Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[francescoassisi]

Because the climate 'science' is so shoddy, attempts to prove the first case simply cannot stand proper scientific scrutiny (which is why they always try to hide their data and methods), and no-one has come close to finding a solution to the second issue."

As a premise this is completely fallacious which invalidates any subsequent conclusion.

[Neurath]

Well, climate sensitivity is the key issue, of course.

A recent paper in Nature suggested a figure of 1.3 degrees Celsius of temperature rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration.

We're currently at 400ppm, so if we get to 800ppm (which at the current rate would take 200 years), the world would (everything else being equal) be 1.3 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today.

Hardly Thermageddon, and certainly nothing worth spending trillions of dollars and adding burdensome regulation trying to prevent.

Got to go back to this. If Rick gives me permission I'll unpack it, otherwise I'll just leave it as a monument. Rick, can I?

[F430murci]

Okay, now killer hornet in China being blamed on global warming or climate change. Now sure about this one, but not good about big arse hornets stinging you to death.

Killer Hornets Are Wreaking Havoc in China

Spurred by global warming, the insects have accounted for more than two dozen deaths in the country.

http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/09/killer-hornets-are-wreaking-havoc-in-china/280078/

[RickBradford]

The hornets scare is not new - alarmists recycle it every few years or so. There was a similar flap in 2007, where Asian hornets were discovered in France and activists rushed to blame it on global warming.

Par for the course, really, Global warming has been blamed for:

AIDS, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, ---- (+10 pages more) ---- winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolverine decline, wolverines vanish, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, women cheat on vacation, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, Yellow fever, zebra mussel threat, zoonotic diseases.

And all from a temperature rise of 0.006 degrees C per year!

If that doesn't alert you to the idea that most climate alarmism is in fact opportunist unscientific activism, nothing will.

[F430murci]

The hornets scare is not new - alarmists recycle it every few years or so. There was a similar flap in 2007, where Asian hornets were discovered in France and activists rushed to blame it on global warming.

Par for the course, really, Global warming has been blamed for:

AIDS, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, ---- (+10 pages more) ---- winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolverine decline, wolverines vanish, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, women cheat on vacation, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, Yellow fever, zebra mussel threat, zoonotic diseases.

And all from a temperature rise of 0.006 degrees C per year!

If that doesn't alert you to the idea that most climate alarmism is in fact opportunist unscientific activism, nothing will.

I am not really buying the hornets. I guess, but <deleted> as I have never heard of 3 inch bees attacking humans until they die.

The truth is you have no more idea than I as to what is causing weird issues like these. Nevertheless, why is it so bad that people be conscious about potential problems they could be causing. Do you really think over population and pollution does not cause potential problems?

[F430murci]

Just another nutter with an agenda! Real people realize and don't care or realize and do something to change.

[RickBradford]

The truth is that nobody knows what is causing weird issues like these.

Yet they routinely blame everything bad on 'global warming', like medieval Europeans used to blame everything bad on witches.

[Scott]

An off-topic group of posts and replies have been deleted. Please stay on topic and further inflammatory remarks aimed at other posters will earn suspensions.

You have been warned.

[boomerangutang]

Perhaps less dramatic than mega hornets, are pathogens, particularly those spread by mosquitos.

BTW, didn't those hornets originate in Japan? Yet another scourge that the Chinese can attribute to the Japanese. Perhaps the hornets can be trained to kill only those people who continue to cause endangered beasts to get killed, in order to service their sagging manhood.

In the US, red ants are spreading their nests alarmingly.

How much those changes can be attributable to GW is debatable, but interesting to observe, nevertheless.

[F430murci]

I dunno what the deal is with the hornets, but that <deleted> sucs. Those things cause skin to die where stung and the pain is compared to a burning nail being stuck in you. This is some spooky stuff.

[francescoassisi]

I see the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The lack of understanding of environmental issues is so profound and some of the comments so hilarious, I'm gonna use this thread as an illustration of global ignorance of the issues surrounding climate change.

I note I particular a lot of use of "no-one knows" or "there is no proof" when the poster really means he/she either personally doesn't know or is oblivious to the stack of evidence available.

Countering scientific argument with conspiracy theories is also an invalid argument. And some of the quasi scientific diagrams are simply a joke. It takes more than an hour on Google to educate yourself on man-made climate change.

[NBD]

Here's more on the hornets

http://qz.com/128636/thank-you-global-warming-giant-hornets-are-killing-dozens-in-china-and-eating-bees-across-europe/

Business as usual for the global warming industry. Here is an insect with a range from Siberia to Sri Lanka, and because there have been more attacks (DOUBLED - to 28) in one part of China that has had a couple of mild winters they scream MMGW and spend a few billion more on windmills. Bonkers.

To put it in some perspective, 450 attacks in Shaanxi province with a population of over 37 million and 28 fatalities. The only plague of killer hornets is descending on journalists fertile imagination.

The Guardian is uncharacteristically more circumspect

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/hornet-attacks-kill-18-china

And notes that the increase occured between May and October. Summer, in plain language. And the 1.1°c increase in average temperature equates to a warm summer. Which indeed happened across most of the northern hemisphere this year.

And which "expert" linked this with global warming? The link is in Chinese but the article assures us that it's no less an authority than... the Shaanxi Provincial Forestry Commission. It doesn't elaborate and tell us whether this came from some lettered scientist in a research facility or the guy in the car park. Or as seems more likely a throw away line in a conservation brochure put together by an intern or volunteer.

So how about a less dramatic headline? Forestry guy blames global warming for a rise in hornet stings over a hot summer.

[NBD]

Frances

So far we've had a cruise to Antarctica and a straw poll of "scientists" offered as proof of global warming, so I'm definitely in the "not enough proof" camp at this stage. An hour on Google is probably a bit more credible. Anything more compelling to put forward?

[boomerangutang]

I see the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The lack of understanding of environmental issues is so profound and some of the comments so hilarious, I'm gonna use this thread as an illustration of global ignorance of the issues surrounding climate change.

I note I particular a lot of use of "no-one knows" or "there is no proof" when the poster really means he/she either personally doesn't know or is oblivious to the stack of evidence available.

Countering scientific argument with conspiracy theories is also an invalid argument. And some of the quasi scientific diagrams are simply a joke. It takes more than an hour on Google to educate yourself on man-made climate change.

You make sweeping statements, but they're generalizations. No specifics. Reminds me of my 5 yr old kid, when he got frustrated or misunderstood, he would shout at the family; "You're all dummies. You don't know anything!"

Most of us are laymen here. We are part of 'the general public'. It's most often scientists who attain and crunch the data - and informed general public formulate ideas about it. We entrust a pilot to steer a plane, and scientists to further scientific insight. Few scientific endeavors are exact disciplines, so yes, there are some fuzzy edges. I would rather have a discussions with someone who prefaces their opinions with some doubt, than a person who is fixated on absolutes, such as: "There is no doubt...." or "you're completely wrong...." Sometimes that fits, but more often it falls within the realm of religionists or global warming deniers.

I had a conversation recently with an older fellow (I still retain that archaic lesson of 'respect your elders'). I mentioned avocados originated from the Americas. He started by countering that statement. He then went on to say he wasn't sure, but because of my soft-peddling insistence, he resolved to stating, emphatically that avocados did not come from the Americas. He is an alpha male who is used to always getting his way, and I have a more tolerant character. So I just let him bluster, rather than devolve to argumentation.

[RickBradford]

I would rather have a discussions with someone who prefaces their opinions with some doubt, than a person who is fixated on absolutes, such as: "There is no doubt...." or "you're completely wrong...." Sometimes that fits, but more often it falls within the realm of religionists or global warming deniers.

Actually, it was Al Gore and the rest of the climate alarmist cabal who said there is no doubt. "The science is settled; the debate is over."

It is the skeptics who are full of doubt about the science and the related policy, and it is the alarmists who resemble religionists, with their dogmatic insistence on demonizing CO2 and visceral blind hatred of anyone who dares disagree with them.

[boomerangutang]

I would rather have a discussions with someone who prefaces their opinions with some doubt, than a person who is fixated on absolutes, such as: "There is no doubt...." or "you're completely wrong...." Sometimes that fits, but more often it falls within the realm of religionists or global warming deniers.

Actually, it was Al Gore and the rest of the climate alarmist cabal who said there is no doubt. "The science is settled; the debate is over."

It is the skeptics who are full of doubt about the science and the related policy, and it is the alarmists who resemble religionists, with their dogmatic insistence on demonizing CO2 and visceral blind hatred of anyone who dares disagree with them.

Was it Gore who said "The science is settled; the debate is over." ?

Perhaps he was lecturing the pizza delivery boy, while his wife Tipper was standing behind, her arms folded against her apronned chest, whispering in Al's ear, "ok dear, the campaign is over. Just pay the boy and let's go eat."

[RickBradford]

No, Gore was not lecturing a pizza delivery boy, but the US Congress in 2007.

[F430murci]

Here's more on the hornets

http://qz.com/128636/thank-you-global-warming-giant-hornets-are-killing-dozens-in-china-and-eating-bees-across-europe/

Business as usual for the global warming industry. Here is an insect with a range from Siberia to Sri Lanka, and because there have been more attacks (DOUBLED - to 28) in one part of China that has had a couple of mild winters they scream MMGW and spend a few billion more on windmills. Bonkers.

To put it in some perspective, 450 attacks in Shaanxi province with a population of over 37 million and 28 fatalities. The only plague of killer hornets is descending on journalists fertile imagination.

The Guardian is uncharacteristically more circumspect

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/hornet-attacks-kill-18-china

And notes that the increase occured between May and October. Summer, in plain language. And the 1.1°c increase in average temperature equates to a warm summer. Which indeed happened across most of the northern hemisphere this year.

And which "expert" linked this with global warming? The link is in Chinese but the article assures us that it's no less an authority than... the Shaanxi Provincial Forestry Commission. It doesn't elaborate and tell us whether this came from some lettered scientist in a research facility or the guy in the car park. Or as seems more likely a throw away line in a conservation brochure put together by an intern or volunteer.

So how about a less dramatic headline? Forestry guy blames global warming for a rise in hornet stings over a hot summer.

Jeez, the hornet thing was only posted in here because I found 2.5 inch hornets with stings that necrotize tissue and cause renal failure to be incredibly interesting. There was no other place to post the story and a couple of the articles made a lose connection to warmer climate.

So relax. The 600 or so recently attacked, however, will perhaps disagree with your assessment about it not being a big deal because only 600 out of millions of people got attacked.

Regarding proof, I posted a link to Dr. Masters who is not funded by either side. I doubt you bothered to read that since his findings are not the conclusions you seek or want to hear.

Believe what you want. No impact on me either way. There, however, are objective and unbiased findings to found. Some of you just chose not to look and will never believe any research that does not say what you want it to say.

[NBD]

Missed the link earlier on. Reasonable points but still not compelling in the slightest.

Firstly he spots a warming trend from 1970 to present after isolating for known causes. This is where the guess work starts because you're heaping models based on assumptions on top of each other. The models that predict the effects of events on climate and the models that control for them can only be vague at best. And when you are looking at a temperature rise of ~0.2C a decade it's quite a precise business.

Secondly the closest he actually gets to a conclusion is that this small rise is either caused by human activity or some other natural cause we are unaware of. He doesn't even really state which of these he thinks is more likely.

Lastly my biggest gripe with the climate change industry is not scientists researching it or holding an opinion on it. It's the policy response around taxation, regulations and subsidies to hopeless schemes like windfarms which are designed only to line certain pockets using the misreported work of scientists as an excuse.

[NBD]

And btw to say that the owner of a major weather site has mo stake in the climate change debate isn't quite true.

[wolf5370]

Still gotta wonder if Al Gore (remember the book " In Inconvenient Truth") actually believed that he was doing the world a favor by manipulating data to suit the content of his bullsh*t book, or were there other more sinister factors involved? I've got to believe the latter because he even won some bullsh*t awards (including a Hollywood Oscar, I think).

Anyway, a large portion of the science community was saying that temperature shift cycles are normal and gave credible scientific evidence to show it, but Al Gore was still lauded and his pack of lies promoted. So, this news is not surprising at all.

I just remembered the over-sensationalized footage that is shown where huge walls of ice would shear off glaciers, The creators of such dramatic ads or documentaries trying to sell us the "global Warming" lies would use this footage for its shock value, and it was once again bullsh*t. Think about it -- they're glaciers so they're constantly moving. Of course they're going to reach a more southerly point where the ice melts and softens to the point where naturally it falls off. in the meantime, New ice is forming at the other end, as nature would dictate.

The problem is, as you say, the sensationalist way it was pushed - also that the wrong information was made important and not what really is important. The problem isn't that the Earth is warming or cooling - it is doing both in different areas which causes potential havoc (expansion of deserts in Africa due to seasonal rainfall falling too early in other areas - ice fields melting because the temperatures are too high locally), not mean temperatures. Indeed, melting ice caps cool the water and are carried by current to other areas - thus a simple single event has opposite effects in different locations. The other issue is that the cycles of cooling and warming have become out of synch - it is happening far too fast.

The Earth will survive such extremes as those on either end of the cooling/heating cycle, it always has - so will life (again even during mass extinction events in the past - including Ice-ball Earth 3.5bn years ago - life continued). The problem will be the devastation this could course to our civilizations, economies and infrastructure.

It should also be noted that the global clamp down on CFC's has been shown to have made a quite dramatic effect on the ozone depletion rates (the real danger of CO2 - not mean temperature rise!) - actually inverting it and the ozone hole actually shrinking.

Just because some over zealous celebrities and misquoted (or agendised/paid for scientist) exaggerate or talk nonsense for their bucks, does not mean that we can continue to burn resources and pollute the atmosphere and oceans without restraint and to no effect. The means is good even if the axiom is inaccurate. It is easy to allow such to cloud the issue(s) and make non-believers of us all - and that plays into the hands of the abusers not into out hands and certainly not into our progency.

[boomerangutang]

....hopeless schemes like windfarms which are designed only to line certain pockets using the misreported work of scientists as an excuse.

Windfarms may have some flaws, as every energy producing tech does. But to tar all windfarms as 'hopeless schemes' is way off track. Along with solar and thermal, they're waves of the future. Coal, fossil fuels, nuclear have drawbacks that outweigh their attributes. I'd like to see wave/tidal power and river power (different than dams) developed further, particularly more experimental set-ups. Developments in innovative, clean, renewable power-generating tech is impressive, and new tweaks are showing up every week. Meanwhile, coal continues to poison yellow skies over China and nuclear toxidifies whole towns and seas, when it goes belly-up.

[francescoassisi]

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

[Chao Lao Beach]

An interesting documentary Chasing Ice

'National Geographic' photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet. In 'Chasing Ice,' we follow Balog across the Arctic as he deploys revolutionary time-lapse cameras designed for one purpose: to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. Balog's hauntingly beautiful videos compress years into seconds and capture ancient mountains of ice in motion as they disappear at a breathtaking rate. Traveling with a young team of adventurers by helicopter, canoe and dog sled across three continents, Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story in human history. As the debate polarizes America and the intensity of natural disasters ramp up around the world, 'Chasing Ice' depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to gather evidence and deliver hope to our carbon-powered planet

[boomerangutang]

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

It's easy to make sweeping statements - putting others down. In contrast, what can you offer of substance? Enlighten us with your wisdom.

[NBD]

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

Careful. You nearly included a fact there.

[wilcopops]

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

Careful. You nearly included a fact there.

I'm not joining this debate - it's not possible because there isn't one.

as for hornets.....for heavens sake grow up, I've heard better in Matthayom 1.

[wilcopops]

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

It's easy to make sweeping statements - putting others down. In contrast, what can you offer of substance? Enlighten us with your wisdom.

Yes - enlightenment - a few could do with that!

[canman]

My take for what its worth:

The earth has been in a warming phase for the last 10,000 years.

In human history the earth has been both much cooler and also much warmer without the need to bring in man made CO2 as a significant causal agent.

The natural circulation of the ocean currents, particularilly the deep ocean currents is only just being understood, there is a school of thought that deeper CO2 rich water have recently been warmed, are circulating up and releasing CO2.

The casual link between a temperature graph and a CO2 concentration graph could well be putting the horse before the cart. There is the distinct possibility that a natural occuring ocean warming event is precedeing the CO2 release. ie warming ocean releases CO2 not the other way around.

Computer models are only as good as the algorithms, variables and initial set of conditions. Climate change models are only just getting to the stage of the early butterfly effect weather models. Far to sensitive to extremely small changes and therefore mostly useless as anything but a propaganda tool.

The biggest red flag that one should be sceptical about AGW is "We are the government and we are here to help".

Would it be a good thing to reduce / eliminate the use of fossile fuels? Yes, of course. Are we there technologically yet? No. The government subsidised north sea wind farms are not economically viable with out government money. Any energy source which depends on wind, waves sun suffers from the storage deficent problem. There is no currently available efficent, large capacity storage technology available. Solve that problem and then you make alternate energy production a possibility.

[F430murci]

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

Careful. You nearly included a fact there.

I'm not joining this debate - it's not possible because there isn't one.

as for hornets.....for heavens sake grow up, I've heard better in Matthayom 1.

Haha, cool dude. If you are so intellectually superior, then why hang out and post here.