Global Warming: Unstoppable

[Frode1]

its getting warmer, that is true but at some point the planet was covered in ice its something happening even without us here. but anyways this has nothing to do with a CNC forum.

[fizzissist]

its getting warmer, that is true but at some point the planet was covered in ice its something happening even without us here. but anyways this has nothing to do with a CNC forum.

Nope. Not a thing.

Unless it's getting warmer, and you wanna turn up the AC, and you can't afford it because you've voted to implement cap & trade, hooked up your CNC to those cutesy new fangled solar cells on the roof, and suddenly discover that ... you can't afford it, or there simply isn't enough power available.

...Then again, maybe you're CNC won't run because a) it's night so there's no sun to power your machine, b) there's no wind to power your windmills, or maybe c) it's not your turn to be on the grid.

Nope. Not a thing.

[Frode1]

No sun no life no problem.

[fizzissist]

"There’s a litany of excuses. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims NZ has been warming at 0.92°C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data they found the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06°C. They asked for answer and got nowhere until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain nor defend the adjustments."

New Zealand – Where did that warming go? « JoNova


Someone mentioned reading material.....Here's some food for thought.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/P...gwarmeryet.pdf

Now. Just exactly how much warmer is it??

[fizzissist]

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

[fizzissist]

Lapola, D.M., M.D. Oyama, and C.A. Nobre. 2009. Exploring the range of climate biome projections for tropical South America: The role of CO2 fertilization and seasonality. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23, GB3003, doi:10.1029/2008GB003357.

Laurance, S.G.W., W.F. Laurance, H.E.M. Nascimento, A. Andrade, P.M. Fearnside, E.R.G. Rebello, and R. Condit. 2009. Long-term variation in Amazon forest dynamics. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 323–333.

Saleska, S.R., K. Didan, A.R. Huete, H.R. da Rocha. 2007. Amazon forests green-up during 2005 drought. Science, 318, 612.

Carder, M. R. McNamee, I. Beverland, R. Elton, G.R. Cohen, J. Boyd, and R.M. Agius, 2005. The lagged effect of cold temperature and wind chill on cardiorespiratory mortality in Scotland. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 702-710.

Davis, R.E., Knappenberger, P.C., Michaels, P.J., and W.M. Novicoff, 2004. Seasonality of climate-human mortality relationships in U.S. cities and impacts of climate change. Climate Research, 26, 61-76.

Kan, H. S.J. London, H. Chen, G. Song, G. Chen, L. Jiang, N. Zhao, Y. Zhang, and B. Chen, 2007. Diurnal temperature range and daily mortality in Shanghai, China. Environmental Research, 103, 424–431.

McCabe, G. J., D. R. Legates, and H. F. Lins. 2010. Variability and trends in dry day frequency and dry event length in the southwestern United States, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, D07108, doi:10.1029/2009JD012866.

PALSEA (the PALeo SEA level working group: Abe-Ouchi, A., Andersen, M., Antonioli, F., Bamber, J., Bard, E., Clark, J., Clark, P., Deschamps, P., Dutton, A., Elliot, M., Gallup, C., Gomez, N., Gregory, J., Huybers, P., Kawamura, K., Kelly, M., Lambeck, K., Lowell, T., Mitrovica, J., Otto-Bleisner, B., Richards, D., Siddall, M., Stanford, J., Stirling, C., Stocker, T., Thomas, A., Thompson, W., Torbjorn, T., Vazquez Riveiros, N., Waelbroeck, C., Yokoyama, Y. and Yu, S.) 2009. The sea-level conundrum: case studies from palaeo-archives. Journal of Quaternary Science, 25, 19-25.

Liu, X., L. Zhao, T. Chen, X. Shao, Q. Liu, S. Hou, D. Qin, and W. An. 2010. Combined tree-ring width and δ13C to reconstruct snowpack depth: A pilot study in the Gongga Mountain, west China. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, DOI 10.1007/s00704-010-0291-x.

Tedesco, M., and A.J. Monaghan. 2009, An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high- latitude and tropical climate variability, Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

Tedesco, M. and A.J. Monaghan. 2010. Climate and melting variability in Antarctica. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 91, 1-2.

Wendt, A., G. Casassa, A. Rivera, and J. Wendt. 2009. Reassessment of ice mass balance at Horseshoe Valley, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 21, 505–513.

.........lemme know if you need more...

[pofo]

Thank you.

The other thing that puzzles me is why this topic riles people so. It's as though one were discussing religion.

[ImanCarrot]

I think it riles most folk because it's such a blatant lie.

We're paying these folk via our taxes to lie to us and we have no option to say "funding not approved".

Couple that with the fact that this is a CNC forum and most folk that are into CNC deal in measurable things so (for example) seeing a temperature measuring station placed next to a factory heat exchanger output won't go missed. There's a piccy on this site somewhere of that one.

[fizzissist]

When the AGW crowd began to demand we all bow down to a so-called scientific "consensus", the religious fervor was revealed. Consensus is not a word that belongs in science..it belongs in politics and religion. Paradoxically, the word skeptic is the core value that drives good science. Denier is an ad hominem attack. You'll notice that religious fervor is exactly what the AGW camp is trying to generate, evidenced by their own pronouncements.

But let's be fair here, and show an example of both sides of a very critical issue, that of Michael Mann's work. Read both sides, and come to your own conclusion.

From Michael Mann's own camp:

RealClimate: Cuccinelli goes fishing again

From the people who claim that Mann's Hockey Stick was basically a "garbage in/hockey stick out" program:

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

(I admit to being fairly biased towards the findings of McIntyre, btw)

[TomB]

There are a lot of reasons the deniers and skeptics turn to. Some feel it is ’power grab,’ some ‘follow the money’, some worry about ‘black UN helicopters’ and some don’t see the consistency or validity of the science. I only want to comment on the last reason. When I look at the publicly proclaimed science I see several possible tests. (1) Since the models used do extrapolation then the historic line that they are extrapolating must match what we know to be historically true. (2) The event that the models predict must justify the alarm claimed by the proponent. (3) The modeling and experiments related to the theory must be independently verified.

Global warming fails all three tests. (1) The data that has been used to drive the predictions does not include the temperature dip for the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period. (2) The advocates' historic temperature data was derived from the proxy, ‘tree ring spacing’, and is therefore limited to about 1000 years of history. There are other proxies, for example ice cores. They show a 5000 year temperature history and in that 5000 years there are 3 other warm periods that each lasted about 150 years, started abruptly like the current one and each ended abruptly. They are spaced about 1000 years apart and this one is about on schedule. With that perspective it’s hard to see why this one is unique or should be alarming. (3) As the scandals of last year illustrate, data and models are not ever openly shared so there can be no independent verification.

[jhowelb]

There are a lot of reasons...snip... I only want to comment on the last reason. ............snip.....

News flash!

Computer models are not science.

Tree rings and ice cores are fossils, and like dinosaur bones lead to conjecture. Like "what color were their eyes?" and "what did they sound like?".

Contemporary data have been corrupted.

All this leaves only one conclusion.....HOAX!!!

[fizzissist]

To both TomB and jhowelb:

Special thanks to TomB for some thoughtful input, in contrast to the many ravings here (my own included)...

I'm reminded of a conversation one day with a physicist and his group I was working with about theoretical v. empirical .... and how we were laughing about how it was the job of the empiricist to prove wrong the work of the theorist. This stemmed from talk about different faculty members, some of whom were theorists. We actually had one theorist make the transition and now does both, with national recognition for his work..but that's a different story...

The point is that theorists come up with an idea, develop supporting data or evidence, and present it. The empirical researcher then will take the theory and build an experiment to prove it. Sometimes the theory is not proven, and sometimes there's even a spin-off discovery. CERN is a great example.

Until a theory is proven by repeatable results, it remains a theory. That is why the GCM's remain in the theoretical regime. They can't replicate the past, so their predictions of future conditions can't be taken to the bank.

What can be taken to the bank however, is your money, if you believe what they say.