Ice Cap Growing: Yep, It's "Climate Change."

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is simply that, until proven otherwise.

Just a theory.

Politically driven. Full of lies.

There was no 97% consensus and there isn't a 97% consensus now. There is no warming, there is no climate change related to AGW, there is no Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or God. There was no Y2K, end of the world according to the Mayans or anyone else for that matter. There was no ice-age (as predicted in the 1970's), killer bees, planet of the apes, killer tomatoes.

There is no bigfoot, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, bogey monster, Yeti or Sasquatch, Cardiff Giant, ghosts, Mermaids, Piltdown Man, Cottingley Fairies, Aliens, or Lochness Monster.

Nineteen years is a long time with no warming. Nineteen years.

Now, just pay attention to the La Nina and El Ninos that happen every four to six years, they affect almost everything that touches the Pacific. Check the Sun's behavior, that does too. Those two items will explain many things.

Remember, man does not actually have real records of anything much longer than 150 years, and certainly not the same equipment and technology as 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Finally, there was no Chicken Little, it's a metaphor about alarmists.

Convincing argument!

Indeed. This guy is clearly to be taken seriously.

new: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/09/20140903-074330.html

Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:

new:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/09/20140903-074330.html

Isn't that the Canadian version of Fox News (without the popularity)?

Yeah, that's credible.

Keep trying though, it's a decent effort.

Weren't you trying to find something to suggest that the arctic icecaps were getting bigger anyway? Nothing about that in that little article.

You really can do this. Imagine just how good you'll feel when you manage to pull this off.

trollism wrote:

Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:

new:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/09/20140903-074330.html

Isn't that the Canadian version of Fox News (without the popularity)?

Yeah, that's credible.

Keep trying though, it's a decent effort.

Weren't you trying to find something to suggest that the arctic icecaps were getting bigger anyway? Nothing about that in that little article.

You really can do this. Imagine just how good you'll feel when you manage to pull this off.

I am *almost* (but not quite) starting to feel a little bad for "neither a lib nor a con I be". He is getting hammered.

Look, if you deniers, er, "skepetics" just stuck with something like:

'it's really difficult, and even the experts will acknowledge this, to predict how much effect man released CO2 will have on global temps over the long haul, and what the long-term effects of this rise will be (How much damage, exactly what kinds of damage, how we can respond to such damage), therefore, I am not ready go into super-scared mode (i.e., some people are overreacting). And if we rush too quickly into regulating such gases, there really could be some negative effects on economies around the globe which would bring real pain in the short term...."

no one would be laughing at you. But INSTEAD, you insist:

* the science is all COMPLETELY wrong on global warming, and that you understand it better than the experts, i.e., they are a bunch of idiots who didn't stop to think of all the great counter-points you and the skeptics raise.

OR...

* it's all part of some vast liberal, Al Gore-led conspiracy and "hoax", in which scientists want to destroy world economies either all for fun, or because they are secretly enriching themselves from a combination of pay-offs from Al Gore (or maybe George Soros and Bill Gates?) and investments in electric and hybrid autos.

Yes, you come off as insane person with such ramblings.

There is also no brain in your head.

hey look, TRex has changed from PUTTING EVERYTHING IN CAPS to over underlining. Very effective! Please tells us about your hot, rich wife & don't forget to mention how brilliantly smart & wealthy you are as well. All very asscinating!

Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:

There was no 97% consensus and there isn't a 97% consensus now. There is no warming, there is no climate change related to AGW,

Sure there is. Those are some of the only facts that you cannot dispute.

Roy D. Mercer wrote:

hey look, TRex has changed from PUTTING EVERYTHING IN CAPS to over underlining. Very effective! Please tells us about your hot, rich wife & don't forget to mention how brilliantly smart & wealthy you are as well. All very asscinating!

Nice argument!

Wrong.

Having fun here, btw.

Hey Dinosaur, (poignant name, here)

You clearly do not see the forest through the trees (get it?). The Canadian version of Fox is that, yes, but look at their source quoted early in the article:

"According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

See a prof did the math, you see that?

A prof.

Also, the "turn" as it is known, way up north happened early so the summer melt appears to have started and ended early this year. This means that there is a likelihood of an early re-freeze, which will likely extend the freezing season, but of course that is just speculation. You want to revisit this in May 2015?

Already snowed in parts of Canada this week, like in Banff, for example.

Polar Vortex is predicted again for this year, but who knows? Maybe it will be warm.

Anyway, tip of the iceberg, kids.

Oh and let's play a little game, what is the real name of the phenomenon called "Polar Vortex" and do you think the Polar Vortex is part of Anthropogenic Global Warming or its substitute Climate Change?

Also, do you think La Nina and El Nino are part of AGW or CG?

Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:

Anyway, tip of the iceberg, kids.

I don't care about the tip, I want to see the proof that these icebergs are getting bigger.

You can do it.

Well last winter's freeze was the biggest in many years. It was extensive and amazing.

In fact I think an expedition or two that went to shoot the melt, got caught in the freeze, not unlike the ship in the Antarctic that had to get rescued. That was shameful.

But that was last year, let's move foreward. Let's watch this year. With this year's melt being close to the normal range, perhaps the freezing will be back towards the norm too.

Isn't that good? Won't you like to see that? I mean that is what all the complaining is about, isn't it?

Anyway, remember the Google suggestion? Try that. There is no better proof scientifically-speaking than real recent history, like six months ago.

Come on, you know you can do it.

Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:

. . . , yes, but look at their source quoted early in the article:

"According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

See a prof did the math, you see that?

A prof. . .

McKitrick's paper describes a statistical procedure to determine the longest period over which one can claim at least a 5% chance that there wasn't a warming trend. In other words, at 19 years there is warming at slightly less than 95% certainty. There is in fact about 93% certainty of a warming trend since 1995 per his statistical analysis.

This paper was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, (arguably) a vanity journal in which authors pay to have papers published. While they claim to be peer reviewed, a sister publication run by the same parent company (Scientific Research Publishing) famously accepted a paper generated by a random text generator a couple years ago. This is not to disparage McKitrick's competence as a statistician per se, but this would not be published in a mainstream journal because there is nothing particularly innovative about his statistical method nor is there any meaningful scientific insight from the result.

Predictably, this paper was picked up immediately by the climate change denialsphere. A cynic might suggest that it was all part of an orchestrated propaganda campaign. A greater cynic might suggest that it isn't necessary to orchestrate beyond the initial act of publishing something plausibly credible that serves to confirm their target audience's prejudices and it will propagate on it's own.

This T-Rex guy is a liberal imbecile (troll) who is just stirring the pot because he is bored. He has been doing this for years.

Neither a lib nor a con I be. wrote:

Wrong.

Having fun here, btw.

Well I'm pretty sure you linked to a study indicating that the earth is in fact warming.

After wading through your jargon laden post I finally got the gist of what you're saying. I think this is it:

Humans have caused CO2 to go up (empirical data shows this to be true). CO2 absorbs thermal energy, all other things being equal (again true this has been shown experimentally). Thus humans must be the cause for the current warming.

Unfortunately, this theory falls apart in the last sentence. Despite what you claim there is a well developed alternative explanation - natural causes. The current warming predates the human addition of CO2, and temperature rise has not accelerated as CO2 is added. In fact temperatures haven't risen at all in nearly 2 decades.

Also, the ability of CO2 to retain heat falls off rapidly as you add more CO2. Every time you double CO2 temps rise 1 degree C. But that's in a laboratory where ALL OTHER VARIABLES ARE HELD CONSTANT. No variables are constant in the atmosphere. Science still doesn't even know what all the variables are, much less how they interact. Empirical data seems to indicate that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a much smaller effect than in the laboratory. Something is dampening it, but no one has figured out what yet. This also explains why ALL the computer models are estimating temperature changes that aren't happening.

BTW, I can explain the psychology to you. Once people take a stance on an issue, no matter how ignorant they may be about the facts, they are very hesitant to change their stance - even if they learn new facts that prove they are wrong. Nobody likes to admit they are wrong, that is basic human nature. Personally, I try to remind myself that I do that just as much as anyone else, so I won't get caught in the "I don't want to admit I'm wrong trap."

If you can point me to data that shows temperatures probably wouldn't have continued the pre-20th century upward trend if humans didn't pump CO2 into the air, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

As with any simplistic statement of a complex situation, we could quibble with details, but I'd modify the last sentence to something like "Thus the contribution attributable to humans is a net positive." The distinction acknowledges the obvious fact that the climate is not exclusively driven my anthropogenic CO2. Significant natural drivers include (at least) changes in energy from the sun, volcanic effects, and changes in the energy exchange rate between atmosphere and ocean (e.g. El Nino and longer term pseudo-periodic cycles).

That's why I changed the last sentence . . . (kidding).

A well developed theory by my standard includes a proposed physically plausible mechanism consistent with the available observations and which has some predictive value. So lets consider the natural causes listed above.

Solar irradiance has been on a slight net downward trend since about 1960 so it doesn't fit well with the last half century's warming. It was on a general upward trend since about 1800 according to best estimates and probably contributed to some warming in that period.

Volcanic forcing causes limited duration cooling, so are not a good explanation for a long term upward trend.

That leaves energy exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. The issue here is that all available data indicates that the oceans are on a long term warming trend which suggests they aren't net warmers of the atmosphere. To be fair, ocean heat content data is sparse prior to the last decade, but there is no evidence supporting the ocean giving up energy on average over the last half century.

Without dates, I'm not clear what your getting at here. The rise in CO2 levels is detectable since about 1850 but not at a level that would have a measurable effect. Estimates have it's forcing roughly equal to that of the increase in solar irradiance in the first half of last century. In the last half century attribution studies indicate CO2 is pretty much it driving temperature rise.

Ok

I agree that there is an uncomfortable amount of uncertainty surrounding global warming, but I would say there is a difference between uncertainty and unbounded uncertainty. Climate models have problems with the timing of ocean events, but divergence in the short term doesn't necessarily imply divergence over the long run. Further, it always seems strange to me when someone effectively argues that "we don't know enough about the system to attribute cause and effect, but the cause certainly isn't CO2". I'm being facetious, but only a little bit.

Could be.

I've presented a brief qualitative argument above that current warming isn't obviously attributable to something else. Quantitative attribution is done with climate models and is discussed in the IPCC Physical Science Basis document (chapter 10) which references particular studies that have been done. If you discount the value of modelling, I don't suppose that would help, but our reality is that we only get to run one experiment on the physical planet we have.