Home » Hans Brinker skates again: global warming, anyone?

Comments

Hans Brinker skates again: global warming, anyone? — 28 Comments

  1. hmmm surely one cold winter in one country is not evidence against a long term process of global warming.

  2. It’s a colder winter in a trend of cooling winters since 1998.

    The Earf… She is cooling, and has been for a while.

  3. Token,

    Your premise is faulty. 5 of the top 10 hottest years in the last 100 were in the 1930’s.

    Science should be about facts and evidence not Token Lefty’s making jabs without basis.

  4. But it ISN’T global warming any longer…it’s now global climate change. Had lefty correct me on this…with a straight face, no less. Heads we win, tails you lose. It’s like playing whack a mole…only without the satisfaction.

  5. If you think the US media are liberal, imagine the Dutch press. By peddling the Goracles message they managed to get the Dutch (!) to throw out their skates!!

  6. Dutchman wrote, “By peddling the Goracles message they managed to get the Dutch (!) to throw out their skates!!

    which in itself is bad for the environment…. putting all that useful stuff in landfills

    kinda like Gore’s home which uses 20x more energy than the average American…. waste

  7. Just curious – anyone know the last time the canals froze over?

    I’d say such an event has at least as much validity, as a harbinger of things to come, as anything I’ve seen on the global warming alarmists websites.

    Lesson here is that their own flimsy standards for evidence of global warming are now fair tactics for the skeptics to use against them.

    Ya can’t say something is an isolated event and doesn’t negate your position, while at the same time using isolated events to prop up your own ideology.

  8. Token is right: weather is NOT climate. However, this works both ways. Token is also not allowed to cite any high temperature records as an indication AGW.

    Token, if you want, I can send you the massive amount of evidence showing that the warming experienced over the last 40 years is not due to anthropologic contributions.

    Here’s some of the most convincing that just came out relating the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, i.e. EL/La Nino/Nina) and the global temperature, if you need some actual evidence that the AGW hypothesis has numerous holes:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/

  9. physicsguy
    Don’t bother. Token knows the broad outline. He may not know the details as you do. His mistake is thinking nobody else knows the truth and so can be fooled.
    He knows. But he doesn’t care. AGW is a crisis requiring massive redistribution of wealth and control of our lives. Thus, it must not be questioned, especially if it’s false.

  10. ice is back up to 70 levels..

    and… the long trend is for the start of another ice age…(hanson was right the first time.. heh heh).

    The author below — Gregory F. Fegel — appears to be some sort of Leftist from Oregon but the fact that he had to go to Russia to get his article published reflects the widespread skepticism about global warming in Russia. They are more worried about imminent cooling, for reasons that are perhaps obvious. At any event, the article below is a reasonable summary of the historical evidence

    english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

    Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s `wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

    and

    sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html and sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/tinymdi_igr.gif

    the sun is still completely blank….

    turns out that world communism is being done in by god. 🙂

  11. I wonder if the Charles River will freeze solid this winter. I remember walking across it, perhaps foolishly, under the moonlight in 1980. It was so still, so quiet.

  12. The canals in Amsterdam last froze 12 years ago (1997). I know because by sheerest coincidence I happened to be there with my wife. When the canals freeze, they hold a long distance speed skating race that is like the Super Bowl here. As I recall, it had been 10 years or so since they’d held the previous race, so the canals must freeze every 10-12 years.

  13. This is great! I’d always thought it’d be enormously fun to skate the canals in Holland. Meeting a Dutch a few years ago, I was discouraged that they said it was unlikely to happen much anymore. Perhaps I’ll get the chance after all.

  14. I am very impressed how much the above posters have managed to infer about by beliefs from one comment on frozen canals in Holland.

    However the overwhelming majority of science in this area would appear to indicate that a process of global warming is taking palce and that it seems likely human activity has a great deal to do with this. I suggest you have a look at the IPCC material here.

    Of course this is one of these topics that only time will really show who is right and as there is little chance of anyone, of whatever political persuasion, substantially changing their behaviour it should be interesting to see what happens.

  15. It is impossible to say what “overwhelming majority of science” actually means. Scientific truth can not be established by majority vote. We should wait a decade or so to see if the current cooling trend is a real thing or simply statistical outlier.

  16. “overwhelming majority of science”

    Well it means that the best guess of most scientists in this area is that a global warming event is happening. This is now to quite a high level of confidence. Of course you are right that in a decade or so we will have a much clearer picture but the real fear is that by then we will have done substantial damage to the environment.

    I suspect that very few people are prepared to change their behaviour in the way that the current orthodox science says we need to avoid warming. It is an issue that will be ignored or any straw of evidence will be dragged out as an excuse to not change our profligate lifestyle. We shall see. Meanwhile I am keeping the car so that makes me an easy target for charges of hypocrisy 🙂

  17. Token,

    First of all, note that I mentioned “warming experienced over the last 40 years”. There’s very few scientists who would disagree with that data.

    The real issue, as usual in science, is the root cause. The data I am talking about is the data that is in direct contradiction to the information you cite from the IPCC. I’ve seen this argument before: argument by authority, where the IPCC is placed in the position of being the supreme keepers of the knowledge. That is where the real debate lies: there are many pieces of evidence in direct contradiction to the IPCC. Did you look at the small bit I posted before and then compared its findings to the IPCC?? No? Too much work to think about it I guess.

    Sergey: I actually disagree a bit here, science is in part decided by majority vote. People everywhere in the world can measure the acceleration of gravity to be 9.8 m/sec2, so by majority vote we all agree that’s the right value. However what is missing in the AGW debate is the usual skepticism that always should accompany a new hypothesis. Most physicists I know and work with delight in finding contradictory data.. it means we are learning something new about nature.

  18. No physics guy here but IMHO I have to agree with Artfldgr about natural cycles and their affect on solar activity.

    AGW’s contribution amounts to a fart in a hurricane.

  19. Token,

    It’s quite hillarious that you assume we haven’t seen the IPCC material already. It’s been discussed and reviewed as soon as it came out and there has been quite a bit of material afterwards that YOU need to catch up on. 🙂

    Sorry – late to the game and very unconvincing.

    Start from the premise that we are all very well read here. Start from the premise that we have digested quite a bit of material.

    OK?

  20. Baklava

    You are discouraging Token. He thought he had a bunch of pigeons in his sights.
    Poor guy.

  21. “”We should wait a decade or so to see if the current cooling trend is a real thing or simply statistical outlier.
    Sergey””

    It won’t matter. Global Warmers have reduced to a matter of faith whether mankinds very existence harms the world. Thats why its morphed into climate change. Whereas any fluctuation is deemed factual evidence of alteration.

    This movement really has nothing to do with climate or weather. It has everything to do liberals wishing to impose a class system that insures real ingenuity never out earns the declared ingenious.

  22. Unfortunately Token has bought into the very well crafted attack by the liberals, greenies, and RINOs who say (with nothing concrete to back it up) “The science is proven. Now the only question is what we are going to do about it.” With that one statement they move to take the debate completely off the table. If I win the Powerball (which we just started playing here in Florida) I would run with the idea of John Coleman ( the founder of the weather channel). He said someone should sue Al Gore over his “inconvenient truth” and other things. This would force him to present and prove the science he cites and says has been indisputably proven. Hey I could even make a movie about it – “Inherit the Hot Air”.

  23. The Global Warming crap is being questioned and found wanting by more and more scientists. It all started when the chief alarmist refused to allow his data and methodology to be examined by other scientists. I recommend to Token the link below. He can catch up on the latest. The site also has a good blogroll which will lead him to more scientist-skeptics so he can enlighten himself even more. One of my favorite recent articles is entitled: Can you have a consensus if no one agrees what the consensus is? It turns out that you can’t. Enjoy, Token.

    Actually I love the Global Warming hoax because it illustrates how supposedly intelligent, educated folks can be very stupid. It’s the phrenology of this century.

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com

  24. This is not being entirely fair to the other side of the debate, but felt this was a good place to insert the tone of what is/or was supposed to be about a scientific debate, and not one about politics or religion. –But wait, there isnt supposed to be a debate is there? The science is “settled” and anyone questioning whether a human induced catastrophe is immanent unless you do exactly as the environmentalist demand is a “flat-earth””industry shill””denialist”.

    To be fair, not all pro-AGW sites have quite the tone of this one:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/open_season_on_fresh_meat.php

    Realclimate.org at least, doesnt tell skeptics to “fuck off”, but I think it’s pretty indicative of just how shrill a “scientific” debate has gotten. If this isnt a religious or political debate, then you got to find a way to explain the vitriol.

    This is a blog by a guy who says he’s a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota. He sounds more like and angry and immature adolescent. In the webpage Ive included above, he’s explained why he doesnt feel neither he, nor his faithful readership need to be civil towards people who dont except the AGW line.

    Defending the holy word from the heretics. Oh the irony. He definitely hates creationists with a holy fever.

    Is this guy fringe of the on-line climate debate? Not hardly. He was in the running for “Best Science Blog of 2008”.

  25. If the AWG debate is settled i want to know when it was and if i can get a dvd copy of it.

    The biggest problem i see with global warming is that none of us reading this blog will live long enough to trust scientist again. This is a terrible blow to all lovers of the scientific method.

  26. hmmm surely one cold winter in one country is not evidence against a long term process of global warming.

    Just like one warm summer in one country is not evidence for global warming, right?

    Except assertion isn’t quite right. The Northern Hemisphere winter has been plenty cold. NYC is in danger of setting new record lows, New Orleans saw a snowfall earlier than ever since the 1850s, and Seattle got snowed under several times in early December.

  27. Pacific Decadal Oscillation, i.e. EL/La Nino/Nina

    THe PDO is a different phenomenon than the El Nino/La Nina oscillation.

    The “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) is a long-lived El Nié±o-like pattern of Pacific climate variability. While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very different behavior in time. … Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Nié±o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO “events” persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics – the opposite is true for ENSO.

    Source: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>