@Tomas

2009 prediction of 2010 warming hasn't fully come to pass. There's 3 months left of the year. The rest of 2010 temps worldwide are well on their way to making 2010 one of the hot, if not hottest, years on record. Hansen's newest prediction is 2012 will beat 2010 levels. We'll have to wait and watch what transpired.

The other thing I see going on is China is attempting to corner the alternative energy market. They'll soon have 50% of the solar and about 40% of the windmill manufacturing in the world. To China this has meant jobs for well over a million workers. Instead in the USA we're ####ing on each other to prove whose right about CO2. It's a bit sad we can't start meeting the new technology demands internally. I wish my nation, read neighbors, had the millions of new employment.

@BrianK
You know what i think of the quality of the temperature data

Btw.. did you know that there is a new study that found that arctic ice levels are higher than large parts of holocene?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/
But i guess that aint as interesting as "corrected" temperatures?

@Tomas

Your favourite site "Watts Up With That?" claims there is a "Peer reviewed study [that] says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years".

Reading this peer reviewed study (http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf) interestingly revealed that the "Watts Up With That?"-article is a deceptive misrepresentation of this work:

While "Watts Up With That?" titles "Peer reviewed study [that] says current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years", the study itself clearly states:
"Results indicate a decrease in sea-ice cover and a corresponding, albeit
much smaller, increase in summer sea-surface temperature over the past 9000 years."

No talk about "current Arctic sea ice is more extensive than most of the past 9000 years".
Furthermore the study just refers to a small sub-region of the arctic (namely site HLY0501-05, in the western Arctic Ocean, called "eastern Chukchi Sea") - not to the entire Arctic, as the "Watts Up With That?"-article implies. And above all it does not say "most of the past 9000 years".

Furthermore the study says with regard to this:
"...
The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene.
...
Conclusion
The Holocene record from site HLY0501-05 illustrates the sensitivity of hydrographical conditions in the western Arctic Ocean. The data show a long-term warming that is opposite to what is reconstructed for the eastern Arctic and point to a bipolar behavior of the Arctic Ocean at the timescale of the Holocene. The millennial-scale variability in the eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAO like oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century.
"

Wouldn't you agree that it might be more objective to read the study itself than jumping on "Watts Up With That?"'s deceptive misrepresentation of this work, just to support your subjective beliefs?

Last edited by Dandy on 05-Oct-2010 at 09:44 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy
The article/headline is exaggerated somewhat i agree, but it dosent change the fact that there has been times with less ice in arctic than present times. And nice cherry picking btw ;)

But again i ask.. How was it possible to have less ice and periods of higher temperatures with a pre industrial level of co2? You must admit that whatever caused these periods was most likely caused by natural climate cycles. Why is it so hard to believe that the current scenario could be due to some unknown natural factor??

And of course the ice levels are getting lower on a thousand years timescale, as this is entirely normal behaviour during a interglacial. This dosent change that there has been quite a few periods with LESS ice than today. There is absolutely nothing unusual about the 30 year decline in summer ice.

Also gotta love how you bash sites like watts that actually also let other side sometimes have a voice while you at same time defend propaganda sites like realclimate.. Gotta love what hypocrites some of you "warmists" are.

Last edited by Tomas on 05-Oct-2010 at 02:38 PM.

@Tomas
Your response to Dandy is a whole lot of

Quote:

And nice cherry picking btw

It looks like WattsUp cherry picked from the scientific work. Dandy demonstrated this by citing the scientific work to demonstrate how WattsUp was cherry picking. Your charge is pointing 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Quote:

How was it possible to have less ice and periods of higher temperatures with a pre industrial level of co2? You must admit that whatever caused these periods was most likely caused by natural climate cycles.

You have an unstated premise here. Your point implies CO2 is the only factor considered in the change of temps. That's not the case it's the present major factor. Different times may have different compositions of factors and the scientists understand that. Another unstated premise is that because other times had a natural change that the present change must therefore be natural. Instead of making the claim we need the science to research and determine if that your assumption is true. Presently the majority of the evidence indicates your assumption is false.

Quote:

Why is it so hard to believe that the current scenario could be due to some unknown natural factor??

This is a statement ad ignortium. You are claiming an unknown factor is the cause, then claiming since it's unknown it therefore must be the cause. Your next step here is to identify factors and make some hypothesis (preferrably testable) on what this unknown might be.

Quote:

And of course the ice levels are getting lower on a thousand years timescale, as this is entirely normal behaviour during a interglacial.

A change may be normal. Is the rate of change 'normal'? Research indicates not.

Quote:

Also gotta love how you bash sites like watts that actually also let other side sometimes have a voice while you at same time defend propaganda sites like realclimate..

At least in the last post by Dandy this is unsupported. He made a good arguement on where he sees that Watts up was cherry picking their comments about a single scientific work. There was no bashing of the site. Dandy stuck to comments on the 1 article and made no comments about all the other stuff on Watts. As for Dandy supporting Real Climate he might but there is nothing in the post whatsoever about Real Climate. I assume you have some past item with Dandy said that stuck in your craw because this charge looks completely out of left field. Calling him a hypocrite is nothing less then an ad hominem.

@BrianK

Quote:

This is a statement ad ignortium. You are claiming an unknown factor is the cause, then claiming since it's unknown it therefore must be the cause. Your next step here is to identify factors and make some hypothesis (preferrably testable) on what this unknown might be.

So please tell me what the heck could be the cause then?? It surely could not be CO2 as it were at pre industrial levels at that time period. Why is the current slightly lower than "normal" ice level for sure due to co2??
Quote:

At least in the last post by Dandy this is unsupported. He made a good arguement on where he sees that Watts up was cherry picking their comments about a single scientific work. There was no bashing of the site. Dandy stuck to comments on the 1 article and made no comments about all the other stuff on Watts. As for Dandy supporting Real Climate he might but there is nothing in the post whatsoever about Real Climate. I assume you have some past item with Dandy said that stuck in your craw because this charge looks completely out of left field. Calling him a hypocrite is nothing less then an ad hominem.

Both you and mr dandy have posted links from realclimate acting like it is some non biased site while constantly critisizing blog sites like wattsupwiththat.

Again I ask.. How come there was less ice in arctic on several occasions during the last tens of thousands of years?

It is no longer about warming anyways.. the delusional greenies have no changed the defition into "global climate disruption" that will cover pretty much ANY weather/climate change and blame it on global warming. Funny how us skeptics have said this would happen over the last few years..

The simple fact is that we dont know how much of the warming is from co2 and how much is due to natural factors.

Last edited by Tomas on 05-Oct-2010 at 04:39 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

So please tell me what the heck could be the cause then?? It surely could not be CO2 as it were at pre industrial levels at that time period. Why is the current slightly lower than "normal" ice level for sure due to co2?

Let's go back to my statement about included unstated premises. You are making the false coorelation that if a warming X occurred and that the warming was not initated due to CO2 it therefore means the present warming is not due to CO2. Again Climatologists cite many reasons for warming and cooling periods in the past of the planet. CO2 is not the only reason for every change, but a reason in many. It's also cited as the major factor in the present trend.

So why is the current seen to be due to CO2? Various factors have been analyzed - we haven't changed tilt of the planet, we haven't changed distance from the sun, .... and the largest change of factors is that of CO2 within the atmosphere and it's related effects.. And how do we know this CO2 is from people? Natural CO2 and man-made CO2 have different isotypes of carbon. This indicates that people have contributed a majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore are owed the majority of the responsibility.

Quote:

How come there was less ice in arctic on several occasions during the last tens of thousands of years?

Because various factors were so. What you're concluding, without proving, is that today's factors therefore are exactly the same. What you have here is a weak hypothesis that needs to be detailed and proven.

Quote:

It is no longer about warming anyways.. the delusional greenies have no changed the defition into "global climate disruption" that will cover pretty much ANY weather/climate change and blame it on global warming. Funny how us skeptics have said this would happen over the last few years

Yes I agree it was the deniers goal to force the Global Warming term to be changed to try and discredit the science. What happens to the term politically matters little to me. I like the science.

One of the things that occurs in science is an attempt to simplify concepts for the general public. Take gravity -- things fall to earth a really simple concept to describe something that isn't true. In reality nothing falls to earth. Global warming was such a term it's used for the discussions and debates but if you want to disprove it one needs to get to the detail into what encompasses it and disprove those items.

Quote:

The simple fact is that we dont know how much of the warming is from co2 and how much is due to natural factors

This is a complex answer that a binary answer, that your question begs, doesn't fairly answer. It certainly isn't 0 which is your contention.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Oct-2010 at 07:34 PM.

@BrianK
Quote:

Let's go back to my statement about included unstated premises. You are making the false coorelation that if a warming X occurred and that the warming was not initated due to CO2 it therefore means the present warming is not due to CO2. Again Climatologists cite many reasons for warming and cooling periods in the past of the planet. CO2 is not the only reason for every change, but a reason in many. It's also cited as the major factor in the present trend. So why is the current seen to be due to CO2? Various factors have been analyzed - we haven't changed tilt of the planet, we haven't changed distance from the sun, .... and the largest change of factors is that of CO2 within the atmosphere and it's related effects.. And how do we know this CO2 is from people? Natural CO2 and man-made CO2 have different isotypes of carbon. This indicates that people have contributed a majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore are owed the majority of the responsibility.

The tilt and distance from sun dosent change suddenly like that and there is no way it could explain the periods of lower ice levels than now.
We also dont yet understand how the sun migth influencing the climate and sun has now been more active over a period decades than in 8000+ years. My point is that with current knowledge it is impossible to know how much is natural and how much is from co2.
The 30 year trend in loss of ice is just not climate in my opinion as natural cycles work on longer timespans.

I have never disagreed about humans being the main cause of increased co2 level. What i disagree about is the claim/theory that co2 is the main cause of the warming we have seen over the last century.


I dont see why i am writing this reply anyways as i am just repeating myself.

@Tomas

Quote:

We also dont yet understand how the sun migth influencing the climate

This might prove to be a useful read. Greenhouse gas contributions it helps explain the contributions to CO2 and the influence on feedbacks in the system such as water vapor. A read helps to explain why we know what the influences are due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @Dandy ...but it dosent change the fact that there has been times with less ice in arctic than present times.

I didn't dispute that.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: And nice cherry picking btw ;)

???


Quote:

Tomas wrote: But again i ask.. How was it possible to have less ice and periods of higher temperatures with a pre industrial level of co2? You must admit that whatever caused these periods was most likely caused by natural climate cycles.

What do you mean with "pre industrial level of co2"?
There have been "pre industrial levels of co2" that exceeded the present ones by far.
Also, there have been "pre industrial levels of co2" that were lower than present.
Which of them are you referring to?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Why is it so hard to believe that the current scenario could be due to some unknown natural factor??

"Believe" is religuous.
We are talking about science here.
And science revealed that the current scenario is not due to some unknown natural factor, but to human activities.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: And of course the ice levels are getting lower on a thousand years timescale, ...

I didn't challenge this.
But presently the ice levels are getting lower on a much faster rate, e.g. within months.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: This dosent change that there has been quite a few periods with LESS ice than today.

Nobody denied that.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: There is absolutely nothing unusual about the 30 year decline in summer ice.

Scientific research revealed that the present rate of decline IS unusual.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Also gotta love how you bash sites like watts ...

Did I bash them?
I was more struck that they bashed themself and I was just pointing out their misrepresentations.
How can I take someone serious if he already starts lying/exaggerating in the header of his article?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: ...while you at same time defend propaganda sites like realclimate..

Sorry - but where did I defend "realclimate" site in my post we're discussing here?
I'm not even aware that I know that site, let alone defending it...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Gotta love what hypocrites some of you "warmists" are.

In how far twisting scientific papers and/or citing sites that do so is any better remains to be seen...

Last edited by Dandy on 06-Oct-2010 at 01:29 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 06-Oct-2010 at 09:26 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Your response to Dandy is a whole lot of Quote: And nice cherry picking btw It looks like WattsUp cherry picked from the scientific work. Dandy demonstrated this by citing the scientific work to demonstrate how WattsUp was cherry picking. Your charge is pointing 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Quote: How was it possible to have less ice and periods of higher temperatures with a pre industrial level of co2? You must admit that whatever caused these periods was most likely caused by natural climate cycles. You have an unstated premise here. Your point implies CO2 is the only factor considered in the change of temps. That's not the case it's the present major factor. Different times may have different compositions of factors and the scientists understand that. Another unstated premise is that because other times had a natural change that the present change must therefore be natural. Instead of making the claim we need the science to research and determine if that your assumption is true. Presently the majority of the evidence indicates your assumption is false. Quote: Why is it so hard to believe that the current scenario could be due to some unknown natural factor?? This is a statement ad ignortium. You are claiming an unknown factor is the cause, then claiming since it's unknown it therefore must be the cause. Your next step here is to identify factors and make some hypothesis (preferrably testable) on what this unknown might be. Quote: And of course the ice levels are getting lower on a thousand years timescale, as this is entirely normal behaviour during a interglacial. A change may be normal. Is the rate of change 'normal'? Research indicates not. Quote: Also gotta love how you bash sites like watts that actually also let other side sometimes have a voice while you at same time defend propaganda sites like realclimate.. At least in the last post by Dandy this is unsupported. He made a good arguement on where he sees that Watts up was cherry picking their comments about a single scientific work. There was no bashing of the site. Dandy stuck to comments on the 1 article and made no comments about all the other stuff on Watts. As for Dandy supporting Real Climate he might but there is nothing in the post whatsoever about Real Climate. I assume you have some past item with Dandy said that stuck in your craw because this charge looks completely out of left field. Calling him a hypocrite is nothing less then an ad hominem.

Thanks - couldn't have worded it better!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

What do you mean with "pre industrial level of co2"? There have been "pre industrial levels of co2" that exceeded the present ones by far. Also, there have been "pre industrial levels of co2" that were lower than present. Which of them are you referring to?

I am reffering to the average since the ice age started over the last million years.


Quote:

Sorry - but where did I defend "realclimate" site in my post we're discussing here? I'm not even aware that I know that site, let alone defending it...

Sorry about that then. I can swear you were one of them.
RealClimate is basically a moderated propaganda blog that "greenies" set up as a answer to blogs like watts and sites like climate audit.

But anyways.. I went a bit to far with my response yesterday.. wasnt in the best mood at the time when i read your comment.

@Tomas

Quote:

RealClimate is basically a moderated propaganda blog that "greenies" set up as a answer to blogs like watts and sites like climate audit.

This is far from the truth. These people who are the main contributor to the site aren't 'greenies' as much as they are actual climatologists. Climatologists from NASA, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Penn State for example. People that have had their hands on the actual ice cores. And while they do infrequently respond to denialists, such as Watts, that's hardly the main purpose of the site.

Next you're going to tell us WebMD is a propaganda site devoted to answer to Deepok Chopra.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Oct-2010 at 12:34 AM.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
Quote:

I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. … In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis

I guess this is the next scientist to be bullied by the AGW crowd.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: RealClimate is basically a moderated propaganda blog that "greenies" set up as a answer to blogs like watts and sites like climate audit. This is far from the truth. These people who are the main contributor to the site aren't 'greenies' as much as they are actual climatologists. Climatologists from NASA, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Penn State for example. People that have had their hands on the actual ice cores. And while they do infrequently respond to denialists, such as Watts, that's hardly the main purpose of the site. Next you're going to tell us WebMD is a propaganda site devoted to answer to Deepok Chopra.

Then how do you explain what was revealed in climategate emails?? How do you explain the censorship and how they ignore even peer reviewed papers that dosent fully agree with AGW theory.

RealClimate is simply one of the most biased climate blogs out there. At least watts let through the voices from other side as well.

@Tomas

Quote:

I guess this is the next scientist to be bullied by the AGW crowd.

You make it sound like the Denialist crowd is somehow free of this acitivity. They, of course, are not. For example,Michael Mann, after climategate, along with others received death threats. So, point fingers all you want but realize each side undertakes these behaviours as part of their politics.

Quote:

Then how do you explain what was revealed in climategate emails??

What was revealed to me that by using illegally stolen and invasion of privacy climategate emails was that having less then a full conversation makes it fairly easy to construct an imaginary event.

Quote:

How do you explain the censorship

We'd have to look at each as a case by case basis. Quote:

how they ignore even peer reviewed papers that dosent fully agree with AGW theory.

You sound most confused here. First you tell us the site is setup to answer Watts. Watts is all about pusing denailism. Now you're telling us they ignore such papers. Which is it do they ignore anti-GW work or are they constructed to respond to such things?

Quote:

RealClimate is simply one of the most biased climate blogs out there. At least watts let through the voices from other side as well.

First Real Climate lets anti-GW voices through. Read any of the comment sections they are all over the place. And second I've seen Watts censor and insult people he doesn't agree with. This is blaming the opposition while ignoring similar events within one's own group.

And in the end nothing you posted as a response defends you charge that Real Climate 'set up as a answer to blogs like watts '. Any viewer can go to Real Climate and see that at least the first 2 pages don't respond to any external anti-GW sites, nor Watts. It's probably even more but I didn't check further. A quick view was enough to display the charges of built to respond to Watts is false. if someone wishes to verify this they can go to www.realclimate.org and notice how lacking the main articles are in responding to Watts.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Oct-2010 at 11:20 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

You make it sound like the Denialist crowd is somehow free of this acitivity. They, of course, are not. For example,Michael Mann, after climategate, along with others received death threats. So, point fingers all you want but realize each side undertakes these behaviours as part of their politics.

I dont support such behaviour from either side. People who make death threats are seriously disturbed individuals.
Quote:

First Real Climate lets anti-GW voices through. Read any of the comment sections they are all over the place. And second I've seen Watts censor and insult people he doesn't agree with. This is blaming the opposition while ignoring similar events within one's own group.

Yeah.. They let through the comments they can easily take a part.
Otherwise they delete comments that have no flaming, no name calling, is on topic and so on.

Edit: I also dont care for watts insuling people. But he still lets through every comment as long as it isnt name calling, completely off topic or trolling.

Last edited by Tomas on 09-Oct-2010 at 11:27 PM.

Suprise surprise.....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-%E2%80%9Cclimate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth%E2%80%9D/
Quote:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer

Isnt that what some of the skeptic "conspiracy nutcases" have been saying for years now??
Who is the real nutcases now??

@Tomas

One part of this is true and that's the lack of oil. Recently the IAEA stated that 2005 was a peak of 70 million barrels of oil per day. We've slipped down to about 68 million. Oil wells and extractions are aging. By 2035 the world use estimate is 99 million barrrels per day. To get there it'll require $8Trillion in investment into oil. Days of cheap oil are behind us.

@thread

I don't believe in GW being accelerated by man-made causes, the temperature has been both much warmer and much colder than it has right now. Ice extent has disappeared entirely from the northern hemisphere many times in the past and also has reached far south of where it is at present.

That said I still think it would beneficial for everyone if we wasn't releasing so much crap into the air and tearing down rainforests. There are no bad sides to reducing the effects of both these through renewable sources, recycling awareness and other alternatives to oil and gas and such should be promoted - especially in the USA were big business and the government itself is dragging its heels.

Politicians and greenies have said for ages in x decades time the climate will be warmer and snow will be next to non-existant in the UK. Its been more than 10 years not that they have been saying this - yet over the last 5 years or more the UK winter has become increasingly more wintry and colder.
I personally am looking forward to a more 'traditional' winter here in the UK and Europe, perhaps as good as last year.

@BrianK

Cheap in the oil in the USA... am sure them days are well on the way to behind you now. In the rest of the world, and particularly in the UK, oil prices have been considered a luxury item for well over 20 years. Tax on oil is 75+%.

Last edited by djrikki on 19-Nov-2010 at 03:28 PM.

_________________