that incident.

When the enviro-emos get their minds set, there's nothing AGW can't do.

---

AGW is the only non slippery-slope the liberals have ever known. For the first time in their lives, (they find) it feels good to take a firm, unshakable stand on an issue. In this respect, AGW might be a good thing. Maybe we can massage this feeling and direct it towards other issues - pro life, for example?
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 28, 2013
Magnus, the guy who corrects other people's English, knows neither how to capitalize, nor to use commas with proper names.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2013
Magnus, the guy who corrects other people's English, knows neither how to capitalize, nor to use commas with proper names.


Really! How stupidly petty.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
I'am betting on the next ice age.

J.


You may be right but it'll take a hit from an asteroid/comet or maybe the Earth will tilt on it's axis spontaneously. Or perhaps a black cloud come between us and the sun. Either way don't think you'll collect on it.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
"Is global warming causing harsher winters?" Of course it is. The beauty of AGW lies in its' inherent flexibility in that - with enough science-speak thrown at it - it can be a reason for any weather-related incident, regardless of the size or duration of that incident. When the enviro-emos get their minds set, there's nothing AGW can't do. ---......


I think I'd be right in saying you've said that before - many times. You don't get to be right by being the loudest in the room. It also shows your mind-set to be coloured by politics - as though that is the driver of the science. Politicians may have taken possession of it and the shouty ones are pushing for action. That doesn't make the science invalid. Science is science - it leads in a certain direction - that direction being agreed by those in the field. Sorry you are unable to appreciate that warming does not equal everywhere increasing temp in lock step with no regional weather changes. That's just not the way climate works.
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 28, 2013
Politicians happen to be in charge of how money is spent on research, and can reward and punish scientists based on how well they adhere to the political agenda. While it is correct to say that politicians cannot affect science, it is not correct to say they cannot affect the behavior of scientists. Especially in today's corrupt world.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (21) Mar 28, 2013
While it is correct to say that politicians cannot affect science, it is not correct to say they cannot affect the behavior of scientists. Especially in today's corrupt world.


Scientists and 'intellectuals' support such corrupt with their unquestioning support of socialism.
If redistribution of wealth is so wonderful, why not redistribution of grades or scientific papers? It's not fair only a few scientists are allowed to publish so many papers.

It also shows your mind-set to be coloured by politics

AGW is pure politics. If it were NOT so, there would be purely technical, and economically sound proposals from the AGWites. Instead, all remedies demand more govt control of economics.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2013
Politicians happen to be in charge of how money is spent on research, and can reward and punish scientists based on how well they adhere to the political agenda. While it is correct to say that politicians cannot affect science, it is not correct to say they cannot affect the behavior of scientists. Especially in today's corrupt world.


In an indirect way, true. However the science still goes where it goes unless we call upon a conspiracy to come to some conclusion. Of course, as I've said before, there will be bad science, frivolous science and perhaps even fraudulent science - but that's human nature, the way the world works, and as for invoking socialism as a driver of AGW (by someone on here) as though that's always a bad thing ( Mcarthyism anyone ). It can do good - market forces wont always do the trick and the problem is "social" in the sense that we are all in it together.
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2013
Lurker2358 3 hours ago Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6): Magnus, the guy who corrects other people's English, knows neither how to capitalize, nor to use commas with proper names.

How ironic it is that even with the user name of @Maggnus displayed on this very web page, you, Lurker2358, manage to spell it wrong (as "Magnus") while putting down HIS spelling and grammar abilities.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2013
"I'am betting on the next ice age." Your apostrophe is there, but your 'a' seems to be already frozen in place in your contraction.
Jo01
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
"I'am betting on the next ice age." Your apostrophe is there, but your 'a' seems to be already frozen in place in your contraction.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. Seems very relevant in this context.
How good is your Dutch?

J.
Jo01
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
I'am betting on the next ice age.

J.


You may be right but it'll take a hit from an asteroid/comet or maybe the Earth will tilt on it's axis spontaneously. Or perhaps a black cloud come between us and the sun. Either way don't think you'll collect on it.


I'm not worried, the next ice age is almost certain.

J.
copie
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2013
Richard Ingham and Claire Snegaroff, you are disgrace writing an article that you know to be completely untrue, even the biased UK Met office have admitted that there has been no warming for the past 16 years. I look forward to the day when you are charged with fraud for claiming that record cold weather is really global warming.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
as for invoking socialism as a driver of AGW (by someone on here) as though that's always a bad thing

Ask the Cypriots who have had there money stolen how they like socialism.
Or the rest of Europe who have to pay for the MORE socialist Greeks, Spanish, Italians, Cypriots, ....

Joe McCarthy was correct. See the Venona files.
market forces wont always do the trick

What 'trick'? Fool people?

Market forces WILL motivate people to adapt to climate. When socialism subsidizes people to live and build on beaches and flood zones, no lessons are learned.
Market forces are ALWAYS at work, just as natural law. Socialism tries to hide market forces. But try squeezing a balloon. It distorts and if you squeeze too hard, the balloon, and the economy breaks. Natural, market forces always win.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
Destroying wealth is a good thing for AGWites?

"And that, therefore, the billions if not trillions that Britain and the other Western industrialised economies have spent "combatting climate change" have very likely been utterly wasted."
http://blogs.tele...erts-eh/
DarkWingDuck
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
"Is global warming causing harsher winters?" The answer is no. The arctic oscillations (AO) has been trending more negative since the thermosphere has began to expand once again after full collapse in mid 2009. Prior, the collapse of the thermosphere had been adding pressure to the central latitudes forcing warm air toward the poles trending the AO more positive. It also dumped enough water to account for 1/8 of the rise in sea levels (not temperature adjusted).

Now with the expansion of the thermosphere, it's creating lower pressure in the middle latitudes pulling air from the poles so the cold air drops on the arctic dragging the cold air toward the middle latitudes causing the harsher winters. The NOAA had a scale of -3 for the AOs given they never really dropped below 3. Since, they have had to readjust their scale to -5 to account for the AO dropping to the -4+ scale.
DarkWingDuck
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
Not to mention this winter has persisted to be in a negative phase. It's unusually long but that's exactly what we need to recover the actic ice cap.

It is an encouraging trend that has been getting better since 2009. NASA attributed an increased collapse rate 20% to higher CO2 levels increasing the rate of cooling of the thermosphere. I'm uncertain what that means for the expansion… Perhaps it'll be slower and well have a longer cooling trend than the warming trend of the last 50 years during the collapse trending the AO more positive.

We'll see…. Predictions will be easier with more than 50 years of reliable data. 200 years would give me greater confidence.
maxberan
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
The science is settled - so long as you don't worry about falsifiability.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013
Ask the Cypriots who have had there money stolen how they like socialism. .... Joe McCarthy was correct. See the Venona files. " market forces wont always do the trick " What 'trick'? Fool people? Market forces WILL motivate people to adapt to climate. When socialism subsidizes people to live and build on beaches

QED and even worse than I thought. Good to know the depth of your venom for future reference. Bizzare allusion to trick as in fool ( I obviously mean "be effective" ). The Macarthy era was one that America should be ashamed of - From Wiki.. "Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute". Give the jack boots a polish. http://en.wikiped...arthyism
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
The Macarthy era was one that America should be ashamed of -

Why? He was correct. The USA was riddled with communist spies just as it is today.
NASA has been hiring many of them.
Of course if you are a socialist/communist then you might not like Joe.
"A Chinese national who worked for NASA has been arrested at Dulles International Airport on a one-way ticket to China while potentially carrying highly confidential U.S. military secrets."
http://warnewsupd...ted.html

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2013
"The Venona papers, together with these archives, made it absolutely clear that the American Communist Party was from its beginning the willing agent of Soviet intelligence, obedient to its orders, financed by its contributions, and serving not only as a propaganda organ for Soviet policies but as a generous source for the recruitment of agents who would thereupon influence American policy and gladly commit espionage as well. It is now plain that by 1945 every important branch of the American government, from the White House itself to the State Department, the Defense Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department, the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor to the CIA), and the Office of War Information, to name only a few, was infested with Communists busily doing the work of the Soviet Union."
http://www.clarem...tail.asp
Now communists call themselves 'progressives'.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013
The Macarthy era was one that America should be ashamed of -

Why? He was correct. The USA was riddled with communist spies just as it is today.
NASA has been hiring many of them.
Of course if you are a socialist/communist then you might not like Joe.


No, I am not a socialist with a capital S. Neither am I right wing. I happen to think that both those extremes are wrong headed as with all extremes of human nature. The best way forward is in the middle - where most people will agree. You look upon the MaCarthy era with the sympathies of a patriot ( I suspect ). I look at it as rabid hatred of a political stance in which people were accused and vilified unjustly. Still it's your history. Can we get back to climate science now and agree to differ on both?
DarkWingDuck
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2013
The science is settled - so long as you don't worry about falsifiability.

Sure ignore the data. You can read about the collapse of the thermosphere on the NASA website or any of the publications that have been published on it...
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2013
look at it as rabid hatred of a political stance in which people were accused and vilified unjustly.


Rabid hatred of a political stance? That 'stance' murdered millions of people and threatened to murder millions more.
How many millions murdered is 'the middle' for you?

Sure ignore the data.

This data: "Then, growing more desperate as global mean temperatures stubbornly refused to rise with the alacrity their dodgy computer models predicted they would, they even had a stab at popularising "global climate disruption" and "global weirding". "
http://blogs.tele...erts-eh/
DarkWingDuck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2013
The science is settled - so long as you don't worry about falsifiability.

Let me be more specific:
Emmert, J. T., J. L. Lean, and J. M. Picone (2010), Record-low Thermospheric density during the 2008 solar minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L12102.

PDF here: http://heliophysi...2010.pdf

density, pressure, they're kind of related.
DarkWingDuck
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013
The science is settled - so long as you don't worry about falsifiability.

Let me be more specific:
Emmert, J. T., J. L. Lean, and J. M. Picone (2010), Record-low Thermospheric density during the 2008 solar minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L12102.

PDF here: http://heliophysi...2010.pdf

density, pressure, they're kind of related.

This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research and NASA's Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24 Program...

SO maxbaren, you can go tell NASA and the Office of Naval Research that's it's been settled and they need no more work.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
"Wilkinson says the only real impact of the thermosphere collapse is in space, where less atmospheric drag will keep spacecraft in orbit longer.

"That's good news if you want to keep your satellite flying, bad news if you're trying to de-orbit space junk," he said."

"Earth's thermosphere went through its biggest contraction in 43 years."
" the increase in CO2 levels account for another 10 percent at most."

http://news.disco...king.htm

Historical data for the thermoshpere is quite limited. So...what's the big deal except for the AGWites to continue to play Chicken Little?
And it shows how much science is NOT settled.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (10) Mar 28, 2013
Ryggtard:

It is not unconstitutional to be a socialist or a communist.

It is, however, unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against socialists or communists.

I think you have the wrong idea, rygg.

Nobody in America wants to be a part of the Borg collective, except maybe some idiot Star Trek fan. What you call "socialists" are just people who are sick and tired of Walmart heirs having as much income as the bottom 40% of Americans combined, and football players now get paid 100 times as much as doctors, and 250 times as much as the highest paid blue collar workers, and ordinary people DON'T HAVE A SAY IN IT.

If we live in a "democracy" then by God let's have a vote on everything. Let's vote on whether there should be a cap on absurdly highly paid people's salaries, and what that cap should be.

Let's vote to FORCE companies to pay their CEOs a few hundred thousand, and pass the savings on to customers.

Let's take obscene profits from scalping and distribute it fairly
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2013
unconstitutional for the government to discriminate against socialists or communists.

Not when they actively support the destruction of the US Constitution.
Which is exactly what the 'progressive'/socialist want.
Woodrow Wilson stated this over 100 years ago. 'Progressives' must destroy the US Constitution to achieve their utopia.
If we live in a "democracy"

The USA is not, and has never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, which must be destroyed for Lurker to gang up and plunder the wealth of those he believes don't need it.
That's what the current regime is working overtime to do.
Lurker2358
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2013
No person should have more total compensation in a year than the President of the United States.

The maximum compensation of any individual should not exceed a factor of ten times the national median, with excess being confiscated and distributed through preventive medical programs and infrastructure improvements.

Ryggtard believes that if 1% of people somehow corner the market so completely that they make 99% of all net income, then that's just the way things are and everyone else can just eat it.

The Declaration of Independence says everyone has a RIGHT to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 99% of people being puppets for 1% is NOT "Liberty", and neither is 80% being puppets for 20%.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan says the opposite: "If you're old or sick and can't pay for medicine, tough shit, GTFO! Meanwhile we will eat caviar and have $1000 plate lunches every night. Piss off peasants."

That's what you support, dumbass. They caught them on video in public and private debates
Lurker2358
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013
"The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy,"

"America's wealth inequality was also ranked highest among OECD countries by the World Bank."

Look at that jackass. We have founding documents declaring all humans to be created equal, yet we have the highest wealth inequality in the modern world. How can you justify that?!

I'm pretty sure the only places that are worse for wealth inequality are the few remaining monarchies and theocracies.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2013
Apparently the only thing global warming is not causing is global warming, since temperatures have been falling as of 2001.
http://www.woodfo...01/trend
The Alarmist would fabricate further lies to now blame harsher winters on GW and I'm sure if they look hard enough they will find Mann's Hockey Stick in all that snow.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
copie: "even the biased UK Met office have admitted that there has been no warming for the past 16 years"

Spend a few minutes on their web site - and you will see what a total misrepresentation of their position you have made. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

Here is a direct quote from their site - "Earth is warming. Over the last 100 years Earth has warmed by about 0.75 °C."
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2013
antigoracle: Apparently the only thing global warming is not causing is global warming, since temperatures have been falling as of 2001.

But they have been going up since 2008.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

See how that game is played? Cherry picking data is such a dishonest past time. Surface temperatures are not the only indicators of warming. The UK met office has a lot of information - covering many other factors that are part of the picture you need to understand. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

This article from Skeptical science explains why it is important to consider all of the factors. http://www.skepti...ted.html
scuzzmonster
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
I'm just waiting for Dennis Quaid to kick my front door down then steal my food.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2013
Actually, the article is a very good one, all should be able to agree to the effects, if not the impacts.
The effect it misses is that ice bergs are ice cubes ALSO cooling off the globes. The runoff of melted ice is a powerful cooling effect from adding enough heat to melt it. Do the math; simple, fascinating.
So yes, increased heat IN NO WAY MEANS definitively increased temperature.
UNTIL the ice caps are melted, and currents have come to equilibrium.
The most frightening aspect of GW, is not the temperature increase (when it really starts), but the stagnation of the driving force for weather:
That is that the temperature gradient that drives weather from equator to pole is diminished causing stagnation and homogeneity.
Notice, no CO2 required.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
look at it as rabid hatred of a political stance in which people were accused and vilified unjustly.


Rabid hatred of a political stance? That 'stance' murdered millions of people and threatened to murder millions more.
How many millions murdered is 'the middle' for you?


Socialism in the western world did not/has not killed millions. In it's extreme form - commuuism - it has. We in the UK managed to fend it off without the witch-hunt that MaCarthy lead and which as I said unfairly accused many of something which was just a political/moral stance at worst, yes. Your country was not swarming with KGB spies for god's sake. As in 10's thousands. Bizarre over reaction then and obviously still present in God's own country ( irony ).
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2013
Record-low Thermospheric density during the 2008 solar minimum, ....PDF here: http://heliophysi...2010.pdf density, pressure, they're kind of related.


Yes I've seen that paper. So you are saying that reduced Solar caused the Thermosphere to cool and become more dense - so that is causing harsh winters? You do realise that the thermosphere is at a pressure of 1 millionth of that at sea level? There is process in low solar where the polar circulation in the NH is disturbed - but involves rather more than just the thermosphere - you need to come down to the layer just above the troposphere, the stratosphere, ( 100 to 2mb ) for an effect to transfer down. Warming at that level is what happens in low solar. This past winter saw vortex disruption induced from below by wave propagation. See .... http://web.mit.ed...C12.pdf. There may well, of course be a combined effect.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2013
We in the UK managed to fend it off

UK is socialist.
Socialism/communism/fascism are all various forms of state tyranny.

Churchill said it well, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
and, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "
djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
UK is socialist.

So is there a country in the world that is not socialist? I have lived in both England, and the U.S. Structurally I find very little difference. Federalism is done a little differently here (U.S), but the basic structures seem pretty similar. New election every 4 years. Bicameral legislature. Seperate court system. I understand the technical differences (President is elected vs. selected by party etc.), but essentially the two societies are very comparable. Is your 'non socialist' state a reality anywhere, or just a figment of your imagination?
djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
Claudius: "Politicians happen to be in charge of how money is spent on research, and can reward and punish scientists based on how well they adhere to the political agenda."

So: do you believe that the earth is warming, the C02 levels are increasing, ocean levels are rising, ocean temperatures are increasing, glaciers are melting, ice sheets are melting? This is what the science is telling us. If you do not believe this science - how has the AGW conspiracy been able to hoodwink the whole world into believing this - and how long will they be able to keep up the conspiracy?
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2013
"So: do you believe that the earth is warming, the C02 levels are increasing, ocean levels are rising, ocean temperatures are increasing, glaciers are melting, ice sheets are melting? This is what the science is telling us."

This is not news. I do not disagree, more or less. It is what one would expect in an interglacial period.

Why is it that whenever AGW is questioned, the alarmists point to rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels as proof that man is causing the changes?. It is not proof of anything. All these changes have been commonplace in the past, long ages before man could have had an influence.
The Alchemist
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2013
@Claudius, yes these things have happened before... but something always causes them. The question is, what is this time.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2013
UK is socialist. Socialism/communism/fascism are all various forms of state tyranny. Churchill said it well, "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
and, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Last I checked we had a Conservative party with most seats in Parliament with Social Democrats in coalition. Churchill also said "democracy is the worst form of government ... apart from all the others we've tried". I believe you too have a representative democracy that holds free elections every 4/5 years. Quite obviously I cant discuss politics with you, nor should I, as this is a science site - but it goes to show that your view of this subject is seen through the prism of your politics. That "socialism" does science ( at least climate science ) in your eyes and is therefore bad. I disagree.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2013
@Claudius, yes these things have happened before... but something always causes them. The question is, what is this time.


Probably what it was before. Certainly not enough reason to start levying global taxes and creating carbon trading schemes which only enrich a few people, and have no effect.

Then there is this:

"Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled" http://www.theaus...09140980

"International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend."

Translation: if temperatures haven't been increasing as the models predicted, we have to wait 30 to 40 years before we can be sure there is no crisis. In the meantime, however, full steam ahead with taxation and corporate schemes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2013
Last I checked we had a Conservative party with most seats in Parliament with Social Democrats in coalition.


Socialism IS as socialism DOES. Not what they call themselves.
Herbert Hoover called himself 'progressive' and FDR called himself 'liberal'.
Both were socialist as they used state power to plunder and redistribute wealth.
So is there a country in the world that is not socialist?

Nope.
And there is every reason to point out how socialism is evil and how it impacts science and economics.
And partly this is due to the AGWite assertions that if only those evil corporations (presumably pro-free market) would stop funding 'deniers' the AGWites could have their carbon taxes implemented and the world is saved.
But the AGWites are heavily funded by big govts that like taxes and there are pro-socialist corporate interests that what the govt to cut them deals. Enron promoted the Kyoto Treaty, and there are the bankrupt Solyndras.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2013
Claudius: All these changes have been commonplace in the past, long ages before man could have had an influence.

Thanks for the reply Claudius. The question I have is - 'why do you feel that you have the knowledge to know better than the world's scientific community on what is causing today's warming? Take a look at this wiki article - http://en.wikiped...e_change Plenty of links in there. Or do a quick google search about the current warming trend.

Here is the main problem for me. We face great challenges/possibilities as we develop and use our science, and technology. Just for example - read this article on air pollution, and energy problems being caused by China's rapid move to industrialize. Science, and the solutions/technologies we are currently developing are crucial. It is not alarmist to believe we should be studying our world - and figuring stuff out. We face headwinds - fundamentalist religion, political corruption cont.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2013
Sorry - forgot to link the article http://oilprice.c...ent.html

cont. crappy education system, political ideological fighting etc. The culture here in the U.S. is clearly heavily influenced by the anti science folks. As a result - science is disrespected, and the head winds are slowing progress down significantly. This is critical. It may mean the difference of life and death for folks who are alive today. We will one day cure cancer, and all the other afflictions we face - but the speed of progress depends on our embracing science. I just don't get why you and so many others are anti science - and can truly believe in a global conspiracy. It makes no sense to me - and really makes me angry that you are happy to block progress, and perhaps condemn me to dying of cancer.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2013
"So is there a country in the world that is not socialist?

Nope"

But you just took a jab at runrig - mocking him/her because s/he lives in a 'socialist' country. But then you admit that all countries are socialist.

If you believe that all countries are socialist - does that not make your belief in some mythical free market utopia totally abstract, theoretical, and without any way of knowing if it really could work, or any hope of ever knowing if it could work?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2013
"International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend."

Translation: if temperatures haven't been increasing as the models predicted, we have to wait 30 to 40 years before we can be sure there is no crisis. In the meantime, however, full steam ahead with taxation and corporate schemes.


Yes, because the probability of a correct conclusion is high and hiatus are inherent in the system ( I know that is difficult but no complex system continues a trend unvarying ), and most importantly the consequences of what may happen are too bad to contemplate ( another premise you'll not agree with ). That's not to mention the fact that we can and damn well should move on from petroleum energy - it's had it's century. The last one.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2013
I just don't get why you and so many others are anti science - and can truly believe in a global conspiracy.


First of all, I am not anti-science. If anything, I see myself as more pro-science than those who unquestioningly accept anything that has the cachet of "science".

As for global conspiracies. There have always been conspiracies. Anyone who reads history knows that. To expect that somehow humankind has rid itself of elite groups conspiring to advance their own agendas at the expense of everyone else is incredibly naive. If you are interested in the current global conspiracy you should read this book: "Anglo-American Establishment" by Carroll Quigley, a professor of history at Georgetown University who Bill Clinton studied under and called his "mentor".
djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
I did not say there is no corruption or conspiracy in the world - I understand that - the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry etc. But science has built in checks and balances - which is why the tobacco industry was stopped short when funding bad science. Scientists are on the whole highly ethical - and they don't take kindly to bad science. I sure wish you could see the connection between the kind of anti science conspiracy theory you and the others on this board promote, and the resistance to progress that this creates our world. Thankfully you are losing (see what is happening in renewable energy), but you are sure slowing down progress - you guys really make me angry.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2013
You list corporate conspiracies, but not conspiracies by elite groups. Read the book. Edify yourself.

Although you think I am anti-scientific, I believe science will ultimately discover the truth or falsehood of this issue.

Perhaps you should consider that there may in fact be reasons why the organizers of an elite conspiracy would want to influence or even control science. If the emperor has no clothes, so to speak, and some individuals point out problems in the way science is being done, it does not necessarily mean they are anti-scientific.

We have discussed this before, but the essence of science is critical thinking, not blind acceptance. To paint with a broad brush and label critics "anti-scientific" because such views do not fit in with your world view is a fatal mistake.

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2013
"We have discussed this before, but the essence of science is critical thinking, not blind acceptance"

Let me throw out a different thought. I believe that the essence of science is the collection and analysis of data. I think that you conflate disagreeing, with critical thinking. Throwing around terms like 'blind acceptance' is problematic for me. Do I practice 'blind acceptance' when the doc tells me to take antibiotics, and rather than get a medical degree, I do what the doc recommends? I think that critical thinking is of great importance - but I think that you have to have data to base an argument on. Otherwise - you buy into every conspiracy theory out there - like vaccinations cause autism. I have never seen you present data - to dispute the idea that the earth is warming, and scientists are sounding the alarm that we should pay attention to it. Throwing up conspiracy theories does not equate to critical thinking.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2013
but the essence of science is critical thinking, not blind acceptance

Who has been proclaiming "the science is settled" and AGW must not be questioned?
AGWites.
Thankfully you are losing (see what is happening in renewable energy),

We are ALL losing wealth as unprofitable schemes are subsidized by state plunder.
Why is economics so difficult for people like djr? Profit is a measure of efficient use of energy. Unprofitable solar, wind, etc are WASTING energy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
does that not make your belief in some mythical free market utopia totally abstract, theoretical, and without any way of knowing if it really could work, or any hope of ever knowing if it could work?

Utopia is a socialist concept.
Free market utopia is an oxymoron.
There are many examples of when the state lifted its iron boot from the throats of its citizens and allowed them to propsered in a freer market, they prospered spectacularly.
Sweden filed many of its anti-free market regulations keeping them from collapsing. Hong Kong and Singapore continue to top the list.
Heritage has documented how economic liberty creates prosperity. No place is perfect, but the trends and what works are quite clear.
http://www.herita.../ranking
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
We face headwinds - fundamentalist religion, political corruption ...

And of course if dj were king or dictator of the world HE would fix all.
science is disrespected, and the head winds are slowing progress down significantly.

Mostly by the Regulatory State, but dj seems to think HIS Regulatory State can make progress.

Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2013
Do I practice 'blind acceptance' when the doc tells me to take antibiotics, and rather than get a medical degree, I do what the doc recommends?


Speaking as a health care provider, I think patients need to be critical of what their doctor prescribes or recommends. Remember the statistics of how many people die every year from bad medical decisions. More and more we are seeing patients coming in with information from "Dr. Google" and it is more and more of a challenge for doctors to recommend therapy without critical analysis by the patient. It keeps Dr.s on their toes, where they should be. Dialogue between doctor and patient is not a bad thing.

So yes, you are practicing 'blind acceptance' by not analyzing critically what your doctor recommends.

Do you really believe science is only the "collection and analysis of data"? What ever happened to forming and testing hypotheses? Or the search for verifiable truth?
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
"patients need to be critical of what their doctor prescribes or recommends."

And what is the basis of this critical thinking? I have a great doctor - she encourages me to think critically - but she also wisely advises me to have a framework for my thinking - otherwise I will listen to Oprah Winfrey, and believe that vaccines cause autism. My doctor recommends that I stay with established medical sites such as webmd.org. Do you disagree with suggesting that I trust established science - vs. listening to the homeopathists?

So yes, you are practicing 'blind acceptance' by not analyzing critically what your doctor recommends.

No I am not - I trust the science. Last year I had an infection - my doctor prescribed cipro - and my infection cleared up. That is trusting science. I don't care if you want to do homeopathy - I just wish you would not need to drag us all down with your withcraft. Can you not understand how high the stakes are - and the damage you cause?
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
"Sweden filed many of its anti-free market regulations keeping them from collapsing"

Sweden is socialist - right?

"And of course if dj were king or dictator of the world HE would fix all."

Very mature comment Rygg - your debating skills are evolving.

"mostly by the Regulatory State, but dj seems to think HIS Regulatory State can make progress."

I have told you before - I don't have a solution for the thorny problem of where is the balance in terms of government regulations vs free agency. I do believe - for example - that government regs to prevent the excesses of child labor were good. I also understand the government is corrupt, bureaucratic, inefficient, and generally problematic. So your childish comments are just that - childish.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
I don't have a solution for the thorny problem of where is the balance in terms of government regulations vs free agency.

But you don't seem to mind more govt regulations.
Especially when you can use the govt to plunder other people's money to get what YOU want.

"Sweden filed" that is some typo.

What was intend was Sweden has had to back off many of its socialist policies to keep from collapsing. One is the wealth tax. Wealthy Swedes left rather than have the MORE of their wealth plundered.
Compared to the more socialist states of Europe, they are doing much better economically.

I trust the science.

Faith is science is called scientism. It's the latest religion.
radek
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
it`s off topic but I want to add few words about socialism. I live in Poland so I experienced very extreme kind of socialism on my back. The problem is that this system doesn`t work longterm. It destroys people`s will to work hard and to be entrepreneur. Because it is not profit oriented it borrows and tax more and more to exist. Sounds familiar? Look back at history of Western Europe and check where Europe is now. More and more regulations, taxation even private property confiscation (Cyprus case). Ideology (green, multi-culti,gender,women quotes etc) becomes more important than economy. It will end with bankrupcy soon or later. Demokracy is ending in EU - European Commisioners comes not from election and we can`t exchange them, EU parlament has no right to propose new law (only EC which is not elected can).
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2013
The problem is that this system doesn`t work longterm.

Correct.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
Isn't socialism wonderful!
"Each year, an official estimate is made of the "excess winter mortality" – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset. "
"Instead of making sure energy was affordable, ministers have been trying to make it more expensive, with carbon price floors and emissions trading schemes. Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food – and government has found itself a major part of the problem. "
http://www.telegr...out.html
The Alchemist
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2013
Amazing, you folks who are so willing to tear each other up over spurrious articles, spam such a powerful and informative up with talks about politics.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
If anyone wants proof of a conspiracy of some order, it lies no further away than Google Earth. At the North Pole they've water colored ocean, it does not change with the time-bar. At the South Pole it appears to work, but you never see any Rhode Island sized ice breakages or other effects.
I mean, maybe there's another explanation, but I just wanted to get a rule of thumb for when all the ice will be gone, and all I get is it already is...
djr
5 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2013
"But you don't seem to mind more govt regulations.
Especially when you can use the govt to plunder other people's money to get what YOU want."

What a bizarre comment - once again you show you cannot read. I will try to speak clearly - I believe that here in the U.S. we are over taxed, over regulated, and over monitored. I believe the governement is way too big, corrupt, bureaucratic, and awash in special interest money. I do not believe in 'plundering' other people's money - I would like to see a low, flat tax system, and minimal government. What is the point in talking to people - if you just make up stupid shit?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2013
I believe that here in the U.S. we are over taxed, over regulated, and over monitored.


But...here you say....
Thankfully you are losing (see what is happening in renewable energy), but you are sure slowing down progress - you guys really make me angry.


And what is happening in renewable energy? Govt subsidies and excessive taxes and regulations on fossil fuel. So much so thousands in the UK can't afford to heat their homes.
- but the speed of progress depends on our embracing science.

And AGW 'science' demands MORE taxes, MORE regulation and MORE corruption.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
I believe the governement is way too big, corrupt, bureaucratic, and awash in special interest money.


Like teacher union money and govt controlled schools?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013

And of course dj couldn't support this govt indoctrination:

"Pending nationwide science standards will recommend that K-12 students at public schools learn about climate change to help fill a knowledge gap concerning the subject, while skepticism will be discouraged.

Read more: http://dailycalle...OzQRkOme

Especially the discouragement of skepticism.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
And of course dj couldn't support this govt indoctrination:

I don't support any kind of indoctrination.

So what is your point Rygg? - oh that's right - you don't have one.

Let me ask you a question though. Wealthy industrialists in the industrial revolution set up massive sweat shops - and made vast fortunes - at the expense of young orphans. Do you believe the government had an appropriate role in legislating against this practice? If yes - does that make you a socialist who wants to plunder the wealth of hard working capitalists? What about environmental regulations - should the government have legislated against the use of lead in gasoline? If you answer yes to either of these questions - then I think you recognize the complexity of thorny questions like 'where are the lines in terms of government intervention vs free agency?'
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
at the expense of young orphans

Those orphans were wards of the state. A state that 'sold' them off for work.
Children who had parents preferred they attended school.

The point is you claimed you wife was a teacher. Do you support the NEA and public school indoctrination?

What about environmental regulations

What about them?

I would rather abolish the EPA, the FDA and all rest and switch to the concept that one can sue to stop anyone from violating my property rights. Including poisoning my atmosphere.
Your way supports a Regulatory State in which the companies like Enron can actively support polices like Kyoto that would have benefited Enron.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
Regarding 'child' labor, the Regulatory State now has laws the keep teens who want to work, and need to work, from working. They are minimum wage laws.
Who benefits from this? Unions and politicians, the Regulatory State.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2013
The point is you claimed you wife was a teacher. Do you support the NEA and public school indoctrination?

What is your problem? I stated that I do not support indoctrination. Can you not read? The answer to your question is no - I do not support the NEA, or indoctrination. I think that home schooling is probably the best way to go for education - parents taking responsibility for being parents. My wife is a great teacher - one of many. They deal with a bloated, inept education system - but we have to feed ourselves.

"and switch to the concept that one can sue to stop anyone from violating my property rights. Including poisoning my atmosphere."

We can disagree on this one - when you are dead - you cannot sue. Look at what happened in Bhopal. Union carbide had the money to manipulate the court system - then went bankrupt. Your system stinks.

On child labor - notice how you always duck the questions. Do you support sending 10 yr old children down the coal mines?

ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013
Why should the EPA be trusted?
"In terms of EPA's regulatory process, the
Iuspector General (IG) further states that "[mJany policies are out of date or are based on outdated
science and technology."!O As part of the update on its High-Risk Program, GAO highlighted concerns
about EPA politicization of science, saying that "[i]n recent years, concerns have been raised regarding
the perceived politicization of science in agency decisions."!! In 2009, GAO added EPA's handling of
toxic chemicals through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to its list of areas at high risk for
waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.!2 Similarly, the chair of a 2009 National Academy of
Sciences panel on ways to improve the Agency's risk assessment told the EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) and Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) earlier this year that the risk assessment
process was the Agency's "Achilles heel.,,!3"
FOSTERING QUALITY SCIENCE AT EPA:
THE NEED FOR COMMON SENSE REFORM
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
A fine example of the Regulatory State.
"The latest example involved Lisa Jackson, who has led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since the beginning of the president's first term. Jackson is resigning, but only after it was revealed she used a fake name (Richard Windsor) to create a fake e-mail address to conduct official EPA business.

What Jackson did contravenes federal law which, because as a nation we value open and transparent government, prohibits such behavior."
"Carol Browner, who led the agency under Bill Clinton and then served for a time as President Obama's "environmental czar" – ordered the hard drive on her government computer erased and reformatted and all backup tapes destroyed only hours after a federal judge had ordered the EPA to preserve all agency e-mail records."
http://www.breitb...ails-epa
EPA science must not bee too sound if they must cover it up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
Look at what happened in Bhopal. Union carbide had the money to manipulate the court system

No, it was the corrupt Indian govt regulations that caused the accident.
Another fine example of a Regulatory State designed to benefit the politicians.
"What had begun as a Carbide subsidiary for packaging pesticides was now a government-directed business manufacturing and storing a deadly chemical in a technologically backward culture. Those were not business decisions. Those were political decisions."
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
Last year I had an infection - my doctor prescribed cipro - and my infection cleared up. That is trusting science.


So, what if you are allergic to penicillin, and your doctor mistakenly prescribes amoxicillin, will you assume he knows best and take the meds? Or will you question his decision?

I'm not talking about homeopathy, but about decisions that might kill you. If you are not willing to question authority, you might just find yourself drinking the Kool-Aid. But of course, he is a doctor, so you will assume he knows best. Folly.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
Valley Fever causes symptoms such as coughing, chest pain, fever, weight loss and night sweats--symptoms caused by many different kinds of pneumonia. "In the office, a doctor isn't able to tell what kind of pneumonia you have--whether it's Valley Fever, or a bacterial pneumonia or a viral pneumonia--unless specific tests are done," says Dr. John Galgiani, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona. "Unless a doctor decides to do those tests, they may just assume it's a bacterial infection (and) treat for that.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Doctors follow the Pareto Principle. What if they don't test for the 20%?
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
"One extrapolation suggests that 180,000 people die each year partly as a result of iatrogenic injury."

"The Joint Commission's Annual Report on Quality and Safety 2007 found that inadequate communication between healthcare providers, or between providers and the patient and family members, was the root cause of over half the serious adverse events in accredited hospitals."

So perhaps 50% of medical errors could be prevented if there were better communication between provider and patients. Yet dir says we should simply accept whatever recommendation a physician makes because it is necessary to put trust in science.

At the same time, he says we should simply accept whatever scientific consensus there is, without employing our gift of critical thinking.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2013
"Sir David King, later declared that climate change was "more serious even than the threat of terrorism" in terms of the number of lives that could be lost. Such language is never used about the cold, which kills at least 10 times as many people every winter."

"Since Sir David's exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy. Instead of making sure energy was affordable, ministers have been trying to make it more expensive, with carbon price floors and emissions trading schemes. Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food – and government has found itself a major part of the problem. "http://www.telegr...out.html

Yes, let's just trust the authorities, they know best.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013
At the same time, he says we should simply accept whatever scientific consensus there is, without employing our gift of critical thinking.


This is why so many 'liberal' 'scientists' support and defend the Regulatory State. It' irrational if one wants to promote liberty and prosperity (anti-socialism).
Real scientists have little power (which really seems to piss some off as they whine about no one listening them ) but when they work for the EPA or NASA or NOAA or some other govt agency they have to power to force the rest of use to accept their 'science'.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
Claudius: "Yes, let's just trust the authorities, they know best."

You are conflating science with 'the authorities'. That is very disingenuous of you. Let me ask you a question - do you support vaccinating children? I do - because that is what the current science tells us is the right thing to do. I did not do the research myself on this issue. I don't have the qualifications to analyze data on that level. I trust the medical profession.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
I trust the medical profession.

You are asserting THEY are the authorities.
There ARE medical doctors and other scientists who do not agree with the 'medical profession'.
BTW, who ARE the medical profession? The American Medical Association? 30-40% of MD belong. The US government CDC? The world govt WHO?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2013
And what is happening in renewable energy? Govt subsidies and excessive taxes and regulations on fossil fuel. So much so thousands in the UK can't afford to heat their homes.
And AGW 'science' demands MORE taxes, MORE regulation and MORE corruption.

Science demands nothing. It is the politicians who do that. And in a representative democracy you/I vote those politicians in. If you are in the minority, tough, that's the way it works. Thankfully in the UK we elect on the basis of a Party manifesto and leave them to carry that out in the Parliamentary term. They are free do do that so long as they have a majority and can listen to scientific advice largely free of lobbying. Also £112 ( < 10% ) composes taxes - it says here...http://www.dailym...ney.html
Older folk get a fuel allowance ( £200/300 ) http://www.ageuk....enefits/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
"Furthermore, a clinical trial of vaccine efficacy is unable to predict accurately the level of protection that will be achieved in public health practice. Vaccination effectiveness can be evaluated in a prospective clinical trial, although few such studies have been undertaken. Effectiveness is usually assessed retrospectively, sometimes using a screening test, but more often in a case-control or cohort study. In these studies, rigorous risk adjustment is necessary to ensure the comparability of study populations. Retrospective studies also provide a means for assessing serious but rare vaccine-associated adverse events, an undertaking often needed to maintain public confidence in vaccination programmes."
http://www.ncbi.n.../9855432
Is this the 'medical profession'?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
Science demands nothing. It is the politicians who do that.

"Eminent climatologist James Hansen will urge U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to support a carbon tax, in a letter to be sent this week, Hansen said. "
"Stephen Chu, director, Univ. of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.""
"William Moomaw, Professor of International Environmental Policy and Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, Tufts University:The most straightforward and effective policy changes would include a carbon tax."

Those that practice science make demands and in the case of Chu, and others, become bureaucrats implement their demands.
And then there is the unelected EU technocrats.
SamB
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
I think the question should be, "Is religion causing global warming".
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
You are asserting THEY are the authorities. There ARE medical doctors and other scientists who do not agree with the 'medical profession'. BTW, who ARE the medical profession? The American Medical Association? 30-40% of MD belong. The US government CDC? The world govt WHO?

Notice Rygg never actually answers the question. The question was - do you believe in vaccinating your children. Rygg is not aware of the process of science - the process of research - backed up by publishing articles - and the scientific community then going to town to try to tear the research apart. Dr. Andrew Wakefield claimed that vaccines caused autism. Many children are probably dead today because of his pseudo-science. The scientific community tore his work apart - and we now have a scientific consensus that it is good public policy to listen to the experts. I support that process - I guess we just have a disagreement - and should leave it at that.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
Claudius: "Since Sir David's exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy."

Your citing this newspaper article show incredibly lazy and sloppy thinking. I could argue it on so many levels. The article does not give any citation for the statistics - so we cannot dig into the data. How many of these people died because they could not afford heat? How many would have died if the fuel would have been cheaper due to no carbon taxes? Does the British government have programs to fund people who are unable to afford their heating bills? How much did these carbon taxes increase the cost of fuel?

Are you aware Claudius that fuel costs in the U.S. are extremely low right now - thanks in large part to research sponsored by the U.S. Government to develop fracking? Or that wind energy - as a result of government support mechanisms is driving down the cost of energy across the U.S.cont
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
cont. - Do you support these government programs to keep the cost of energy low Claudius?

It is fascinating how you and Rygg twist every topic to become a discussion of politics. I do not wish to discuss the politics. My argument has always been in support of letting the science take it's course - and trusting the process of science. You always need to twist it to politics. You assert a global conspiracy of scientists - then when challenged on this subject - you do yoga - and start talking about politics.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013
"My argument has always been in support of letting the science take it's course - and trusting the process of science. You always need to twist it to politics. You assert a global conspiracy of scientists"

Firstly, I did not say there was a conspiracy of scientists. I said there was a conspiracy of elites who are manipulating science, a very big difference.

Second, my recent comments are mainly about your assertion that we should not use our capacity for critical thought and simply accept whatever the scientific consensus arrives at, which in my opinion is anti-scientific.

I haven't been very unclear about this, but you continue to misunderstand my points.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013
My argument has always been in support of letting the science take it's course

How do you decide when the course has been reached and it has not been altered by politics?
Scientists followed the course of eugenics 100 years ago leading to some nasty politics in the USA and Germany and it persists today with Planned Parenthood. Is this the kind of course you want science to follow?
Maybe you should pay attention to politics.
Claudius
1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
"I did not do the research myself on this issue. I don't have the qualifications to analyze data on that level. I trust the medical profession."

In a previous post I think you also said you are not qualified to determine the validity of AGW, and leave that up to the scientists, as well.

I spent a considerable amount of my life in university, long ago. One thing I was told then and believe even more firmly now, is that education is what you have after you have forgotten what you have learned. What is meant by this is that a good education teaches you how to think, how to analyze facts and think for yourself. My education did not end on graduation, and I educate myself on a wide range of interests. I have a hunger for knowledge. It is as much a part of me as breathing.

Your attitude of intellectual surrender is difficult for me to comprehend.

djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
"I haven't been very unclear about this, but you continue to misunderstand my points."

I think I understand your points very well - and have tried hard to respond to them. I think we just have a disagreement.

"Your attitude of intellectual surrender is difficult for me to comprehend."

I find your attitude very contradictory. I don't think it is intellectual surrender - to recognize that we live in a highly complex universe - and it is not possible for one person to become an expert on everything. Therefore - trusting a larger process is the appropriate approach. For example - how old is the earth? Did you do the research on this? Do you have the tools to analyze this question? One group says it is less than 10,000 years old. The science says it is 3.5 billion years old. I am willing to trust the process of science in the determination of the age of the earth. That is not intellectual surrender - that is a valid determination that there is a process called science, cont.
djr
5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
that process works, and that process can be trusted. I have a text book on physiology on my book shelf. When I want to know something about the human body - I pull out my old text book. That is not intellectual surrender - stop throwing around insulting terms.

On another point - you stress the importance of critical thinking. Then you throw an article out that is pure slop (the telegraph article about death from the cold). No reference to original data that would allow us to dig deeper. What about comparative global data - how many people have died globally from heat - vs. from cold. I grew up in the south of England. Our house had one heat source - a coal fire in the living room. We had no heat in the upstairs. I lived through the winter of 63. People were not dying like flies of the cold. Your article is pure slop - and yet you preach the importance of critical thinking. Do you see the contradiction - you clearly did not exhibit good critical thinking here.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013
Maybe you should pay attention to politics.

I pay a great attention to politics. My t.v is permanently tuned to msnbc (smile). Maybe you should stop playing yoga and actually answer a question. Oh no - that would be hard.
Claudius
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
"Then you throw an article out that is pure slop (the telegraph article about death from the cold)."

Ok. "The impact of global warming on health and mortality" Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London

"Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold." "even in climates as warm as southern Europe or North Carolina [USA], cold weather causes more deaths than hot weather."

And aside from that source, living in northern Minnesota, I know many people must make a choice between food and heating. At the same time, efforts are being made to increase the cost of energy through carbon taxes.

Claudius
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2013
"For example - how old is the earth? Did you do the research on this?"

In the sense that I retrieved rock samples and dated them in the lab? No. In the sense that I have read the research? Yes. Can I discern that the notion that the world is only 10,000 or so years old is total nonsense? Yes. Was I in ignorance until you mentioned it and had to go look it up? No. Why? Because I have a hungry mind. I may not be able to "become an expert on everything" but I don't see the acquisition of knowledge to be an insurmountable task. Instead of looking on the sheer volume of knowledge available and despairing of ever being able to know it all, I look upon it and see a great feast, and just don't know where to begin. I don't put it aside and wait until I need the knowledge before I look it up.

I still find your attitude incomprehensible. As you say, we disagree.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
"Even The Economist's accompanying "leader" on the issue sends out a subtle surrender signal:

Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Good policies—strategies for adapting to higher sea levels and changing weather patterns, investment in agricultural resilience, research into fossil-fuel-free ways of generating and storing energy—are wise precautions even in a world where sensitivity is low. So is putting a price on carbon and ensuring that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come."
Note this is from The Economist, the UK economics journal that has been an AGW cheerleader for decades.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
The problem with AGW 'science' is not science in the Popperian sense.
Climate in an emergent system and must be modeled with empirical computer models. No computer model can ever be perfect and if one is trying to use a computer to model climate, even if all the input variables are known, not everything CAN be modeled.
Freeman Dyson understood:
""I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson."
""Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet," he says."
http://www.thereg...eresies/
Note the date: 2007.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013
Claudius - please read the article that you yourself have referenced - to support a sloppy newspaper article that is attacking the science of global warming.

Claudius - you claim to have such great critical thinking skills. You persistently post on articles that mention global warming. You intentionally contribute to the anti global warming crowd that spreads disinformation on this science web site. Now - go read the article that you yourself referenced - it is very enlightening. You cannot have your cake and eat it. I will end with a quote from a very enlightening article. Thanks for posting this article. I now have it bookmarked. Perhaps you will now wonder about your own critical thinking skills - as you argue against global warming - but post articles that are so clear in their support of the science of global warming. Some how I doubt you will do that. cont.

Source article: http://www.medsca...494582_5
djr
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013
cont "Further warming over several centuries could cause much larger rises, with massive flooding of heavily populated regions. It would also cause climate changes affecting the habitability of many parts of the world and might increase net mortality rates in some tropical countries."

"In the medium term, the likelihood is that despite some measures of this kind, substantial global warming will continue and will require action to deal with its effects on health. Fortunately, effective action is available."
Parsec
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2013
Politicians happen to be in charge of how money is spent on research, and can reward and punish scientists based on how well they adhere to the political agenda. While it is correct to say that politicians cannot affect science, it is not correct to say they cannot affect the behavior of scientists. Especially in today's corrupt world.


You can use this argument to argue any position you wish. Just assume that the scientific arguments used against you are based on corrupt science or conspiracy. This saves you the effort of having an open mind, or considering other positions.
Claudius
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2013

Source article: http://www.medsca...494582_5


Your link is broken. In any case, I often reference articles that support AGW, if that is what you are getting at.

And the point still is, cold weather kills more than warm weather. Deliberately raising energy costs is hurting people.
Claudius
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2013
"You can use this argument to argue any position you wish."

The existence of a conspiracy isn't necessary to criticize the AGW argument. It does illuminate the why of it, though.

As far as specific arguments against AGW, they have all been said before, and dismissed. So why bring them all up again? Time will tell in this situation.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013
And the point still is, cold weather kills more than warm weather. Deliberately raising energy costs is hurting people.


This appears to be the current "skeptic" myth of the month ...
http://www.medpag...lth/6065

You need to isolated cold as apposed to winter months, when other factors at play eg lower immune system due lack vit C and prevalence of viruses.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 31, 2013
cold weather kills more than warm weather.

Yes, especially food crops.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
This appears to be the current "skeptic" myth of the month ...
http://www.medpag...lth/6065

They acknowledged that their study was limited by the inability to control for air pollution other than ozone, because there were insufficient data on the levels of particulate matter during the study period, and this could have confounded results.

That paper is flawed if not biased. Try again.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
Claudius: "Your link is broken. In any case, I often reference articles that support AGW, if that is what you are getting at"

Strange - it wont link back without joining - here is the google search that I used - the first hit takes you to the article. https://www.googl...mp;q=The impact of global warming on health and mortality Southern Medical Journal in 2004%2C W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson Read&oq=The impact of global warming on health and mortality Southern Medical Journal in 2004%2C W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson Read&gs_l=serp.3...36008.43131.0.44377.70.18.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.1.7.serp.ezGMImdF0Ks

Does this mean you had not actually read the article - but you linked to it as part of your argument - that is sloppy.

Here is my point again - you claim to have such great critical thinking skills - but you reference an incredibly sloppy newspaper article - that is based on an article that actually contradicts the premise of the article...
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
And the point still is, cold weather kills more than warm weather. Deliberately raising energy costs is hurting people.

You have not defended that conclusion in any way. The Telegraph article you linked to was total slop - I addressed it above. The research the Telegraph article appears to be based on - is not global - and therefore does not support your conclusion. The telegraph article was clearly trying to be anti global warming ('we are focusing on the wrong issue') and yet the research it was based on is clearly very much a support of current climate science consensus. Your reasoning here is sloppy - and definitely does ot support a claim of someone who has great critical thinking skills. Neither you or Rygg ever answered the question about vaccinating children.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013
Deliberately raising energy costs is hurting people.

If you are really serious about making energy cheaper - support renewables. Methane in the U.S. is currently about $3.50 MMbtu - although much of the gas here is not economically recoverable at less than around $5. Read this article on the falling cost of renewables. http://cleantechn...p-study/

On a level playing field - renewables are the future.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
On a level playing field - renewables are the future.

Like cow dung being used around the world for carbon credit?
EPA rule are hiking electricity rates in the US. All with the blessings of 'liberals', those who claim to be for the poor.
dj keeps saying 'level playing field' and claims NOT to support big govt. How does plan to 'level the playing field'? The preferred method now being used is MORE govt regulations on everything.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
cold weather kills more than warm weather.

Yes, especially food crops.


WHAT??? Drought
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2013
This appears to be the current "skeptic" myth of the month ...
http://www.medpag...lth/6065

They acknowledged that their study was limited by the inability to control for air pollution other than ozone, because there were insufficient data on the levels of particulate matter during the study period, and this could have confounded results.

That paper is flawed if not biased. Try again.


No, how about you link to an "unflawed" paper.
As i said, you need to separate out "cold" from "Winter". The two are not the same.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
And the point still is, cold weather kills more than warm weather. Deliberately raising energy costs is hurting people.

You have not defended that conclusion in any way. The Telegraph article you linked to was total slop - I addressed it above. The research the Telegraph article appears to be based on - is not global - and therefore does not support your conclusion. The telegraph article was clearly trying to be anti global warming ('we are focusing on the wrong issue') and yet the research it was based on is clearly very much a support of current climate science consensus. Your reasoning here is sloppy - and definitely does ot support a claim of someone who has great critical thinking skills. ....

djr ... "- is not global - "

The above shows up repeatedly, "they" cannot think in global terms. It always comes down to selfish ones. And as recent thread comments have driven home to me - Irredeemably political. AGW doesn't agree with that and by default "wrong".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
"they" cannot think in global terms. It always comes down to selfish ones

Like the selfish socialists?

In a global economy free of most socialist trade restrictions, consumer self interest would prevail over the selfish politicians enabling prompt response to changing climates.
That's what your ancestors did as they followed the melting glaciers and populated northern Europe.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2013
They think its cold now, wait till the gulf stream shuts down.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
So we now see the truth behind Claudius and his politiaclly motivated reasons for posting to this site. He is not interested in the science, despite the whine he added to a different thread. He admits to misrepresenting his purpose, he admits he does not follow the science, and in this thread he admits that his motivation for posting here is purely to promote his particular vision of the politics.

An admitted liar and a schill. His words carry no weight.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
And there's Rygg, who sees a socialist behind everything and under every bed. Another who posts here only to promote his particularly twisted and paranoid version of the politics.

At least Rygg is not a liar, to the extent that everything he does or says comes back to how the socialists he sees everywhere are responsible for him hiding in his backyard bunker.

A paranoid conspiracist. His words carry no weight.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
And so we come back to the same thing. When pressed, we find that every voice on here who argues that the science behind madmade global warming is wrong is not here to discuss the science, but rather here to press forward their particular view of the politics and to try to score points in some imaginary game they think they can "win". Every single one of them has admitted that they believe there is a conspiracy involving everyone except some enlightened few, to promote some nefarious scheme by which to enslave humanity and get themselves rich.

No wonder there are less and less people who listen to their stupidity.

Arguing with them is a waste of time, as they are as dogmatic in their belief of a conspiracy as those who dogmatically stick to the believe that the earth is flat. There is no proof you can provide. There is no logical argument you can make. They have decided.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
"they" cannot think in global terms. It always comes down to selfish ones

Like the selfish socialists?


AGW demands worldwide action and you seem to equate acting collectively to "socialism". You and other's constant referall to taxes is quite enough to betray where your allegiances lie. You really fussed what taxes I pay? No of course not. Just yours. As I said, selfish. And highly politically motivated in your AGW denial. Also no ... I am Liberal Democrat by inclination ( UK version ).
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013

Arguing with them is a waste of time, as they are as dogmatic in their belief of a conspiracy as those who believe the earth is flat. There is no proof you can provide. There is no logical argument you can make. They have decided.


Maggnus ... All very true and, as you say, fruitless. In that we will not make the slightest mark on them. But as I've said on here before, I abhor ignorance and will deny it wherever I have the knowledge to do so. I refuse to be dragged down the level of the Middle Ages and the fate of Galileo. If you argue against the science on the basis of politics or are ignorant of the basics of how the climate system works - then you disqualify yourself from credible negative comment on here.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2013
AGW demands worldwide action and you seem to equate acting collectively to "socialism"

Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism.
That's what the ineffective AGW carbon taxes are, plunder for the selfish socialists like Al Gore and Buffet.
When pressed, we find that every voice on here who argues that the science behind madmade global warming is wrong is not here to discuss the science,


What AGWite wants to discuss the science? Anyone who questions AGW is shouted down with 'the science is settled', no further discussion.
Even The Economist is beginning to question AGW. They have been an AGW cheerleader for years.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
I understand your desire runrig, and I don't even disagree with it. The problem is that one becomes caught up in a spiral of dealing with the minutia, when any tiny (or even not so tiny) inconsistancy becomes fodder for one of these conspiracist's eureka moments, where they use that minute inconsistancy as a basis upon which to deny everything. One must then spend countless hours arguing whether its flyshit or pepper.

This forum simply cannot support such discussions, and as a result the science ends up getting buried under pages of misrepresentations, cherry picked data and cries of conspiracy.

And, in the end, you end up right back at the same spot. Every bit of evidence, logic and proof you've patiently set out is denied as if it was never said in the very next article that comes up. I want to talk about solutions and mitigation, but instead I get caught up in arguing against the same misrepresentations and outright lies as have been debunked many times.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013

What AGWite wants to discuss the science? Anyone who questions AGW is shouted down with 'the science is settled', no further discussion.
Even The Economist is beginning to question AGW. They have been an AGW cheerleader for years.


A very good article IMO. Balanced.
The science is "settled" in so far as the basic physics. CO2 causes warming in the way that GHG theory, gas theory, Solar theory etc says and has said for decades/ a century or so. What your *type* constantly do is regurgitate climate myths that these basics deny. Aspects of rate/amounts of warming and the meteorology of the climate system as it warms are not settled. What does one do when told that a an aspect of meteorology that I was taught 28 years ago "is absurd". If *you* come on here stating such ignorant bollocks, what response to you expect?

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
I understand your desire runrig, and I don't even disagree with it. The problem is that one becomes caught up in a spiral of dealing with the minutia, when any tiny (or even not so tiny) inconsistancy becomes fodder for one of these conspiracist's eureka moments, where they use that minute inconsistancy as a basis upon which to deny everything. One must then spend countless hours arguing whether its flyshit or pepper.

This forum simply cannot support such discussions ...


Indeed so. However what's the alternative? Unless every potential poster of a critical scientific mind desists from posting a retaliatory post and *they* are left to themselves. To preach to the converted?
Not going to happen.

Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2013
To preach to the converted?
Not going to happen.


Ya, no I agree that can`t be allowed either. One site has been exploring this dilemma, and has suggsted that rather than trying to argue the minutia to rather point out the ridiculousness of the underlying conspiracy. Point it out over and over.

Another study/article suggests scientists submitting their papers stop pussy footing around their findings in a misguided effort to avoid controversy. All that does, it seems, is spur even more loudly shouted cried of conspiracy.

Either way, certainly not giving free rein to the idiots who think all scientists are somehow evil, or pawns, or whatever the hell the current conspiracy accusation is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Apr 01, 2013
Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism
And when they protect those who plunder wealth, what is it then? By the way you are off-topic and also off your rocker.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013

Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013



Yep, pretty neat the way weather changes from year to year. Totally cool graphic btw. Probably only needs to be posted to one article though, becomes a bit redundant otherwise.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2013
all scientists are somehow evil,

" Table 2. Simple Solution to the Problem of False-Positive Publications
Requirements for authors
1. Authors must decide the rule for terminating data collection before data collection begins and report this rule in the article.
2. Authors must collect at least 20 observations per cell or else provide a compelling cost-of-data-collection justification.
3. Authors must list all variables collected in a study.
4. Authors must report all experimental conditions, including failed manipulations.
5. If observations are eliminated, authors must also report what the statistical results are if those observations are included.
6. If an analysis includes a covariate, authors must report the statistical results of the analysis without the covariate."

"If these rules were applied by real_climate_scientists, most of the criticisms at Climate Audit would be eliminated."
http://climateaud...sitives/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013
" Guidelines for reviewers
1. Reviewers should ensure that authors follow the requirements.
2. Reviewers should be more tolerant of imperfections in results.
3. Reviewers should require authors to demonstrate that their results do not hinge on arbitrary analytic decisions.
4. If justifications of data collection or analysis are not compelling, reviewers should require the authors to conduct an exact replication.

If these rules were applied by real_climate_scientists, most of the criticisms at Climate Audit would be eliminated.

However, there are no signs that real_climate_scientists have any intention of adopting these rules, as evidenced by Gavin Schmidt's bilious outrage at the idea that Briffa should have reported the Yamal-Urals regional chronology considered and discarded in favor of the known HS of the small Yamal chronology."
http://climateaud...sitives/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013
Yep, pretty neat the way weather changes from year to year.
Actually, by comparing multiple years, it looks like March of this year is likely to be unusually high, perhaps even a record (but we'll have to wait for the official NOAA report to be sure).

Totally cool graphic btw. Probably only needs to be posted to one article though, becomes a bit redundant otherwise.
It's equally relevant to both articles.

djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Actually, by comparing multiple years, it looks like March of this year is likely to be unusually high, perhaps even a record (but we'll have to wait for the official NOAA report to be sure).

So you are presenting data to support the thesis of the article - which is that global warming is causing harsher winters. Is that correct? If not - what do you feel your comparison of two dates - one from 2012, and one from 2013 actually proves? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Claudius: Does this mean you had not actually read the article - but you linked to it as part of your argument - that is sloppy.

No response Claudius? You confirm my understanding that you are not truly interested in a discussion of the science - rather you are hastily throwing together responses to support your anti science agenda. Referencing articles that you have not even read is very sloppy - and will come back to bite you if the person you are talking with takes the time to read the article. Oh I forgot - it is really about a conspiracy of elites - nothing to do with science!
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2013
Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism.

What is it when neo-cons & libertarians hoard wealth gained at the expense of the many?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2013
Actually, by comparing multiple years, it looks like March of this year is likely to be unusually high, perhaps even a record (but we'll have to wait for the official NOAA report to be sure).
So you are presenting data to support the thesis of the article - which is that global warming is causing harsher winters. Is that correct?
I certainly don't support the notion that global warming is making it colder. This is impossible, as there's been no significant global temperature increases throughout the recent four year period of harsh winters, which is being discussed. In fact, it's generally been sharply cooling during this period:

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

If not - what do you feel your comparison of two dates - one from 2012, and one from 2013 actually proves? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
It shows that this year appears to be an interesting anomaly.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2013
Oops, the graph should have looked like this (last four years of available data):

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2013
"It shows that this year appears to be an interesting anomaly"

Which is called noise - and I will assume you understand that in a highly complex systems such as the climate, that noise is to be expected. Thus - you are posting irrelevant information - apparently with the intent of confusing the issue - very specious.
djr
5 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2013
Oops, the graph should have looked like this (last four years of available data):

So now you pick 4 years of data - again noise - in order to construct a false argument - very specious. If of course you were to cherry pick 20 years of data as opposed to your lesser value of 4 years - you would see that it has been warming significantly for the past 20 years. http://www.woodfo...84/trend

If you took some time out to look at an article like this - http://theenergyc...confirms You would see that cherry picking surface temperature data is also specious - the system is much more complex than just one variable, for a short period of time - and still appears to be warming. I am interested in seeing what the next few years bring.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
Here's an interesting comparative image showing the dramatic increase in Northern Hemisphere Spring snow cover extent, from last year to this year:

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2013



Since you've put up this post on 2 threads - I'll stick up my response on 2 threads...

I didn't look but I know there has been more snow cover this year in the NH. The puzzle is ( by inference ) that you equate it with cooling ( or at least no warming ). We have had a winter of largely negative AO. And as has been repeatedly pointed out on many threads, not least by me - that has pushed cold Arctic originating air further south than is usual, actually getting colder as it does so ( until early Feb ) due location over land and still imbalance in in/out solar radiation. I know you know that more snow is also equated to greater humidity, which is equated to greater warmth. Yes?

cont
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
Cont

Also the article is about "Europe's freezing Easter and global warming" and I have discussed the plausibility of this in meteorological terms on this and other current threads.
Yet, still we've had the 9th warmest warmest February on record. As you americans say. Go figure.
Global winter temperatures.... http://data.giss....;pol=reg
and
http://www.livesc...ure.html
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2013
Oops, the graph should have looked like this (last four years of available data):


I, for one, appreciate you using your graph all cherry picked like that. Why not cherry pick this way?

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

Still shows your four year trend, but also shows the general upward trendover the last 30 years.

Oh wait, I know why you don't do that! It's because we can only use your measure, and because to use a different, more complete and more honest data set would upset your view of the conspiracy!
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism
And when they protect those who plunder wealth, what is it then? By the way you are off-topic and also off your rocker.

It's curious that the sock puppet "lite" appears everywhere except on the rank page of TheGhostofOtto1923. What does that suggest to you, Dr. Watson?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2013
I certainly don't support the notion that global warming is making it colder. This is impossible...

It makes you believe there may be a conspiracy, the title, Global Warming is a misconstrue:

There are two villains in the GW story, CO2 (insulation) and fossil fuels (heating).

Cooling by insulation. Heat is more evenly distributed over the Earth both in time-it takes longer to cool off, and in space-heat is retained everywhere. So the temperature of the planet becomes more even, and glaciers etc. start to melt disproportionate to the amount of warmth (not heat). Result, Global Cooling, because of GW.
Now for fossil fuels, the effect is to put waste heat into the environment, causing weather fronts to carry more energy in the equator-to-pole system. The effects of this are identical to what we observe climate-wise, but for this discussion, again, large amounts of ice are melted, causing cooling.
Or do you not believe melting ice cools your drinks?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2013
Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism
And when they protect those who plunder wealth, what is it then? By the way you are off-topic and also off your rocker.

It's curious that the sock puppet "lite" appears everywhere except on the rank page of TheGhostofOtto1923. What does that suggest to you, Dr. Watson?
Hello dweeb,

As I have pointed out many times in the past, lite often 1/5s me. Please try to pay more attention and also post fewer inanities. Perhaps lite and others wouldnt downrate you quite so often.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013

There are two villains in the GW story, CO2 (insulation) and fossil fuels (heating).

Cooling by insulation. Heat is more evenly distributed over the Earth both in time-it takes longer to cool off, and in space-heat is retained everywhere. So the temperature of the planet becomes more even, and glaciers etc. start to melt disproportionate to the amount of warmth (not heat). Result, Global Cooling, because of GW.
Now for fossil fuels, the effect is to put waste heat into the environment, causing weather fronts to carry more energy in the equator-to-pole system. The effects of this are identical to what we observe climate-wise, but for this discussion, again, large amounts of ice are melted, causing cooling.
Or do you not believe melting ice cools your drinks?


Anyone..
Is it just me?
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2013
I've got three words for you, Ghost:

Frank Herbert & liar
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism.

What is it when neo-cons & libertarians hoard wealth gained at the expense of the many?

They can't and don't hoard any wealth at the expense of anyone.
True capitalists earn wealth by creating product people are persuaded to buy. Profits earned by the capitalists are reinvested into the business, saved for others to invest or spent on products and services the the capitalists want to enjoy, like a yacht or vacations or meals that create jobs and business for other capitalists....
Govt plunder sucks the life out of such capitalist activity.
"Correspondents say the scandal is embarrassing for the French Socialist government which has made fighting tax evasion a priority, as it tries to cut public debt. "
http://www.bbc.co...22006050
Typical socialist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
I've got three words for you, Ghost:

Frank Herbert & liar
Thats 4 words. And you shouldnt be trying to blame your disfunction on me or frank. What was it that tesla had in his pocket again? A steampunk sextoy??
http://blogs.lawe...lank.php
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
Yes, when govts plunder wealth, for any reason, it is socialism.

What is it when neo-cons & libertarians hoard wealth gained at the expense of the many?

They can't and don't hoard any wealth at the expense of anyone..

More denialist BS.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013
More denialist BS.

I second and third that. Where do these creatures come from? Its amazing how much ignorance exists in the world.
Telekinetic
1.2 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2013
I've got three words for you, Ghost:

Frank Herbert & liar
Thats 4 words. And you shouldnt be trying to blame your disfunction on me or frank. What was it that tesla had in his pocket again? A steampunk sextoy??

An ampersand only represents the word "and", because it is a logogram and not an actual word, liar.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
"It shows that this year appears to be an interesting anomaly"
Which is called noise - and I will assume you understand that in a highly complex systems such as the climate, that noise is to be expected.
Funny, that's not what the article says about it.

Thus - you are posting irrelevant information - apparently with the intent of confusing the issue - very specious.
Did you even read the article, or at least look at the pictures? It's extremely relevant. It clearly shows this winter is unusually harsh, as per the article!

Wow. Alarmists are so used to arguing, even when I show evidence which supports an article, I'm automatically assumed to be wrong! What a BUNCH OF MINDLESS SHEEP YOU ARE.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Oops, the graph should have looked like this (last four years of available data):
So now you pick 4 years of data - again noise - in order to construct a false argument - very specious.
IDIOT! Why are you even commenting if you can't be bothered to read the article? THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CLAIMS OF THE ARTICLE!

If of course you were to cherry pick 20 years of data as opposed to your lesser value of 4 years - you would see that it has been warming significantly for the past 20 years. You would see that cherry picking surface temperature data is also specious - the system is much more complex than just one variable, for a short period of time - and still appears to be warming.
This is a lie, and you know it. A 20 year graph only shows warming for the first 4 to 8 years (depending on the dataset used). After that, warming stops, as you have previously admitted.

I am interested in seeing what the next few years bring.
Me too.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
I didn't look but I know there has been more snow cover this year in the NH. The puzzle is ( by inference ) that you equate it with cooling ( or at least no warming ).
Where did I supposedly do that?

We have had a winter of largely negative AO. And as has been repeatedly pointed out on many threads, not least by me - that has pushed cold Arctic originating air further south than is usual, actually getting colder as it does so ( until early Feb ) due location over land and still imbalance in in/out solar radiation. I know you know that more snow is also equated to greater humidity, which is equated to greater warmth. Yes?
No. If it was this simple, it would rain every day in the Sahara.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Cont

Also the article is about "Europe's freezing Easter and global warming" and I have discussed the plausibility of this in meteorological terms on this and other current threads.
Yet, still we've had the 9th warmest warmest February on record. As you americans say. Go figure.
Which only means it's been cooling, not getting warmer, as it's not as hot as it has been.

Global winter temperatures.... http://data.giss....;pol=reg
Neither of your links work, as you apparently copied and pasted from the forum posts during an edit.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Oops, the graph should have looked like this (last four years of available data):
I, for one, appreciate you using your graph all cherry picked like that. Why not cherry pick this way?

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

Still shows your four year trend, but also shows the general upward trendover the last 30 years.

Oh wait, I know why you don't do that! It's because we can only use your measure, and because to use a different, more complete and more honest data set would upset your view of the conspiracy!
As I already told djr: IDIOT! Why are you even commenting if you can't be bothered to read the article? THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CLAIMS OF THE ARTICLE!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2013
Neither of your links work, as you apparently copied and pasted from the forum posts during an edit.



OK ... here
http://data.giss....;pol=reg

http://www.livesc...ure.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2013
Neither of your links work, as you apparently copied and pasted from the forum posts during an edit.
OK ... here
Thank you, but I subsequently saw them on the other thread. I prefer the NOAA data:

http://www.ncdc.n...l/2013/2

and:

http://www.ncdc.n...1302.gif

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2013
The reason you can't agree on warming or cooling is because it is not a significant long term variable.
The Earth has multiple means of buffering temperature changes. Like putting ice cubes in your drink. As long as there is ice, you're going to have a difficult time changing the temperature, except for local varaitions.
But by all means, keep stating the Earth is warming or cooling, it makes y'all look so smart.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2013
IDIOT! Why are you even commenting if you can't be bothered to read the article? THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CLAIMS OF THE ARTICLE!

I comment - because buffoons like you spam the internet with garbage - and I choose to take a couple of minutes to show what buffoons you are - and to help out the others on this board who are fighting stupidity.

Now - I have read - and re-read the article. The scientists talk about looking at harsher winters IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE WORLD during the past 4 years as being an interesting component of global warming. You then re-post the cherry picked global data that shows the global surface temperature plateau that we are all aware of.

That makes stupid - because once again you don't understand the difference between weather, and climate - between short term regional events - and climate. See how stupid that makes you? I did not expect you to. Also - if you start name calling - I will join in - Claudius - mind your business.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2013
Dir says:
I choose to take a couple of minutes to show what buffoons you are - and to help out the others on this board who are fighting stupidity.


I could not agree more! Well said.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2013
So, according to the GW Alarmist Turds, global warming caused by humans started around 1900 and is now responsible for the harsh winters across Europe, but that's only when there are harsh winters, otherwise global warming is responsible for the mild winters. And that's what the Turds call science.
http://www.netwea...ry;sess=
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2013
So, according to the GW Alarmist Turds, global warming caused by humans started around 1900 and is now responsible for the harsh winters across Europe, but that's only when there are harsh winters, otherwise global warming is responsible for the mild winters. And that's what the Turds call science.

Because weather and climate are not the same thing. So a warming climate can cause anomalies. Science is science - the study of what is. Calling scientists turds just reveals you for what your are - very sad person.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2013
Why are you even commenting if you can't be bothered to read the article?
I comment - because buffoons like you spam the internet with garbage - and I choose to take a couple of minutes to show what buffoons you are - and to help out the others on this board who are fighting stupidity.
So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a buffoon who should be put down? How democratic of you (not).

And if what I post is so stupid, why have you agreed with my main contention?

Now - I have read - and re-read the article. The scientists talk about looking at harsher winters IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE WORLD during the past 4 years as being an interesting component of global warming.
Generally speaking, this has affected virtually the entire Northern Hemisphere (including places not mentioned here, like Russia and China).

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2013
You then re-post the cherry picked global data that shows the global surface temperature plateau that we are all aware of.
Idiot. You didn't even bother to read my post before disagreeing with it. Try again.

That makes stupid
You surely did.

because once again you don't understand the difference between weather, and climate - between short term regional events - and climate. See how stupid that makes you?
So you're saying then that the article we're posting in is itself stupid? Do you still not realize the four year period is in direct reference to the article?

So, who's the stupid one of us now?

I did not expect you to. Also - if you start name calling - I will join in - Claudius - mind your business.
When did you ever stop?

Am I mistaken? Or didn't your very first response to my post accuse me of being "specious?"

Hypocrite much?

runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2013
So, according to the GW Alarmist Turds, global warming caused by humans started around 1900 and is now responsible for the harsh winters across Europe, but that's only when there are harsh winters, otherwise global warming is responsible for the mild winters. And that's what the Turds call science.
http://www.netwea...ry;sess=


Nearly right - what us turds are saying is that research has exposed a link between Arctic warming - because that is the originating effect - may give rise to colder arctic air spilling south in some winters. what's so hard to understand about that? It is merely a shifting of air-masses. It's the thing that meteorologists model around the globe. Weather ( this is weather in a seasonal sense ) is made by the moving of air-masses with their inherent characteristics. To reflexively shout rubbish because it is counter intuitive to your simplistic concept of lock-step warming says more about you than it does science.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2013
Nearly right - what us turds are saying is that research has exposed a link between Arctic warming - because that is the originating effect - MAY give rise to colder arctic air spilling south in some winters......

what's so hard to understand about that?

Making such a statement while ignoring the historical record that shows such behavior has existed pre/throughout what you call GW.
In fact the data in the link I provided shows conditions far worse during Artic cooling but AGW Alarmist Turds would turn a blind eye to the facts and then insult others into doing the same.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2013
So you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a buffoon who should be put down? How democratic of you (not).

No I believe that you are a buffoon. Someone who demonstrates that they do not even understand the difference between weather and climate - and yet wants to push their advanced knowledge of how climate science has it wrong, and they understand the situation so clearly - is in my view a buffoon.

So you're saying then that the article we're posting in is itself stupid? Do you still not realize the four year period is in direct reference to the article?

Yes I did - and we keep covering the same ground - perhaps a comprehension problem on your part. The article is talking about weather - you keep posting data that refers to climate - they are different - you seem incapable of understanding the difference - such a fundamental misunderstanding.
cont.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2013
cont.
Idiot. You didn't even bother to read my post before disagreeing with it. Try again.

Yes I did - there is an argument in my response - summarized - it is that weather and climate are different - this article is about weather - but you insist on posting global data - this is a fundamental mismatch - you appear incapable of comprehending the argument.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2013
.. what's so hard to understand about that? Making such a statement while ignoring the historical record that shows such behavior has existed pre/throughout what you call GW. In fact the data in the link I provided shows conditions far worse during Artic cooling but AGW Alarmist Turds would turn a blind eye to the facts and then insult others into doing the same.


Have you ever come across the phenomenom that the presence of something by one means does not disqualify it's presence by other means? No one is saying harsh European winters haven't happened before and your link ( thanks BTW - hadn't seen that before and useful look-up. And it's a site I use every day ) - many of them come during the Maunder/Dalton minima 1645-1715 and 1790-1830. Climate scientists, far from turning "a blind eye to the facts and then insult others into doing the same." know full well of this link, and several papers have been reported on here. Some below.

cont
The Alchemist
2 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2013
So, in review, the AGW-ers completely toasted the Deniers, in a score of 13 to 4.
Note to Deniers: You should disagree with the physics just because it doesn't apparently support your believe. Lots of phenomena have contradictory seeming conclusions.

In other news: Why do people disagree with and rate other people's posts without even reading them?
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2013
Cont

http://phys.org/n...led.html

http://phys.org/n...917.html

So the "ignoring the historical record" is far from ignored - it's just that your reflexive hatred for "AGW alarmist Turds" blinds you to critical thinking.
If you are insulted by my pointing out your lack of understanding of the science then why not research it and dispel some of that ignorance.

PS: the conditions in the years of your link would have been worse - at least in London - there was the old bridge blocking the flow in the Thames - now long gone. AND of course there was no GW so the air would no doubt have been more severely cold with the initial arctic ice more firmly in place and colder seas around the edges. The Earths historical climate is well known and certainly not "ignored" but I say again there are sound physical reasons why things are different through recent winters. Read my posts, it will explain why.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2013
Ah Alchemist - I've trying to get you ....

I posted this some time ago ... actually a repeat of a post even before that, and again some time before that.
A response would be appreciated. ...
We release enough energy everyday as 10 nuclear weapons, mostly near these cities. How can there not be AGW?


I did a calculation based on Wiki's estimation of solar energy input ( 10,548 EJ/day ) and the energy released by the Hiroshima bomb ( 75 TJ ) so 750TJ for 10 bombs. That's a factor of 10*8 difference ????????? From the energy received by the Sun each day. Is this the calculation you are working on?
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
@runrig-
No idea what you're asking.
I was demonstrating the scenrios by which heating a system could cause it to cool.
The mechanism is heat is absorbed-by melting ice, for example, then by the cold, 0 degree C water going places and cooling them off.
Not rocket science.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2013
Sorry @runrig, I just saw you're latest post, it wasn't there just a second ago, despite the 10hr stamp... I did respond (below), but it was buried in the usual clap-trap.
Here's the math:
178200000 joules/gal of gasoline
10200000 gal/day
1.81764E 15 joules/day (same as a Nuke)
1.00E 06 ml/m3
4.186 joules/deg of water
4.19E 06 joules to heat 1 m3 1 deg
4.34E 08 m3 of water heated 1 deg/day OR
334 J/g of ice
5.44E 06 m3 of ice melted per day
the world burns about 10x this in fossil fuels daily
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
No I believe that you are a buffoon. Someone who demonstrates that they do not even understand the difference between weather and climate - and yet wants to push their advanced knowledge of how climate science has it wrong, and they understand the situation so clearly - is in my view a buffoon.
But aren't you the one going on and on about weather conditions and ignoring the temperature data? Since when has it been called, global ice conditions and sea levels?

Yes I did - and we keep covering the same ground - perhaps a comprehension problem on your part. The article is talking about weather - you keep posting data that refers to climate
Isn't the article talking about climate ("global warming") in relation to weather ("harsh winters")? Oh looky, they're both right there in the title! How could you miss it?

- they are different - you seem incapable of understanding the difference - such a fundamental misunderstanding.
LOL. It appears this is your problem.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
Idiot. You didn't even bother to read my post before disagreeing with it. Try again.
Yes I did - there is an argument in my response - summarized - it is that weather and climate are different - this article is about weather - but you insist on posting global data - this is a fundamental mismatch - you appear incapable of comprehending the argument.
Are you really so stupid that you don't see this article is tying weather phenomena to climate?

Hmm... Are you perhaps a spambot?

Don't look now, but your lack of comprehension is showing. LOL

(can you read words in parenthesis?)

H-ow a-bowt miss-spelt an-d diss-join-ted wo-rds?

runrig
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2013
Alchemist ...
@runrig, no offence buddy, but weather reports are only good for scaring people to the store to buy milk and eggs, they've become increasingly worse through the years (???!!!). And I hate to say it but weather is not climate ... So, all, how about a reason, not a job description. ..... Heat raises the temperature of your home, so I can understand why everone is confused by heat NOT raising the temp of the Earth. But apply some neurons already.


OK, just seen your follow up and have toned this reply down, but still "chiding" smacks as a know-all being condecending.

OK if you think forecasts are only worth getting with your "milk and eggs" Try verifying your local forecast sometime - you'll find it very accurate, also try telling that to a military aviator when you brief him for a low level training flight.

Cont
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2013
Cont

The "job description" was to highlight that I am more than science literate when it comes to the atmosphere and the subject of this article. A neg AO NH winter is certainly meteorology and weather in it's seasonal effect. It is that I understand - as to the climate being continually affected by such - I have sympathy but it needs study.

You state you are physical chemist, therfore I give you respect for that. Please do me the courtesy and reciprocate with respect for my (ex) profession.
Also I took your "10 nukes" allusion" to relate to GW in total, as in rising sea/land/air temperatures and melting ice. And of course I know about latent heat of fusion, it's basic met physics. I still don't see how a factor of 10*8 diff in incoming Solar to spent energy can possibly do all that? It's only a hundred millionth. I will need to work through your maths to see if they tally with known ice melt etc.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
Uba:Are you really so stupid that you don't see this article is tying weather phenomena to climate?

I think it is you who is stupid - and repeatedly demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between climate and weather - and also that there is a difference between a short term, regional event, and global climate. You constantly present a graph pulled off woodfortrees - showing that there is a plateau in surface temperature data. It is repeatedly pointed out to you that put in the context of a complex climate system - your little graph proves nothing. Then on the next article - you present the same (or similar) cherry picked data - and the whole cycle starts over. What was that about spambot? Buffoon fits the bill well.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
The alchemist asks:
In other news: Why do people disagree with and rate other people's posts without even reading them?


Oh I don't know. I gave you a 5 after reading yours though.
The Alchemist
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
Yep, I regret trying to be funny at 200am after a rough day... sorry to direct it at you...
runrig
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2013
Yep, I regret trying to be funny at 200am after a rough day... sorry to direct it at you...


Alchemist - If this is directed at me as an apology then it is accepted. You are a scientist and bring that discipline to the *discussions* on here. AS I do. There are many who just bring their prejudice and political bent, displaying no more scientific insight than an Amoeba. Their minds will never be enlightened.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2013
Uba:Are you really so stupid that you don't see this article is tying weather phenomena to climate?

I think it is you who is stupid - and repeatedly demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between climate and weather - and also that there is a difference between a short term, regional event, and global climate. You constantly present a graph pulled off woodfortrees - showing that there is a plateau in surface temperature data. It is repeatedly pointed out to you that put in the context of a complex climate system - your little graph proves nothing. Then on the next article - you present the same (or similar) cherry picked data - and the whole cycle starts over. What was that about spambot? Buffoon fits the bill well.
Interesting, nothing in there acknowledges this article is linking regional weather to global climate. Why is that?