Global Cooling...

[Meister]

Yes, fudged numbers and manipulated data are very serious.....it means that the so-called-scientists have to cheat to get
man made global warming to work for them. You are such an ignorant tool.


Get some glasses, roxie.... Have you seen Mt. Shasta lately?

List of expanding glaciers

 

[Ropey]

Ropey, observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps are not statistics. Increased troposphere temperatures are not statistics. Nor are the increased temperatures in the oceans, as well as the increased acidity in the oceans.

The scientific basis for AGW goes back to 1859, when Tyndall published his findings on the absorption of infrared radiation by GHGs. The first quantification of the effects of that absorption was done by Arrhenious in 1896, and yes, he did include the effects of water vapor, as every researcher has since.

You can scream fudged numbers, statistic manipulation all you want. That does not change the actual real time observations of the effects of the warming, from increasing numbers and severity of storms, to increased temperatures.

Many of the scientists spent the last couple of decades speaking of the prevention of major consequences of AGW. Today most are speaking of preparing for the consequences, for we are already seeing them happen. The people who keep the best records of this are those that lose money on the consequences, the insurerance companies worldwide. The two biggest insureres of insurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, both state that we are seeing an increase in the number of extreme weather disasters, and an increase in the severity of those disasters.

I have personally observed the reduction of the glaciers in the Cascades, Rockies, and the Sierras. You can go the the USGS site, and get information on all the glaciers in the world, and the fact that the vast majority are in rapid retreat. The Grace Satellite measurements have shown us that the melt in Greenland and Antarctica is now in the giga-tons yearly, and on an accelerating increase. These are real time observations, not models or statistics.

That's the cycle. The problem is that there's no real proof that this cycle is being as effected by humanity as the environmentalists and their paid for scientists are saying and who after saying, have often been caught fudging the numbers and the proof is in my previous links.

You're simply going back to the effect and saying that the fudged cause must be the reasoning.

 

[freedombecki]

Yes, fudged numbers and manipulated data are very serious.....it means that the so-called-scientists have to cheat to get
man made global warming to work for them. You are such an ignorant tool.

Get some glasses, roxie.... Have you seen Mt. Shasta lately?

List of expanding glaciers

Thank you for a great link, Meister.

For those who failed to read the link, here is a partial list taken from the bottom of the page. I'll leave the top 80% for you to sift through and see the good stuff.

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors
results in Alaska, elsewhere, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.
See Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
Arctic ice cover above it’s 30-year average
23 Nov 08 - A study published by the American Meteorological Society
found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further
west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening
and expanding".
See Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
.
.
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
16 Oct 08 - High snowfall and cold weather to blame leading
to the increase in glacial mass.
See Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
.
.
Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
14 Oct 08 – “Never before in the history of a research project dating back
to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that
came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
See Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
.
. Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming
15 Feb 07 - See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
.
.
Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting.
I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the
strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino,
a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This
band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams
into South America.
It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the
warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt.
But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think
it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater
volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.
With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain
stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno
Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the
southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.
I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ropey, observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps are not statistics. Increased troposphere temperatures are not statistics. Nor are the increased temperatures in the oceans, as well as the increased acidity in the oceans.

The scientific basis for AGW goes back to 1859, when Tyndall published his findings on the absorption of infrared radiation by GHGs. The first quantification of the effects of that absorption was done by Arrhenious in 1896, and yes, he did include the effects of water vapor, as every researcher has since.

You can scream fudged numbers, statistic manipulation all you want. That does not change the actual real time observations of the effects of the warming, from increasing numbers and severity of storms, to increased temperatures.

Many of the scientists spent the last couple of decades speaking of the prevention of major consequences of AGW. Today most are speaking of preparing for the consequences, for we are already seeing them happen. The people who keep the best records of this are those that lose money on the consequences, the insurerance companies worldwide. The two biggest insureres of insurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, both state that we are seeing an increase in the number of extreme weather disasters, and an increase in the severity of those disasters.

I have personally observed the reduction of the glaciers in the Cascades, Rockies, and the Sierras. You can go the the USGS site, and get information on all the glaciers in the world, and the fact that the vast majority are in rapid retreat. The Grace Satellite measurements have shown us that the melt in Greenland and Antarctica is now in the giga-tons yearly, and on an accelerating increase. These are real time observations, not models or statistics.

How Science was done in Tyndall's time

Homeopathy was also science back then

How is CO2 both leaving the oceans in a "feedback loop" and increasing in the oceans enough to turn them "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

 

[westwall]

Ian, I admit that I don't know everything about climategate, and you're obviously an intelligent person who can discuss the topic rationally, which is good and healthy.

This is my question:

Right now I hear your defense - you claim that the IPCC's credibility is poor, that there are scientists like Mann who are not credible either, and that a few reputable scientists who have started to question the credibility of the mainstream consensus (like Judith Curry). Great, I don't doubt that you think that for a good reason, but now you need to provide some evidence supporting your claim. Not evidence supporting that IPCC is not credible, but evidence supporting the claim that the science consensus is actually starting to turn in large numbers and that the majority of credible research really does not support man-made global warming anymore in such strong numbers (ie an equal work contrasting the 97/100 claim of IPCC).

I think you would need to start by citing the work of an alternate major credible science body/institution - perhaps something along the lines of an alternate intergovernmental panel (or something like that, something that's not organized by a specific or right/left leaning think tank) - who has come together, reviewed without bias the bulk of credible climate research, and concluded that the consensus is not quite as strong as what IPCC said, you know what I mean?

Where is that equivalent, Ian?

I listed some other institutions like NASA, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science that side with me, again, where are yours?

The difference here so far is that my argument cites the conclusions of a number of major scientific institutions, your argument simply questions the credibility of those institutions. Which argument do you think is stronger (do you see where I'm getting at)?

Now you can say that you don't believe that the science consensus is correct, and that's fine, and just to clarify - is that what your stance is?

I dont believe the emphysis of climate science consensus is correct. there is a vast gulf between what you accuse me of and what I actually say.

the information available during the 90's was considerably different than today. the possibility of climate disaster was coincidentally much stronger then than now. decisions were made to fasttrack climate research to explore the possibilities and strong statements were made that were weak on actual science. many science societies came down strong on the one side because it was prudent. and easy. since then the data supports a much softer stance but it is much harder to back away from previous statements once they are made. some societies have rachetted down their statements, leaving lawyeresque opinions that could be taken to mean many things with pausible deniability available in the future if needed.

you demand me to produce my army of scientists and their armoury of scientific papers so that we can meet on some imaginary field of war where the size of the opposing forces will determine the outcome. but its not that kind of war, it is ongoing guerilla skermishes where we use your own papers and data against you! our side has basically no funding. for instance Heartland has a few tens of millions in its operating budget and less than five million was spent on climate change information. 5 million is chump change so why is it considered an evil puppetmaster controlling things in the background? I think your side's conspiracy theories are more farfetched than ours. and our side has direct quotes from your superstar climate scientists whereas you guys have resorted to fraud to smear our side. what is your opinion on Gleick? is it OK to be dishonest in the name of the 'Noble Cause'?

does it ever make you wonder why there are so few public debates on CAGW/CC? and why the warmers seem to lose them all? it is because the global warming hypothesis just doesnt seem to be as certain or as important when the framing of the questions is not strickly controlled. and the thinking public is catching on to that.


oh, and by the way, do you know the backstory about the 97% consensus? it is typical of the CAGW distortion of data collection.

Interesting things, @Ian/@Wall, and I will look into them (frankly a bit burnt out on the subject currently) but will look into them. Thanks for the back and forth.

Ian, I understand that the "97%" consensus is not the end all, say all, but as I mentioned before, the consensus on the subject I believe at least falls in the heavy favor of the GACW camp vs that of the denier group.

But like you said, this could possibly be for reasons such as:

1.) Science pointed more heavily to support CAGW in the 1990's, so all of science went in that direction, supporting it, now it's hard to retract. So institutions just sort of say relatively the same thing, despite new data.
2.) The science on the side of CAGW is much more heavily funded, therefore remains the "consensus view" (ie 20 guys get funding who believe in CAGW, 1 guy gets funding who doesn't believe).

So this would mean that a large number of top level research institutes - like the United States National Academy of Sciences - is pushing along this overly extreme CAGW idea, even when their is new and strong evidence stating otherwise, just to save face? To keep their funding?

And from what I can dig up, most of the major national academies of the developed/semi-developed (I suppose for some of these) support the data of the "alarmists" vs the "deniers", including the French Academy of Science, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

I'm not a climate expert by any means and never will claim to be. I'm not a scientist either. I'm actually a Supply Chain Analyst and a Stratocaster Enthusiast.

But, I just find it difficult to form an opinion on a subject that I do not study myself that would be in direct contrast with the view of those Academies I list above. Or maybe I'm wrong, perhaps those Academies are changing their tunes, or perhaps I'm mistaken on their viewpoint to begin with.

But can you at least understand where I'm coming from, and why it's so difficult for me to not believe what all of those major science institutions have stated?

All of those groups get their funding from the taxpayers of their respective countries (and a large amount of OUR tax money as well) it is in their best interests to perpetuate the myth of AGW to get further funding. Furthermore all of the directors and Boards employ scientists who are directly involved in the fraud. They sit on the boards that make the determinations that then generate the politicians interest in the "problem".

The politicians then make sure to fund those institutions that are pushing the "science". Of course the politicians get something out of it too. they get to pass legislation that further increases the tax burden on the citizens in their countries and further limits the peoples ability to do as they wish.

It is a never ending vicious circle. It is patently obvious in the Military Industrial Complex. I find it amazing that those who see it in that instance, are blind to it in this one. The methodologies are the same.

 

[westwall]

Ropey, observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps are not statistics. Increased troposphere temperatures are not statistics. Nor are the increased temperatures in the oceans, as well as the increased acidity in the oceans.

The scientific basis for AGW goes back to 1859, when Tyndall published his findings on the absorption of infrared radiation by GHGs. The first quantification of the effects of that absorption was done by Arrhenious in 1896, and yes, he did include the effects of water vapor, as every researcher has since.

You can scream fudged numbers, statistic manipulation all you want. That does not change the actual real time observations of the effects of the warming, from increasing numbers and severity of storms, to increased temperatures.

Many of the scientists spent the last couple of decades speaking of the prevention of major consequences of AGW. Today most are speaking of preparing for the consequences, for we are already seeing them happen. The people who keep the best records of this are those that lose money on the consequences, the insurerance companies worldwide. The two biggest insureres of insurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, both state that we are seeing an increase in the number of extreme weather disasters, and an increase in the severity of those disasters.

I have personally observed the reduction of the glaciers in the Cascades, Rockies, and the Sierras. You can go the the USGS site, and get information on all the glaciers in the world, and the fact that the vast majority are in rapid retreat. The Grace Satellite measurements have shown us that the melt in Greenland and Antarctica is now in the giga-tons yearly, and on an accelerating increase. These are real time observations, not models or statistics.

Observed melting since 1979 you mean to say? You all conveniently ignore all that came before. I like this picture...... Yes, three submarines surfaced at the North Pole in open water in 1987. They haven't been able to do that since. So what is the cause? Was there less ice at the North Pole back then? Or maybe they blew large amounts of ice away with secret nuclear weapons tests?

I know which hypothesis I believe is more rational.

 

[westwall]

Ropey, observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps are not statistics. Increased troposphere temperatures are not statistics. Nor are the increased temperatures in the oceans, as well as the increased acidity in the oceans.

The scientific basis for AGW goes back to 1859, when Tyndall published his findings on the absorption of infrared radiation by GHGs. The first quantification of the effects of that absorption was done by Arrhenious in 1896, and yes, he did include the effects of water vapor, as every researcher has since.

You can scream fudged numbers, statistic manipulation all you want. That does not change the actual real time observations of the effects of the warming, from increasing numbers and severity of storms, to increased temperatures.

Many of the scientists spent the last couple of decades speaking of the prevention of major consequences of AGW. Today most are speaking of preparing for the consequences, for we are already seeing them happen. The people who keep the best records of this are those that lose money on the consequences, the insurerance companies worldwide. The two biggest insureres of insurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, both state that we are seeing an increase in the number of extreme weather disasters, and an increase in the severity of those disasters.

I have personally observed the reduction of the glaciers in the Cascades, Rockies, and the Sierras. You can go the the USGS site, and get information on all the glaciers in the world, and the fact that the vast majority are in rapid retreat. The Grace Satellite measurements have shown us that the melt in Greenland and Antarctica is now in the giga-tons yearly, and on an accelerating increase. These are real time observations, not models or statistics.

How Science was done in Tyndall's time

Homeopathy was also science back then

How is CO2 both leaving the oceans in a "feedback loop" and increasing in the oceans enough to turn them "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

The AGW crowd allways takes both sides of an issue. That way no matter what happens they are covered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ropey, observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps are not statistics. Increased troposphere temperatures are not statistics. Nor are the increased temperatures in the oceans, as well as the increased acidity in the oceans.

The scientific basis for AGW goes back to 1859, when Tyndall published his findings on the absorption of infrared radiation by GHGs. The first quantification of the effects of that absorption was done by Arrhenious in 1896, and yes, he did include the effects of water vapor, as every researcher has since.

You can scream fudged numbers, statistic manipulation all you want. That does not change the actual real time observations of the effects of the warming, from increasing numbers and severity of storms, to increased temperatures.

Many of the scientists spent the last couple of decades speaking of the prevention of major consequences of AGW. Today most are speaking of preparing for the consequences, for we are already seeing them happen. The people who keep the best records of this are those that lose money on the consequences, the insurerance companies worldwide. The two biggest insureres of insurance companies, Swiss Re and Munich Re, both state that we are seeing an increase in the number of extreme weather disasters, and an increase in the severity of those disasters.

I have personally observed the reduction of the glaciers in the Cascades, Rockies, and the Sierras. You can go the the USGS site, and get information on all the glaciers in the world, and the fact that the vast majority are in rapid retreat. The Grace Satellite measurements have shown us that the melt in Greenland and Antarctica is now in the giga-tons yearly, and on an accelerating increase. These are real time observations, not models or statistics.

How Science was done in Tyndall's time

Homeopathy was also science back then

How is CO2 both leaving the oceans in a "feedback loop" and increasing in the oceans enough to turn them "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive

The AGW crowd allways takes both sides of an issue. That way no matter what happens they are covered.

Surprisingly I've never gotten a coherent explanation from the Warmers and Decline Hiders on the "FeedbackLoop/Acidification" Quandary

 

[skookerasbil]

So much for cheap wind power..........

"Gone With the Wind" by Bjørn Lomborg | Project Syndicate